Personal Blogs

Hypothesis 1 – I can certainly relate to the theory that eLearning is a ‘means’ or education rather than ‘mode’ in terms of it being part of a blended model (if this is what is used by an organisation), but I would argue that in some cases eLearning is a mode if used in solitude.  ELearning, if applied without other techniques would benefit from its’ own theory where the remoteness of learner is considered and places higher in priority

Hypothesis 2 – I like the view of ‘evolution rather than revolution’ and this challenges my summary from Hypothesis 1.  It may be that current theories are adequate to apply to eLearning and Mixed Mode, as at the heart of teaching the fundamentals are the same in terms of needs and learning process.

Hypothesis 3 – this hypothesis I am in agreement with the most so far.  I have applied various pedagogies to eLearning for the same subjects to allow for preference in learning and meet the needs of a cohort of learners.  I agree that technology is ‘pedagogically neutral’.  E.g.  as to use a Virtual Learning Platform (LMS) as a site to upload power-points and nothing else would ultimately create a database of information rather than offer a learning experience.  I also agree that ‘good pedagogical decisions applied to simple technologies can be extremely useful’.  Ultimately, good teaching theory that already exists can and should be applied to eLearning

Hypothesis 4 – In this hypothesis it discusses strengths and weaknesses that educational practices which are already in use can be applied.  I would fully agree with this as reading through and reflecting on each hypothesis has already highlighted that there can be conflicting views of the same teaching practitioner (I.e.  in Hypothesis 1 I felt that eLearning does require its own theory whereas in Hypothesis 2 my view was quite different!)

I also agree in this hypothesis that in general ‘technology is not being used innovatively in education’.  In an earlier activity I defined innovation at that time as ‘to identify a solution to meet a particular need in a dynamic, new and effective manner’.  There are examples where there are technologies already in existence that could be used but in education there is the risk or creating inferior products but packaged as an educational tool.  It would be advantageous  for teaching professionals who understand the principles of teaching to act as ‘instructional designers’.  This may mean current technologies can be applied or if a system is lacking, they can drive forward projects with ‘technologists’.

Hypothesis 5 – on initial reading I felt that this was too heavily weighted on ‘storage of information’ but on further reading I could see its logic in terms of combining this with how it was: Presented; Communicated and how interactivity is applied.  I particularly like the emphasis on ‘interactivity’.  Content and Process seems a solid way to define the use of technology

Hypothesis 6 – this works very well with Work Based Learning and I would agree with many of its comments including, ‘build it and they will come’.  I have experience of this and simply having it available does not mean it is used.  I also agree that any eLearning must be applied as part of the learning process and not be there just as a tick box exercise or to try and force technology into delivery.  The beauty of eLearning is that is has the ability to meet the individual learning needs and empower the learner to carve their own learning journey.  They may not exhaust every resource but across a full cohort of student, the breadth of resources may be accessed and used to support learning.

Hypothesis 7 – I disagree with this hypothesis.  I use audio and video materials with off-campus learners and my experiences has identified that learners tend to access these resources through general navigation of the Virtual Platform just as much as being directed to use it.  Often I have received feedback that a learner found the audio files a really useful revision tool.  They will often download the MP3 files directly to their mobile player and then have access anywhere.   I only offer to them a printed index sheet of audio files that are available with a link to the location and then this is left with the learner to access as part of their learning process and to be an integral part of a range of other activities and materials.

This supports the ‘Bring Your Own Device’ developments.

Hypothesis 8 – the consideration of the ‘end user’ is an interesting one but also difficult to generalise a cohort of learners in this way.  It is true that some learners need to print long text (I am one of those!) to be able to highlight and absorb information but better I feel, to offer the options of complete online or paper dependant on the individual learner.   I therefore feel it could disadvantage certain learners if an institution decides to ‘make everything available on CD-ROM or online’ as it does not sufficiently consider individual learning preferences and is instead too motivated on organisation process (which could be motivated by quality or budget as examples).

Hypothesis 9 – I think this hypothesis does have some strength.  I did create an online virtual site for one course where it became too heavy in its content.  This happened because I was motivated to offer more than just the course and wanted learners to stretch their learning and explore.  Some feedback demonstrated confusion through the information being too broad.  I then reviewed the resources back against the syllabus and qualification requirements, adapted and the tests results were far improved.  Although I still want to offer ‘beyond the curriculum’ I do agree that it needs (in a Work Based Learning context) to be at the heart of any eLearning provision.

Hypothesis 10 – This raised an interesting aspect of eLearning.  Some technologies will come and go, others will become an established form.  Do we in education have to consider this?  I know that I have developed materials with programmes that are used by the majority but I have also used at an early stage resources such as ‘Mural.ly’.  I have had real access issues from my learners whose hardware or their browser does not support its use.  It was applied as one tool and not the only one but I reflect on whether I should have waited for this to be accessible to the majority before applying to the delivery model?

References:

‘A theory or eLearning’ Nichols (2003). 

RSC - JISC. (May 2013). BYOD. Available: http://www.jiscrsc.ac.uk/news/2013/may/jisc-launches-byod-toolkit-and-resources.aspx. Last accessed 12th February 2014.