Generalization
What our group has reviewed is the Waste Rycycling online instruction/design, which can be accessed by the following address:
http://net3.hkbu.edu.hk/~ckwong/Waste/pages/index.htm
After the careful review of popular learning theories, I found the Waste
Rycycling online instruction/design can not be counted as a good
instruction project guided under anyone or any combination. It appears
to be a stack of information without even careful organization. However,
if one tries to use learning theory to analyse it, there are still some
shadows that seem to to related to some particular learning theories.
Analysis based on learning theory
Despite more than half of broken links, it can still be thought
to be an unsuccessful combination of instructivist and constructivist
model, for it includes not only unclear instruction on waste recycling
but also an open-ended project. 8 pages are included in this small site,
and two are bronken. The remaining can be divided into two categories:
knowledge instruction and project guide. All others belong to the
"knowledge instruction" category except the "Project" page.
As for the "knowledge instruction" part, there are only insufficent and unclear instruction without questions and practice that provide an opportunity to apply the instructed knowledge in. Despite limited classification in "wastes types", there is no evidence of a big-picutre tutorial system guiding possible learners.No evidence shows that the instruction has any parts relevant to Gagne's 9 events of learning. Neither does it include any reuseable learning objects.By now it is necessary to go into details of each page to give some solid ground about the above statement.
Home Page
This page's main task is to state the purpose of this e-learning project. It fails to take considerdation about who or what a group of people are suitable to learn this project, so it has no special design for its possible learners' particular needs.
The introduction of the purpose is acutally a intorduction of designers' self-inttroduction rather than something prepared for learners.If we digress a little bit from learning theory, and go into some desgin theory, you can see clearly the way of stating the purpose of learning project is not object-oriented or user-friendly.Neither are the interface/style.
Waste
The arrnagement of information is in chaose somewhat. If this is about "waste", then "disposition of garbage" should better not appear in this page, but in Recycle page.
If I am a learner, I would expect more concrete examples from the wastes type than just one-sentence introduction.
Recycle
As the designer did not state which age group this learning project is for, I assume it is suitable for all people. If I were its learner, I expect something either informative or interesting, but not something you can fetch everywhere online.
Besides, I still believe concrete examples work better than didactic explanation.
Impact
The problems are just like those in the above pages. Only one example to show this point: "Growing wasteland" and "Outlook" is under the title "Recognizing major impacts of wastes". I do not think "Outlook" is also some impacts of waste.
The information is even messy for anyone to read, let alone to learn form it.
Project
Generally speaking, it is necessary for learners to apply what they learned in the instruction part into the assignment to help learners review the learned content. There is no evidence showing this kind of education design in the project.
If one looks at the project from the perspective of pedagogical dimension, it can be counted as one with an unfocused goal. However, it is not out of delicate design, ot out of the need of the nature of some creative and high level knowledge. It is more likely to come of out impatient and careless education design.
Games/Links/Contact
Most of links in these three parts are broken, so it is hard to give an evaluation for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment