Sunday, November 18, 2012

Session 14: Learning Objects


This unit provided a wealth of information about instruction using learning objects to enhance the learning experience and its environment.  I have become a big fan of the resources or materials that one can access to deliver engaging, dynamic, relevant, and significant course instruction.

The writers defined learning objects as discrete chunks of reusable learning materials or activities to communicate with other learning objects to build a learning environment.  In the Koppi, et al, Rannan-Ritland, et al and Boyle articles, this definition formed the basis of their information.  Boyle (2010) suggests that learning objects are clearly about learning and the activity component is crucial to ensure the learning goals and objectives are achieved.

Each article revealed many similarities and some slight differences in the approach; however for the most part, each provided a deeper understanding of how learning objects can contribute to self-directed learning if the learning environment is designed to promote metacognition and empowers the learner. 

My initial reaction to the idea of using learning objects to create an efficient, flexible, engaging, and active learning environment was enlightenment.  The more I thought about the endless possibilities in which to incorporate them into my world of work, my excitement level increased.  The benefits of learning objects are countless.  For example, I used the authors recommended sites for exploration.  I joined Curriki, Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), and installed the App for Google Earth to visit the Museum of Online Museums (MoOM).  This App is awesome.  Aside from the above portals identified in the article, “Portals of the People,” I took the time to visit the other sites identified as well. 

The last assignment on the Plantation Letters prompted further research that took me to the NMAAHC portal. Because I extremely disappointed in myself for having forgotten this part of history, it behooved me to stay on this path of learning.  I found a plethora of information, in particular, a section on “Slavery and the Making of America.”  Following is a snippet of what I read:

                “’Inspire a Negro with perfect confidence in you and learn him to look to you for support and he is your slave’ were the words of one plantation owner.  The documented brutality of slave owners, beyond the mere fact of enslavement, demonstrated that planters were short on adherence to their own doctrine.  The diary of Bennett H. Barrow, a Louisiana slave owner, documents almost daily beatings and torturing of slaves, accompanied enigmatically by extensive moral explanations as to why such punishments were necessary.  Paternalism was thus more a justification, than an orientation for slavery.’”

The information from learning objects is not only relevant, but necessary for learning to occur, as it relates to the desired learning objectives and outcomes. I also found this learning object to be a great resource for my students as well.

Two possible barriers for learning objects were identified throughout the literature and visiting the sites.  First, Koppi, et al suggests that “to think about teaching materials in terms of learning objects requires changes in thinking and in practice.  Secondly, some of the links provided error messages that the page could not be found.  In order for the learning objects to be used efficiently and effectively, someone has to consistently manage the broken links to ensure the information is readily available.  After all, learning objects are supposed to be reusable. 

If the learning environment is designed properly, learning objects are wonderful resources to use to stimulate learning.  I would not hesitate to incorporate the ideas and recommendations identified throughout the literature for use with my students.  For example, I am presently serving as the coach for the Honda Campus All-Star Challenge at my university and would like to design a system for the students to use in preparation for the regional and national tournament.  If time permits, I intend to use the available portals identified in the articles, as well as others I know to exist. 
Many tools and resources were identified throughout the literature to leverage the use of learning objects such as MERLOT, MoOM, NMAAHC, The British Library, Turning the Page, ECHO, PLOS, CAREO, CONNEXIONS, and Curriki.  The iPad is another tool I believe to be useful as well. Since most students are using iPads, ITunes University has much to offer learners and can be accessed using the iPad.  Many Apps are free and provide quality imagery, audio, and podcasts to enhance the learning environment.

Friday, October 26, 2012

UNIT III CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA


This unit provided a wealth of information on contextual models using rich multimedia.  Throughout each article, many similarities were identified as well as some minor differences in each model.  For example, the similarities I observed in the Goal-Based and Anchored models were using motivational and realistic scenarios.  Other similarities in the two models pertained to using embedded lessons or data designs, focusing on case-based reasoning to solve realistic problems, structuring the learning in which inert knowledge is replaced with more opportunities for the learner to use their ability to discover solutions from visually appealing multimedia. I believe this is the foundation for the models.  Other noted similarities were context-sensitive scenarios to ultimately guide the learner from novice to expert. 

Some of the differences I noted in the models were details such as the cognitivist approach in the Anchored model versus the Goal-Based model.  The Anchored model placed more emphasis on designs that will help the learner overcome an inert knowledge problem as suggested by the authors.   For example, there was a scenario in which the students were asked to read an article in a limited amount of time.  Each student began with the first sentence and read as far as they could within the allotted time.  Of course, no one finished the article because the authors suggest that most learners don’t realize there is an inert knowledge problem in the way we find solutions.  If the learners had skimmed the article for pertinent facts instead of starting from the beginning, they would have uncovered the main idea in a timely manner.  I remember smiling as I read the article because I am guilty of this behavior as well.  I can recall many occasions when skimming would have been a reasonable solution.  Other noted differences were found in the Star model such as more emphasis on reflection and using learning cycles.  Focused feedback from the coach and having the learners leave a legacy (STAR) for others to follow were some other differences not found in the Anchored and GBS models.  The only difference I noted in the MOST model was the emphasis on accelerated learning. 

Noted barriers from the perspective of a designer would be building instruction using the MOST model because of its rich multimedia requirements and also developing motivational and realistic content to stimulate as well as have learners overcome inert knowledge problems.  For the learner I believe the barriers would fall within the realm of the inert knowledge problem identified in the Anchored model. 

Each of the models provided many benefits for the learner such as intentionally providing opportunities for them to grow from a novice to an expert, the potential for a learner to overcome the inert knowledge problem, the ability for a learner to learn how to use the newly acquired knowledge versus obtaining knowledge that will not be transferred to other areas in their life, and finally learning in an environment that provides rich and visually appealing multimedia.

My personal preference is the Anchored model.  I believe it is relevant and would be a feasible design option because of its contextualized and cognitivist approach. Another reason I chose this model is because I found it to be the most interesting of the four models provided in this unit. 

The web-based tools a designer could leverage using an Anchored approach are LetterPOP—media in which the learner can create newsletters, photo collages, events, and announcements to share in the learning environment; Prezi—which takes presentations to a new level, Diigo—a social bookmarking environment in which my group used in the last module; Brainflips—a flashcard environment in which you can add images, audio, and video to guide the learner.  Dale Chen also suggested several contextualized instructional tools such as Lore and Scoop that I believe would serve as excellent leveraging tools. This list is certainly not all inclusive because we now have available a plethora of instructional design tools for building outstanding web-based instruction. 

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Unit II Reflection – Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)


This unit focused entirely on higher order thinking skills HOTS).  The reading assignments and video presentations assisted me in reflecting on how important it is for an instructional designer to develop skills to incorporate HOTS in online instructional design.  The six levels of cognitive learning from Bloom’s Taxonomy were central themes throughout each of the models.  For example, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation were key similarities of each model.

The authors of the Problem Based Learning (PBL) model suggest that learners build on prior knowledge to aid in the analysis of problem solving.  Self-direction, evaluation, reasoning and small group interaction was central in this model.  Coaching techniques from the facilitator is also emphasized as an effective method to assist the learner in the formation of the problem.  PBL has a greater emphasis on interaction and using systematic techniques to approach a problem, such as rules of thumb and visual thinking.  Particularly interesting to me was Schoenfeld’s Method of Teaching Math Problem Solving (SMTMPS) because I could have learned to enjoy math if this method was presented to me earlier in my formative years. 

Casada, Trivette, and Wilson’s Guided Design (GD) model emphasized the importance of using small groups in this sequential process because of the importance of community building.  The idea is to have the learner focus on the decision-making process rather than the outcome.  They suggest this method is conducive to helping the learner build on a foundation they will ultimately use to solve real-life problems in the working world. 

Ryan, Koschman, Haller, Mills, Johnson, Smith, and Blocher emphasized a self-directed learning approach in the Cooperative Learning model (CLM).  Throughout each article, the authors conveyed the importance of designing instruction to utilize student to student and student to expert interaction.  Their common theme was the emphasis on participant interaction.  The similarities between the CLM and the GD models are problem formulation, participant involvement (interactivity), reflection or evaluation of the alternatives to reach a desired goal.  The similarity of CLM and PBL is the self-directed approach.  Small groups are used to provide a means for scaffolding and learning from each other.   I believe the differences in the CLM and GD models related to individual accountability.  CLM authors suggest it encourages positive and social interdependency.  The use of a facilitator to help minimize role imbalances was another distinction of the CLM that was not emphasized in the GD process.  In his article on CLM, Blocher expanded his views to include synchronous and asynchronous communication systems as well as learner to learner, learner to instructor, and learner to content interactions.

The Situated Learning Environment and Cognitive Apprenticeship model (SLE/CA) share common foundations with the PBL and the CLM models.  Each emphasized modeling and coaching techniques to ultimately allow the facilitator to fade out of the process.  This model encourages autonomy and allows the learner to compare his or her own performance to the expert’s—in this case, the instructor.  The GD and SLE/CA were the only models in which the facilitator was viewed as the expert in learner interactions. 

All of the models focused on using small groups of learners to form a conceptual framework for the particular task.  Of the four models in this unit, I believe SLE/CA is most closely related to the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy because it mimicked the six levels of cognitive thinking best.   However, student to student learning interaction is the highlight of each model.  I believe learners relate much better to each other when the learning is interactive rather than one way, as Haller suggests. 

My initial reaction to this unit's literature is the re-emphasis on designing instructional design models and how important it is to be aware of factors such as a learner’s belief system and control strategies.  These factors are believed to have an effect on the learner’s thought processes.

Some noted barriers in each model are some of the challenges that Haller discussed, such as differences in a learner’s knowledge level, power, social status, situational role, gender, interpretive framework, and other social factors.  Another noted barrier was the omission of any consideration for designing the instruction to incorporate ADA compliant strategies. 

I saw many benefits for the learner if barriers are minimized.  For instance, collaboration versus competitiveness and guiding the learner’s thought process to acknowledge that it is alright to fail at the first attempt.  I would incorporate either of the models depending on the pedagogical strategies that will best meet the needs of the learner.  However, the model I could easily adopt is the CLM because it is based on self-direction and more use of student to student interaction. 

The web-based tools I would consider using in the design is, (1) Adobe Connect as a pilot because it is all Flash.  The functionality of this software is ideal in setting up breakout groups and using presentations that don’t require rendering or uploading content versus using Camtasia.  Adobe Connect is also simple to navigate and cost-effective when used campus-wide.   Secondly, I would use Blackboard because it has equal functionalities as Adobe Connect and is widely used in higher education.  Several web tools were identified in the video presentations in which I would also incorporate in the instructional design process, such as CMap, Diigo and Videopad.  I believe these tools could be used effectively in a web-based module.  Wiggio and Big Blue Button are other open source web tools that I would consider using in the instructional design. 

  

Sunday, September 2, 2012

PSI and AT Reflection by Cynthia Joel


A Reflection on the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and the Audio-Tutorial (AT) models of instruction.
After reading the literature and watching the videos, I found each model to be an effective tool for online learning.  Each incorporates the ability for the learner to learn at his or her own pace, adapt study time conveniently, and each provides an individualized approach to learning the subject matter.   
My preference, however, is the PSI model because it incorporates a sense of presence in an asynchronous environment.  Most literature suggests that it is important to build a learning community in the online learning environment because it helps to remove the feeling of isolation.  Learners have different styles of mastering content and each model can be as effective as face-to-face learning.  In Koen’s article, the PSI system focuses on an asynchronous self-paced learning strategy and it maximizes the interaction between the learner and the facilitator (2005).
The PSI’s guided design of mastering the content incorporates the sense of presence by using a facilitator rather than the “sage on the stage” approach.  Unit tests are available at the end of each module and learners can move quickly through the course at their own pace.  The facilitator is available through email, discussion boards, or chat rooms.  On the other hand, the AT model provides a component for sessions in which learners meet as a group or a cohort.  This component appears to be mandatory and contradicts the idea that online facilitation should not require a learner to attend sessions in a course designed for online instruction. 
I also favor the PSI model because it uses a proctor as the mediator between the instructor and the learners.  This is especially beneficial to minimize cultural and language barriers that may exist.   
 I was not able to glean much from the meta-analysis comparative study on the AT model (Kulik, 1979), however, the video lecture provided good insight about the model.  I believe online learning is about self-discipline, active learning, and taking responsibility for one’s own learning.  However, one of the disadvantages noted for the AT model is the learner has to be one who is self-directed and takes responsibility for his or her own learning.    
Overall, I found both models to be appropriate for teaching and learning.  It will depend on the pedagogical strategy of the professor to dictate which model is used.