Personal Framework for e-Learning Design

When preparing my reflective synopsis for EDED20491 I found it useful to reflect on my personal framework (design principles) for e-learning design. This framework is still embryonic but this a summary of how I made sense of: my learning style preferences; learning theories; frameworks for understanding the relationships among content, pedagogy and technology; and thinking routines to scaffold student learning—and thought about how they may influence my teaching praxis.

My e-learning design principles are based on my personal learning style preferences and my engagement with the following Learning Theories (Fasso, 2013a):
• Behaviourism (Mergel, 1998)
• Cognitivism (Mergel, 1998)
• Constructivism (Vygotsky, n.d.)
• Connectivism (Siemens, 2004)

Through exploring these theories I have learnt more about myself and have improved my understanding of how and why everyone learns differently. Implications for e-learning design are that I need to provide structure and guidance so that every student can work through their own pathway to achieve the learning outcomes. These principles are examined in more detail in my Week 1 and Learning Theory blog posts.

Three frameworks of classifying learning objectives were explored that provide guidance as to how to select appropriate technologies to support the pedagogies I would like to employ to teach the content knowledge in my teaching areas. They were:

• Bloom’s taxonomy and the updates
• Bloom's Revised Taxonomy
• Bloom’s digital taxonomy
• Productive Pedagogies
• TPACK 

As argued by Mishra andKoehler (2008) quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content and pedagogy and using this understanding to develop appropriate context-specific strategies and representations. I have explored the implications of these frameworks on my teaching praxis in my blog posts on Bloom’s taxonomy, Productive Pedagogies and TPACK.

A new concept introduced in this course was the use of Thinking Routines such as Plus-Minus-Interesting (PMI) and Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analyses to scaffold student learning. I had heard of these techniques before but did not fully appreciate their usefulness in moving students to use their Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) to solve problems and create new learning artefacts. Though I am aware that I should not to be too prescriptive in my scaffolding as Wendy stated in an email:

“…in your classrooms, there may be the temptation to be prescriptive about assessment. Although scaffolding is important for your students, your decisions about how much scaffolding to provide may in fact limit the creative potential of the assessment. Asking your students to make decisions about the best way to present information, based on their knowledge of the purpose and audience of the presentation, is an open-ended design. It also makes a task more complex as they work in the upper domains of Bloom's taxonomy.” (Fasso, 2013b)

When working in with digital pedagogies scaffolding may be provided to the student in ways that incorporate some use of ICTs. Technology has the potential to contribute to the provision of scaffolding. Changes in the students’ capabilities may be achieved through the learner's competence with technology being used to expand independent problem solving, and technology-enhanced scaffolding may reduce the need for assistance and/or extend the range of assistance provided to the learner. In other words technology-enhanced scaffolding may increase the size of the students’ Zone of Proximal Development (what the learner is capable of doing with help).

At this point in time I am concerned about my limited depth of knowledge and experience in applying these learning theories, classification frameworks and thinking routines to my teaching praxis. Though I do acknowledge that these tools will be invaluable to me as I continue to construct my personal framework for e-learning design while I am teaching during my prac work.

References:

Concept to Classroom (2004). Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html

Fasso, W. (2013a). A brief Overview of Learning Theory. Retrieved April 1, 2013, from CQUniversity e-courses, EDED20491: ICTs for Learning Design, http://moodle.cqu.edu.au

Fasso, W. (2013b). EDED20491 Week 6 email sent April 8, 2013. 

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved April 2, 2013 From http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basics%20of%20Behaviorism

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, New York) (pp. 1-16). Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/AERA2008/MishraKoehler_AERA2008.pdf.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivisim: A learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Vygotsky, L. (n.d.). Social Development Theory – Vygotsky. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-development.html