Newsletter: 4 September 2002

Welcome to the Toucan House Online Ed. Updater - 4 September 2002

This occasional newsletter keeps you up to date with innovation and change in online and flexible learning. In this edition:

Excerpts from a paper given at the 2002 Distance Education Association of New Zealand (DEANZ) conference on the challenge of maintaining the quality of learning when adapting or developing for the web. Two different development models are compared, one that is driven by operational requirements, the other based around qualitative outcomes. Useful indicators of quality are also outlined.

The full paper incorporates a mixed mode delivery case study to illustrate the practical implications of each model. It can be viewed/printed at: www.toucanhouse.co.nz/newsletters/qualityelearning.html

Previous updaters are archived at www.toucanhouse.co.nz

What factors drive the development of the training materials?

When organisations are confronted with the task of developing or adapting online/distance materials, the drivers that determine the development process and the resources that will be used are often not so much pedagogical as operational. Common factors include:

Financial and timeframe constraints on resource development
Previous decisions regarding software selection and delivery tools
The extent to which staff skills are locked up in existing workloads
The form and availability of existing resources
A cost driven management focus

If these drivers dictate development to the exclusion of educational and pedagogical concerns, there is a danger that the finished material will:

Need to be accessed through technologies that are unavailable or unsuitable to learners
Not capitalise on best-fit technologies
Set up assumptions about learning that are untrue or inappropriate for the particular learners
Not facilitate learning to the depth required by the curriculum

Online learning development therefore needs to be based around a design model that focuses on qualitative outcomes. In short, if it isn't going to work well, don't do it.

Which design model ends up being used?

Where operational demands dominate, the design model is often based on the following sequence:

Select the delivery tool. Driven by:
- The existence of legacy systems
- The 'best fit' for existing course resources, with a focus on minimising the adaption process.
- Lowest implementation cost
- Minimising the need for staff training or upskilling in order to implement delivery
'Path of least resistance' development
- Collate existing resources (usually print) and adapt for online/distance delivery.
Supplement the core
- Provide communication, support or learner feedback to the extent permitted by timeframes and budgetary constraints.

Adopting such a model involves running a number of risks. Many of the elements that make up effective face to face instruction are not readily adapted from course resources. For example:

Much of the actual content is often in the head of the presenter, not on paper
The role of a presenter as motivator can be missed in the adaption process
The ability to provide immediate feedback to learner's concerns or problems is part of the face to face environment. Distance delivery usually involves delays in providing feedback. Good online delivery will address this issue by developing extensive feedback resources that are immediately available to learners.

Where the needs of the learners dominate, the design model is often based on the following sequence:

Learner profile analysis
- The people
- The environment, physical and technological
Curriculum design
Delivery methodology (technologies and modes of study)

Note that in this model, a decision on the technologies and modes of study comes after the needs of the learner have been identified, whereas in the previous model, they become a 'given' that learners just have to cope with, appropriate or not.

Keeping the quality

Often, reservations about online/distance learning revolve around the presence or absence of the strengths of face-to-face learning. Those strengths include:

The ability of a lecturer to motivate and provide specific and immediate feedback to learners
The opportunity for learners to interact with each other as part of the learning process
The diverse range of activities that can be engaged in
The range of resources that can be used as part of the learning process

Clearly, current technology constrains mean that those strengths cannot usually be replicated in their current form in an online environment. For example video-conferencing is not a realistic option for many online/distance courses, so a learner is not going to engage visually with a lecturer. It is tempting to assume, for example, that an online course will therefore necessarily lack sufficient motivation and stimulus, and that there will be less immediate feedback to learners.

However the fact that a particular element of delivery cannot be replicated exactly does not mean that the particular qualitative element cannot be achieved through a different process. Quality online/distance materials do not need to be delivered in the same way, they need to achieve the same qualitative outcomes.

Where quality is lost in the process of moving to online /distance delivery, it is often due to:

A failure to incorporate the strengths of face-to-face delivery brought by the lecturer/presenter. An excessive focus on the adaption of print and media resources to the exclusion of the role of the lecturer/presenter will result in the sorts of problems identified above.
A failure to recognise the increasing need for structure and direction as the learner becomes more remote from the lecturer/presenter.

Addressing these concerns will go a long way to ensuring the desired qualitative outcomes are achieved. The following list details a number of qualitative indicators that emerged through the process of developing TESS2000 (www.tess2000.com).

Consistency between objectives, content and assessment
A clear framework for the structure of the material and explicit learning pathways
Appropriate chunking of material to engender a sense of progress
Adequate summarising
Explicit learning activities that are pitched at an appropriate level for course objectives and cater to different learning styles
Learning resources appropriate for course content and learners
Enterprise/learning skills developed not assumed
Writing style appropriate to learners and subject matter
Adequate feedback available in an appropriate timeframe for learners
Assessment structures and standards explicitly stated and pitched at the same level as the learning objectives
Visual presentation of material is stimulating, consistent, aids understanding of the content and is appropriate to the learner

Conclusion

There is a range of operational pressures that are always going to constrain the extent of development work that can be undertaken in producing online/distance course materials. Where they dominate the design process, it is likely that the online distance course will be developed around existing resources, particularly those which lend themselves to easy modification for online delivery. The danger in using such a design process is that the contribution of the lecturer/presenter is undervalued, and course requirements are introduced (technological and pedagogical) that are not appropriate to the learner. There is also the risk that the depth of learning required in course prescriptions does not occur, as learners spend more time acquiring information than applying learning to the real world.

Development of online/distance courses will always involve a trade-off between operational constraints and pedagogical values. However there is little point in embarking on a development process unless there is confidence that the finished materials will result in learning to the required depth and standard. Basing the development process around a set of qualitative indicators is therefore a necessary step in an effective design process.

It is necessary to have a clear understanding of the learner profile, the course requirements and the delivering organisation's objectives in order to set acceptable qualitative standards. It therefore follows that using an educational design process that places these parameters at the centre of the design process is an effective method to help ensure an effective course is developed.