Reading 1

Elizabeth Melendez EDIT 6200E Readings 1: Ch. 1-3

The key ideas in our chapter readings 1-3 are the foundational principles of e-learning, comparisons to traditional learning, and the definitions which set these distinctions. The “how” (the “e” in e-learning), “what” (the “learning” in e-learning) and “why” (purpose/goals) are examples of how the topics are discussed and set the basic structure for how the authors view this constantly-evolving field.

There are comparisons to the overall effectiveness of e-learning vs. traditional classroom instruction, and, as the examples like the Army’s micrometer instruction bear out, the results of one form of technology over another are inconclusive. As I’ve written in previous classes, I find the rush to adopt and embrace technology often becomes shortsighted, blinded by the affordances of the technology while failing to recognize the lack of substantive applicability. I will always err on the side of instructor-based delivery, even when and especially if technology is effectively employed. “Promises” of e-learning still hinge, largely, on the effectiveness of the design. Regardless of how powerful the technology or how accessible, no tech or trick can replace effective learning design. Gamification is one of the most attractive and potentially most destructive of the technological affordances, as the tendency to want to entertain can so easily override and obscure the objective upon which the product is based. In the early to mid 1990s, the graphic design field suffered, and really continues to suffer, from an onslaught of nouveau-riche design clutter flooding the market with ineffective design that made use of what digital design could do (too much, too soon) but did nothing to create effective messaging and certainly did nothing to improve the aesthetics of the times. I have seen these pitfalls first hand.

Transfer-related applicability can make best use of whatever technology and learning design is chosen, as procedural training is a more direct performance goal, vs. soft skills or other training or instruction for which an accurate assessment of the delivery may be difficult.

Psychological levels of engagement are of obvious interest to me, as the fundamental thread of my thesis and future premises are based largely on the study of how the brain responds to effectors within the learning environment, which include those introduced and delivered in the digital space.

The performance of procedural tasks and far vs. near learning goals are important distinctions, especially in the design choices going forward and the employment of technology and the media choices mentioned in future chapters. The cognitive constraints as they are related to the terminal objectives of a product also inform the technological decisions of the design. The tendency toward poor design practice has been a pitfall for all design disciplines since the dawn of computer-aided design ushered in an era of nouveau riche aesthetic clutter. Ease-of-use access and powerful software made it possible for novices to “create”, but few had the ability or training to actually design. The same is true in the instructional design space, and it is an issue I take personally as an advocate for the preservation of effective and exceptional design. In addition to thoughtful architecture and interactivity considerations, the fundamentals of effective e-learning design are, essentially, no different than the fundamentals of any other design.