Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
eLearning and the Design of Everyday Instruction
Dr. Brad Mehlenbacher Training & Development (ACCE) NC State University [email protected] www4.ncsu.edu/~brad_m The Joseph D. Moore Chair Colloquium Series
The traditional classroom ...
l “Just before an airplane breaks the sound barrier, sound waves become visible on the wings of the plane. The sudden visibility of sound just as sound ends is an apt instance of that great pattern of being that reveals new and opposite forms just as the earlier forms reach their peak performance”
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. NY, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 27. Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport
Adopted from:
... has been transformed
l “Alienation from a natural milieu can be good for us and indeed is in many ways essential for full human life. To live and to understand fully, we need not only proximity but also distance…. Technologies are artificial, but — paradox again — artificiality is natural to human beings. Technology, properly interiorized, does not degrade human life but on the contrary enhances it”
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. NY, NY: Methuen, pp. 82-83. Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport
Adopted from:
Alienation from a natural milieu
l Most compelling rationale for a thorough investigation of eLearning is that eLearning by its very nature artificializes our definitions of – learning and the learner – instruction and its relationship to the
classroom – resources and tools for instruction, and – the lifelong learning that pervades our
professional and personal lives
Balancing proximity and distance
l Just as electricity cannot be reduced to mere bits and bytes without a content, so too is it problematic to reduce learning to content, modules, objects, “infodelivery,” or “infoconsumption”
l Technologies that distribute my classroom across
time and space necessitate a re-articulation of what I value as natural about my non-distributed (“traditional”) classroom
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School P.
Adopted from:
Distribution and transformation
Graduate course materials delivered via WebCT Vista at NC State University: Browser interface, Vista features, online course structure and organization, and the instructional materials (returning to “My WebCT” allows access to Discussion List).
Adopted from:
Online theory versus practice
1. System administration challenge related to logging in 2. Privacy issues related to learner tracking mechanisms 3. Assignment submission difficulties 4. User interface problems 5. Difficulties simulating “traditional” classroom conversations 6. Simulations are not natural 7. Natural in the classroom is artificial 8. Access to shared resources and spaces 9. Lack of learner “control” in the traditional sense 10. Instructor learning curves that parallel learners’ curves 11. Containment of “course” across time and space 12. Nonfluidity of tools, content, and environment management 13. Nonstandard issues related to learner conduct online 14. Physical limitations with peripherals 15. Instructor monitoring of 24/7 nature of online course
A brief ...
l November 20th, 1993 – Whitehouse publishes press release
announcing creation of Mosaic (the first graphical browser and precursor to Netscape)
– Described as the “digital cannon felt around the world”
– World-Wide Web (WWW) proliferates at a 341,634% annual growth rate compared to Gopher’s 997% growth rate
Zakon, R. H. (2005). Hobbes’ Internet timeline v8.1. Available online: http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline
Adopted from:
History
l December 19th, 2000 – Web-Based Education Commission urges new
administration and 107th Congress to make eLearning centerpiece of national education policy
– “The Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history, reshaping business, media, entertainment, and society in astonishing ways…. But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education
Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC, 1. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport
Adopted from:
... of eLearning
l November 12th, 2004 – Sloan Survey of Online Learning
reviews DE at 1100 universities – Almost 2 million students studying
online, Fall 2003 – Online enrollments continue to grow at
rates faster than overall student body
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Available online: http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey04.asp
Adopted from:
Audience pressures for eLearning
l Evolving Learner Characteristics – 75 million adult learners (40% of population) – 87% of all youth (12-17 years old) use the Internet;
78% of those 21 million people report that they use the Internet at school
– In March, 2000, 47 million Internet users have done research for school or training online; by September, 2002, number grew 34% to 63 million
– 35% of all undergraduates are adult learners, and 70% of them are women
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20). Available online: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ Hitlin, P., & Rainie, L. (2005) and Madden, M. (2003). “The Internet at School” and “America’s online pursuits: The changing picture of who’s online and what they do.” PEW Internet & American Life Project Reports. Available online: http://www.pewinternet.org/
Adopted from:
Workplace pressures for eLearning
l Changing workforce demands and knowledge-based economy – eLearning products and services estimated at 7.1 billion
for 2000; less than 1% of $740 billion spent on education and training of all types in the United States
– eLearning projected to reach $40.2 billion by 2005 – Between 2000-2003, e-purchasing grew 63% – Issues of globalization, accelerated processes,
demographic changes, increased demand for “soft-skills” training in the workplace
Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002). The 2002 ASTD state of the industry report: Executive summary. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Hitlin, P., & Rainie, L. (2005) and Madden, M. (2003). “The Internet at School” and “America’s online pursuits: The changing picture of who’s online and what they do.” PEW Internet & American Life Project Reports. Available online: http://www.pewinternet.org/ Thompson, C., Ganzglass, E., & Simon, M. (2000). The state of e-learning in the states. National Governers Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices Report.
Adopted from:
Technologies for eLearning
l Correspondence courses or self-study – Postal delivery and paper-based
l Audio- and Video-based correspondence l Systems-based distance education
– Multimedia with phone l Desktop and WWW distance education
– Multimedia and interactive WBI – Desktop audio- and video-conferencing – Simulation environments
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 19-31.
Adopted from:
We are not a trade school
l Education versus Training – “… The standard Dean’s Cliché: ‘We are not a
trade school.’ [We] do theory not practice, ‘education’ not ‘training,’ gentlepersonly preparation for the business of life, not raw knuckle plumber’s training for a life of business…. What sustains the ‘trade-school’ cliché is the four-year sequestration pattern, the idea that the purposes and problems of life can be postponed for four years while — in adolescense of all times — we philosophize upon them”
Lanham, R. A. (2002). The audit of virtuality: Universities in the attention economy. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 159-180). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
Adopted from:
Resistance to competition
l Learning from the training industry – “For nearly a decade now the ‘training’
sector has been larger than the ‘respectable’ [‘theory’ world of higher education]. It is clearly our main competitor and has been for a long time…. The ‘training’ world has much to teach us about the uses of educational technology, about bringing courses to market first and teaching them efficiently. And yet most academics do not even know that it exists”
Lanham, R. A. (2002). The audit of virtuality: Universities in the attention economy. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 159-180). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
Adopted from:
Assuming educational leadership
l Training future learning industries – “Distance learning programs are
increasingly being implemented in a variety of organizations and academic settings, despite the limited amount of empirical research on their effectivenss”
Burgess, J. R. D., & Russell, J. E. A. (2003). The effectiveness of distance learning initiatives in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, p. 300.
Adopted from:
Technology as tool versus ...
l Media as delivery vehicles – Technologies are “mere vehicles that deliver
instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition”
l No significant difference – “The good news is that these no significant
difference studies provide substantial evidence that technology does not denigrate instruction”
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-259. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Montegomery, AL: IDECC. Available online: http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
Adopted from:
Technology as mirror
l “The digital medium is not a neutral conduit any more than print was…. The rhetoric of digital expression is already in use across academic life, at least in embryo, and its implications are clear enough and profound”
Lanham, R. A. (2002). The audit of virtuality: Universities in the attention economy. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 159-180). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
Adopted from:
Things and what we think about things
l “Conceptual thought undergoes a radical dramatization in the digital medium, dominated as it is by animation. It is not surprising that, in the digital medium, design, which works always at the interface between ‘things’ and ‘what we think about things,’ should emerge as the central rhetorical … discipline in an attention economy”
Lanham, R. A. (2002). The audit of virtuality: Universities in the attention economy. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 159-180). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
Adopted from:
Sciences of learning
l “… the sheer magnitude of human knowledge renders its coverage by education an impossibility; rather, the goal of education is better conceived as helping [learners] develop the intellectual tools and strategies needed to acquire the knowledge that allows people to think productively about history, science and technology, social phenomena, mathematics, and the arts”
l Learning becomes applied (e.g., learning-by-doing and examples-based learning)
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies P, p. 5.
Adopted from:
Models of cognition
l Information-processing models of human cognition elaborate on – Comprehension – Integration of new information with existing
knowledge structures – Active development of new connections between
new information and the existing state of understanding, and
– Elaboration toward a richer understanding of the subject matter in question
Anderson, J. A. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. NY, NY: Wiley.Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.
Adopted from:
Designs for instruction
l “Circulating human knowledge … is not simply a matter of search and retrieval, as some views of knowledge management might have us believe. While knowledge is often not all that hard to search, it can be difficult to retrieve, if by retrieve people mean detach from one knower and attach to another.”
l Effective instruction involves the transmission of both
declarative or conceptual knowledge (facts, concepts, principles) and procedural knowledge (tasks, actions)
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School P.Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2000). Educating by design: Creating campus environments that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1997). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Adopted from:
Designs for eLearning
l All real-world design problems are ill-structured and “wicked”
l Impossible for design processes to account for every aspect that might affect designed artifacts
l Design must be treated as an evolutionary process, in which all stakeholders continue to learn new information and insights as the process unfolds
Fischer, G. (1995). Distributed cognition, learning webs, and domain-oriented design environments. Proceedings of the CSCL’95 Conference. Indianapolis, IN. Available online: http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/fischer.htmlMoran, T., & Carroll, J. (Eds.). (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 3. Rittel, H. W. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodologies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Adopted from:
Essential tensions
l Tension between studying general design guidelines and principles derived from the research and in applying them to real design problems
l Source of tension between “general advice” and “specific design problems” lies with the design process itself
l Trial-and-error and testing for learning and doing
Mehlenbacher, B., Bennett, L., Bird, T., Ivey, M., Lucas, J., Morton, J., & Whitman, L. (2005). Usable E-Learning: A Conceptual Model for Evaluation and Design. Proceedings of HCI International 2005: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4 — Theories, Models, and Processes in HCI. Las Vegas, NV: Mira Digital P, 1-10. Perez, R. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23 (5-6), 321-349.
Adopted from:
Construction and argumentation
l Design is at its core both constructive and argumentative
l Design is constructive in that it demands synthesis
l Design is argumentative in that design decisions must be justified, tradeoffs in alternative designs must be assessed critically, and others must be persuaded to adopt particular solutions
Mehlenbacher, B., Bennett, L., Bird, T., Ivey, M., Lucas, J., Morton, J., & Whitman, L. (2005). Usable E-Learning: A Conceptual Model for Evaluation and Design. Proceedings of HCI International 2005: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4 — Theories, Models, and Processes in HCI. Las Vegas, NV: Mira Digital P, 1-10.
Adopted from:
Principles of everyday instruction
l The merit of a theory “… depends upon its power for simplifying information, for generating new propositions, and for increasing the manipulability of a body of knowledge”
l Make visible the important aspects of the system/theory l Map intensions to possible actions and actions to their
effect on the system/theory l Anticipate physical, semantic, logical, and cultural
constraints on the system/theory l Design for error (understand causes, undo them, think of
system/theory as approximation of what is desired)
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. NY, NY: Basic.
Adopted from:
A framework for eLearning
l Benbunan-Fich, Hiltz, & Harasim (2005): – Technology (mode, time dispersion, geographical
dispersion, software functionality, reliability, media bandwidth)
– Course (type, size, subject, institutional context) – Instructor characteristics (skills, effort,
pedagogical model) – Student characteristics (motivation, ability, skills/
knowledge, attributes, learning styles
Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous Learning Networks (pp. 19-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, p. 24.
Adopted from:
A model for eLearning
l Jenkins’ (1978) model, reprinted by Bransford, et al. (2004): – Nature of content (modality, degree of
connectedness, engagement) – Teaching and learning activities (lectures,
simulations, hands-on problem solving) – Criterial tasks (recognition, recall, problem
solving, transfer) – Characteristics of learner (knowledge, skills,
motivation, attitudes)
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies P, p. 212.
Adopted from:
A taxonomy for eLearning
l Grabinger (2004): – Learning (traditional ID versus sociocultural ID) – Roles of learners and teachers – Instruction and the environment – Use of tools
Grabiner, S. (2004). Design lessons for social education. In T. M. Duffy & J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education (pp. 49-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 51-53.
Adopted from:
Meta-analysis of research on eLearning
l Distributed across disciplines – All fields exploring implications of technology on
objects of inquiry, methodologies, and instruction – Instruction is “owned” by all fields and disciplines
l 10 graduate students have annotated approximately 200 empirical research articles (published after 1996) – Practice-driven, “boutique” studies – Examinations of technology integration without
instructional transformation – Few references to the same research and little
interdisciplinary replication
Abbott, A. (2002). The disciplines and the future. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 205-229). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. Mehlenbacher, B. Egan, S., & Barksdale, E. (2004). Managing Social Dynamics Online: Real world instructor-learner interaction. EdTech 2004: The Intersection of Learning and Technology. Raleigh, NC: NC State University.
Adopted from:
Research clusters on eLearning
l Information design – Computers and Composition, Information Design Journal, Journal of
Digital Information, Journal of Visual Literacy l Distance and eLearning
– Innovate, International Journal on eLearning, Internet and Higher Education, The American Journal of Distance Education
l Educational, instructional, and communication technology – Computers and Education, Journal of Educational Computing Research,
Journal of Research on Computing in Education l Human-Computer interaction and psychology
– Cognitive Science, Computers in Human Behavior, Ergonomics l Training and development
– Human Resource Development International, Instructional Science, International Journal of Training and Development
l Education in the disciplines – Roeper Review, Journal of Agricultural Education, Journal of
Engineering Education, Journal of Nursing Education, Medical Teacher
5 dimensions of instructional situations
Adopted from: Mehlenbacher, B. (2002). Assessing the usability of online instructional materials. In R. S. Anderson, J. F. Bauer, and B. W. Speck (Eds.). Assessment strategies for the online class: From theory to practice (pp. 91-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Learner Background & Knowledge
Biological (age, gender, race), Abilities (cognitive, physical), Literacies (computer, domain, textual, visual), Socioeconomic (income, geographic, organizational), Personal (learning style, attitude, motivation, self-monitoring)
Learner Tasks & Activities
Represent task + set information goal, Navigate to related topics, Scan information, Understand information, reading to learn, to do, to analyze, to compare, confirm, correct, submitting to computer (ie., goal, intention, action, interpretation, evaluation)
Social Dynamics Instructor presence, Cognitive + social learner identity, Boundaries, Frequency + duration of communications, Responsiveness, Group management and self-assessment
Instructor Activities Content, set objectives, information exchange requirements, topic pacing, sequencing, adaptation to audience, methods of evaluation, strategies for topic elaboration
Learning Environment & Tools
Selection of instructional materials, e.g., reading and writing tools, individual and shared documents, viewing and dissemination methods, atmosphere that promotes mentoring and open exchange of ideas and discussion; ergonomically designed for optimal usability
Dimensions Activities/Attributes
Learner background and knowledge
Accessibility Has the WBI been viewed on different platforms, browsers, and modem speeds? Is the site ADA compliant (e.g., red and yellow colors are problematic for visually-challenged users)? Have ISO-9000 standards been considered?
Customizability and maintainability
Does printing of the screen(s) require special configuration to optimize presentation and, if so, is this indicated on the site? Are individual preferences/sections clearly distinguishable from one another? Is manipulation of the presentation possible and easy to achieve?evaluation)
Error support and feedback
Instructor presence, Cognitive + social learner identity, Boundaries, Frequency + duration of communications, Responsiveness, Group management and self-assessment
Navigability and user movement Does the site clearly separate navigation from content?
How many levels down can users traverse and, if more than three, is it clear that returning to their initial state is possible with a single selection? Can users see where they are in the overall site at all times? Do the locations of navigational elements remain consistent? Is the need to scroll minimized across screens and frames within screens?
User control, error tolerance, and flexibility
Are users allowed to undo or redo previous actions? Can users cancel an operation in progress without receiving an error message? Are multiple windows employed and, if so, can they be manipulated easily?
Social dynamics
Mutual goals and outcomes
Are learners rewarded for using the communication tools? Are communication tools provided that allow synchronous and asynchronous interaction? Do communication tools allow information revision, organization, and management? Are interactions organized around instructional objectives and task deliverables?
Communication protocols
Are instructions provided for engaging with other learners online? Are instructions and resources related to collaboration, teamwork, and group processes provided? Have tools and guidelines for copyright, fair use, and group rights management been made available? Are documents, resources, and task instructions shared across learners?
Shared resources Do tools support group presentation, analysis, problem solving, and artifact construction? Can learners control whether information and communication is private at the individual and group level? Are various media able to be exchanged with ease by learners? Can learners manipulate planning and scheduling resources individually and in groups?
Instructional content
Completeness Are levels clear and explicit about the “end” or parameters of the site? Are there different “levels” of use and, if so, are they clearly distinguishable?
Examples and case studies
Are examples, demonstrations, or case studies of user experiences available to facilitate learning? Are examples divided into meaningful sections, e.g., overview, demonstration, explanation, and so on?
Readability and quality of writing
Is the text in active voice and concisely written (> 4 < 15 words/sentence)? Are terms consistently plural, verb+object or noun+verb, etc., avoiding unnecessarily redundant words? Do field labels reside on the right of the fields they are closely related to? Does white space highlight a modular text design that separates information chunks from each other? Are bold and color texts used sparingly to identify important text (limiting use of all capitals and italics to improve readability)? Can users understand the content of the information presented easily?
Relationship with real-world tasks
Is terminology and labelling meaningful, concrete, and familiar to the target audience? Do related and interdependent functions and materials appear on the same screen? Is sequencing used naturally, if sequences of common events or narratives are expected? Does the site allow users to easily complete their transactions or selections?
Interaction display
Aesthetic appeal Does the screen design appear minimalist (uncluttered, readable, memorable)? Are graphics or colors employed aesthetically? Are distractions minimized (e.g., movement, blinking, scrolling, animation, etc.)?
Consistency and layout
Does every screen display begin with a title/subject heading that describes contents? Is there a consistent icon design and graphic display across screens? Is layout, font choice, terminology use, color, and positioning of items the same throughout the site (< 4 of any of the above is usually recommended)?
Typographic cues and structuring
Does text employ meaningful discourse cues, modularization, chunking? Is information structured by meaningful labelling, bulleted lists, or iconic markers? Are legible fonts and colors employed? Is the principle of left-to-right placement linked to most-important to least-important information?
Visibility of features and self-description
Are objects, actions, and options visible? Do users have to remember information from one part of a dialogue to another? Are prompts, cues, and messages placed where users will be looking on the screen? Do text areas have “breathing space” around them? Is white space used to create symmetry and to lead the eye in the appropriate direction?
Instructor activities
Authority and authenticity
Does the site establish a serious tone or presence? Are users reminded of the security and privacy of the site? Are humor or anthropomophic expressions used minimally? Is direction given for further assistance if necessary?
Concurrency Are feedback and assessment made available for learner viewing? Are site features and materials germane, timely, and designed around learner needs and expectations? Is instructor-learner feedback thought-provoking (e.g., encouraging elaboration, clarification, questioning)?
Intimacy and presence Is an overall tone established that is present, active, and engaging? Does the site act as a learning environment for users, not simply as a warehouse of unrelated links?
Environment and tools
Help and support documentation
Does the site support task-oriented help, tutorials, and reference documentation? Is help easy to locate and access on the site? Is the help table of contents or menu organized functionally, according to user tasks?
Metaphors and maps Does the site use an easily recognizable metaphor that helps users identify tools in relation to each other, their state in the system, and options available to them?
Organization and information relevance
Is a site map available? Is the overall organization of the site clear from the majority of screens? Are primary options emphasized in favor of secondary ones?
Reliability and functionality
Do all the menus, icons, links, and opening windows work predictably across platforms? Have important interactive features and multimedia elements been tested across platforms and browsers?
Conclusions: eLearning fantasies
l “There is no prior history or tradition for this strange half-real, half-fantasy learning space” (Polin)
l “My own private fantasy is that much of standard
teaching even at the university level could be left to the machines, and students could then explore the human side of it all — history, literature, philosophy, whatever — either with multimedia equipment or even with a teacher” (Ravetz)
Polin, L. (2004). Learning with dialogue with a practicing community. In T. M. Duffy & J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education (pp. 17-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ravetz, J. R. (1996). The microcybernetic revolution and the dialectics of ignorance. In Z. Sardar & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Cyberfutures: Culture and politics on the information superhighway. NY, NY: New York UP, 42-60.
Adopted from:
Conclusions: eLearning futures
l “Perhaps the greatest problem one has in an experiment of this sort [teaching] is to keep out of the way” (Bruner)
l “There is so much to talk about and to build” (Durlach) l “The equivalent of a fully equipped kitchen is sometimes
very expensive to recreate” (Schank) l In the meantime, continue
– Developing a comprehensive model for organizing and interpreting emerging research on eLearning, and
– Generating and testing an heuristic tool for designing and evaluating eLearning environments
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Durlach, D. (1997). Affectionate technology. In P. E. Agre & D. Schuler (Eds.), Reinventing technology, rediscovering community: Critical explorations of computing as a social practice (pp. 249-258). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Schank, R. C. (2005). Lessons in learning, e-learning, and training. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Adopted from:
