Boettcher, J. V. (2003). Course management systems and learning principles —— Getting to know each other…. Syllabus, 16, 33-36. A PDF Version is here.
Course Management Systems and Learning Principles: Getting to Know Each Other
The refrain from this Rogers and Hammerstein song captures part of the dance between course manage- ment systems and core learning principles. Because the first set of CMS applications was developed by faculty, it was often assumed that these systems reflected sound teaching and learning principles. But of course, faculty are concerned with more than pedagogy. Also, technology often takes on a life of its own, as was once embodied in HAL and is now present in the often over- zealous automated assistants on our desktops! Once coded into an application, pedagogical theories and philosophies often cannot be differ- entiated from the tools. What is coded is what you get (WICIWYG).
The Waves of Course Management Systems
We are already in the fourth wave of course management systems. In the first wave we used the technology to do what we always were doing, such as using the Web to organize the elements of a course, and communicate to students. In the second wave we focused on using the technology to make our habitual processes more efficient. This wave saw the rise of the now common hybrid course or Web-enhanced campus courses in which the best of the Web interactions were inte grated with the best of the campus interactions. The third wave created new systems that support efficiency in admin-istration and delivery at the infrastructure and enterprise level.These systems are complex and relatively expensive, requiring ongoing support, upgrades, and maintenance for integrating into campus systems. At the same time, they provide features and capabilities that support a totally online “campus.”
The enterprise systems of the third wave are now being deployed and a new fourth wave of innovation is well underway. This fourth wave includes the design standards from the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) and its spin-off open source products such as Stellar from MIT, CHEF from the University of Michigan, CourseWork from Stanford, and Visual Under- standing Environment (VUE) from Tufts. This new wave includes the IMS/SCORM design standards, the APIs of OKI, and related content and learning object initiatives such as MERLOT, Open CourseWare (OCW) project at MIT, Reusable Learning Objects project at the University of Cambridge, and many more.
Ten Core Learning Principles
Then what is at the heart of this dance between learning systems and pedagogical values? It’s helpful to examine basic learning principles to find out whethertheyare“…gettingtoknowall about”eachother.Thefollowingsetof ten core learning principles has been culled from ongoing researchon learning theory, instructional design, and the diffusion of technology. The most influential theorist for theseprinci- ples is the Russian psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky(1978).
Core Learning Principle #1: Learners and learning, faculty mentors and teaching, are shaped by available tools andresources.
Our tools are important to our work. The human mind is still more of a mystery than a known entity. Even the language that describes how our brain works is more suited to computers than thebiologicalecosystemthatitis(Ratey, 2001). What we do know is this—that weare“shapedbythetoolsandinstru- ments that we use and that neither the mind nor the hand alone can amount to much.”(J.BrunerinVygotsky,1962).
The principle that we are shaped by our tools, referred to by the pessimists and luddites as technological deter- minism, has the fortunate corollary— promoted by optimists—that users can shape their tools.The implication is that users should be proactive in the design of their tools. Lessig (1999) argues persua- sivelythat“coded”applicationsembody specific ideas and beliefs, and often it is the ideas and beliefs of the developers, rather than the designers! The inflexi- bility of applications and even the diffi-culty of finding where the flexibility is coded, if it is there, is a frequent source of frustration and dissatisfaction with complextools.
You might be wondering how the factthat“Tools shape us and we shape our tools”is a learning principle. The course management systems and the learning experiences that we design for our students shape our students’ learning. A focus on exploration, problem solving, collaboration with other students, challenging ideas, can cause students to engage and develop concepts, or disengage and retreat. If tools shape us and we shape our tools,what features of a CMS are essential to ensure effective and efficient student learning and faculty teaching?
Communications and Generation Y
A recent study (360 Youth) on Genera- tion Y (young adults 18 to 30) found that this group uses the Web primarily for communications. In this study, 40 percent of the members of this groupreported using instant messaging (IM) dailyand 82 percent reported using e-maildaily.These new tools are significantly changing the social lives of young adults, just as it is changing their approach to information.
These communication technologies have resulted in new “digital-age teaching and learning environments” and require a fundamental refreshing of instructional design. We must design for multiple environments and one common feature of these designs must be to support learning wherever faculty and students are. These“wherever”environments must include access to communications and content resources.
The good news is that a collection of communication tools was one of the primary features of the second wave of CMSes and the infinite flexibility of e-mail, group chat, bulletin boards, and Web sites is one of the major strengths of these tools. These tools also support effi- ciency in that the faculty member no longer needs to serve as the hub of the communications wheel.
Core Learning Principle #2: Every structured learning experience is theatre—with four actors (LeMKE).
Vygotsky suggests that every struc- tured learning experience is composed of fourvariables.I’vedevisedmyownlabels for them: the learner (Le), the faculty mentor (M), the knowledge/skill (K) or attitude to be learned, and the environ- ment (E) in which the learning is to take place (LeMKE). In designing courses it canbeusefultoenvisionthesefourvari- ablesasactorsonastage,withthefaculty member either on-stage or off-stage directing,planning, coaching, andassessing thelearners.
Effective CMSes address the actions and responsibilities associated with each of the roles played by these four variables or actors.
Core Learning Principle #3: Learners (Le) bring personalized and customized knowledge to the learning experience, and develop personalized and customized
Effective CMSes support the interaction of a specificlearnerwithspecificenvironments…
knowledge.
This principle highlights the fact that all learners start with a unique knowl- edge representation and end with a unique knowledge representation, often
works is more suited to computers than thebiologicalecosystemthatitis(Ratey, 2001). What we do know is this—that weare“shapedbythetoolsandinstru- ments that we use and that neither the mind nor the hand alone can amount to much.”(J.BrunerinVygotsky,1962).
The principle that we are shaped by our tools, referred to by the pessimists and luddites as technological deter- minism, has the fortunate corollary— promoted by optimists—that users can shape their tools.The implication is that users should be proactive in the design of their tools. Lessig (1999) argues persua- sivelythat“coded”applicationsembody specific ideas and beliefs, and often it is the ideas and beliefs of the developers, rather than the designers! The inflexi- bility of applications and even the diffi-culty of finding where the flexibility is coded, if it is there, is a frequent source of frustration and dissatisfaction with complextools.
You might be wondering how the
factthat“Toolsshapeusandweshape ourtools”isalearningprinciple.The course management systems and the learning experiences that we design for our students shape our students’ learning. A focus on exploration,
cantlychangingthesociallivesofyoungadults, just as it is changing theirapproach toinformation.
These communication technologies have resulted in new “digital-age teaching and learning environments” and require a fundamental refreshing of instructional design. We must design for multiple environments and one comm- on feature of these designs must be to support learning wherever faculty and studentsare.These“wherever”environ- ments must include access to communi- cations and contentresources.
The good news is that a collection of
communication tools was one of the primary features of the second wave of CMSes and the infinite flexibility of e-mail, group chat, bulletin boards, and Web sites is one of the major strengths of these tools. These tools also support effi- ciency in that the faculty member no longer needs to serve as the hub of the communications wheel.
Core Learning Principle #2: Every structured learning experience is theatre—with four actors (LeMKE).
Vygotsky suggests that every struc- tured learning experience is composed of fourvariables.I’vedevisedmyownlabels
much to the dismay of their faculty mentors! The ideal CMS supports customized learning for students. In our current wave of CMSes, discussion boards, postings, and other communica- tion tools provide multiple channels for exploring and expressing ideas and issues. These tools can support experi- ences that challenge students to accom- plish complex, contextual learning.
AfuturisticCMSwillbeabletoeasily diagnoseandassessastudent’szoneof proximal development. Perhaps the futuristic CMSbegins to look like a combination holodeck from the Star- ship Enterpriselinked to real-time events, combining current knowledge with emergingknowledge.
Core Learning Principle #4: Faculty mentors (M) have the responsibility of designing and structuring the course experience.
The faculty mentor defines the structure and content of a course and determines “what is to be learned.” Faculty write,select,andassemblematerialsand design, select, and present learning experiences.The faculty mentor also manages the delivery of the course,including the daily interactions and assessing ofstudents.CMSescanhelpfacultybeefficientin these tasks by providing support for teaching strategies, contentmanagement tools,andassessmenttools.Also,astime is a real cost for faculty and students, CMSes might find a way to support the useofsimulatedfacultymentors.
Core Learning Principle #5: All learners do notneedtolearnallcoursecontent/knowl- edge (K). All learners do need to learn the core or base concepts andto develop usefulknowledge.
In all learning theories, the task of learnersistoacquiretheknowledge,skill, and attitudes that are needed or desired.Vygotsky’stheoryleanstowardtheuseof problem-based learning (PBL) to do thislearning. In contrast, many courses are still structured with the goalof ensuring thatknowledgeis“delivered.”Thenew course management systems will want to structure tools for knowledge manipula- tion and experimentation that supports problem solving incontext.
1986). This zone concept is similar to the general educational principle of readiness, but is very learner-specific.
Another implication is that collabo- rative and peer learning activities fit well within this theory. Is it possible for CMSes to include support for experi- ences in which morecapable peers support the ZPDs of their peers—while not neglectingthe ZPDs of the more capable peers and support the creation ofnewZPDsforalllearners?
Core Learning Principle #8: Concepts are not words. Concept formation occurs as a series of intellectual operations between the general and the particular with ever- increasing differentiation.
One of the basic insights from Vygotsky’s work is that words are not equivalent to concepts. When Hamlet says, “Words,words,words,”heislikely bemoaning the use of words as symbols only, without the meaning behind them. As concepts are developed initially, they
design of engaging, efficient learning resources and experiences. If learning canbeasengagingasgamesandsocially rewarding as well, students will choose to be learnersmore of the time. As learning is intrinsically rewarding, our students will soon outgrow the need for facultymentors,andhopefully,focuson solving the pressing problems of our complexsociety.
Future CMSes
The new generation of open source CMSes are respondingto the complexity of the learning experience and the teaching and mentoring role. Remembering that we shape our tools and our tools shape us underscores the need for being proactive and thoughtful about the design of these tools.
[Editor’s note: An expanded version of this article, with longer descriptions of the Ten Core Learning Principles is available online at www.syllabus.com.]
resemble mere seeds of moremature
Core Learning Principle #6: Every learning experience has a context or an environment
(E) in which the learner interacts.
This principle reminds us that learning is rooted in time and place. In Vygotsky’stheories,theenvironmentfor learningisafundamental“actor”inthe process of learning. We want to design for the “where, when, with whom and withwhatresources”ofalearningexpe- rience. Effective CMSes support the interaction of a specific learner with specific environmentsso that the learning ofboth core concepts and practical concepts can becustomized.
Core Learning Principle #7: Every learner has a zone of proximal development that defines the “space” that a learner is ready to develop into useful knowledge.
Vygotsky describes the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as the “distance between the actual develop- mentallevel as determined by inde- pendent problem solving and the level of potential development as deter- mined through problem solving under the adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”(Vygotsky,
thought and understanding. Thus the practiceof“makingalearner’s thinkingvisible” is a powerful practice in revealing the stage of maturity of a learner’s concepts. Interactive media involving learners graphically and dynamically clearly plays a role in the concept formation process.
Core Learning Principle #9: Different instruction is required for different learning outcomes.
This design principle (Gagne, 1965) reminds us of the interdependency of outcomes/assessment and the instruc- tional experiences we design for learners. Outcomes are dependent on the specific conditions of the learning experiences and the cognitive and phys- ical readiness and abilities of learners. Tools for customization that would help link experiences to outcomes could enhance this relationship.
Core Learning Principle #10: Everything else being equal, more time on task generally equates to more learning.
This is the most durable learning principleandarguespersuasivelyforthe
design of engaging, efficient learning resources and experiences. If learning canbeasengagingasgamesandsocially rewarding as well, students will choose to be learnersmore of the time. As learning is intrinsically rewarding, our students will soon outgrow the need for facultymentors,andhopefully,focuson solving the pressing problems of our complexsociety.
Future CMSes
The new generation of open source CMSes are respondingto the complexity of the learning experience and the teaching and mentoring role. Remembering that we shape our tools and our tools shape us underscores the need for being proactive and thoughtful about the design of these tools.
References
Boettcher, J. V. (2003). Design Levels for Distance and Online Learning. In Discenza, R., Howard, C. & Schenk, K., Eds. Distance Learning and University Effectiveness: Changing Educational Paradigms for Online Learning. Idea Group Publishing. In press.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Gagne, Robert M. (1965). The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Lessig, Lawrence (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Ratey, J. J. (2002). A User’s Guide to the Brain. New York: Vintage Books.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and Language (E. H. a. G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
|