HOME

=‍ ‍‍Introduction ‍‍‍ = = = //**‍‍‍Welcome to my e-portfolio for an online learning instructional intervention**//

My name is Khanyisile Ngodwana. I am a Writing Centre Coordinator at Walter Sisulu University, Buffalo City Campus. Our campus has four delivery sites with the distances between them ranging from 5 kms to 30 kms. I have held this current position for almost three years. Previously, I had worked as a high school English Second Language teacher, and later as a lecturer at a neighbouring university where I taught both linguistics and African literature.

At our campus, the Writing Centre has only been operational since 2010, and ‍‍‍unlike other established ‍‍‍Writing Centres at developed institutions that have full staff complement, ours is still manned by one person. As the coordinator, I am expected to do advocacy work, promote //writing across curriculum// in faculties, run workshops (often generic) for students and staff, as well as conduct one-on-one consultations with students. On recognising the magnitude of the scope of work, the constraints of working on a multi-delivery site campus where access to the Writing Centre is a ‍‍‍‍‍‍challenge due to distance ‍‍‍‍‍‍and limited staff, and our meeting aspirations to be part of the institutional drive to use ICTs to promote learning and teaching, we have begun a drive to promote the use of freely accessible technologies to promote writing across curriculum. . The portfolio serves two purposes: The portfolio is arranged such that the titles of the pages match the several phases of the choice design framework for the online learning activity. The design framework selected is **Integrative Learning Design Framework (ILDF)** for Online Learning as it “provides a systematic framework for online learning materials that is based on pedagogy and iterative evaluation rather than the developer’s whim” (Dabbagh & Bannan – Ritland’s, 2005:112). The framework is also said to present a flexible process that can be adaptable to multiple settings. There are three phases in ILDF: **exploration, enactment and evaluation**
 * Professionally: It is a narrative of a small pilot online learning intervention in the form of a wiki undertaken by the Writing Centre in collaboration with Auditing II students enrolled in a Diploma programme and their lecturer at one delivery site. The intervention was intended to promote student collaborative writing of course notes as a strategy to promote active learning, and also a means of ensuring student readiness for assessment.
 * Personally: It is an assessment task for an Online Design course that I am currently enrolled in at the University of Cape Town.

**Diagrammatic presentation of ILDF**

**Justification for the ILDF framework** The basis for the choice ILDF as a design framework is its primary focus on constructivist learning models. Similarly, Writing Centre pedagogy is founded primarily on constructivist views of learning. Unlike the traditional Instructional Design models, ILDF recognises the importance of understanding the context - the organisational culture, its inherent politics, and the situational affordances and constraints - where designing and development occurs. As a constructivist model, ILDF regards designing and developing instruction as a collaborative problem solving process where the learning developer must interact with all those involved in the learning activity, including the teacher and the students. As already mentioned, this narrative will outline to the reader all the activities undertaken in each phase, as well as the effectiveness, successes, and/ or challenges experienced throughout through the phases.

**Online- Learning Design Model**

Naturally, the choice for an instructional design model would be that which is premised on similar constructivist perspectives as the ILDF. The basic tenet for writing centre work is collaboration, as it is seen to: (i) aid in problem finding as well as problem solving; (ii) foster interdisciplinary thinking; (iii) lead to more critical thinking and deeper understanding of others; (iv) it leads to higher achievement; (v) it engages the whole student and encourages active learning (Lunsford, 1995). The constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID) model chosen would also need to emphasize collaboration; hence I chose Willis and Wright’s (2000) R2D2 model for this online learning activity. Contrary to traditional ID models’ objectivist views about learning and teaching, which emphasise empirical evidence to make generalisation, C-ID models are premised on the view that “there are no absolute laws of human behaviour and learning that can be confidently generalised from one situation to another (Richey, Klein & Tracey, 2009: 139). C-ID models acknowledge the varying perspectives that the designer has to consider if the activity is to best suit the students. C-ID models emphasise the importance of understanding the local context and taking it into consideration when creating a new educational resource. According to Willis ( 2009, 23), just like learning, ID is a complex “constructive – interpretive” process. It involves developing and using phronetic (local, contextually constrained) knowledge; using a range of technical knowledge and expertise; and working collaboratively with a team of stakeholders.

The R2D2 Model


According to Willis (2009: 23), “C-ID models generally adopt a process that involves jumping back and forth from one task to another throughout the development process.” The R2D2 model follows flexible guidelines of recursion and iteration, reflective design and participatory design. Johnson ( 2006 ) defines recursion as meaning to address the same issue multiple times throughout the process; and iteration as “a process of developing instructional material that allows both users and experts to fully participate in the process of revision and reformulation” (Willis 2000: 10 cited in Johnson, 31). //Reflective design// involves “problem framing, implementation and improvisation,” which requires that the context is understood (ibid). Lastly, participatory design emphasises interactivity among the design team, so that solutions that emerge are a result of a collective effort. In //Design and Development// the main activities are: a) selection of a development environment, which has be accessible and usable by all team members; b) cooperative enquiry, where the developer gathers information to make informed decisions on how to improve the material by cooperatively researching and reflecting; and c) product design and development. //Dissemination// often takes a long time to achieve considering the recursive nature of the models, which is premised on recursion and reflection.

**Self Reflection on this eportfolio**

In following the steps suggested in the R2D2 online-learning activity, there were stages I found easier to accomplish than others. For example, the definition focus was the easiest phase, and as such it is the most elaborate and comprehensive of the pages. Creating and supporting a participatory team was the least challenging because the set of students selected were the keenest and the most students that I have ever worked with since I started working at the Writing Centre. Their keen participation meant we could refine or goals and the scope of the activity, and their input was invaluable. The lecturer's and students' responses to the questionnaire coupled with my understanding of the context meant developing phronesis would not be time-consuming.

There were a few challenges that I experienced in the design and development focus as well as the dissemination focus. In the design and development focus, I used B the Affordances Matrix to select the development environment. Challenges began mainly in the cooperative enquiry stage. Whilst all members of the particpatory team were all initially keen, one critical member, the subject lecturer, failed to contribute to the development of the wiki by way of posting comments or contributing to the discusiions. I believe reading closely the definition focus will give the reader more insight to the underlying reason for the lecturer's seemingly lack of co-operation, which I can summarily put down to her aversion of new technologies. I believe the prototype could have been improved with her input, which unfortunately could only be provided by her as the subject lecturer since I do not have any Auditing background. As a result, in the Enactment Page/ Design and Development Focus, the only section that is substantive is the selection of a development environment.

Lastly, the one weakness in the dissemenation focus is the absence of input from the subject lecturer. Considering that the adoption of wiki in the course depends on the sastifaction of the lecturer with the quality, her input would have been highly valuable. However, this was also not accomplished because the subject lecturer did not provide any written feedback in spite of the numerous reminders and requests made.

**References**
Dabbagh, N and Bannan -Ritland, B (2005). //Online Learning: Concepts, Strategies and Application//. NJ: Pearson Johnson, D.L (2006) Designing to learn: //Using Agile Software Engineering methods for participatory instructional design//. Proquest. Available on [|Online] Lunsford, A. (1995). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Centre. In C. Murphy, & S. Sherwood, //The St Martins's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors// (pp. 88-96). NY: St Martin's Press. Richey, R.T., Klein, J.D., & Tracey, M.W. (2010) //The instructional design knowledge base: theory, research, and practice//. Taylor and Francis e-Library: [|Online] Willis, J.W. (2009) Constructive Instructional Design (C-ID):Foundation, Models, and Examples. IAP Inc: USA. Available online at http://bit.ly/oFuzo8J Willis, J & Wright, K.E.(2000) "A General Set of Procedures for Constructivist Instructional Design" //Educational Technology// (March- April): 5-20 ‍‍