top of page

Orienting New Members

Purpose

​

  • Design an effective learner-centric environment for a course to orient new members of the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Competition Team at Christopher Newport University (CNU) to relevant components of the UAS being used by the team as well as the various sub-teams within the group

 

Typologies 

​

  • Informal asynchronous modules

  • Synchronous meetings with a mentor

Needs Assessment
Conducted at the beginning of design, determines if the problem can be solved through training. 

Need for Course: In a needs assessment survey administered to the team, 50% of respondents stated they struggled with understanding the system’s components. The task was determined to be an instructional need rather than a motivational or organizational problem because the school does not have a mechanical or aerospace engineering program.  The lack of these programs means that a high cognitive load is placed on new members - this leaves pre-existing members, most of whom are upperclassmen, to acclimate new members to the relevant material. While the pre-existing members are undergraduates, their immense involvement in the team results in them exhibiting the expert effect which causes cognitive overload on the new members and ultimately results in new member turnover. 

​

Context of Problem:  CNU is a public suburban university founded in 1960 consisting mostly of undergraduates in Newport News, Virginia (U.S. News and World Report, n.d.). The overall student population is predominantly female consisting of 4,954 undergraduate students with 59% of courses comprised of less than 20 students (U.S. News and World Report, n.d.). While the Physics, Computer Science and  Engineering (PCSE) department reflects the university’s small class sizes, it is predominantly male. Furthermore, the team’s lab is located in Luter Hall, an academic building that opened in 2013, and affords several resources to its students (Christopher Newport University, n.d.) including projectors, new computer systems, and a 3-D printer.  

​

Stakeholders: Team members, donors, and faculty mentors to the team are stakeholders. Donors do not tend to influence decisions of the team and faculty merely serve as a support system as needed; students are expected to act independently of external influence when preparing for the competition. CNU is a students-first school and as such, the learners are the primary stakeholders.

Learner Characteristics

Key Characteristics: Participants will be individuals in the young adult stage of development between the ages of 18 - 25. At this stage, learners are experiencing either Piaget’s concrete or formal operations (Smith & Ragan, 2005) and Erickson’s intimacy versus isolation conflict (Santrock, 2018). In addition to developmental considerations, the learner's motivation to learn the content, cognitive characteristics, self-efficacy, and social characteristics must be considered in design (Santrock, 2018). Considering the learner’s cognitive characteristics is essential in ensuring material is appropriately scaffolded for the individual. Inadequate scaffolding can result in material that is either too challenging or not difficult enough to maintain the student’s attention (Santrock, 2018).

​

Self-Efficacy: Pajares (2009) defines self-efficacy as the self-perceptions one has about their abilities in a specific subject area which increases an individual’s likelihood to exhibit approach behaviors. Self-efficacy can influence the learner’s self-concept of their ability to understand the content. Students engaging in the learning experience are not predicted to have high self-efficacy in the task as they are still adjusting to college and might not have prior experience with UAS. The array of sub-teams and novelty of the material may be daunting to new members resulting in decreased self-efficacy in their ability to contribute to the team.

​

Power, Equity, and Inclusion: Two potential issues with power, equity, and inclusion that exist within this learning environment centered around socioeconomic status (SES) and gender.

 

       SES and Access: According to Stephens, Markus, and Phillps’s (2014), 74% of students at highly-ranked colleges come from families with earnings in the top quartile. This finding is in combination with CNU’s recently ranking as one of the top ten regional universities in the south by U.S. News and World Report (n.d.).  While the institution’s demographics raise questions as to access for the 26% who are not from families with earnings in the top quartile, the team recently received generous donations to make involvement fully accessible. 

​

       Gender: The team is predominantly male and it tends to be difficult for women to overcome societal expectations and perceive themselves as leaders (Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013). This problem is expounded because most women tend to deny and refuse to accept when they are victims of gender discrimination, yet when they are made aware of this issue they report feeling empowered (Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013). Making men aware of the discrepancy that exists and encouraging them to be an ally and support the ambitions of their female peers might alleviate the strain societal expectations placed on women in the industry. 

Learning Environment Design

​

About the Course: Human-centered design was employed in creating the learning environment (Clark & Mayer, 2011; Oblinger, 2006). The experience will entail virtual, asynchronous, problem-based, and informal learning. The virtual component will be supported by synchronous informal meetings with an assigned mentor. The course will occur in a virtual learning environment created in Adobe Captivate supported by a real-world mentor. The virtual instructional component will have a demonstration followed by a simulation. Learners can email their mentors as questions arise while they are progressing through the modules; therefore, this portion of the learning experience is fully asynchronous. Problem-based activities will facilitate the worked examples to help learners better understand the system’s components. Problem-based learning environments present learners with real problems that include relevant content (Herrington & Herrington, 2007). Mentors will scaffold instruction and coach learners in best practices (Herrington & Herrington, 2007). Each meeting will be followed by a reflection period to enhance understanding (Herrington & Herrington, 2007). Interacting with mentors builds relevance enhancing the learner’s interest in the material, a critical support for informal learning (Moller & Huett, 2012).

​

Design Rationale:  Asynchronous was selected for the virtual portion due to its flexibility for the learner. While flexibility is ideal, communication among learners and instructors tends to be delayed in relation to when the content is delivered in asynchronous learning environments (Hratinski, 2008). While the lack of interaction might seem like a challenge, it is also beneficial as it permits introspective thought (Hratisinki, 2008; Oblinger, 2006) and might decrease extraneous cognitive load due to stress (Koper, 2005). The simulated experience will serve as an authentic assessment gauging the learner’s familiarity with the subject matter.  Practice, reflection, and the social setting in which learning occurs (Lombardozzi, 2015; Oblinger, 2006) are critical to deep skill development (Lombardozzi, 2015); therefore, a synchronous mentorship component is integrated into the learning experience. Mentorship is important in promoting the knowledge construction metaphor, in this scenario, the mentor is essentially the instructor serving as a cognitive guide through the content (Clark & Mayer, 2011). Having the learner check-in with the mentor ensures they are fully retaining the content and provides members with opportunities for rehearsal and information exchange (Oblinger, 2006) fore as Swan (2011) stated, regurgitating information is not learning.

 

Furthermore, informal learning environments tend to be unorganized, unsystematic, and serendipitous; learning is based on the student’s interest and agenda (Moller & Huett, 2012). Given the voluntary nature of participation in the UAS team, it is assumed that the learner is innately interested in the material, but due to their status as an undergraduate student, might not have time to commit to a formal learning environment. The unsystematic and unorganized aspects of an informal learning environment lets the learner progress at their own pace and reduces their likelihood of becoming overwhelmed as they adjust to university life. 

​

References

  • Christopher Newport University. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://cnu.edu/whoweare/history/.

  • Deckers, L. (2014). Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental. New York, NY:Pearson Education.

  • Denler, H., Walters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.

  • Herrington, A. J. & Herrington, J. A. (2007). What is an authentic learning environment? In L.A. Tomei (Eds.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 68-77). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

  • Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning. 

  • Ibarra, H., Ely, R.J., & Kolb, D. M. (2013). Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers. Harvard Business Review. 

  • Kaplan, A. (2012). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Education.com.

  • Koper, R. (2005). An introduction to learning design. In Learning Design: A Handbook of modeling and delivering networked education and training, Koper, R. & Tattersall, C. (Eds). Springer, New York. 

  • Lombardozzi, C. (2015). Learning environments by design. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press. ISBN: 978-1-56286-997-7

  • Malcom, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7), 313-318. 

  • Mayer, R. E. & Clark, R. C. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. 3rd Edition. Pfeiffer: San Francisco, CA. 

  • Moller, L., & Huett, J. B. (2012). The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning. New York: Springer.

  • Nocak, Katie, & Thibo. (2016).  Fewer barriers more support: UDL guidelines in action. 

  • Oblinger, D. G. & Lippincott, J. (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE. OECD. (2010). 21st Century Learning Environments.  

  • Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Education.com. CAST Professional Publishing. 

  • Rosen, D. C., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2014). Developing cultural humility: Embracing race, privilege and power. Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Santrock, J. W. (2016). Essentials of life-span development. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill. 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons. 

  • Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology. 

  • Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306- 331.

  • U.S. News and World Report. (n.d.). Christopher newport university. Retrieved from https:// www.usnews.com/best-colleges/christopher-newport-university-3706.

  • WebAIM Web Accessibility in Mind. (2013). Visual disabilities: low vision. Retrieved from https://webaim.org/articles/visual/lowvision 

  • Zimmerman, B.(2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

​

bottom of page