FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES – ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

STUDENT DETAILS: +EXTENSION GRANTED: (YES / NO)

10958849 Gilhooly Donald

(Student Number) (Surname) (Given Name)

32 Emmerick street

(Mailing Address)

Lilyfield 2040 donald.gilhooly@tafensw.edu.au

(Suburb) (Postcode) (UTS eMail Address)

98184448 0408201841

(Private Telephone) (Business Telephone) (Mobile Telephone)

SUBJECT DETAILS:

Bachelor.education. Adult education

(Course Name)

013966 E-Learning Experiences

(Subject Number) (Subject Name)

Analysis of a Short internet based course

(Assignment Title/No.)

23/4/2012 Ann Brady

(*Due Date) (New Date Submitted) (Name of Lecturer/Tutor)

Tuesday 9:30am – 11:30 pm

DECLARATION:

Once this form has been submitted electronically, it confirms that I have read the ‘Coursework Assessment Policy and Procedures manual; and that this work is my own and has not been submitted for academic credit in any other subject or course. I have acknowledged all material and sources used in the preparation of this assignment.

Don Gilhooly – Sustainability Induction Page 1

24/4/2012

(Declaration Date)

Education for Sustainability staff Induction

The course completed is a requirement of staff at my workplace; it involved an induction

to be used for new staff or as professional development. The course took five hours to

complete though there was little to indicate the definitive end point. The course seemed

to be a container of information, most of which was interesting. This is one part of an

employee induction so needed to be less onerous than a full Sustainability course

consequently it allowed an easy opt out possibility. The course offers no qualification but

may lead to a single unit BSBSUS201A Participate in environmentally sustainable work

practices. I feel that the course is a reaction to the previous State Government’s wish to

embed Green skills into all teaching and Governmental policy without the thoroughness

needed to shift social thought.

The material is situated on a Dept. Of Education website, and has a simple, text and

statistics heavy format with most of the information as secondary links. The technology

used was a Php format for the encoding with Photoshop for the images. The system

seemed to need some updating or maintenance as it kept logging out when links were

used also there were no ‘breadcrumbs’ to retrace your location once you entered a link.

Technology allows the possibility of interactivity with others and within the program. This

possibility is a shift in ‘the educational paradigm away from simply delivering content and

toward engaging, empowering, and connecting learners.’ (Educause 2009, p.62).

Interactivity is employed in two introductory videos that one can choose over the text

presentation. The introduction gave a rationale for the course without outlining the

outcomes or expectations. The second video related a ‘Welcome to Country’. An inclusive

idea; sadly the video did not work, showing again a lack of maintenance

The next section contained interactivity via an Environmental footprint calculator which

asked various simple questions and responded with a measure of individual resource use,

calculated in worlds needed to support the participant. This was thought-provoking and a

practical application of the information given previously. Two forms followed this; a

Don Gilhooly – Sustainability Induction Page 2

checklist and a validation sheet. These needed to be filled out but neither promoted

learning; both were course management or assessment tools.

This course overall relied on vast amounts of linked information that was difficult to

navigate with limited interactivity. In this instance the program became ‘nothing more

than books on a computer’ (Kruse 2010). Some of the information was accessed through

links; this gave limited choice to the participants. There were also two pages of resources

at the end of the program; some of these resources were the best content within the

course. Overall the course presentation was formally structured but did not engage the

participant. Marsick and Watkins argue the benefits of computer usage should be through

the informal learning possible with centring the student in the process (2001, p.25). This

benefit was missed in the leap towards instruction.

No comment or feedback sheet was supplied, so I could not alert the facilitators to

problems I found with the system or usage. My own expectations were to acquire

information and content that could be integrated into existing lesson programs. In an

unsophisticated manner these expectations were met, but my engagement in the

learning and therefore valuing of the content was missed.

With the amount of information contained within the course, an allowance should have

been made for some practice activities to reinforced the learning and testing of ideas. A

simple set of check questions or an exercise that gave choices whether to recycle, reuse

or renew. One of the three key features of e-learning or learning is the need to practice

and test knowledge learned (Kruse, April 2012)

In parallel with the use of skills practice is the notion that assessing participants helps

student to test their learning gains. Govindasamy (2002) contends that assessment

‘reinforces the learning approach a student adopts’ and this again is a possible

opportunity to provide input and feedback. This course used four questions with tick

boxes to assess participant understanding of the information, which did not give a score

or feedback. In fact I could have gone from the first page to the last page to tick the boxes

and be deemed competent. Nothing seemed to be mandatory.

Don Gilhooly – Sustainability Induction Page 3

The course did do something well. It provided in-depth and up to date information

from a variety of sources that were specialists in their field. So it was comprehensive in

its content but that does not motivate learning in itself as ‘not all uses of information

and communications technologies can or should be expected to facilitate

learning.’ (Atwell 2007) Navigation within the key four steps, as noted became difficult

once opening links. FAQ s were listed on the tabs but this only succeeded in logging me

out. I formulated the opinion that a professional computer technician collated

information from others, built the system but then no one monitors the ‘health’ of the

system.

This lack of support is duplicated in the lack of support for learning within the course.

Excluding the contact detail of a human resource person (who has not answered the

question I posed) at the endpoint of the process there is no facilitation or possible social

conductivity. One of the great strengths of online learning is its ability to allow

interaction between participants. A ‘student must get learning and performance support’

because there is no teacher in front of them (Govindasamy 2002, p.294), they are isolated

from peer support, feedback and presentation flexibility. Other people that have done the

course commented that they enjoyed the content but that with work constraints

minimize time they gave to the learning. One colleague took 6 hours of on/off

participation and another did it in two and a half, without reading too much, to complete

the unit.

Although I did learn from this course I feel that it could be far better with further

resourced input and a supported learning system. Participants could be grouped so three

or four people are participating over a week. They could use an online forum to exchange

ideas with each other and a facilitator. This system would allow the use of practice

exercises and questioning that would the basis of the interaction and feedback. Video

demonstrations and interactive demonstrations of sun paths and cost of recycling are

examples of reasonably practical participation elements. Less links need to be used to rain

in the sequencing to an operatable timetable, but commensurate with this are open

questions that may need investigation. These should be reflective questions that double

as checkpoints to learning gains. Overall there was a mismatch between the possible

Don Gilhooly – Sustainability Induction Page 4

pedagogical advantages online learning avails us and the implementation of resources in

this course.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atwell G 2007, ‘Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning?’, Elearningeuropa, 15 Jan. 2007, viewed April 2012

Educause, May/June 2009, ‘Opening up Learning: From Spaces to Environments’, Educause Review, vol.44, No.3, pp. 62-63

Govindasamy, T 2002, ‘Successful implementation of e-Learning- Pedagogical considerations’, The Internet and Higher Education, No. 4, pp. 287 - 299

Kruse, K 2010, ‘Information is not instruction. The wise words of David Merrill, Birdseed, viewed April 2012, http://www.brainseed.tv/whitepapers/E4.pdf

Marsick, V. And Watkins, K. 2001, ‘Informal and Incidental learning’, in S Merriam (ed.), New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, vol. 2001, issue 89, pp. 25-34

The course can be found at https://portalsrvs.det.nsw.edu.au/f5-w-687474703a2f2f65636f746561636865722e746166656e73772e6564752e6175 $$/

Don Gilhooly – Sustainability Induction Page 5