Options
Teachers-as-designers' mental models
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Author
Churchill, Daniel
Supervisor
Wong, Siew Koon Philip
Abstract
This study examined a small group of teachers in order to gain insights into their private theories, how these theories change in the process of designing e-learning, and explored an intervention framework for the design of activity-based e-learning. Mental models for design of e-learning in this study are representatives of private theories held by the teachers in design of e-learning.
Many educational institutions in the developed world have embarked on some form of restructuring to allow for the use of new technologies in learner-centered learning environments to engage learners in active learning rather than passive consumption of information. Nowadays teachers are expected to utilize technology and in some cases to design e-learning activities for their learners. Considerable attention in institutions is given to three factors: infrastructure, hardware, and software. Much less attention is given to the thinking of teachers in the design of e-learning. Research studies also follow a similar trend and to date they have not provided useful guidelines for work with teachers engaged in design of e-learning. Left alone, teachers are likely to design direct instructions rather than create experiences for learners with activity-based e-learning. Without teacher change, educational reforms will be brought to standstill and technology will be used as just another means for the distribution of information. To understand intervention and teacher change it is essential to understand their theories as these inform their e-learning design.
Teachers' private theories in design of e-learning are likely to fall in one of the six major focus areas: Learning, Learners, Roles of a Teacher, Technology, Planning and Design, and Changes and Society. A finding of this study is that different teachers prioritize certain focus areas more than others in their design of e-learning. Four patterns or mental models were identified: Technology-in-Focus when "Technology" was the central focus area, Learners-in-Focus when "Learners" was the central focus area, Teacher-in-Focus when "Roles of a Teacher" was the central focus area and Learning-in-Focus when "Learning" was the central focus area. Learning-in-Focus was observed as the only mental model that led to the design of activity-based e-learning. This suggests that any intervention for the design of activity-based e-learning should scaffold teachers' Learning-in-Focus mental model.
Without any intervention, the teachers in this study were likely to start the design of e-learning by planning content (subject matter resources). Accordingly, e-learning design was likely to result in a direct instruction product rather than a learning process for knowledge construction. In the later stages of the study, some of the participating teachers reexamined their design approaches by focusing on activities rather than on content. This enabled two of the participating teachers to bring forward their Learning-in-Focus mental model when designing final e-learning designs.
Through the design of e-learning the teachers engaged in reflection. This activity was an important tool to help teachers examine their theories about learning. Questioning their own theories about learning, however, does not necessarily lead teachers to make actual changes in e-learning design. Further intervention is needed for a change in mental models to be instantiated in teachers' e-learning designs. In this study, the teachers' generally positive private theories in relation to educational changes provided a suitable foundation for such intervention. This study found that constraints that prevent changes in mental models and in the design of activity-based e-learning are caused by the teachers' private theories about learners, assessment, technology, and institutional management. These are the areas that interventions might address in order to scaffold teachers' design of activity-based e-learning. The intervention should account teachers' views about learning with emphasis on learners, assessment and technology. But this is not sufficient: a suitable environment and suitable conditions relevant to assessment, technology and management should be in place.
Many educational institutions in the developed world have embarked on some form of restructuring to allow for the use of new technologies in learner-centered learning environments to engage learners in active learning rather than passive consumption of information. Nowadays teachers are expected to utilize technology and in some cases to design e-learning activities for their learners. Considerable attention in institutions is given to three factors: infrastructure, hardware, and software. Much less attention is given to the thinking of teachers in the design of e-learning. Research studies also follow a similar trend and to date they have not provided useful guidelines for work with teachers engaged in design of e-learning. Left alone, teachers are likely to design direct instructions rather than create experiences for learners with activity-based e-learning. Without teacher change, educational reforms will be brought to standstill and technology will be used as just another means for the distribution of information. To understand intervention and teacher change it is essential to understand their theories as these inform their e-learning design.
Teachers' private theories in design of e-learning are likely to fall in one of the six major focus areas: Learning, Learners, Roles of a Teacher, Technology, Planning and Design, and Changes and Society. A finding of this study is that different teachers prioritize certain focus areas more than others in their design of e-learning. Four patterns or mental models were identified: Technology-in-Focus when "Technology" was the central focus area, Learners-in-Focus when "Learners" was the central focus area, Teacher-in-Focus when "Roles of a Teacher" was the central focus area and Learning-in-Focus when "Learning" was the central focus area. Learning-in-Focus was observed as the only mental model that led to the design of activity-based e-learning. This suggests that any intervention for the design of activity-based e-learning should scaffold teachers' Learning-in-Focus mental model.
Without any intervention, the teachers in this study were likely to start the design of e-learning by planning content (subject matter resources). Accordingly, e-learning design was likely to result in a direct instruction product rather than a learning process for knowledge construction. In the later stages of the study, some of the participating teachers reexamined their design approaches by focusing on activities rather than on content. This enabled two of the participating teachers to bring forward their Learning-in-Focus mental model when designing final e-learning designs.
Through the design of e-learning the teachers engaged in reflection. This activity was an important tool to help teachers examine their theories about learning. Questioning their own theories about learning, however, does not necessarily lead teachers to make actual changes in e-learning design. Further intervention is needed for a change in mental models to be instantiated in teachers' e-learning designs. In this study, the teachers' generally positive private theories in relation to educational changes provided a suitable foundation for such intervention. This study found that constraints that prevent changes in mental models and in the design of activity-based e-learning are caused by the teachers' private theories about learners, assessment, technology, and institutional management. These are the areas that interventions might address in order to scaffold teachers' design of activity-based e-learning. The intervention should account teachers' views about learning with emphasis on learners, assessment and technology. But this is not sufficient: a suitable environment and suitable conditions relevant to assessment, technology and management should be in place.
Date Issued
2004
Call Number
LB1028.38 Chu
Date Submitted
2004