Context:

Planning for the space of learning

October 1, 2007
George Siemens
Learning Technologies Centre
University of Manitoba

Introduction

Evaluating context requires consideration of numerous elements and environments which influence both design and delivery of a particular learning task, activity, or program.

Traditional instructional design captures many of these elements (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, CDT (Merrill)). The very intent of ISD, however, is its weakness – namely making explicit intended learning and planning clear, concise approaches to achieving intended outcomes. Clearly defining learning assumes “things won’t change” (content, nature of interactions, changes in related disciplines which impact the information being discussed) between the point of design and the point of learning. This may work for many fields – especially where change is not significant – but models which neglect the adaptive nature of learning and the emergent structure of interactions are less appropriate to today’s work environments than they were in the past.

David H. Jonassen (1991) suggests a key point of failure in Instructional Systems Technology (IST) relates to:

Fundamental IST processes, such as task analysis, behavioral objectives, criterion-referenced evaluation and mathemagenic strategies all reflect a behaviorist tradition.

Jonassen acknowledges that many of the behaviourist roots have been abandoned, but numerous elements remain. In particular, he calls for an “organismic view” (don't say that too fast) of learning, where the learner does more than simply acquire “knowledge”; she/he actively interacts with the environment, and is influenced by multiple occurrences, media, and application.

The Network

The "organismic view" is no where more evident than the informal spaces of learning formed online through blogs, wikis, and social networking tools. Networked views of information and knowledge suggests that our approach to instructional design be less rigid in advance of the learning and more involved after the learning has started. Or, put another way, we need to focus less on designing the learning content or activities themselves, and pay closer attention to creating the space, environment, or context of learning. As Stephen Downes suggests in Are the Basics of Instructional Design Changing, educational theorists need to consider five important aspects of adaptive knowledge:

• knowledge is subsymbolic
• knowledge is distributed
• knowledge is interconnected
• knowledge is personal
• knowledge is an emergent phenomenon

As stated, instructional design needs to make two substantial changes:

1. Stop seeing learning design as a task that occurs in advance of the intended learning, and begin to see it as a part of the learning process itself
2. Begin to focus more on the context of learning (designing environments of learning) and less so on the intended content of the learning activities (course, workshop, or program)

Traditional ID is broadly concerned with designing the learning/experience and not as concerned with the environment or context. Yet, the context of learning – as presented by numerous learning theories – including situated cognition, activity theory, and constructivism (and, I might as well add, connectivism) – strongly determines the quality of learning.

Consider, for example, frequently held views on aspects of analysis as expressed by Rothwell and Kazanas (1998) :

1. Needs assessment
2. Relevant characteristics of learners
3. Characteristics of work setting
4. Job, task, and content

These analyses then lead to the formation of learning (performance) objectives, determining measurements, sequencing, specifying instructional strategies, and designing instructional materials. The process is involved and detailed. This model may work well (with the exception of the concerns noted above - namely start/stop views of design's role and failure to account for adaptive context/environments of learning) for designing an entirely new course or program. But reality presents a different picture for most implementations of technology in learning.

The Reality

In reality, however, most implementations of technology in classrooms or training sessions are far less structured than dictated by ISD. The previous experience of learners, world events, changes in technology, culture of a department, and numerous other factors strongly impact the effectiveness of the designed content and learning intended. Many departments (academic or corporate) do not subject learning design to the rigid analysis and structured planning phases of ISD.

Rapid instructional design (.pdf) has gained some interest – particularly in environments where instructional interventions are required quickly (a company entering a new market, new research unveiling key flaws in existing education). With roots in traditional software testing models, RID incorporates many factors of “actual use”, resulting in a learning model which captures more of the contextual elements (even if only implicitly) than other models do. While RID reduces the time required to bring new instructional materials to learners, it is often based more on feedback gleaned from implementation testing, rather than established learning theory. In short, RID effectiveness has not yet been subject to sufficient research to determine best practices and habits.

Our concern then rests in adopting a model of learning design that is capable of:

1. Capturing the context of a particular learning situation
2. Permits individual faculty members (trainers) to implement technology-use without relying on extended and complex processes.

The development of new programs, training sessions, workshops, or courses (all terms which continue to carry the notion of start/stop learning which has long been the focus of ID, but that is a focus of future discussions) will best be served by ISD approaches as reflected in established research (though increased attention should be paid to context of implementation). For many learning development environments, however, a less structured and more fluid approach is needed.

We will focus broadly on the following elements of design:

1. The spaces of learning (context)
In complex, rapidly changing environments, the design of the space carries more influence than in static environments. Consider the web as an example – as new technologies and resources emerged (bandwidth, new tools, new forms of interactivity) – the design of the web itself became the primary task for groups like W3C. Essentially, W3C determined “allowable” activities by the design of the space. This approach worked well as no clear determined outcome or direction could be determined with full confidence. Too much was changing too rapidly. In terms of ID, a simple rule exists: The less precise the outcome of learning, the less rigid our design methods. When we know an intended outcome in stable environments, traditional ISD will suffice. When we are unsure of all factors, we need to rely increasingly on designing the space of learning, not the learning itself. Of greatest value are spaces which can adapt or adjust based on needs of learners and outcomes of their interactions (which is one reason why personal learning environments gain favor over learning management systems for many learners involved in fields of rapid change, networked learning, or learning with high degree of social presence).

2. The connections of learning.
The experience of learning includes numerous factors (discussed in more detail below): the nature of the content, the profile of the learner, skills and familiarity of faculty members, media and technology available, etc. Many recently-developed learning theories (constructionism, constructivism, situated cognition) place greater emphasis on the interactions occurring between learners than behaviourist or cognitivist theories. Concepts such as interaction design seek to attend to this gap.

What is Context?

Context, in relation to learning, consists of the environment, circumstance, and events which impact a learning activity, program, or project.

Elements of learning context:

1. Space of learning
- Online, f2f, blended
- Lab, work?
- Formal? Informal?

2. Attributes of Learner
- Background
- Language
- Familiarity with technology
- Motivation
- Proficiency as learners

3. Nature of learning experience
- Intent of learning (what problem will be solved, what opportunity will be opened)
- Mandated
- Self-motivated
- Intended method of content presentation (lecture? PBL? self-discovery? as job-aids? "just-in-time"?)

4. Faculty/trainer Experience
- Comfort with technology
- Preferred method of teaching (lecture, PBL, etc)

5. Type of content
- Established?
- Learner-created?
- Accepted? Exploratory?
- Directly experienced? Indirectly ascertained?

6. Media and Technology employed
- Asynch
- Synch
- Media format: images, text, video, audio, simulations
- Mobile
- Centralized? Distributed?
- Design tools (interactive activities, response mechanisms – i.e. clickers)

7. Push back factors (what will cause the project to slow/stumble/fail)
- Learner
- Department
- Other faculty
- Organization (especially with newer, experimental tools)
- IT departments

8. Models of assessment (how will learner competence be assessed?)
- Authentic assessment
- Testing? Online?
- Meta-assessment (evaluating effectiveness of design, tools, and learner performance

9. Support, help, mentoring
- Where will designer find help?
- Where will faculty find help?
- Where will learners find help?
- Is a mentoring system in place for designers and faculty?

Alignment is a key concept, which threads through the entire process. Learning outcomes, tasks, tools, faculty, learners, technology, and other factors, must be considered as part of a larger system. A systemic focuses ensures that elements decided at one level of the design process do not subsequently conflict with elements made at other stages (such as frequently cited examples of a corporation rolling out learning programs on CDs, only to discover salespeople’s laptops don’t have CD drives, or media-rich learning planned for remote locations failing to account for slow connection speeds).

Context Worksheet

The following list includes a few simple questions to help faculty, educators, trainers, or others not privy to formal instructional design processes. These questions are intended to provide a quick overview of factors which require consideration when implementing technology in learning - whether as simple as adding a blog or podcast component to a face-to-face class, or as complex as moving a program from lecture-based instruction to problem-based learning in virtual worlds (such as SecondLife)

1. What is the intent of the learning? Is a clear goal known?
2. What are you designing? Learning? Environment?
3. What is the nature of the environment: directed? Self-directed? Linear? Networked?
4. Describe the intended learner, focusing in particular on traits that will impact their use of learning resources or materials.
5. How will learners create their own networks for sustained, continual learning after the workshop/course/program?
6. What are potential media formats? (for both design and delivery)
7. In what situations will learners be using your materials?
8. With what devices will learners be accessing your content?
9. What types of technologies will best meet the needs of learners, the environment, faculty, nature of content?
10. Describe the experience of faculty in the use of technology:
11. What is the nature of content? Will learners be asked to “co-create”?
12. How will time distinctions be handled? (Synch, Asynch)
13. How will learners connect and dialogue with each other?
14. What will be the nature of pushback? From which department or people will resistance arise?
15. How will you evaluate meta-elements – such as course learning evaluation?
    

References

Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm? David H. Jonassen (1991). Educational Technology Research & Development 39(3):5-14

Mastering the instructional design model: a systemic approach (2nd Edition). William J. Rothwell & H. C. Kazanas (1998). Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License