Tools for Teaching

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Unit IV: CBL/CBR & CFT

1. What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

CBL or case-based learning includes the tenets of goal-based scenarios, anchored instruction, cognitive flexibility and case based reasoning (Oliver). CBL also uses real stories and historical context used mostly in decision making for role playing. This is also similar to cognitive flexibility theory in terms of using case studies or case comparisons for learning content. However, cognitive flexibility theory differs in terms of aiming to help students transfer knowledge and skills beyond the initial context. Cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) also works much in the same way as constructivism by building on what is already known.

2. What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

While both learning models require comprehensive databases of information, case-based learning seems to be the lesser of the two in terms of complexity. Because case-based learning primarily focuses on contextual application, the need to find cases for cross context application is absent. This may make case-based learning easier but does not negate the importance of finding quality resources that follow the 4 instructional architectures of learning objects for CBL/CBR/CFT: receptive, directive, guided discovery, and exploratory (Oliver). If this can be overcome, than the use of stories as natural formalisms for storing and describing memories and experiential knowledge (Jonassen, 2002) can be achieved as a benefit. The more multimedia the more time intensive as evident in "creating multimedia case study was significantly more labor-intensive than traditional case studies" (Jarz, 1997). If the time and support are available to invest in this type of approach, careful consideration must be placed in content and pedagogy for effectiveness.

3. Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

Much work is to be done in terms of determining the educational efficacy of multimedia hypertext (Jonassen, 1992). In light of endless instructional technologies emerging in the use of multiple subjects, equal emphasis should be put on publishing the pedagogical importance of each application for the benefit of promoting the practicality and significance of IT. Cross examining the roles of different learning theories with different tools to produce the highest learning should be more readily available for evaluation. Everyone is interested in using different models and tools, but knowing how to best put everything together in a pedagogically sound, cohesive, instructional design is ever so challenging, especially at the rate in which this new frontier of instructional design continues to grow.

Case-based learning/reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory both heavily rely on case comparison. These case comparison learning objects/materials would need to be sourced to established, reliable resources such as digital libraries. If these types of shared exchanges were available through some sort of partnership, the likeliness of using the two theories would certainly be feasible.

4. Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online? Please spend some time identifying tools and resources for this last point, as this background research should help you complete your projects more efficiently.

Great for storing and organizing multimedia files for case comparisons

http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/

Great for research

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/find

Valuable source for creating original works of multimedia

http://lib.ncsu.edu/techlending

Sample of collected works

http://www.ncwiseowl.org

Thursday, October 25, 2012

UNIT III: CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA

1. What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

All four scenarios in CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA; Goal Based Scenarios, Anchored Instruction Environments, STAR Legacy Modules, and MOST Multimedia Environments; all share the common student-learning focus on an individual or student's ability to learn from pre-existing knowledge in order to solve realistic but complex challenges. While GBS, STAR LEGACY, and Anchored Instruction are better suited for general subject areas; the MOST model stands out in terms of focusing specifically for literacy. Literacy in terms of abilities to read, write, speak, listen, compute, think critically, and learn on one's own (Oliver). Anchored instruction also shares many similarities to GBS in terms of students ability to learn specific skills in the context of solving meaningful problems and students work in groups to solve problems. However, students in GBS instruction have the option to work individually. Furthermore, Anchored Instruction is similar to situated and PBL but uses open-ended problems that have embedded data to scaffold solving the problem (Oliver). In GBS, Anchored and STAR; the common goal is to provide content rich multimedia in which learners are advised and challenged to seek out pertinent information within the instructional media presented. All of this is done without spoon feeding the answer to the problem directly.

2. What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

In all models within the CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA unit, resources should be challenging and force the learner to seek out pertinent information instead of being spoon-fed. Embed resources in lessons, therefore students are actively learning. In GBS, "The primary goal of this theory is to foster skill development and the learning of factual information in the context of how it will be used. No preconditions are identified" (Schank).

This supports the notion that students will be more engaged in what they are learning if they are actually involved and interested in what they are doing.

CBR (context-based reasoning) is the theory behind learning in GBS, people are intrinsically motivated to learn in a natural context. Memorization does not apply knowledge or skills and thus recall and application is indirect. As long as the GBS is designed with rich content, just in time instruction/feedback, and complex activities; students will be in "prime conditions for learning" (Schank).

The MOST multimedia approach would be very well progressed in English as a Second Language learning/teaching. As an instructor, the use of free web 2.0 tools could generate numerous forms of multimedia to help non-native speakers contextualized new vocabulary words and/or provide demonstrations of situated language. With MOST, "researchers find that presenting a video framework is effective in helping children to build a mental model of a story and in using that mental model for language practice" (Sharp, 1993). Student can also retell stories with web 2.0 tools listed below and essential practice English while sharing the interpretation of their stories.

The STAR LEGACY Modules also present an easy to use setup for engaging student-directed learning. Unlike GBS and Anchored, STAR easily focuses on the teacher and students ability to keep track of focus in a simple layout.

STAR: software technology for action and reflection

Created by CTGV and similar to Anchored Instruction

5 step cycle: Challenge > Thoughts > Perspectives & Resources > Assessment > Wrap up

1. Challenge - interesting, realistic

2. Thoughts - ask questions about challenge to have students present their initial thoughts to show before and after results

3. Perspectives - statements by "experts" describe what they see in the challenge, provide insights for students, students complete learning activities to help them focus on important dimensions of the challenge, provide resources

4. Assessment - preliminary assessments such as homework, quizzes; help students evaluate what they need to study more, capstone project can be included, have problems come back full circle

5. Wrap-Up - students evaluate before and after learning, lessons learned are summarized

I also appreciate the fact that GBS focuses on continuous improvement. To meet the continuous evolving needs and demands of the workplace, Nowakowski conducted a Professional Development Needs Assessment Study (PDNA). With the existing, outdated training and teaching practices commonplace in today's businesses, GBS offers a promising though challenging alternative to the status quo.

From an instructional designer's point of view, GBS not only symbolizes a change agent but also affords the easy adaptation to teach new skills that the marketplace demands.

GBS coupled with technology can "provide consistency in training and to improve the participants ability to learn."

Innmasters GBS, the computer simulation course developed by Andersen consultants, has received positive results in terms of learner outcome, job performance, and company cost savings. Students comment on the GBS's ability to allow multiple decision making opportunities and pathways, therefore promoting active learning and realistic scenario based experiences (Cambell & Monson). GBS must also constantly undergo improvement. As Andersen and company's training costs rose, the need to reassess its business school results in Business Practices School. Further reducing the print based paper medium allowed learners/employees more realistic learning scenarios by connecting the bridge between operations and client needs. This was in sharp contrast to the "blocked" layout of the previous training manuals. Best of all, GBS does not go against our natural way of learning which behavior-based.

Trello

Lore

Lulu

Letterpop

Audacity

bubbleshare

muveemix

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Blog 2 Unit 2: GD, CLE, PBL, & SC/CA

1. What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

"The whole instructional system aims to pluck out and nurture solitary individual genius -- to find the next Michelangelo, for example" (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998).

However, Michelangelo's work of art was really a result of his entrepreneurial enterprise under the formation of a collaborative team. All of the different instructional approaches focus on student-centered learning. While guided design (GD), cooperative learning environments (CLE), and problem based learning (PBL) focus more on group work; cognitive apprenticeship (CA) focuses more on the individual. In GD, one conclusion by Casada and DeShazer (1995) states it is "Important to have practicing engineers visit with the class about the engineering profession, communication and opportunities." Similarly in CA, Collins, Brown, and Newman, (1989)

support opportunities in the real work settings because this "gives students realistic and practical experience and is the most natural way of learning." GD and CLE also shared many similarities. However, CLE articles stressed many types of structured group activities such as how "Jigsaw online built relationships and forced students to seek expertise from one another in a communal learning environment provided the necessary medium for sharing information" (Blocher, 2005). Other strategies not mentioned in GD but found in CLE are:

1. Think pair share: think of topic, pair with another student, then share with group

2. Affinity: write down issues on cards and cards are shared and grouped together by similarity

3. Jigsaw: task is divided into sections, each student finds others in different groups with same section and then work together, then go back to group

4. Find the fib: find the fib in the instruction (why is it a fib)

5. Send a problem: one group writes a question for another group to answer, but groups must agree or write an alternative, rotates through all groups, and questions can be reworded

6. Commonalities: find common issues by all groups through polling

2. What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

The greatest barriers among all learning approaches seemed to be student acceptance. This is in part due to the instructor's ability or inability to convince, persuade, train, guide, and support students through the radical transition. The traditionally accepted pedagogy of teacher-centered learning is a stark and uncomfortable adjustment in terms of critical thinking processes and learning in general. The responsibility of the teacher to essentially sell and structure the approaches of GD, CLE, PBL, and SC/CA are of the utmost importance. In GD, "Guided design must be well presented and promoted in a freshman course to be well received by all students" and the new class format must match regular credit hour time commitment (Casada and DeShazer, 1995). In CLE, page 13 of the article Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? by Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998) lists five basic elements critical to cooperative work in classrooms:

1. positive interdependence - instructor must promote group work (sink or swim together)

2. individual accountability (hold each student accountable)

3. face to face promotive interaction (real social interaction must be promoted)

4. social skills (ability to work with different people is part of real life)

5. group processing (evaluate, and seek to improve group learning)

In PBL, instructors must learn to deal with 5 important tensions to acceptance as outlined in Exploring the tensions of problem based learning: insights form research by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen (2003).

1. Depth vs. Breadth -

2. Higher order thinking versus factual knowledge acquisition

3. Long-term effects versus immediate learning outcomes

4. Students' initial discomfort versus their positive attitudes

5. Traditional role of professor versus the roles of PBL tutors

And finally in SC/CA, the educational shift from behavioral to cognitive to constructivist takes away the instructivist teaching mentality by inducing collaborative support between teacher and student. In a constructivist learning environment, students are provided "an understanding of how the theory behind research functions in the face of ambiguous and contradictory information, practical limits on time and budget, and social agendas" (Herrington, p203).

When reading about problem-based learning, an idea for an activity in module 2 immediately came to mind. Our group's modules are planned to be semi-sequential but more uniquely, focused on the same subject matter of introductory topics in general health and nutrition. The study by Timothy Koschmann (1995) in Computer-supported problem based learning,

supports that PBL in computer-supported medical education offers more authentic case presentation, simplified case inquiry, the creation of an archival record of the group's deliberations, and support for note taking. This study will be applicable in terms of giving students a user friendly learning environment with a plethora of collaboration tools while solving a problem-based activity. Students will be given a list of resources for communication collaboration, brainstorming collaboration, and project/presentation collaboration. The resources will be in addition to the support and guidance of the subject matter expert and instructional design team.

The following considerations, advantages and challenges of PBL, from Dr. Oliver's powerpoint presentation of PBL, will also be taken into consideration:

Powerpoint

*learning based on a preexisting problem

*requires students to solve authentic real life problems

"start with what you know"

*interdisciplinary connections stressed

Steps to PBL

Divide students into groups

ID problem and choose strategy to solve problem

Cycle repeats itself until group feels satisfied with solution

Facilitators Roles in PBL

Assess groups

Assess student knowledge

Guide students to general direction but never solves problem

Pros

greater recall of knowledge

interdisciplinary

lifelong learning skills

increased student interaction

research skills

Cons

Finding appropriate resources (print, web based)

Diigo for bookmarking and annotating resources.

Slideshare for presentation

Gliffy for brainstorming and mindmapping. Also great for presenting and explaining organizational structures/processes.

Voicethread - for voice and visual interaction

Moodle - a good one-stop LMS to host any tools along with available proprietary tools

Voki - give students visuals and auditory inputs to better relate to instructors

Quizlet - give students a variety of instructional assessment as warm ups to the primary PBL activity

Wikipages or wordpress - will be used as the host for any instructional tools

Glogster - create and display a visual, interactive module

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Blog 1 Unit 1: Multimedia, PSI, and A-T

Blog 1 Unit 1: Multimedia, PSI, and A-T

Frey and Lightcap's (2010) article, A model for developing multimedia learning projects, present key areas necessary for the instructional design process in order to improve learner outcome. The key focus should be around developing multimedia content strictly adhering to learning goals and objectives. The goals and objectives must be established before the multimedia is developed to enhance learning. Otherwise, focusing on multimedia before assessing goals and objectives inadvertently leads to less focus on the target outcome of enhancing learning with multimedia. Additionally, evaluations and surveys, both internal and external, should be implemented as ongoing checkpoints to ensure continuous, non-static, improvement.

1. What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

The personalized system of instruction (PSI) is inherently more interactive and more engaging than the audio-tutorial method (A-T). While both methods allow individuals the advantage of self-pacing through course material, PSI requires the learner to achieve 100% mastery of the content before advancing to the next topic. In doing so, the student is essentially forced to master the material, and thus, the PSI grading scale is structured on a pass/fail system. Another fundamental difference is PSI's focus on audio-lecture material which is less compulsory and acting more as supplemental motivation. A-T's audio-lecture is obligatory because the audio is the primary source of course content next to a textbook (if required). While one of A-T's greatest advantages is the individual's flexibility of time and pace, this advantage can also serve as a major disadvantage if the student requires significant tutoring or guidance and if the student is not self-directed or unmotivated.

2. What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

Upon first glance, the PSI model and the A-T method appear to be very similar due to the emphasis on personalized learning and flexibility of time and pace. However, studies and real world application of both models show very dissimilar results regarding learner outcome, further emphasizing the differences of PSI and A-T described above. Kulik and Kulik (1979) state that "PSI has shown much more dramatic results while the 42 A-T studies have shown inconclusive and mixed results" due to various study design factors such as: design methodology, student demographics (aptitudes, abilities, etc) , and others. Based on Kulik and Kulik's (1979) meta-analysis results, the high degree of variability in results suggest a key disadvantage in the A-T model's obligatory use of audio-tutorial requires a higher level of time and commitment in order to produce positive learner outcomes more favorable to traditional lecture courses. A-T is inherently more dependent on the instructor's ability to produce quality audio-tutorial course content. In contrast, PSI "proctors also administer tests and can sometimes serve as a cultural ambassador to students, allow better rapport and facilitating peer to peer interaction (Koen, 2005).

The PSI model would work well in today's online teaching environment with adjustments to the grading structure and teacher-student communication. Realistically, a pass fail grading structure would not set too well with administrators nor would it look well on a grading bell curve. If all students could master every subject such as Algebra or common math I, this element of PSI would not work well in a diversified classroom setting because there will always be students who struggle. An alternative could be to limit the number of attempts or submissions (such as 3 attempts) of assignments and proctored quizzes/tests. Limiting the attempts/submissions would help to increase student's efforts for self-study or seek immediate assistance instead of having the option to randomly submit an unlimited amount of answers. In regards to the student-teacher communication, new LMS (learning management systems) make use of forums, live chat, live-audio/video conferencing, and a variety of other communication mediums to increase student-to-student, student-to-teacher, and student-to-proctor/TA interaction.

The following link is a great resource for teachers looking for free web-based tools, 100 quality tools to be exact. 100 tech tools for teachers

I also have a 22 page word document full of web 2.0 tools available upon request. This document gives a brief description of each tool many of those tools are included in the 100 tech tools for teachers link.

A few of my personal favorites include Voki, Animoto, and Screenr. Voki allows the instructor to customize a virtual, life-like model with real voice-over capabilities. Screenr is a good screen cast tool with many editing options. The tool is of course free to use but limits videos to approximately 15 minutes. As a word of caution, past experience with Screenr has seen dead links or possibly removal of old screen casts. The nonfunctional screen casts could be a result of embedding errors. In Voki, first create an avatar to represent the instructor. Next, write a script of what needs to be said and then either choose from a long list of preset accents to voice the script or simply record the script using your real voice. Voki is an easy, quick alternative to the typical screen cast. With Animoto, lessons come to life with animated cartoons and sound. A great way to add some comedy or a memorable scene as an alternative to a power point.