Ein, zwei, drei...spiel!

Time to rock 'n' roll, fans; we're short on time and long on articles--which has its advantages: at least there's some literature to review. This is article number 3 related to software training methodology by Alonso, et al (2008) in the journal Innovations in Education and Teaching International, titled "Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. The keywords include learning objects, learning objectives, instructional model, and blended learning. With 41 references, this is the abstract:

"Educational research and development into e-learning mainly focuses on the inclusion of new technological features without taking into account psycho-pedagogical concerns that are likely to improve a learner's cognitive process in this new educational category. This paper presents an instructional model that combines objectivist and constructivist learning theories. The model is based on the concept of a learning objective which is composed of a set of learning objects. A software tool, called the Instruction Aid System (IAS), has been developed to guide instructors through the development of learning objectives and the execution of the analysis and design phases of the proposed instructional model. Additionally, a blended approach to the learning process in Web-based distance education is also presented. This approach combines various event-based activities: self-paced learning, live e-learning and the use of face-to-face contact in classrooms."

The researchers begin by setting the stage for modern e-learning by reciting some of the developments that have led to where we are, such as e-learning systems (technologically supported by learning objects) and e-content re-usability. They assert the technology helps improve the quality of learning but "is useless if it is not based on psycho-pedagogical prescriptions (Alonso, Lopez, Manrique, and Vines, 2005)." (pp. 389-390) They further maintain that this is exactly what has happened, creating "a serious dysfunction between the profusion of technological features that are put forward and the shortage of pedagogical manners and teaching principles for e-learning (Tallent-Runnels et al., 2005)." (p. 390) Using objectivist theory combined with constructivist theory, which builds on both behaviorism and cognitivism by accepting multiple perspectives and building on the learner's prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs, the authors present an e-learning instructional model that is supported by constructivist theory and is based on the concepts of learning objectives and learning objects.

They first identify learning objects and learning objectives. "A learning object deals with a very specific item of knowledge: educational content, a 'good problem' to be solved through group work or evaluation exercises, etc. Learning objects should be self-contained and can be combined to support individual instructional objectives for use in different contexts." (p. 391) "A learning objective is the specific knowledge that a learner has to acquire about a concept or skill and the tasks to be performed. A learning objective includes several learning objects." (p. 392).

Starting with the knowledge level of Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning, they divide this level into three sub-levels: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. They identify the pragmatic level as where the learner is "able to apply the knowledge acquired to solve particular problems" (p. 393). They then introduce Schulman's (2002) six-stage learning process: (1) engagement and motivation, (2) knowledge and understanding, (3) performance and action, (4) reflection and critique, (5) judgment and design, and (6) commitment and identity.

Next, they state "The proposed e-learning instructional model is based on the fact that training should enable learners to apply the concepts learned at their workplace and evaluate the results." (p. 393) They then switch to the method by which they intend to construct this instructional model. In essence, it is the ADDIE principle, though they exchange "implementation" for "development" and "execution" for "implementation" in the traditional rendering. Following, they go through the steps of construction. In the design step, they reveal that the proposed instruction will involve a blended learning approach that has three elements: it is self-paced and combines live (synchronous) e-learning and the use of face-to-face contact in the classroom. However, it appears that three different teaching approaches were ultimately used and compared. (The report was somewhat confusing, perhaps due to translation; the authors teach at the University of Madrid.) The approaches included face-to-face classroom, distance learning that streamed all of the classroom material, and distance learning constructed using the SCORM-compliant IAS authoring tool with a blended learning process. The face-to-face showed the best results (n = 79) with a mean of 6.9 out of 10 on the final exam (SD = 1.98). The blended distance learning came in second (n = 78) with a mean of 6.6 (SD = 2.01). The virtualized classroom material in distance learning was third (n = 78) with a mean of 5.65 (SD = 2.39). The authors felt this substantiated their hypotheses in that while the blended distance learning mean was not as high as the face-to-face, it was satisfactory and cheaper.

REFERENCES

Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., and Vines, J.M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), pp. 389-400. DOI: 10.1080/14703290802377265

Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., and Vines, J.M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education wit ha blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1, pp. 217-235.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1, Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Schulman, L.S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34, pp. 36-44.

Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Lan, W.Y., Fryer, W., Thomas, J.A., Cooper, S., and Wang, K. (2005). The relationship between problems with technology and graduate students' evaluations of online teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 8, pp. 167-174.