DEVELOPING ‘LEARNER-FRIENDLY’ COURSEWARE FOR TESOL:

A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

by Yasmine L. Howard

University of Tasmania ,

Launceston , Australia

Yasmine.Howard@utas.edu.au

Abstract

Courseware has become an important aspect in educational theory and practice. There is consensus about the principles and features of user-friendly in software development, however, the concept ‘learner-friendly’ and its related educational principles are still debated by researchers in courseware development. In particular, a significant discourse on whether a constructivist framework benefits learning has developed. This article examines the theory relating to the principles of ‘learner-friendly’, including both user-friendly and courseware pedagogy that it encompasses, which is then used to frame a study analyzing preferred learner methods over a semester, of first year education students using web-dependent courseware to learn Information Communication Skills (ICT). The results provide important information into how students learn, that will be used for developing an instructional design framework of ‘learner-friendly’ courseware on TESOL - Teaching English as a Second Language.

1. INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of courses are utilising the benefits of educational technology. A study by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) between August and December 2001 found that there are already 207 fully online courses offered by 23 Australian universities, with 31 per cent delivered completely online (Bell et al., 2002: ix). There are numerous definitions of courseware, however, DEST has provided a definitive summary, dividing online delivery of courses into three categories:

·                    web supplemented, in which participation online is optional for the student and online content is used to supplement traditional forms of delivery;

·                    web dependent in which participation online is compulsory (students must use the Web to interact with content and/or communicate with other staff and students);

·                    and fully online, for which there is no face-to-face component, and all interactions with staff and students, education, assessment content and support services are integrated and delivered online (Bell et al., 2002, p.37).

2. LITERATURE REVIEW: USER-FRIENDLY AND LEARNER-FRIENDLY DESIGN

2.1.Overview

The concepts user-friendly’(UF) and ‘learner-friendly’ (LF) have been developed to enhance online learning. The two terms have been considered independent of each other, however, they are co-dependent. To create LF courseware, UF principles must be implemented. There is a significant body of literature on both user-friendly design and courseware pedagogy, which learner-friendly encompasses, however, little attention has been paid to developing and implementing learner-friendly courseware. This research paper defines LF to refer to factors that are put in place to develop an online environment that optimises learning. This includes a consideration of features such as user-friendly and courseware pedagogy, as detailed below.

2.2.User-friendliness

A literature survey has revealed a commonality among interpretations of the term, which means that the term refers to enhancing the features of computer software in order to make it easier for learners to use. For the purposes of my research, I have defined the term ‘user-friendly’ as ‘specifying, implementing and designing software to enhance human-computer interaction (HCI). This includes aspects such as creating a navigational system to orient users, being consistent in screen design, designing screen layout so that it adapts to human biological factors, e.g. ensuring text reads left to right on the page to adapt to natural eye movement, and implementing colours that offer culturally and socially acceptable cues, e.g. the colour red indicates ‘danger’ in Australia or the United States, ‘death’ in Egypt, and ‘life’ in India (Galitz, 1997: 493).

As stated above, UF and LF are co-dependent. Danielson et al. in “ID and HCI: A Marriage of Necessity” note that the HCI field has its “own experts and literature base; it is not necessary for all instructional designers to develop yet another expertise. Simply knowing basic interface design concepts will go far in the creation of effective Web-based instruction and the facilitation of learning in this electronic environment” (Danielson et. al., 2000: 127). Whilst the authors note the instructional and interface design can assist towards creating a LF environment, they do not consider it essential. In contrast, this paper argues that effective HCI design is essential to creating LF courseware. Poor interface design will discourage learner motivation, and if the interface design is directed at inexperienced users, it may frustrate expert learners and distract them from the learning process.

2.3. Courseware pedagogy

Two major learning theories, behaviourism and constructivism, have influenced the instructional design of educational technology. Both models of instruction produced from these theories are useful, though in different contexts (Jonassen, 1994; Sevilla, Wells, 2001). Researchers therefore recognise strengths and weaknesses with both theories, but, as described below, believe learning is enhanced if different theoretical models are utilised for specific problem types and stages of learning. Thus, a ‘learner-friendly’ courseware would ultimately choose the best pedagogical method for the problem type and stage of learning.

2.3.1.Behaviourist Instruction

Skinner’s studies on behaviourism directly influenced instructional design to create a subject-centred approach that has dominated instructional design since the 1960s (Lefoe, 1998; Sevilla, Wells, 2001). The focus of behaviourist instruction is on the transmission of knowledge directly from the instructor to the student, with that knowledge directly re-transmitted to ‘solve’ problems.

Sevilla and Wells (2001) reveal that this method is effective for the self-study of definitions, basic concepts and such technical material as application structure. That is, for learning information for which there is only a limited range of answers and perspectives. Jonassen (1991) also argues that an objectivist approach would be best suited to ‘Introductory’ knowledge acquisition, with the transition to constructivist approaches as learners acquire more knowledge and become ‘Intermediate’ learners, and capable of representing problems in different ways. Hence, it is recognized that a weakness of the behaviourist approach is that it is ineffective for problem-based solving, which requires innovative learning, and ‘ill-defined’ problems. For this, theorists recommend constructivism (Jonassen, 1997; Jonassen, 1999). As Sevilla and Wells (2001) also state, constructivism is necessary for higher forms of learning and creative problem solving activities that cannot be addressed by programmed instruction.

2.3.2. Constructivist Instruction

Constructivism is a learner-centred approach to learning (Perkins, 1991). The central tenet of all constructivist theories is that learners actively construct knowledge, rather than it is directly transmitted from the teacher. Constructivism emphasises building learning environments that foster, rather than control, problem solving (Jonassen, 1994: 35), to encourage the ‘construction’ of knowledge structures. As Jonassen notes, “Constructivists emphasize the design of learning environments rather than instructional sequences […] They do not seek to predetermine a sequence of instruction or a prescribed set of activities and thought processes by the learner. Rather, they seek to provide a supportive environment in which the learner can interpret at least a simulated reality in order to better understand that reality” (Jonassen, 1994: 35). Thus, it focuses on the learner as an active participant in the learning process, whereby learners are encouraged to set their own objectives and pace their own learning.

Consequently, to encourage knowledge construction, a constructivist learning environment (CLE) provides multiple perspectives and realities, a ‘real-world’ environment that emphasises ‘real-world’ complexity and multiple solution paths, social collaboration between peers and the teacher to ‘ develop and shape’ knowledge structures, and emphasises that the role of teacher should move to that of facilitator and mentor rather than dictator. Appropriately Jonassen (1997) recognises that this method is best used for ill-structured issues that possess multiple representations and understandings of the problem, and multiple solutions and solution paths.

3. THE STUDY: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

As noted, the above theory was used to frame research on learner preferences. One hundred first year education students were tutored in ICT skills for a thirteen-week semester. The students were divided into three groups of expertise – elementary, intermediate and advanced users. The elementary level included students who had had little or no contact with computers and met for two hours weekly, the intermediate students had average understanding of computers and met for one hour a week and the advanced students had expert understanding of computers, and met one hour fortnightly. The course was web dependant, and tutorial notes on computer basics, word processing, Internet browsing, email, multimedia presentations, discussion lists and CD-ROM burning were created and uploaded into WebCT by the course lecturers, and downloaded by students each week. They detailed the instructional sequence students should undertake and set tasks to complete by the end of each tutorial. A discussion board was also set up for students to read notes posted by the course instructors, and collaborate regarding course-related information, however, participation was non-compulsory. The online tutorials utilised a behaviourist approach to teaching, appropriate for the well-structured problem type they encompassed.

The tutor facilitated the learning process, whereby students had a set time to complete the tutorials and could see me face-to-face to ask any questions. The tutor utilised different teaching approaches for each tutorial group, however, based on Jonassen’s research (Jonassen, 1991) as detailed above. Therefore, for the elementary group the tutor took a teacher-centred approach and guided them through the tutorial step-by-step from weeks one to eight. During week nine, the elementary students had advanced their computer skills and the tutor then spent the first hour instructing them through each learning process and let them learn independently for the second hour. In contrast, the tutor took a subject-centred approach for the intermediate and advanced learners and let the students learn independently from weeks one to thirteen and encouraged them to approach me if they came across any difficulties with the tutorial notes.

4. THE STUDY: FINDINGS

The elementary group flourished, and all group members had solid ICT skills at Intermediate level by the end of semester. The group also bonded well, and divided themselves into collaborative learning groups that worked together both in and out of the set tutorial time. By week nine one group of students had grown particularly confident, and took it upon themselves to assist other students. On the other hand, there was a small minority of students whose only ICT usage was in my class, who still needed to be instructed on basic concepts such as ‘password protection’ and ‘toggling between screens’ and how to access and use the courseware components in WebCT. The tutor had the most positive feedback from this group – with either face-to-face or electronic feedback from the majority of students, at the end of semester, regarding both the teaching method  used and gratitude for the tutor’s role in developing their ICT skills. 

The intermediate group tended to provide the most negative feedback regarding my teaching approach, preferring me to use a more teacher-centred approach. Many students felt they did not receive adequate assistance for both tutorial and assignment work, and believed it was my responsibility to ‘tell them what to do’. The majority of students on this level worked alone, and appeared reluctant to approach the instructor if they needed help - preferring to sit in front of their computers until they were approached instead.

On the other hand, the tutor received positive feedback from the advanced group who were confident in approaching me if they required help, and preferred to work independently. Whilst a good student-teacher relationship was developed however, it wasn’t as strong as the bond formed  with the elementary students.

The discussion board was utilised by several students, as an effective research tool. A small group of students had developed a discussion group on the discussion board, and collaborated frequently regarding assignments and tutorial tasks. If a student had posted a message that provided ‘incorrect’ information, another student was quick to respond with the correct information – also providing a reference to the teaching notes to back up what they were saying.  

5. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TESOL COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT

5.1. Creating a modified CLE to cater for ‘traditional’ students

This study backs up the theory that the behaviourist approach is better suited to well-defined problem types, as feedback regarding the teaching resources was positive and students found it easy to navigate. Whilst the TESOL courseware would be best suited to the constructivist approach, however, this study has revealed that both elementary and intermediate level students prefer to follow direct instructional guidance. I would argue that failing to cater for students who demand more direct instructivist guidance would decrease student motivation and therefore optimal learning. The constructivist theory tends to disregard the learning methods preferred by traditional students, believing that adequate scaffolding and facilitation into the course would address the needs of these students. Furthermore, the weakness of Piaget’s ‘discovery’ learning posited by ‘Personal Constructivism’ is the lack of instructional guidance it provides for students forcing them to become confused due to the sheer amount of information and actually delimitating their learning experience.

To solve this dilemma, the TESOL courseware could be a modified Constructivist Learning Environment that provides instructional guidance for the learner. The major TESOL teaching components including ‘Linguistics,’ ‘Teaching Methodology’ and ‘Real-World Applications’ could be the three sections of the courseware. Each section should contain a ‘learning task’ that involve problem solving. For example, in ‘Teaching Methodology’ it could be  writing an essay on the strengths and weaknesses of two major teaching methodologies. These sections should provide direct instructional guidance regarding important domain content in the area, such as informing students on the major teaching methodologies, and be clear on the assessment objectives of the learning task. It should however, also provide multiple perspectives of each topic – for example it could instruct the user on different methodologies such as grammar-based, communicative or technology based teaching, but should also provide links to different perspectives on each theory. Assessment should then be based on evidence of a deep understanding of methodology, rather than on specific criteria of expected facts that should be replicated. Students would then have strong awareness of exactly what they should do and of the major learning issues, without their learning dictating a single learning perspective. Furthermore, these students would therefore, avoid the risk of ‘rote-learning’ that the behaviourist methodology could be said to enforce.

5.2. Creating compulsory interactive learning environments

The case study has confirmed that students who ‘actively’ participate in the ‘classroom’ enhance their learning. As Heidi Schweizer notes, “the research on interactive learning environments is clear and compelling - interactive learning environments have powerful and positive effects on student achievement, self-esteem and the development of higher order thinking skills” (Schweizer, 1999: 55). For example, students who collaborated both in the elementary group and on the discussion board developed deeper knowledge structures and have become more confident learners, in contrast to the students in the intermediate group who tended to be passive learners. Thus, the courseware should enforce compulsory discussion board activities for students to collaborate both with each other and the online tutor, on specific topics – such as ‘what is the importance of learning linguistics to become a TESOL teacher’. This will also encourage passive students who are too shy to address their learning problems in a face-to-face situation to address them in the ‘virtual’ classroom.

5.3. Making instructional support optional

The last group I would like to address is ‘expert’ users. Jonassen notes that users with ‘expert’ knowledge would likely be “surfeited by the rich level of instructional support offered by most constructivist environments” (Jonassen, 1991: 31). Instructional support within a CLE need not affect learning for expert users. If a ‘learner-friendly’ environment is developed, instructional support from the tutor could be offered via a direct email link or by setting up a topic on the discussion board devoted to different learning enquiries. Thus, all levels of users would have access to a rich learning environment that provides a range of learning options, where extra support is optional rather than in-built.  

6. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study backs up research regarding appropriate pedagogical approaches to different problem types and varying level of knowledge acquisition. However, it has also exposed some of the weaknesses of the behaviourist and the constructivist theory and proposed how they could be addressed to develop LF TESOL courseware. Due to the scope of the topic, the paper is described only as a ‘preliminary’ investigation of LF courseware. It hasn’t detailed how developing a UF interface is essential to creating a LF courseware. I did argue that UF and LF are co-dependent therefore, if the courseware pedagogy is designed to facilitate different levels of learning, surely the outcome would be a more effective user-interface for both elementary and advanced users?  Future research can further understanding of this area, and amalgamate some of the considerations raised in this paper to develop a complete LF courseware. 

References

Bell , M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., Tran, T. (2002). Universities Online: Occasional Paper Series 02-A. Canberra : Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Available: http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/occpaper/02a/02_a.pdf

Danielson, J., Lockee, B., Burton . J. (2000). "ID and HCI: A Marriage of Necessity" in B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-based Education. London , UK : Idea Group Publishing, 270.

Galitz, W. O. (1997). The Essential Guide To User Interface Design : An Introduction To GUI Design Principles And Techniques. New York : Wiley Computer Publishers, 486-513.

Jonassen, D. (1991). "Evaluating Constructivist Learning." Educational Technology, 31 (9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D. (1994). "Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model." Educational Technology, 34 (4), 34-37.

Jonassen, D. (1997). "Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes." Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45 (1), 65-95.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K.L., Wilson , B.G. (1999). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River , NJ : Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Lefoe, G. (1998). "Creating Constructivist Learning Environments on the Web: The Challenge in Higher Education."  Paper presented at ASCILITE '98’ Conference Wollongong, Australia December 1998. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wollongong98/asc98-pdf/lefoe00162.pdf.  

Perkins, D. (1991). "What Constructivism Demands of the Learner." Educational Technology, 31 (9), 19-21.

Schank, R. (1993). "Learning via Multimedia Computers." Communications of the ACM, 36 (5), 54-56.

Schweizer, H. (1999). Designing and Teaching an Online Course: Spinning Your Web Classroom. Massachusetts : Allyn and Bacon.Sevilla, C., Wells, T. (2001). "Deprogramming IT E-Learning." Learning Circuits: ASTD's Online Magazine All About E-Learning, February 2001,http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/feb2001/sevilla.html.