|
|
Learning
Technology publication
of IEEE Computer Society |
|
|
Volume 9 Issue 1 |
ISSN 1438-0625 |
January 2007 |
eLearning and Organizational Learning
in Vocational Educational Institutions.
From Dull Services to Engaging
Experiences
The implementation of an
International master in Multimedia – a model for a Europe wide degree
Implementation of e-Training Services
in Lithuania in the Context of International Study Programs
Towards transational virtual study
circles: an introduction to the E-report project
Special
issue on the NETTIES (Networking Entities) International Conference, held in
NETTIES (Networking Entities) 2006 was the 12th Annual
International Conference organized by EATA – European Association of Telematics
Applications, in co-operation with the “Politehnica”
There have been huge advances in both technology and
education that have affected the knowledge society in the European arena. The
convergence of these two disciplines has never been faster and this marriage
has affected all sectors of education and the economy. Paradigms such as
eLearning, mLearning, just-in-time learning, lifelong learning, multicultural
learning, student-centered learning, and collaborative approaches have emerged,
and are being supported by technologies such as new communication tools,
virtual reality and advanced networking. This new and rapid development has
created both opportunities and areas of serious concern. NETTIES Conference
themes support the ideas of the
90 specialists in Information and Communication
Technologies research from the EU countries,
During the last few years, the field of education has been more and more subject to economy measures all over the world. It has to be able to renew itself, both structurally and pedagogically. The role of networks in a learning environment is becoming more and more important. Educational technology is expected to bring in new solutions for both distance and traditional teaching. The learning environment for individual students is most often the basis for development of new online learning environments. The knowledge society and globalization can be seen as catalysts for change in education throughout society. The education sector which changed most dramatically and continues to change is higher education. In higher education, at the international level, eLearning or online learning is considered now a standard and the emphasis has moved on to effective and efficient eLearning.
Lauri Kurkela’s paper from
Carmen Taran (ATT) justifies how important is to create an engaging experience for the students involved especially in eLearning. She presents several ways how to create engaging experiences for online students to: personalize, harmonize, de-stigmatize, materialize, sensitize. Very interesting are also the everyday life analogizes which she uses in justifying her ideas.
Andone, Dron and Pemberton introduce the new concept of digital students and present a challenging research on defining their characteristics and use of the online learning environments. They argue that these students ‘think differently’ and beside their extensive use of technology they are also in strong need for control and independence over the use of their learning environment.
Vasiu, Andone and Bucos leads a team which develops the
first Online International Master in Multimedia as a
Maria Kocsis Baan looks at how innovative eLearning
solutions can act as a password for the Central and
The team from Kaunas University of Technology
(Rutkauskiene, Kubiliunas, Volungeviciene, Butkeviciene) analyzes and evaluate
the impact of the implementation of several eTraining services in
Inguglia, Sajeva, Lo Coco and Fidora introduce the new concept of virtual mobilities and trans-national virtual study circles as a result of the implementation of the E-report project.
The last four papers are all presenting the results of several European Union funded projects in the area of Education.
|
Prof. Radu
Vasiu Scientific Secretary “Politehnica” NETTIES 2006 Program Co-Chair radu.vasiu@cm.upt.ro |
eLearning and Organizational Learning in Vocational Educational
Institutions
Introduction
eLearning related Organizational Learning is the key success factor for vocational institutions in the future society. The focus of this paper is to create shared understanding of the organizational learning process through using Soft System Methodology in the analysing of the problem area and through proposing the use of Design Patterns to create synergy for individuals, groups and organizations.
eLearning and Blended Learning are broadly synonyms. They are involved in the flexible use of information and communication technology in learning, teaching, cooperation and working related situations. Learning Resources can have pedagogical, functional and content-related features (Kurkela 2006a). Learning Objects are defined as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology, supported learning (LOM 2000). So Learning Resources are seen here as Learning Objects in a broad sense.
Paradigm refers to the functional model which guides a system or its subsystems. Paradigms have visible and invisible features. The visible formal side of a paradigm consists of processes, roles, tools etc.. The invisible informal side (culture) of a paradigm consists of customs, values, beliefs, taboos, stereotypes, traditions, language behaviours etc. (Neus & Scherf 2005). Paradigm shifts include both the formal and informal features. A paradigm shift must be Technically Possible and Culturally Acceptable (Checkland et al. 1998, 1999, 1999). Usually the desired cultural change is more demanding than the technological one (Neus et al. 2005). A successful paradigm shift requires four elements: (1) pressure for change, (2) a clear shared vision, (3) capacity for change and (4) actionable first steps. If any of these elements is missing, the paradigm shift will fail (de Woot 1996). Paradigms affect to what kind of learning resources are needed. And learning resources affect to what kind of paradigms can be used or developed. Paradigm shifts and development of resources are organizational development tools. (Kurkela 2006b).
Since the year 1974 Soft System Methodology (SSM) has been used to create shared understanding of complex real-world situations to guide organizations in their learning processes. Soft System Methodology is often applied as a multilayered analysis. A complex system is something more than the sum of its components (Checkland et al. 1998, 1999, 1999). Components are affecting to each others by paradigms, information exchange and resources. A complex system also affects on its subsystems and – when it is changed - also the subsystems are changed. Respectively by purposeful paradigm shifts and development of learning resources on subsystem layer the whole system can be coached to desired direction.
The interaction which affects the functional paradigms
of a complex system can be called Critical
Interaction. Critical interactions are often related to situations in which
the organization doesn’t have any pre-planned paradigms or has development
challenges. (Checkland et al. 1998, 1999, 1999). A vocational educational learning
organization reacts to critical information by paradigm shifts and/or by
developing new learning resources. Through Purposeful Paradigm Shifts and
development of learning resources e.g. design patterns an educational
institution can seek Internal and
External Synergy Benefits.
Design Patterns in eLearning are descriptions of good practice in e-learning (E-LEN 2005a, E-LEN 2005b). Here they are used to capture expertise related to learning processes and development of new learning resources. Design Patterns could serve staff members, teacher students and teachers as life-long-learners and vocational students. If the set of design patterns covers the problem area of vocational education, it forms the pattern language of that specific problem area.
Synergy is related to the benefits and added value gained in fulfilling the needs of different actors, systems or subsystems in the design of paradigms, resources and value chains. Synergy Enablers and Synergy Disablers are features which facilitate or prevent the growth of synergy. From one point of view synergy is growing if the (sub)system produces added value for its environment (effectiveness), if the added value is produced using purposeful means (efficacy), if the added value is produced using minimal resources (efficiency) (Checkland et al. 1998, 1999, 1999). From another point of view synergy is growing if an organization is aware of its environment and shares well balanced goals at all levels.
The concept of Interoperable Competence (IC) serves our systemic understanding of the target organization and its synergy processes. Interoperable competence guides our attention to: interoperability between actors (persons, organizational levels, networks, levels of the society), ability to serve other actors (on the same or different layer), and ability to utilize services produced by other actors (on the same or different layer) (Pekonen 2002). Interoperable competence includes the views of different organizational layers, interest groups and individual actors. IC supports the concept of Learning Organization, Competence Portfolio, Knowledge Management, Distributed Competence and Networked Problem Solving. Interoperable competence includes both Techno-Structural Interoperability and Socio-Cultural Interoperability (Markkula 2003).
SSM can be applied recursively through following steps:
(A) Analyses of the
(B) Description of the Major Problem Areas.
(C) Identification of Synergy Enablers and Disablers.
(D) Description of the
Desired
(E) Development Steps towards
the Desired
On the first step (A) you can see a hierarchy of guiding and interacting layers affecting vocational education and the use of eLearning and blended learning. The identified layers are: (1) International, National and Regional Layer. (2) Institutional and Network Cooperation Layer. (3) Curriculum and Course Layer. (4) Layer of Learning Resources. (5) Media Elements and Related Metadata Layer. In this context these layers are a crucial part of the system which facilitates organizational learning. Layers 2 to 5 are visualized in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Major Problem Areas
Major Problem Areas
All the identified layers are affecting to each others and the whole system. The use of SSM gives the possibility to describe and communicate those subsystems (problems, development challenges) on each layer which are relevant to the discussed problem area and target organization. Questions has been made to support the recognition of organization specific development challenges. Interoperability between the identified layers and relevant layer-specific subsystems becomes an important issue. Interoperability, relevant paradigms and learning resources are the key factors for synergy and organizational learning.
SSM guides us to identify the major problem areas and related resources on every layer. Expertise related to synergy enablers and disablers could be captured and communicated in the form of design patterns.
Institutional and Network Cooperation Layer
Institutional Paradigms and Resources: Does the educational institution act effectively and purposefully from the point of view of different interest groups? Does the institutional quality system support purposeful action and renewal? Does there exist any taboos, items that are not given attention to although they might be synergy disablers? Is the starting point of the action paradigm in the institution the needs of labour market, society, learners or the existing competence of the staff? Has the competence development of the staff been taken care of with working life orientation? Has the attention of paradigm shifts been paid to different levels of the institution taking into account that 1) There is a clear need for paradigm shift, 2) There is a clear shared vision of what is the desired paradigm shift 3) Whether there are enough resources to fulfil the paradigm shift, 4) If there exists a shared understanding of the first steps of the paradigm shift (de Woot 1996).
Network cooperation of educational institutions:
Does the institution gain and create synergy benefits by participating in network cooperation with other institution of the same or different level? What are these synergy benefits like? Which factors facilitate / restrict the increase these synergy benefits? Does the increase of synergy benefits
require paradigm shifts or development of learning resources? Are the actors ready for the cultural change included in the paradigm shift? Has the directors of the institution committed to network cooperation? Have the goals been defined for the network cooperation on the different levels of the organization? Has the network cooperation been resourced?
Does the institution respond purposefully to the challenges of work life given to different groups of workers? Does the institution participate actively in the developmental challenges of work life? Which factors facilitate / restrict the increase of synergy benefits connected to the educational institution – work life cooperation? How well does learning-on-the job (practicing, projects) support the development of vocational identity and the readiness for supervising work processes? Does the institutional paradigm support the learner’s vocational growth and lifelong vocational learning?
What kind of weaknesses do the staff and individual teachers have in the field of eLearning and blended learning? How the eLearning related competence of the teaching staff is developed?
Learning and Teaching Paradigms and Competence: What is the institutional learning
and teaching culture like? How could it be revised? What kinds of problems are
related to the pedagogical competence of staff members? How can the pedagogical
competence be revised? How well do teaching and learning related paradigms
support the realization of the institutional level paradigm? Does the collegial
support and cooperation work? What kinds of problems are related to the
learners with special needs? How well do the recognition of competences and
individualization processes work? How fast will the learners with learning
obstacles be recognized? How fast and successfully they will be supported?
Educational Technology Transfer and
Implementation: The current state of educational technology:
How does the current educational technology affect the institutional level
paradigms and prerequisites of network cooperation as a facilitator or
restrictive element? How are the possibilities of educational technology
recognized? How will new educational technology be utilized? How will the
support processes of the new or utilized educational technologies be organized?
How will the utilization of educational technology related competence be
developed?
How does
the information and communication technology related strategy guide the use of
educational technology? How does the strategy guide the development of reusable
learning resources? Will the strategy be
renewed sufficiently often? Does the strategy lead to development activities?
How is the realization of the strategy followed?
Curriculum and Course Layer
Learning Environment and Selected Functionality: What kind of learning environment supports the attainment of the learning goals? How should the learning resources be used to support the teaching and learning processes?
Learning Goals and Core Contents: Have the goals and core contents of the courses been described so concretely and clearly that it guides both the learning, teaching and assessment focusing on the core elements from the point of view of the course, curriculum and vocational work processes.
Curriculum and Course Level Paradigms: On the course level, the paradigms are chosen to follow the paradigms of institutional and cooperation network levels. Course level paradigms can be used as tools for developing institutional level paradigms. By developing new paradigms for courses and by cutting off non-relevant paradigms the institutional paradigm can be guided to desired direction. There might be a selection of possible paradigms for a single course. If the paradigms are familiar to teachers and learners, they will increase the effectiveness of the learning process. The actors will have a preconception of how to act in a course following a certain paradigm Have the curriculum and course level paradigms been described so that they act as shared contracts? What kind of teaching, learning and support activities are expected? Are these paradigms both on curriculum and course levels based on the analysis of the learning process? Will these contracts be utilized when the success of the learning process is evaluated on curriculum and course levels? Do these contracts support the development of teaching and learning related paradigms? Is the required learning process and the respective load of the course on the purposeful level from the point of view of learners and teachers?
Layer of Learning Resources
Learning Resources: Learning resources can be understood in this study as the resources of teaching, learning, cooperation and educational administration. These resources can have pedagogical, functional and content related features. The latter features do not necessarily exclude each other; instead, they can be emphasized in different ways due to situations. Will the learning resources be targets of cooperation within an institution, in networking between institutions and in the cooperation between institutions and working life?
Learning Task Level Paradigms: Learning tasks are the most central resources guiding learning processes. They can be designed and/or selected by educational planners, teachers, learners or groups of learners. They are used to respond to the needs of different learners and learner groups.
Tutoring and Evaluation paradigms: Do the tutoring and assessment paradigms and the resources related to them help to focus on the core contents of the course and curriculum? From the pedagogical point of view, the most important learning resources are just below the course level: learning tasks, substantial or functional learning resources as well as other resources connected to tutoring and assessment. Are learning resources targets of pedagogical cooperation?
Media Elements and Related Metadata Layer
On which level of granularity educational metadata can be applied purposefully. Does the structure of the learning resource repositories and metadata repositories support the re-use of learning resources?
Synergy Enablers And Disablers
The present writer believes that the questions presented earlier in this paper could help educational institutions to find out the synergy enablers and disablers in their own organization.
On the international and national layer the most important synergy enablers are probably related (1) to the development and adoption of eLearning standards and (2) to the growing open-source cooperation in the area of eLearning and (3) to the internationalization of education and degrees.
On the institutional and network cooperation layer the most important synergy enablers depend on the characteristic features of the vocational educational organization.
On the curriculum and course layer the most important synergy enablers are related to educational design: specification of learning goals, purposeful selection and utilization of the technology supported learning environment and its functionality.
On the educational content and related metadata layer the most important synergy enabler is Linux-like cooperation in the development and pedagogical use of learning resources (learning tasks, functional and content related resources, tutoring and assessment paradigms and resources) and pedagogical metadata.
On the media elements layer the most important synergy enablers are related to structuring learning objects, interoperable learning object repositories and metadata repositories.
Conclusion
Vocational institutions have to renew their teaching and learning paradigms and resources to meet the needs of future work life and learners vocational growth. In this paper the first steps of SSM are described to help vocational educational institutions to manage their eLearning related organizational learning process as a systematic purposeful process. The use of Design Patterns could be a practical way to capture and communicate expertise related to this learning process
References
Checkland,
P. & Holwell, S. 1998. Information, Systems and Information Systems –
making sense of the field. John Wiley
& Sons
Checkland,
P. & Scholes, J. 1999. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley &
Sons
Checkland,
P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons
de
Woot, P. 1996. Managing Change at University, Journal of the Association of
European universities - CRE-action No 109
E-LEN
2005a. Design expertise for e-learning centres, Design patterns and how to
produce them. 2005. E-LEN project. http://www2.tisip.no/E-LEN/
E-LEN
2005b. The production of e-learning design patterns, and a research road map
for e-learning. 2005 E-LEN project. http://www2.tisip.no/E-LEN/
Kurkela
L. 2006a. Paradigm Shifts and Learning Resources,
Synergy
Enablers for eLearning and Blended Learning, ED-MEDIA 2006
Kurkela
L. 2006b. The Potential of Design Patterns for Vocational Teacher Education in
Markkula,
M. 2003. eLearning in
Neus,
A. & Scherf, P. 2005. Opening minds: Cultural change with the introduction
of open-source collaboration methods. IBM SYSTEMS Journal, VOL 44, NO 2
Pekonen,
E.
|
Lauri Kurkela, M.Sc. Senior
Lecturer lauri.kurkela@oamk.fi |
From Dull Services to Engaging Experiences
I like going to the dentist. Yes, you read this right. I used to have the "I-hate-going-to-the-dentist" attitude until a few weeks ago, when I went for a routine check-up. The chair I was dreading had been exchanged for one that massaged my shoulders and back as I was waiting. A TV monitor was placed in my room and played my favorite movie. A scented candle was releasing an enticing cinnamon smell. What was going on? The comfortable distractions the staff had created erased most of my negative feelings. Typically, when I leave the dentist's office, I feel like I've been run over by a truck. This time I felt like I had gone to a day spa. What an experience!
So I figured that if dentistry can reshape its face and turn into a spa, so can we refresh our approach and turn our training services into memorable experiences. Do you ever create online products and services that leave your students numb, much like old dentistry used to? I know that I am guilty of turning quite a few students into frazzled customers. Our commitment should be to turn our students from phobic "patients" to pampered consumers.
Here are several ways you can create engaging experiences for your online students.
Personalize
Today's modern student (the digital student) demands individualized instruction. To accommodate this request, consider supplementing learning management services (LMS) with portal technology. A university or corporate learning center or any type of educational provider should allow the student to have access to information which they can arrange and view according to their needs. The digital student expects to have access to blogs, and RSS feeds, and forums, and photo galleries, and bookmark sharing, and auctions, and classifieds.
Students demand portal frameworks where they are allowed to customize the interface and be able to access i