Advances in digital technology tools have significantly impacted learning and teaching processes in the last few decades. Each day there seems to be a new tool which promises to improve the learning environment or learner experience, and I find myself tasked to evaluate which of the available tools are most effective in positively impacting how our learners embrace and experience the courses we design. While maintaining a realistic focus on organizational priorities and capacity, I find myself balancing using efficient, harder learning interventions compared to allowing for softer interventions.
Currently we are working to implement a blended learning approach in our organization. This renewed approach will include both on-line and in-person components, which is in contrast to existing practices where learners are required to choose between either on-line or in-person learning interventions. When viewing our proposed renewed approach through a learner’s lens, I can empathize that using non-routine, disruptive technologies that may be unfamiliar may be perceived as unnecessary. Will the learning experience be improved by using a blended approach and will it meet the needs of all of our learners?
I appreciate Dron’s (2014) suggestion that technologies can be perceived as hard or soft, depending on the learner’s digital technology competency. For some learners, accessing a self-paced course allows access course materials when their schedule permits, thereby allowing them to set their own pace for learning. For others, accessing unfamiliar technology is stressful, as they lack digital literacy skills. As Dron (2014) outlines, core to the success of instigating innovation is determining the best time and method to implement a new or renewed idea so that it is adopted seamlessly into the learning environment and becomes routine. I am left with the task of further exploring this core consideration as we move forward in implementing our renewed, blended approach.
Dron (2014) suggests that changes in distance education occur due to a complex set of conditions. The condition that resonated with me was “path dependencies caused by earlier decisions” (Dron, 2014, p. 238). In our learning environment we have used the same set of principles and tools for about a decade. By reducing learner choice through continually developing courses using an inflexible set of design principles and processes, our learners may be left with less choice, which could reduce “opportunities for creativity, innovation and change” (Dron, 2014, p. 241).
Motivating factors are linked directly to learner success, with a common motivation linking the investment of time and money to the expectation of career progression or increased occupational opportunities. Our learners are mandated to complete learning interventions so that they can maintain their professional designation. However, each learner works in a unique business model and has different needs and motivation for attending learning interventions.
The core goal that I take from Dron’s (2014) article is that our organization should further explore trends in the experiences shared by study participants with the intention of identifying the most effective intervention tools, supports and resources used. Perhaps by mindfully exploring outliers in learner feedback data sets, as opposed to commonalities, we may uncover evidence that refutes our preferred design practices. From there, we can consider the best approach in designing and implementing new or renewed approaches to course development.
References:
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
