XplanaZine

Whether it is tacitly acknowledged or not, there are two competing (and divergent) philosophies with respect to cognition and online course design. Is online learning a learner-driven game, or guided mentoring?

Although almost all would agree that courses should be learner-centered and incorporate active (rather than passive) learning strategies, there is a great deal of disagreement about the implementation and underlying philosophy. Philosophy 1 would suggest that the experience replicates that of a game or a simulation, and the mindset is one of learner-driven exploration in an ongoing journay. Philosophy 2 maintains that the learning experience a sheltered one, with a mentor or guide on the side who gives the student a list of outcomes to be linearly achieved by means of readings, activities, and assessments.

Since the web is principally a visual experience, the utopian possibilities of an immersive experience such as virtual reality (or something approximating it), present themselves as a game or a journey, which is absolutely and completely self-directed. In contrast, a more linear model presents itself in terms of a “guide on the side” or “virtual mentoring,” with the learner still firmly in the center of the model, but with a clear instructor role – that of guide on the side, or mentor, who prescribes a carefully delineated reading list, activities, and assessments.

What this means in practical terms is that instructional designers will approach the cognitive element of online courses and online learning in quite different manners, depending upon which philosophy they adhere to. The Game/Journey aficionados value self-direction and self-actualization to the point that the learner’s self-awareness (or growing self-awareness) becomes central to the entire process. There is a high degree of risk, but the riskiness of approach and undefined outcomes is seen as necessary in order to remove limits, and open up possibilities for unforeseen intellectual growth and knowledge generation. In contrast, the Guide on the Side devotee seeks, in many ways, to reduce risk and to assure the achievement of very specifically defined and previously identified outcomes.

Below is a list of cognitive activities generally incorporated into online courses. Each activity is filtered by the competing approaches – Game/Journey vs. Guide on the Side – to illustrate how the philosophies inspire different activities, tactics, and beliefs about how individuals can and/or should come to know the world.

1—Connections: Courses are designed to encourage the learners to make connections between the course content and the learner’s own experience. The goal is to allow one to learn how to analyze by means of analogy.

Game/Journey: A simulation allows the learner to make choices. The game calculates probabilities, or presents randomly-generated options. The learner makes decisions based on his/her own experiences in the real world. An example could be flight simulation programs.

Guide on the Side: The guide presents the concept, with a case study that illustrates it. The learner is then asked to supply an example of a similar experience or event that happened in his/her own life, and then explore the similarities and contrasts.

2—Generalizations: The courses present the material in a way that will result in a learner who is able to make generalizations from a series of specific examples or data points.

Game/Journey: Generalizations are best presented in simulation form in terms of a morality tale or parable. The learner is presented with an ethical dilemma. The learner then must make a choice. A series of possible outcomes are simulated. The learner generalizes from the specific experience to universal, or general situations.

Guide on the Side: The guide on the side (or mentor) presents a series of examples or case studies, all of which are similar. The learner is asked to explain what all of the cases have in common. The guide reads the responses and responds, “guiding” the learner to the desired answer. Collaborative activities – discussion boards, chat, group projects – may allow peer-guided generalization.

3—Categorization: Course activities encourage the learner to construct categories, place data within the categories in a way that agrees with the norm, and to make predictions and generalizations based on categories and the classification process.

Game/Journey: Again, simulations are perhaps the most popular choice for this. The learner is asked to go on a journey that requires him or her to identify items. The identification process requires categorization. Correctly identifying the item is critical – misclassifying could be lethal, especially if the item is dangerous. Proper identification of an item could lead to riches, wealth, and success.

Guide on the Side: The guide tells the learner what the categories are, and encourages the learner to read articles about examples of items in the various categories. The learner demonstrates competence by accurately completing a self-scoring interactive online quiz (before falling asleep).

4—Metaphorical projection: In virtual reality and simulation activities, learners project themselves, their values, and their perceptions into the Internet space. The learners make decisions and choices based on the relations that they perceive, which are often analogous to their lived experience outside the realm of the Internet. The simulated world allows one to analyze the outcomes of decisions and to probe cause-and-effect relationships.

Game/Journey: The learner constructs a game persona. This persona will “be” the learner as he/she embarks on the journey or quest for the goal, which is, in fact, the desired final learning outcome. By selecting attributes and even the persona’s appearance, the learner’s identification (and thus, projection onto the persona and actions) is an almost irresistible psychological engagement. The learner “becomes” the persona. The boundary between reality and virtual reality is blurred.

Guide on the Side: The guide instructs the learner to “imagine yourself to be that person” – and thus the learner never loses sight of the fact that the role-playing is just that: role-playing. Self-aware “acting” prevails. The learner may take risks and decide to make choices that might seem out of character for the persona. However, the learner never forgets that there is an emotional and/or intellectual wall that precludes true projection. While he or she may not realize what is happening, in order to maintain control the guide unconsciously limits and restricts the student’s choices of roles, and discourages projection and identification.

5—Constructivism: The course allows the learner to develop a sense of depth about a concept. The constructivist environment leads to deep knowledge about a concept (Osberg, 1997).

Game/Journey: The game presents the learner with a series of doors, portals, or “opportunities” to explore a certain aspect of the course content. There are no controls or limits. If the learner wants to continue to pursue a certain track, it is allowed. If the learner wants to keep on the superficial side of things on topics, this is also permissible. The learner is given the freedom to explore his or her animating ideas or ideals. The goal of the game is to “awaken” the learner and to encourage interest, even if it verges upon the obsessive. Such approaches may leave some learners confused and frustrated. Others will find it to be the key that unlocks true genius.

Guide on the Side: The guide on the side provides readings for the learner. The readings show the learner how the subject can be expanded, and how one might do research on a topic. The guide decides what is valid, intellectually worthwhile, and valuable. The guide also conducts assessments to determine whether or not the learner has mastered the subject and/or demonstrates competency.