Levels of Authentic eLearning
Several events over the last few weeks have got me thinking about authenticity in eLearning. The ODLA Conference for one; and I’ve started re-reading Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning (highly recommended). Both have me thinking about the effectiveness of eLearning. Is authenticity an important factor in eLearning effectiveness? I think so!
I decided to try to put together a list of types of eLearning in order from least authentic to most authentic (IMHO).
- Page turner application with quiz when complete.
I consider this about the least authentic form of eLearning available. Content is generated (possibly that old PowerPoint that was used in class) in the form of a linear application. The user reads the information (analyzes the graphs, …) on the page and then advances to the next page. When all of the material has been read, the student takes a quiz. A variety of media (pictures, videos) can be added to this format - without really affecting the authenticity of the student’s experience.
I would consider this type of eLearning pretty ineffective, in general. I suspect it is usually boring. However, I think it could be effective for highly motivated students. - Page turner application with embedded questions.
Again, the learner proceeds through the content in a linear fashion. Occasionally, the learner is provided a question to ensure that they are, indeed, attending to the content. Such questions could be included rarely or on each page of information. As before, a variety of media can be added to this format. An example of instruction at this level would be my older Diabetes @ School (here) program. Note that this module requires a one-time download of the Authorware player.
I do believe this form of instruction would be more engaging to the students than the first level, but I don’t think it will be as effective as the forms described below. - Demonstration application.
The learner watches a model perform some sort of procedure. This could be video based or possibly a series of images. The model should be elaborating on his thoughts as he performs the activity. The learner may be required to answer questions embedded in the instruction or with a quiz when the instruction is complete. An example of this level would be the use of Captivate (or similar program) to capture computer interactions to demonstrate for users.
This is the first level to include any context for the activity to be learned.
It is quite possible that this level is out of place! -
Programmed Instruction.
Programmed instruction is much like the page turner with embedded questions but with an important and powerful improvement. The instruction can branch based on the student’s answers to the questions. A struggling student can be provided extra instruction and practice. A student who has mastered a concept already can be allowed to skip redundant instruction. Still, the instruction is basically decontextualized and the student activity is not authentic to very many tasks. -
Scenario based eLearning with authentic context and learner control.
At this level, the instruction attempts to provide an authentic context for the activity to take place within. A problem for the learner is posed within the context. The user must perform an activity to resolve the problem. The activity itself may still be rather contrived, but the more realistic the better. Various supports (resources) for the learner are provided. Usually, the learner determines which resources are to be accessed and in which order they should be accessed to try to solve the problem. The newer version of the Diabetes @ School 2008, A (school) year in the life of a student with type 1 diabetes, program would be (I think) an example of instruction at this level (see link here).
I think this level of instruction can begin to reach into the area of constuctivism (but not necessarily so). - Partial simulation of the task to be completed in somewhat realistic context (instructional interactivity).
A simulation of the task environment complete enough to allow the student to do the task to be learned. The task itself is similar to the task the learner would complete in the real world.
An example would be the use of branching capability built into Captivate to create eLearning where the learner is led through the procedure to be learned - having to press the correct buttons in the correct order to move through the proper screens to complete the procedure to be learned, for example.
This instruction could be constructivistic (inquiry or discovery based) or more instructivistic (didactic or instruction controlled). -
Full simulation of task to be complete in realistic context.
The task environment is fully (or pretty fully) simulated. Both the task and the context are very authentic. The learner performs a very realistic representation of the task in a virtual environment very similar to the real environment. Again, this could be constructivistic or didactic.
An example would be a user interface of a fully simulated device. The user could be asked to configure the device for a specific application - the program could evaluate if the configuration is correct. -
Student generated simulations.
Ouch! The only constructionist option of the bunch. The student could create simulations in Scratch or Netlogo to demonstrate their understanding of a concept or procedure. This type of project would be very hard to evaluate automatically, likely requiring a person to evaluate the student simulations.
Ok, so aspects of these levels could be combined to form a bunch of different levels. But I wanted to put something down to consider and reflect upon.
So what’s the purpose of these levels? What can I do with them? As I consider any eLearning, I plan to
- Evaluate any strategy I’m considering to see which of these levels it fits into.
- Consider the costs and benefits to moving the instructional strategy to a higher level.
Any comments? Have I omitted levels? Are my levels out of order (in terms of authenticity)? I’m always happy to hear what any reader may think.