Paper Abstract:

In 1998, developmental work and research began on provision of web-based virtual learning materials at Swinburne University of Technology, Lilydale. Two events (first - the decision to provide printed learning guides, and second - the arrival of the Information Technology, Systems and Multimedia Discipline Leader) acted as catalytic agents for development of these virtual learning materials and consequent, action research for the case under study.

The virtual learning materials research project required grounding in at least one of the instructional theories. The research to date indicates that it is important to be as comprehensive as possible in terms of instructional strategies, in particular gaining the learner's attention, presenting of objectives and stimulating recall of knowledge both learned and previously acquired. Petry et al (Petry, Mouton and Reigeluth, 1987) has in part provided a synopsis of selected theories and models of instructional theory that are drawn upon at this time. However, instructional strategies only form one facet of the formative questions. The second is learner motivation. Here, the research draws upon the work of Keller et al who has explicitly addressed the use of motivational strategies, (cf Keller and Kopp, 1987;).

This paper is constituted as a series of questions emanating from a reflective action research approach to the operation of, or socialisation of, individuals and groups acting as agents within an Australian regional university campus setting. The campus setting in essence provides boundaries, or constrains certain variables, within which to observe actors. For example the campus would be considered small with only 1500 - 1800 students and staffing of about 30 academics for some twelve discipline areas.

Significant to the researcher/author, in the present research, is the investigation and implementation of learner-centric computer-mediated online studies and also the reflexive monitoring of operationalised research and developments. This can be more specifically portrayed as:

· Subject delivery, using Computer-Mediated Learning (CML),
· Development of a Virtual Learning Guide Template (VLGT);
· Investigation of first year student reactions to CML and virtual learning materials;
· Investigation of learner motivation and the apparent performance goal orientation of students in the case study;
· Operationalising research outcomes, and the reflexive monitoring and measurement of implementations.

Theme Learning and Teaching Online: Sub-theme B – Curriculum design, online learning and teaching modes, and best practice; and Evaluation of online learning and teaching.

Background:

Within the development work of a computer-mediated and web-based virtual learning guide template (VLGT) is the need for an understanding of the axiomatic position of the Swinburne University of Technology, Lilydale (SUTL campus), as that position acts to constrain a number of learning systems variables.

In the early 1990’s a campus decision was made by the academic staff that every subject taught at the campus must have a learning guide in printed form and available for sale at cost to all students. The guides were to contain the substantive content of the subject being taught, and to express the learning objectives inherent in that study. As the Learning Materials Specification (Paterson & Weal, 1995) states:

“Learning Guides are the vehicle for communicating learning expectations and learning modes. They map the route that your students should follow in order to complete their studies successfully.”

The learning guide model has been operational since 1994. The implementation of these guides and observations by the researcher have led to several broad questions (outlined below) that require research in order to more fully understand the ramifications and outcomes. Before asking the questions, its is important to state the axiomatic position of the academics concerned, with the learning materials specification and the extant structure of the learning guide in mind. Firstly, there is the philosophical position of Constructivism as would be expressed by Jonassen et al. Secondly, structural requirements were that flexible and multi-modal instruction modes support the student, it should also be noted that it was not a requirement for academics to offer online learning materials as one such mode.

The structure of the extant learning guide is divided into three parts:

1. Subject level components

Content list
Introduction
Overview
Review
Final Assessment
Conclusion

2. Module level components

Content list
Introduction
Objectives
Assessment
Summary
Self-assessment questions
Self-assessment answers
Further Reading
3. Topic level components

Introduction
Objectives
Learning Modes and
Resources
Main text
Summary
Bibliography

Each subject consists of a number of modules, with each module consisting of one or more topics. To date no follow-up research or evaluation has transpired in a systematic way to investigate the veracity of the model as a learning framework or a subject delivery tool; other than to note that students are progressing at rates similar to others at the city campus of the university.

In 1998, several events transpired whereby a significant number of subjects required revision and/or replacing within the Information Technology, Systems and Multimedia Discipline (ITSM Discipline). There was no time available to write the learning materials and have them published (for purchase by students) prior to the start of the teaching semesters. As the discipline leader and subsequently also the researcher, I decided to design and implement a web-based computer-mediated learning materials template similar to the print version. This meant that academics undertook a progressive publication approach to subject development. Initially, all the ITSM Discipline academics were able to achieve was an online version of the content and learning objectives, on a week-by-week basis, available to students both via Internet connection and also via campus computer access labs.

Observations and Questions:

In many aspects, the very axioms of the academics at the SUTL campus have fallen prey to the pragmatic of student demands for content and assessment targets, and the structure of conversional instruction week-by-week as face-to-face teaching.

Several observations emanate, as one who has used this system:

· Emphasis on learning objectives (Paterson & Weal, 1995) – however, students take little notice of these objectives;
· Explicit content – expressing important ideas, readings and self-assessment requiring considerable development by the academic and no development by the student;
· A 1999 quality review indicates that very few of the learning guides published, display the degree of completeness, implicit, in the Learning Materials Specification;
· Students at undergraduate level display behaviour similar to that expected in a performance based or goal oriented learning mode, and a reluctance to undertake cognitive and reflexive learning;
· A reluctance by academics to make use of online delivery as an alternative flexible mode or instructional technology.

Several broad questions emanate. Questions that help focus the wider research, in part reported in this paper. They are:

· What needs to change in the learning guide model in order to activate self-directed learning by the undergraduate students?
· Can online computer-mediated learning provide a “significant (non-detrimental) difference” for students choosing this mode of study?
· Can online computer-mediated learning be developed to a stage where students choose self-directed learning over conventional instruction?

The flexibility offered to academics and the students via online and computer-mediated learning materials was made obvious by the immediate and positive response to the initiative. During the past two years several evaluations have been conducted by the researcher in order to test the efficacy of this first step toward online self-directed learning materials. The results have indicated that students will make use of online materials of similar or better quality in preference to purchasing published learning guides. It is important to determine, however, whether this is just a novelty reaction on the part of academics and students. Also, is it a response by academics to reduce pressure that might result with a just-in-time development attitude? Or a response by students to reduce costs and take up paid employment while studying? Will the online learning materials suffer the same fate of the equivalent printed learning materials?

All these questions and observation s are being addressed through a program of research extending over several years. The research was formalised in the Learning Edge Project by the researcher, and over the past two years has seen the implementation of several research projects focused on specific elements of a computer-mediated learning environment. The latest sub-project, and the focus of this paper, is the conceptualising of a virtual learning guide template that expresses both the current theories and thinking, and answers the self-directed learning enigma expressed earlier.

Virtual Learning Guide Template (VLGT):

While the Learning Edge Project is investigating nominated variables within the ITSM Discipline computer-mediated learning materials, there is a second aspect, a conceptualising of a virtual learning guide template or model that encapsulates the following aspirations:

· An open, flexible learning environment conducive to self-directed learning;
· An adaptive learning and instruction mode, online and supported by eTutors.

Such a position assumes at a minimum that learning will be computer-mediated, however, where possible face-to-face tutoring should also be available thus maintaining multi-modal subject delivery. Rowntree (1990) suggests that such aspirations depend upon materials specifically written and/or modified with specific outcomes in mind. This poses significant questions in and of itself without considering the wider conceptual and structural implications.

The virtual learning guide template requires a theoretical foundation, with the conceptual framework being founded on three theoretical understanding interacting as a tripartite relationship:

· Constructivism (cf Wilson, 1997; Wilson et al, 1995; Abbott and Ryan, 1999)
· Systems Theory – in particular Human Activity Systems (cf Klir, 1969; Romiszowski, 1977, 1981; Banathy, 1992) and Soft Systems Theory (cf Checkland, 1988; Hiltz, 1990; Davies and Ledington, 1994; Preece, 1999)
· Structuration - (cf Giddens 1979, 1993, 1995)

This position enables the researcher to view the learner and the learning from a dual perspective of learner as an agent and learning as a structure etc. This suggests that the above are not dichotomous, rather they offer a self supporting holism where the individual’s learning is reflexive and adaptive within any given interpretation of the learning structure.

Why this is important to the researcher can be seen in the research to date (Calway, 1999, 2000a) that has shown that the learning guide model currently espoused leaves the learner neither self-motivated nor desirous of a “learning” outcome.

Also, unsolicited comments received on surveys e.g. “lazy”, and “you didn’t tell me what to do” (even when the details are explicit in the learning materials) are typical comments scattered throughout the evaluations conducted by the ITSM Discipline academics. In fact the learning guide approach, as currently prescribed by SUTL campus, has created a scenario where students believe that all that needs to be known in order to pass a subject’s assessment can be found in the learning guide, and that any extra reading and practice self-assessment is above and beyond what is already provided (or required). Obviously some students are motivated to be self-directed learners and to undertake the work, however a significant number are not. The current research, as with many other research projects around the world, aims to re-conceptualise the entire learner and instructional design scenario. Moving from a “teaching as telling”, “tell me what I have to do” to a “help me understand” facilitation.

Further, I argue that there are three levels of learning, ie. Content – what and how; Context – who, where and when; and Concept – why, or a continuum of ‘know how’ to ‘know why’ and inter-disciplinary relationships. Also, I have drawn from the work of researchers expressing knowledge in object form (cf Merril, 1997). Expressing learning as a behavioural and cognitive aspect of a knowledge object enables the instruction designer considerable latitude to incorporate learning theories and instructional design theories with instructional technologies, etc.

So, in summary, the VLGT as a conceptual model acknowledges:

· Learning as a duality of learner activity and learning structure represented in knowledge objects;
· Learning objectives need support in both topical “what is worth knowing” and a temporal acquisition of such knowledge;
· Learning is a human activity and as such can be expressed using systems models;
· Learning outcomes framed as knowledge objects must express Content, Context and Concept where these are seen to be mutually supportive.

One such variable is the expression of learning objectives. That research indicates that the SUTL campus students take little interest in the learning objectives as they are stated in extant learning guides (Calway, yet to be published). However, it is argued that clear expression of learning outcomes along with learning objectives expressed as pre-test statements as interrogatives (using graphical, audio and textual means) will aid in the learner seeking further information. Research conducted by Rowntree (1990) provides an indication that such an approach is plausible.

One further aspect under experimental consideration at present is the use of pre and post-testing of knowledge, not as assessment for credit, but as a motivational approach for self-directed learning. Surveys and interviews conducted in 1999 and 2000 by the researcher (Calway, 2000a) have provided a base line and demographic strategy against which to evaluate any therapeutic actions emanating from identification and investigation of variables that effect the VLGT.

Conclusion:

The researcher is cognisant that learner motivation is paramount for self-directed learning. However, I am reminded of a cereal advert where the punch line is – “Don’t tell them its healthy, and they will eat it by the box full”, perhaps the same is required in instructional design. This paper therefore expresses the need to understand the dichotomy that exists between a learner studying on a “need to know” basis as compared to a student energised with a “desire to know” however that desire may be energised.

While much of the work presented in this paper is in its infancy, there are clear indications, from work to date, that a virtual learning materials approach has no significant (detrimental) difference on student learning and/or motivation from that expressed through extant printed and face-to-face instruction. However, I have argued that this is a poor representation of what could be, or what is desired. In this paper I have expressed the foundation work and the conceptual underpinning of the Virtual Learning Guide Template, I have also argued that pivotal to the expression of the template is the concept of duality of learner and learning, and that this learning is supported by a holistic and adaptive instructional technology and theories.

Bibliography:

Abbott, J. and Ryan, T. 1999. The 21st Century Learning Initiative: Constructing Knowledge, Reconstructing Schooling/ www.21learn.org/publ/edleadership1999.html. 4/8/00
Banathy, B. 1992. A Systems View of Education. Eaglewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications
Calway B. A., 1999 ‘Virtual Learning: A case study of a LOTUS Learning Space project’, 18th Conversations meeting of AICE, Australian Institute of Computer Ethics (AICE) Conversations 5th Nov. 1999.
Calway B.A.; 2000a ‘A Virtual Learning Guide Model’, DUPA Annual Research Conference 2000, Deakin University, Australia.
Calway, B.A.; 2000b ‘Systems Approach for Virtual Learning Development’, International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Deakin University, Australia.
Checkland, P. 1988. 'Soft Systems Methodology: An Overview'. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 15: 27-30
Davies, L. and Ledington, P. 1994. Information in Action: Soft Systems Methodology. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd
Gagne, R. and Briggs, L. 1979. Principles of Instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: The Macmillan Press
Giddens, A. 1993. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. Cambridge: Polity Press
Giddens, A. 1995. Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Hiltz, S.R. 1990. 'Evaluating the Virtual Classroom' in Harasim, L. (ed.) Online education: perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger
Johnson, K. and Foa, L. 1989. Instructional Design: New Alternatives for Effective Education and Training. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company
Jonassen, D. 1999. 'Designing constructivist learning environments' in Reigeluth, C. and al, e. (eds.) Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
Keller, J. and Kopp, T. 1987. 'An Application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design' in Reigeluth, C. (ed.) Instructional Theories in Action. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Keller, J. and Suzuki, K. 1988. 'Use of the ARCS Motivation Model in Courseware Design' in Jonassen, D. (ed.) Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erhlbaum Associates, Publishers
Klir, G. 1969. An Approach to General Systems Theory. New York: Litton Educational Publishing, Inc.
Merrill, M.D. 1997. 'Instructional Transaction Theory (ITT): Instructional Design Based on Knowledge Objects' in Reigeluth, C. (ed.) Instructioanl DesignTheories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Paterson, H. and Weal, S. 1995. Writing Learning Objectives. Lilydale: Swinburne University of Technology
Petry, B., Mouton, H. and Reigeluth, C. 1987. 'A Lesson Based on the Gagne-Briggs Theory of Instruction' in Reigeluth, C. (ed.) Instructional Theories in Action. Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Preece, J. 1999. Position Paper for the Workshop on Research Issues in the Design of Online Communities/ Information Systems Department, University of Maryland Baltimore County http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/workshops/chi/99/participants/preece.html. 31/8/00
Tennyson, R. 1993. 'Instructional System Development: The Fourth Generation' in Tennyson, R. and Barron, A. (eds.) Automating Instructional Design: Computer-Based Development and Delivery Tools. New York: Springer Verlag
Romiszowski, A. 1977. A Systems Approach to Education and Training. London: Kogan Page
Romiszowksi, A. 1981. Designing Instructional Systems. Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London: Kogan Page
Rowntree, D. 1988. Eduacational Technology in Curriculum Development. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Rowntree, D. 1990. Teaching through self-instruction: How to develop open learning materials. London: Kogan Page
Warren, A. 1999. Factors that influence the motivation of online students/ Interactive Learning Centre, University of Southampton http://ace.sbu.ac.uk/workshops/alt-ace4/workshop/topframe.htm
Keller, J. and Kopp, T. 1987. 'An Application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design' in Reigeluth, C. (ed.) Instructional Theories in Action. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wilson, B. 1997. 'Reflections on Constructivism and Instructional Design' in Dills, C. and Romiszowski, A. (eds.) Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Wilson, B., Teslow, J. and Osman-Jouchoux, R. 1995. 'Constructivism (and Postmodernism) on ID Fundamentals.' in Seels, B. (ed.) Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Review and Reconsideration. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.