This week's reading on Open eQuality Learning Standards (ODL) was interesting in its attempts to address what Perkins (2011) identified as the "abuses perpetrated by diploma mills" (p. 11). I wonder how successful these standards have been in addressing these concerns. I googled 'degrees online' and came up with this website http://www.cvu-uvc.ca/english.html and it lists well-known, reputable institutions such as Athabasca University. Next I clicked on http://www.speedydegrees.com/ which by its name calls into question its credibility. The website states:
"Life Experience Degree suits individuals who possess basic to expert level exposure and experience in a specific field but lack educational documents to prove themselves. This makes individuals stay
back and struggle for jobs and promotions. Through Life Experience Degrees, individuals can now get recognition for their skills and talents from an Accredited University in just 7 days."
So who regulates companies like speedydegrees.com and why are they able to offer degrees for $299? Is this legal? Who are these "accredited universities" the website claims to have ties to? How would the ODL tackle an organization like this? How do these types of degrees devalue the degrees and diplomas legitimate institutions provide?
Another thing I am unclear of is how these standards become actualized. I visited http://www.eife-l.org/publications/standards to get a sense of what ODL is about and how their standards are recognized and publicized, but I could not get a clear picture of this. So for example, if I am considering Athabasca for my eLearning program, how am I assured that they adhere to ODL standards? On Athabasca's website http://www2.athabascau.ca/aboutau/accreditation.php they do not list Eifel among their memberships. Speedylearning is a no brainer, but what if an institution appears reputable?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
eLearning Build
One of the key quotes from this week's readings is from the Davis, Little and Stewart article. They stated that "all teaching and learning systems should be built from two vantage points: the needs of the intended students, and the intended learning outcomes of the course of program" (p. 123) I wonder how many eLearning programs have been built with this fundamental understanding in mind. I can see how gaining a true understanding of the needs of the intended students could be taxing. To be successful in an eLearning course, what would teachers and students need access to? These authors ask us to consider such variables as "background with technology, expectations, financial and other resources, access to the web or other online networks, bandwidth limitations" (p. 123). What other considerations could there be?
In 2004 Donald Norman wrote a book called Emotional Design where he proposed three levels of design: reflective, behavioural, and visceral. For the purposes of this blog entry, I would like to focus on the behavioural level. At this level, Norman describes it as "the pleasure of using a good tool effectively" (p. 23). Consider the feel of a comfortable automobile or contours of a piece of mobile technology. In determining the needs of the user in an eLearning course, not only is it important to understand prior knowledge students bring to the course, but also the behavioural expectations users carry with them. The technology must run well in order to cultivate a sense of trust on the part of the teachers and learners. Davis, Little, and Stewart proposed a "user-friendly portal system so that, with a single login, they can also have access to their courses"(p. 127).
In our Board, we use a system full of multiple logins and it is an endless source of frustration. The product fails miserably at the behavioural level. Though as frustrating as this may be, I suspect designers of eLearning courses must weigh the needs of the users with the security needs of the institution. I see this as an important consideration, one that Davis, Little, and Stewart did not address in the scope of their article.
In 2004 Donald Norman wrote a book called Emotional Design where he proposed three levels of design: reflective, behavioural, and visceral. For the purposes of this blog entry, I would like to focus on the behavioural level. At this level, Norman describes it as "the pleasure of using a good tool effectively" (p. 23). Consider the feel of a comfortable automobile or contours of a piece of mobile technology. In determining the needs of the user in an eLearning course, not only is it important to understand prior knowledge students bring to the course, but also the behavioural expectations users carry with them. The technology must run well in order to cultivate a sense of trust on the part of the teachers and learners. Davis, Little, and Stewart proposed a "user-friendly portal system so that, with a single login, they can also have access to their courses"(p. 127).
In our Board, we use a system full of multiple logins and it is an endless source of frustration. The product fails miserably at the behavioural level. Though as frustrating as this may be, I suspect designers of eLearning courses must weigh the needs of the users with the security needs of the institution. I see this as an important consideration, one that Davis, Little, and Stewart did not address in the scope of their article.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)