This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 10 November 2014, At: 12:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Media InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/remi20

Ensuring quality E‐Learning: creatingengaging tasksJohn Hedberg aa SingaporePublished online: 04 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: John Hedberg (2003) Ensuring quality E‐Learning: creating engaging tasks, EducationalMedia International, 40:3-4, 175-186, DOI: 10.1080/0952398032000113095

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952398032000113095

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Media InternationalISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online © 2003 International Council for Educational Media

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/0952398032000113095

Ensuring Quality E-Learning: Creating EngagingTasksJohn G Hedberg, Singapore

AbstractsOver the past decade, there have been many changes in the tools we use to design, the ways information can be representedand the underpinning theories that drive educational experiences. This paper will focus on several examples of softwaredesign that have been pedagogically successful and have demonstrated what is possible in software design and onlinelearning. Contrasts will be made with some examples of the current push into e-learning and how best to structure learningenvironments to ensure student participation and high quality learning outcomes especially when students come fromdiffering backgrounds and cultural traditions.

Garantir la qualite de l’e-learning: creations de Tasks attirantesDurant les dix dernieres annees, il y a eu beaucoup de changements dans les outils que nous avions l’habitude de concevoir,les façons de presenter l’information et les theories sous-jacentes qui etaient derriere les references educatives. Cet articlemettra l’accent sur plusieurs exemples de conceptions de software qui ont ete reussies au plan pedagogique et ont montrece qui est possible dans la conception du software et de l’apprentissage en ligne. De façon contrastee nous developperonsdes exemples d’introduction en e-learning et nous montrerons comment on peut au mieux structurer les environnementseducatifs pour s’assurer de la participation des etudiants et de la bonne qualite des resultats, en particulier lorsque lesetudiants viennent d’horizons et de traditions culturels differents.

Qualitat von e Learning sichern: Das Schaffen von ansprechenden AufgabenIm letzten Jahrzehnt gab es viele Anderungen an den Tools, die wir zum Entwerfen von Moglichkeiten benutzen,Informationen und die dahinter verborgenen Theorien, die Bildungserfahrung steuern, zu erstellen. Diese Prasentationwird sich auf einige Beispiele von Softwaredesign konzentrieren, die padagogisch erfolgreich waren und zeigen, was heutealles in Softwaredesign und Online-Lernen moglich ist. Einige Beispiele der aktuellen e-Learning Verheißung undGestaltungsrezepte zur Strukturierung von Lernumgebungen, um die Mitarbeit der Studenten und Lernqualitat zusichern, werden als Kontrast dienen, insbesondere bezogen auf Studenten mit unterschiedlichen Vorerfahrungen undunterschiedlichen kulturellen Traditionen.

To do good work, one must first have good tools. (Chinese proverb)

The reality of creating innovative e-Learning products that represent good practice and embody moderneducational principles has been driven by several factors, most importantly, the choice of learning tasks andthe ways in which the tasks have been combined to produce intriguing learning environments. Significantefforts have been made to develop and implement alternative frameworks for learning often based on a classof theories collectively referred to as constructivism. Fundamentally, constructivism asserts that we learnthrough a continual process of constructing, interpreting and modifying our own representations of realitybased on our own experiences. Indeed many books enumerate a long list of ideas about how these principlesmight be applied to the design of learning environments, but how to place the ideas strategically into thelearning experience is often omitted (see for example, Khan, 2001; and Mills, Lawless and Merrill, 2001).Often the advice is very broad and covers all aspects of pedagogical design, from methods to integrate newtechnologies to potential assessment strategies. The integration of technologies, which may allow therepresentation of ideas in many different media forms, provide opportunities for the designer or teacher tocustomise instruction and place learners in open-ended, rich, student–centred tasks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

176 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

This paper explores what has been effective and what, while superficially might be seen as an effectiveproduct or set of ideas, might not have been as successful as first expected. It will generalise some of thelessons that might be drawn from the decade of effort to ensure that the learning environments:

1. fostered judgement and learner responsibility;2. supported critical inquiry and creative approaches to problem-solving;3. created engagement through the effective combination of learning task, visual representation and

authentic assessment of the product goals.

Principles, assumptions and qualityLike past revolutions in education, e-learning will go the way of previous technologies unless there arechanges to the design framework used as the starting point. Savery & Duffy (1996) described four principlesthat should be applied to modern technology-based learning environments based on constructivist views.These were:

1. Learning is an active and engaged process. ‘Learners are actively engaged in working at tasks andactivities that are authentic to the environment in which they would be used.’ (p. 37).

2. Learning is a process of constructing knowledge. Learners need structures and challenges from which todevelop their understanding of ideas and of the world.

3. Learners function at a metacognitive level. Learning is focused on thinking skills rather than working onthe ‘right answer the teacher wants.’ Students generate their own strategies for defining the problem andworking out a solution. Student can gain wisdom through reflection.

4. Learning involves ‘social negotiation.’ Students are able to challenge their thoughts, beliefs, perceptionsand existing knowledge by collaborating with other students thus assisting their cognitive developmentprocess.

These characteristics therefore become the defining attributes of each project and, through an examinationof the examples; the implementation can vary widely and still employ these attributes. Other writers such asDavid Boud and Mike Prosser (2002) have attempted to specify the characteristics of high quality learningoutcomes. They suggested that the four major areas of concentration in a high-quality learning environmentshould be:

1. How do learning activities support learner engagement? The reasons for the learner wishing to becomeinvolved with the learning tasks and the way the tasks require them to reflect or employ their previousinterests and understandings.

2. How does this learning activity acknowledge the learning context? In the case of e-learning, there areunique characteristics. Learners are often in a real context and assessment can be made to employ realworld skills. Furthermore, assessment can support the transfer between learning context and professionalpractice.

3. How does the learning activity seek to challenge learners? Novices need supportive structures, expertsrequire information to fill in the missing blanks in an existing knowledge structure, too much ambiguitycan turn a novice student away, too little and they become bored. Students might need support to extendthe information provided as part of a problem–solving scenario.

4. How does the learning activity provide practice? As with most effective learning contexts the matchesbetween assessment, learning tasks and the transfer tasks might align and model performance. To ensurethat it occurs, the feedback must support the ongoing development of the learning.

The choice of technology infrastructure and its deployment are crucial to support the effective learningoutcomes in the e-learning context. Therefore, the above lists suggest not only the goals for constructivistdesign and high quality outcomes, but also the choice of tools and the range of pedagogical options that thetools themselves either constrain or facilitate. David Jonassen (2000) has sought to emphasise the importanceof the design of learning tasks by suggesting a range of problem types that vary in the degree of structure andthe linkage they have to authentic real world tasks. Providing structure and support for the more ill-structuredtask is the challenge for the designer working in a constructivist framework. Jonassen described learningdesigns that support knowledge construction as problem-based learning settings and described elevenproblem-types in a form that suggested a continuum of problem tasks based on the application of rules;activities based on incidents and events; through to solutions that require strategic planning and activity; andproblem solutions based on learners’ performances. His tasks provide a comprehensive set of designguidelines to ensure that learning tasks challenge and provide an open-ended opportunity to devise and sharethe learners’ solutions (See Table 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ensuring Quality E-Learning 177

Design intentions for digital mediaWith an understanding of the shortcomings of much of the commercially generated available learningpackages, a combination of ideas taken from constructivist learning environments, situated learning andproblem-based learning in rich information landscapes can be used to form the basis for effective design.Hedberg et al (1994) proposed that learning outcomes in digital environments depend on starting pointssuch as the learning environment; the learner’s view of the purpose of the task; and the motivation of thelearner. The process of learning involves the construction of meanings by the learner from what is said,demonstrated or experienced. Thus, the role of the teacher is one of facilitating the development ofunderstanding by selecting appropriate experiences and then allowing students to reflect on theseexperiences. Often constructivist learning situations suddenly throw students on their own managementresources and many fend poorly in the high cognitive complexity of the learning environment. Cognitivesupport tools and the explicit acknowledgment of the double agenda of metacognitive self-management andlearning can help. The scaffolding and coaching of the cognitive apprenticeship model offers yet anothersolution, a strategy which many design teams have explored with a great deal of success.

Several multimedia design models have been developed which illustrate the combination of complex learningenvironments and which also give students control over their learning environment. Jonassen (1999) hassuggested six factors that should be available within the environment.

1. Problem space. The starting point might be any of the problems listed in table 1, the more challengingproblems will be ill-structured and require reference to authentic situations which inform choice ofstrategies. Several approaches to the design of problems can be found in the professional preparationliterature such as medical problem based learning (See for example, Pross, 2002).

2. Related Realistic Materials. To provide support and inform the learner, several examples or cases needto be provided which form the basis of experience from which the learner can extrapolate. These

Table 1 Learning tasks as the basis for high quality designs (Problem types with an asterisk were not part ofJonassen’s original paper) Modified from Hedberg et al, (2002)

Rules Incidents Strategies Roles

Description ofthe design focus

The learning taskrequires learnersto apply standardprocedures andrules in thesolution.Learnersmeaningfully andreflectively applyprocedures andprocesses.

The learningactivity is focusedaround learners’exposure andparticipation inauthentic andrealistic events orincidents. Thelearning activitiesrequire learnersto reflect andtake decisionsbased on theirresponses toevents

Learning isfocussed aroundthe strategiesemployed toachieve the taskgoals. Often thestrategy optionsare generated aspart of thesolution. Oftentasks have timeand performanceconstraints.

The learning isachieved throughlearners’participation as aplayer andparticipant in asetting thatmodels a realworld issue.Learnersnegotiate, applyjudgementsexperiencesubrogation andemploy multipleperspectives.

Jonassen ProblemDesign Types

Logical ProblemsAlgorithmicproblemsStory ProblemsRule-usingproblems

Scenarios*Decision makingCase study tasks

TroubleshootingDiagnosissolution problemsStrategicperformancetasksDesign tasks

DilemmasSocial dilemmas*

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

178 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

resources might come from different problem tasks. For instance, case analysis or decision-making tasksmight provide hints of structure or process that might be applied. At a base level, rules and stories canillustrate key issues. As part of the process, students will explore these and other resources and reflect onbest strategies comparing what they choose to strategies that experts choose.

3. Information resources. Information resources might include references to relevant sources ofinformation including readings and Web sites, pro-forma templates might provide a scaffold for studentsto begin to collect information on which to reflect and generate potential strategies.

4. Cognitive tools. Several specific tools might be employed to support the data collection and siftingprocess. One such tool the Notes Wizard will be described later in this paper. Tools can be extremely simpledepending on the task to be supported. In the StageStruck and 123 Count with me, examples a notebookis provided and the results can be saved into word processors or spreadsheet if the analysis warrantsfurther analysis.

5. Conversation and collaboration tools. Most online implementations involve discussion forums andsynchronous chat. Whiteboards might also help in sharing visualisation over a distance. Sharing files suchas concept maps may be a more robust and detailed method of gaining shared representations and plans.At the basic level, mail and listservers might form a simple grouping mechanism.

6. Social/Contextual support. Social and contextual support can be provided through a discussion forumfor general communication. Many implementations also include the role of a mentor who can provideshared and individual feedback.

However, in addition to these practical elements, if one of the primary goals of e-learning is to stimulate activeinvolvement, then educators and instructional designers need to better understand the design of learningtasks in promoting and sustaining learner engagement. Engaged learners are intrinsically motivated toperform. They direct their efforts to understanding the tasks and challenges in a learning context; and theystrive to construct knowledge and derive meaning from their prior experience and available resources. Welldesigned tasks can help stimulate learner engagement or, conversely, disengage learners if they are poorlydesigned. Poor design can place high cognitive demands upon the learner that can reduce interest and divertattention away from the primary learning tasks. The combination of visual clarity of knowledgerepresentation and manipulation and the sensitivity to outcomes of the learning task creates challenge andengagement (Metros and Hedberg, 2002).

In her seminal book Computers as Theatre, Laurel (1993) suggested ways to use the notion of theatre, not simplyas a metaphor, but as a way to conceptualise human-computer interactions. Laurel defines this type ofengagement as, ‘what happens when we are able to give ourselves over to a representational action,comfortably and ambiguously. We gain a plethora of new possibilities for action and a kind of emotionalguarantee’ (p. 115). Laurel is referring to ‘flow state’, a term coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1996) to describethe state of total engagement. Users attain ‘flow state’ when they have no conscious awareness of the passageof time. ‘Flow state’ occurs when users enjoy a sense of playfulness, a feeling of being in control, a period ofconcentration when attention is highly focused, an interlude of enjoyment of an activity for its own sake, adistorted sense of time, and a rewarding match between the challenge at hand and one’s personal skills. Thedesign on e-learning environments which emphasis the flow state and create motivating tasks provides theteacher with a challenge.

Thus, to support the translation of learning into online forms, Jonassen and Tessmer (1996/7) proposed thatwe need to develop learning strategies that support:

• Active learners to engage in interaction with and manipulation of the exploration environments that weconstruct.

• Exploratory learners to strategically search through these environments.• Intentional learners willingly trying to achieve cognitive objectives.• Conversational learners engaged in dialogue with other learners and with instructional systems.• Reflective learners articulating what they have learned and reflecting on the processes and decisions that

were included in the process.• Ampliative learners who generate assumptions, attributes and implications of what they learn and ‘extend’

the information given.

The descriptions can help teachers understand the forms of learning tasks that are required and the supportsand resources required to ensure that their students can complete them. Hannafin, Hall, Land, and Hill(1994) suggested that appropriate forms of learning settings are open-ended and characterised by learnerengagement in cognitively complex tasks involving activities as problem solving, critical thinking,collaboration and self-regulation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ensuring Quality E-Learning 179

Inquiry in e-learning environmentsIn moving toward e-learning, we are faced with a variety of technologies and strategies. It should not matterwhether the e-learning environment is CD-ROM or Web based, it has to be designed to enable both learnersand instructors to function in a number of roles. Consider the options available within a networked learningenvironment. At one extreme, we have the typical classroom, where the teacher and learner share the samespace at the same time, and learners may work individually or in groups. At the other extreme, the teacherand learner can be at different venues, communicate asynchronously, and learners may or may notcongregate to share their experiences or collaborate/cooperate with learning tasks. Several authors havesought to enumerate the range of issues that can be included or considered in e-learning contexts (See forexample, Sims, 2001).

The multitude of ways the teacher and learner can communicate, and the time and feedback quality of thosecommunications largely determine the success of the teacher/learner relationship and the quality of thelearning outcomes. With developments in educational software and the proliferation of both boundedinteractive multimedia titles on CD–ROM and unbounded resources available through the Web, the learnerusually occupies the role of software user. Nevertheless, if we are to employ the ideas of the constructivists, itis reasonable to expect that the learner might actively design a problem solution, not only collecting resourcesbut also sifting and making sense of diverse views and different cultural assumptions. If the emphasis is on thelearning which occurs through the process of interactive multimedia construction – learner as designer(Jonassen and Reeves, 1996), then the nature of the product they produce is far less important than theknowledge construction process which the learner experiences along the way. The focus of the assessmenttasks thus becomes critical to ensuring high quality learning outcomes.

The individual user in this more open-ended environment needs to display the motivation and metacognitiveskills of a self-regulated learner to gain maximum benefit from the software without peer support. Groupsprovide a discussion forum for suggestions, ideas and debate, a multitude of learning and problem solvingstrategies to share, and immediate personal feedback on all communication channels (auditory, visual, bodylanguage). Such group benefits are only achieved once group members have acknowledged the need torefine such skills as negotiation and collaboration. These issues of ‘why e-learning’ all lead to the basicquestion about the intent of the whole exercise. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, often thereasons for e-learning are not focussed on the new opportunities for learning activities but rather oneconomic or, more problematically, educational faddism with little regard for the differences in design thenew mediated learning contexts pose.

The following specific examples will show what is required in the development of effective on-line and digitalenvironments that will ensure that higher-order learning outcomes are achieved. In fact, if the e-learningexperiences are well designed, learners who embrace these environments will gain a greater understandingof their own experiences than those remaining in the classroom expecting that the ‘knowledge’ will be givento them.

Creating a framework for reviewStep 1: Information design and project space definitionAt the beginning of any project, it is necessary to compile information on learners’ needs and describe theparameters of the project space. The purpose of this initial stage is to begin a holistic structuring of theinformation and to model it so that it will eventually form the basis of an organizing visual metaphor. Isolatingthe key attributes within a learning experience is not trivial. Three questions need to be answered by theclient and designers.

1. What is the topic (content) of this project?2. Who are the intended users of this knowledge domain? The content might be the same for different groups, but

learners may want to ‘view, use or manipulate’ the content in different ways.3. Why is this project (course) being undertaken or developed? The client’s original stated objective almost always

needs revisions to better identify and describe the underlying purpose.

Step 2: Interaction designEffective interaction design that matches users’ cognitive expectations ensures they are motivated andengaged. Simply the use of interactive technologies does not necessarily ensure that meaningful interactions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

180 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

will occur; rather the challenge is to create interactions that are easily manipulated at the users’ technologyskill level. Norman (1988) provides guidelines for constructing interactions.

1. Visibility: The user can tell the state of the device and the alternatives for action through observation.2. An effective conceptual model: There should be consistency in how program functions ‘work’ leading to a

coherent conceptual user model.3. Effective mapping: There are clear relationships between actions and results, controls and their effects, and

between system state and what is visible.4. Feedback: There must be continuous feedback about the results of actions. Novice designers often fail to

realize that almost every action creates some perturbation. For feedback to be effective, designers shouldemploy a variety of feedback that link to specific learning outcomes.

In addition to Norman’s guidelines, there are alternative techniques for reducing the cognitive load on alearner’s working memory to enhance interaction design.

1. Use visual conventions borrowed from the real world.2. Apply consistent visual metaphors.3. Recognize the role of the learner as actor. The user is participating in a dialogue that is unfolding, often in real-

time (Laurel, 1993; Hedberg & Sims, 2001).

In several products, we provide access to the data in the same way as individuals would access, manipulate andexplore resources in the real world. While there still must be supportive scaffolds and structures, the choicesthe learners make under this model are similar to those they make as ‘experts’ in a knowledge domain. Theonly difference is that the tasks have supportive elements that describe decisions in context (Lave & Wenger,1991). Visual metaphors and information structures must provide information-rich presentations, especiallywhen the structures are extensible and can be unfolded, as the learners need more or less support andscaffolding to complete their chosen learning tasks.

Step 3: Presentation and interface designThe third step transforms the design concepts derived in the first two steps into a visual presentationstructure, which represents concepts, conveying order, classifying information, clarifying meaning, directingfocus, stimulating interest, facilitating interactions, confirming choices, supporting recall, directingnavigation, creating ambience and otherwise engaging the learner. In many products, we chose visualmetaphors of commonly-used places to serve as the context in which decisions about the learning tasks takeplace. Thus we used a field research centre for the ecological set of problems, a classroom with small groupsplaced around it to model group work for teaching K–2 mathematics.

Issues that have influenced the journeyWhile the above design intentions and process have been followed to a greater or lesser extent, the followingkey aspects have influenced the ‘judged effectiveness’ of each project and have formed the basis ofcomparison:

• Technological advances – major advances in the past ten years have made a difference. Especially the adventof QuickTime in late 1991, the widespread availability of World Wide Web, and the use of browsers to drivecross-platform products from 1994.

• Visual Design – mirroring the technology developments, several graphical design tools have improved anddeveloped in the decade. Photoshop enables visual design overlays with their ‘layers.’

• Design of Learning Tasks – the visual representation and the tools for constructing environments have beeninstrumental in achieving the growth in complex learning tasks and how they have been implemented insoftware.

• Authentic assessment options – as digital media became easier to integrate within products, the possibilitiesof presenting authentic environments where the assessment tasks were realistic and authentic becamegreater.

• Clarity of team goals and ease of operation – there are several options about how a team functions, as projectsgrew bigger the size of the team also increased but the relationships between client and designers, and theothers contributing to the final product can have a critical bearing on the clarity of the representation ofthe knowledge space and the symbiotic relationship between the learning task and the visualrepresentation of the task through the interface.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ensuring Quality E-Learning 181

• Degree of control of design team versus client demands for particular outcomes. The client can support optionsto ensure new and creative implementation of their ideas. If this occurs then the project can push theboundaries, create new representations and more challenging tasks.

• Implementation support in the field – a project may have the best of intentions but it may not have supportthat makes it viable to generate high use by the intended audience. In addition, the increasingcombination of CD-ROMs and web sites designed to maximise the feedback and interactivity can ensurethat the products have the equivalent of ‘after sales service’.

Creating an open-ended, game-like challengeSeveral authors have criticised various computer strategies as being of little educational relevance. Jane Healy(1998) eschews some game-format software as of debatable value. But she goes on to admit the quality of suchsoftware is extremely variable. In one example, StageStruck (1998), we have been able to create open-endeddesign problems and story problems which can challenge the students to invest their own creativity in theproducts they create. For instance in the following sequence, students were asked to:

1. Write an episode for Zena, Warrior Princess. An open-ended task which required the creation of story andplot, and the selection of dialogue lines to match the author’s intention.

2. Exchange their scripts with others in the class to ‘direct’ a performance of someone’s script.3. Reflect on their own script and their production of another groups script4. Compare the range of scripts produced by all members of the class.

This simple example not only involves a personal creation process, but it also involves a negotiation betweenthe members of the pairs, together with feedback on how others attempt the same task and yet produce adifferent outcome. In our trials we have found that the whole exercise could take about an hour, but themotivation was so intense, that the commitment and interest in the task meant that after 90 minutes Grade10 students were still actively involved in the challenge, improving both their script and the direction of theirperformance. Both the script and final productions can be shared easily with other students, the file size isvery small. Thus it is possible for one group to work online with other groups, each responsible for an elementof the final production: one group writes the script, another creates costumes, a third creates the set and afourth directs the performance.

Examples of effective symbiosisA simple illustration of the review process can be drawn from the CD entitled 123 Count with me, whichillustrates the application of the model (Figure 1). The CD introduces basic mathematical concepts to K–2teachers and shows them how they might use an innovative instructional strategy to group students andintroduce basic mathematical concepts. A basic comparison can be made between two different approachesto a similar task (Figures 1 and 2); it can be seen that the representation of Figure 2 (and the fact that menusand options vary with cursor movement) can be very difficult for an audience that does not hold sophisticatedinterface conventions. The comparison can be made over a range of factors, which are outlined in the nextsection.

Figure 1 Modelling the information and the message in 123 Count with me through a spatial metaphor familiarto the intended audience

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

182 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

Professional development via e-learningThis particular example combines both a CD-ROM and an online component aimed at professional teachers.In the case of 123, teachers have great difficulty in understanding the mathematical thinking involved in K–2mathematics and this project was designed to model and provide support for assessing the mathematical skillsof students. Classroom practice in the area of early mathematics is often poorly understood by teachers. Thus,the package had to provide background on the measurement approach, be simple enough for earlychildhood teachers to work with, use metaphors that were immediately comprehensible and provide a richlearning and professional development experience in a variety of settings. Most teachers accessed the packagefrom the CD-ROM and used the online component to share with other teachers and get feedback from theirmentor.

The 123 project is currently being evaluated but initial responses have shown the CD-ROM provided answersand scaffolds for the teachers to use. Teachers have particularly endorsed the added value by providing videomodels of different levels of student performance. The simple choice of the classroom metaphor has subtlymodelled classroom practice (see the small group in Figure 1). It also enabled teachers to ‘view, use ormanipulate’ the content in different ways and help them group students into small groups. These groupscould be easily made dynamic and could be used as the basis of efficiently moving the students from one stageof understanding to the next. Each student can be reassessed at any stage and the learning environmentsupports movement developmentally. Thus, the package ensured that novice assessors were helped tounderstand how the assessment was structured and how students were classified. Expert assessors with well-developed schemas can also use the same resources to test themselves and to compare their judgements withothers.

The implementation of this program also includes a mentor who provides feedback, as well as a discussionforum that enables the participants to share their concerns and successes as they progress through the tasks.Given that the program is aimed at small schools and remote areas these collaborative aspects are critical tothe shared professional knowledge being developed. It must also be noted that while the program in itselfdoes not assume the community of practice, the sharing of thoughts and experiences of the participants hasbeen very important in the implementation of the project.

Comparing ideas and arguing a caseAnother example of a relatively simple e-learning activity is the Notes Wizard (Figure 3). Students areencouraged to define the problem with or without a structured sequence of focus questions and then tocollect evidence and construct a response to the task they identify. When reporting the tool supports the useof writing genres and argument structures, which scaffold the task of writing. As students become moreproficient, they can reduce the need to the support and create their own structures. By presenting ‘argumentfor’ and ‘argument against’, students must explore both positions. They need to become familiar with the

Figure 2 An alternative implementation of similar ideas without solid links to the environment in which they are tobe employed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ensuring Quality E-Learning 183

arguments that support their ideas and those they need to address if they are to refute their opposition. Thisact alone ensures critical thinking and inquiry to find evidence to support their contentions. This form oflearning design provides a range of alternative perspectives to learners in a setting that supports differentpoints-of-view. The main advantage of the tool is that it readily supports revision and reflection. Studentscompare their responses with others and are quite happy to spend increased amounts of time in polishingtheir responses, completing a complex task to a high standard with little ‘apparent’ effort. The students’perception that the task is achievable is a key attribute of the design of a cognitive tool. This particular designis extensible and individual students can create their own structures and question sets, thus enablingindividual motivations and differences to be accommodated in the tool.

Technology is thus influencing the way teachers and learners work and interact. Laurillard (1993) has arguedthat e-learning environments that involve activities in which learners communicate with each otherasynchronously allow for reflection and learner control. Thus, learning outcomes do not have to becompromised in the digital world, in fact, in several areas the gains for understanding complex relationships

Figure 3 The Notes Wizard, a tool for brainstorming and reflection that scaffolds the production of a final report

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

184 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

and the important issues for solving tasks are emphasised in the experience. In addition, It is argued that toolssuch as the notes wizard, can form a useful meta-tool with great utility for learning in multiple contexts andwith a range of disciplines. This development is in line with Diana Laurillard’s more recent work with anemphasis on creating useful structures to support effective pedagogies rather than the creation of small,content-based objects with less flexibility for re-purposing.

Ensuring successful outcomesThere are many factors that might be judged as creating successes and when they are lacking producing lesssuccessful products. However, in this paper, I will concentrate on a few:

Implementing the design conceptAn idea at the concept stage may not necessarily translate into a good visual representation as the projectdevelops. For instance, in developing materials to teach teachers how to implement a math program then thevisual representation of those ideas has to correspond with the original concepts and intentions. Compare thetwo figures (1 and 2) above which illustrate two forms of the same idea. Figure 1 was judged morecomprehensible by the client. While in Figure 1, the major focus was to introduce mathematicalunderstanding to an audience of remotely located teachers, for Figure 2, the emphasis was on explaining thenature of the mathematical framework and the visual elements became more focussed on decoration ratherthan functionality.

Representing information so that it can be accessed and manipulatedIn the same example, in providing a list of options the use of the directory metaphor has been employed. Inthe early stage of design of 123 count with me, we identified three organizing areas in which the relatedelements of information could be clustered and which provide meaningful structures for a teacher using aclassroom metaphor.

Implementing constructive and problem-based activitiesIn many learning environments, learners can manipulate the elements which form the basis of theirconstruction. Again, in the above example, several capabilities have been provided which simplify some of theteacher/user tasks. There is a subtlety and a strategy to the design of activities that will lead to active use andengagement. The choice of problem (Jonassen, 2000) and the subtle development of activities that movefrom social to task focus suggest the direction of challenge for the designer. Jonassen (2000) hasdemonstrated how his initial theory of problem design can be translated into challenging tasks. Often this willmean that initially a task designed as series of discreet assignments, a rethink can create a series of linked tasksand challenges, and when these are woven into an ongoing scenario in which the student builds their skillsas they go through the activities sequence then powerful learning outcomes can be produced.

Selecting appropriate learning tasksTasks that inherently motivate and provide context for the intended users. As more of the curriculum is beingdelivered through technology-mediated forms, the possibility of the routine and pedestrian increases. Forcontinual motivation and successful experiences, e-learning thus requires a challenging task well chosen toprovide motivation and engagement. Well designed learning environments provide added interest andexcitement that the users both students and teacher can enjoy. These contextually placed tasks should providetheir inherent scaffolding and support to the extent that they maintain an intriguing, reusable, and relevantexperience.

Acknowlegements123 Count with me was developed in conjunction with the NSW Department of Education and Training andfunded under the Quality Teaching Program.

The development of the Notes Wizard was supported through an Australian Research Council (ARC) LargeGrant (2000–2001). Principal Investigators: J. G. Hedberg and B. Harper. Developing an interactivemultimedia solution framework for problem identification, solution formulation and argumentation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ensuring Quality E-Learning 185

References

123 Count with me. (2002) Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training, Project Managers, KerryLong and John Hedberg; Instructional Design: Shirley Agostinho, John Hedberg, Kerry Long, VickiLowery and Rob Wright; Graphic Design: Karl Mutimer.

Boud, D. and Prosser, M (2002) Appraising new technologies for learning: a framework for development.Educational Media International, 39 3/4, 238–245.

Csikszentmihalyi, M (1996) Thoughts about education. In D. Dickinson (ed.) Creating the Future: Perspectives onEducational Change, Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.ne-whorizons.org/crfut_csikszent.html. [November 20, 2001]

Hannafin, MJ, Hall, C, Land, S and Hill, J (1994) Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions,methods and implications. Educational Technology, 34 8, 48–55.

Healy, JM (1998) Failure to connect: how computers affect our children’s minds – for better and worse. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Hedberg, JG and Sims, R (2001) Speculations on design team interactions Journal of Interactive LearningResearch, 12 2/3, 189–214.

Hedberg, JG, Harper, BM, Brown, C and Corderoy, R (1994) Exploring user interfaces to improvelearner outcomes. In K. Beatie, C McNaught, & S. Wills, (eds), Interactive Multimedia in UniversityEducation: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning, Amsterdam, North Holland, Elsevier, pp.15–29.

Hedberg, JG, Oliver, R, Harper, B, Wills, S and Agostinho, S (2002) Developing Evaluation Frameworks forAssessing Quality ICT-based Learning in Higher Education. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (eds) Proceedings ofED-MEDIA 2002: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Denver, USA,June 24–29, 2002. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp.736–741.

Jonassen, DH and Reeves, TC (1996) Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In DHJonassen, (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, New York, Simon &Schuster, Macmillan, (pp. 693–719).

Jonassen, DH (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) InstructionalTheories and Models 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 215–239.

Jonassen, DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 48 4, 63–85.

Jonassen, DH and Tessmer, M (1996/7) An Outcomes-Based Taxonomy for Instructional Systems Design,Evaluation and Research. Training Research Journal, 2, 11–46.

Khan, BH (2001) A Framework for web-based learning. In B. H. Khan (ed.) Web-Based Training. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications, pp. 75–98.

Laurel, B (1993) Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.Laurillard, D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching, London, Routledge.Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral practice, New York, Cambridge University

Press.Metros, S and Hedberg, JG (2002) More than Just a Pretty (Inter) Face: The Role of the Graphical User

Interface in Engaging e-Learners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 3, 191–205.Mills, RJ, Lawless, KA and Merrill, MD (2001) Designing instructional templates for web-based learning.

In BH Khan (ed.) Web-Based Training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications, pp. 99–105.

Norman, D (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York, NY, Basic Books.Pross, H (2002) Problem Based Learning Home page. Queens University. [Online]. Available: http:/

/meds.queensu.ca/medicine/pbl/pblhom10.htm [May 28, 2002]Savery, JR and Duffy, TM (1996) Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist

framework. In BG. Wilson (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design.Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications, pp. 135–148.

Sims, R (2001) From art to alchemy: achieving success with online learning. ITForum Paper no 55. [Online].Available: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/home.html [August 26, 2001]

StageStruck. (1998) Sydney: National Institute for Dramatic Art. Project Director, Amanda Morris,Multimedia Producer, John Hedberg; Instructional Design, John Hedberg and Rob Wright(A CD-ROM based interactive multimedia package produced as part of the Australia on CD program,funded through the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts,Canberra.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

186 EMI 40:3/4 – ICEM-CIME ANNUAL CONFERENCE, GRANADA

Biographical noteDr John Hedberg is Professor of Instructional Science in the National Institute of Education, NanyangTechnological University in Singapore, and Editor-in-Chief, Educational Media International. He haspreviously been editor of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology and as formerly, Professor ofEducation at the University of Wollongong, actively involved with many of the developments in EducationalTechnology in Australia. He was the principal instructional designer on many of the projects mentioned inthis article. His research interests are in the design and evaluation of effective learning environments usingtechnologies and this is the topic of a recent book on Evaluation of Interactive Learning Systems with DrThomas Reeves.

Address for CorrespondenceProfessor John G. Hedberg, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616; e-mail: jhedberg@nie.edu.sg

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

03 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014