Post in response to H817 activity 10: Nichols (2003) A theory for elearning
Hypothesis 1: elearning is a means of education, not a mode. It can compliment different learning systems and philosophies. I agree this is a helpful position to take, though I do think that there is a new type of learning ecosystem that operates in wholly online learning. However, as elearning encompasses more than just online learning I am happy with this position.
Hypothesis 2: elearning enables unique forms of education that fit within both face-to-face and distance learning paradigms. The bit about this I agree with is that it changes the role of the instructor facilitator. There are new channels of communication that need to be mastered, and skills developed to achieve that.
Hypothesis 3: Choice of elearning tools should reflect rather than determine the pedagogy of a course. As a general position I agree with this, I do think that the way in which technology enhances the learning is more important than the technology per se, with the following exception: some learners are excited and motivated by a particular technology. For example, my son, 8 years old, was far more excited by doing his times tables through a simulation game on a PC. Partly this was due to it being a game, but partly it was due to wanting to have a go with the PC.
Hypothesis 4: elearning advances primarily through the successful implementation of pedagogical innovation I really want to agree with this, though I would add the caveat that there needs to be an inquisitiveness and curiosity about technology, as lots of people, learners and instructors have internal barriers to using technology, which will act as a drag on any potential innovative capability.
That’s is my intuitive reaction. However, I suppose we ought to judge this on the evidence we have gathered through our case studies to date. In that case, I don’t think I would agree. Things like Cloudworks, and the Personal Inquiry study (using mobile technology to expand the classroom) appear to have been primarily driven (at an early stage anyway) by a desire to explore the potential of a new technology. In other-words, the ‘build it and they will come’ approach does seem to have worked, and that conscious design has perhaps been ‘retro-fitted’ as patterns of use and user behaviour have settled over time.
Hypothesis 5: elearning can be used in two major ways: presenting content and facilitating the education process. I agree, but if you want to be pedantic I would add that you can use it to construct (and co-construct) new content. I suppose you could consider that an overlap of the two.
Hypothesis 6: elearning tools are best made to operate within a carefully selected and optimally integrated course design model In other words – you need to make sure that the selected tools are going to work. This could be a cultural or workflow issue. On a course I have worked on, the online forums were never used as the learners all found they could interact to the level they wished to via email, without the distraction of logging onto another system.
Critique: The ‘build it and they will come’ approach does seem to have had some traction, in contrast to Nichols’ (2003) assertion that it hasn’t, although to be fair, the examples that seem to falsify this statement (Cloudworks, Personal Inquiry study) do post-date his work. It could be that times have just change – and probably more importantly has both instructors’ and learners’ willingness to experiment, and level of comfort with the technologies.
Hypothesis 7: elearning tools and techniques should be used only after consideration to online v offline tradeoffs A lot of this section is quite old – considering it is talking dial-up and the inability to deliver video online, which is obviously no longer the case. Saying that, I think this is a legitimate point as there is very different access to different technologies across the globe. For example, Digital Study Hall plumped for CD-Rom over online video transfer, because it was less problematic.
Hypothesis 8: Considering end-user behaviour and engagement Absolutely vital I think – this is a principle of service design, and I think instructional design overlaps a lot here. Probably even more important, as in a live, face-to-face environment, instructors can modify their delivery style, which is removed because you are communicating through a ‘third party’ of a technological portal.
Hypothesis 9: Development of the learner in the context of a curriculum does not change when elearning is applied. This certainly works for an institutional or a business training model – there is a need to judge outcomes, ultimately in a ROI (return on investment) mindset.
Hypothesis 10: Only pedagogical advantages will provide a lasting rationale for implementing elearning approaches Given what I’ve said earlier, in relation to point 6, I don’t think this is a reality. There will be certain amount of pedagogical retrofitting or pedagogical redesign for elearning approaches introduced for other reasons.