No Gravatar
Print Friendly

I took an online course on Instructional Design for Adult Education earlier this year. The cornerstone of any instructional design models is the construction of learning objectives. Everything else, such as learning support, the use of technologies, and teaching and learning resources are hinged on the clearly set-out learning objectives. Without well-defined learning objectives, you don’t have the basis for doing instructional design.

Our current discussion of complexity in education and learning starts with a different premise than the one for instructional design. In the complex, non-linear perspective, organizing, constructing and structuring of learning are left to students to do on their own. Learning is not to be designed by somebody or something external to learners themselves. Phelps, for example, conducted a noteworthy action research over 4 years in order to facilitate reflection and understanding of non-linear complexity-based learning among future primary and secondary teachers in the context of an ICT education course. Instead of directing the students to expectations of directive-style learning, Phelps focused on them “establishing self-directed and self-resposible approaches to their learning, including exploratory learning and ‘play’”. He refers us to how we normally learn in a real-life, non-institutional setting:

“Learning is usually, motivated by an activity which needs to be performed or a problem which has been encountered. Individuals seek and select information from all kinds of sources to meet their own personal needs and interests and there is always further learning which they can continue to pursue as their activities and practice develop and they reflect on their new goals.”

Phelps’ action research is an interesting case study for us to further explore non-linear, complexity-based learning. Since the course was for future elementary and secondary teachers, the concept of non-linear, authentic, complexity-based learning was introduced in that context. The course itself was about ICT education. For many subject matters and topics other than the subject of learning and learning activities, people don’t think about whatever they are doing in terms of what sort of learning they are involved in. The students are not necessarily reflective of their learning, how to shape their learning, or the choices they make in their learning activities,  in terms of certain educational theories; of course, exception to this is when they are education students. In general, wouldn’t it be true to say that our course design should focus on the integration of the dialogue and sharing of how they all guide their thinking, or what the process of their making choices in their thinking among the students in the context of a given course?  With this perspective, the focus would not be any fixed learning objectives or outcomes for the course.

Reflecting on the interesting research conducted by Phelps, I might be able to draw one shortcoming of CCK09. In the course, our focus is on connectivism and networking learning. While the content should not drive the course according to connectivism, all the students are connected to the course in order to understand or explore connectivism.  However, from the insight I gained from the Phelps’ article, I’m inclined to think at this point that connectivism would be explored better if we have some other learning contexts for the course, and learning connectivism should be occurring as bi-products of being engaged in the contexts.

Be Sociable, Share!