Category: Assessment

Annotated Bibliography 4

Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. In eLearn Magazine. New York: ACM.  Available http://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1104968

In this seminal 2005 paper, which has 1,189 citations to date, Stephen Downes looks at where eLearning is now, trends in eLearning, the Web 2.0 and what he calls E-Learning 2.0.  In the ten years from 1995, the author tracks the development of eLearning from computer based delivery systems to online courses.  Learning Management Systems (LMS), such as Blackboard, were developed to organise the the eLearning content that is at the heart of these online courses.  The author argues that because the content used in online courses is organised according to the traditional model of division into modules and lessons, this has brought eLearning back to where it began.

In his paper, he refers to digital natives, who quickly absorb multimedia information from multiple sources.  Prensky (2001) coined the term, which was later used to describe the children of the digital age who were born after 1980.  One of the many insightful pieces of commentary in this paper is a connection that Downes makes between the world of markets and the domain in which education resides.  He notes that people in networked markets understand that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors.  Substitute networked learning for networked markets and suddenly the control of learning itself is placed in the hands of the learner.   Downes refers to his contemporary George Siemens whose highly influential Connectivism was written only a few months earlier. (Siemens, 2004).

The author proceeds to discuss what is meant by Web 2.0.  It is interesting to note that he does this two years prior to the publication of the widely read What is Web 2.0 which has 11,134 citations and whose abstract claims that it is the first initiative to try to define Web 2.0. (O’Reilly, 2007).  Downes notes that the websites that characterise Web 2.0 include social networking sites such as LinkedIn.  He sees the web changing from a place where information was transmitted and consumed into a network where content is created, remixed and shared using tools such as WordPress and Audacity and websites such as Wikipedia.

Downes argues that eLearning has evolved in tandem with the web itself and to such a degree that it warrants a new name: E-learning 2.0.  In the world of e-learning, he argues that the nearest thing to a social network is a community of practice. (Lave and Wenger, 1991).  The essence of E-Learning 2.0 is possibly the reversal of the process whereby content is produced by publishers, structured into courses and consumed by students.  It is now more likely to be produced by students and to resemble a conversation rather than a book.  The author sees ePortfolios and student gaming having a place in E-Learning 2.0 where students take responsibility for and demonstrate the results of their own learning.  Indeed, the online programming language Scratch 2.0 serves this very purpose in 2016.  The author includes mobile learning, where students can connect and learn anywhere, in his concept of E-Learning 2.0 and makes the bold prediction that learning and living will eventually merge.

In this paper, Downes manages to namecheck many of the major players in the fields of learning/eLearning (George Siemens,Tim Berners-Lee, Jimmy Wales, Etienne Wenger,  Seymour Papert) as well as some important pieces of application software (LinkedIn, Flickr, WordPress, Wikipedia, Audacity) and new methods of communication (blogging, podcasting, e-portfolio, mobile learning).  With many of these apps and means of communication still current in 2016, it is easy to see why Downes paper is regarded as a classic of its time.  There is little to criticise in this very important paper by Downes which is possibly more relevant in 2016 (in that it now adds perspective) than it was in 2005 when it was analysing unfolding events.

References

Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine, 2005(10), 1.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.

Annotated Bibliography 3

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011) Applying the Contiguity Principle. In Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E., E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

The chapter explores what the authors described as two contiguity principles.  Contiguity Principle 1 is the idea that words should be placed near the corresponding graphic on the screen.  If this is achieved, then the authors describe the text and graphics as being “contiguous in space”.  (Clark and Mayer, 2011, p.93).   Contiguity Principle 2 is the principle that spoken words should be synchronised with corresponding graphics.  The instructional designer is advised to consider how an audio narration should be integrated with animation/video in an eLearning course.  In particular, developers are warned that when spoken words describe actions in the graphics (including animation and video), the corresponding spoken words and graphics should be presented at the same time.  The authors borrow from the world of cognitive learning theory to explain why the narration should not be separated from the graphics.  If the learner listens to a narration followed by an animation, he needs to retain the relevant words in working memory so as to match up the appropriate words with the corresponding segment of the animation. However, this cognitive overload may prevent the learner from using other cognitive processes required for deep learning.

As well as offering the reader with advice on how to present eLearning content, they also explain how eLearning content should not be presented.  Throughout the chapter, Clark and Mayer provide the reader with common violations of the contiguity principles.  However, the two contiguity principles, whereby there is no separation of two different types of media, appear to break down when the authors warn the instructional designer to avoid simultaneously displaying animations and related text. This is possibly the most puzzling part of the chapter for the reader as in this case the authors are promoting the principle of separating text and animation. However, I think that the contiguity principles apply only to graphics and text or to graphics (including animation and video) and audio, and are not applicable to text and animation/video.  The rationale for separating text and animation is that if the learner starts reading the text while the animation is playing, he will miss a certain amount of the animation.

As well as using cognitive theory to support their hypothesis for Contiguity Principle 1, the authors refer to several research studies (Mayer, Steinhoff, Bower, & Mars, 1995; Moreno & Mayer, 1999) to support their hypothesis. Clark and Mayer also refer to eye-tracking studies involving text and corresponding diagrams where successful learners read a part of the text, then search the diagram for the object being described in the text.  These studies demonstrate that this process is the then continually repeated. (Hegarty, Carpenter, & Just, 1996; Schmidt-Weigand, Kohnert, & Glowalla, 2010).  Similarly, the authors cite research evidence (Mayer & Anderson, 1991, 1992; Mayer, Moreno, Boire, & Vagge, 1999; Mayer & Sims, 1994) to support their hypothesis for Contiguity Principle 2.

In concluding the chapter, the authors present eLearning practitioners with areas that require further research.  These include questions about the amount of detail that should be included with graphics and the words as well as in what contexts spoken words should be used instead of printed words.  Clark and Mayer suggest tools and examples that the eLearning practitioner might use to put the described theory into practice.  The authors also provide the reader with a checklist that could be used in the design of eLearning lessons.  The chapter not only provides eLearning practitioners with evidence on what works best, it also considers when and how it works.

References

Hegarty. M., Carpenter, P.A., & Just, M.A. (1996). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II; pp. 641–668). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R.E., & Anderson, R.B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.

Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximising constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.

Mayer, R.E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.

Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237.

Annotated Bibliography 2

Duvall, M. (2014). Adobe Captivate as a Tool to Create eLearning Scenarios. In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2014 (pp. 514-517). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 19, 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Duvall/publication
/282247779_Adobe_Captivate_as_a_Tool_to_Create_eLearning_Scenarios
/link/56093b4c08ae13969149e058.pdf

Matthew Duvall’s paper examines the appropriateness of Adobe Captivate 7.0 for creating eLearning scenarios to enhance online education.  Duvall identifies himself as a graduate student with five year’s teaching experience and ten years as a computer programmer.  This blend of experience would suggest that he is well qualified to write a research paper which seeks to analyse the virtues of the eLearning development tool Adobe Captivate.  This paper addresses two questions: (1) What are the affordances of Adobe Captivate 7.0 for creating scenarios? (2) What are its constraints?  The word affordances is an usual choice of word that had this reviewer racing to his dictionary!  “An affordance is a desirable property of a user interface – software which naturally leads people to take the correct steps to accomplish their goals.” (Forager Labs, 2016).

Duvall describes scenarios as a solution to some of the problems associated with online courses such as poor retention rates and lack of innovative instructional design.  He offers no research to back up this assertion so this reviewer examined the relevant literature.  Allen and Seaman (2013) tracked online education for ten years in the United States and reported that there was a rise in concern among academic leaders at all types of institutions that lower retention rates in online courses are a barrier to the growth of online instruction. This was noted as an important or a very important barrier by 56.1% of chief academic officers in 2007 and rose to 73.5% in 2012.

A survey by Kim and Bonk (2006) found that most respondents see learning as content-driven and not based on social interactions and distributed intelligence.  Duvall looks upon scenarios as a solution to this problem.  He defines a scenario as any digitally developed environment that includes a description of a situation.

The author suggests that Adobe Captivate provides many ways to easily include video, animations and interactive visual elements that are important for learner engagement.  Duvall refers to Captivate’s non-linear navigation but fails to point out that this can be used for adaptive learning.  He is very impressed by the application’s assessment features.  Adobe Captivate provides a variety of feedback options, including detailed text based on user responses.  The integration with an LMS allows any scored assessments to be added directly to the gradebook, if desired.

In relation to constraints, Duvall believes the complexity of parts of the application means that a novice Captivate user would need to dedicate a great deal of time simply learning how to use the technology before applying it.  The author sees the software reflecting the behaviourist model of learning, which is a very traditional eLearning approach.  Finally, Duvall mentions the high cost of Adobe Captivate which makes it very expensive to buy.  This is certainly true, with this reviewer establishing that the full license price of Adobe Captivate 9 is €1,351.77. (Adobe, 2016).

References

Adobe (2016). Adobe Captivate 9: Pricing Plans.  Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.adobe.com/ie/products/captivate/buying-guide.html

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.

Forager Labs. (2016). Usability First. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/affordance/

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education. Educause quarterly, 29(4), 22-30.

Annotated Bibliography 1

Carliner, S. (2008) A Holistic Framework of Instructional Design for eLearning. In S. Carliner & P. Shank (Eds.) The e-Learning Handbook: Past Promises, Present Challenges (pp.307-358). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

In this chapter, Saul Carliner asks if and how instructional systems design (ISD) have to be adapted to address current contexts of learning and design, and issues within e-learning.  The author believes that designating ISD as a model is problematic when essentially it is a value system that represents what instructional designers feel is important about instructional design and not necessarily the steps they carry out in practice.

In his introduction, Carliner baldly states that no one has offered a comprehensive alternative to traditional ISD which he references as being “too slow and clumsy” (Gordon and Zemke, 2000, p.4) and no longer being of practical use. (Horton, 2002).  However, he offers only two references overall and the second reference is very weak.  (The Horton reference is to a conference attended by Carliner rather than the written proceedings of the conference).  It is unlikely that in the sixty years since the emergence of ISD that others have not offered a comprehensive alternative to traditional ISD.  For example, the The 7Cs of Learning Design framework is the culmination of major work carried out as part of the OU Learning Design Initiative (Open University UK, 2007) and the University of Leicester’s Carpe Diem work (Armellini, Salmon et al. 2009).

After his introduction, Carliner begins the chapter by defining ISD and providing the reader with a brief history of ISD.  This is useful to those new to the field of instructional design with the author referencing it’s origins in World War II.  Carliner refers to a soon to be released publication written by himself and two colleagues to define ISD as “the recommended process for designing, developing, and implementing learning programs”. (Carliner, Ribeiro, and Boyd, in press).  He goes on to say that this recommended process guides instructional designers.  The author cites Gustafson (1991) as having counted thirty-one versions of ISD models but then goes on to say that the most common models are based on a generic process called ADDIE – an acronym for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation.

The author identifies nine reasons why ISD needs an overhaul.  He begins with an assertion that ISD should not be referred to as a model as it does not represent what is observed to be happening in the real world.  Carliner cites research evidence that suggests the first and last parts of the ADDIE model (analysis and evaluation) are minimally performed.  (Van Tiem, 2004; Wedman & Tesmer (1993); Zemke & Lee, 1987).  He points out that although analysis and evaluation constitute half of the steps in the Dick and Carey model, they are often neglected.  According to the author, another flaw of ISD is the fact that it was originally created for instructional designers in the 1950s, long before the advent of online features such as wizards, guided tours, FAQs, tips of the day and discussion groups.  These online features are not the traditional courses that ISD addresses.  Another weakness is that the analysis stage assumes that there is no existing information about the audience and / or that the instructional designer has limited knowledge of the course content.  Two further problems are that ISD tends to favour mastery learning which is out of synch with constructivist and problem solving approaches.  The final problem with ISD is what Carliner refers to as the ‘one-size-fits-all-approach’ to projects.

In this chapter, the author sets out a revised framework of instructional design that has three distinct components.  The first component is Design Philosophies and Theories which embraces the science and philosophy of how humans learn.  The second component is General Design Methodology that has two parts: identifying the size of the e-learning project as bronze (basic), silver (middle-of-the-road) or platinum (extensive) and then applying the ADDIE process.  The final component of the framework is Instructional Considerations which have three categories: general issues (including schedules and budgets), instructional approach (including mastery learning, discovery learning, gaming-simulation) and conventions (including bookmarking in tutorials, a break in a webinar).

Carliner concludes that a framework, which includes economic, technical, political, and philosophical issues as well as instructional issues, will broaden the discussion of design.  He advocates a move away from what he calls a “cookbook-like approach” (means) to an outcomes-based approach (end) in relation to design. In my opinion, this is a Machiavellian approach to design.  In other words, if the final design is good, it is immaterial how it was achieved.

References

Armellini, A., G. Salmon, et al. (2009). The Carpe Diem journey: Designing for learning transformation. Transforming higher education through technology-enhanced learning T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen and M. Oliver. York, The Higher Education Authority: 135-148.

Carliner, S., Ribeiro, O., & Boyd, G. (In press). Educational Technology. In N.J. Salkind (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of educational psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gordon, J. & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37, 4.

Gustafson, K.L. (1991). Survey of instructional development models (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

Horton, W. (2002). Keynote address to the 18th Wisconsin conference on distance teaching and learning. Madison, Wisconsin, August 15, 2002.

Open University UK. (2007). Open University Learning Design Initiative.  Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/

Van Tiem, D.M. (2004). Usage and expertise in performance technology practice: An Empirical Investigation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3): 23-44.

Wedman, J. & Tesmer, M. (1993). Instructional designer’s decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2): 43-57.

Zemke, R. & Lee, C. (1987). How long does it take? Training, 24(6), 75-80.