On pedagogy and pledges

Last time (four weeks ago; sorry to miss a fortnight) we sampled Prof John Stephenson's lecture Improving the learner's experience of eLearning.  Please visit the archive if you missed it.

Five quotations signalled the need for workers to be able to learn, and to manage that learning themselves.  My scurrilous(?) suggestion was that the statement might be equally true in regard to discipleship.  In both contexts, then, how we teach and learn is as important as what we learn; the pedagogy is as important as the content.  Learners need to be empowered so that they can and do take control of their own development.

Researchers Alexander and Boud (2001) and Bonk (2001), however, find

a tendency for trainers and teachers to continue with their traditional paradigms;
online trainers have a ‘dearth of pedagogically motivating activities’;
in universities ‘progress is slow and not radical’ and ‘rich pedagogical use is still in development’.

The world of theological education may be behind the game in regard to eLearning, but there is much to be done elsewhere.

There are, of course, reasons behind a mismatch between teacher activity, and what is pedagogically desirable and technically possible.  Prof Stephenson showed a Larson cartoon of a bunch of sheep at a party and a dog in the doorway.  Caption: “Henry! Our party's total chaos! No one knows when to eat, where to stand, what to ... Oh, thank God! Here comes a border collie!”  The point?  Stephenson argues that teacher collusion with learner dependence is the biggest barrier to pedagogical change.  “Father knows best” in another guise?

Changing tack, John Stephenson asks what can be learned from eLearning course completion rates?  Alarmingly, Bonk (USA, 2002) reports that 55% of online instructors did not know their completion rates.  Of those who did, 52% had less than 70% completions and only 2% had 100%.  The principal reasons are lack of time (46%) and lack of incentives (29%).  But a cautionary question is important: what constitutes non-completion?  With eLearning, the user can easily ‘leave’ when their personal need is met.  And to achieve high completion rates we should think also about user readiness.  Is the learner computer literate?  Has she easy access?   Have previous experiences been good?  What support does she have?  Is he used to self study?  Aware it’s hard work and takes time?

Towards improving enrolment and completion rates, Ufi / learndirect pledges to learners:

*  to offer the time, place, pace and style that responds to your needs;
*  to give clear information to enable personal choices and control;
*  to provide materials relevant to your interests that actively involve you;
*  to help you to monitor your progress and record your achievements;
*  to give you easy access to the specialist support you need;
*  to put you in touch with other people studying the same topics;
*  to help you relate your learning to your own longer term ambitions.

A vision for all learning within the church too?

Wishing you a blessèd Christ-mass

Peter Nicholls