Jess’ E-Learning Blog

Yesterday, I took the session plan for this program, separated all the activities and learning bits, and then put it all back together in groups according to the content of the activity and if it was linked or dependant on anything else. This is my way of getting my head around what the program is actually about. While doing this, I had a few thoughts which I decided to scribble down before I forgot them

The first thing I noticed was that there was a LOT of information being thrown at the learners in the two days that the program runs. It is very intensive and I wonder how much of it is remembered or used when the learners go back to work. Also, I wonder if there are any follow-up sessions or even surveys or quizzes a month or six weeks after the program to see how much is remembered. In terms of e-learning, I don’t think that it would be wise to teach this much in a period of two days, especially with learners who aren’t familiar with computers, let alone the Internet. They will become overwhelmed with the technology and this will affect how much of the content they actually learn.

In addition to spreading out the content over a larger period, like a week or two, I think that they should also hold courses to teach people the basics in computers. In addition to aiding them in the e-learning components of NGO Training Program courses, it may also facilitate a trust and reliance on computers which may result in actions such as no longer keeping a hard and soft copy of everything.

Another thought I’ve had is to suggest that DoCS personnel keep up with Internet, and particularly E-learning, technologies. This is for two reasons: firstly, the solutions we give will not be perfect, complete solutions and they should keep an eye out for anything which they can add to their programs. Secondly, I would advise them not to use the same technology we we recommend in ten years time, because it will be completely outdated and there will likely be something out there better suited to them.

Lastly, I just had this thought while writing this post. I don’t think that DoCS will like how much I’m going to move the program around. For instance, in one category, I have activities from the first and second day of instruction. They all cover the same topic area, but were previously separated into different parts of the program. I think that the way they organised it was okay, but there are bits and pieces which I think are better off being organised together which weren’t and other bits which should follow on from bits but didn’t.

The program I chose to ‘e-learning-ify’ is the ‘Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD)’. After looking through the content and the activities of the program, I found that the main methods of teaching are:

• Lecturing (there is a large chunk of this half way through the first day. In addition, almost every group activity is preceded and concluded by a lecture.)
• Group activities, mainly consisting of answering questions from the participant’s guide
• Individually filling out parts of the participant’s guide
• Class discussions, once again based on the participant’s guide

The program is currently completely face to face, and is highly structured. There is a large amount of theoretical knowledge as well, which they then apply to scenarios. Attitudes towards AOD are explored learner’s attitudes to AOD are confronted.

After thinking about how I could represent this in an e-learning way, I thought of the following idea: Much of the content is groupwork and the NGO learners are oriented towards groupwork, therefore I want use some form of synchronous technology to gel the whole program together. This will also provide some structure to the program which learners new to e-learning will need. However, you can only sit down on the computer for so long without getting a headache. This is particularly apparent with technologies like webinars.

But it would be more convenient for DoCS to have access to asynchronous technologies so that their learners can organise their learning time around their work. So, I want to do some parts of the course asynchronously. I would use simulations, podcasts, vodcasts, etc, but I’m not sure which ones specifically yet.

I also need to create a way for individuals to ask and respond to questions between synchronous sessions, so that if they get stuck, they can get help.

 I thought that since this is the second time this semester this has happened, I should write it down and make a post of it. For the NGO Training Program project we’re working on in class, we have a liaison (Brett) who attends each class. He is supposed to communicate with Anne, our lecturer, who then tells us how we are supposed to complete our assignments. to keep both uni and DoCS happy. Sometimes though, what Anne says is different to what Brett says, which makes everything just confusing.

 The first time this happened was during the group project for DoCS, providing case studies of organisations using particular technologies. Anne told us that we only had to make the case studies relevant to DoCS’ context. However, Brett told us that they should all be ‘human service’ examples. Like aged home care organisations, drug rehabilitation centres, etc. We nearly had to rewrite three quarters of our assignment because of this, until we realised … Brett wanted us to use these examples so that he could take them to build a business case for whatever technology/ies they ended up using. So, we decided that DoCS cutting and pasting assignments that we hand in to uni would constitute a breach of Intellectual Property rules and therefore it doesn’t matter if they are not in the same industry as DoCS is.

The second time this happened was last week, when Brett ran the class because Anne was at a conference. In this class, we were supposed to choose a training program to use in an individual assignment. Over this week, we had to storyboard a high level e-learning alternative to the face-to-face program. The whole thing. Only, we weren’t told this by Brett. Brett told us that we had to think of e-learning alternatives to individual activities in the program. For example, ‘this bit of the program can be completed a week before the face-to-face program using this technology’. Apparently, DoCS’ aim is to reduce the face-to-face time (not necessarily to eliminate it) and to provide training ‘options’. This made storyboarding practically impossible - how do you storyboard an e-learning program which isn’t actually an e-learning program? So most of us spent last class in a confused stupor, wondering exactly what we were supposed to be doing.

My (long-winded, I know) point is that we are recieving two sets of direction and it is not helping us to work effectively. I think that the problem may lie in how well uni and DoCS have discussed their objectives, deliverables and particularly their assumptions in regards to this project. For instance, DoCS assumes that we will be able to find case studies directly related to their industry and that we will not be able to produce an entire e-learning program. They believe that the group work assignment is a deliverable that they can take for their own and their objective is to provide e-learning options, rather than an extensive e-learning program.

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.

I was just reading my las tlbog entry (checking for typos ^_^) when I had a thought. Part of the reason that Second Life is still on the cards for DoCS is that they feel that they can afford to wait an extra few years for the system requirements for SL to come down, while DoCS (perhaps, maybe?) upgrades the NGO computers to ba able to handle SL. 

But, in a few years time, what is the possibility that there be some brand new, fantastic use of the internet for learning which is better for DoCS and the NGO’s than virtual worlds? Or what if the technology to support SL improves, but so does SL’s demand on said technology? Could DoCS possibly be chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

I think that it might be more important to design and implement basic e-learning strategies sooner rather than later, which can then be evaluated and re-designed or added to. This allows for DoCS to make have their first e-learning on a smaller scale, where they can learn a lot about how to implement e-learning in their situation while minimising risks.

I made a bit of an idiot out of myself at class a few weeks ago when we had the presentation in Second Life and our lecturer told us that DoCS is interested in using virtual worlds in training. I just went ahead and blurted out “why?” in front of everyone. To me it was simply black and white - virtual worlds don’t check the ‘must be able to function with limited resources’ box so let’s move on - so i thought what I said was completely logical and warranted.

Until I remembered that what I saw in black and white, DoCS and Anne want us to see in shades of grey. So, just because the technology isn’t up to scratch, doesn’t mean that I should void the whole option. Second Life is great because it provides a social learning environment through interaction with others, which is something the NGO learners relate well to and enjoy. In addition, while a lot of e-learning technologies can feel quite isolating, having your own avatar and being able to see other people’s avatars may facilitate a sense of community and personalism in this type of learning.

I still think that there are problems with using virtual worlds. While download pressures may decline in time, issues such as NGO learner’s trust in and knowledge of computers may not improve. If this is the case, it means that the learners will find it difficult to adapt to the idea of a virtual world - students in my class last year had a hard time wrapping their heads around it, and we’re supposed to be technology savvy - and the quality of learning derived would be low. 

I think that if DoCS is determined to implement virtual worlds, now or in the future, then they will need to set up some initiatives so that learners can gradually become accustomed to computers and the Internet in general before they’re thrown into virtual worlds.

So, this is Suemin’s comment to one of my previous posts on the advantages and disadvantages of E-Learning for the NGO Training Program. 

“Love the table. It really outlines the harsh reality of what some learners are facing. It is an interesting thing to note that many of our assumptions are graded by our backgrounds. The majority of us have broadband internet at home and regularly use technology. Whether it is a generational thing or a socialisation thing, I think we are lucky as learners.

NGOs definately have a tough time trying to make their up-skilling a priority over clients and I think that e-learning will definately be able to assist them.”

And, because I have forgotten whether I can reply properly to her post and if she can see that response (HELP PLEASE, ANNE), I’ll just put my response here instead and she can see it on her aggregator

Yes, I did this after our presentation with DoCS; I really needed to do something to solidify what was happening their context and create some boundaries and paramaters for my research with the group assignment. I did notice that when I was writing this, that I would type something, and then realise that I was making an assumption, and that it was incorrect. That my position, understanding, ability and access were different from what is the norm for them.

And then, I was just thinking the other day that Instant Messaging technology would really be great for the NGO’s in its social aspects, before I realised that not only was there the whole ‘technology’ and ‘download’ thing, but something far more basic… each NGO has only one email address. How do you form a relationship with someone, when everytime you contact their NGO, you talk to someone else???

Yesterday, our E-Learning Design class was compromised of a ‘presentation’ in Second Life. I found it really interesting to go through Second Life again after not touching it since last year’s E-Learning Experiences assignment. Some of the class were provided with avatars to move around in Second Life with our presenter, who goes by the screen name of Jokay Wollongong. I thought that this was a really good idea, as the class didn’t have to sign up and go through all the islands in order to participate.

Through the presentation, I discovered something about myself; the main factor stopping me from using Second Life on a regular basis is that my internet connection can’t really support it. Otherwirse, I think that I could really enjoy being in and around Second Life, whether I was learning or not.  

Actually, I just found my password (yet again) and logged on to fix my avatar appearence. I’m hoping that if I only log on every now and then, that I won’t go over my download limit

Our class for E-Learning Design is working for DoCS this semester to provide some suggestions on how they can use e-learning technologies in their NGO Training Program. In this week’s lecture, we had some of the people form DoCS come in and explain the context of the learning, some issues and problems with implementing e-learning as well as general information about what DoCS does and how the NGO Training program works.

After the lecture, I was thinking about the context for e-learning and came up withthe following thoughts on the context, benefits and issues of using e-learning technologies, which are tabled below: