Learning Design: Activities

There are 3 types of activites ISDs need to incorporate in virtual learning programs: Absorb, Do, and Connect. Ask yourself, what knowledge does the learner need to absorb? What skills does the learner need to do/perform? What area of life does the learner need to connect the knowledge and skills to?

Absorbing information can be done through presentations, storytelling, reading,and/or real or virtual field trips. Multimedia is often a great way to engage students in order to be sure they process given information. Use PPt, videos, podcasts, live lecture and discussion, or a live demonstration.

Do activities transform absorbed information into knowledge and skills through practice, hands on tasks, and teamwork. Learners can discover trends and principles through case study and role playing. Simulated environments can help learners make decisions and take action.

Connect newly found skills to real life by thinking deeply, researching, and referencing the application of knowledge. Learners are encouraged to openly consider the impact, context, and concept involved in their studies. They summarize and evaluate information, consult various resources, and create original work and ideas of their own.

Recommeded Activity Allocation
Absorb (extract and comprehend knowledge) - 40%
Do (excersize/automate/explore acquired abilites)- 50%
Connect (trigger conceptual breakthroughs/ relate to prior learning)- 10%

Reference
Currently reading: E-learning by Design By William Horton
Online @ http://www.horton.com/portfolioactivities.aspx

Learning Design: Culture

“E-Learning courses are cultural artifacts, embedded within the cultural values, preferences, characteristics, and nuances of the culture that designed them”, and they “inherently create challenges for learners from other cultures” (Uzuner). Culture can be defined as the acquired behaviors, perspectives, and value characteristics of a particular group or community. In that, instructors/trainers often teach using the dominant cultural attitudes and values of the group, neglecting those of the minority. So, what are the some of the effects of culture in asynchronous/ synchronous learning environments?

First lets compare the learner differences between Western (United States) and non-Western cultures. Western learners tend to honor individual interests and are extremely independent. Western education also tends to reproduce the ideologies of its society through educational credentials that maintain individual privileges of class, perhaps neglecting the surrounding community. In contrast, non-Western, indigenous cultures feel that learning is collective, in which the Self is interdependent on the community, society, and the universe. The purpose of learning is not self advancement, but empowerment to be active in the community, and be in balance and harmony with one’s surroundings.

Instructional considerations toward being sensitive to culture in eLearning environments include:**Providing a safe environment so users have a high comfort level for participation and use of personal opinion and emotion in online discussion. **Have set rules, expectations, and requirements for personal involvement, and forewarn learners of the cultural impact of material. **Encourage learners to expand their social presence, and depend on both teacher and peers for learning.

References
Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of Culture in Distance Learning: A Research Review. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10:3, 1-19.

Learning Development: Accessible Technology for the Deaf and HOH

Hearing loss not only affects childhood development of cognitive and linguistic skills, but it also affects cognitive, social cognitive, social constructivist, and embodied learning skills in adults. The sensory effect of audio on individuals in traditional learning environments needs to be compensated for in deaf learning environments. It is imperative that deaf individuals have equal access to all the same information as their hearing peers.

According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), there are approximately 28 million people in the United States with some degree of hearing loss. This number includes persons who were born physically deaf, became deaf at a given point in their lives, or are HOH (hard of hearing). No social or political class in the U.S. is void of deaf culture, and the goals and motivations of adult deaf learners can be equated with those of androgogy in that they are based on the individual. Deaf learners are present in our colleges, universities, and workplaces and they deserve equal learning opportunities.

CART stands for Communication Access Real-Time translation. Former court reporters access the audio of educational classes or business conferences through a phone line or over the internet. While listening to what’s being said, CART providers simultaneously translate the audio word for word with just a two second delay. They are able to translate so quickly by using a form of shorthand on a stenograph machine and special software.



The end product is a full screen of text delivered over the internet displaying word for word translation of the spoken word into text. It is much faster to say what you have to say than write it, so “in real-time interactions, at the speed of thought, we prefer to talk rather than write." (Dror, Harnad, 20) CART is the only service that can offer deaf learners a word for word, 99% accurate representation of spoken audio in real time.

View a streaming text demonstration from leading CART provider Caption First here:
http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=NetcaptionDemonstration

CART technology is internet based, and therefore portable; it can be used in conjunction with conference calling, game networking, live web casts, online radio shows, and even You Tube videos. Text is streamed to televisions, video screens, projectors, PCs, laptops, and even handheld devices like smart phones. Live CART can actually be merged with most synchronous learning platforms already in place in corporate and university environments. For example, a caption pod can be integrated to stream live real time text from remote locations over the internet within Wimba, Elluminate, Blackboard, Adobe Connect, and Second Life, as well as conferencing systems like WebEx, WebCT, and IDEAL conferencing to name a few.

Reference
Dror, I. E., & Harnad, S. (2008). Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In I. Dror & S. Harnad (Eds.), Cognition distributed: How cognitive technology extends our minds (pp. 1-23). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.

Learning Theory: Connectivism?

The 21st century is upon us and with it comes an “explosion of information and the changing nature of knowledge creation, access, and use” (Strong & Hutchins, 2009). Connectivism is an idea (not yet considered a theory) that learning occurs between and among technologically and socially enhanced networks of diverse people. As compared to some of the more traditional theories, connectivism approaches learning as complex, chaotic, and rapidly changing with an emphasis on a learning style that can easily find connections and patterns among networks (nodes) of information.

Use of connectivist ideas in learning means content is produced by students, not provided by a teacher, and is “more likely to resemble a conversation than a book” (Strong & Hutchins, 2009). The teacher will simply facilitate connections between and among influential people who can provide networked information to help students “cultivate trust through interdependencies” (Strong & Hutchins, 2009).



Criticism of connectivism asserts that the learning involved depends completely on the use of Web 2.0 technologies, and requires more skill in filtering information than in actual cognitive ability. “Memory [essentially] resides in the collective network”, and you attain knowledge “through collecting people” (Strong & Hutchins, 2009).

Reference
Strong, K., & Hutchins, H. (2009). Connectivism: A theory for learning in a world of growing complexity. Impact. Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 53-67. doi: 10.5043/impact.18