What is the most important design component in the 4C/ID model?

Group one exhibited three reactions initially to the 4C/ID model: one individual felt that all components were equal, one individual felt that JIT was the most important component, and three felt that the learning task was certainly the most important of the four. Crowe notes that the 4C/ID model is somewhat different from other models: 4C/ID focuses on the integration and coordinated performance of task-specific skills rather than knowledge types, context,or media delivery of presentations and the model makes a critical distinction between supportive information and JIT (Just in Time) information.

Cohorst succinctly states that “this first component is essential, because it is the foundation upon which the other design elements are centered around. The learning tasks are created to promote schema construction and also sequenced in such a way to be the backbone of any training or learning” (Van Merrienboer, Clark & Croock, 2002). However, Carrillo noted that JIT is really a part of all components because a learner must be given constant feedback. Crowe and Carrillo agreed that without just-in-time feedback/information a learner would always be a learner and not a master.

Although components 2, 3 and 4 are vital to effective complex learning, they are all centered around the “learning tasks”. Since the learning tasks could be seen as the goal or product of the blueprint for these other complex learning components, it seems to be the most important aspect of design.

In the end, everyone did agree that a learning task is the foundation of the whole design. All of us note in our responses that it is hard to separate these parts because all four components play such an important role in any kind of e-learning; Carrillo notes that all parts fit hand-in-glove and Ankenbrand noted that all the components interrelate.

Do you agree with Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper’s definition of “learning technologies”? Why, or Why not?

Our group cautiously agrees with the Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper definition of learning technologies: that they are a bridge between the design and the actual implementation of both the skills and the cognition of e-learning. I say “cautiously” because other factors, as noted by our group play an important role: involvement and motivation (Crowe), the instructor (Cohorst), and the objectives themselves (Ankenbrand).

References

Jochems, W., van Merriënboer, J., & Koper, R. (2004). Integrated E-Learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization (Open and Flexible Learning). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Clark, R.E., & Croock, M.B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: the 4C/ID model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2).

Question 1: What would be the most important design component in the 4C/ID model?

In this module, we learned that the 4C/ID model is made up of four components: 1) learning tasks, 2) supportive information, 3) procedural information or just-in-time information, and 4) part-task practice. In order for learners to grasp complex learning, all four components are necessary (4C/ID – EduTech Wiki, 2009; (van Merrienboer, Clark, & de Croock, 2002).

We also learned that we were split when considering this question regarding the most important design component. Two members felt that the learning task itself was the most important. At its core, it is what makes this design process different considering the “whole-task” and the relationships between smaller task procedures. In addition, von Merrienboer and Kirschner (2008) cite that using this holistic approach resolves three common educational problems.

1. Compartmentalization of learning; teaching knowledge, skills and attitudes separately
2. Fragmentation of knowledge; not helping students understand the relationship between knowledge
3. The transfer paradox: Using instructional methods that are efficient however not appropriate for the transfer of learning

Although the learning task is needed to learn, other members felt that the just in time information provides the building blocks needed to learn. The Just In Time component means just what it says, presenting a segment of information at the right time to help the learner to pull it all together so that it makes sense to him. In other words, you would not teach a young learner to read a micrometer that measures in thousands of an inch if he could not read a twelve inch ruler.

Also important, is the fact that learning tasks need to be ordered with the simplest tasks first, leading into more complex tasks. The model categorizes these tasks into “task classes” organized according to whether a task can be completed using the same information or whether more information or “elaboration” is needed to complete the task.

Even with the varying opinions, very valid points were made and the group would agree that all components are very important in complex learning.

Question 2: Do you agree with Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper’s definition on “learning technologies” on p. 7? Why or why not?

With the advancement of e-learning, educational communities are facing a new innovative approach to educational methods, approaches and competencies. With the advancement of technology, new educational opportunities are becoming available at work, at home and in education. Jochems, van Merrienboer and Koper, 2004 are discussing “how an integrated approach to e-learning can cope with the societal and technological changes and move in the direction of complex learning, high flexibility, and integration of learning and working” (p. 2). The authors concerns seem to be from the standpoint that technology is a useful tool but it should not be used just from a technological standpoint. The pedagogical methods and organizational methods of instruction should be considered first and the technologies that will enhance the pedagogical methods and organizational methods should then be chosen. The authors also discuss three approaches regarding the use of technology as follows: (p. 5-6)

• Technology in the lead, is arriving at solutions that are pedagogically poor and organizationally unmanageable, or simply too expensive.
• Pedagogy in the lead, risks delivering solutions that are technologically and organizationally poor, that is to say good ideas that cannot be implemented in the current techniques.
• Organization in the lead, frequently leads to pedagogically and technologically poor solutions.

The group overall agreed with the authors and their definition of learning technologies. Learning technologies do play an important role in education today – whether that education is face-to-face or online.

References

4C/ID – EduTech Wiki. (2009, April 20). Retrieved November 27, 2009, from EduTech Wiki: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/4C/ID

Jochems, W., van Merrienboer, J., & Koper, R. (2004). Integrated e-learning: Implications for pedagogy, technology and organization. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

van Merrienboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 39-64.

What is the most important design component in the 4C/ID model?

The 4C/ID created by van Merrienboer is comprised of four components being learning tasks, supportive information, procedural (just-in-time) information, and part-task practice structured for the design on complex learning (Wikibooks, 2009). According to van Merrienboer, Clark, and Croock (2002), complex learning is “involved with achieving integrated sets of learning goals – multiple performance objectives” (p 40). The concept is that real-life task performance (the whole) is the main aspect with organizing learning skills (the parts) around achieving that task. This model takes care of three shortcomings in previous models (p 39):

• Focuses on the integration and coordinated performance of task-specific constituent skills rather than on knowledge types, context or presentation-delivery media
• Makes a critical distinction between supportive information and required just-in-time information
• Traditional models use either part-task or whole-task practice; the 4C/ID model recommends a mixture where part-task practice supports very complex , “whole-task” learning

Learning tasks (Component 1) are considered the backbone of the 4C/ID model. These can either be handled as real or simulated environments. A key aspect is that the sum of the tasks lead up to the whole task and should be structured as engaged learning activities versus studying about those skills. Learner support is the piece where scaffolding comes into play. The tasks are arranged or group with tasks with a group typically being of similar complexity. The tasks are scaffolded in a way that learner support diminishes as the learner progresses through that task group. Learner support is once again raised for the next task group and this pattern is repeated. The learner support is comprised of these four elements (p 45):

• Given state that the learner is confronted with
• Criteria for an acceptable goal state
• Sequence of operators that enable the transition from the given state to the goal state
• Problem-solving process

Supportive information (Component 2) is commonly referred to as “the theory.” It is considered the connecting bridge between what a learner already knows (experience) and the work that they must complete. Therefore it must include information that allows the learner to productively work on the task and be able to truly learn from the task. Important pieces of this component are mental models (how the world is organized), cognitive strategies (why it is organized in a way), and cognitive feedback (create reflection by the learner on their processing).

Just-in-time information (Component 3) is dealing with recurrent aspects of the series of tasks. This would be ways it relates to different problem situations. A term called fading is applied with JIT information where it is reduced as the learner achieves more expertise in the learning process. JIT incorporates information displays (small amounts of information to prevent overload), demonstrations and instances (allows seeing the current skill within the whole-task), and corrective feedback (immediate right-wrong response).

Part-task practice (Component 4) is necessary when a “high level of automaticity of particular recurrent aspects is required.” This is when the learning tasks themselves aren’t enough practice to support the learning. This includes practice items (practice makes perfect idea), JIT information for part-task practice (accurate performance of a recurrent task), and overtraining (extensive training to make task automatic).

Having one set component within our group was not easy on this one. Zack was partial to learning tasks and Lisa was partial to supportive information being the most important. Lastly, Bob viewed it more from the point that the pieces (listed components) are not enough individually but the whole is what was important meaning that the unmentioned component of balance between those four main components is the most important. We could see each other’s views and relate to the reasoning. Below are the specifics on the first two options of learning tasks and supportive information.

Seeing as the 4C/ID model begins with concrete, authentic tasks designed to construct schema that enable learners to apply the learning to new scenarios, I vote for “learning tasks” as the most important design component. Learning tasks are those things that are most essential, for example, “How to create a lesson plan” is a whole task that can be taken in many pieces, some of which can be dealt with by stressing automaticity (your plan needs to include standards, goals, rationale, and outlines of lessons, etc…) and others that fit the non-recurrent aspects (while structure of individual lessons is relatively recurrent, the actual content is case-specific, or non-recurrent). The other elements are very important; you wouldn’t get far without connecting new learning to some existing schema; but without the overall context of a given task it would be very difficult to do anything meaningful with it.

As Merrienboer, Clark & Croock (2002) stated, “supportive information provides the bridge between what learners already know and their work on the learning tasks” (p.46). Bridging what the learner already knows and being able to provide support that will allow them to apply to another task or build upon that knowledge is the goal. Supportive information helps students develop and connect the new and old knowledge together to provide a better over all understanding. To help build the new relationships this component uses mental models, cognitive strategies, and Cognitive feedback.

References

Instructional Technology/Models of Instructional Design. (2009). In Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Instructional_Technology/Models_of_Instructional_Design

Merrienboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & Croock, M. B. (2002), Blueprints for Complex Learning: The 4C/ID Model. Educational Technology Research and Development. 50(2).

Do you agree with Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper’s definition of “learning technologies” on page 7? Why, or why not?

Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper (2004, p 7) stated that learning technologies “can be considered as a means of formalizing pedagogical and organizational thinking in such a way that it can be implemented in a technical solution.” They really are speaking more on the approach to eLearning by the balance between (learning) technology, pedagogy, and organization. Glynn (2001) presented on technology relating to pedagogy. He summarized similar ideas clearly distinguishing the valuable role it plays with its needs to be used appropriately (speaking to organization and instructional design) and that pedagogy is supported by its use. This goes directly into ideas presented by Jochems, van Merrienboer, and Koper (2004) where they present the balance between pedagogy, technology, and organization and provided this pictorial representation.

They further state that “the development and use of learning technologies” can allow for higher levels of pedagogical implementations and efficiency within the organization while allowing for greater interoperability with respect to technical aspects.

In our opinion, Jochems, W., van Merrienboer, J. & Koper, R. (2004) took a “systems” approach to the definition of learning technology which seems to place such tools in the hands of designers more so than learners. Our default perspective is that of a learner, so my initial thoughts on the definition of learning technologies lean more towards something that learners directly use to assist in learning. We don’t so much disagree with them as question their seemingly narrow definition. History has taught me to be weary of narrowly defined concepts in a field full of unknowns (The Earth is the center of the universe). There was also the feeling of negativity around the concept base with their use of “So-Called” to begin the discussion. Overall they did fall into line with one theme we have heard before, pedagogy then technology. In this respect, they focused on learning technology must always be implemented with thought and consideration to organization and pedagogy.

References

Glynn, G. (2001, July 8). What is the Role of Technology in Pedagogy. Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from http://gaps.cpb.ouhsc.edu/ebir/meeting/talks01/GG.ppt

Jochems, W., van Merrienboer, J. & Koper, R. (2004). An introduction to integrated e-learning. In Wim Jochems, Jeroen van Merrienboer, & Rob Keper (Eds.) Integrated E-Learning: Implications for pedagogy, technology and organization (p. 1-12): Routledge Falmer.

Our group had varied opinions on the e-learning definition that made the most sense to them. Each person brought her own perspective and criteria for selecting a definition, which led to a lively discussion overall that helped shape individual opinions. For example, Megan really related to Sandra’ post:

Your last couple of sentences makes complete sense to me and emphasizes the meaning of e-learning. “Learning should have a goal in mind — something concrete and measurable. Experience is nebulous and subjective based on the individual doing the experiencing! I like the Clark/Mayer definition because it captures the idea of a goal at the outset.” This really sums it up.

Overall, the majority of students found Horton’s definition made the most sense, but recognizes the value of Clark and Mayer’s definition in the academic setting.

Analysis of Horton definition:
According to Horton, e-learning can be defined as “the use of information and computer technologies to create learning experiences” (Horton, 1, 2006). All students really seemed to relate to the openness of the definition, but the openness is a double edged sword – some felt it was accurate to the nature of e-learning, others thought it was too vague for academic learning. The following points emphasize themes the group noticed:

• This definition deals with the goal of having a learner engage in an experience — not a measurable goal.
• Embraces the constructivism view of learning, where learner constructs meaning from their experiences
• The definition is influenced by design, technology and economics.
• He denotes a variety of e-learning modes that represent categories many e-learning forms related to school learning, but also includes less academically rigid, non-graded forms of e-learning (Horton, 2006).

Analysis of Clark and Mayer’s definition:
Clark and Mayer state that e-learning is “training delivered on a computer (including CD-ROM, Internet and Intranet) that is designed to support individual learning or organizational performance goals”, so their focus is more on the informative nature of e-learning related specifically to training or teaching (Clark and Mayer, 2008). This aspect of open-ended versus structured learning is what created the debate in discussion.

The recognition of knowledge and skill building that Clark and Mayer (2008) suggests when they stated “the goal of e-learning is to build job-transferable knowledge and skills linked to organizational performance or to help individuals achieve personal learning goals” is what supports the argument for the validity of this definition. Many group members believe that the inclusion of goal-setting is very important to e-learning.

Furthermore, Clark and Mayer (2008) highlight there are many “elements” to e-learning consisting of “what, how and why”:

• What – Content and instructional methods assist in the overall learning process.
• How – Content is distributed via computer with text, media, and audio through synchronous and asynchronous settings using collaboration through “wikis, discussion boards, and email”.
• How – refers to the “E” in e-learning which is housed in “electronic form”.

These elements were universally agreed to be important to e-learning.

Conclusions
We have come to the conclusion that there are many ways of viewing Merril’s principles of instruction. One member of the group agrees that a linear relationship exist between the phases of learning, noting that the phases build from one another. For example, the prior knowledge scaffolds the learning process and principles of instruction. This group member noted that Merril’s principles of instruction took students from lower levels of thinking to higher order thinking. However, even though the phases have order they are non-linear as they refer back to the problem at hand or a prior step. This outlook notes that the phases can be seen as cyclical or never ending, instead of linear which has unidirectional approach or definite end.

In another sense, Merril’s instructional phases are viewed as having a linear relationship because they build from one another and show order. This is the same thought process as above, except from the phases building from one another and having order are expressed as being linear and/or cyclical. Again, prior knowledge is employed to scaffold learning.

Another point of view suggests that Merril did suggest a linear relationship between instructional phases. Each phase represented learning from start to finish while touching base on how each phase can be promoted through presenting the task, utilizing previous knowledge, demonstration, coaching and incorporation.

Lastly, Merril’s phases of instruction are analyzed as reflecting a linear sequence of events; however the linear sequence is not supported. For example, as stated by the student, “the demonstration of skills might precede activation of prior experience as the demonstration of skills can invoke activation of prior experience.

In conclusion, with the differences of opinions and great points of view, group 2 has reflected on each post and opened our minds to the concept that Merril’s phases of instruction having a linear sequence is based on individual analysis and particular situation. Merril’s phases of instruction definitely demonstrate a sequenced order; however that sequence being linear or cyclical is a matter of opinion. We believe there is not a definite right or wrong answer to Merril’s linear and/or cyclical phases of instruction.

References

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2008). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Horton, W. (2006). e-Learning by Design. Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer.

Merril, M.D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Education Technology Research and Development, 50(3).

Horton and Clark & Mayer’s definitions on E-Learning
Horton (2006) defines e-learning as, “E-learning is the use of information and computer technologies to create learning experiences.” Horton states that the definition is open-ended and continues his discussion by describing the various forms of e-learning, such as standalone courses, virtual-classroom courses, learning games and simulations, embedded e-learning, blended learning, mobile learning and knowledge management (Horton, 2006). It seems that his primary focus is on design. Horton’s definition is very broad and has more application to it.

Clark and Mayer (2008) defines e-learning as, “training delivered on a computer, (including CD-Rom, Intranet, Internet) that is designed to support individual learning or organizational performance goals with the following features:

• Includes content relevant to the learning objective
• Uses instructional methods such as examples and practice to help learning
• Uses media elements such as words and pictures to deliver the content and methods
• May be instructor-led or designed for self-paced individual study
• Builds new knowledge and skills linked to individual learning goals or to improved organizational performance.”

Clark and Mayer (2008) break their definition down further into the “what”, “how”, and “why.” The what of e-learning is the content and the instructional methods of a course. The how is how the course is delivered, usually through a particular format (synchronous or asynchronous). The why of e-learning is why the learner is taking an e-learning course, which is usually to improve job performance or to meet a personal goal. Clark and Mayer definition is very specific.

Group 2 was split down the middle as to which definition we prefer. Those who preferred Horton did so because of the simplicity of his definition and the assumptions which could be made due to that. Those who preferred Clark and Mayer did so because of their more direct, specific definition. This definition takes much of the assumptions out of it. Also, Horton’s definition lends itself to the design of instruction versus the what, how, and why of E-Learning.

Did David Merrill suggest a linear relationship between the instructional phases?
Most of Group 2’s members agree that we found Merrill’s article confusing and hard to read. Merrill talks about problem solving and real-world problems and engaging the student in real-world problems to help draw him or her into the learning. This problem solving approach drives the four phases of effective instruction. The four phases are:

• Activation: Activation is the next phase or principle of instruction whereby the instructor or the facilitator draws out the learner’s previous experience in order to lay the groundwork for new experiences or learning.
• Demonstration: Demonstration is the next phase whereby the instructor shows or demonstrates to the learner what is to be learned by attempting to draw on the learner’s previous experience but all the while introducing or demonstrating the new knowledge.
• Application: Application is the next phase whereby the learner himself has to use the new knowledge and demonstrate that he has actually attained the objective by using this new knowledge in conjunction with his previous knowledge in a real-world scenario.
• Integration: Integration is the final phase and the learner should be able to actually implement the previous application phase into his world or his environment. Learners would also be given time to actually practice their new knowledge and to use it in meaningful ways that the learner can relate to.

In his writings, David Merrill discusses various instructional phases; however, it not clearly suggested that there is a linear arrangement between the phases. Linear by definition would refer to the phases being presented or arranged in a line (Dictionary.com). Obviously there has to be a process to learning, which is the phases he explains, but learning doesn’t start, stop, and then start over. The process is always continuing. The instructional phases are both cyclical and linear.

It was recommended by Group 2 that the flexibility of the instructor to choose the phase of instruction based on the students’ needs is important. One of our group members provided this example: “I can see the value of demonstrating or modeling the learning activity prior first. For example, when I was in conducting sales training with novice representatives I would model the sales call first before expecting new reps to do the same. This was a helpful strategy when reps had no previous experiences from which to draw upon. When training sales reps with the organization for a long time, I might intentionally ask them to activate previous experiences and then reframe the new training material in either the existing context or a new context. Selection of which phase to active first is dependent upon the instructional goal and selected strategies.

References

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2008). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Evaluate definition | Definition of linear. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linea.

Horton, W. (2006). e-Learning by Design. Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer.

Merril, M.D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Education Technology Research and Development, 50(3).

Compare Horton’s and Clark and Mayer’s definitions of e-learning, and discuss which one makes more sense to you.

We will begin with clarifying some confusion between distance education and e-Learning that often leads to erroneous predictions about the future of both topics. Although many believe distance education is new phenomena, it has been a method used to teach for decades. Before information communication technologies removed barriers of communication, people could correspond by delivering letters, phone calls, or messengers. Distance education denotes a physical separation between the student and learner and two-way communication between them. Different forms of media may be used and the instruction can occur asynchronously or synchronously (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005). In our opinions, e-learning is merely the delivery of knowledge using electronic media. E-learning can occur without a teacher and may be delivered without the separation of student and teacher. “Unlike distance education, e-learning is used by all types of students on all educational levels, from kindergarten to doctoral studies. E-learning offers attractive uses for learners of all ages and of various interests and needs. Younger pupils enjoy its multi-media games and fun activities in acquiring very basic literacy skills; older students use its endless information resources for preparing homework, assignments and examinations; and millions of people use e-mail, chat groups and other formats of telecommunication as learners” (Guri-Rosenblit, p. 473, 2005).

Horton (2006) and Clark and Mayer (2007) took different approaches to defining e-learning. Horton (2006) offered a very simple, open-ended definition of the concept in an attempt to freedom of thought and application while Clark and Mayer (2007) delineated a number of specific aspects of e-learning broken down into what, why, and how elements in an attempt to focus their concept on work-place application. I see the value in each approach; Horton (2006) seems to be writing to educators in any field who are interested in e-learning, while Clark and Mayer (2007) focus their attention on a specific demographic. Horton’s (2006) definition made more sense to me because its simplicity and open-endedness make it more widely applicable.

Horton (2006) defined e-learning simply as “…the use of information and computer technologies to create learning experiences” (p1). Horton (2006) claimed that leaving the definition open-ended allowed for “…complete freedom in how these experiences (were) formulated” (p2). The beauty of this definition is its ability to remain true in a field that is constantly in flux. By not imbedding any limitations in his definition of e-learning, Horton (2006) gave us a universal way to define a concept that at times seems rather nebulous without the need for constant revision as the field continues to expand and change due to constant technological advance. To support this, Horton (2006) listed several variations of e-learning that fit nicely under his umbrella: standalone courses (solo learner, self-paced, no interaction), virtual-classroom courses (online class, synchronous/asynchronous communication), learning games and simulations (simulated activities), embedded e-learning (included in another system), blended learning (mix of traditional and e-learning), mobile learning (based on mobile internet devices), and knowledge management (broad-based e-learning).

Our understanding of the definition by Clark and Mayer (2007) states that e-learning is simply learning using a computer through the use of CD-ROMs, the Internet, and the Intranet. It deploys both word and pictures that they expand on saying it covers both print and audible words and pictures encompassing anything from animations to illustrations to video. They were also stating that instructor led e-learning is synchronous although later they included the possible use of asynchronous technology within this environment whereas independent e-learning is asynchronous. Overall e-learning has the purpose of reaching educational goals or to work on organizational skill building or performance improvements.

We believe the Clark and Mayer definition is too narrow and excludes future technologies and objectives from their definition. Why isn’t learning delivered via SMS messaging a form of e-learning under their definition? In the field of education, excluding technologies which do not yet exist would account for a flawed definition. Therefore, Horton offers the best definition for e-learning providing the ability to integrate into education at all levels effectively while keeping a focus on the audience the e-learning is intended for and facilitating the transfer, application, and integration of the knowledge and meeting objectives.

Did David Merrill suggest a linear relationship between the instructional phases? If so, do you agree with how he arranged them, and why?

Merrill (2002) clearly presented five different principles that worked into various instructional design theories available through his research. He did state that not all principles were part of each and every theory presented but in general these five principles were derived from those theories researched for his paper. The principles are:

1. Problem: learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems
2. Activation: learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge
3. Demonstration: learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner
4. Application: learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner
5. Integration: learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world (pg 44)

We agreed with Merrill’s idea of problem solving and having it involved from beginning to end and the problems should be real world based. The activation phase is very logical. Instructors, to start the learning process, should bridge the new knowledge they want to provide with the knowledge students have already acquired (Merrill, 2002). Allow students to share prior experiences and expertise.

In the demonstration phase Merrill believes there is too much tell me versus show me (Merrill, 2008). This can be ineffective and lead a student to feel information over load. A mix of medium to demonstrate the learning goals, problem solving and compare and contrast activities will better cement learning.

Now students are ready for the application phase, applying what they have learned. Instructors helping student accomplish this by providing various problem solving activities. At this phase the amount of coaching needed should be diminished compared to earlier phases, but feedback is still important (Merrill, 2002).

The last phase integration is knowledge transfer. What every course should strive towards; having a student take the new knowledge and be able to apply it to other real life scenarios and other contexts.

These phases are linear and therefore build on each other with problem solving throughout. First principles of instruction phases can be very effective. It is student focused, strives to have learning be engaging, and helps to relate new knowledge by real world problem solving. Another key point made by Merrill (2008) is “motivation (of the student) alone is not enough, you need good content. Real motivation comes from learning.”

References

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (null ed.). Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer.

Guri-rosenblit, S. (2005). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.”Distance Education” and “E-Learning”: Not the Same Thing. Higher Education, 49, 467-493.

Horton, W. (2006). e-Learning by Design. Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59

Merrill, M. D. (2008, August 11). Merrill on Instructional Design. YouTube. Retrieved on Nov 14, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_TKaO2-jXA

This week we focused on trying to define design, technology, and e-learning. While brainstorming, we all seemed to have different perceptions or ideas of what each of the definitions meant. Some of the definitions for design included a blueprints, images, ideas, and plans. Some of the definitions for technology that we came up with included the tools for the design, advancement, and convenience. Defining e-learning seemed to be more universal than the other. Our thoughts on e-learning are that it is a method of gaining knowledge through electronic devices.

After reading and doing some research we realized that when combining these three different elements that we were better able to focus in on a definition of each. First of all, we concluded that design is part of the instructional plan that is based on theories and involves pedagogy and androgogy. When we speak of technology in terms of instruction, we have come to the conclusion that technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning. E-learning can be defined as “instructional content or learning experiences delivered or enabled by electronic technology.” (Practices, 2001)

In summary, we have concluded that design is the plan, technology is the infrastructure, and e-learning is the big picture. E-learning is a puzzle that requires all the pieces, without one piece the puzzle is useless. You can have a design without technology and e-learning. You can have technology without e-learning, but you cannot have e-learning without design and technology. So it is interesting to see how this puzzle works.

Practices, N. C. (2001, June). E-Learning Workforce. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from NGA Center for Best Practices: www.nga.org/cda/files/ELEARNINGREPORT.pdf

Design

Our team expressed their ideas of design as:

• Design is the intentional process of decision-making enabling a final plan for a project.
• It is the thought, documentation, and research used to put something together.
• When I think of design, I think of the planning stages of a new course, a new project or an assignment.
• Design- something that has been purposefully created with the user in mind.
• When I think of design, I think of planning, structuring.

After completed the readings for this assignment I think most of us were on the right track but we also realized the one thing that was missing was experience. We also realized that; “Design is the 1001 decisions, big and small, that affect the outcome” (Horton, 2006, p. 3). Our interpretation of experience is viewing the design or the course from the student’s eyes and his or her interpretation. Careful scrutiny should occur regarding what methods and tools best promote student learning. Once again, student experience is important to the learning process.

Technology

Our team expressed their ideas of technology as:

• Technologies are “digital/electronic tools” used for solving-problems, often enhancing the speed, productivity and efficiency of the process.
• When I think of technology, I think of computers, the internet, medicine, and other detailed, intricate operations.
• Technology is all around us, at work, at home in just about everything that we encounter.
• Technology- everything we use as a tool.
• Technology involves various programs, tools, and hardware – including cell phones, mp3 players, e-books, etc. I think that technology would encompass any electronic device and accompanying program – not to mention the mindset of collaboration and networking.

I think originally most of us thought technology is everything we use as a tool. The Merriam-Webster website defines technology as “the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area” and “a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.” There is no mention of a tool, but we have since expanded our ideas to include the “processes, methods, and knowledge” into our definition. Simply knowing something is also a tool. Our team has also realized that technological use has to be reviewed and caution used, depending on the learner that is involved with the course to be designed. “While the computer technology for delivery of e-learning is upgraded weekly, the human side of the equation – the neurological infrastructure underlying the learning process – is very old and designed for change only over evolutionary time spans” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 28). In other words, a student can be overwhelmed by technology and therefore, the learning can be depressed. The designer must be aware of the technological level of the students the online instruction is designed for.

E-learning

Our team expressed their ideas of e-learning as:

• Learning that leverages technology to maximize and enhance the learning environment.
• E-learning is the use of computer and internet technology to learn any subject.
• In my opinion e-learning is also broader that just online classes, as I often search online for various information that was not so readily available years ago.
• E-learning – any kind of learning that uses the computer as a medium.
• E-learning entails the learning that takes place within the electronic, online environment.

With our original thoughts of e-learning we discussed the use of computers, the technology that is available on the internet and the vast amount of information that was available. The majority of us like Horton’s, 2006 definition of e-learning: “E-learning is the use of information and computer technologies to create learning experiences” (p. 1). In addition, in the “About This Book” section of this textbook Horton, 2006 states the following:

“Over the past decade, e-learning has moved from an experimental procedure used to teach technical subjects within computer companies to a mainstream staple teaching everything from life-saving medical procedures to spiritual vision. If you are concerned with educating others, you cannot ignore e-learning.”

In summary, it is important that we as course facilitators consider all aspects of design, particularly the student experience, while implementing and incorporating the appropriate technology. It should be our goal that our course promotes transfer of learning.

References:

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E., (2008). e-learning and the science of instruction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published by Pfeiffer

Horton, W., (2006). E-Learning by Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published by Pfeiffer

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from the url: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology

We all had already done some reading as we did our brainstorming posts. We did a good job of stepping back and reflecting on what we thought the definitions were. In the end of the brainstorming activity our definitions of technology and e-learning were very similar. Technology being tools and support that allows us to reach our desired outcomes – could be learning objectives or life objectives. E-learning is learning delivered using technology; might be videos, online discussions, audio, simulations, and interactive activities. Our design definitions were more varied , but had some common themes like structure and goals or objectives being met were present in them all.

After all the reading and some additional research was done on these terms I found that my definition of design changed, it was enhanced. I never incorporated the user experience in my definition, which should be considered in the design and final product. Andrew felt that his original thoughts on the defintions did not alter much after further reading. It just further confirmed his understandings. Zack also felt his definition of design was enhanced by th reading and research. He stated, “the most interesting and enlightening ideas on design came from Maeda’s (2007) discussion on Sekkei and Dezain – the complex mechanical function of design and the emotional function of design, respectively.” Maeda provide valuable insight from his perspective. On the other terms Horton’s information followed his line of thinking. Bob didn’t really see changes with anything except for the design aspect. Like Zack, the powerful description attained from Maeda in the Japanese language references as well as the incorporation of the importance of “efficiency, usability, and structural elegance” (pg 32) as components of design were enforcing a strong foundation. Another key aspect that can’t be overlooked is the impact of the design on the user experience as Krishman and Rajamaniskam (2004) and Nussbaum (2004) mentioned.

In sharing our exemplary design examples we went in a variety of directions. Andrew used a work project and described the design process and final design strategy/plan that was going to be used to implement a document sharing application. I described a website, http://www.bbc.co.uk, and a device, iPhone, as examples. I also wanted to reflect on the experience part of design and compare it to a real world application. Zack used D2L as his example. He discussed the features he felt were exemplary and supported it with the research he had done. Bob also tied into a work project similar to Andrew dealing with the design of training on the new learning management system being introduced to the pilot faculty group still in its early stages of design and development.