Advances in E-learning-Experiences and Methodologies

RAPAD
in fields such as law, engineering, architecture,
and medicine, developed and consolidated their
learning by reflecting on their practice and also
reflecting in the performance of their practice.
Schön (1987) then applied the concept of learning
by doing and continuing to learn through
reflection and problem solving to education. It
is considered that students need to develop as
reflective practitioners with respect to their own
learning. The purpose is to help them to function
and participate effectively in a systemically different
system of higher education.
design
The term “design” comes before “participatory”
because the latter term is a subset of the concepts
encapsulated within the term “design.” Design is
used in the sense of Systems Analysis and Design
which, at a conceptual level, derives from
systems theory (Checkland & Holwell, 1998)
and uses associated concepts to understand the
activity of all types of systems. The term is most
often used in the context of information systems
design and development and has becomes almost
synonymous with information and communications
technology based systems design. It is used
in a broader manner in this work, as the research
considers the design of learning environments
from a systems perspective. The systemic perspective
can embrace and contain the systematic
and analytic methodology associated with much
systems analysis and design, while the reverse
is rarely true.
Participatory
“Participatory design” is a phrase used in the
information and technology design fields to
indicate the very close and full participation of
the system users in the process of the design and
development (and testing and implementation
and review) of the system in question (Preece,
Rogers, & Sharp, 2002). It differs from other usercentred
approaches in that the user is a partner in
the development process rather than the client of
it, a key difference in terms of involvement. As
the name suggests, a participatory approach is
introduced to encourage deep user involvement
in the design process (Preece et al., 2002). The
result is that both the system designer (or design
team) and the user(s) can benefit from and learn
from each other.
Cognitive Profiles
The reflective and participatory approach was
operationalized by the use of student cognitive
profiles, which were applied to the design of the
PELE. This method of profiling gave the students
a framework in which to structure and apply their
reflection. A cognitive profile is made up of three
core elements: measures of the student’s cognitive
style, learning style, and personality type
(Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). The cognitive
style measure chosen was Riding’s Cognitive
Styles Analysis—CSA, (Riding, 1991, 2001). This
comprises a computer-based test which measures
personal preferences for representing and processing
information. The learning styles instrument
was the Approaches to Study Skills Inventory for
Students—ASSIST, (Tait et al., 1998; Entwistle et
al., 2000). This instrument measures deep, surface
and strategic approaches to learning, with each
approach containing several sub-categories. The
personality instrument was the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator—MBTI, (Myers et al., 1999) a
widely used instrument for measuring personality
type. As with most instruments in this area, there
is continuing debate concerning reliability and
validity (Bayne, 1995; Nowak, 1997; Peterson et
al., 2003; Coffield et al., 2004). Although care was
taken to choose well tried, tested and widely used
instruments, this was considered less critical for
the purposes of this project than for experimental
research designs as the measures were being used
as a framework for reflection and design rather
than for the purposes of category labeling. The