Phillip Jackson in 1968 studied an educational setting and discovered two types of learning taking place.

• Transactional learning, is a situation where one bargains with learners to learn, where compromises are compromises about how much and what type of learning occurs.
• Transformational learning is a situation that brings about a deep transformation in learners where they become active participants in learning and where learners take responsibility for the types and depths of the knowledge acquired.

We recommend that applicants view the examination and modification of their courses as a transformational process; a process of growth and discovery rather than a transaction where compromises between demands of time and efficiency are weighed against learners needs.

Here is another view of the same two types of interaction, this example is from leadership but it is not or should not be unlike the relationship between instructors and students.

Political scientist James MacGregor Burns uses a similar formulation in his 1978 work on leadership.

• Transactional leadership is a limited compromise based on the mutual agreements of leader and follower; if you will perform Q for me I will award you Z.
• Transforming leadership is an expansive agreement between leader and follower based on mutual benefit. A leader finds goals within the follower and helps the follower achieve these goals with in a larger context of an organization. Leader: I help you achieve your goals in the context of our mutual organizational effort.

VWSU assumes that faculty and instructional staff are engaged in fostering transformational learning environments rather than transactional roles. The same assumption exists between the University, VWSU and faculty. VWSU is a transformational opportunity for faculty to improve their teaching, not a transactional relationship.

VWSU is an initiative designed to foster a shift to Learner Centered Asynchronous Instructional strategies which tend to:

• focus on learner outcomes rather than course tasks,
• create and use collaborative learning strategies,
• use authentic formative and summative assessment,
• require student activity that is generative,
• foster peer review, feedback and revision,
• acknowledge diverse student purposes for learning and
• diverse settings, eschewing the expectation of colocality.

For more on the relationship of this RFP and learner-centered instruction please review the VWSU orientation document describing the Goals of VWSU.

To see a very short description of the asynchronous techniques common to courses in higher education please see this very short White Paper.

Internet References for Learner Centered Educational Principles

Learner Centered Psychological Principles

Learning Environments
Case Studies of Learner Centered Design

 

Washington State University and VWSU are not the only institutions exploring these issues. These sites are high quality discussions of the issues and options open to faculty exploring learner centered design and technology.

---

In 1956 Ben Bloom described an escalating taxonomy of learning.

• Knowledge
• Comprehension
• Application
• Analysis
• Synthesis and
• Evaluation.

A presumption of this taxonomy is that more advanced levels include several of the previous levels of learning. Also that the more advanced levels are more inclusive, lasting and perhaps valuable has been suggested. The complex set of skills associated with Evaluation is believed to encompass many of the lower levels of learning as well as many different types of specific knowledge in order to perform the higher level functions.

Knowledge Generation:

Research by the Center for Teaching and Learning (Brown, 1996) highlights a spectrum of technology uses ranging from Presentational to Generative, with increasing benefits through increasing degrees of Generativity. Imagine a spectrum of instructional strategies:

Presentation	Interaction	Generation
Synchronous: Class Lecture	Synchronous: Group Work, Recitation	Synchronous: Knowledge generation
Asynchronous: Internet Streaming, Video Cassette . . .	Asynchronous: Email, threaded discussions . . .	Asynchronous: Technology enhanced, Student research, problem solving, writing

For more about this and the increase in quality of learning environments supplemented with technology please read an important article by CTL fellow G. Brown.

This commitment (2.) to quality education combined with the specific technological demands of the future (1.) combined with the Boeing Gift suggests a Request for Proposals targeted at facilitating not just course renewal but programmatic reengineering.

Reengineering: The fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of processes to bring about dramatic improvements in performance. From: The Reengineering Revolution, by Michael Hammer and Steven Stanton, 1995, Harper Books, p 3.

These are questions that should help you write a good proposal. They are not rhetorical.

As a pilot project, if funded will you agree to become a mentor for others engaged in course instructional reengineering through technology? Coauthor articles about the effectiveness of your efforts?

What external (to this RFP)sources of funding and expertise do you plan to apply to this project?

This will take large expenditures of effort; what will you give up or not do, in order to focus on this project?

What is your assessment plan?

Your dissemination plan? (There may be a Spring 1997 CTL/VWSU Conference on "Learning and Technology" to share findings; which day would you prefer to speak? )

What "transportable models" (methods that can be ported cross platform, cross course, cross college, or cross university) of content conversion, assessment, program creation/reengineering will be created? Or used?

In three sentences, why are you doing this?

In two sentences, what do you think will happen to student learning?

In one sentence, what do you want the students to learn that they wouldn't learn any other way?

How do you expect (plan) to shift student learning within the following hierarchy?

Indicate your current estimated foci, and then project your future foci in percentages.

Knowledge,

Comprehension,

Application,

Analysis,

Synthesis,

Evaluation.

What learning texts do you recommend to us, or each other, at VWSU?

If your were able to project a positive student's comment about your new courses or programs, what would it be? (Write an example of an anecdotal you would like to hear.)

What would be a disappointing anecdote you would like not to hear?

How will you avoid hearing that from students?

Do you plan to decrease your students' use of text books?

When did you first have this idea to do this to your courses or programs?

You are proposing to shift from a Instructional paradigm to a Learning Paradigm, this implies a shift in values. What you test your students on is a good indicator of what you value. What will you test students on that you have never tested them on before?

Brown, G. (1996). Digesting the PIG, Curriculum in Context, Fall 1996, P XX.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.

Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Joint hearing on Educational Technology in the 21st Century. 10p.

Drucker, P. (1994, November). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 53-80.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Geber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32 (4), 36-40.

Hammer, M & Stanton, S. (1995). The Reengineering Revolution, New York: Harper Books, p 3.

NCET. (1996). http://ncet.csv.warwick.ac.uk/WWW/temps/ish.html

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

To RFP Resources

To RFP Announcement

To RFP Electronic Application Form

To VWSU Orientation

http://www.wsu.edu/vwsu/RFP3Resources.html

11/15/96