Week 3 - still plugging on

http://elg.massey.ac.nz contends that to successfully implement e-learning guidelines this should be at an institution-wide level. I’m not sure (but will find out) if MIT has adopted specific guidelines re e-learning. As in this course I am asked to identify e-learning guidelines specific to my project I will continue on this track. Obviously if my institution has guidelines then my selection should be congruent with the global policy, but at this stage am boxing in the dark (Easter Holiday catch-up here).

Scenario: Unit Standard 16342 – Organisational Principles – Level 4
Students are required to demonstrate an understanding of Organisational Charts, their different types and the advantages and disadvantages to an organisation of applying these types.

Stage 1
Students view a presentation giving them basic information about different organisational structures – this is progressive from simple to complex structures
Stage 2
Students are given scenarios (based on above) and manipulate structures to form a suitable organisational chart for each structure. Feedback would be available to verify correct structures. Students would be given unlimited opportunities to trial their various structures.
Stage 3
Peer review – students discuss (online) their rationale for each structure chosen and the advantages and disadvantages to an organisation for their choice

At this stage this is envisioned as a formative exercise – but after trial period could transit to a summative evaluation as it meets the Unit Standard requirements.

My selected guidelines
1.1
TD1 – have ‘trialled’ this classroom. Found, when teaching this F2F, students have difficulty in understand the significance to an organisation of an inappropriate structure and also the transition (whether reactive/organic or planned restructure) from one type of structure to another. In my trial I initially used volunteers (with enthusiastic input from observing students) and groups to use whiteboard. I then designed a presentation (Stage 1) which students find useful as an initial learning tool. My initial research indicates that the intended learning outcomes would be achieved with a well-designed e-learning tool. At this introductory level in the Management discipline there are few resources available. The level is comparable to A’ level in the UK, and I have searched unsuccessfully for resources specific to this topic. Most resources are for Stage 1 undergraduate level which is far too complex. – (TD13)

TD3 – by placing the three stages on our eMIT site students would have the opportunity of exploring (at their own pace) the learning tool. Feedback on their submitted structure would enable them to revisit any inappropriate structure (TT 3).

A discussion board this give the less experienced student the support to enable deeper learning to take place. At this stage it is not planned (by MIT) to make this course web-based or enhanced – just web supported. Discussion on results would therefore be F2F. But I envisage that this could transit to a web-based course and therefore TD10 would be a possibility that I should consider when designing/deploying this Learning Tool.

MD 3 – I have already consulted our e-learning team and their input has been invaluable to me in adjusting the design and realising the possibilities of using an e-learning instrument for this discrete learning outcome.

Outside of the ELG I also found ‘Kirkpatrick’s Learning and Training Evaluation Theory’ http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_8.htm particularly interesting. The article (above) discusses its value in technology-based training. In particular the ‘Behaviour in the Workplace’ section – had transfer of knowledge/skills occurred? Although not directly related to my learning outcomes this is very relevant to many courses conducted in a Polytechnic environment where this transfer of knowledge is vital to the continued success of our courses.