Will learners soon dictate their learning qualifications?

That option could soon be coming our way if universities follow the research of Philip Duchastel, Nova Southeastern University. He says that university education needs to adapt to the new eLearning technology in a number of ways.

Instead of the traditional approach, he proposes a new learning model that includes:

1. Students who define and pursue specific learning goals as opposed to learning explicit content such as from a textbook
2. University course creators who accept diversity of outcomes as opposed to demanding common learning results
3. Students who produce their own researched knowledge rather than the regurgitation of course content
4. Evaluation tasks that demonstrate knowledge application as opposed to knowledge assimilation based on routine course tests
5. Students who can demonstrate they can build learning teams (collaborative learning) as opposed to exclusive individual learning
6. Universities actively encouraging global communities (virtual scientific communities) made possible by internet technology

“This new interactive model of learning is most suitable to online education. The explosion in information makes ‘creating knowledge’ by learners themselves more important than the traditional imparting of knowledge by instructors, whether in the classroom or elsewhere,” he says.

An online model of learning based around discovery learning removes the onus on course leaders or tutors to define what are legitimate knowledge and approved sources. The students working in collaborative teams would have to provide the evidence that their arguments (presentations of information) come from legitimate sources. And, that the conclusions drawn from their research are logical given the evidence they have gathered.

Checks and balances
There are several checks and balances inherent in this model of learning.

1. First, there is the learning team. The online environment allows some quite rigorous debate to take place because there is no body language involved to skew the frankness, unless it’s taking place in a video format (like Skype groups). Team members will understand that allowing someone to come up with poor research will not aid their case. They will want to challenge and analyze the research themselves, and will follow-up anything that could be suspect.

2. Second, the students’ evidence of success is not so much on the amount of content or evidence they have gathered, but the conclusions they have drawn from the evidence or research. Any tutor worth their degree will be able to sit through a presentation and discern whether the evidence is sufficient and whether the conclusions drawn are valid. Very little marking involved.

Tutors would become brainstorm leaders and guides when groups were stuck. They would teach critical thinking skills rather than facts that students could find out anyway. Their weekly (online or face-to-face) tutorials could be model presentations of their own research, and their teaching goals would be to show how they applied scientific method to ascertaining the credibility of the evidence.

The issue of credibility of research and information is a valid one. We just have to look at the victims of online hoaxes to know that if everything looks legitimate we are likely to accept that it is. We have only to read about ‘rogue investors’ to realise that while everything looks like we would expect, we will overlook indications of wrong doing or ‘tall stories’. We also have to quickly ascertain what is purely for entertainment and what is worth giving time to. Critical thinking is a skill most needed today, online or off.

Strange bedfellow as it is, I would propose that intuition is also a human quality that deserves more credit in the way we evaluate knowledge. It can let us down badly, because we rarely want to disbelieve old knowledge or be forced to take on new knowledge that lies contrary to what we ‘know to be true’. However, the greatest advances in science have come from the scientists, explorers and astronomers who trusted their intuition and refused to be bound by old knowledge. They took a very little new knowledge (observation) and allowed their intuition to move them forward into the unknown. Intuition is to be encouraged in our new learners.

I believe the vast knowledge library provided to us through the internet will encourage the world to take dynamic strides into a new way of living, if we are prepared to accept it. What needs to happen is that the old way of judging a student’s worth, through his/her accurate regurgitation of theory from old books, has to change. And it has to change whether the course of study is provided online or off.

Online Nation, a 2006 report by Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, looked at ‘Five Years of Growth in Online Learning’. The authors say that in the US about one-third of higher education institutions account for three-quarters of all online enrolments. “Future growth will come predominately from these and similar institutions as they add new programs and grow existing ones.”

These figures seem to imply that the early adopters of online (eLearning) have become the industry giants among universities. However, how are they taking hold of the opportunities that eLearning provides, rather than turning old books into online copy, is unclear. Online courses need to include strategies that hook students in. The learners must become active partners in the learning process rather than empty-vessels-that-must-be-filled.

Online Nation describes the barriers to universities taking on online courses as:
1. Cost (both cost to develop online courses and the costs to deliver them)
2. Lower retention rates for online
3. That students need more discipline to succeed in online courses
4. Whether online degrees will be acceptable in the job market
5. The level of acceptance of online instruction by faculty members

Allen and Seaman say: “it is not clear whether these are long-standing or more recent concerns, but survey responses suggest that these concerns are likely factors that have kept them (non-engaged universities) from introducing any online offerings.”

The first objection has largely been addressed by increasingly clever software. The second and third need a change of attitude about what learning is, as discussed in this article. The last two objections sound like pure reluctance to let go of what we currently ‘know to be true’.

H Sylvawood