Models and methods – practice

It is vital that e-Learning be driven by pedagogical principles rather than technologies and that feedback and assessment be an integral part of the learning experiences. Stoltenkamp (2012:35) suggests that “it is the merging of teaching and learning approaches and technology that enables the creation of effective eLearning models”. These, she maintains, provide “structured approaches to the implementation of eLearning”. Stoltenkamp (2012:27) furthermore asserts that these models ought to be built “on the pedagogy of existing models”.

A range of principles can thus form the basis of tailored learning environments for e- Learning that will be advantageous for a dynamically changing school education system. These include, but are not limited to:

 independent and self-directed learning;

 collaborative learning that allows for engagement between learners and teachers, social learning opportunities;

 cognitively engaging, interactive learning, experiential and exploratory learning; and

 structured learning, guided learning, learning that is authentic and meaningful. Learning methods are referred to as “ways through which instructors deliver instructions and learners access these instructions” (Kahiigi, 2008:77-88). Models of e-Learning are described by Mayes and De Freitas (2004:5) as “where technology plays a specific role in supporting learning”. They further maintain that this can be described both at the “level of pedagogical principles and at the level of detailed practice in implementing those principles”. For the purposes of this study, the term ‘model’ includes frameworks and approaches.

2.2.9.1 e-Learning models clusters.

An overview of a selection of the known models shows how e-Learning may be implemented in practice. These models are used in the analysis of e-Learning practices in this study. Mayes and De Freitas (2004:24) group e-Learning models into clusters along the lines of their pedagogical underpinning. These are: subject matter

focus, cognitive/constructivist, socially-mediated constructivist, and building communities of practice. The researcher has not used the same clustering, but instead has mapped each model into the table of teaching and learning constructs from the previous section (see Table 2.4). The following models relevant to this study are included in the mapping. Only the first three (1–3) are discussed in this section. The remaining five (4–8) are available in Appendix C.

1. Laurillard’s conversational model 2. Salmon’s five-stage model 3. Learning objects approach 4. IMS learning design

5. Gagné’s (1985b) nine steps of instruction 6. The DialogPlus project

7. CSALT networked learning model 8. The OU (IET) extended

Table 2.5: Mapping of models into teaching and learning constructs Teacher- centred Learner-centred Subject-centred Behaviourist S; G Cognitive L; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Humanist/Social S; DP; CNL; LO Incidental / Own learning Sequenced IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Instructivist IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Constructivist L; IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO;G Connectivist IMS; S; DP CNL; LO Learning objects IMS; LO Learning objects IMS; DP; LO; G Direct instruction IMS; S; DP; LO; G -based activities L; IMS; DP; CNL; LO; G Cooperative activities IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Guiding instructions IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Injection IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Construction L; S; DP; CNL; LO;G; G Immersion IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO Templates IMS; G Integration L; S; DP; CNL; LO; G Representational IMS; DP; LO; G Generative L; IMS; S; DP; CNL; LO; G KEY to models:

 L – Laurillard’s conversational model

 IMS – IMS learning design

 S – Salmon’s five-stage model

 DP – The DialogPlus project

 CNL – The CSALT networked learning model

 LO – The learning objects model of learning

2.2.9.2 Laurillard’s conversational model (L)

The Conversational framework of Laurillard focuses on interaction between learners and teachers, that is the “continually iterative dialogue between teacher and students [that] is essential if the students are to be sure that they have understood the teacher’s concept” (Laurillard, 2002b:144-145). Laurillard’s analysis of academic learning sees learning as mediated through interaction between teacher and individual learners as opposed to situated in direct experience (Mayes & De Freitas, 2004). The model sees interaction on two levels, that is, a “discursive, theoretical, conceptual level” (Laurillard, 2002b:144) and the “active, practical, experiential level” (Laurillard, 2002b:144).

The core tenet of this model is the concept of feedback, either directly from the teacher or from others, or from a digital tool. Implications for e-Learning include designing activities and opportunities for learners to engage with content and obtain feedback on their progress. This sets up opportunities for cognitive development and the options to build on previous knowledge and/or experience.

Application or implementation of this model is via a teaching strategy. The conversational framework provides a description of five teaching and learning events or actions. These are acquisition, discovery, dialogue, practice, and creation. These events take place at different times and as required in different configurations (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2005:4). They are essentially learning experiences which enable teaching strategies. Exploration of the content or subject is “a personal activity”, but the teacher is available to “continually monitor” the progress and “provide detailed feedback on developing skills and knowledge” so that learners “may continue to improve” (Fox, 1983:156-157).

The implication of Laurillard’s conversational model for this study is that there are learning events that directly influence teaching strategies. Exploring how teachers engage with technology could reveal the differences between using technologies and integration technologies. Such indicators could further be used to confirm or deny the UNESCO and DoE developmental levels.

2.2.9.3 Salmon’s five-stage model (S)

Salmon’s Five-Stage Model (Salmon, 2000) provides a framework for good practice in engaging learners in online discussion through five incremental steps. These steps form a scaffolding of learning. As a practice it can also be applied to non-online environments. It focuses on the progression in the quality and intensity of interaction between learners–learners and learners–teacher.

The model describes how to motivate online participants, to build learning through online tasks (e-Tivities), and to pace e-learners through stages of training and development (Mayes & De Freitas, 2004). Given its focus, the model is characterised as being sequenced and structured much like the IMS model. Salmon’s model is a teaching and learning model. It is different from Laurillard’s model which appears more learning-approach focused. It displays social methodologies and is indicative of scaffolding learning with the chances of cognitive development at each stage. Learning in an ‘e’ environment ushers in a need to address ways of engagement that are educationally sound.

2.2.9.4 The Learning Objects model of learning (LO)

This model is based on the notion of the ‘learning object’ as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning” (Wiley, 2000:3). According to Wiley (2000), the model is instructional and technological, to the extent that learning objects (LOs) have been described as ‘an instructional technology’ rather than a model or approach to learning per se.

The essence of this model, as its learning-design approach, is to sequence learning materials and activities for predetermined outcomes (Mayes & De Freitas, 2004). The core tenet in this model is structured learning. A variation of the learning object is the OU (IET) Extended Learning Objects approach.

The difference in the OU (IET) model is that it represents a holistic learning experience through a learning object. The object is a complete unit of study, that is, learning objects used on their own or within a larger course. It includes a discursive

element, an interactive element, an experiential element, and a reflective element. It could be regarded as a lesson, or a mini-module (Mayes & De Freitas, 2004).

The approach to designing learning engagements in this model is to retrieve LOs from a central repository and to arrange them into an integrated course. The implications of using learning objects have a fundamental impact on e-Learning. The nature of learning objects as digital entities means that they can be used on their own or mediated by teaching. Learning objects can be used in conjunction with a range of approaches for e-Teaching and e-Learning.

2.2.9.5 Reflection: e-Learning models

The core tenets and underpinning in the different models in this section encompass the range of teaching and learning principles. It would not be viable to adopt one model only as the solution to learning design required. Design decisions should be determined by learning needs and context. Use of models and frameworks should factor in adaptations as well as a merging of elements of different models to produce rich learning environments. Table 2.5 shows the mapping of models to teaching and learning constructs from which instructional design decisions could be taken. Understanding these models and the core underpinnings should assist in understanding teachers’ e-Learning practices.