Download - Emergence
1
E-learning Emerges
ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROFESSION
Technology is the backbone of the e-learning industry where today’s virtual and supplemental classroom tools include; webinars, live video chat, discussion boards and virtual tours.
Learning Technology Boom
Learners control the stream of information flowing
from their computers with a click of their mouse. This
stream of information flows along the internet as
knowledge breaks past previous barriers of time and
location. Breakthroughs in learning theory rose in
instructional design, from behaviorism, cognitivism,
and constructivism.
This paper presents a brief history of instructional
design and technology starting with WWII, leading to
current uses of technology in instructional design. We
examine three major views and their influences on
instructional design and technology.
Technology in learning has a rich, slow history until
WWII with mass training of soldiers occurring in the
40’s. Research began the rapid, systematic increase
of advances in both learning theories and
technologies. Founded in behaviorism, the modern
groundwork of learning theory experienced a general
drift during the 1950s, toward implementing
scientific approaches to the social sciences. The
merge of psychology and instructional technology
arrived during and after World War II as educational
psychologists developed training materials for the
U.S. military providing research (Berliner, 2006).
The center of attention in instructional research
programs were both on, development of ISD
(instructional systems design) methods for the
investigation of content and tasks; and testing of
variables of design to deliver certain learning
outcomes. For the time being, the ISD methods to
learning theories consisted of automation and the
idea of systems as a complex association of
components, progression and control of
information, thorough breakdown of a task, and
articulate planning and decisions (Shiffman, 1995).
Rhonda Deyoung Nazarena Garrón Ciberay Simon Shadowlight
2
Basic to similar instructional theories was the grasp of forward thinking technology and the "automation" of
the learning process (Tennyson, 2010). The U. S. government advanced its attraction to and funding for
research and development of new curriculum and teaching strategies. Instructional design was viewed as an
effort to create a single norm of instructional theory constructs that would lay out teacher traits,
categorizations, assessments, actions, and ability to change the architecture being tested. The agenda from
this view was the creation of instructional programs that would allow most students to reach heights of
production as calculated, in terms of behaviorally defined goals. A push to move education forward in
instructional design rose from WWII, has not stopped as influences from Behaviorism with teaching
machines and programmed learning opened the door to computers in the classroom. Cognitivism also
influenced the development of instructional design as the individual learner was considered over mass
instruction. Finally, constructivism with its use of models in designing a more flexible learning experience,
provided learners with knowledge based on what they already knew.
The learning perspective
Prior to WWII, Pavlov presented theories focusing on observable behavior grounded in measurable research.
Known for his work with animal responses to a stimulus, Pavlov became the front-runner for the behaviorist
popularity. The fifties saw B.F. Skinner, a proponent of the behaviorist approach, as the most current and
probably best-known advocate of teaching machines and programmed learning. Based on operant
conditioning, Skinner's teaching machine required the learner to complete or answer a question and then
receive feedback on the correctness of the response (Skinner, 1965).
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) entered the arena of
education and training in the 1950s. IBM was first on the scene
as the technology for schools did not receive promised actions
and therefore lost most of their supporters. Technical problems
notwithstanding, CAI grew rapidly in the 1960s as federal
funded research grants and growth in education and industrial
laboratories allowed for technology in education to become
more accepted (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). The U.S.
government wanted to discover whether computer-assisted
instruction really worked, so they created two competing
companies, (Control Data Corporation and MITRE
Corporation) whose projects showed CAI successful as both are
still around today.
CAI from the 50s and 60s centered on teaching machines with some use of computers in the classroom.
There were also, multimedia presentations and programmed instructions. Most systems approaches favored
flow charts, with stages that the designer flows through in the creation of instruction. Founded from the U.S.
military and a small part, the corporate world, the systems approach relied upon identifying goals and
objectives, determining resources, starting an action plan and ongoing assessment with change as needed of
the program. (Mergel, 1998)
Behaviorism
3
Cognitivism
The mind and its abilities
Researchers who focused on instructional design shifted from the behavioral world of
stimulation/response/reinforcement theory of instruction and created theories grounded in the mental
abilities of learners. Cognitivism picks up where behaviorism leaves off. One of the major players in the
development of cognitivism was Jean Piaget, who developed aspects of his theory as early as the 1920's.
Piaget's theories took hold in the U.S. in the 1960's thanks to George Miller and Jerome Bruner who created
the Harvard Center for Cognitive studies. Memory was important, as the idea of seven plus or minus two
became the standard capacity of learners’ abilities (Miller, 2003). In 1962, Robert Gagne broke learning
down into a hierarchy of ordered content from rudimentary information to the highly complex (Kearsley,
1994). The learning types presented were:
Verbal information
Intellectual skills
Cognitive strategies
Motor skills
Attitudes
Gagne developed a hierarchal schema of learning prerequisites
in order to advance learners to the next step, and help
instructional developers know where to start with learners.
The hierarchy is as follows:
1. Gaining attention (reception)
2. Informing learners of the object (expectancy)
3. Stimulating recall of prior learning (retrieval)
4. Presenting the stimulus (selective perception)
5. Providing learning guidance (semantic encoding)
6. Eliciting performance (responding)
7. Providing feedback (reinforcement)
8. Assessing performance (retrieval)
9. Enhancing retention and transfer (generalization)
In the 70s, stages of competent performance in a variety of areas of knowledge and skills pertinent to
education moved instructional design forward. Conditions of learning became the focus of instructional
design researchers. Testing and evaluation were a crucial part of the instructional design theories. Another
push during this time was instruction in stages; theorists also included the individual learner's cognitive
development. Research centered on clarifying parts of cognitive psychology utilized in design of instruction.
Links were drawn between computer processing and human processing information and “knowledge coding”
and “information retrieval” was the last shove past behaviorism as computer based learning was also coming
to light in the 70s and 80s (Reiser, 2001).
4
The nature of learning
Constructivism
This philosophy stems from the idea that learners are
actively creating meaning from their experiences and
interactions with the world around them (Wilson,
2010). Systematic approach was enhanced to some
degree and yet left behind in other ways in the 80-
90s, with improved technological capabilities for
instructional designers. Hyper-text/media helped
instructional designers to fan out their designs versus
the straight path of instruction previously.
Learning theory has its roots, from Dewey (1916),
Piaget (1972), Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1990),
constructivism is an attentive building of new
information steamed from prior experience by a
learner (Merril, 1991). Constructivism advocates a
more flexible learning experience where learning is
not easily measured and experience varied from
learner to learner.
One click on a link gave learners control of their
learning. Without consideration of how information
was stored in human memory, constructivism looked
at content and task analysis (Good, 2000). The 90s
moved forward with Bruner who believed that
learning must be meaningful, with his theory of
discovery learning where the environment of
instructional design aid learners in creating learning
and thinking strategies as they build knowledge and
are involved with active inquiry.
Guided discovery by instructors is student centered
learning that is applicable to their current state of
understanding. The 80-90’s computer use was a
regular part of students’ learning experience.
Enhanced with technology, learners can choose the
path of knowledge, bypassing information they
already know. Instruction could change, as needed
though computer use with instructors personalizing
their class to suit their style and student’s level of
knowledge (Vrasidas, 2000).
5
The nature of learning In 1948, in an effort to identify and classify the thinking behaviors that were important to the process of learning, a group of
educational psychologists, headed by Benjamin Bloom, began work on developing a classification (i.e. taxonomy) of
educational goals and objectives. The initial framework included three domains or categories. These were:
The cognitive domain (intellect and cognition)
The affective domain (emotion and attitude)
The psychomotor domain (skills and behavior)
By 1956 they had completed work on the cognitive domain, consisting of six levels. The results were published in the
handbook known as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Orey, 2001). Work was later completed on the affective domain but not on the
psychomotor domain.
Within the cognitive domain, the levels are hierarchical and the implication is that learners must master lower levels before
proceeding to higher levels. Thus, a learner will be able to demonstrate remembering (i.e. making a list) prior to
demonstrating understanding (i.e. explaining) and will be able to demonstrate both of these prior to applying (i.e.
interpreting).
Beginning in the 1990’s, a new group of cognitive psychologists, headed by Lorin Anderson (a former student of Bloom’s)
updated the classification system. The table below represents the changes in terminology and structure:
Original Version (1956) Revised Version (2001)
Classifications Measurable Verbs Classifications Measurable Verbs
Evaluation Measure, interpret, evaluate, choose
Creating Construct, create, design, develop
Synthesis Arrange, combine, propose, construct
Evaluating Appraise, defend, select, evaluate
Analysis Analyze, compare, contrast, examine
Analyzing Compare, examine, differentiate, contrast
Application Apply, demonstrate, use, operate
Applying Choose, demonstrate, use, interpret, write
Comprehension Compare, describe, discuss, explain
Understanding Classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify
Knowledge List, name, repeat, tell, state, record
Remembering Define, duplicate, list, memorize, state
The most noticeable change is that the original terminology using nouns for the levels were revised as verbs. Additionally,
the top two levels switched places in the revision (i.e. synthesis moved from second-to-the-top to the top level and was
renamed creating).
The taxonomy is useful in that it assists educators and instructional designers to create objectives that are based on
measurable behavior and encourages the development of curriculum based on objectives that demonstrate an increasing level
of cognitive mastery.
A simplistic example of the six revised levels are presented below using the context of Goldilocks and the Three Bears:
(Orey, 2001)
Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived.
Understand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about.
Apply: Construct a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house.
Analyze: Differentiate between how Goldilocks reacted and how you would react in each story event.
Evaluate: Assess whether or not you think this really happened to Goldilocks.
Create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new form.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
6
Kirkpatrick’s Model
Level 4
evaluation (Results)
seeks to measure the actual effect
(of the behavioral change) upon
work setting outcomes. In other
words, if the initial objective of
the training is to reduce
government audit findings by
10%, a level 4 evaluation attempts
to assess if this measure has been
achieved. On one hand, this level
of evaluation truly measures if the
training has been effective (i.e.
have the objectives been achieved.
At the same time, it can be
difficult and costly to perform this
type of evaluation and attribute
the results directly to the training.
In the example above, numerous
other factors may have
contributed to the drop in audit
finding not directly related to the
instructional program.
Level 2
evaluation (Learning)
typically involves a pre-test
and a post-test in order to
assess the amount of learning
(improvement on the post-test
when compared to the pre-
test). Tests can include formal
testing instruments or may
include observations from
peers and/or supervisors. The
key element is the attempt at
an objective evaluation of
knowledge and skills both
before and after the training.
Level 3
evaluation (Behavior)
seeks to assess the degree to which
participants have actually applied
what they have learned in a
practical setting (their job). This
form of evaluation may occur at
multiple intervals over an extended
period of time after the initial
training and may include formal
assessment as well as observation
and feedback from peers and/or
managers. The evaluations,
however, can be fairly involved
and complex as they occur over
time and the behavioral change
may be difficult to quantify or
directly attribute to the training.
Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model Donald Kirkpatrick created a model (first published in 1959) of training evaluation consisting of four levels. Each level
builds upon the next, with successive levels providing more meaningful information regarding the effectiveness of the
course. At the same time, successive levels tend to involve greater cost and difficulty in administering. The four levels
consist of the following: (Kirkpatrick, 2007; Allen, 2006a)
Level 1: Reaction - How the participants react to the training.
Level 2: Learning -The extent to which participants change attitudes, increase knowledge, and/or
increase skill.
Level 3: Behavior – The extent to which participants apply what they have learned by changing
behavior.
Level 4: Results – The extent to which targeted outcomes are met as a result of the training.
Level 1
evaluation (Reaction) seeks to assess the
perceptions of the participant in order to
improve the training (did they like it and did
they find it relevant to their work). Most
commonly this involves the completion of
an evaluation form at the end of the course
or may involve direct questioning of the
participant. This type of evaluation is fairly
quick and inexpensive to perform, however,
it cannot account for numerous subjective
variables that might influence the
participants responses which may not
directly pertain to the quality of the course.
7
ADDIE
Here to stay
Conclusion
In all, behaviorism began modern instructional design use
of technology by teaching masses the behaviors and
techniques of knowledge through movies and other media
productions. Cognitivism looked at individual cognitions
of learners as computers entered the classroom.
Constructivism saw regular computer use as learners
experience changed to instructor-guided information
based on students’ current level of knowledge. This
along with the three highlighted core concepts, Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model, Blooms Taxonomy, and
the Addie model are clear examples that technology in the
classroom is not only here to stay but will change and
evolve as advances in processing, research and theory
multiplies every couple of years.
Instructional Design Model The ADDIE model is a model of instructional design consisting of five phases (Allen, 2006a):
Analysis - The instructional designer identifies the problem, objective, goals, participant
needs, delivery options, timelines and interface considerations in conjunction with the
client and/or subject matter experts.
Design – The objectives are typically specified in detail as are the look and feel of the
course and the user interface (i.e. the design).
Development – The course itself is built using the appropriate medium and tools specified
during the design phase.
Implementation – During this phase the course and associated materials are actually
delivered to the learners.
Evaluation – Ideally this phase involves both ongoing (formative) and end-stage
(summative) evaluations (Pallof and Pratt, 2007). During this phase necessary revisions are
made.
In the basic model, each stage has an output which then proceeds into the next phase. This
provides a basic framework in which to think about the conception and delivery of
curriculum/training and does not provide a step-by-step method.
There are those who criticize the model as being too simplistic and linear, arguing that effective
instructional design follows a more iterative process. For example, Allen (2006b) argues that
evaluation must occur along each phase as a means of providing ongoing feedback directing the
curriculum towards an ultimate output.
8
References
Allen, M. (2006a). Creating successful e-learning. Pfeiffer, (pp. 169-171)
Allen, M. (2006b). Creating successful e-learning. Pfeiffer, (pp. 37-41)
Berliner, D. C. (2006). Educational psychology: Searching for essence throughout a century of influence. In
P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 3-27).
Routledge.
Good, T.L. (2000). American education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Humana Press, (p. 155)
Kearsley, G. (1994a). Conditions of learning (R. Gagne). Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/gagne.html
[September 10, 2011].
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2007) Implementing Kirkpatrick’s four levels. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from
http://astd2007.astd.org/PDFs/Handouts%20for%20Web/Handouts%20Secured%20for%20Web%
205-15%20thru%205-16/TU101.pdf
Merger, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory. Educational Communications and Technology.
University of Saskatchewan
Merrill, M.D. (1991), Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology. 31(5), 45-53
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7(3).
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Orey, M.(Ed.) (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved September
12, 2011. from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Overbaugh, R. C. , Schultz, L. Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from
http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm
Pallof, R. M., and Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities. Jossey-Bass, (pp. 205-206)
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional
design. ETR&D. 49(2), 57-67
Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional systems design: Five views of the field. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),
Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (2nd ed., pp. 131-142)., Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Skinner, B.F. (1965). Review Lecture: The technology of teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 162(989), 427-443
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical
perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 406-427).
Cambridge University Press.
Tennyson, R.D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary
Educational Technology 1(1), 1-16
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and
evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication.6(4),
339-362