Didactic issues

There is also plenty of literature about didactics, especially in e-learning contexts. These are the criteria taken account of in the tool:

It is important that the learners become emotionally involved during the process of learning (Hoffmeister/Roloff 2003, 100; Meier 2006, 95). This aim can be achieved in different ways: similarities to games, references to real life work, utilisation of clichés / cults or myths, connections to cultural traditions, and so on. Moreover, it can be helpful to offer different figures/tutors with which the learners can identify.

Another aspect is that something ‘new’ and relevant must be observable for the users: this can stimulate interest and curiosity (ibid, 101). The ‘new’ aspect need not concern the content but can also be contained in the background story or the overall design.

Multimedia arrangements can be helpful because the content of the programme can be demonstrated in such a way that the fictional actors’ emotions can be followed empathically (Martens 2003, 123f.). This involves combining text, graphics, moving and still pictures. As a consequence, the outcome of decisions can also be experienced in an emotional way. Martens (2003, 124; translated by J.J.) explains which basics are important in learning processes with the aim of changing attitudes and behaviour:

· ‘Learning from own experiences is very effective for the adoption of new attitudes.

· Inner attitudes are often taken over from persons to whom one relates, for example parents, teachers or friends.

· It is important for the imparting of affective learning targets that the learner feels personally concerned.’ Furthermore he explains that it is helpful if learners can decide when and how long they want to learn, and that if they learn, it should be an active and intensive process.

The tool must possess a good structure which is visible at the beginning. Learners’ success can increase by 30% through a structuring (or orientation as in Hypertext-Media) at the beginning (Meier 2006, 87). The content of the programme must seem to be important and the goals of the tool must be clarified at the beginning. The ‘exercises’ or ‘questions’ should not be too difficult and it should be possible to use the programme repeatedly in order to remember things better.

Moreover the learners’ should be motivated to think about practical fields of application in their daily life (knowledge transfer).

Another interesting aspect in the context of problem solving is the importance of the capacity for self-reflection. Dörner (1982, 145f.) describes the effects of self-reflection in problem solving situations. Experiments by Reither (1979) showed that persons who are able to reflect on their problem-solving strategies achieve better results, learn faster to adjust to new situations and search for falsification of their hypotheses – in contrast to non-reflecting persons who are more conservative and search for supportive information for their hypotheses.

Last but not least, the tool should be usable by individual farmers at home as well as by groups, for example during agricultural education courses. Group utilisation offers the opportunity to launch group processes and exchange, which is also considered important for the development of skills. However, farmers who do not take further courses should also be able to benefit from the tool. This requirement was also considered in the construction.

Now, what does this all mean for the outcome of a tool?

Explanation of the tool / commentary on the tool

On the basis of the insights presented above, the e-learning tool contains three main parts: a self-assessment in entrepreneurial skills and the importance of these skills, a training session where the user is trained to think from the perspective of entrepreneurial skills, and a second assessment to reflect about the learning process.

The user is guided by a tutor, a fox figure. The tutor leads the user through the tool, presents all the units and scenarios, and gives feedback. The fox is very clever and intelligent - traditionally it is the enemy of the farmer, but in this case it is helpful, wise and friendly. Moreover the fox is an animal, not a human, and is therefore a gender-neutral tutor.

The tool works with both basic and entrepreneurial skills in order to enable the users to understand the differences.

At the beginning of the tool each user is required to create a login profile and to give some data about himself and his farm. This data acquisition is based on the quantitative data sheet used in the main stage survey (see Vesala & Pyysiäinen 2008).

Then the first of three units begins. The user makes the first self-assessment and receives feedback, which includes a comparison with other European farmers. As mentioned above, this data comes from the Finnish survey. This first self-assessment is intended to support the users’ reflective processes: how do they make their assessment? In addition, it is intended to awaken interest in the topic of the tool and, by means of comparison, to motivate the users to explore it in more detail.

After this assessment and a direct form of feedback, the main training session, Unit II, begins, comprising three farm scenarios which are presented to the user. The main task in this part is to think about the situations from the perspective of basic, or low-level, skills and entrepreneurial skills. The training is based on real farm situations and is intended to enable users to train and transfer their knowledge about entrepreneurial skills to their daily business.

After each scenario users can compare their own ideas and thoughts with ideas from other farmers and experts, as presented by the fox. Furthermore, users monitor their own progress in this part and receive feedback with questions which support both the further development of thinking from the skills perspective as well as reflective capacities. Moreover, the list of other farmers’ ideas and the scenarios themselves support the process of broadening perspectives.

During the training session, the scenarios become progressively more complex or unusual. The first example gives the user an opportunity to become familiar with the concept of entrepreneurial skills, but after this, the user is required to solve situations which are much more complex.

Unit III is a second self-assessment. The questions are the same as for the first assessment, but the analysis and feedback compares the results of the first and second assessment. The aim of this part is to make changes visible for the user. The following questions are relevant in the feedback for the user:

· Have I changed my mind concerning the importance of the tool?

· Do I now give a different self-assessment?

· If yes, what has changed in making my self-assessment?

· Did I benefit from this tool?

For further research, this data can also be used to see how farmers change their opinion and self-assessments after using the tool and in which respects.