Jess’ E-Learning Blog

I have been looking at different storyboards for e-learning programs and how different learning theories affect the shape of storyboards. I know that when e-learning was first used, there was a lot of behaviourist learning style storyboards available because they were easy to design and build. More recently, there has been a shift to e-learning designs which employ other learning theories, and thus the creation of technologies such as m-learning, IM for learning and virtual worlds for learning. 

I don’t think that using any one of these technologies, or any one particular learning theory is really such a good idea. I think that the behaviourist model of learning (as much as I dislike it) is beneficial in that it provides structure by which learners are less likely to feel overwhelmed or ‘lost’ in their learning. Having said that, behaviouralist learning is boring and, if used too extensively, renders what could be an exciting e-learning experience no better than a three hour uni-style lecture on the wonders of nylon carpeting.

However, a storyboard based on constructivist learning is not much better. While it is beneficial that the learning is flexible in allowing students to do whatever learning they need to do in whichever order they choose to do it, what is to motivivate any student to do any of it? This apporach lacks the structure needed in learning which turns a giant program of an elephant into bite-sized bits of elephant learning. Many people, when faced with a large amount of work or learning are overcome by it’s vastness. It is through structure , which constructivism lacks, that individuals relise that their learning goals are achieveable.

In addition to this, a lack of structure means that learners have to be disciplined enough to do the work, with less direction from the instructor than in other learning styles. This problem is similar to one that students in my course sometimes experience when they complete a subject in Block mode (meaning three or four half-day classes during a semester) instead of having a shorter class each week. Students found that because classes were weeks apart, the work that they had to do between classes was often forgotten, half-done or completed a few days before class. The lack of teacher interaction and structure made it more difficult for them to be disciplined in their work. I think that this same pronciple can be applied to constructivist learning - learners in a program with little to no structure are not going to learn a lot any time soon unless they are genuinely interested in the topic and can motivate tehmselves to complete the work.