OLE Scope.doc – Derek Wenmoth, March 2006
Fig 1 – Scope of the online learning environment
Figure 1 illustrates the various dimensions that need to be considered in defining an online
learning environment, and highlights the fact that there are no easy answers!
At the heart of the issue for those involved in formal educational institutions (schools,
universities etc) is how we manage the complexity of learning – the very same challenge we
face in designing the ideal face-to-face learning environment! The diagram above is intended
to show a continuum of thought, from “established” at one end to “emergent” at the other,
with neither end being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ necessarily, simply illustrating that the scope of
what we are seeking to cater for in an OLE has increased greatly since the early days of LMS
development.
The way we regard knowledge influences the ways in which we then see the transfer or
appropriation of knowledge occurring. This, in turn influences the way we seek to “manage”
or ‘organise’ the learning environment. (see layers in the first panel)
When the World Wide Web was first used as an online learning environment, the main
emphasis was on being able to upload course notes and resources that supported traditional
transmissive pedagogies of universities. Discursive tools such as forums and discussion
boards were added later on. These forms of LMS are ideally suited to courses that followed a
training model, or where the transmission of existing knowledge is the primary focus.
In the intervening years the ways in which teachers work with students has been changing,
motivated by changes in our understandings about the nature of knowledge and how learning
OLE Scope.doc – Derek Wenmoth, March 2006
occurs. At the same time there has been significant uptake of the use of social software,
allowing users to customise and manage their own online environments, initiating and
managing their own communities of interest and so on. This is putting intense pressure on
those whose practice is confined to the established end of the continuum.
Other considerations that must be taken into account include the theories of learning that
inform our practice – including the emergent theory of “connectivism” as proposed by
George Seimens and others, in an attempt to address what they see as the inadequacies of
current theoretical models to address the learning experience in a socially networked world.
The combination of our beliefs about knowledge, and theories that inform our practice
inevitably lead to patterns emerging the pedagogical focus of our teaching, and also the
patterns of communication that are evident.
Nash et.al. (2004) suggest that;
“ICT-enabled forms of networked collaboration also open fresh opportunities for rethinking the
relationships between different stakeholders because it gives them all more choices about how to
engage in education and learning activities.”
They talk about the main traditional (established) paradigms of teacher-centred classroom
instruction (Fig.2), or student-centred, activity based learning in which the teacher acts more
as a facilitator than instructor (Fig.3).
Fig.2
Fig.3
Nash et.al. go on to promote the idea of a ‘network communication model’ as show in Fig.4
in which the central figure (Learner, teacher etc) is the ‘orchestrator’ of their own learning,
drawing on the appropriate combinations of people, information, services and/or ICTs as
required.
They claim that the new ‘network
communication model’…
“…gives teachers, students and other learners a
new array of possibilities from which to select in
order to reconfigure their access to people,
information, services and ICTs. This can
accommodate either of the other main models
where that is appropriate for local actors. At the
same time, it creates new pathways for e-Learning
innovations, such as new forms of peer reviewing,
sharing teaching and learning experiences or
gaining information and advice from peers,
experts and other sources – on a local or global
scale.”
Fig.4
OLE Scope.doc – Derek Wenmoth, March 2006
Moving down to the “Technologies” panel I have tried to show the sorts of technologies that
are or may be used at the various places along the continuum. I’ve referred to traditional
LMS systems such as WebCT and Blackboard because of how they were originally
conceived, and how they have been traditionally used – acknowledging that there is currently
a lot of re-development work going on to re-design these products to make them more
suitable for the “e-Learning 2.0” environment.
To the right of the diagram I have noted several kinds of “social software” to represent the
sorts of emergent environments that are being used by many of our students – all examples of
the social networking at work, where the individual is in charge of managing what appears
and what is entered etc. This list is illustrative only, and is in no way meant to be exhaustive
list of what is available.
In the middle area are a number of LMS systems that have characteristics that arguably place
them in the centre part of the diagram. While not providing the high levels of user controlled
customization and personalization, or the same extent of social networking capability as the
tools to the left, they are constantly being developed and added to in ways that provides some
of that functionality. Again, this list is purely illustrative, and includes examples of peer-topeer LMS systems.
The final panel notes that there are a range of hosting options to be considered with any of
these systems, with each providing users with both opportunities and constraints on the
way(s) they may wish to use and interact with the different products – including decisions
about the sorts of devices that may be used.
Figure 1 is an attempt to illustrate the expanded the scope of what we might regard as an
online learning environment, and how important it is that, in designing the OLE for use in
any particular learning context, the choice is made on the basis of what is appropriate to the
particular goals and purposes of the programme, the needs and preferences of students, and
the beliefs and dispositions of the teacher. This is what is meant by the statement “managing
the complexities of learning”, which in turn is informed by our knowledge and use of various
learning theories, the pedagogical approaches we adopt, and the communications models that
underpin these.
Many schools find themselves in a position of simply asking, “what LMS should we use?” –
but the answer requires careful consideration of the range of issues illustrated in this diagram,
eg
•
How do we think about knowledge?
•
What do we regard as important about the way learning is organized and managed?
•
What opportunities do we regard as important for learners to participate in the
learning environment?
•
How do we envisage teachers interacting with their learners?
•
How do we want our system to interact with other systems in the school, or in other
schools?
•
Etc.
OLE Scope.doc – Derek Wenmoth, March 2006
The OLE guidelines that I am involved in writing for the NZ Ministry of Education
recognizes that schools are likely to remain the focus of formal education enterprises for
some time yet, and that both our pedagogical approaches and the technologies we use are
changing constantly. As a consequence, a number of compromises will be necessary along
the way, but the important thing is the extent to which these compromises are based on
informed decisions. The guidelines are an attempt to guide schools through the decision
making process, the result of which may be the choice of a suitable LMS, but also, and more
importantly, a more in-depth understanding of how these systems can support the
pedagogical practices of teachers, and the potentials and pitfalls that are inherent in these
systems as they develop.
References:
Nash, V; Dutton, W & Peltu, M (2004) Innovative Pathways to the Next Level of eLearning –
Forum Discussion Paper No.2. Oxford Internet Institute
accessed online: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/publications/OIIFD2_200409.pdf
Gilbert, J (2005) Catching the Knowledge Wave? The Knowledge Society and the Future of
Education NZCER
Cross, J; Downes, S; Seimens, G (2005) archive of an online discussion recorded in Breeze,
accessed 7 Dec 2005 from http://internettime.breezecentral.com/p60356045