Priscilla Norton, Professor
pnorton@gmu.edu
Dawn Hathaway
dhathawa@gmu.edu
Graduate School of Education MS 5D6
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Abstract:
Online learning is rapidly becoming a permanent feature of higher education.
Although it offers many benefits to the adult learner,
it commonly uses traditional instructional frameworks including structuring
learning around a class of many with shared timelines, assignments, and
dependence on group discussion. However, alternative strategies for the
design of online learning environments are emerging one of which promotes
a classroom of one (Norton, 2003). This study compared learner perceptions
of two courses – one using the more traditional approach designed
with Blackboard and one using the COPLS model. Results revealed that
both environments were perceived as providing a high quality learning
experience. In addition, results point to the importance of self-regulation,
the role of the instructor/facilitator/mentor, and the role of the group
as factors influencing learners’ perception of the quality of their
learning experience, positive aspects of their learning experience, and
challenges that influenced their learning experience.
The days of viewing online education as a trend in U.S. higher education appear
to be gone. With 65% of graduate programs in the U.S. offering online options
and 56%of U.S. universities and colleges indicating online education is a
critical long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2005), online education
plays a formidable role in U.S. higher education today. It is therefore likely
that educators who offer only traditional approaches will come face to face
with decisions about offering online options, joining the ranks of online
educators who provided online learning experiences to the 2.35 million online
students enrolled in 2004 (Allen & Seaman, 2005). There is a concern
about the quality of online learning currently offered in higher education.
Research suggests that these online learning environments are simply frameworks
to impart inert knowledge rather than learning and active knowledge (Herrington,
Reeves, & Oliver, 2005). This concern necessitates an investigation of
available online learning environments and the impact of design on the learning
experience of students.
Over the last 200 years, a sophisticated, broadly applied traditional
approach to the design of learning environments has evolved. This design
has found its
most common expression in face-to-face, formal classroom structures. When it
is applied to online learning, online learning becomes little more than face-to-face
classroom practice extended to virtual, online learning environments. In fact,
most online learning opportunities are designed to mimic the practices of the
classroom (Sonwalkar, 2001). Supported by Web-based course management tools,
traditional online learning environments integrate features of the Internet
and the World Wide Web into a single, template-based system that facilitates
the design, development, delivery and management of Web-based courses and online
learning environments. Features frequently found in these systems include management
of course information, assignments, grades, and student records, delivery of
tests, posting web-based references, and communication capabilities.
A review of three popular online courseware systems (Web Course In A
Box, WebCT, TopClass) that examined these courseware systems for their
pedagogical bases
concluded that all three have extensive capabilities for supporting "competency-based
teaching of discrete information and processes“ and that the tools included
represent a behaviorist/empiricist model of pedagogy quite well (Firdyiwek,
1999). Yet, concluded Firdyiwek (1999), these systems do not support more flexible,
open-ended, or qualitative pedagogies. Thus, as Levine and Sun (2003) stated, “There
is no pedagogy for distance learning. Although the promise is a highly interactive
medium of learning that institutions can customize to meet the individual needs
of students, the talking head remains the predominant mode of instruction today,
and current forms of distance learning often prove to be poor imitations” (p.
21).
If online learning is to rise to the level of its promise, it is necessary
to create a pedagogical model or models that enable educators to capitalize
on the potentials afforded by online learning technologies.
Such a model must allow for flexibility, interactivity, media-rich adaptive
environments as well as be accessible to large numbers of learners for collaborations
and group discussions while simultaneously enabling individualized learning.
Such a learning environment must allow for multiple modes of cognition. “There
is an acute need to define a framework for the educational models that provide
a basis for the implementation of online education” (Sonwalkar, 2001).
While the traditional approach, expressed in face-to-face classroom practice
or through web-based course management tools, has served the needs of an industrialized
society well and continues to provide appropriate learning opportunities in
some venues, it has a number of limitations. These include a) A disconnection
between the learning process prescribed by the traditional approach and the
learning process outside of formal, classroom situations (See, for example,
Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989 and Lave & Wenger, 1991); b) An inconsistency
with characteristics of learning evolving within a high technology society
(See, for example, Tapscott, 1998); and c) Learning outcomes that frequently
result in “inert knowledge” – that is, knowledge that does
not work nor enter into people’s daily efforts to solve problems and
interpret events, resulting in learners who “know that” but do
not “know how” and who have “learned about” but not “learned
to” (Whitehead, 1929).
The Community of Practice Learning System (COPLS) (Norton, 2003) offers
such an alternative. This model centers learning at the intersection
of a representative
or authentic problem, web-based instructional support materials, and frequent
interactions between the learner and an expert mentor. It represents an effort
to create a model for the design of online learning environments that is responsive
to the world of learning in natural, informal contexts; that reflect learning
characteristics evolving in a high technology society; and that expect richer
and deeper understandings or learning outcomes associated with situated, authentic
opportunities for learning. The COPLS model situates learning in problems derived
from the context to which the content of learning pertains, builds bridges
between knowledge and action/learning and practice, and promotes the learner’s
ability to create meaningful understandings by scaffolding learning in the
context of interactions with an expert mentor. To understand the COPLS model,
abandon the notion of a classroom of many and think of a classroom of one.
During the summer semester of 2006, the researchers had the opportunity
to compare these two online learning designs as they were reflected
in two online
courses. One course used the traditional online learning approach and a course
management system. The other course used the COPLS model. Thus, this study
compared students’ perceptions of the two courses. Specifically, researchers
asked three questions: a) How would you describe the quality of your learning
in the two environments? b) What were the positive aspects of each environment?
and c) What were the challenging aspects of each environment?
Methodology
In the
summer of 2006, 31 members of the Integrating Technology in Schools
graduate
cohort completed two online courses – a course
designed using a course management system and a course designed using
the COPLS model. Students began work in the middle of May and were required
to complete all assignments by July 31. In the course designed within
the structure of the course management system, the work of teacher-learners
was structured to be completed in ten weeks and, of necessity, all teacher-learners
progressed at the same pace. In the COPLS model, students were able to
structure their own work process individually and in collaboration with
their online mentor.
A Classroom of Many: A Collaborative Blackboard Course
The Blackboard
course focused on the study of web-based learning environments for
K-12 learners,
using Harris’s (1998) activity structures as
a framework for organizing exploration of web-based learning opportunities.
Emphasis was placed on understanding each of the activity structures,
examining and critiquing existing examples of the activity structures,
completing activities within selected structures as though they were
K-12 learners, and locating additional instances of these structures
related to participants’ content/grade level areas of classroom
practice. The course was structured around five modules with each module
engaging teacher-learners in participating in a group discussion board
to synthesize explorations of particular activity structures, completing
a collaborative group project, submitting a lesson idea for critique
by group members, and individually writing a portfolio reflection. The
course culminated in teacher-learners individually designing an opportunity
for K-12 student learning that would implement a telecollaborative, global
project.
This course was designed and taught using the Blackboard course management
system. Teacher-learners were divided into small groups of five or six who
shared common grade level and content responsibilities. The course instructor
served as course facilitator providing overarching direction and modeling.
She modeled the process of facilitation to include posting questions for
discussion, summarizing and redirecting discussions, and providing
feedback and assessment
of both group and individual projects. During each of the five modules, teacher-learners
took turns serving as peer facilitator. The responsibilities of the peer
facilitator were to lead and prompt group discussions, lead in the
completion of group
projects, and submit group products to a shared forum. Peer facilitators
were supported by the course instructor. Through email, the course
instructor guided
the work of the peer facilitators and served as an advisor for questions
and challenges experienced by the peer facilitators.
A Classroom of One: A Mentor-Learner Course
The mentor-learner
course was divided into two components. The first component (2 credit
hours) focused on the role of desktop publishing
tools and design principles in K-12 classrooms. Emphasis was placed on
creating desktop published materials for use in the teacher-learner’s
content/grade level; studying and implementing design principles - contrast,
repetition, alignment, and proximity (Williams, 2003); studying and implementing
the design process – design, encode, assemble, publish, revise
(Norton & Sprague, 2000); and connecting design principles and processes
to K-12 classroom practice. The second component (1 credit hour) focused
on the role of a variety of additional educational software applications
for use in K-12 classrooms. Applications addressed in this component
included skill software, integrated learning systems, spreadsheets, programming,
and calculators, problem-solving software, and simulation software. Both
components of the course were guided by an education problem to be solved – developing
strategies for school-wide production of professional communication by
both teachers and K-12 learners in the desktop publishing component and
responding to a PTO call for software requests after a fundraising event.
Each component was divided into modules with textbook and Internet readings,
an activity synthesizing the readings, tutorials, and applied projects.
Each component culminated in the preparation of a solution to the guiding
problem.
The course was designed and taught using the COPLS design model. All
materials were web-based and accessible from a course web site where
materials were organized
using a notebook metaphor. Each of the 31 teacher-learners was assigned one
of eight mentors with expertise in both the course content and the process
of mentoring online. Although mentors worked with more than one teacher-learner,
they treated each teacher-learner individually, and there were no interactions
between teacher-learners. Interactions focused on one-to- one mentor-learner
exchanges over the duration of the course. The mentor role was designed to
provide answers to teacher-learner technology questions, assist and encourage
with issues of self-regulation and work flow, modify activities to meet teacher-learner’s
individual needs, provide feedback on submitted activities and projects, and
most importantly to prompt teacher-learners connect what they were learning
with their practice. Interactions with the mentor were predominantly email-based.
However, a synchronous tool (DigiChat) was available and used when appropriate.
Collecting
Teacher-Learners’ Responses
Students were asked to complete a survey in the final week of both
courses. The survey was sent electronically as an attachment and returned
as an attachment. Teacher-learners were asked to respond to eight open-ended
questions designed to elicit their perceptions of the two learning environments
related to the research questions. They were encouraged to be open and
honest but no confidentiality was assumed. Completion of the survey was
optional, and there were no grade consequences attached. Since teacher-learners
were in the third semester of their coursework and familiar and comfortable
with the researchers, there were no concerns about their reluctance to
express opinions and reactions. Twenty-seven surveys were received for
a return rate of 87%.
Results
Quality of Learning
The first
research question asked: How would you describe the quality of your
learning
in the two environments? Analysis of teacher-learner
responses indicated that the Blackboard and the COPLS course were positive
learning experiences, and distinctions between the two learning environments
were not related to quality. No respondents indicated concerns about
or inadequacies in the quality of their learning. Teacher-learners generally
agreed that the quality of their learning was robust, challenging, and
positive. Sixty-three percent of teacher-learners stated that the quality
of their learning in the two courses was equal; 15% stated a preference
for Blackboard learning environment; 11% preferred the COPLS learning
environment; and eleven percent made no comment. Supporting the equality
of their learning experiences, one teacher-learner wrote, “I acquired
valuable knowledge in both environments. The quality of my learning was
very high in my opinion. Both environments challenged me mentally and
creatively.” Another wrote, “Both environments have allowed
me to evolve to a new level as a learner, educator, and person.” Several
teacher-learners expanded their reflections to include awareness that
the two environments were different learning experiences. One wrote, “The
learning methods were different but the quality was excellent in both.” Another
wrote, “The quality of the learning was relatively equal just through
different styles. Both courses explored different processes but I learned
a lot from them both.”
Fifteen percent stated that the quality of their learning was better in the
Blackboard environment.
Comments
included, “I learned more in the Blackboard
course, but that was because of the content not because of the format,” “Overall
I thought the quality of my learning in the Blackboard course was better .
. . much of the material [in the COPLS course] was not new to me,” and “I
learned a lot of new information from it.” One commented that “I
learned more in the Blackboard course because I applied myself more. The content
was interesting and engaging.” Eleven percent stated that the quality
of learning was better in the COPLS environment. Comments included, “I
learned more [in COPLS] because it interested me more. I found it more useful,” “I
learned more [in COPLS] because [it] was more hands-on,” and “I
felt more learning occurred [in COPLS]. By this I mean the content we learned
was very practical to our needs.” When teacher-learners distinguished
the quality of their learning based on learning environment, it was the course
content that impacted their belief about the quality of learning not the learning
environment. Two students (7%) reported that they could not comment on the
quality of the courses because the “nature of the content was completely
different in each.” Finally, one teacher-learner (4%) made no comments
about the quality of his learning experience.
While the majority believed the learning environments were equal in quality,
there remained a definite preference for one format over the other. When
asked which format teacher-learners would chose when taking another online
course,
30% of the teacher-learners choose the Blackboard format as their preferred
learning environment. Group interaction and the structure afforded by Blackboard
to keep learners on task were the reasons teacher-learners expressed for
their choice. As one teacher-learner wrote, “I would probably choose Blackboard
because it is more structured and it keeps me on a schedule.” Another
wrote, “I think that there is a lot to be learned from others and that
is just not really possible when you are working independently.” Fifty-two
percent of the learners indicated that the COPLS environment would be their
choice. There were three main reasons consistently cited for this decision.
One reason centered on the ability to work at one’s own pace: “I
liked to work at my own pace and get things done a bit ahead of schedule most
of the time. I also liked this course better because I did not have to wait
for any of my peers to complete assignments.” A second reason for choosing
the COPLS model was reliance on self to complete work: “I think I learn
better when I am responsible for the work.” The final reason was the
consistent presence of and interactions with an expert: “Using a mentor
kept my attention and I appreciated the expert feedback. I suppose I like a
true and tested leader. . . . I also liked the relationship and one-on-one
teaching that occurred in the mentor format.” For 18% of the teacher-learners,
the choice of format did not matter or depended on the content to be learned.
One wrote, “Either, I enjoyed both experiences. . . . I found them to
be effective ways of learning and processing new information.” Another
wrote, “If I were going to learn how to use a specific software tool,
I would choose an online mentor [COPLS]. If not, I would choose a course
using discussion forums [Blackboard].”
Perception of Positive and Challenging Aspects of Each Learning Environment
To answer the second and third research questions - what were the positive
aspects of each environment and what were the challenging aspects of each
environment, surveys were qualitatively analyzed to identify emerging themes
related to
the guiding research questions. Teacher-learners’ comments about the
positive and challenging aspects of each learning environment focused on
three themes: issues related to self-regulation, the impact of the facilitator
or
mentor, and the influence of either the presence or absence of a peer group.
Self-Regulation
As teacher-learners
reflected on their experiences in both learning environments, all of
them commented that the demands on managing their
time and the workload were much more difficult than they had anticipated.
They had expected a lighter workload and more time free from their studies.
They were surprised at the amount of work and time commitment that succeeding
in an online course demanded. Their survey responses reflected comments
like “[I felt] tied to the computer,” “both courses
were much more work than I anticipated,” “there were a lot
of assignments for such a short period of time,” and “the
challenge in both courses was the time involved.” These issues
of coping with a demanding workload and unanticipated time commitments
impacted how they perceived each of the learning environments, noting
both positive and challenging aspects related to issues of self-regulation.
Teacher-learners remarked that the structure of Blackboard with specific
timelines for completing modules and a group format allowed them to
offload self-regulation
requirements, centering self-regulation externally in the features of the learning
environment. Comments such as “I felt pressure from my group because
they were good and dedicated. I think that was really good for me” represent
this feature of the Blackboard design. Others remarked that Blackboard “really
forces me to stay on task and to stay disciplined in turning in assignments,” “is
more structured and it keeps me on a schedule,” and “forced me
to stay on top of things.” Conversely, some teacher-learners felt the
structure of the Blackboard environment interfered with their ability to structure
their time in such a way that they could complete assignments in a timely fashion.
They expressed difficulty “finishing on time” and “keeping
it a priority.” One summed it up by stating, “If you are the type
of person who likes to get things done right away and your group members are
the opposite that causes added stress.”
Issues related to self-regulation were also an important part of teacher-learners’ perceptions
of the COPLS learning environment. A majority of the teacher-learners noted
that in the COPLS model self-regulation moved from the external regulating
features of Blackboard to the need to take charge of their own self-regulation.
Responses included, “I was having to constantly evaluate myself and my
work,” “responsibility falls on the individual making him/her more
disciplined,” “didn’t need to rely on anyone else to complete
assignments on time,” and “I like to take control of my learning
whenever possible.” One respondent felt that the design of the COPLS
learning environment is one where “you can’t escape your duties
and obligations.” There were no direct references to self-regulation
challenges associated directly with the COPLS model although one teacher-learner
did write that “The [COPLS model] gave me too much flexibility.” Challenges
associated with the model emerged more directly in later themes associated
with the absence of a group.
The Role of the Facilitator and the Mentor
Whether learning in a classroom of many like Blackboard or a classroom
of one like COPLS, teacher-learners were never alone. The design of both
learning environments included the presence of a guide with expertise
in the content and some level of skill in teaching online. In Blackboard,
this included a course instructor knowledgeable about web-based learning
and peer facilitators who received additional support from the course
instructor. In COPLS, this was reflected in the role of the online mentor
who had both theoretical and practical experience with desktop publishing
and educational software in the K-12 classroom. The role of the course
instructor, the peer facilitator, and the online mentor was perceived
by teacher-learners to have a significant impact on their learning experience
and perception of the learning environment. When teacher-learners perceived
the instructor/facilitator/mentor as skilled, knowledgeable, and responsive,
that role was viewed as a positive contributor to their perception of
the learning environment. When teacher-learners perceived the instructor/facilitator/mentor
as unresponsive or not thoughtful about the course content, the role
was viewed as interfering with the quality of their learning and learning
experience.
In the Blackboard learning environment, there were both a course instructor
who served as master facilitator and rotating peer facilitators. There were
many positive impacts expressed by teacher-learners concerning the role of
the course instructor. The course instructor was viewed as supportive, encouraging,
and important. Teacher-learners appreciated the feedback of the course instructor
and remarked many times about the importance of the thought-provoking questions
asked by the course instructor. Two responses capture the essence of the positive
impact of the course facilitator: “The discussion was better when [the
course instructor] was part of them – maybe because she had a better
focus of where she wanted it [the discussion] to go,” and “My experience
with working with [the course instructor] was great! She was very organized,
efficient, available, encouraging, and helpful. She kept the group on track
at all times and was always there to offer suggestions, positive feedback,
or clarifying directions. The course ran very smoothly. Having a dedicated
facilitator is what makes or breaks this type of an online course.” Only
one teacher-learner viewed the peer facilitator’s role as contributing
to the positive aspects of the Blackboard course: “Working with peer
facilitators and working as a peer facilitator was very powerful.” Three
teacher-learners commented on the ability to experience the facilitator’s
role as a positive aspect of the Blackboard course. In many instances, however,
teacher-learners found working with a peer facilitator to be a challenging
aspect of the Blackboard learning environment. One wrote, “Working with
a peer facilitator has definite drawbacks. The quality of discussion and group
products depends entirely on the motivation and commitment of the student facilitator.”
In the COPLS learning environment, the online mentor’s role was viewed
as positive when it included mentors who provided timely answers to teacher-learner
technology questions, gave supportive assistance and encouragement, worked
with teacher-learners to modify activities to meet their individual needs,
were prompt in providing insightful feedback and recommendations, and asked
evocative questions that extended teacher-learner thinking and help them connect
their learning and their practice. One wrote, “I was more comfortable
working with a mentor – the questions were more pointed – the answers
more sure.” Another wrote, “You will absorb valuable insight from
your online mentor in the responses she has to your work. Working with an online
mentor was a great experience. Communicating one-on-one enabled me to gain
almost immediate feedback to questions and projects completed.” A third
wrote, “I enjoyed the role of the mentor. . . . I appreciated the expert
feedback. . . . I also liked the relationship and the one-on-one teaching that
occurred.” Finally, one teacher-learner stated, “[My mentor] was
very quick to respond to my questions, problems, and submitted projects. She
always came back with positive feedback, thought-provoking questions, helpful
suggestions, and encouraging comments and compliments. It was comforting to
have that kind of support and encouragement through these sometimes overwhelming
courses.”
Conversely, when the online mentor failed to provide timely feedback,
minimized interactions with teacher-learners, and was not receptive
to the individual’s
learning needs, the role of the online mentor was perceived to be a challenging
aspect of the learning environment. Representative of the challenges expressed
by teacher-learners, one wrote, “There were times when my mentor was
away from the computer for an extended period of time. This impeded my progress
as I couldn’t continue without her feedback on some assignments.” Another
wrote, “Even though we had an online mentor, it did not make a difference.
The online mentor helped as much as she could but it was difficult for me to
ask her questions.” A third wrote, “Working with the online mentor
was more difficult. It was hard to know where the mentor was coming from with
comments; it takes more time to develop a rapport with a disembodied email.
. . .” Finally, one teacher-learner wrote, “You are your own teacher.”
The Influence of the Group
In the
Blackboard course, the role of the group had a significant impact on
teacher-learners’ perception of the learning environment. The
group was sometimes seen as a powerful source of support, insight, and
collaboration. Other times, the group was seen as a strong impediment
to learning. While there was no group in the COPLS model, the influence
of the absence of a group was seen to impact teacher-learners’ perceptions
as strongly as the presence of a group in the Blackboard learning environment.
Some of the teacher-learners saw the absence of a need to work collaboratively
as a positive aspect of the COPLS model; others missed the opportunity
to collaborate with peers. In many ways, the absence of the group allowed
teacher-learners to take more control of their time and work flow while
others felt the absence of a group left them without external pressure
to adequately manage time and work. While this relates to the previous
theme of self-regulation, it is less a function of self-regulation and
more a function of the absence of a group inherent in the COPLS classroom
of one design.
In the Blackboard learning environment, the group was perceived as a
powerful source of varied perspectives, peer feedback, sharing of ideas,
and structure
for the learning process. Comments included, “having a sounding board
was a positive aspect of group experience,” “getting different
perspectives,” “a feeling of human interaction without face-to-face
contact,” and collaborating “led to better products overall.” One
student elaborated, “I feel like our group bonded. Not only did we go
through an online class together, we watched each other get married, get engaged,
and have children all the while encouraging each other. If someone was having
a rough patch, the others picked up the slack.” Another felt, “Learning
in a group environment enabled me to learn from group members whose opinions,
feedback, insight in discussions, in my lesson ideas, and in projects have
affected me positively.” Finally, one teacher-learner wrote, I learned
so much from my peers’ thoughts, ideas, and classroom experiences. I
think so much more can be learned and accomplished when brainpower is combined
and utilized.”
The role of the group in Blackboard, however, was not always viewed as
a positive aspect of the learning environment. Instead, it was frequently
seen as source
of frustration. Responses reflecting this frustration included dissatisfaction
with the “uneven participation by different people in the group.” Members
found it “challenging and frustrating when group members vary in their
levels of commitment.” Teacher-learners found it challenge to wait “on
group mates to do their part” and to maintain “meaningful dialogue
when postings are randomly performed.” One teacher-learner was “hesitant
to post information because others used it without contributing themselves.” The
attitude of many of the teacher-learners was captured by this response: “I
acknowledge that people work at a different pace. However, at times, I felt
that a few individuals in the group carried others. I felt this to be very
unfair.”
In the COPLS learning environment, the absence of the group was viewed
as a positive feature by some of the teacher-learners. Its absence
allowed them
to “work at my own pace,” and “make my own schedule.” One
wrote that a positive aspect of the COPLS model was that she had a “stronger
sense of ownership of work done well since I am the only one doing it.” Another
wrote, “I’m a bit of a perfectionist so it is really hard to for
me to entrust the final project to anyone other than myself.” Finally,
one teacher-learner wrote, “I like to be in control of my learning whenever
possible and I struggled slightly with the group work . . . I found the difficulty
in working every day. When things got especially chaotic in my personal life,
I sometimes found it difficulty to work the [Blackboard] class into my schedule.
Whereas, the [COPLS] coursework I could do a lot one day and a little the next
day. I think the freedom of the [COPLS] course worked better for my schedule.” Conversely,
many teacher-learners missed the support and sharing of the group. They missed
having classmates to “discuss and compare assignments” and “to
share the workload.” They felt the absence of the group put pressure
on them to be more accountable. The response that best captures the feeling
of the teacher-learners stated, “It seems more difficult to not have
peers to compare how you are doing.”
Conclusions
At least two options exist for the design of online learning environments:
an approach that uses a course management system and the more traditional
structures of a classroom to include multiple students, group discussion,
and shared timeframe for progressing through assignments and an approach
that uses an individualized approach where the mentor-learner dyad structures
the flow of work and conversation as well as the flexibility to negotiate
timelines, assignments, and interactions. Both options support high quality
learning experiences for teacher-learners with neither emerging as better
or more popular. Teacher-learners stated that the quality of learning
in both learning environments was equal yet indicated clear distinctions
between the two learning environments. The majority of teacher-learners
were able to choose between the learning environments if given an opportunity.
Study results suggest a slight preference for the COPLS model although
no overwhelming preference in favor of one model over the other emerged.
There was some evidence of a relationship between content and learner
characteristics as influences in their choice of learning environment.
Despite the apparent equality of the two learning environments, aspects
of the design of each emerged as influential in impacting the learning
experience
of teacher-learners. The ways in which each learning environment affected perceptions
of self-regulation, the role of the instructor/facilitator/mentor, and the
influence of the group emerged as dominating themes. The Blackboard learning
environment was perceived as an external affordance for self-regulation while
the COPLS learning environment was perceived as requiring internal self-regulation.
This difference was seen by some as positive and others as presenting a challenge.
Regardless of the learning environment, the role of the instructor/facilitator/mentor
was essential. When the role was implemented with rigor and attention, it was
a significant factor in enhancing the learning experience. When the teacher-learners
perceived a lack of attention and rigor in the implementation of the instructor/facilitator/mentor’s
role, it was a significant factor in diminishing the learning experience. Finally,
the Blackboard learning environment was perceived as affording collaborative
activities when group members participated while the lack of participation
was perceived as a negative influence. Likewise, the COPLS learning environment’s
focus on the mentor-learner dyad was perceived as affording learner control
while simultaneously lacking the input of peers and the sharing of work.
Thus, regardless of the online learning model, careful attention must
be given to the relationship between the structure of the learning
environment and the
three factors of self-regulation, the role of the instructor/facilitator/mentor,
and the role of the group. It is essential that aspects of the learning environment
facilitate self-regulating activities for learners. The design of the learning
environment must include features that scaffold time management, pacing of
work, timely completion of tasks, the use of appropriate learning strategies,
and a learner’s sense of ability to succeed. It is essential that those
who choose or are asked to serve as instructor, facilitator, and/or mentor
are well prepared to carry out the role of a skilled online guide. Those who
serve in this role must understand the online learning process, the structure
of the learning environment, the need to build relationships with learners,
strategies for supporting and promoting learner self-regulation, and methods
for summarizing and evoking student learning by asking thoughtful questions,
building connections with prior learning and with future practice, eliciting
reflective thinking, and promoting problem-solving. It is essential that designers
carefully consider the implications of structuring learning with or without
a group. If the learning environment creates a classroom of many, strategies
must be included that support the work of the group to encourage robust and
productive participation, cope with groups or group members who do not experience
successes, and help group members develop questioning, collaborating, and reflecting
practices. If the learning environment creates a classroom of one, strategies
must be included that insure frequent and meaningful interactions between mentor
and learner, focus attention of the relationship of the mentor and the learner,
provide sufficient examples and perspectives, promote prompt and in depth feedback
and exchange of ideas, and maximize the potentials inherent in a flexible learning
environment.
References
Allen, I. & Seaman,
J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States,
2005. Retrieved September 28, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degrees.pdf
Brown, J.
S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.
Firdyiwek,
Y. (1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy. Educational
Technology,
39(1), 29 –34.
Harris, J. (1998). Curriculum-based telecollaboration: Using activity
structures to design student projects. Leading and Learning with Technology.
26(1) 6-18.
Herrington,
J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning
as information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research. 16(4), 353-367.
Lave, J. & Wenger,
E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levine,
A. & Sun,
J. C. (2003). Distributed Education: Summary of a Six-Part Series.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.
Retrieved on October 1, 2006, from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf//distributed-learning/summary/dist-learn-exec-summary.pdf
Norton, P. (2003). COPLS*: An alternative to traditional online course
management tools (*Patent Pending). Charlottesville, VA: Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Norton,
P. & Sprague, D. (2000). Teaching with technology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sonwalkar, N. (2001). Changing the interface of education with revolutionary
learning technologies. Syllabus
Magazine. Retrieved on December 10, 2002, from http://www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine/article.asp?id+5663
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. NY: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
Williams, R. (2003). The non-designer's design book (2nd ed,). Berkeley,
CA: Peachpit Press.
|
