the virtual learning guide template requires a theoretical foundation, with the conceptual framework being founded on three theoretical understanding interacting as a tripartite relationship:

· constructivism (cf wilson, 1997; wilson et al, 1995; abbott and ryan, 1999)
· systems theory – in particular human activity systems (cf klir, 1969; romiszowski, 1977, 1981; banathy, 1992) and soft systems theory (cf checkland, 1988; hiltz, 1990; davies and ledington, 1994; preece, 1999)
· structuration - (cf giddens 1979, 1993, 1995)

this position enables the researcher to view the learner and the learning from a dual perspective of learner as an agent and learning as a structure etc. this suggests that the above are not dichotomous, rather they offer a self supporting holism where the individual’s learning is reflexive and adaptive within any given interpretation of the learning structure.

why this is important to the researcher can be seen in the research to date (calway, 1999, 2000a) that has shown that the learning guide model currently espoused leaves the learner neither self-motivated nor desirous of a “learning” outcome.

also, unsolicited comments received on surveys e.g. “lazy”, and “you didn’t tell me what to do” (even when the details are explicit in the learning materials) are typical comments scattered throughout the evaluations conducted by the itsm discipline academics. in fact the learning guide approach, as currently prescribed by sutl campus, has created a scenario where students believe that all that needs to be known in order to pass a subject’s assessment can be found in the learning guide, and that any extra reading and practice self-assessment is above and beyond what is already provided (or required). obviously some students are motivated to be self-directed learners and to undertake the work, however a significant number are not. the current research, as with many other research projects around the world, aims to re-conceptualise the entire learner and instructional design scenario. moving from a “teaching as telling”, “tell me what i have to do” to a “help me understand” facilitation.

further, i argue that there are three levels of learning, ie. content – what and how; context – who, where and when; and concept – why, or a continuum of ‘know how’ to ‘know why’ and inter-disciplinary relationships. also, i have drawn from the work of researchers expressing knowledge in object form (cf merril, 1997). expressing learning as a behavioural and cognitive aspect of a knowledge object enables the instruction designer considerable latitude to incorporate learning theories and instructional design theories with instructional technologies, etc.

so, in summary, the vlgt as a conceptual model acknowledges:

· learning as a duality of learner activity and learning structure represented in knowledge objects;
· learning objectives need support in both topical “what is worth knowing” and a temporal acquisition of such knowledge;
· learning is a human activity and as such can be expressed using systems models;
· learning outcomes framed as knowledge objects must express content, context and concept where these are seen to be mutually supportive.

one such variable is the expression of learning objectives. that research indicates that the sutl campus students take little interest in the learning objectives as they are stated in extant learning guides (calway, yet to be published). however, it is argued that clear expression of learning outcomes along with learning objectives expressed as pre-test statements as interrogatives (using graphical, audio and textual means) will aid in the learner seeking further information. research conducted by rowntree (1990) provides an indication that such an approach is plausible.

one further aspect under experimental consideration at present is the use of pre and post-testing of knowledge, not as assessment for credit, but as a motivational approach for self-directed learning. surveys and interviews conducted in 1999 and 2000 by the researcher (calway, 2000a) have provided a base line and demographic strategy against which to evaluate any therapeutic actions emanating from identification and investigation of variables that effect the vlgt.

conclusion:

the researcher is cognisant that learner motivation is paramount for self-directed learning. however, i am reminded of a cereal advert where the punch line is – “don’t tell them its healthy, and they will eat it by the box full”, perhaps the same is required in instructional design. this paper therefore expresses the need to understand the dichotomy that exists between a learner studying on a “need to know” basis as compared to a student energised with a “desire to know” however that desire may be energised.

while much of the work presented in this paper is in its infancy, there are clear indications, from work to date, that a virtual learning materials approach has no significant (detrimental) difference on student learning and/or motivation from that expressed through extant printed and face-to-face instruction. however, i have argued that this is a poor representation of what could be, or what is desired. in this paper i have expressed the foundation work and the conceptual underpinning of the virtual learning guide template, i have also argued that pivotal to the expression of the template is the concept of duality of learner and learning, and that this learning is supported by a holistic and adaptive instructional technology and theories.

bibliography:

abbott, j. and ryan, t. 1999. the 21st century learning initiative: constructing knowledge, reconstructing schooling/ /publ/edleadership1999.html. 4/8/00
banathy, b. 1992. a systems view of education. eaglewood cliffs: educational technology publications
calway b. a., 1999 ‘virtual learning: a case study of a lotus learning space project’, 18th conversations meeting of aice, australian institute of computer ethics (aice) conversations 5th nov. 1999.
calway b.a.; 2000a ‘a virtual learning guide model’, dupa annual research conference 2000, deakin university, australia.
calway, b.a.; 2000b ‘systems approach for virtual learning development’, international conference on systems thinking in management, deakin university, australia.
checkland, p. 1988. 'soft systems methodology: an overview'. journal of applied systems analysis 15: 27-30
davies, l. and ledington, p. 1994. information in action: soft systems methodology. london: the macmillan press ltd
gagne, r. and briggs, l. 1979. principles of instructional design. new york: holt, rinehart and winston
giddens, a. 1979. central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. london: the macmillan press
giddens, a. 1993. new rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretative sociologies. cambridge: polity press
giddens, a. 1995. sociology. oxford: blackwell publishers
hiltz, s.r. 1990. 'evaluating the virtual classroom' in harasim, l. (ed.) online education: perspectives on a new environment. new york: praeger
johnson, k. and foa, l. 1989. instructional design: new alternatives for effective education and training. new york: macmillan publishing company
jonassen, d. 1999. 'designing constructivist learning environments' in reigeluth, c. and al, e. (eds.) instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory. mahwah, nj: lawrence erlbaum associates, inc., publishers
keller, j. and kopp, t. 1987. 'an application of the arcs model of motivational design' in reigeluth, c. (ed.) instructional theories in action. hillsdale, new jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates, inc., publishers.
keller, j. and suzuki, k. 1988. 'use of the arcs motivation model in courseware design' in jonassen, d. (ed.) instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. hillsdale, new jersey: lawrence erhlbaum associates, publishers
klir, g. 1969. an approach to general systems theory. new york: litton educational publishing, inc.
merrill, m.d. 1997. 'instructional transaction theory (itt): instructional design based on knowledge objects' in reigeluth, c. (ed.) instructioanl designtheories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory. mahwah, new jersey:
paterson, h. and weal, s. 1995. writing learning objectives. lilydale: swinburne university of technology
petry, b., mouton, h. and reigeluth, c. 1987. 'a lesson based on the gagne-briggs theory of instruction' in reigeluth, c. (ed.) instructional theories in action. lessons illustrating selected theories and models. hillsdale, new jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates, publishers
preece, j. 1999. position paper for the workshop on research issues in the design of online communities/ information systems department, university of maryland baltimore county http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/workshops/chi/99/participants/preece.html. 31/8/00
tennyson, r. 1993. 'instructional system development: the fourth generation' in tennyson, r. and barron, a. (eds.) automating instructional design: computer-based development and delivery tools. new york: springer verlag
romiszowski, a. 1977. a systems approach to education and training. london: kogan page
romiszowksi, a. 1981. designing instructional systems. decision making in course planning and curriculum design. london: kogan page
rowntree, d. 1988. eduacational technology in curriculum development. london: paul chapman publishing
rowntree, d. 1990. teaching through self-instruction: how to develop open learning materials. london: kogan page
warren, a. 1999. factors that influence the motivation of online students/ interactive learning centre, university of southampton http://ace.sbu.ac.uk/workshops/alt-ace4/workshop/topframe.htm
keller, j. and kopp, t. 1987. 'an application of the arcs model of motivational design' in reigeluth, c. (ed.) instructional theories in action. hillsdale, new jersey: lawrence erlbaum associates, inc.
wilson, b. 1997. 'reflections on constructivism and instructional design' in dills, c. and romiszowski, a. (eds.) instructional development paradigms. englewood cliffs nj: educational technology publications.
wilson, b., teslow, j. and osman-jouchoux, r. 1995. 'constructivism (and postmodernism) on id fundamentals.' in seels, b. (ed.) instructional design fundamentals: a review and reconsideration. englewood cliffs nj: educational technology publications.