Knowledge + Learning = Performance

Technology-enabled learning has become a staple in how adults partake in life-long learning. Government and military were early adopters of technology-enabled learning, particularly via simulations. Workplace eLearning programs aim to provide just-in-time access to key job-related knowledge and skills training. Academic eLearning programs provide greater accessibility to higher education for busy working adults. Against this context, what can we make of Kasworm & Londoner’s (2000) three elements they argue "influence the design and conduct of technologically-mediated learning systems for adults" (p. 234)?

1. “Who should be responsible and have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience [for technology-based learning programs]?” (p. 234)

Kasworm & Londoner (2000) posit that authority for learning process and design can reside with many different parties: instructional designers, technical support groups and experts, learners, and instructors. They argue that the traditional ISD model of instructional design—when applied to technology-enabled learning—is too inflexible to “target specialized learner needs, create unique classroom dynamics, or introduce new and varied content” (p. 235). Furthermore, Kasworm & Londoner argue that technical experts run the risk of becoming too “enamored by the ‘bells and whistles’ possible in the technologically-mediated learning approach” (p. 235).

In my experience as a designer and developer of eLearning since 1990, I have personally witnessed both of these issues. I have seen instructional designers struggle to adopt their behavioral, and often sequential, mindset to the more fluid and flexible approach that is preferred when developing engaging eLearning. For example, the tendency of instructional designers new to eLearning often is to create a “page-turner” program with a certain number of content screens followed by a multiple choice question. After 10 minutes of this for the learner, this is no longer engaging nor are the multiple choice questions likely to be measuring knowledge acquisition much beyond the knowledge or comprehension level. I have also seen programmers and media developers create beautiful interactive media, but with questionable instructional benefit. For example, what is the true educational value of a simulated 3D office environment with full-motion video inserts of talking heads? Other than requiring significant bandwidth and graphics processing power, how does having this type of “edutainment” help the learner truly learn the material any better or at a higher cognitive level? In fact, I often caution clients to beware of eLearning vendors who say their programs are highly interactive when what they really are is highly entertaining and media rich; true learning comes from the learner interacting with the program based on decisions they make—it does not mean passively watching the monitor as a video or animation plays.

So who is responsible and should have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience for technology-based learning programs? Simple. The learner should. It is up to the instructional designers and technology experts to come together to create programs that are engaging, educational, and provide for flexible pathing through the material, e.g., test-out options for more advanced learners and remedial review for those who need additional assistance. Therefore, the learner should be considered throughout the design and development process, and be an active member during Pilot testing by providing constructive feedback to help improve that and future programs.

2. “How can practitioners create learning processes and design for these interactions and connections [between learners, instructors, and content] to occur?” (p. 237)

In a related vein, Kasworm & Londoner (2000) caution about “the repetitive nature of technology learning modules, the lack of instructional connections to the adult learner’s background and current communities of practice, and the lack of critical engagement in the content knowledge and skills” (p. 237). One potential solution is the use of blended learning—a mix of technology with instructor-led or other high-touch (rather than high-tech) techniques. Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) expand this definition of blended learning to include “different online learning delivery methods, such as asynchronous and synchronous course delivery [that] can be used to create effective training and development solutions that reflect a sophisticated blending of new e-learning technologies and alternative approaches to instructional design” (p. xvii). In fact, some of the different eLearning categories presented by Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) include facilitated synchronous learning (i.e., live online training), facilitated asynchronous learning (e.g., online learning such as that offered by Walden University), self-paced computer- or web-based training, and collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards).

In my experience, I have used all of these instructional techniques either on their own or as part of a blended learning strategy. In selecting courses that make good candidates for delivery via strictly technology-delivered methods, I recommend selecting those courses that have (1) a large audience, (2) stable content, (3) interaction needs that translate well to the selected eLearning approach, and (4) a content area with natural “pull” (i.e., one that learners are motivated to complete). In addition, technical, procedural, and factual content are excellent candidates for eLearning delivery; “soft skills” and application can certainly be accomplished via eLearning, but preferably only if the budget allows for a more extensive development effort and if the team has access to instructional designers and technology experts experienced in building interactive simulations. Another viable option for this type of learning is to use a blended approach. For example, present the procedural/factual prerequisite knowledge via self-paced technology and then the application, analysis, and synthesis components via an instructor-facilitated method (whether face-to-face classroom or facilitated online learning). Collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards) can also be used very effectively (1) before learning to establish the learning community and ensure understanding of prerequisite knowledge; (2) after the learning event to reinforce the training and ensure transfer of the new skills and knowledge; and (3) by the team designing and developing the learning itself.

3. “What should be the place and role of evaluation and critical reflection for instructors, designers, technical support personnel, and learners?” (p. 238)

The last element Kasworm & Londoner’s to consider is evaluating learning via technology. Kasworm & Londoner (2000) lament that “traditional learning systems often use both formative and summative evaluation to improve a learning event…however, there is limited discussion of models and strategies for effective evaluation within technology-mediated instruction” (p. 238). Perhaps this was the case at the time of the writing of their article, but progress has been made to ensure evaluation is a critical component of distance learning programs. Allen (2003) recommends the use of rapid prototyping as a method for formative evaluation via successive cycles of design, creation, and evaluation (p. 137). Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) recommend establishing and tracking measurements of both business impact and training efficiency. For example, business impact metrics might include participation, progression, and satisfaction; and training efficiency metrics might include cost and time measures, level 1 evaluations, level 2 tests, and level 3 assessments (per Kirkpatrick’s model) (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2005, p. 145).

In my experience, one can design distance learning that provides the learner with multiple opportunities to evaluate their own knowledge—and to give them control over their learning experience based on the results of that evaluation. For example, pre-tests can be used to give learners the ability to opt out of particular sections/modules; these results can also help direct the learner to those sections of the course that best meet their needs. Pre-test versus post-test results also can be compared to provide quantitative evidence of increased learning resulting from completion of the learning program. Additionally, if the organization links their training to a Learning Management System, these results can be rolled up to analyze trends at a module, course, curriculum, or even particular demographic or subgroup level—all very important data and feedback points to help shape current and future programs.

And one last very important point—in evaluating eLearning programs, it is important to remember to give more credence to the feedback received from the learners—and not the sponsors/those paying for the program. I have seen too many programs fail because a key stakeholder said, “I know what the learners need and want” rather than finding out for sure from the learners themselves. Adopting the approach used by information technology professionals, the design and development of distance learning and eLearning programs should always be user-centered.

References

Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen's guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective programs for any company. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bielawski, L. & Metcalf, D. (2005). Blended elearning: Integrating knowledge, performance support, and online learning (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Kasworm, C., & Londoner, C. A. (2000). Adult learning and technology. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 224-241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com