17

Technology, Distance Learning, and Social Media

The role of technology and the directly associated offshoots of social media, distance learning, distributed learning, and various types of software, including learning management systems (LMSs), have created a range of options for instructional designers to review and consider for their design projects. Some designers assign great significance to these issues; others consider them as just another tool to use if the situation warrants their use. It is important that designers review these options and take a moment to consider the real issues associated with technology in the design process. As with most things in life, the reality is not always as clear as it appears from a distance.

Distance Learning: A Brief History

Integrating distance and new technologies into learning is by no means a recent phenomenon. Using some form of distributed learning dates back to at least 1728, when a course in shorthand was advertised in the Boston Gazette by Caleb Phillipps and distributed by messenger or mail to learners in their homes (Miller 2014). Higher education started using the then-new technology of radio in 1922, when Pennsylvania State College offered a series of courses followed quickly by the University of Iowa in 1925 (Miller). In 1981, just before the birth of the personal computer, the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute’s School of Management and Strategic Studies started offering courses online and readily available on the Internet (Miller). Now online learning is found in most colleges and universities in one form or another. It has also branched into most areas of training with varying degrees of success.

There are those old enough to remember Sunrise Semester, which aired on television from 1957 to 1982, followed by Video Professor, which offered VHS tutorials starting in 1987; then 1993 saw the beginning of the huge promotion of DVD-based training, usually called multimedia training. In their era, all of these were groundbreaking and eventually claimed some percentage of the training landscape, but times change and none of them are seen as often as when they were first introduced.

This is the important point to always keep in mind regarding the seductive power of new technology. Each of these innovative training approaches had a rather limited half-life before the next new thing in technology came along. As a result, an experienced designer should view each new player on its merits and usefulness within the scope of an individual project or course based on all of the established variables of content, population, budget, and resources—just like any other course or project. It is seldom a good idea to go completely in on a new technology until it has proven to be a reliable, long-term winner for your needs.

Technology and Instructional Design

There is a pattern to technology implementation with instructional design. Early on, there is a period when adopters have a “use at any cost regardless of function” mentality, which later eases into “see if it deserves consideration.” There is also a myth that some designers still cling to that any course utilizing some form of technology is somehow better than a similar course without any technology. However, a boring PowerPoint is no better than a boring professor talking without slides for 90 minutes. As with all things ISD, it is about designing for the best use of both content and implementation choices.

There is also confusion about what integrating technology into course design really means. Some nondesigners think that a student having access to a smartphone during a course is just as valuable as smart boards being available in every classroom. The key to implementing technology is finding ways to make it enhance the learning experience, not simply be a support system.

It is in the best interests of an instructional designer to think about the integration aspects of technology instead of simply finding a place for any technology in any format within implementation. The differences are striking and very important both for design considerations and the end user, the learner.

Simply using technology in the courses you design relegates technology to being an afterthought and not a key design consideration. It is the same as saying that you would rather just have a facilitator present slides with projected media instead of having learners use tablets to view, store, and later review the same information. The easiest way to think about this as a designer is to consider whether your design activities can be accomplished both with or without technology. If the answer is “yes,” then you are simply using technology. If the answer is “no,” then most likely technology is being integrated into the design.

Instructional Design Differences in Distance Learning

Having a distance learning option is a valuable asset to an instructional designer. It is important to remember that distance learning, from an instructional design perspective, is just one of many implementation options for training and education. After all, instructional design, at its core, is a system. Any implementation modality, including distance learning, is just one aspect of a design system.

Arriving at a design decision to use distance learning, classroom learning, or some combination requires a design process that involves the advantages and disadvantages of each option available. It is exactly the same decision-making process as any other design project, and designers will make the best decision if they weigh a number of important factors, including cost, convenience, and access.

There are as many variations on distance learning as there are instructional designers and learners. Implementation does not have to be all or nothing with distance learning; it can also effectively be adjunct to the core instructional methodology by the use of message boards, online assignment posting, cloud-based library resources, synchronous chat rooms, and hundreds of combinations of these and other methods.

Glamorizing distance learning into something more than it is—an implementation method—increases the likelihood that the technology will be selected solely for the iconic value of the technology itself. Distance learning can be very seductive, and falling blindly for a vendor’s promises could leave even an accomplished designer with major, unexpected challenges. Just because a learner has access to the Internet or an organization has a network server and a webpage and tweets out messages through social media does not mean that distance learning is the best design choice for their courses. The seasoned instructional designer considers all aspects of the population, budget, resources, content, objective domains, and performance agreement when deciding how to implement a learning program.

This chapter is not intended to provide a detailed background on distance learning design beyond some basic instructional design principles to think about generally in the process. There are a number of excellent publications, seminars, and college programs that support designing in this environment.

Distance Learning Design Challenges

Important instructional design decisions for distance learning can usually be reduced to essentially the same questions a designer should ask about any implementation choices. However, it is necessary to expand the complexity of the discussion with distance learning to the degree that questions need to be answered in several key areas, including matching a learner cohort to implementation options and determining the technology-based skills level of a potential population.

To most instructional designers, the terms distance learning or e-learning refer to some form of online learning requiring that a learner have both a computer and network access (Internet, intranet, dial-up, and so forth). It is beyond the scope of this discussion to go into the different hardware, software, and other details of online learning, although LMSs will be discussed later in this chapter. There are excellent sources for that information. The important thing to remember is that these specifics will always be changing, and what is hot today will be a dinosaur tomorrow. It is the job of a great instructional designer to keep current with the technology while never losing sight of the ISD process. In the end, instructional design is sufficiently dynamic to allow for implementation of any future technologies; they are just another variable in the design equation.

Population

Any distance learning discussion needs to start with the population it is meant to serve. The designer must determine if the target population is suited for online learning and has a reasonable chance for success in that environment. All other decisions rest on this decision. Keep these factors in mind when evaluating the target population:

• Access to technology: Some aspects of the digital divide still remain an issue as each new generation of hardware and software arrives on the scene. Smartphones are not universally available or even universally accepted, and Internet access speed differences can be huge in some populations and locations. Although designers can be creative with how online content is packaged and supplemented with social media and other technologies, there are limits on how much of this a population can actually absorb and use effectively in a training setting.

• Learning environment: There are learners who prefer online to classroom instruction, and others who prefer classroom to online. Older populations generally prefer face-to-face training, but that is no longer a universal preference for any demographic.

• Timing: If synchronous activities (everyone online at the same time) are selected, can the population meet at the assigned times? When it’s 11 p.m. EDT in New York City it is noon in Seoul, South Korea.

• Technical competence: While learners are generally able to use the technology to the degree required for successful participation, that is not always the key issue. When thinking about social media, you need to consider privacy issues. The fact that every learner may not want to get a Twitter or Facebook account and forcing learners to do so opens up an entirely new area of legality and concern on several different levels.

Cost

The cost of distance learning in today’s design environment can range from negligible to enormous, depending on the requirements of a design. A college or university hosting an LMS for distance learning can quickly get to six figures just to get it up and running. On the other hand, there are low-cost solutions if a designer wants to dig around and find a product that meets specific design requirements.

There are several things to keep in mind:

• Expectations: Most learners, especially the under-40 demographic, have become just as sophisticated as the technologies now available. If an online learning course is perceived as dated because of its interface or usability, learners may be disappointed or end up being frustrated while they participate. If your choice of products is not state of the art, expect some participants to be disappointed and the designer’s credibility to take a hit. Make sure that any choices go beyond the implied need to simply use technology without the necessary risk-reward analysis for the population.

• Production values: Developing high-end distance learning generally requires expensive resources because such features as animation, audio, video, and editing may be required. Think of the difference in production quality between the average YouTube or Facebook video and Blu-ray or 4K high-definition professionally produced video. Learners will make the comparison, and a designer has to consider whether this is an issue to consider.

• Media: If audio or video components are going to be incorporated into the distance learning design, be prepared for the costs associated with this design choice. Yes, you can use a smartphone, but would the quality meet the client’s or population’s expectations for a course? Be realistic about technology costs and what you get for the investment.

Content

Certain content areas drive a decision concerning online learning suitability. Here are a couple of things to consider:

• Objective domains: Is the content in a domain that requires hands-on or first-person demonstration, either for presentation or evaluation? If so, can this design need be met using distance learning? The Mastery Tipping Point concept, which is discussed in the next chapter, works well for these situations.

• Migration of content: Will content need to be transposed from one format to another; for example, handouts and other materials to online accessibility? Can this transposition be accomplished easily and inexpensively?

Evaluation

This can sometimes be a very complicated area of online learning. Keep these issues in mind:

• Formal evaluation: If formal evaluations are required for a course, will you be able to provide an accepted environment for that process? Many for-credit requirements demand that a proctored test environment be provided for online courses. Know what is required in the project’s content and accreditation environment early in the design process so that there are no surprises later. Finding proctors for a national program is not a small logistical or budgetary issue. There are also online proctoring programs and services that take control of a learner’s computer and do not allow the computer to be used for anything except the formal evaluation. Some of these even require a camera that is monitored by a proctor to ensure that the student is not using any resources not permitted for the exam. This is generally an expensive option.

• Performance agreement: Can objectives be evaluated in the same domain in which they are written? For example, if the objectives are in the psychomotor domain, can they be evaluated in that domain?

Implementation

When implementing the lesson plan, consider these aspects of the design:

• Facilitator workload: It generally takes more time to facilitate an online course than a similar classroom-based course. While this can be mitigated by design choices, it is still something to keep in mind.

• Synchronous, asynchronous, or blended: If synchronous activities are going to be incorporated, ensure that the technology is learner friendly. Many chat-room environments in course-management software leave much to be desired, and these have a way of diverging into off-topic chats unless they are closely facilitated.

• User satisfaction: Does the implementation mode match the needs of the learner? Is it the best choice?

Synchronous and Asynchronous Versus Blended Learning

Blended learning has become a popular learning option, and it usually consists of some percentage of course content offered in person and the rest online. This format allows a lot of versatility and offers designers the choice to offer prerequisite or noninteractive content online and the more interactive content elements in person. It also provides an opportunity to offer savings to learners in terms of travel costs to a course location.

For example, a traditional college course in a 15-week term could easily be offered in a format that only requires classroom visits on half the weeks in the term. This immediately allows for at least seven fewer trips. For a student who lives an hour or more from a campus location this amounts to at least 14 hours less time in commuting. These opportunity costs are not insignificant, and when similar formats are applied to organizational courses, they can amount to more than the course design costs.

One misconception that designers must be aware of is the fact that blended learning is directly tied to the same location-based issues as a face-to-face course. This flows from the fact that if a learner cannot reasonably visit a specific course site, blended learning is also out of reach. There are other ways to address the distance and travel problems, but organizations with worldwide learner populations have to think very carefully about blended learning as an option for most learners.

Learning Management Systems

With the advent of sophisticated online learning programs, the LMS has come into popular use. It is also called an LCMS (learning content management system), which for design purposes is the same thing. An LMS is the software interface that allows learners and facilitators to meet together in a virtual world. Content and other course materials are joined together with access provided by the Internet, an intranet, or other technology-based platform. Even text and other social media can be incorporated into this virtual environment. There are well over 500 of these learning platforms available in the marketplace, with several having considerable market share over the rest. For example, in 2014, Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas, Desire2Learn, Sakai, and ANGEL had the greatest penetration of installed LMS (Edutechnica 2014).

One important distinction within the LMS family is the open-source systems that allow some degree of manipulation on the software side versus the more traditional systems that are more expensive, with options largely fixed within the software. Another way to look at it is that open source allows some tinkering with the coding and other variables in the program, and a community of different programmers and users coordinate at some level on the design of the software, which, best of all, is offered at little if any cost. The more commercial offerings do not allow much modification without paying for it, and the costs to initiate and host a commercial LMS are sometimes staggering for small organizations. This is a somewhat simplified explanation of the differences, but also what even an experienced designer would likely encounter.

Open-source LMS offerings include Canvas, Sakai, Moodle, and some other programs that are in the family of “home-grown” LMS systems used at specific higher education programs (Edutechnica 2014). More traditional LMS offerings are Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Brightspace, and Learning Studio. There has also been a lot of reshuffling within the industry over the last decade, with former players like WebCT being absorbed by larger companies. It is extremely important that a designer investigate all options when looking at a new LMS or when inheriting an older system as part of an acquisition or being involved in a new project. Things can change quickly in this part of the technology landscape.

There is nothing more time-consuming and costly than making a mistake, usually by not having all of the information necessary on even a small LMS integration. Gather as much information as possible. Designers should talk to other design professionals and match those organizational realities with their own situations and see which has the most potential. For example, an open-source LMS may appear to be a great bargain, but there may be implementation limitations or additional expenses just below the surface, such as paying for programmers, server hardware, robust Internet access, help-desk support, and other issues. In a higher education situation, or if you must keep detailed records on student participation, the LMS must be able to talk to the student information system, and that is not always an easy link.

Designers need to spend considerable time reviewing and investigating the numerous aspects of each individual LMS because systems often differ enough from each other in terms of individual elements and how each works within the software. Added to this potential chaos is the fact that each LMS will undergo versioning changes, and sometimes features present in one version will be dropped or significantly changed in a later version. For example, your current LMS may contain options like a webpage, wiki, chat function, or other utilities that have been integrated into the course design. A new version of the LMS then eliminates or drastically changes some of these features and causes major redesign in courses relying on these LMS tools. This is very common, and the added cost to redesign these course utilities or other changes can be high both in money and frustration on the part of faculty and designers. In the academic world, version changes happen between terms, which means there may be only several days or weeks to get courses back up to speed.

The LMS contained in most popular online learning systems includes several basic components:

• student management systems—names and attendance information, for example

• discussion boards—where students post assignments and questions

• announcements section—for facilitator and organizational announcements

• resources—links to web content and embedded files and materials

• course shells—the discrete home for courses that are usually designated by course name and section numbers

• course tools—blogs, email, research links, spell check, and so forth

• course support—wikis, glossaries, access to library resources, and other help functions

• course grading systems—the online grade book function usually available to students for instant access to progress reports, as well as interim and final grades.

Of course, an LMS will contain hundreds of features, and each of these will vary by version. Designers should ensure that their choice in an LMS meets their needs and provides the necessary structure, tools, and support for the program. They should be sure, too, of what is coming down the road in later versions and how stable each of the existing features is likely to be so that they can design with some confidence and will not have to make unnecessary changes later.

Designers should enter the LMS world with eyes wide open; if they have been working with a system for a while and have experiences and information to share, they should make a point of offering a helping hand to other designers and organizations. There is no better place to do this than a local ATD chapter meeting or event or similar gathering of the design faithful.

Social Media in Course Design

Social media includes applications like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Skype, Snapchat, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Vine, WhatsApp, and literally hundreds of other applications. Each has a unique twist to its approach to communications and how it packages data. For this book, it is probably best to look at social media as a subset of communications before even thinking about it as an instructional design tool. At its heart, social media goes back to a very basic telecommunications model in which data are clustered into small, discrete units called a packet. The Internet is largely a packet network that moves these small units from one location to another. Each of these packets contains source and destination identification, among other things, so that it knows where to go on the network.

The packet originated within a telecommunications framework of efficiency, which basically meant that rather than assign a complete conversation or file to a single channel, breaking these conversations into small units allowed them to be combined on the same channel as other conversations; this process allowed exponentially more data to be shared across a network. That is why long distance calls used to sound a little different from one moment to the next because the conversations were being switched from one cable pair to another continually to allow greater efficiency. This is now what happens on almost every online or smartphone-based transmission or data. As shown in this simple diagram, seven conversations are taking place on three pairs of cable with increased levels of capacity (Figure 17-1).

Figure 17-1. How Telecommunications Packets Move Data

There was a point in time when the concept of creating digital packets of a short length and using them for sending data between two or more smartphones was born. This led to social media apps that generally limit data to a very small packet or unit of data. The advantage in the beginning was that data networks for smartphones were very small and slow and digital packets allowed quicker and more reliable communications between users.

Packets and Instructional Design

This quick tutorial in data and creating packets on the Internet illustrates a valuable instructional design concept. When courses and programs are designed, large quantities of content are broken up into discrete instructional elements. This is parallel to the conceptual framework used with the Internet to pass data. Content is broken up into discrete elements so that behavioral objectives can be written that represent each of these units of instruction. Networks and other digital communications do exactly the same thing, and this opens the door for the integration of social media and other digital products into instructional designs.

With all of this in mind, if you were to develop a working definition of instructional social media in the context of ISD, it might read like this:

How does social media work with training? Just like any variable in a system approach to designing curriculum, you must see how social media plays with the target population for a course. Let’s look at the potential for using social media as a mobile link to a course with the population utilizing a smartphone application.

While social media is available on various devices including computers, tablets, and smartphones, it is generally the smartphone that is seen as the mobile medium of choice. In 2014, the generation gap in smartphone penetration was a major point of consideration because the 12-24 age group showed a 78 percent ownership rate, 25-54-year-olds were at a 68 percent ownership rate, and pulling up the rear was the 55-plus age group with just 36 percent ownership (2014 Edison Research). These numbers are not at all surprising because adoption of technology has always been weighted toward the younger age demographics. The reality is that social media acceptance and use are not a universal truth in society and certainly not in analysis of populations without more specific data than just national trends.

Taking this a step further, let’s see if the data show where social media might be useful. While millions dabble in social media in one way or another, it is a giant leap of faith to think that anyone wants to participate in a course using social media, unless the course itself is about learning or using social media. In fact, my research and that of others in the field seem to agree that if you take the “social” out of social media, you might as well call it training media. On the other hand, the very populations that you would think might embrace social media as a medium for implementation often say they do not want to use communications tools like Facebook for formal learning. It would be the same as using the telephone for a course back in the 1950s or 1960s.

This leads us to another myth in instructional design—that the recent limited adoption of social media into training is something new. This is where the saying “something old is suddenly new again” comes into play. The seasoned designer has seen this happen many times in the past with new technologies and realizes that each new generation of technology may have potential, but it probably is not automatically a game changer in how courses are designed and implemented. Some degree of design hysteria has happened at every stage of technology built out since 1984.

Social Learning

Social learning and the subset of training using social media is yet another variation of informal learning and is actually as old as learning itself. From the first learning moments sitting around a campfire strategizing how to gather food for winter to Millennials using social media, the learning is exactly the same: informal yet effective passing of knowledge from one person to another.

The reality is that most of the tools in social media products essentially mimic what is already available in the present generation of learning management systems, albeit at a different level of sophistication. There is nothing new about posting comments and pictures or chatting online; the real challenge is making all of these elements work flawlessly together in a course to the point where the technology is invisible to the learner.

Couple this, then, with the way younger generations of learners, or Net Gens, look at the world. In general they have a different set of expectations (Tapscott 2008), including:

• They prefer customized options and offerings—“my way today” thinking.

• They like to work together but want to be treated as individuals.

• In a world of social media, they expect transparency and integrity.

• They want life to be fun, both at home and at work.

An ASTD research study sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton (2009) offered a list of reasons for adopting web 2.0 technologies, including:

• Knowledge sharing improves.

• Learning is fostered.

• Informal learning opportunities increase.

• Communications improve.

• Resources are more easily located and accessed.

• Collaboration opportunities increase.

• Relationships are more easily built.

For an instructional designer, this is a wealth of variables to try and mingle with the expectations of existing older generations or learners who are not tweeting and posting every several hours. The good news is that this is nothing new from a design perspective. New is good when designed with the system.

SCORM and Section 508

In recent years, the online ISD landscape has become much more complicated than just setting up a website or hosting an online course. Designers now have to consider the ramifications and impact of online products as they relate to conforming to the law and requirements of certain clients in terms of these edicts. For example, the Sharable Content Object Reference Model, usually referred to as SCORM, and Section 508 are two such evolving legal or regulatory requirements. Evolving from an executive order in 1999 given to the Department of Defense, SCORM’s main purpose is to standardize e-learning across all platforms, both private and federal. The latest iteration of SCORM is named the Experience API, sometimes called Tin Can API. Section 508 refers to a requirement that federal agencies ensure that their online information is accessible by everyone, including those with disabilities.

Both of these topics are well beyond the scope of this book, but a designer needs to know they exist and be ready when a contract or client is bound to meet one or both of these requirements. There will undoubtedly be more compliance law and directives in the future and keeping up with the latest in these areas is not an option for a professional instructional designer. In certain design environments, including federal, military, and just about any projects receiving grants, technical assistance contracts or any money from these organizations involving technology and an online presence, including e-learning, will be required to be in compliance of all such laws.

In Conclusion

Instructional design is an exciting profession when new technology creates opportunities for interesting and more effective ways to train millions of learners. Social media is a perfect example of a technology that is finding its way into training in ways never imagined before the smartphone era. While online learning, social media, and the integrations of technology all have the potential to be important aspects of the work of an instructional designer, remember that all of these areas are simply another variable in the design process. Every new technology that comes along in the next century will fall into the same instructional design category as the first electronic calculator in the 1970s, and smart instructional designers will determine the best fit within the context of content, population, and other design considerations.

Discussion Questions

1.  If you are recommending an LMS for a client, do you think open source and commercial systems are both viable, and why?

2.  You are very intrigued by a new technology and would like to incorporate it in a new course design. How do you go about deciding if it is the right step?

3.  Do you believe that students who use social media for communicating informally have any interest in using it for more formal reasons like taking courses?