Content Solutions

Scenario-Based Learning
LearningMate was founded with a vision to enable the business of creating
online educational content and technology by contributing expertise and
capability in conceptualizing, designing, and producing interactive content
through the intelligent use of technology. Over the past three years,
LearningMate has assisted leading publishing houses and the online education
industry in creating online courses and assessment tools, focusing on well-
researched learning models, and applying them to a variety of disciplines.

© 2006 LearningMate 2
Context
Formal education, higher education in particular, is currently structured in a way
that does not conform to what we know about how people learn. This is
unsatisfactory from a learning perspective as well as a business perspective.
There is little sense in pursuing revenue from a model that has low perceived
value. Therefore, revising business models to accommodate effective learning is
desirable. The challenge is to define a model that moves towards the ideal while
recognizing the existing pressures that would resist change. In this document we
outline the problem, propose a solution, develop the components, and describe
the benefits.
We start with a characterization of the standard, traditional model of text,
quizzes, lecture, and exams or tests:

Figure 1. The Standard Model

This model includes: lectures that largely re-state, and sometimes clarify and
expand on, the knowledge in the text; quizzes that are based upon the text; and
tests based upon the quizzes which provide a final evaluation of the learning.
Many times, the quizzes and the tests are provided along with the text, to ensure
correspondence. Ideally, from the instructor’s point of view, the quizzes and tests
can be graded by the system to save the instructor time.

Figure 2 on the following page shows the elements of the standard model in
more abstract terms:

© 2006 LearningMate 3
 Figure 2. The Standard model abstracted

Here we have identified the text as an information resource, quizzes as formative

assessment to let learners know how they are performing, the lecture as the role
of the instructor, and tests as summative assessment to characterize the learner’s
outcomes. This abstraction will give us a framework through which to think
about how to improve the process of learning. But first we need to think about
where the faults lie in this model.

© 2006 LearningMate 4
Shortcomings of the current model
There are a variety of problems with this approach. There are problems with the
role of the instructor, the role the text plays, the format of the formative
assessment, and with the comprehensiveness of the summative assessment. The
final goal of instruction should be both retention of the information beyond the
learning experience, and transfer of the knowledge to all appropriate problems,
even those not experienced in the learning situation. These goals are not
achieved optimally in this structure.
In this model, the role of the instructor replicates the role of the text. While this
may be a comfortable position for instructors, it is not a useful component of
learning. Instructors generally express desire for a more creative role, but are not
necessarily sure how to achieve such a change. Repetition of the material is not
necessarily valuable unless there’s additional processing of the learning.
The formative evaluation is typically structured to determine whether the
knowledge in the text has been retained. These assessments usually do not do a
good job of seeing whether the learner can actually use the knowledge to solve
problems. Studying for this sort of exam is not particularly motivating, and
consequently is put off until the last moment. This does not lead to good
knowledge retention.
This leads us to a problem with the text. Typically, learners are expected to read
the text prior to the assessment, but there’s again little motivation to come to
grips with the materials, as there’s no context to the learning. Again, learners put
off the learning until the pressure of an imminent assessment.
The summative assessment mimics the structure of the formative assessment,
and consequently suffers from the same problem. While ensuring that learners
have acquired the knowledge is important, it is also important to determine
whether learners can apply the knowledge in ways that reflect the desired
outcomes.
How can we remedy the problem? To do so we must first understand what
facilitates learning, and then we can reconsider these elements from a new
perspective.

© 2006 LearningMate 5
A research-based framework
Research from the cognitive sciences suggests ways in which learning should
move. Two new models, constructivist learning and situated learning, suggest
improvements in the design of instructional settings, and revisions to existing
teaching models.
Constructivist learning argues for allowing learners to create, or construct, their
own understandings by active exploration (see Jonassen, 20021 ). The instructor
creates learning activities for the learner to undertake; activities that require the
knowledge to be acquired. In this model, the instructor moves to the role of
mentor: choosing appropriate activities, observing learner actions and outcomes,
providing support, asking pertinent questions, and choosing new activities based
upon learner performance. The learner actively makes decisions and sees the
outcomes of those decisions. For example, learners in medicine might be faced
with a patient to diagnose, or learners in IT could be looking at a compromised
network and have to take action. Learners explore given problems first, and
when they encounter difficulties refer to learning materials; they rarely digest the
learning materials first, and then attempt to solve problems (see Harold-Barrows’
work on problem-based learning, 19862 ). Allowing flexibility is supportive of
these individual learner differences.
Situated learning suggests that learners learn best by solving problems that are
contextualized (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 19893 ). Learners should be given
problems that are real applications of the knowledge being covered, and that are
clearly important and interesting. Abstract problems do not help facilitate
learning; learners do better abstracting learning points from a series of concrete
problems. John Bransford, et al’s, work on anchored cognition (19904 ) had
learners helping a youth navigate upriver to save a wild bird, and solving a
variety of problems along the way. Compelling problems help activate learner
interest, and drive them to the learning material.

Our goal, then, is to create contextual and exploratory activities that are aligned
with the learning objectives. We want learners to do more than just acquire
knowledge; we want them to able to apply that knowledge to solve problems.
Learners should be using knowledge to create explanations and predictions.
The sorts of activities we need are designed to require the learners to make
choices, and potentially fail. The consequences are delivered in the context of the

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2002) Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective, 2nd. Ed.
1
Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

2 Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 6. 481-486.
3 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41.
4 Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can hel p. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds), Cognition, education
and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

© 2006 LearningMate 6
story setting, and provide motivation to engage
with learning resources. These are the sort of learning activities championed by
everyone from Roger Schank (19955 ) to, most recently, Clark Aldrich (20036 ).

5 Schank, R. & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

6 Aldrich, C. (2003). Simulations and the Future of Learning : An Innovative (and Perhaps Revolutionary) Approach to e-Learning. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

© 2006 LearningMate 7
An extended learning model
How do we develop such a learning experience in the model we discussed? It’s
clear we need challenging environments in which learners have to make
decisions. According to our model, these fall most neatly into the formative
evaluation component. We propose to develop interactive learning scenarios that
motivate the learner to search out the knowledge in the text. Our model then
becomes:

Figure 3. The New Model

In the new model, the text remains the key information resource. (This makes
sense since text, static graphics and images are a high-density communication
medium, and paper rendering is higher quality than electronic representation.)
Naturally, there are times when dynamic representations such as audio,
animation, and video are of use, and the text can be augmented electronically to
provide these resources. However, since learners should be active explorers in
meaningful contexts, our formative assessment should move to interactive
simulations or scenarios. With new online tools, we can place the learner in real-
life situations where the learning materials are applied. We can task the learner
with interesting problems to solve in an exploratory environment.
The instructor’s role then moves from being another information resource to a
facilitator of discussion around how the activities relate to the information
resources. The instructor also interprets the text in context, and can elaborate to
assist learner comprehension.
Finally, summative assessment can incorporate portfolios, or collections of a
scenario-based work, in addition to more traditional knowledge assessment; thus
providing a more holistic summary of how learners perform in context and
discussion.

© 2006 LearningMate 8
Costs and development times
Despite the appeal of such an approach, barriers do exist. The most basic form of
scenario is a linear path, with any digression either terminal (“you failed, you’ll
have to start again”) or inconsequential, where regardless of your action some
external agent makes it all ok (“your boss manages to catch your report before
you send it to the client.”). In either case, the experience is very limited and does
not allow real exploration or constructivist learning.
More advanced scenarios require either a rich branching structure, or an
underlying model to generate the requisite depth of interaction. There have been
some such attempts made in the past that have suffered from high cost and long
development time. Building detailed models of a domain is a very difficult and
time-consuming process. In some cases, organizations have been able to take
advantage of pre-existing models; this can be useful for some domains, but it
doesn’t scale across content lines, even if the problems of licensing and adapting
the interface were solved. More limited branching scenarios suffer from a limited
lack of replay, and production costs have similarly overwhelmed the approach.
What’s desired is a scalable process that can develop meaningful knowledge
application across the content requirements, provide high replay value, and be
developed on a cost-effective budget and time-schedule.

© 2006 LearningMate 9
A new approach
Based upon some extensive experience in developing such environments, at
LearningMate we have developed a model-based approach that does not capture
all the potential underlying relationships, but captures those critical to the
learning objectives. This provides a richness of decision but restricts the
underlying modeling complexity to provide a tradeoff that makes the
development of scenarios manageable. We have an associated design process
that works with publishers, subject matter experts and our team to efficiently
develop the scenario content. And we have an underlying technology
architecture that allows us to implement and deliver this approach flexibly and
reliably.
Extensive use of templates is made, both in providing structure to the
development process and in supporting the technological implementation. By
focusing on key decisions learners should be making, capturing reliable
misconceptions as alternatives, and providing context to make these decisions
meaningful, we have a process that generates, in a repeatable way, scenarios for
learning. By structuring the information flow between stakeholders in the
system, the process is efficient and scalable. And by the use of tools to capture
the information, the technological implementation is made practical and
supportable.
We have developed a process and toolset to design, develop, and deliver this
solution that is discussed in the LearningMate™ white paper: Scenario-Based
Learning: an architecture and development methodology for scalable
implementation.

© 2006 LearningMate 10
Benefits
This approach has advantages for the learner, the instructor, and the publisher.
• The learners benefit from a more engaging learning experience,
where interaction with life-like scenarios makes the text
meaningful. The scenarios also allow replay to explore alternatives.
They learn more from their instructor, who can serve as a guide
rather than a reiteration of the text. Their assessment is richer as
well, which learners generally prefer.
• Instructors can devote their time to adding the special knowledge
they possess in the form of case studies and examples, which can be
tied to learner experiences in the scenarios. They can focus on the
interesting aspects of teaching. Additionally, the electronic scenario
system can be used to support summative assessment, one of the
most onerous instructor tasks.
• Finally, the publisher benefits because its product allows for a
richer learning environment. The publisher now provides a
knowledge repository role that learners and instructors will
perceive as more directly valuable to their learning experience.

We believe that as learning research percolates into practice, and technology

provides new capabilities, formal education can and must adapt to accommodate
best practices. Textbook publishers can pro-actively move to guide this
development, acting in the role of education enhancers, or react and risk being
too little or too late. We believe that the business drivers of the economy, going
forward, favor those who improve the customer experience, and assist the
customer in moving in necessary directions. We suggest that you should move in
this direction, and ask that you join us in making this vision come to life.

© 2006 LearningMate 11
Contact us
United States & Canada
Mohit Bhargava
President
LearningMate Solutions Canada Ltd.
Email: mohit.bhargava@learningmate.com

United Kingdom
Atul Sabnis
President
LearningMate Solutions (UK) Ltd.
Email: atul.sabnis@learningmate.com

India
Abhijeet Sethi
General Manager
LearningMate Solutions Private Limited
Email: abhijeet.sethi@learningmate.com

© 2006 LearningMate 12