Edited by Stefan Install, Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 21:19
Over weeks 8 and 9 we were looking at learning design (and Learning Design!) and we looked at some tools such as CompendiumLD amd molels like the 8 Learning Events Model that were focussed on looking at an existing learning intervention and analysing it. This is useful and could be used as a checklist to see what options and approaches were utilised.
My thoughts: so what?
None of the approaches we looked at really considered the subject, the learner or the context so i fail to see what value (with regard to learning design) analysing an existing intervention is no matter how good or effective it is. If the aim, as stated, was to allow the structure/approach to be replicated in another intervention, unless you undestand the subject, learners or context then replicating the structure or the interaction types will be of little value.
Learning styles are bunkum so I don't want a checklist to see if my activity ticks all the boxes of auditory and kinaestheic or whatever. What I want to know is whether my learning activities are going to enable learners to enage with the subject and acheive the objectives of the activity and these seemed to be conspicuous by their absence/irrelevance in these tools/models.
If you want to design learning, surely you should consider the expected outcome first, then the learner and their starting point and then finally other constraints. What has another (abstract) learning activity got to do with the price of fish?
Design by imitation?
Over weeks 8 and 9 we were looking at learning design (and Learning Design!) and we looked at some tools such as CompendiumLD amd molels like the 8 Learning Events Model that were focussed on looking at an existing learning intervention and analysing it. This is useful and could be used as a checklist to see what options and approaches were utilised.
My thoughts: so what?
None of the approaches we looked at really considered the subject, the learner or the context so i fail to see what value (with regard to learning design) analysing an existing intervention is no matter how good or effective it is. If the aim, as stated, was to allow the structure/approach to be replicated in another intervention, unless you undestand the subject, learners or context then replicating the structure or the interaction types will be of little value.
Learning styles are bunkum so I don't want a checklist to see if my activity ticks all the boxes of auditory and kinaestheic or whatever. What I want to know is whether my learning activities are going to enable learners to enage with the subject and acheive the objectives of the activity and these seemed to be conspicuous by their absence/irrelevance in these tools/models.
If you want to design learning, surely you should consider the expected outcome first, then the learner and their starting point and then finally other constraints. What has another (abstract) learning activity got to do with the price of fish?