Boiling et al., (2012) state “ it is now more important than ever for online instructors to provide students with experiences that challenge their higher-order cognitive skills as opposed to simply transferring content to them” (as cited in, Gillett-Swan, 2017, p. 28).

Rogers (1961) states “the individual seems to be more content to be a process rather than a product” (as cited in Knowles et al., 2012, p. 50). I consider that successful processes of learning through online educational technologies are dependent upon many factors. Technological educational strategies are heavily reliant upon the educator’s digital proficiency, an area which many providers do not adequately train their facilitators in. Similarly, online activities assume sufficient digital literacy levels for students. Compounding this is the nature of collaborative technology-based activities that may overwhelm new students. Coupled with a physical distance, the educators may fail to facilitate an initial student engagement leading to isolated learners (Hart & Paucar-Caceres, 2017, p. 638). Online learning often adopts a “one-size fits all” generic approach to learners and educators and may disenfranchise members. I argue that consideration must be given to the individuals cultural and social context, and their intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Gillet-Swan, 2017, p. 26). Online educational technologies may also inhibit the creation of “procedural knowledge” which can be difficult without the situated work-based learning, particularly for the development of vocational skills (Kemmis & Atkins, 2014, p. 27).

               

Conversely, I consider that online education adds value to my professional practice by enabling the student’s to engage and collaborate, experience interconnectedness with their peers, and integrate new knowledge based on pervious experiences (Ahedo, 2009, p. 543). Wenger et al., (2012) state “learning is a matter of belonging as well as an intellectual process, involving the head as well as the heart” (p. 29). This belonging can be achieved in online technologies that adopt constructivist pedagogies. Tam (2000) argues that constructivist online strategies “provide a set of principles to help designers and instructors create learner-centred, collaborative environments” (as cited in, Keengwe and Joachmin, 2015, p.38). Though this statement is over twenty years old, this is still relevant to the value online learning affords the educators and students. Constructivist principles in online education promote a “community of practice’, which support and guide educators and students, through social learning. This creates active learning and “creates meaning through engagement” (Etmar & Newby, 1993, p. 55).

                                                                                  References

Ertmer, P, & Newby, T, (1993) Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical features From an Instructional Design Perspective”: Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937- 8327. 1993.tb00605.

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, (1) 10, 20–30. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.5204/jld.v9i3.293

Hart, D. & Paucar-Caceres, A (2017) A utilisation focused and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning: European Journal of Operational Research, (2) 259, 626-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.056

Keengwe, J., & Joachmin, J. (Eds.). (2015). Models for Improving and Optimizing Online and Blended Learning in Higher Education. IGI Global (7) 236. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3

Kemmis, B. & Atkins, L. (Eds.) (2014) Teaching in the VET sector. David Barlow publishing https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/items/e4d985b6-9738-4452-bf27-736e9a36ec2b/1/meaning through engagement”