A framework for eLearning design
This reflection will demonstrate my current understanding of how learning theory and pedagogy frame eLearning design. Drawing from my acquired knowledge on the theoretical frameworks presented in week one, I have considered learning theories such as behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism in providing the key principles to build a framework for successful eLearning design. My reflection has also considered the frameworks of TPACK, Bloom's Taxonomy and Learning Engagement Theory and will conclude with my recommendations for integrating these learning theories into the context of my eLearning design.
Prensky (2001, p.1) states that “today’s students have changed radically, and that they are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach”. These learners, known as 21st century learners or digital natives (Prensky, 2001, p.1), were born after the introduction of information communication technologies (ICTs). In order to teach digital natives (Prensky, 2001, p.1) learning managers have to adopt digital pedagogies and “acknowledge the changing ways in which young people will learn and the challenges that will continue to shape their learning into the future” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2010, p.6). Similarly theorists have had to adapt learning theories as they realise over time that learning is far too complex to fit into any one learning theory. The Theory Development Continuum (Mergel, 1998) suggest that constructivism encapsulates elements of both behavourist and cognitivist theories and forms to create a much more fluid approach to learning that is relevant to 21st century learners.
The fundamental framework on which constructivism is built, as stated by Bruner (n.d) is that “learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge”. To place constructivism into the context of a 21st century eLearning environment, learners use ICTs to construct or scaffold new ideas to create their own knowledge base using complex higher order thinking skills. Learners constantly test their new ideas through social negotiation and collaboration (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008) using ICTs such as wikis, blogs or discussion forums. In this online environment their new ideas are relevant to and are often able to be used in a real world context.
The constructivist theory feeds directly into my eLearning design framework. This theory when threaded together with Bloom's Taxonomy and Learning Engagement Theory builds a strong framework for successful eLearning design.
Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) provides six levels of thinking to move students through a learning design that supports each phase of thinking, from knowledge and comprehension to evaluation and synthesis (Central Queensland University, 2011). An important progression in the usability of this taxonomy in a 21st century context, was made by Lorin Anderson in the mid-nineties. Anderson (Clark, 1999) changed the names in the six categories from noun to verb forms. These modifications allow for a more active approach to thinking. Anderson’s Revised Taxonomy (Clark, 1999) moves learners through six levels of active thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating.
It is important to note that although Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy provides a clear structure (often illustrated with directional arrows) from lower order thinking to higher order thinking, it is the very nature of 21st century learning to be more fluid and flexible. Using my eLearning design framework students can scaffold their learning using varied levels of thinking in a number of different ways. For instance I might get students in small groups to explore and list as many examples of media texts that have been produced as a vehicle to produce, promote, display or exhibit ‘social comment’ (The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2002, p. 23). I might then get them to share their findings on a wiki. The students might choose to firstly understand the context in which they are asked to research, then select, compare, contrast, evaluate and synthesise this before making their findings available to others on a wiki. Others may take a different approach but will still arrive at the same point whereby they have collaborated and scaffolded their learning to construct their own new knowledge. Mergel (1998) states that “hypertext and hypermedia have allowed for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction”. This is where it becomes important to thread together Bloom’s Taxonomy with Learning Engagement Theory and build a more flexible framework that allows learners the freedom to scaffold their own learning with a learning style that works most effectively for them.
Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) state that the fundamental idea underlying Learning Engagement Theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks. In other words students work together on meaningful projects that can be applied to a context in the real world. These three elements are summarised with the principles "Relate-Create-Donate" (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999). Learning Engagement Theory is built on very similar principles to that of the constructivists. It becomes easy to see that by combining the framework of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy with Learning Engagement Theory and constructivism a strong framework for 21st century eLearning can be built.
When I designed my eLearning framework I kept in mind the fundamentals of each of these theories. My framework scaffolds the students eLearning experiences by encouraging higher order thinking. It is also designed in a way that allows for those students who learn at a different pace to still have enriching eLearning experiences. A good example of this is where I may get students to build a blog that tells their learning journey through social media. Some students may have well thought out analytical responses and include hyperlinks with references to other media while another student might perform at a lower level of thinking, recalling basic knowledge and presenting it back in their own words. By having the students document their journey in a blog, this allows me to analyse and track their journey. I can support those students who appear to only use lower order thinking and challenge them with questions relevant to the context such as:
How is ... similar to ... ?,
What was the problem with ...?,
How effective are ... ?,
Is there a better solution to ... ?
Can you predict what will happen if ... ?
These sorts of questions will push my students to reach higher order thinking and give them the tools to scaffold their learning to create more comprehensive knowledge.
This reflection demonstrates that by taking a constructivists approach and developing a framework built on a combination of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy and Learning Engagement Theory, I have been able to scaffold a strong framework for successful eLearning design. My design "acknowledges the changing ways in which young people learn and the challenges that will continue to shape their learning into the future” (ACARA, 2010). In order to cater for the ongoing needs and challenges in a 21st century learning environment I acknowledge that my framework will continue to evolve, shape and adapt as ICTs become more advanced and integrated into the classroom.
References:
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum Version 2.0. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum.html
Bruner, J. (n.d). Constructivist Theory. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html
Central Queensland University (CQU). (2011). EDED20491 - Effective eLearning Design: Week 2 Readings. Rockhampton, QLD, Australia: Author.
Clark, D. R. (1999) Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1999) Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008) Constructivism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved March 14th, 2011 from http://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design & Learning Theory. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basics%20of%20Behaviorism
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2002). Sourcebook Module: The Arts - Media as Social Comment. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from The Queensland Study Authority Web site: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/687.html
Prensky (2001, p.1) states that “today’s students have changed radically, and that they are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach”. These learners, known as 21st century learners or digital natives (Prensky, 2001, p.1), were born after the introduction of information communication technologies (ICTs). In order to teach digital natives (Prensky, 2001, p.1) learning managers have to adopt digital pedagogies and “acknowledge the changing ways in which young people will learn and the challenges that will continue to shape their learning into the future” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2010, p.6). Similarly theorists have had to adapt learning theories as they realise over time that learning is far too complex to fit into any one learning theory. The Theory Development Continuum (Mergel, 1998) suggest that constructivism encapsulates elements of both behavourist and cognitivist theories and forms to create a much more fluid approach to learning that is relevant to 21st century learners.
The fundamental framework on which constructivism is built, as stated by Bruner (n.d) is that “learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge”. To place constructivism into the context of a 21st century eLearning environment, learners use ICTs to construct or scaffold new ideas to create their own knowledge base using complex higher order thinking skills. Learners constantly test their new ideas through social negotiation and collaboration (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008) using ICTs such as wikis, blogs or discussion forums. In this online environment their new ideas are relevant to and are often able to be used in a real world context.
The constructivist theory feeds directly into my eLearning design framework. This theory when threaded together with Bloom's Taxonomy and Learning Engagement Theory builds a strong framework for successful eLearning design.
Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) provides six levels of thinking to move students through a learning design that supports each phase of thinking, from knowledge and comprehension to evaluation and synthesis (Central Queensland University, 2011). An important progression in the usability of this taxonomy in a 21st century context, was made by Lorin Anderson in the mid-nineties. Anderson (Clark, 1999) changed the names in the six categories from noun to verb forms. These modifications allow for a more active approach to thinking. Anderson’s Revised Taxonomy (Clark, 1999) moves learners through six levels of active thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating.
It is important to note that although Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy provides a clear structure (often illustrated with directional arrows) from lower order thinking to higher order thinking, it is the very nature of 21st century learning to be more fluid and flexible. Using my eLearning design framework students can scaffold their learning using varied levels of thinking in a number of different ways. For instance I might get students in small groups to explore and list as many examples of media texts that have been produced as a vehicle to produce, promote, display or exhibit ‘social comment’ (The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2002, p. 23). I might then get them to share their findings on a wiki. The students might choose to firstly understand the context in which they are asked to research, then select, compare, contrast, evaluate and synthesise this before making their findings available to others on a wiki. Others may take a different approach but will still arrive at the same point whereby they have collaborated and scaffolded their learning to construct their own new knowledge. Mergel (1998) states that “hypertext and hypermedia have allowed for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction”. This is where it becomes important to thread together Bloom’s Taxonomy with Learning Engagement Theory and build a more flexible framework that allows learners the freedom to scaffold their own learning with a learning style that works most effectively for them.
Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) state that the fundamental idea underlying Learning Engagement Theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks. In other words students work together on meaningful projects that can be applied to a context in the real world. These three elements are summarised with the principles "Relate-Create-Donate" (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999). Learning Engagement Theory is built on very similar principles to that of the constructivists. It becomes easy to see that by combining the framework of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy with Learning Engagement Theory and constructivism a strong framework for 21st century eLearning can be built.
When I designed my eLearning framework I kept in mind the fundamentals of each of these theories. My framework scaffolds the students eLearning experiences by encouraging higher order thinking. It is also designed in a way that allows for those students who learn at a different pace to still have enriching eLearning experiences. A good example of this is where I may get students to build a blog that tells their learning journey through social media. Some students may have well thought out analytical responses and include hyperlinks with references to other media while another student might perform at a lower level of thinking, recalling basic knowledge and presenting it back in their own words. By having the students document their journey in a blog, this allows me to analyse and track their journey. I can support those students who appear to only use lower order thinking and challenge them with questions relevant to the context such as:
How is ... similar to ... ?,
What was the problem with ...?,
How effective are ... ?,
Is there a better solution to ... ?
Can you predict what will happen if ... ?
These sorts of questions will push my students to reach higher order thinking and give them the tools to scaffold their learning to create more comprehensive knowledge.
This reflection demonstrates that by taking a constructivists approach and developing a framework built on a combination of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy and Learning Engagement Theory, I have been able to scaffold a strong framework for successful eLearning design. My design "acknowledges the changing ways in which young people learn and the challenges that will continue to shape their learning into the future” (ACARA, 2010). In order to cater for the ongoing needs and challenges in a 21st century learning environment I acknowledge that my framework will continue to evolve, shape and adapt as ICTs become more advanced and integrated into the classroom.
References:
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum Version 2.0. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum.html
Bruner, J. (n.d). Constructivist Theory. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html
Central Queensland University (CQU). (2011). EDED20491 - Effective eLearning Design: Week 2 Readings. Rockhampton, QLD, Australia: Author.
Clark, D. R. (1999) Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1999) Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008) Constructivism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved March 14th, 2011 from http://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design & Learning Theory. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basics%20of%20Behaviorism
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2002). Sourcebook Module: The Arts - Media as Social Comment. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from The Queensland Study Authority Web site: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/687.html
