Designing Online Learning Sites to Cater for Learning Needs

In this paper a model of how different student learning needs can be supported by the various functions of, and strategies for, online learning will be developed. This will allow readers to understand how the various components of an online learning site, such as information areas, interactive tutorials, quizzes, and access to threaded discussions and chat can support the design of effective student learning environments. A vignette of a health sciences subject will be used to illustrate how the model can assist the design process. Learning is a complex process How do students learn the important ideas they need to know? Do they assimilate information which they then reproduce? This might be possible for certain facts, but even then, if the facts are all unrelated, it is hard to remember them. Learning is much easier if connections can be made between ideas and facts. How can these connections be made? Is it by rules, as in a system of information processing, much like the way a computer can be programmed? This might be possible for learning fixed processess which are always the same, for example, a laboratory procedure such as setting up an electrical circuit from a diagram, or routine clinical procedures like taking a patient’s blood pressure. But sets of rules are not enough when learners need to solve a problem they have not seen before, or when they want to design something quite new (a bridge, a poem, or a plan for doing new research). Something else is needed then. In these cases, learning appears to be a complex process where knowledge is constructed from a variety of sources. What students learn depends on what they already know, how they engage with new ideas, and the processes of discussion and interaction with those they talk to about these ideas. Designing for learning is a complex process We do need to recognize the diversity that online learning needs to cater for: • diversity in students (academic motivation and orientation, linguistic and cultural background, prior educational experiences, learning styles and approaches to learning); • diversity in the learning contexts they will be in (e.g. problem-based learning programs, workplace learning, studio-centred learning, programs with intensive block teaching, cross-sectoral programs and tailored industry-related programs); and • diversity of teachers’ approaches to and beliefs about teaching and learning. When commencing the design of either a new subject*, or the redesign of an existing subject there are a number of factors that increase the likelihood of creating effective learning activities and opportunities. The designer needs to: • consider how the subject is embedded in a discipline or professional context, • specify how learning outcomes are linked to student activities, • link the assessment tasks chosen to specific student learning outcomes, • provide multiple modes of support, and • incorporate student activities that require students to engage in active and meaningful tasks. (*Note that we are using the term ‘subject’ to mean a unit or module within a degree or diploma program. This is the terminology used in the example was have chosen.) Focus on student learning needs Of particular importance in the list above are the student activities: ‘What does the student actually do?’ Biggs [1] provides a valuable model of curriculum alignment focused on students learning through meaningful activities. One key aspect is how students interact with learning materials, with the teacher and with Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE’02) 0-7695-1509-6/02 $17.00 © 2002 IEEE peer learners. Broadly, interactivity for computerfacilitated learning (CFL) environments can be thought of as interactions with either the: • content which might be text, audio visual resources, graphics and static visual representations, scenarios, simulations, and/or quizzes; or with • people via asynchronous online communication (threaded discussions/ newsgroups) and/or synchronous communication (chat). Sims [2] defined interactivity as having a number of dimensions including aspects of control, adaptation, participation, meaningful learning, communication, enabling effective interactivity and engaging students in narrative. However, the four dimensions of interactivity suggested by Aldrich, Rogers and Scaife [3] are more congruent with the framework articulated below in this paper (Table 1). The four dimensions are: • visibility and accessibility which can provide a way for students to visualize content in different ways (e.g. text and images in a glossary or FAQ) and/or allow students to access content in different ways (e.g. online, print, and CD-Rom for off-line browsing). • manipulatability and annotatability which includes the facility for students to restructure content (so, don’t restrict student’s ability to download text or images and do provide electronic copies of documents for searching). The construction and reconstruction of content by careful design of student tasks, and the tools to accomplish those tasks is also important in this dimension. • creativity and combinability. Students might create new content by combining media, constructing their own glossaries and/or engaging in online role-playing activities. • experimentation and testing. Students might play an animation, manipulate variables in a simulation, engage in debate and argument, and/or take a quiz. In reflecting on many years of educational design experience, we have realized that most discussions with university teachers centre around three levels. In initial discussions we are often asked what is the potential of online technology. What does it offer that can enhance or replace face-to-face modes of operation? The four areas listed at the top of Figure 1 are always part of this initial exploration. In discussing these potential benefits we always focus on what students need in order to learn (second level) before discussing particular (micro) design ideas for the particular project in question. These three levels are depicted in Figure 1. supports fundamental