A Snapshot of Best Practices

As an Instruction Designer (ID), you may be faced with a project where a “training manager has been frustrated with the quality of communication among trainees in his face-to-face training sessions and wants to try something new.” The trainer may have “plans to convert all current training modules to a blended learning format, which would provide trainees and trainers the opportunity to interact with each other and learn the material in both a face-to-face and online environment.”  Furthermore, the trainer may have pans for “putting all of his training materials on a server so that the trainees have access to resources and assignments at all times.” 

If faced with this scenario it seems appropriate to begin the ADDIE process of analysis with one basic question, “Is converting the program to a blended format necessary?”  See Appendix I for specific questions that guides this analysis.  If the determination is made that the current format does not lend itself to meeting the program goals and outcomes, then a second set of issue must be addressed with the trainer prior to designed the new blended approach: 1) Instructor Issues, 2) Student Issues and 3) Technology Issues.  These issues are essential considerations for distance learning with any project and must be addressed early.

A second primary issue for this redesign relates to the trainer’s new role as a facilitator in a distance-learning environment.  Instructional delivery via distance learning involves different processes than traditional lecture-based classroom instruction. As such, the trainer must be aware and competent across the following three issues:

1.     Moving from dispenser of knowledge to facilitation of learning

2.     Management of content and technology in new ways

3.     Facilitating student engagement in the new learning activities

The third component of best practices offered to the trainer relates to the issue of encouraging student communication.  This is a critical aspect for involving students in the learning process.  Three broad topics are necessary:

1.     Clearly establish expectation for communication

2.     Make communication meaningful

3.     Remove barriers to communication

This snapshot is elaborated in greater detail in "Best Practices" 

Week 5: Application Blog – The Impact of Open Source

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) offers a series of “Open Course” distance learning courses across six major academic content areas (i.e., Management, Science) and cross disciplinary and specialty areas.  I chose to review two courses from MIT’s Sloan School of Management because of variations in design and learning tools offered across the two courses.  Course one is entitled “Competitive Decision-Making and Negotiation” (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-067-competitive-decision-making-and-negotiation-spring-2003/index.htm) and course two is entitled “Optimization and Analysis for Manufacturing” (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-066j-system-optimization-and-analysis-for-manufacturing-summer-2003/).  Design differences across these courses are evident immediately as the MIT homepage presents a list of thirteen course characteristics that pertain specifically to resources and more broadly to aspects of the learning experience that impact student engagement.  The User-Interface (UI) of the course characteristics was particularly effective as the homepage prominently presented the thirteen characteristics in a legend with meaningful icons. The legend was followed with the corresponding “icon” included as the first piece of data included about each course in a vertical listing of courses by department.  This design format provide students with clear and repeated information about the course characteristics that inform the decision making process based on student interest and learning preferences. 

I personally believe that there is a balance that must be attained when designing courses that meet the student’s need and also optimizes the learning pertaining to the goals and purpose of the course.  While debatable, it appears that Open Source courses are designed to be less “student dependent” because of a broader application to a wide variety of students in comparison to a learning solution for a specific population of learners/workers/employees.  In this manner, open course distance learning appears to be closer to traditional courses offered in a college or university setting.  In conclusion, from the very first experience with the MIT homepage, there is clear evidence that the designer has planned to provide the student with key technological information that delineates different types of experiences and resources provided in each course.  One limitation is that there is no information defining the technological requirements (i.e., hardware, software, internet connectivity) for the student to complete each course based on the different resources and learning experiences.  Further analysis of the specific syllabus did not identify these technological requirements.

Similarities and Differences

First, both courses achieve most of “Fundamentals of Teaching Online” outlines by Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2009) and three of these are worth note.  As both courses attempt to “avoid dumping a Face-to-Face course into the web,” it becomes apparent the “Competitive Decision-Making and Negotiation course is at a disadvantage because it only employs “lecture notes” as a learning resources to students.  In comparison, the “Optimization and Analysis for Manufacturing” course offers selected lecture notes, projects and Examples, assignments and solutions, and exams with no solutions.  These differences may be reflective of real differences in a classroom-based course, but also appear to offer very different opportunities for student engagement.

Second, the issue of organizing the course and making the organization and requirements clear to the student were excellent for both courses.  For example, the template for all of the MIT open courses were very similar and provided an informational and navigational column on the left that detailed the syllabus, calendar, and other learning resources for the course (i.e., lecture notes, assignments).  Drilling down to all subpages across both courses revealed clear descriptions of what to expected and therefore appears to achieve the goal of organization and clarifying requirements.   One meaningful difference between the courses was the use of a Mind Map in the “Organizational” course and none for the “Negotiation” course.  The mind map was front and center on the “Organizational” course’s homepage and provided an excellent visual representation of the course.  I suggest a comparison of these two courses for anyone interested in assessing effectiveness and impact of a mind map.

Active Learning

Overall, the “Organizational” course designed more opportunities for students to actively engage.  While both courses integrate many meaningful applied activities, it was the inclusion of group projects in the Organizational course and the absence of these learning experiences in the “Negotiation” courses that separated the two.  It should be noted that with a minimal number of course learning components, the Negotiation course has designed creative use learning components such as case studies and a post negotiation questionnaire that appear very beneficial to learning and active learning.  Here again would be an example of a learning design that I would suggest to classmate for review.

References

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). The student and distance education. Teaching and learning at a distance: foundations of distance education (4th ed., pp. 165-175). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-067-competitive-decision-making-and-negotiation-spring-2003/index.htm

Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-066j-system-optimization-and-analysis-for-manufacturing-summer-2003/

Application: Blog—Selecting Distance Learning Technologies - Week 3

Safety Training - Biodiesel Plant

"In an effort to improve its poor safety record, a biodiesel manufacturing plant needs a series of safety training modules. These stand-alone modules must illustrate best practices on how to safely operate the many pieces of heavy machinery on the plant floor. The modules should involve step-by-step processes and the method of delivery needs to be available to all shifts at the plant. As well, the shift supervisors want to be sure the employees are engaged and can demonstrate their learning from the modules."

Suggestion

There appears to be three critical issues that need to be addressed to identify the most appropriate learning solution.  First, the poor safety record must be assessed to determine if poor performance is attributable to insufficient knowledge and/or low compliance with the best practices.  Second, the manufacturing process was described as involving “many pieces of heavy machinery” and this suggests both a comprehensive training on the front end and an on demand trouble-shooting resource on the back end may be necessary.  Lastly, since the work occurs on the “plant floor,” a learning technology that employees can effectively and efficiently access from their work areas appears warranted.

Considering these three factors, I would suggest the development of a video/audio based solution delivered via a WEB 2.0 solution such as a Wiki or a stand alone video solution such as “Vimeo” that provides a custom platform for video demonstrations of the work place best practices.  These best practices would be first delivered in team or functional area groups and offer an opportunity for discussion during and after viewing for clarifying questions or procedures with group members and one or more supervisors if possible.  I would suggest a web-based test (via Survey Monkey) for all employees after viewing the video to identify individuals who have not mastered the content.  In consultation with SME, the video training modules should be developed based on functional issues (i.e., points in the assembly process) and/or common problems.  This strategy is designed to decrease time and increase ease of access to the needed portion of the video for reference.

Lastly, a video based training modules can be offered through multiple platforms and can be tailored to the work environment.  For example, these videos could be viewed on a device as small as an iPod or an iPad.  Such devices are mobile and easy to transport.  The videos could be downloaded directly to the devices or be placed in a cloud for wireless download when needed.  If mobile device are not appropriate, then a laptop or desktop computers could be placed strategically within the plant for easy and safe access.

Evidence of video-based training and trouble-shooting can be found in the medical and automotive industries.  Tablet based mobile device’s have gained popularity in the medical field for their ability to maintain and represent medical information in text, audio, and video format (http://www.myhealthyfeeling.com/knee-replacement-surgery-video-recovery-pictures-cost/).  However, it must be stated that the “iPad” is limited by its inability to play flash video, but Android based tablet do not have this limitation.  The automotive repair industry is replete with examples of "how to” videos to fix anything from a window crank (http://www.ehow.com/video_4997781_remove-window-cranks-cars.html) to discharging a capacitor (http://www.ehow.com/video_4997784_discharge-capacitor.html).  If a doctor or mechanic can refer to a video for the best practice, manufactures can certainly do the same if the environment is sufficiently organization and prepared.

I will qualify the choice of video for the training by acknowledging that still images could also be used.  However, since manufacturing is an active process, it appears to me that learning the step-by-step process of the best practices in full motion is a more natural process and delivered best through video. 

Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/video_4997781_remove-window-cranks-cars.html

Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/video_4997784_discharge-capacitor.html

Retrieved from http://www.myhealthyfeeling.com/knee-replacement-surgery-video-recovery-pictures-cost/

Retrived from Vimeo http://vimeo.com/

“Defining Distance Learning” (week1–6135)

Simonson et al (2009) presents a review of distance education and begins by identifying four core components of distance education and illustrating how the definition has grown over time.  This review includes definitions offered by other scholars (Garrison & Shale, 1987; Perraton, 1988; Rumble, 1989; Keegan, 1996) that vary in small but important ways from the Schlosser et al definition.  Comparisons of these definitions appear to illustrate how definitions that attempt to apply a level of specificity to the process run the risk of reduced application in the future.  For example, Keegan (1996) identified the “influence of an educational organization both in the planning and preparation of learning materials and in the provision of student support” as one of five main elements of a comprehensive distance education definition.  However, I would submit that as technology and user needs change, the premise that distance learning is something that is delivered only by “educational organizations” might become obsolete.  Businesses, for example are not typically considered educational organizations regardless how rigorous and well known their training programs have become.  Second, it is possible that over time, the activity of distance learning becomes entrenched in the public life that “the provision of student support” is no longer essential.  In the foreseeable future, it is possible that students will know how to support themselves or know how to find the resources for their success.  So, beyond the philosophical debate about whether these and other component are critical to the definition of distance learning, it does appear to me that the field is ever changing because of the technology, acculturation to the technological norm of daily life, and the user’s need for acquiring education outside of the classroom.

I am a firm believer that technology will continue to change distance education and that these changes will both be impacted by a person’s profession or by how much technical knowledge he/she has.  I have just completed my first distance education course and I believe that my experience and knowledge about the process, expectations and meta-cognition about how I work best in this context all add to my ability to learn and produce products of my learning.  The increased capacity that develops for the individual learner can also be applied for an entire culture.  One only needs to look at the growth in capacity and use of social media technology as a prime example.  It is possible that many may have predicted that some senior citizens would be using cell phone to communicate with their friends and families, but fewer would have predicted that their grandparents would be using Facebook and YouTube.  The case of online dating can also be instructive here.  “Mail order brides” have been more than a social construction in the minds of Americans, but who would have predicted that Internet dating companies would be claiming that one in five relationships begin online.  These examples illustrate two important issues.  First, as individuals and groups become more capable with technology, the expectations for what can occur changes.  Second, technology has demonstrated the ability to remove or reduce the importance of issues of time and space from traditional human interactions that have traditionally been believe to be essential.  This brings us to learning, or distance learning and the opportunity to replicate or recreate a learning environment that is closer to or essential the same as the traditional classroom experience (i.e., face to face interaction, group learning, etc).  It appears to me that the distance learning experience can become even more like a classroom experiences as video/audio and recording/projection continue to advance.  I see a future where “teacher in the classroom” can become teacher (“real” or virtual) in “your room” for the sake of delivering content, supporting learning, and evaluation student performance.

As I reflect on my understanding of distance learning, it’s clear that I primarily focused on the components of “separation of teacher and student” and “interactive telecommunications” that supported the learning environment.  This is due in large part to my lack of direct experience with distance learning before my “Instructional Design” courses (Jan–Feb 2011).  Prior to that course, I only had indirect knowledge of distance learning through a friend who completed an MBA from Boston University via distance learning.  While I’m sure I didn’t hear everything about the Boston University program, my friend only shared that the courses were generic and primarily involved him in the reading articles and writing papers.  The learning resources from week one of our “Design Education” course has certainly broaden my perspective to the core components of distance education, the variation of application, and the real and potential growth within the field. 

Integrating my limited prior knowledge and experience with the new information I have gained, I currently believe that the Schlosser and Simonson (2006) definition of distance learning is the most useful and provides the flexibility that I believe will be necessary to adapt to growing technologies and user needs. 

Moreover, I predict that that distant education will grow because of economic factors and evolve as a “delivery platform.”  On college campuses, I have seen evidence that the role of distance education has become more important because of the financial revenue it is producing.  For some institutions of higher learner, the non-traditional classroom experience runs counter to their brand.  Many of the elite Liberal Arts colleges, Ivy League Universities, and those that aspire to such selectivity and prestige sells, at least in part, the institution’s brand on the unique and special interaction between student and professor.  These institutions distinguish themselves from the competitions based of on the intimate learning environment that is fostered by small student-faculty ratios and prominent Ph.D. faculty who are published and funded at the highest level.  These elements, to date, are absent from distant learning.  However, the perfect storm that is lowered endowment payouts, decreasing federal and state support, and increasing revenue generation form distance education may open the doors at these institution.  However, regardless what the most selective institutions do with distance education, the other 95 percent of colleges and Universities are well aware of the financial opportunity available from distance education done well.  Georgia Tech University recently described their involvement in distance education in the following manner:

“Distance Learning and Professional Education (DLPE) is a full service educational organization of Georgia Tech that delivers world-class programs and degrees, both non-credit and credit, to six of the seven continents around the globe. During the 2010 fiscal year, DLPE grossed approximately $26.6M in revenue and more than 18,000 students from over 3,300 companies participated in programs Harvard and Yale.”

As more institutions of higher learning become fully involved in distance learning, I believe that the cultural norms will begin to shift because of the value that will be attributed by virtue of perceive and actual experience with learning via distance education. 

References

Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7-13.

Keegan, D. (1996). The foundations of distance education (3^rd ed.). London: Croom Helm.

Perraton, H. (1988). A theory of distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 34-45), New York: Routledge.

Rumble, G. (1989). On defining distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 8-21.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mind Map

Here is my very first attempt at a Mind Map.  This is intended to represent my definition of distance learning which is very similar to the Schlosser and Simonson (2006) definition.

This is the first blog from Rudy's Ed Training.

Thanks for visiting.  Stay tune for more educational information.