Muse #5

Today we learnt that the three domains of learning are Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor, with further subdivisions within each domain.

Cognitive is about knowing/learning, Affective is about feeling and Psychomotor is about doing.


I'm wondering whether it is possible for the domains to overlap and link with one another, just like how the reading mentioned that "the divisions are not absolutes" Haven't quite figured out how to do it yet though.

Oh and we also learnt how to write Learning Objectives! I never knew that there were four distinct components to an objective - ABCD (acronym for Audience, Behaviour, Condition and Degree). The acronym certainly is useful in helping to remember the components. Hahah.

Muse #4

This week's lecture was about the three faces of needs assessment , namely, the problem model, discrepany model and innovation model.

Needs assessment is necessary before diving right into the design process. I find it a great pity when organisations fall into this trap in order to avoid competitors stealing their ideas, though I can understand why they would be so impatient. Still, I feel that it is more worthwhile to risk that happening and do the crucial needs assessment than to waste precious resources and time. After all, what could be more heartwrenching than to see all your efforts and hard work come to naught because it was not even needed in the first place?

I found that the reading quite effectively explained the concepts and steps involved in each model as well as the factors to consider when decribing the learning environment. This is because the same problem may require different solutions due to varying contexts (which include the trainer's preferences, availability of hardware and software, belief systems etc).

A particular point that I found interesting was the common misconception that evaluation comes after analysis. This is where the ADDIE model rightfully illustrates how evaluation should continually be done at every stage of the process so as to ensure the design is on the right track.

I am looking forward to reading about specific examples for each model in the other fellow students' blogs. (:

Muse #3

This lecture was particularly insightful to me personally and I've come to appreciate the lecture activities more. Because my friends and I had not found the time to do the required readings before lecture, we could not understand the activity and totally fumbled. Only after we went around viewing the learning designs that others came up with did we realise how badly we were on the wrong track. But I wouldn't say that it was a total disaster because if not for that activity, I probably would not have understood the concept. (Waking up at 6am for an early lecture does have its benefits after all!)

Now that we have attended the lecture and done the readings, I have a much clearer picture about what constitutes a learning design, its various components (tasks, resources and supports), and most importantly, the links between them.

It is vital to always bear in mind that every activity entails a different approach based on the objectives and contexts. This is exactly what Tegiar's reading talks about. Maximal learning results will only occur if the most suitable combination of tasks, resources and supports is employed, according to the specific learning situation. Tegiar divides these learning designs into five main techniques for assimilative information handling, adaptive, communicative, productive and experiential activities. I found the models given in this reading useful in understanding how each of the five learning designs works especially since they illustrated how tasks, resources and supports combine with one another.

Whilst Tegiar's reading divides the designs into the five abovementioned techniques, Oliver's reading does it in a different way - rule-based, incident-based, strategy-based, and role-based. I suppose these are just different ways of looking at learning designs. Again, the models in Oliver's reading helped to sum up the concepts very well for me. (Graphics certainly complement text!)

Ultimately, other than the earlier point about appreciating the relations among tasks, resources and support, the other main point that I got out of the readings is that when drawing up a learning design, the main focus should always remain on the learning process and outcome instead of the e-tool. I guess in this day and age with so much technological innnovation, it is tempting to get carried away with selecting tools and giving it too much attention. We must strike a balance with all the features and elements.

I'm finally starting to understand e-learning better. Yay! :)

Muse #2
My impression of the relative pros and cons of Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Socioculturalism based on how the three theories were presented to us is that there seems to be some sort of gradual transition. I'm not sure if this interpretation is correct but nonetheless I feel that all three theories have their fair share of educational value that they can contribute to the arena of e-learning.

Behaviourism - using reinforcements and punishments to shape one's behaviour - is too simplistic to me. It totally disregards any active thinking on the part of the learner. This implies the mindless actions carried out just so as to attain the incentives promised and/or avoid being punished. This does not really constitute real learning, does it? All the person learns is to do what the educator wants him to do and he will be rewarded otherwise he will face punishment. But he may not necessarily have understood the rationale behind.

This is where Cognitivism comes in. In contrast to Behaviourism which focuses too much on the external, Cognitivism goes one step further to include internal thoughts, assimilation and accomodation, and how these affect external behaviour. This is perhaps a better way of understanding the process of learning than Behaviourism. But for all the merits of Cognitivism, it still does not give a full picture since it is restricted to the individual. 'No man is an island'. It would be narrow minded to think that learning is a one-man show. Everything occurs in a certain sociocultural context which must be factored into the equation. That is why Socioculturalism is perhaps most reflective of the learning process.

By giving credit to the whole system, Socioculturalism acknowledges that each individual must be located in the bigger picture - the system in which he resides as well as the other individuals residing there with him. A great myriad of factors and conditions in the system would definitely have varying levels of influence on the learning process of an individual and hence these factors should not go unaccounted for.

Of course, this is not to say that Socioculturalism is always the best theory and that the other two theories are inferior. One fundamental assumption of Socioculturalism is that the various individuals in the system will interact with one another harmoniously and amicably. This could be too rosy a picture that is painted since the world is much more complicated than that. Hence it really depends whether a particular theory is more appropriate for the problem in question.

As for exactly where each theory should be applied, unfortunately, I'm still unclear about how to pinpoint precisely which type of theory suits which problem best. I suppose the general framework outlined above can serve as a rough guide whilst we continue to discover more about each theory during the course of the module.