This paper is part of the Readers in e-learning series, by Graham Attwell.

1 Developing Pedagogies for e-learning

The recent JISC publication 'Effective Practice with e-learning' (2004) says:

The importance of pedagogy and pedagogic approaches to e-learning has been increasingly recognised by researchers in recent years. However research has tended to be hindered by an over-emphasis on the technology itself and by a lack of understanding of the context in which e-learning is being implemented. E-learning developed out of the paradigm of distance learning and was often adopted as a tool to extend access to university programmes and provision. Pedagogies tended to reflect those prevalent in distance learning and university education. Universities have, until recently, put their faith in a pedagogical model that is characterised by activities such as lectures, tutorials and laboratory work. It is assumed that these activities will take place on campus. An important part of this pedagogy is to test and grade the quality of student learning by means of essays, practical exercises and end-of-course, closed-book exams. (Christie, undated). Distance learning, in following a university paradigm, tended towards reproducing similar approaches to teaching and learning utilising technology as a medium for delivery. In this respect e-learning, even today, is still constrained by a hang up around assessment.

1.1 Approaches to learning

Approaches to learning did change very rapidly in the later part of the twentieth century. This development was driven not so much by the emergence of new technologies for learning and teaching but rather by changing patterns of work and production, caused partly by the implementation of new technology to the production process, resulting in ideas such as lifelong learning, organisational learning, communities of practice and the learning organisation. Whilst all of these theories and models varied in detail, they shared certain presumptions. One important proviso was a shift in the locus of knowledge form specialist educational institutions to broader societal organisations including the community and the workplace and a corresponding movement away from education and training and towards learning. Michael Kellker and Pete Cressey (1999) propose the following continuum of change.

Adapted from: Pearn M., Roderick C. & Mulrooney C., (1995) Learning Organizations in Practice, London, McGraw Hill, Table 9.1, p 158

1.2 New roles for teachers and trainers

In such a scenario teachers and trainers have a new role as facilitators of learning, rather than as purveyors of knowledge. Enkenberg (1994) pointed out that while there are many examples of productive learning in everyday situations: "investigative deep-level learning is relatively rare without instruction or intentional self instruction. For that very reason, instruction is necessary to enhance the quality of learning and to make it purposeful". He said teaching involves:

• organising the contexts and communities of learning;
• formulating organisational objectives
• structuring instructional contents
• guiding and monitoring the students advancement through the integral cycle of investigative learning;
• interacting and conducting conversation with the students
• planning and assessing the overall instructional process

1.3 Effective practice

The technological focus in e-learning research has increasingly been challenged, amongst fears at the failure of e-learning to live up to its potential and concerns at the quality of the learning experience. A number of project have attempted to develop new models and gave questioned what constitutes effective practice and how such practice can be generalised. The JISC report (2004) says:

Laurillard and McAndrew argue that our current teaching practices must address two challenges. "First, technological innovations deeply influence our present society - education and training not exempted. They offer all kinds of opportunities for teaching. But to seize them, our academics - and I presume teachers in general - have to possess an innovative attitude and certain technological skills. Second, the traditional transmission model of teaching that we have practiced for so many years, no longer answers to the demands of our knowledge-based society. We need more sophisticated models. And, of course, technological innovation, it is argued, should help us in building these models."

This short paper is intended as an introduction to some of these models and ideas about pedagogies in e-learning and as a stimulus to further learner reflection and activity. The next section will look at a number of pedagogic models, the following section at rubrics for effective teaching and training and the final section will consider some of the different ways individuals are approaching learning with new technologies.

2 Pedagogic models

Martin Ryder (2004) says: "Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world. Whether it is derived from whim or from serious research, a model offers its user a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem. … Models help us to visualize the problem, to break it down into discrete, manageable units. The value of a specific model is determined within the context of use."

Models can help us in understanding the tasks and processes involved in teaching and learning and to develop rubrics for effective practices in the pedagogy of e-learning e-learning. There are many alternative models (for an extensive list and brief definition see http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html), and a full exploration is beyond the scope of this paper.

Jonassen & Land (2000) identify three clusters or broad perspectives, which make fundamentally different assumptions about what is crucial for understanding learning (Mayes and de Freitas). These are:

• The associationist/empiricist perspective (learning as activity)
• The cognitive perspective (learning as achieving understanding)
• The situative perspective (learning as social practice).

The implications of these different approaches are drawn out in the following table, 'Defining approaches to learning,' from the JISC report, 'Effective Practice with e-learning' (2004).

Other models stress the role of negotiation in learning. The Generic Pedagogic Framework has been created using conceptual thinking derived from the second generation activity system of Engestrom. The framework is formed of a triangle. Each corner represents teachers, pupils and sites of learning. In the centre of the triangle is the learning focus which is a shared conception of the learning object arrived at by negotiation between the teachers and the pupils. Pupils can use skills and knowledge about ICT gained from learning in informal contexts such as the home. Teachers can find a new set of roles - for instance as co-learners by applying the framework. Other adults influencing learning are also built into the framework and can influence interactions. The top level generic pedagogic framework described above leads to four instances of specific pedagogic frameworks. These are: pupil voice; pupils as teachers; pupils as producers of media, and learning online.

3 Pedagogy, teaching and training

Whilst it is widely acknowledged that the use of ICT will lead to new roles for teachers and trainers and there is increasing recognition of the importance of intervention in facilitating learning using ICT, there is no universal agreement on how to measure and report on effective practice. Four different approaches are provided in this section. The first by Bill Pelz is essentially a pragmatic account, based on his personal practice and eperience of what works and what does not. The second, published by the UK Qualification and Curriculum Agency as advice for geography teachers is also essentially a pragmatic approach to teaching using ICT. The third by JISC is based on background research aimed at identifying effective practice and as a tool for a series of case studies, The JISC work aims to develop a more generally applicable and transferable model of effective practitioner intervention. The fourth by Wassila Naamani Mehanna looks at a meta analysis of pedagogic interaction in order to statistically test effective interventions.

3.1 Effective online pedagogy

Bill Pelz (2004) puts forward three principles of effective online pedagogy.

1. Let the students do (most) of the work through:
• Student led discussion
• Finding and discussing web resources
• Helping each other learn (peer assistance)
• Grading their own homework assignments
• Analysing case studies
2. Interactivity is at the heart and soul of effective asynchronous learning involving;
• Collaborative research papers
• Team projects
3. Strive for presence including:
• Social presence
• Cognitive presence
• Teaching presence

QCA provide the following checklist for geography teachers:

• Do I plan a full range of teaching approaches to include the relatively closed and controlled approaches and the more open-ended and negotiated approaches?
• Are pupils encouraged to build on their own experiences and to see the relevance of their geographical learning to the world outside school?
• Do pupils have opportunities to pose their own questions and plan their own sequences of enquiry as well as follow mine?
• Do I ensure that all pupils have experience of a range of teaching/learning experiences (e.g. individual and group, inside and outside the classroom, practical and intellectual tasks) so that they find their preferred learning styles?
• Do I plan for a range of different learning outcomes (eg written, ICT based, practical, spoken and display) so that pupils of all abilities and aptitudes can show what they know and can do?
• Am I sometimes provocative and surprising so that pupils are challenged to think deeply and creatively?

3.2 Effective intervention

JISC (2004) has identified six principles for effective intervention:

"Usability:

Interventions should have a clearly defined user base, use language appropriate to those users, be known of by those users, and be functionally accessible to those users.

Contextualisation:

Practitioners continue to favour interventions which are contextualised for them i.e. those which have a clear and explicit statement of purpose; acknowledge the realities of the educational setting; allow practitioners to work on their own real life issues; and take account of the language, values, culture and priorities of their particular community.

Professional learning:

Changing practice requires practitioners to learn, specifically to alter their conceptions of teaching and learning through e.g. opportunities to construct their own meanings; learning from experience through reflection; informal learning; problem based learning; action learning; peer supported learning.

Communities:

There may be real advantages to working within the existing communities and networks with which practitioners are already affiliated. This links to secondary issues of authenticity and ownership: practitioners should experience interventions as genuinely sharing their concerns, and being provided or supported by people which whom they can identify.

Learning Design:

Practitioners need to be supported in engaging with a process that starts with the educational approach. Effective interventions are dependent on an understanding of the curriculum design process and of learning outcomes.

Adaptability:

Effective use is influenced by a practitioner’s ability to adapt and reuse the resource; resources must be easily repurposed. Adaptability is closely related to contextualisation: i.e. resources may be well contextualised for a narrow range of situations, or generally adaptable to a wide range of situations."

3.3 Pedagogical behaviours

Whilst the JISC study is built on desk research and on a case study methodology, Wassila Naamani Mehanna has analysed online conferences of four different postgraduate programmes in four different UK universities. A model of 29 pedagogical behaviours emerged from the one-year grounded analyses and then applied in analysing additional 5 million words of online interactions. The findings suggest four clusters of pedagogies correlated with students' grades; however, the effect size calculation reveals an educational significance for all of them. This indicates if they were to be employed in online classrooms they are likely to enhance students' learning and outcomes.

His research built on Marzano's (1998) meta-analysis which empirically tested nine pedagogical strategies with effect sizes (ES) "showing evidence of their effectiveness in enhancing students' achievement for all students in all subject areas at all levels" (Op Cit, page 4)

Marzano's theory-based meta-analysis posited the interaction of four aspects or systems of human thought operating in most, if not all situations. Those systems are:

• The self-system processing of presenting tasks. This system contains a network of interrelated beliefs that enable one to make sense of the world and processes that evaluate the importance of the presenting task relative to a system of goals and assesses the probability of success relative to the individual's beliefs.
• The use of task-related knowledge. This system is comprised of the information, mental processes, and psychomotor processes that are specific to a subject
• The cognitive processing of tasks is responsible for the effective processing of the information essential to the presenting task. This system acts on an individual knowledge base and can be organised in four categories: storage and retrieval, information processing, input/output, and knowledge utilisation.
• The meta-cognitive processing of tasks controls any and all aspects of the knowledge and the cognitive system.

From those four systems, Marzano (1998) teased out nine specific pedagogies that were further researched in a separate meta-analysis (Marzano, 2000). Based on their effect sizes Marzano recommended their use by all teachers in all subject areas. They are:

• Identifying similarities and differences between items.
• Summarising and note taking which involves at least two highly related elements: filling missing parts and translation of information into a synthesised form.
• Reinforcing effort and providing recognition are strategies that deal with students' attitudes and beliefs and thus, are likely to affect students' level of engagement in cognitive processes.
• Homework and practice provide students with opportunities to deepen their understanding and proficiency in any content area.
• Nonlinguistic representations involve the use of graphs, charts, maps, mind maps.
• Cooperative learning comprises five elements: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing.
• Generating and testing hypotheses involve the application of knowledge.

Once more these models are only put forward as examples of different approaches. I have only scratched the surface of the increasing wealth of research an ideas in this area. Given the amount of on-going work it is possible that new and richer understandings of effective pedagogic approaches for teachers and trainers will emerge over the coming period.

4 Pedagogy and Learning

Whilst much of the recent work has been on pedagogic approaches to teaching and training using e-learning, other researchers have focused on pedagogies for learning. This may be a false dichotomy: obviously any pedagogic approach to teaching necessarily implies an analysis of learning processes.

Nevertheless there is increasing interest in informal and non-formal learning activities which take place outside the context of formal learning programmes or learning institutions. Some researchers (see Seely Brown, below) have suggested that individuals are using ICT to develop personal learning in new ways. Others (see for example my paper on the use of ICT for learning in ICTs, Attwell, 2003) have suggested that in certain contexts most learning in taking place outside formal learning situations and deploying everyday business and communications software rather than programmes and application specifically developed for learning.

Within the context of lifelong learning it would appear likely that learners will both participate in episodic formal learning events, whilst utilising informal learning o build personal knowledge and skills. From an organisational learning perspective, there is interest in how knowledge management schemas and applications can interface with individual learning.

4.1 A continuum of learning

Horst Dichanz and Annette Ernst (2001) have proposed a continuum to categorise learning. Whilst I may not agree with every category, the list does provide a useful heuristic tool for looking at different pedagogies in e-learning:

• Learning as a process for acquiring information;
• Learning as a process for acquiring information and processing experience;
• Learning as a process for acquiring information and processing experience that effects a long-term change in the consciousness of the learner;
• Learning as a process for acquiring information and processing experience in which the learner integrates new information and experience into his/her current knowledge base;
• Learning as a process for acquiring information and processing experience in which the learner perceives, selects and integrates new information and experience into his/her current knowledge base, thereby changing it;
• Learning as a process for acquiring information and processing experience, in which the learner selects and constructs knowledge that is useful and appropriate for him/herself and in turn uses this to drive and determine his/her own continuous learning process;
• Learning that becomes an individual process of interaction between the individual and his/her environment, in which the subjective reality of the learner is actively constructed.

All these processes of learning can be supported by ICT. But different learning processes will require different pedagogic approaches and in turn different applications of technology.

More importantly, most pedagogic applications of e-learning have tended towards those processes towards the top of the continuum. Perhaps the most common use of e-learning is as a process for acquiring information, although whether this necessarily involves learning in the commonly used definition of changing behaviour is open to doubt.

4.2 Thinking and acting

John Seely Brown in a speech in 1999 entitled "Learning, working and playing in the digital age", looked at the different ways young people were using Information and communication technologies of learning. He pointed to the growth of discovery or experiential learning. As kids work in the new digital media, he said, rather than abstract logic, they deploy bricolage. Bricolage relates to the concrete and has to do with the ability to find something – an object or a tool, a piece of code, a document - and to use it in a new way and in a new context. But to be a successful bricoleur of the virtual rather than the physical you have to be able to decide whether or not to trust or believe these things. Therefore the need for making judgements is greater than ever before. Navigation is coupled to discovery and discovery coupled to bricolage but this requires judgement concerning of quality and trustworthiness of information and sources. In his speech Seely Brown drew attention to the importance of action. He suggests new forms of learning are based on trying things and action, rather than on more abstract knowledge. "Learning becomes as much social as cognitive, as much concrete as abstract, and becomes intertwined with judgement and exploration".

5 Changing pedagogies, changing technologies

Carr (1997) said, "Without appropriate pedagogy, use of high capacity communication services cannot provide significant improvements in learning outcomes. In general it is the pedagogy that provides for learning, not the technology or the software." In a report produced as part of the European Commission thematic monitoring process, looking at European projects involving the use of ICT for learning Attwell et al (2003) suggested the majority of projects were technology led. Instead of technologies being designed to support pedagogic processes, pedagogies were being imposed by the different technological applications.

To reverse this process towards learner centred systems would mean a move away from the Learning Management System (LMS) approach to e-learning software design to looking at the development of more flexible component based software architectures which can be configured to support individual learning processes.

In a web discussion on Personalised Learning Environments, Scott Wilson (2004) talks of the need for a 'personal' elearning tool rather than the 'personalised' tool owned by institutions, as part of a movement away from the 'big expensive institutional LMS' strategy to one which is genuinely flexible, scalable and learner-owned (not just 'learner-centric'), and enables the 'lifelong learner' meme to work for real. He suggests a lot can be achieved with some fairly simple tools, along the lines of what we already have in terms of desktop aggregators (Shrook, SharpReader, iPodder/X), bloggers (XJournal, LogJam, ecto), chat clients, media viewers, and file sharers. Taken together, these tools perform most, but not all, of the functions of a PLE.

However it also implies a change in the way educational technologies are designed with a movement towards co-design with pedagogists, educators and learners working together through iterative design process, rather than present technology led processes.

References

• Attwell G., Dirckinck-Homfeld L, Fabian P, Karpati A and Littig P, (2003) E-learning in Europe – Results and Recommendations, BIBB, Bonn
• Attwell G, (2003), The challenge of e-learning in small enterprises: Issues of policy and practice in Europe Luxembourg, Cedefop, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
• Carr (1997), Carr, J. (1997) The Future is Already Here. A National Strategy For Australian Education and Training to Maximise Opportunities Offered by High Capacity Communication Services. http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/Broadbnd/Report.htm, accessed 1 January, 2005
• Christie M. (undated), The Mutual Impact of Educational and Information Technologies: Building a Pedagogy of E-learning, http://www.medialab.chalmers.se/ckk/pdf/mutual_impact_article_040227.pdf, accessed December 14, 2004
• Cressey P. and Kelleher M. (1999), Advances and paradoxes of corporate learning practices, Paper presented to FORUM workshop, Learning in Learning Organisations, Universidad de Evora, Nov. 25 - 28 1999
• Enkenberg, J. (1994) Situated Cognition and cognitive Apprenticeship. New Framework for Education of Professional Skills, in A. Heikkinen (ed.) Vocational Education and Culture - European Prospects from History and Life-History, Tampere, Tampereen Yliopisto.
• Dichanz H and Ernst E, (2001) E-Learning Begriffliche, psychologische und didaktische Uberlegungen zum electronic learning, www.medienpaed.com/00-2/dichanz_ernst1.pd, 200, accessed 1 Decmber 2004
• de Freitas, S. & Mayes, T. (2004) Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Unpublished project report, Essex University.
• JISC, (2004, Effective Practice with e-Learning A good practice guide in designing for learning, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/jisc%20effective%20practice3.pdf
• Jonassen, D. & S.M. Land (2000) Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Laurillard, D. and McAndrew P. (2002). Virtual Teaching Tools: Bringing academics closer to the design of e-learning, Proceedings of Networked Learning 2002 (Sheffield, UK, 26-28 March 2002), 11-16.
• Marzano, R. (1998). A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instructions. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). U.S. Department of Education.
• Marzano, R. (2000). What Works In Classroom Instructions. USA: Mid-Continent Research For Education and Learning
• Mayes T. and de Freitas S, Review of e-learning frameworks and models http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf
• Mehanna W. N. (2004 The Pedagogies of e-Learning, http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2004/Proceedings/Individual_Papers/Mehanna.htm
• Pearn M., Roderick C. & Mulrooney C., (1995) Learning Organizations in Practice, London, McGraw Hill, Table 9.1, p 158
• Pelz B, 2004, (My) Three prfinciples of effective On-line Pedagogy , in Journal of Ansynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 8, Issue 3 – June 2004, http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_pelz.asp, accessed January 2, 2005
• QCA, http://www.qca.org.uk/geography/innovating/some_questions.htm
• Ryder M (2004) Instructional Design Models, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html
• Seely Brown J,(1999) "Learning, Working & Playing in the Digital Age: Creating Learning Ecologies." Transcription of a talk by Brown at the 1999 Conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher Education. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown/, accessed 25 July, 2004
• Wilson S (2004), Reply to commentary by Stephen Downes on Component Frameworks, http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/clist/clist.cgi?topic=1103585971&post=1103624686, accessed 2 January, 2005

Further reading

• Ryder M (2004) Instructional Design Models, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html

Although I am always dubious about the term 'Instructional Design', Martin Ryder provides an excellent overview of different pedagogical approaches.

• John Seely Brown J,(1999) "Learning, Working & Playing in the Digital Age: Creating Learning Ecologies." Transcription of a talk by Brown at the 1999 Conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher Education. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown/, accessed 25 July, 2004

I always liked John Seely Brown’s work which is unusual in that I normally hate so called gurus. To my mind Seely Brown is one of the few influential writers prepared to think 'outside of the box'. If you like his paper its worth reading some of his other work – you will pick it up on an Internet search.

• JISC, (2004, Effective Practice with e-Learning A good practice guide in designing for learning, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/jisc%20effective%20practice3.pdf

First I had better declare an interest as I do some work for JISC on their e-Learning programme, which produced this publication. But I really do think it is one of the best publications around on the pedagogy of e-learning.

Issues for discussion