You are here:

Distributed Learning: A Flexible Learning and Development Model
PROCEEDING

, , Obsidian Learning, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents Obsidian’s Distributed Learning model. Grounded in social constructivist theories of learning, the model emphasizes the use of blended learning solutions (instructor-led, online, mobile, ongoing performance support) to foster collaborative learning. There are three primary components in the model: technology, experience, and people. Obsidian’s distributed learning solutions draw from each of these components depending on organizational constraints, instructional requirements, and learner needs. This paper discusses several learning solutions that can be used in distributed learning environments, presents a case study of such an environment developed by Obsidian Learning, and suggests approaches to refining the model through future research and development.

Citation

Victor, S. & Hart, S. (2016). Distributed Learning: A Flexible Learning and Development Model. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 281-290). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bailey, C., Zalfan, M.T., Davis, H.C., Fill, K., & Conole, G. (2006). Panning for gold: Designing pedagogicallyinspired learning nuggets. Educational Technology& Society, 9(1), 113-122.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  3. Beckem, J.M., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 61-70.
  4. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-119.
  5. Borro-Escribano, B., Del Blanco, Á., Torrente, J., Alpuente, I.M., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2014). Developing game-like simulations to formalize tacit procedural knowledge: The ONT experience. Educational Technology Research& Development, 62(2), 227-243.
  6. Chen, C., Wu, J., & Yang, S.C. (2008). Accelerating the use of weblogs as an alternative method to deliver casebased learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 331-349.
  7. Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14.
  8. Downes, S. (2008). An introduction to connective knowledge. In T. Hug (Ed.), Media, knowledge& Education: Exploring new spaces, relations and dynamics in digital media ecologies (pp. 77-102). Innsbruck, AT: Innsbruck
  9. Goh, T., & Kinshuk. (2006). Getting ready for mobile learning--Adaptation perspective. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 175-198.
  10. Gunawardena, C.N., Hermans, M.B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16.
  11. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., & Barrows, H.S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48-94.
  12. Hostetter, C. (2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 77-86.
  13. Kalkstein, D.A., Kleiman, T., Wakslak, C.J., Liverman, N., & Trope, Y. (2016). Social learning across psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 1-19.
  14. Koszalka, T.A., & Wu, Y. (2010). Instructional design issues in a distributed collaborative engineering design (CED) instructional environment. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 105-125.
  15. Kuo, F.-R., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, S.-C., & Chen, S.Y. (2012). A cognitive apprenticeship approach to facilitating Web-based collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology& Society 15(4), 319-331.
  16. Lee, J.-S., & Cho, H. (2011). Factors affecting information seeking and evaluation in a distributed learning environment. Educational Technology& Society, 14(2), 213–223.
  17. Mondahl, M., & Razmerita, L. (2014). Social media, collaboration and social learning– A case-study of foreign language learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(4), 339-352.
  18. Motiwalla, L.F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers and Education, 49(3), 581-596.
  19. Mundie, J., & Hooper, S. (2014). Considering the potential of connected mobile learning. In C. Miller& A. Doering (Eds.), The new landscape of mobile learning (pp. 8-18). New York: Routledge.
  20. Norman, H., Nordin, N., Din, R., Ally, M., & Dogan, H. (2015). Exploring the roles of social participation in mobile social media learning: A social network analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 205-224.
  21. Ohler, J. (2008). The semantic web in education. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 7-9.
  22. Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M.C. (2008). Networked identities: Understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 103-115.
  23. Semingson, P., Crosslin, M., & Dellinger, J. (2015). Microlearning as a tool to engage students in online and blended learning. In D. Slykhuis& G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education international conference 2015 (pp. 474-479). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
  24. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology& Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
  25. Son, L.K., & Simon, D.A. (2011). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 379-399.
  26. Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating learning in the 21st century: A digital age learning matrix. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 19-39.
  27. Terry, K.P., & Doolittle, P. (2006). Fostering self-regulation in distributed learning. College Quarterly, 9(1). Retrieved June 8, 2016, from http://collegequarterly.ca/2006-vol09-num01-winter/terry_doolittle.html
  28. Van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: Four experiments in PLE implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 35-46.
  29. Victor, S. (2016). Distributed learning: A flexible learning model for a global economy. Houston, TX: Obsidian Learning. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from http://obsidianlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ObsidianDistributed-Learning-Model.pdf
  30. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists—In their own words (pp. 209-218). New York: Routledge.
  32. Whiteside, A.L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2), 53-72. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journalissues/
  33. Zhao, H., Sullivan, K.P.H., & Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 807-819.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts