Brighter, Bolder But Is It Better? - The Perennial Course Design Dilemma

MARTIN PUTTERILL MBA PhD Cape Town, FCMA, CA, Associate Professor, Department of Accounting and Finance, Auckland Business School, The University of Auckland m.putterill@auckland.ac.nz

Keywords

Curriculum Design, Internet, CECIL, Mike’s Bikes, Real–World Physics, Simulation, Peak Learning Experience, Content–Quality.

Core Terms and Abbreviations

ALN	Asynchronous Learning Networks
C	Cecil
Cecil	Computer Supported Learning System
MB	Mike’s Bikes
P	Process
PLE	Peak Learning Experience
RWP	Real–World Physics

Abstract

The paper recognises the importance of three elements in ALN course design and delivery: access, process and process–efficiency, and content–quality. Analysing distance learning developments in the tertiary sector, the author concludes that there is an over emphasis on widening access to courses and process efficiency is leading to lower content quality.

The danger that ALN will not live up to its great potential, and become uniform, prompts a call for the development of a balanced framework which reflects these three related elements. This framework is used to describe characteristics of three exemplary web–based projects used in tertiary and post–tertiary education.

The paper concludes by drawing attention to the need to side–step the trap of uniformity, by engaging in the preparation of Peak Learning Experience courses.

Acknowledgements

Roger, Allan and successive Ausweb teams; many others at previous conferences who have stimulated my interest and made me aware of the growing capacity of the WWW; an unknown reviewer who was honest yet kind; Vicki Quigg, Colleen Hamill and Jayesh Mistry who helped greatly in time of need.

Section 1 - Introduction

Designing an appropriate learning environment has been a perennial challenge to university educators. Year by year, faculties and departments or committed individuals confronted the question "how can learning be improved"? Various combinations have been tried involving a wide range of modes of delivery, each making resource demands in a unique way. For decades these efforts have traced patterns of change, eccentric yet destined–to–be–repeated.

Experienced academics know well that there is a repeating sequence: - critique of the old, design of a new "improved" model, introduce and nurture with dedication, ongoing use, new critique, etc. In recent times this sequence has been greatly accelerated. In addition to reshaping by restless academics and new knowledge, the process is now being fuelled by resource constraints and other organisational imperative, which are responding in turn to technological change and new public sector management attitudes, i.e. principally the drive for cost reduction and efficiency.

Growing pressure to meet these new demands is compounded by heightened marketplace competition as a result of which tertiary institutions, as well as new forms of private education providers are being brought directly into competition. All this adds up to a new learning landscape filled with promise but not without pitfalls and traps.

This paper identifies factors that are shaping learning environments, and assesses the extent to which content–quality considerations are being placed at risk with wider use of Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN).

To reduce the threat to content–quality in ALN courses, it is suggested that particular attention be given to developing a model for the quality assessment process that would serve to inform designers, administrators and potential participant learners.

Three exemplary Wed–based courses are described and examined. Conclusions are used to illustrate the quality–content assessment and to serve as a starting point for wider discussion by the ALN learning system community.

The paper concludes with reference to the need for designers of ANL to understand and strive to provide Peak Learning Experience (PLE). The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: -

Section 2	The people element of tertiary education course design
Section 3	Trends in education delivery
Section 4	Exemplar web based learning environments
Section 5	Access–Process–Quality Approaches for ALN
Section 6	The Peak Learning Experience Challenge

Section 2 - The People Element of Tertiary Education Course Design

Armed with technology, a new wave of academic and administrative explorers and pioneers is fanning out across the terrain. Politicians and business interests are spurring them forward in the hope that these efforts will succeed in meeting what Erhmann (1997 p. 1Þ) [HREF1] suggests are the compelling contemporary challenges for universities-

"the need to widen and enrich educational access for a variety of currently under–served groups such as working adults, the homebound (including homemakers), the handicapped, and others;

the need for institutions to draw on and share a wider range of intellectual resources than they can afford to acquire and maintain locally;

the need to implement teaching techniques that are far more feasible when technology is used (e.g., use of computer and video–based airplane simulators for education of pilots.

Many of the needs described above can be summarised as a triple challenge, a triple challenge that educators always face in one form or another: how to-

0. extend access, and increase the fairness of access to learning, i.e. improve who can learn,
1. enrich and update what students are to be taught, and
2. control what it costs for those students to learn."

Clearly for many politicians and administrators, the solution to these challenges is seen to lie in wider, if not generalised introduction of Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) which are defined by ALN (1999) [HREF2] as "people networks for anytime, anywhere learning. ALN combines self–study with substantial, rapid, asynchronous interactivity with others. In ALN, learners use computer and communications technologies to work with the remote learning resources, including coaches and other learners, but without the requirements to be online at the same time."

Arguably this blueprint of future tertiary learning systems has strong overtones of wider access to learning, as well as greater efficiency. But is silent on content and content–quality making no references to either a world- or even a local–view of content relevance. Perhaps it expresses a view of education as purely functional and required for vocational purposes only. Only time will tell. In the interim, academics are being expected to design new courses and reshaped existing material to meet the new technological imperatives yet without clear idea of fundamental purpose or educational objectives. Metfessel et al (1969 p.2ß) writing about Bloom’s and Krathwohl’s educational taxonomies define an objective as:

 "An educational objective consists of a description of the behaviours of an individual (the learner or examinee) in relation to his/her processing information embodied in subject matter- that is, what the learner must be capable of doing with certain characteristics or properties of subject matter. The behavioural component, which may be described as a process involved at an appropriate level of the taxonomic classification, is usually expressed in the form of a noun "ability" or a verb of being "able" followed by an infinitive such as the "ability to do" or "able to do".

The terms "subject matter" or "content" are used in a fairly broad sense, as their level of specificity is highly variable, depending on the characteristics of the curricular unit."

Clearly a tertiary system of the future however efficient and regardless of the number of people interconnected, would be a travesty without a explicit objectives endorsed by communities in which the learning will take place. An anecdote (ibid. p.11) highlights the consequences-

"……… And the Texan who claimed that he has the best six–gun shot in the West would take those who challenged him to the side of an immense barn and fire aimlessly. He would find where his bullets had landed then draw targets with his bullet in the bulls’ eye every time.

Moral: He aimed at nothing so he couldn’t miss!"

Almost forty years ago, Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia (1956, p. 95) identified three domains of learning which were cognitive, affective and psychomotor. It is useful to recall these distinctions and associated components. ’Cognitive’ covered knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. ’Affective’ spans receiving, responding, valuing, organisation and characterisation. In the educational literature there is continued recognition of the validity and relevance of this taxonomy which suggests that designers of new courses cannot lightly ignore these basic student learning sequences. To get closer to better learning in the next century, not only do academics need better understanding of the importance of clear educational purpose, but they must have a better knowledge of their student’s aim’s, needs and capacities.

In a recent analysis of USA college student demographics, Hansen (1998, p. 3á)[HREF3] identifies significant changes. These include an increase in the proportion of older students, enrolment of minorities and lengthening of the hours of work outside university by full–time students. This survey also showed declining levels of basic academic preparation, accompanied by higher levels in confidence by students in their own abilities. There have been changes in the family structures, exposure to violence and suicide, and higher drug dependency. The most significant characteristic of the present generation of students is their relationship with the mass media and associated technology.

These insights underscore the challenges which course designers have to confront as they come to grips with new structures.

Section 3 –TRENDS In Education Delivery

Laurillard (1993) considers the use of educational technology for university level teaching and in the process identifies some basic requirements to promote effective learning. In particular she specifies "the implications for the design of teaching are that: academic learning must be situated in the domain of the objective, the activities must match that domain: academic teaching must address both the direct experience of the world and the reflection on that experience that will produce the intended way of representing it. Thus teaching is a rhetorical activity: it is mediated learning, allowing students to acquire knowledge of someone else’s way of experiencing the world" (ibid. p. 29).

One of the difficulties that this analysis of task generates is seeing the way forward to establish a learning environment that can give effect to these aims. There is a whole range of ways in which individual instructors or institutions are attempting to use new delivery systems. For example, according to Cox & Clark (1998 p. 162),

 "Quizzes have traditionally been used to test knowledge. Although they can test higher level cognitive skills they are rarely used for that purpose."

These authors are concerned that opportunities to foster deeper learning objectives are being ignored in spite of the availability of equipment that could assist in a wider form of application.

At another point on the content–process continuum, a recent report (Arvan et al, 1998) outlines the SCALE efficiency assessment project at the University of Illinois. In particular it describes the asynchronous learning network (ALN) in use and the particular objectives of the study. These were a concern for with raising student–faculty ratios, ostensibly without sacrificing instructional quality. As part of a discussion on course delivery costing, the question of quizzes is raised and in particular the matter of whether these ’educate’ or ’make work’. The authors of the study clearly recognise that if quizzes are to be educative, there will be much greater preparation costs associated with the design, testing and application of more searching tests.

This focus on quizzes, though only a small part of the broader learning process, is useful for exposing one of the important difficulties facing tertiary education at this time, namely that the academic staff cost of generating well–presented material is high, if not higher, when delivered with new technology.

The trap is that institutions are investing in new technology on the premise that there will lower faculty/student ratios. The prescription favoured by university administrators seems to be that "more technology and fewer tenured academic staff will promote efficiency and consequent institutional survival". The fallacy of this ’downsizing/technology substitution’ mindset is that by unreasoning cost control at the ALN course preparation stage, content deficiencies stand to cause far greater harm to institutional reputation, upon which future existence depends.

Discussing the emergence of distance learning (ALN), Turoff (1997) [HREF4] echoes these concerns as follows -

 "Historically it is no comfort that this is a process that often occurs when new ideas based on visions become popularised and introduced with a limited understanding of their roots. Furthermore the administrative practices management and policies currently associated with distance education (in Higher Education) are encouraging exactly the wrong approach to utilise the technology to improve learning and increase the quality of the educational delivery process".

If these analyses prove well founded, it can be expected that more and more learning systems will appear with relatively simplistic content and/or low levels of user satisfaction. Laurillard (1993, p. 204) refers to the latter by saying

 "computer environments have been the breeding ground for a new strain of learning activity which I can only describe as ’anathemagenic’ activities which give birth to loathing."

Another way of looking at the problem is to ask whether ALN is producing greater interest and liking for a subject or actual distaste. In short, are we sure that the learning environments created are capable of generating positive learning experiences? Understanding the nature of the learning concerns experienced by students approaching the 21^st century is certainly crucial to decisions on technology acquisition. Yet it is hard to imagine such matters as stress levels, shallow learning, complex material synthesising, diverse sources of information featuring highly in discussions about computer purchases and systems design. Obviously within the current economic and political framework there is no utopian solution but only a constant balancing act based on quite simplistic constructs about university education. Academics are rapidly approaching a point of decision where stark choices will need to be made about content and process of web–based instruction. Workplace pressure notwithstanding, the battle to maintain quality levels is an essential professional duty. Choices about content quality for real learning will in the years ahead be hard ones for academics. Integrity and foresight will be needed in good measure to prevent students slipping away from the frontier at which real learning takes place into some shallower less challenging learning pattern.

In Section 4 examples are given of the way three well–regarded web–based courses are being presented. Each aim to advances the frontier of learning and is a useful pointer towards quality levels for learning environments for the 21^st century.

Section 4 - Exemplary Web–BASED Learning Environments

The previous section ended on rather a sombre note with reservations being expressed about prospects for the maintenance of content quality in technology delivered tertiary learning systems. All is not gloom and doom as there is still a chance, albeit a faint one, that educational values and clearly stated objectives will receive the higher level of recognition commensurate with the aims of a university education. Though still the exception and not the rule, there are many individuals and groups working hard to establish courses with serious quality objectives and technology driven process of the highest standard.

From the point of view of this paper, the important issue is defining and identifying the nature of the content–quality continuum and in particular its upper bounds.

The political community has views on efficiency and access, but apparently not on content quality. In short, they are looking ahead with two eyes disregarding the concern that the importance of the situation demands that progress is determined with at least three eyes on the road at all times. As key upholders of educational value and stakeholders by right, it is university faculty that must uphold this third dimension by defining and standing up for essential recognition of quality of content.

The academic community is of late very much on the run in the face of gales of change. It has become increasingly unreflective and disinclined to confront the core problem of determining what is the acceptable minimum standard for the content and process for any particular course offered by a university. As Metfessel et al (1969 p.11) concludes, Confucius (5^th Century BC) seems to have understood the dilemma-

"They had been discussing didactics and transitions and the student asked his tutor, "Master, what is needed to change the world?" And the sage pondered, then replied "A proper definition of things".

One way to foster discussion on the qualities of "content–quality" is to review examples of work done by academics known for their high level of interest and commitment. As food for thought, this section briefly outlines (Figure 1) three significant and well–regarded learning systems, known to the author who makes no claim that these are the best in class.

From this brief description of the modules and process, it is evident that participants have a good chance to see the business as an interacting system propelled by team decisions based on quantitative analysis of relevant data.

The next section contains a commentary on the extent to which these and other examples are helpful in focussing attention on content–and process quality concerns.

Section 5 - Access–PROCESS–CONTENT Quality Objectives For ALN

The argument outlined above has been firstly that ALN is a synthesis of three elements of the new learning landscape: access, process and content. Secondly, a set of quality requirements must be met for each of the three elements if each course as a whole, is to be recognised as appropriate for a university. The third strand of the argument is that in the foreseeable future, political, administrative and business interests will be promoting the ’access’ and ’process’ elements, tapping into wider markets while driving for greater process efficiency. Fourthly, matters of content and content–quality are in practice antipathetic to these access and process aims. Fifthly, for the reason that learners by definition have limited ex ante knowledge with which to judge the merits of courses of study on offer, the trite assumption that the ’market’ will take care of quality issues is naïve at best. Conclusion: under threat and under pressure though they most certainly are, the only group that can both determine and incorporate content quality, are academics in their roles as designers and users of university ALN courses.

Before continuing to discuss the part that academics should play in quality maintenance, the excerpt which follows is worth noting. There appears to be a body of opinion that academic concern about content–quality is merely an expression of self–interest.

OECD (1996, p. 120) states-

"This search to satisfy the individual [acaedemic’s] ego must be acknowledged and dealt with if new teaching and learning technologies and systems are to be adopted. It is necessary to identify what emotional resistance teachers have and to make pains to support staff through needed adjustment to the newer paradigm".

What this suggests is that legitimate and essential quality control aims are being lumped together with foot draggers, all to be dealt with (or to?) in due course. On this point, it is instructive to note that surgeons in public hospitals have held patient outcome considerations paramount throughout decades of radical administrative reforms. Surely academics have similar social and professional obligations.

The matter of defining appropriate standards for particular categories of university course is clearly beyond the scope of this paper, perhaps of the conference forum itself. What is set out below aims to provide the basis for debate more than an attempt to be definitive.

A preliminary list of critical issues that need to addressed before any ANL course "goes live" follows in Figure 2

Arguably, this only a subset of quality concerns; there are no doubt many more. One way to assess this list is to relate it to the three examples outlined in the previous section. This will assist readers to judge the practical implications of using such a filtering and validation device, and to expose any errors or omissions.

Figure 3 relates the Quality Content model to the three cases using abbreviations to increase case of comprehension:

for the three course examples - C, RWP and MB;
for the quality characteristics E1...M2;
for appraisal - y–yes, n–no, m–maybe, u–uncertain, n/a–not applicable.

Using the schema outlined above, it is possible to summarise this project in the following terse fashion:

* Note- these are subjective impressions for the purpose of illustration only.

 

The point must be reiterated that the conclusions outlined above are subjective and do not purport to be definitive. The purpose was to raise the awareness of those involved with ALN course design of the ongoing need to preserve appropriate quality along each the related dimensions of access–process–content. The second aim was to demonstrate that ALN courses have different profiles, an insight that should be helpful to potential students and institutions with outsourcing intentions.

In this regard, it is significant that in a case such as C, conclusions about content–quality and outcomes cannot be made without an examination of individual papers that are nested within the overarching Cecil framework.

The challenge for Ausweb participants is to become more reflective, more aware of the holistic quality of design, and more and more determined to stand up for achievement and maintenance of a balanced quality standard.

Section 6 - The Peak Learning Experience Challenge

In Section 5 it was shown that individual course designers have produced excellent examples of courses which have a high probability of promoting a better learning experience through the establishment of an above–average learning environment. Yet each of these examples has aspects which might be criticised either by users, other academics or administrators on technological, educational, psychological or financial grounds. Not only is there a plethora of viewpoints but the pace of changes to the learning landscape is breakneck.

Academic complexity and disunity make it near axiomatic that process efficiency and wider market imperatives will dominate, and over time, uniformity will prevail in tertiary institutions.

This sombre view is echoed by Turoff (1997) [HREF4] who says "If it can be automated is it really a university level education?"

Pervasive uniformity is a gloomy conclusion for those enthusiastic about technological innovation in learning.

Yet there is a challenge and certainly an opportunity to offset this bleak future. The key could be the Peak Learning Experience (PLE).

This is a small learning element, which brings about a large and lasting increase in learning outcome benefit. Maslow (1959, p. 45) talks about peak experiences as "moments of highest happiness and fulfilment".

In the context of designing tertiary study courses, the objective is to give students (ibid. p. 49) "experiences not only as value intrinsically but as so valuable that they make life worthwhile by their occasional occurrence".

Another challenge for Ausweb99 participants is to get into the business of creating at least one PLE each in a lifetime. Collectively, Ausweb should aim to become the clearinghouse for PLE material.

References

Arvan, L. et al, (1998). The Scale Efficiency Projects. JALN 2.2, Sept, 1- 27.

ALN (1999) [HREF2]

Cox, K. & Clark, D. (1998). The Use of Formative Quizzes for Deep Learning. Computers Educ. 30ß/4, 157- 167.

CECIL - [HREF5]

Erhmann, S.C. (1997). Ivory Tower, Silicon Basement: Transforming the College [HREF1]

Hansen, E.J. (1998). [HREF3]

Krathwohl,D.R., Bloom, B.S. & Masia, B.B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II Affective Domain. London: Longmans.

Laurillard, D., (1993). Rethinking University Teaching. London: Routledge.

Metfessel, N.S., Michael, W.B., & Kirsner, D.A., (1969). Instrumentation of Bloom’s and Krathwohl’s Taxonomies for the Writing of Educational Objectives. Conf.Amer.Educ.Res.Assn., Los Angeles, 12.

Maslow, A.H., (1959). Cognition of Being in the Peak Experiences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 94, 43Ú.

Mikes Bikes - [HREF7]

OECD (1996). Information Technology and the Future of Post–secondary Education. Paris: OECD.

Pearce, J., Livett, M., & Rodrigues, S. (1998). Development and use of an on–line video–analysis tool for physics learning. [HREF6]

Turoff, M., (1997). Alternative Futures or Distance Learning: The Force and the Darkside [HREF4]

 Hypertext References

HREF1

http://www.engrng.pitt.edu/~fie97/Ehrmann_paper.html

HREF2

http://www.aln.org/alnweb/aln.htm

HREF3

http://www.emporia.edu/tec/t_idea8.htm

HREF4

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/turoff11.html

HREF5

http://cecil.msis.auckland.ac.nz/cecil/Profile/Purpose/purpose.htm

HREF6

http://www.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/jon/Papers/AUCpaper/AUCpaper.html

HREF7

http://www.netmike.com/home.htm

Copyright

Martin Putterill, © 1999. The author assigns to Southern Cross University and other educational and non–profit institutions a non–exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced.

The author also grants a non–exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD–ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.