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. 

  

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.