Learning Technology: The Myths and Facts
abracad
Learning Technology: The Myths and Facts
What is Learning Technology?
Learning Technology, Educational Technology, Instructional Technology,
e-Learning, Computer Assisted Learning (CAL), Computer Based Training
(CBT)….. One or more of these closely related terms seems to
occur in almost every discussion on education and learning these days.
But what do they mean? And how might they shape the educational
landscape of tomorrow?
A widely accepted definition of Instructional Technology is that
provided by the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology Definitions and Terminology Committee. “Instructional
Technology is the theory and practice of design, development,
utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for
learning.” (Seels & Richey, 1994).
This paper employs a slightly simpler definition of learning
technology as any application of technology, particularly computer and
information technology, which contributes to the learning process.
Learning technology per se is not new. The first maths teacher to
bring an abacus into his classroom was using technology to aid
learning. Projectors, tape recorders and televisions have featured in
schools for decades. Even the use of computers is in education is not
new. Riley (2002) describes how simulations and modelling programs
“were in the mainstream of 1980s computer-assisted
learning”. This author can remember a modem connected teletype
unit in his maths class of the mid-70’s.
However, rapid advancements in the power and capability of desktop
computers along with the proliferation of the Internet have led to
intense interest in the potential of the computer as a learning tool.
This paper seeks to provide an overview of learning technology and to
explode some of the myths about surrounding the field. It identifies
areas where technology is most able to add value to the learning
experience and also raises a number of questions which need to be
addressed if the potential of the discipline is to be fully realised.
What Learning Technology Can - and Cannot - Do
Learning Technology has the potential to bring improved learning
opportunities to a larger audience than has ever previously been
possible.
It is able to support a more active learning experience through a high
degree of learner involvement, thus promoting a deeper understanding.
Dale’s "Cone of Experience" (adapted from Wiman & Meirhenry,
1960) suggests that people remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what
they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they hear and see, 70% of
what they say and write, and 90% of what they say and perform at a
task. Confucius makes the same point even more succinctly: "Tell me
and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand". My own experience as a student on a master’s course
in multimedia revealed that I learned least in formal lectures, a
little more in organized tutorials, and most of all during the
completion of assignments. Active learning is an effective approach
for developing deployable skills.
Learning Technology places the learner in control of their own
education. It is better able to meet the individual’s learning
requirements by providing a (potentially) unique experience to every
learner, tailored to their individual circumstances and
characteristics.
It is able to support communicative and collaborative activity
irrespective of the physical distance that may separate participants.
Communicative activity reinforces and extends knowledge promotes a
broadening of understanding through the sharing of ideas. Even where
an individual comes into conflict with the group consensus, that
conflict forces the individual either to justify their opposition or
else to modify their belief.
Learning Technology does not obviate the need for work on the part of
the learner. It is not yet possible to download knowledge and
experience directly into the brain. To understand something we must
engage with it, a process which requires effort.
Learning Technology does not obviate the need for work on the part of
the educator. Delivering content electronically does not automatically
transform it into an effective aid to learning. In fact what might
have been a very good aid to learning in its original form may lose
its merits through inappropriate “electronification”. The
most effective use of learning technology requires considerable
planning and effort on the part of the educator to best exploit the
strengths of the target media.
Learning in the Information Age
The final decade of the twentieth century saw exponential increases
both in computing power and the number of people able to access
computers and the Internet. Numerous commentators have described the
proliferation of information and communication technologies (and in
particular the growth of the Internet) as bringing about a transition
as marked as that of the industrial revolution. We are said to be
moving from the industrial age to the information age, in which
radically different rules will apply in every aspect of society,
education being no exception. (N.B. a Google search on the phrase
"information age" retrieved some 725,000 results.)
Society’s transition to the information age is likely to impact
on learning and education in two ways. Firstly, rapidly improving
technology will enable higher quality learning to be made available to
an ever-growing audience through increasingly sophisticated modes of
presentation. Secondly, the very nature of the information age may
require a different kind of preparation (i.e. learning) from its
membership than was the case in the industrial age.
In the industrial age the majority of human roles could be described
as algorithmic. Most circumstances determined the pre-defined
procedure to be followed upon their occurrence. People left school or
college, learned the rules of a given trade of profession, and
expected to remain within that trade for life. Large corporations,
with deep hierarchies were the norm, in which instructions from above
were expected to be unquestioningly carried out. It could be argued
that an approach like Skinner’s behaviorism which sought to
develop specific responses to given stimuli was most suited to
industrial age learning.
It is likely that members of the information society will need to
learn continually throughout their lives in order to keep up with the
rapid and relentless change that is characteristic of the age. Because
it is unlikely we shall be able to enjoy perpetual studenthood,
learning will need to be presented in increasingly flexible ways (e.g.
distance learning, open learning, part-time and mixed mode
study…).
It is likely traditional corporate structures will be forced to change
in order to survive in the new economy. Small (2000) describes the
limitations, in the information age, of the traditional managed team
operating as part of a rigid hierarchy. Instead he proposes the
concept of temporary, virtual teams, brought together by an initiator,
someone able to "identify a win-win situation where cooperation can
produce benefits" and "produce enough evidence that profits will
result from [the] proposed cooperation". Such teams aren't "held
together by rules, but by benefits of mutual advantage.”
Structural changes together with the increasing mechanization of
algorithmic tasks imply the need for more creative, innovative and
interpretive skills. Such abilities are more likely to emerge from a
constructivist approach to learning in which individuals construct
their own individual mental models of the world in order to make sense
of their experiences. Learning is the process of adding to or refining
this mental model.
All Kinds of Learner
The continued and increasing state of social and economic flux of the
information age means the need for lifelong learning will become a
reality for most people in the twenty-first century.
Rather than being something that tales place between infancy and early
adulthood, learning will become a cradle-to-grave activity. Rather
than catering only for those with a certain predisposition, effective
post-compulsory learning will need to be made available to the
majority.
Rather than being an activity that takes place mainly in a classroom
with rows of students seated at desks paying close attention to a
teacher standing before a blackboard at the front, learning will take
a variety of forms.
Of course there will still be institutional learning that takes place
mainly in classrooms on campus. But distance learning seems set to
become a major growth area of the early twenty-first century, offering
learners the chance to study where and when they choose, scheduling
their learning around work and family commitments. A third category of
learner may also be identified, the attached learner. Attached
learners fall somewhere between the extremes represented by their
institutional and distance colleagues. Attached learners spend some of
their learning time on campus while the rest is spent at a distance.
They may be part-time students, or those out on work placements.
For distance learners learning technology can provide access to
tutorial and peer support as well as relief from the inevitable
isolation. The lone learner is brought into contact with colleagues
and mentors from around the globe. Technology also provides an
extremely efficient mechanism for delivering learning materials on
demand. Such materials may be traditional study texts or fully
interactive multimedia learning experiences. Simulations offer the
distance learner almost the same degree of involvement as their
institution-based counterparts by way of virtual laboratories and
rich, interactive models. The World Wide Web provides access to a huge
amount of content. Quality assured digital libraries and portals may
serve as a roadmap to the more valuable resources.
On-campus learners may also benefit from learning technology, albeit
in different ways to those at a distance. Simulations and models
extend conventional laboratory facilities in supporting active
learning by enabling ideas introduced in the classroom to be put into
practice. Learning environments (see below) can provide access to pre-
and post-lecture materials and serve as a gateway to a wide range of
digital resources. They may also provide a shared workspace for group
assignments as well as extending the learner’s immediate peer
group by linking them with others from around the world.
Learning Environments
Known by terms including Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Online
Learning Environments (OLEs) and Managed Learning Environments (MLEs)
these facilities offer technology mediated support for the learning
process in a number of areas. Additionally, MLEs offer access to
institutional administration systems allowing learners to view grades,
update personal details, pay fees etc. online.
Learning Environments may offer any, or all, of the following
features:
· A repository of learning materials, e.g. lecture handouts, PDF
files, PowerPoint presentations etc., i.e. the environment serves as
an efficient distribution mechanism.
· A portal to additional (i.e. external) quality assured resources.
· A communication facility which may be synchronous/asynchronous,
tutor-student, student-tutor and/or student-student. This facility
could include inter-institutional communities and/or guest
lectures/seminars.
· Archiving of real-time events for the benefit of those unable to
participate at the time.
· A shell for interactive/multimedia course materials. In this case
the environment would provide each learner with access to the right
materials at the right time, possibly determined by personal
preference and/or prior performance.
· Online assessment - both formative (for guidance only) and summative
(assessed as part of final grade).
· A collaborative working environment, e.g. a communication facility
plus shared file space for group assignments.
· Links to administration systems, i.e. the environment is an MLE.
Many institutions make use of “off the shelf” products,
the current market leaders being WebCT and Blackboard. Others develop
their own environments to suit their specific needs. Considerations in
selecting a learning environment include:
· How easy is it to use - for academics, tutors, administrators - and
learners?
· To what degree can it be customized / accessed at HTML or server
level?
· What does it cost? And how is it licensed - institutionally, per
user, per seat (i.e. per user per course)?
· Does it conform to accessibility (see below) guidelines?
· Does it conform to emerging interoperability (see below) standards?
· Can it be used off-line (e.g. for distance learners with poor
Internet connectivity), or is there an alternative such as e-mailed
discussions?
· What is the minimum platform/connection required to run it?
· Will it interface with the institution’s administrative
systems?
· Does it support single sign-on authentication?, i.e. once logged in
will students be able to access other resources without having to
repeatedly log in?
· Can closed access discussion areas be created for group work?
· Does it use the pull (e.g. bulletin board) or push (e.g. mailing
list ) model or both for supporting communications? Ideally a
combination of the two will be supported with learners receiving
regular e-mails informing them of new additions to the VLE;
additionally there will be a web-based, searchable archive of messages
available.
Accessibility
Learning technology may make the opportunity of learning available to
a wider audience than ever before and as such has the power to promote
a fairer and more equal society. The issue of accessibility is
concerned with ensuring that the opportunities offered by the
technology truly are available to as large and diverse a group as
possible. In particular it is concerned with ensuring that learners
with disabilities who may be accessing materials through assistive
technologies such as screen readers are not unduly disadvantaged.
Accessibility concerns are not solely altruistic. The number of people
worldwide with some form of disability represents a massive potential
audience that few educational providers (or indeed commercial
operations) can afford to exclude. Additionally much educational
provision is, or will soon, be subject to accessibility legislation.
In the USA Section 508 of the 1998 Rehabilitation Act requires that
Federal agencies' electronic and information technology (including
Web) content is accessible to people with disabilities. In the UK the
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) will make it
illegal to discriminate against disabled students by treating them
less favourably than others. Institutions must make reasonable
adjustments to provision where students with disabilities would
otherwise be at a substantial disadvantage. SENDA came into effect on
1 September 2002.
Learning technology practitioners should endeavour to make their
outputs accessible to as wide an audience as possible and must make
themselves aware of any legal requirements governing their work.
Further guidance may be found from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI - see http://www.w3.org/WAI/).
Authoring software producers such as Macromedia (Dreamweaver, Flash
etc.) may also publish guidelines on developing accessible
applications with their software (e.g. see
http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/).
e-Learning or Blended Learning
The oft-used term e-learning implies the concept of learning which is
delivered electronically. The author dislikes the term, preferring to
see the computer as just one possible medium through which learning
may be presented.
Radio, cinema, television, video etc. were all exciting new media,
once. They all remain widely used. But they have not replaced media
which pre-existed them. The oldest mass medium, i.e. the printed word,
continues to flourish.
Just as older means of communication continue to thrive alongside the
latest computer technology in the information age, so too do more
traditional forms of learning medium such as the printed word and
audio and video cassette. The latest forms of learning technology
should supplement rather than replace these earlier media in a blended
approach to learning.
A successful learning experience relies on each of the available modes
of delivery being employed to its strengths.
There are numerous examples of so-called learning technology that do
little more than transfer the contents of the printed page to the
computer screen in the belief that presenting the information this way
will magically promote enhanced learning. In fact delivering
significant amounts of printed text on screen rather than paper is
likely to be detrimental to the recipient’s comprehension and
comfort.
Nielsen (1998) states “people read about 25% slower from
computer screens than from printed paper”. Reading from screen
is certainly less comfortable than reading printed text. The UK Health
and Safety Executive (1998) found that “long spells of VDU work
can lead to tired eyes and discomfort”. In fact UK law requires
employers to plan the work of those using VDUs so there are breaks or
changes of activity (HSE, 1998). Paper can also be more portable and
robust, e.g. one cannot use a computer in the bath, whilst dropping a
book doesn’t usually do it any significant damage.
Reusability
A holy grail of the learning technology field is the concept of
reusability as witnessed by the intense interest and activity in
reusable learning objects.
The concept of reusable learning objects is a simple one. Learning
material is packaged into discrete chunks for the purposes of being
used in a variety of contexts.
Definitions of what constitutes a learning object vary. The IEEE
Learning Technology Standards Committee (2002) defines a learning
object as " any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used,
re-used or referenced during technology supported learning." This is
not very useful since absolutely anything can be referenced during
technology supported learning.
Other, more precise definitions exist, e.g. learning content
management system vendor Knowledge Planet states “A learning
object has four components: an objective, content, a means of
assessment, and metadata.” (Knowledge Planet product
literature).
The rationale for the learning object approach is similar to that for
the use of object oriented programming in computing. Rather than
continually develop software to represent common entities such as
people, orders, accounts etc., the software industry produces one (or
a small number of) very good representation(s) of these entities. When
a programmer needs to code people in his software he simply plugs in a
pre-written, quality-assured person object, which he may refine as
required.
Rather than every mathematics teacher develop their own way of
introducing students to differential calculus, they are simply able to
call upon one or more very good learning objects, which do the job.
The mathematics teachers may then devote their efforts to supporting
students understanding of those objects.
Some examples:
· A single object introducing differentiation is offered on courses in
engineering, science and economics.
· The learning object on introductory differentiation is
multi-purposed into print, Web and CD-ROM versions.
· A degree level management course is created as a series of reusable
learning objects. A subset of these learning objects forms the basis
of a short, vocational course.
The best learning objects would be made available, at a cost, to the
entire educational community. Widespread adoption of the learning
object paradigm would see a separation between the traditionally
integrated functions of content preparation and learner support.
Reusability in education is not new and has not until recently been
seen as controversial. A textbook is a reusable learning object. A
textbook on basic calculus might be used in courses on mathematics,
physics, engineering etc. with different groups of students in
numerous schools and colleges throughout the world. It may be
translated into different languages to further extend its reusability.
Learning objects take the reusability concept a step further,
extending it to the entire content component of the learning
experience.
Downes (2000) makes a compelling case for the economic benefits of the
learning object approach, claiming “there will be sharing,
because no institution producing its own materials on its own could
compete with institutions sharing learning materials.”
One criticism of this approach comes from the recognition that
knowledge does not exist as discrete chunks, but is inextricably
related to other knowledge as well as to the context in which it is
applied, i.e. the learning object approach is too reductionist to meet
the learning needs of the real world.
The term digital divide has been coined to describe the division
between those that have access to technology and those that do not. In
March 2003 an estimated 649 million people, some 10% of the world's
population, had Internet access (Global Reach). It is sobering to
reflect that 90% do not have such, thus the technology that promises
to make learning opportunities more widely available than ever before
is effectively excluding the vast majority.
This difference in the levels of access to technology is driving the
goal of multi-purposing learning objects across a range of delivery
media, e.g. it should be possible to present printed, low-bandwidth
and high-bandwidth versions of a particular object. The problem in
meeting this ideal is that material is written to the strengths of a
target medium, e.g. a novel and a screenplay of the same story are
quite different. Thus in trying to author an object for a number of
formats there is a risk of compromising the strengths of each and
delivering a mediocre product.
Despite these criticisms reusable learning objects will most likely
play a major role in the future of learning presentation. The focus at
this stage should be on identifying those scenarios in which the
approach has most to offer.
Interoperability
Closely related to the concept of reusability is that of
interoperability. Essentially this means ensuring that where reusable
learning materials are created they are truly reusable, by different
institutions and across different delivery platforms.
To this end a number of bodies are working towards the development of
standards. These bodies include the IEEE Learning Technology Standards
Committee (LTSC), Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative
(developers of SCORM - the Sharable Content Object Reference Model)
and the Instructional Management System (IMS) Global Learning
Consortium. Specifications are emerging to describe things like
learning object metadata, content packaging and question and test
interoperability. The UK Centre for Educational Technology
Interoperability Standards has described the adoption of standards as
being “key to the realisation of Life Long Learning and a global
education marketplace.” (CETIS 2002).
Although much work is being done in this area few standards have been
officially ratified. The learning technology practitioner would be
advised to become acquainted with the current state of affairs and to
ensure that any deliverables are broadly compatible with existing
recommendations whilst watching closely for further developments.
The Understanding Mismatch
One of the greatest difficulties in implementing learning technology
projects is the need for mutual understanding between a diverse range
of skill sets.
This difficulty exists to a lesser degree in traditional education
where those with the greatest subject knowledge aren’t always
the most able to impart it to others. In the UK this is more of a
problem in higher education, where academic staff are selected solely
for expertise in their field and are not required to possess any
qualifications in education.
The problem is intensified in technology mediated learning as not only
subject specialists and educationalists need to be involved the
process but also a whole range of technical experts (systems
administrators, web/multimedia designers/developers, support
staff…).
The successful development of a learning technology project from
conception to delivery requires that each of these specialists is able
to work together, each having an appreciation of the role played by
the others. Without this mutual understanding the dangers are that the
subject experts will simply regurgitate what they know without regard
to how the learner will engage with it; the educationalist will
produce unrealistic expectations of the technology, or worse, have
little understanding of the technology’s potential; and the
technologists will create excellent demonstrations of their specific
skills and knowledge that stand as works of art but do little to
enhance the learner’s understanding.
In an attempt to address the problem of understanding mismatch two
relatively new professions have emerged from the learning technology
industry, namely the instructional designer and learning technologist
(or educational technologist).
The instructional designer is able to work with subject experts to
create a learning experience appropriate to the target learner. It is
a role that should be found throughout traditional educational
establishments, particularly those of higher education. Indeed in the
UK more and more higher education institutions are introducing
learning and teaching units with a view to helping academics improve
the quality of learning presented to their students.
The learning technologist is likely to be technically skilled as well
as being able to communicate with other technical experts and will
have a good awareness of the potentials of technology in promoting
learning. Most importantly he/she will be able to communicate with
subject experts and/or educationalists to advise where and how
technology might enhance the learning experience that is being
developed. The learning technologist may demonstrate a range of
examples to inspire ideas, and will then work to refine those ideas
into a realisable form.
These roles are intended to serve as an interface between subject
specialist and technical expert. They will ensure that the right
amount and level of subject knowledge is presented to the learner in
the appropriate form for the most effective learning to take place.
As the discipline of learning technology matures it is likely a number
of project lifecycle methodologies that enshrine best practice will
emerge. However, it is the author’s opinion that the field is
currently too young to be so rigidly constrained and that further
experimentation and innovation are required if its full potential is
to be realised.
Effective Learning Technology
How may learning technology be most effectively deployed? And what
might be the characteristics of the resulting learning experience?
Technology has the potential to facilitate communication across
physical boundaries. It also has the potential to involve the learner,
particularly the distance learner, to a high degree as well as being
able to present a highly personalized learning experience.
We might expect an effective technologically mediated learning
experience to offer the opportunity for communication and
collaboration with similarly minded individuals from around the world.
These individuals would comprise both peers and mentors and would
ideally form communities in which different members could take the
lead at different stages of the learning process. The communication
facility could take any form from the simple e-mail list and/or
discussion board through to intelligent avatars inhabiting
three-dimensional virtual worlds.
The experience would employ different media to achieve different ends.
In many cases, depending on the nature of the course, there would be a
significant reading component. This reading need not be delivered as
bundles of paper. Instead it could be distributed as PDF files for the
learner to print locally. It is likely these files will be fully
indexed and searchable to enable the learner to quickly retrieve
relevant content. There may also be some form of computerized
organizer, note taker and annotation tool, which some learners might
find beneficial.
Where the computer is used to present learning there is likely to be a
high degree of learner involvement. Rich simulations and models will
allow the learner to experiment in a variety of novel situations,
learning from the experience of active participation and the resulting
feedback. There will not be a pre-determined pathway through the
computer-presented component. Instead it will adapt itself to the
characteristics, needs and earlier performance of the individual
learner.
Audio and video elements will also be offered where these media are
most appropriate for presenting the learning material. Where a course
of study is comprised of different media (print, computer, audio,
video) each component will be of sufficient size to provide a study
session of satisfying length and substance, i.e. learners will not be
required to switch from screen to paper and back every few minutes.
Multi-media courses may also provide a printed “summary”
of key concepts for revision purposes. This summary could be in
skeletal form to be expanded upon by the learner as they progress.
References
CETIS, the centre for educational technology interoperability
standards, (2002), Learning Technology Standards: An Overview,
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/static/standards.html
Downes, Stephen, (2000), Learning Objects,
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/downes/naweb/Learning_Objects.doc
Global Reach, (March 2003), Global Internet Statistics (by Language),
http://www.global-reach.biz/globstats/index.php3
Health and Safety Executive, (1998), Working with VDUs,
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf
IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata
(2002).
http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf
Knowledge Planet product literature,
http://www.knowledgeplanet.com/newsletter/kp_content%207-17-01.pdf
Nielsen, Jakob, (1998), Electronic Books - A Bad Idea (Alertbox for
July 26, 1998), http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980726.html
Riley, David, (2002), Simulation modelling: educational development
roles for learning technologists.
Seels, Barbara B., Richey, Rita C., (1994), Instructional Technology:
The Definition and Domains of the Field, Association for Educational
Communications & Technology.
Small, Peter, (2000), The Entrepreneurial Web, ft.com
Wiman & Meirhenry, (1960), Educational Media, on Edgar Dale.