Designing and Implementing ICT Supported Learning Scenarios: Proposal for a Pedagogical Tool
Caroline Brassard SADC Lac-Saint-Jean-Est Alma, Quebec Canada cbrassard@sadc.lacstjean.qc.ca Amaury Daele Centre de Didactique Universitaire University of Fribourg Switzerland amaury.daele@unifr.ch Liliane Esnault EM-Lyon France esnault@em-lyon.com
Abstract: The global context of innovation propels the trainers from a class lecture to a whole activity of pedagogical design and implementation. One of the key point of interest is how to “scenarize” teaching and learning activities when using ICT. Designing a pedagogical scenario is answering a series of pedagogical questions related to the increasing complexity of the trainers and learners tasks due to the use of technologies. The purpose of this paper is to present a model and a tool based on the Reeves’ model for supporting lecturers in making pedagogical choices. The model and the reflective tool were developed mainly in a research environment. They were experimented with “real” trainers in several workshops, experiencing situations taken from the “real life”. Nevertheless, it was necessary to experiment on a larger scale to assess the practicality and efficiency of the system. The paper describes such an implementation involving learning trainers in adult distance education.
Introduction
The global context of innovation in Higher Education propels the trainers from a class lecture to a whole activity of pedagogical design and implementation (Esnault & Daele, 2003; West, Waddoups & Graham, 2007). One of the key points of interest is the question of how to “scenarize” teaching and learning activities when using ICT. The notion of scenario is naturally related to other fundamental notions such as pedagogical (or instructional) design, or pedagogical systems (Esnault & Daele, 2003). Designing a pedagogical scenario is answering a series of pedagogical questions related to the increasing complexity of the trainers and learners tasks due to the use of technologies. However, several studies have shown that this process is not “natural” or easy for a lot of lecturers and professors in Higher Education (Anderson, 2004; Annand & Haughey, 1997; Lazarus, 2003). More than often, these trainers [1] were themselves “self-educated” in the use of the technology; they think that learners will integrate “naturally” the technology in their learning. They are aware that it could imply a given number of resources (hardware, software, even technicians), but they generally do not have a global view of the ins and the outs of the whole thing (Bangert, 2004).
[1] In this article we will use the word “trainer” to speak of all the persons implied in the “teaching” activity (professors, teachers, trainers, tutors, etc.) and the word “learner” for those who are implied in the “learning activity” (participants, students, etc.).
As researchers in pedagogy, pedagogical advisers and coordinators of distance training, we have elaborated a pedagogical framework in order to support the reflection of lecturers in Higher Education or trainers at a distance when elaborating an ICT-based pedagogical scenario and to advise them for the implementation of their scenario. At the beginning of our own reflection (Esnault & Daele, 2003), when looking for possible frameworks for designing pedagogical scenarios, Reeves’ model appeared to be at the same time comprehensive and practical (Reeves, 1996 & 1997). Then a reflexive tool was developed, in the form of a set of questions, to help pedagogical designers’ reflection according to their objectives and context. It was experimented with trainers in several situations taken from their real teaching life. This paper describes such an implementation involving learning trainers in adult education.
Pedagogical Scenario
One key element of the scenarization process is the pedagogical scenario, i.e. the global process through which a learning activity (or a set of learning activities) will take place. A pedagogical scenario is the result of the process of designing a set of articulated learning activities (Esnault and Zeiliger, 2000; Esnault and Daele, 2003); it is time-scaled and its output is the learning activity. As for a movie, it is made of several sequences. The scenario comprises the learning objectives, a schedule of the learning activities, some resources and tools, the description of students’ tasks, the assessment terms, etc. Thus, designing a pedagogical scenario starts with answering a series of pedagogical questions related to the increasing complexity of the trainers and learners tasks due to the use of technologies. It means making choices among a set of possibilities, through a reflexive framework, by taking a stand regarding the different pedagogical questions.
The framework
The designing process proposed here was built along a multi-step process, including two projects: Recre@sup, a European action-research project that took place between 2000 and 2002 [1]; and Nom@d, a current training project started in June 2005 and housed by a French Canadian institution in the Quebec province [2]. The first step, as a result of our analysis (Daele et al., 2002; Esnault and Daele, 2003) allowed us to refine Reeves’ model by adding some new dimensions and regrouping others (see Figure 1). Our goal was to stick very closely to the usual way of working of the trainers, with a sufficient level of rigor in the reflection. We did not aim at matching the model with one or the other pedagogical theory, but at “theorizing” existing practices. The second step was the design of a reflexive tool to enable trainers positioning their scenario along each of the 17 dimensions. For each dimension, we systematically suggest a set of questions using the trainers’ words. Again we aimed at keeping things very practical. The third step, within the Nom@d project, consisted in practically implementing the model and the reflexive questioning tool with trainers in a distance education program.
[1] http://tecfa.unige.ch/recreasup [2] http://nomad.qc.ca
Figure 1: A model for pedagogical design (after Reeves) With help of the framework, the pedagogical team is able to draw a kind of “profile” of a course (or a lecture, or any kind of pedagogical activity), before, during and after the unrolling of the pedagogical process and to evaluate the consistency of this profile. It provides a support for feedback and improvements. It may also evidence a gap between the desires of the pedagogical team and the constraints or limits due to the environment, the availability of resources, the organizational system, or the characteristics of the learning audience, among others. Furthermore, such a framework facilitates the sharing and communication “of the studied reality among people of different disciplines” (Paquette et al., 2006). Each one of the 17 dimensions refers to a specific aspect of the pedagogical scenario. A dimension is a continuum of possible positions or standpoints. For a given scenario, some dimensions might be more relevant or important than others. It is never a question of taking side with one or the other pole, but to position the answer in the continuum scale, and also to make an in-depth reflection upon the reasons of such a position, according to the objectives, the context and the actors’ representations and styles. Then it has to be translated within the scenario.
It is important to notice that the content of a course is often deeply reorganized and reworked when the trainer uses ICT (structure and order of presentation of the concepts, learning methods for knowledge acquisition, etc.). This major aspect of scenarization does not lead to a specific dimension but is implicitly embedded in quite all dimensions.
The method E=MC4
This part presents an example of practical use of the conceptual model and the reflexive tool, developed within the context of the Nom@d project (in French: Nouveaux media d’apprentissage à distance; New media for Distance Learning). The pedagogical philosophy in Nom@d refers to socio-constructivism, cognitive psychology, and pedagogical engineering for adult training (Reigeluth, 1999; Dijkstra et al, 1997). Some choices are already made regarding the pedagogical orientation of the courses developed within Nom@d, and implemented in the tool supporting the courses design, as it is often the case in training systems in order to ensure consistency. The training developed within the project is dedicated to experienced adult trainers having no special familiarity with e-learning and distant training, but who are willing to start creating trainings specifically designed to be followed on-line. The design of pedagogical scenarios is based upon a model enabling to develop contextualized, competence based collaborative trainings. The method is called E=MC4 [1]. The population of trainers operates in many different kinds of areas: alphabetization, vocational training, rural communities’ development, etc. In this section we call them the “learning trainers”. The Nom@d pedagogical principles are embedded both in the tool and in the way learning trainers will experience their learning, by implementing their own courses on the platform. Their final learners are supposed to be experienced, interacting with each others, with learning activities embedded in real life situations. These principles support the method and orientate the scenarisation. The process for training the trainers is made of five steps. It starts when the trainer has an idea of the course she desires to create, or when she is required to create an on-line training. It is finished when the training is implemented on the learning platform and ready to be followed. The five phases are: reflective analysis, scenarization, implementation, improvement and evaluation. - Step 1 “I analyze reflexively”. The learning trainer is invited to: reflect upon the 17 dimensions, be informed on the position taken by the project regarding some of them, consult a few short documents with example of reflexive questions and leads for action, and take her own position and answer a questionnaire. A place and time for discussion (a forum) are available on the platform. - Step 2 “I scenarise”. A document presenting all the answers is generated at the end of step 1, to help writing down the scenario itself, which is made of sequences of learning and teaching events. Starting from the basic structure issued after step 1, the learning trainer designs and documents each of the learning activities with the help of a template. Then she identifies the resources and material required by the learning sequence. She is constantly warned that, when it comes to on-line training, it is very important to be accurate on what the learners are expected to do and how they are expected to behave. - Step 3 “I implement”. This step deals with how to implement the scenario on the learning platform. The learning trainers are advised to follow a training (available on-line) about the technical platform possibilities and uses. - Step 4 “I improve”. Once a first version of the training is available on-line, it is time to consider, how to fine tune it. The learning trainer might be willing to take some advice from colleagues, IT specialists, mediation specialists, etc. - Step 5 “I assess”. The final assessment of the scenario can usefully be done by putting it to test. What is suggested here is to try, test and evaluate the learning activity within a group of learners (colleagues, “real” learners) in order to get as much feedback as possible. During the whole process, the “learning trainer” undertakes tasks that will lead her to progressively build the training. There is no dichotomy between learning and acting; both are intertwined. It is not a matter of reading a theoretical methodology, but of “living” the MC4 while creating the first training. Ideally, this training takes place at distance and possibly on the same learning environment than the one used by the final learners. In the same time, there is a technical training on the use of the tools. In the Nom@d project, the platform used is Moodle, an open source environment.
[1] E=MC4 refers to the French denomination which is “Education des Adultes utilisant un Modèle de Conception pédagogique Collaboratif, Contextualisé et par Compétences”: “Adult education using a Collaborative, Contextualized and Competence based pedagogical Design Model”.
The Nom@d tool is in its first stages of use. The first group of learning trainers started in March 2006; other groups started since then (last group expected in May 2007). An assessment of the elaboration process is under way.
Conclusion and further developments
This paper was intended to present a model and a practical process for designing pedagogical scenarios. The model emphasizes the fact that an in-depth reflection is necessary when designing a pedagogical scenario for a learning activity taking place within a blended or on-line sequence. When teaching in a class-room with students who are mainly close to the pedagogical team, it may be easier to anticipate or solve difficulties. When the learning takes place at distance, detecting a problem might be more difficult if the learners are not sufficiently aware of the way they are supposed to act, the degree of freedom and responsibility they have in their learning, the kind of work that is expected from them, when, and how it will be assessed. Learning on-line and/or at distance puts more responsibility on learners; they have to be more active. It is important to avoid a possible discrepancy between the attitude of learners regarding their very proactive learning engagement and the learning behavior regarding the course process. Designing pedagogical scenarios of the above kind implies the pedagogical team to be multidisciplinary from the early stages. IT is not something that can easily be “added” afterthought. A close cooperation between people with different skills and competences: the content, the pedagogy, the technology, the media, the supporting tools, etc. is necessary, not forgetting the people in charge of assessing the business model of the learning system. The integrated system presented here, Nom@d, has already integrated some pedagogical choices (some answers). Naturally, an implementation of the reflexive model could be done with other kind of tools, and other kind of choices. The choices made here seemed to be the most interesting taking into account the audience (both the learning trainers’ audience, and the final learners’ audience), i.e. adults’ training with a broad range of cognitive styles, training levels, motivation, institutional environments, etc. Similar implementations could be made with different adaptations for Higher Education, young children, vocational training, etc. We hope that such implementation will be undertaken.
References
Anderson, T. (2004). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson et F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca: AB, Athabasca University, 273-294. Annand, D. et Haughey, M. (1997). Instructor’s orientations towards computer-mediated learning environments. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance. Vol. XII, 1/2. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The Seven Principles of Good Practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 217-232. Daele, A., Brassard, C., Esnault, L., O’Donoghue, M., Uyttebrouck, E. & Zeiliger, R. (2002). Conception, mise en oeuvre, analyse et évaluation de scénarios pédagogiques recourant à l’usage des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication. Recre@sup project report, SOCRATES-MINERVA. [Online – Apr. 27 2006 – http://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/recreasup/rapport/WP2.pdf] Dijkstra, S., Seel, N., Schott, F. & Tennyson, R.D. (Eds.) (1997). Instructional Design: International Perspectives. (vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Esnault, L. & Daele, A. (2003). Higher Education and ICT: Questions to Design Successful Pedagogical Scenarios to Improve the Learning Process. World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & Higher Education, Phoenix, Arizona, Ed. 2003(1), 944-951. Esnault, L. & Zeiliger, R., (2000) Web Learning with Nestor : the Building of a New Pedagogical Process, in Web-Based Teaching and Learning Technologies, A. Aggarwal editor, Idea Group Publishing. Lazarus, B. D. (2003). Teaching courses online: how much time does it take? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 47-54.
Paquette, G., Léonard, M., Lundgren-Cayrol, K., Mihaila, S., & Gareau, D. (2006). Learning Design based on Graphical Knowledge-Modelling. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 97-112. Reeves, T. C. (1996). A Ten Dimensions Model for Web-based Instruction. In T. Ottman & I. Tomek (Eds.). EDMEDIA’96. Charlotteville, VA, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Reeves, T.C. (1997). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Instruction. [Online – Apr. 27 2006 – http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/ibroedu/review/Reeves%20 Evaluating%20What%20Really%20Matters%20in%20ComputerBased%20Education.htm] Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale NJ, LEA. West, R.E., Waddoups, G. & Graham, C.R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Education Tech. Research Dev., 55, 1-26.