Ryan McAleer
Cape Breton University
Education 533
Fall Semester 2008
Introduction:
The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the concept of Instructional Design (ID)and how it can affect their teaching. There can be no question that computers are becoming more and more prevalent in the 21st century classroom. However, not all teachers are using computers and Information Technology (IT) as effectively as they could. Education 533 allowed me to reflect on what teaching theories and practices I tend to use in my classroom and if they could be improved by integrating IT into their delivery.
The course was delivered in a thirteen week format. The first three weeks focused on learning theories in the context of software integration / Information Technology. The following three weeks introduced students to the concepts of ID and how learning theory affects software integration and ID. In weeks seven through nine, students studied various components of ID models and critiqued one particular model to understand where learning theory and software usage fit into the ID process. The final four weeks of the course focused on the creation and revision of a group ID model, an examination of how assessment and evaluation can affect ID, and the following reflection paper.
My reflection paper will focus on the course topics as outlined above. I hope to express what I have learned by taking this course and how the ideas and concepts raised during the course will affect my teaching in the future. Please note that a timeline of my ideas and comments as I took this course can be found in the archive to the right.
Weeks 1- 3: Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information Technology.
The course began with a review and summary of different teaching theories / styles that are often found in the classroom. Our readings focused mainly on direct-instruction, behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. What I immediately appreciated when reading the articles provided by the professor was that there did not seem to be a noticeable bias directing the reader toward one learning theory in particular. I appreciated that the focus was on getting our opinion and thoughts.
I reflected during my BEd. that many teachers defined Direct Instruction as being the "old way" of teaching and not conducive with the new "student-centered" style of teaching being promoted in 21st century classrooms. It always annoyed me that some teachers and professors tried to convince others that newer learning theories (cognitivism, constructivism, etc.,) were far superior to past theories and should be used as often as possible. My thoughts have always been that all learning theories are simply tools in a tool box and the learning theory should be selected according to the learning objective. Direct Instruction can just as easily be used to facilitate student-centered, authentic activities. In fact, as John Berlau indicates in his article ("Direct", 1998), the structure and accountability of Direct Instruction can increase student knowledge and self-esteem.
I've often seen teachers designing lesson plans around a certain learning theory and then determining after the exercise which curriculum outcomes have been met. I believe that the instructional goals / curriculum outcomes need to be the starting point and that the learning theory is simply the means by which to attain an end. That being said, I certainly acknowledge that the early works of Piaget and Vygotsky were instrumental in developing the concept of constructivism in which students “in the quest for understanding, link new knowledge to prior knowledge and construct new meaning”. (Arends, 2004, p. 397) This approach allows students to focus on using their prior knowledge and experiences as a guide to increase their knowledge and establish higher- order thinking processes. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it is hard to progress a student through his/her "zone of proximal development" if we have been so focused on constructivist learning theory that we have overlooked teaching the fundamentals.
While reading the articles during the first three weeks of the course, I began to reflect on my own teaching style and thought about what learning theories I use in the classroom. My teaching experiences focus mainly on teaching physics and robotics. Both of these courses have an arranged set of formulas and procedures that must be understood and followed in order for success. It is in introducing these topics that I often put on my “direct instruction” hat. I cannot ask a student to map out the electrical wiring on their robot if he/she has no understanding of the underlying principles of electric circuits. To allow students to go out on their own and work solely on their prior knowledge would be very time consuming (and potentially dangerous!).
Explaining the variables in a new physics equation and letting students practice using the new equation with a given set of questions is a very effective means to learn new concepts. However, once the students have the basics down, I put on my "constructivist" hat (usually in the same class period) and begin to allow students to explore on their own. I challenge them to think where a certain physics concept is relevant or demonstrated in the real world. Now students are able to draw on past experiences and imagine how these new concepts can be manipulated to create new ideas and theories. Open-ended labs and higher-order thinking projects can then be created to allow students an opportunity to hypothesize, formulate opinions, and test new beliefs without having to worry about delivering the single right answer.
I think that the readings changed my perspective in that I no longer feel that using Direct Instruction in my classroom is a negative thing; an antiquated teaching style from the drill and practice days. I now know that old and new learning styles can be blended or scaffolded together to ensure that activities and lesson plans allow students to reach their instructional goals.
The discussions and readings on Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility made me think more about authentic learning, student-centered activities and problem solving. I've always believed that computers are more tools than teachers, but that they can be very powerful tools to support teaching. I agree with Jonassen’s views that computers and Mindtools can be used to enhance student learning and allow them to represent what they know in a more dynamic way (Jonassen et al., 1998).
In the past year and a half, I have begun using probeware in teaching my high school physics course. I feel that the integration of probeware technology into the course has allowed students to interpret, visualize, and analyse data that they have collected from real-world experiments. By allowing students to change variables in an authentic environment, they are able to hypothesis and construct meaning from the equations and concepts presented during lectures and from the textbooks. This Mindtool now serves to bridge the information delivered during direct instruction lectures with student-centered, constructivist learning activities.
Although there have been some ups and downs since I've introduced probeware Mindtools to my physics class, I have been encouraged enough to plan to use it next semester with my robotics courses. As a former engineer myself, I try to teach students the value of the Engineering Design Process (Hynes & Tada, 2008) in approaching and solving a real-world problem. The robotics course that I currently teach challenges the students to design and build a remote-controlled robot that can meet a predetermined goal. However, I have always wanted to expand the course to include an autonomous component where students would program their robot to meet a predetermined goal. After reading on cognitive flexibility and Mindtools, I now believe that I could use these theories and integrate IT into the course to accomplish these goals.
Whereas I have used Mindtools in my physics class to create authentic situations for students, I plan to use Lego Mindstorms as a Mindtool to transfer information from one part of the course to another. Spiro et al. (1995) define Cognitive Flexibility as the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. I believe that the Lego Mindstorm technology will allow the students to transfer the research, design and synthesis skills learned in building their remote-controlled robot to programming an autonomous robot. My hope is that by using IT to present complex information to the students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, the students will be better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations.
Weeks 4-6: How Learning Theory Affects Software Integration and Instructional Design.
After exploring learning theories, Mindtools, and Cognitive Flexibility, the course proceeded to explain how these learning theories can affect software integration and the development of Instructional Design models. I enjoyed reading how ID models have evolved from their basis in behaviorism and direct instruction into more cognitivism and constructivism. It reinforced my beliefs that there is a place for all learning theories and that a successful approach to curriculum delivery will incorporate many different teaching styles.
The idea that behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism can co-exist in ID lies in the fact that there is no one perfect learning theory and that they must be interchanged and overlapped. Dick is quoted by Gustafson (1997, p.88) as stating that the best situation would be one where behaviorism and constructivism can be blended together. Mergel (1998) states that the three learning theories can work together as the learner progresses through their cognitive development.
Depending on a single learning style or delivery method ignores the fact that the learning environment is a very dynamic, changing setting. An Instructional Design must be flexible enough to accommodate for changes in material, resources and student learning styles. As a teacher I have often been amazed that a lesson plan that works so well with one class will work so poorly with another. We must constantly change to meet the unique needs of our students. The ID model must be able to do the same.
It was really during week six that I began to have a firm grasp on what this course was all about. I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that before I read the Gustafson and Branch (1997) article I had a hard time explaining what ID really was. After reading the article I understood that an ID model provides a blueprint for educators to follow that ensures that a strong link is created between outcomes, learning objectives, learning theory, and technology. The taxonomy of ID models as Classroom, Product, and System Orientation (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 80) made me realize that an ID model is defined according to characteristics such as the amount of time and resources required to implement the models, the necessity for an experienced team or less experienced individual to conduct the model, and the amount of front-end analysis, tryout, revision and dissemination required. This was probably one of the most meaningful articles that I read in the entire course. It was after reading this article that I truly began to understand what creating an ID would entail.
The concept of Rapid Prototyping (Gustafson, 1997) changed my idea and perspective on formative assessment in the classroom. My understanding is that Rapid Prototyping is an alternative development process that reduces the time and money required for traditional ID by minimizing the amount of front-end work and increasing the number of tryouts and revisions. The high number of revisions allow students to have greater input into the final design. I found a close connection between Rapid Prototyping and what teachers do in the classroom regarding informal, formative assessment. Most teachers rely on feedback from the students (users) to gage student success and guide and revise their lesson plans and activities. Although the original curriculum outcomes might be the same, the means by which they are accomplished might be quite different than what was originally conceived in the textbook or curriculum guide. This connection between formative assessment, feedback and Rapid Prototyping again improved my understanding of ID and grew my appreciation of how it could be used in the classroom.
Finally, my understanding of how IT was changing software integration and Instructional Design began to form toward the end of these six weeks. I feel that curricula are being rewritten to include the advances and changes that technology creates in students’ lives. A major component of constructivism deals with creating new knowledge based on prior experiences and knowledge. Today’s students live in a very technology rich world. Much of their prior knowledge and experiences are created by, or influenced through, Information Technology. As a teacher, I must change my delivery style to reflect this reality. The advantage to both teacher and student is the limitless resources now available through IT. Materials and information can be gathered from the Web that can be integrated into any teacher’s teaching style or learning theory. Of course, the Internet has also introduced a great deal of misinformation. Teachers and students dealing with IT resources must be aware of what information is relevant and reliable.
Weeks 7-9: ID Model Components and an Investigation and Critique of a Particular ID Model.
Weeks seven and eight were combined as students spent some time examining the components included in various different ID models. Although different models had different specifics, for the most part they all contained some version of the components defined by Gustafson and Branch (1997): Analysis, Design, Development, Evaluation, and Revision. Another common theme found in the different model examples was that ID is a continual process depending on revision due to changes in students experience, beliefs, and past knowledge.
Students were again guided through questions to consider the impact of IT on ID models. Different models had different degrees of technology requirements and influences. My interpretation of the readings was that IT had the largest influence during the Design and Development stages of the different models. This made sense to me as an analysis of the learning goals will probably not be overly affected by the abundance or lack of available technology. However, as a teacher designs and develops an instructional plan to meet these objectives, the availability of Information Technology will impact the resources and plans that are created.
Questions guided the students to reflect on whether or not we could use one model, a "Super ID Model", in all educational contexts. My opinion seemed to coincide with the majority of my other classmates postings. I believe that the point is that just as there is no one learning theory (e.g., behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, etc.) that can be used for all instruction, there is not just one model that should be used for Instructional Design. A teacher must be cognizant of the specific student learning styles, desired learning objectives, and available technological resources at his / her disposal. As each of these variables change, so must the Instructional Design. The model must be flexible enough to accommodate these ever-changing revisions.
Of the models available to us, I thought that the ADDIE, ASSURE and Gagne models specifically outlined how IT can improve an Instructional Design. As I was reading these articles I kept finding myself thinking about which components I could and couldn't use in my own teaching. Of course, I assume this was the professor's intention, and I again found that there was a multitude of theories and examples to pick from. By this point in the course I feel that I had a good intuition of what I thought would work in an ID model for my classroom.
I mentioned earlier that the Gustafson Branch article was one of the more meaningful articles I read in this course. The second would have to be the Gary Morrison (1999) description of the NTeQ model. I found that this model addressed many of the issues that an ordinary teacher would consider when integrating technology into the curriculum. I found that the ideas and components were very practical and not at all overwhelming. It was quite detailed and many of the concepts raised in this model made their way into our group project.
I paid close attention to the beginning of the chapter where the author was discussing what types of objectives should be set. I appreciated the description and examples of behavioural versus cognitive objectives. It reminded me of how some high school science curriculum learning objectives are written. General Curriculum Outcomes (GCO) tend to be broad all-encompassing statements, often geared toward developing students’ technological awareness or higher-level thinking skills. These GCO remind me of what the author was describing with cognitive objectives. Many Specific Curriculum Outcomes (SCO) are more concrete and measurable with suggestions to the teacher as to how to evaluate student learning with measurable activities and assessments. These in turn remind me of the behavioural objectives that the author describes.
I found that this chapter was very helpful to me and my partner when we had to design and develop the framework of our Instructional Design. I believe that the Morrison chapter outlined the most important step of creating any ID; establishing clear instructional goals and designing components that can measure whether the objectives are being met. It was using this framework that we designed our group model.
Weeks 10-13: Group Model, Revisions and Assessment.
I was very fortunate to have had David Ramsay as my partner in creating our group model. David teaches physics with me at Three Oaks, has also worked as an engineer, and shares my belief that higher-order critical thinking and problem solving are some of the most important things we can teach high school science students. Therefore, we had a shared vision when creating our model. Our model was created with components from the ADDIE model (Colston, 2008), the Engineering Design Process (Hynes & Tada, 2008) and the pragmatic applications of the Morrison (1999) NTeQ description.
Overall, I believe that our model was quite an effective tool for integrating IT resources into an existing high school science curriculum. As a system orientation class of ID model, I feel that the model was broad enough to incorporate a variety of learning theories to meet various instructional goals throughout the course. I believe that one of the strongest components of our model was the cyclical design that emphasized revision, validation, and review driven by formative assessment. Unfortunately, the original version of our model was vague on how the formative assessment would allow for revision of instruction.
Between the submission of the original group model and the submission of the revision/assessment of the model, the course explored assessment and how it would affect the future of ID. This was quite timely in that I was able to gain some insight on the weaknesses of our existing model and come up with some specific solutions.
I revised our model by describing the formative assessment components that would drive revision and review. They included teacher-generated annectdotal records of student progress, and student-generated journal reflections and Project Based Learning activities. The addition of specific formative assessment elements would help designers understand how ongoing feedback from both teachers and students will allow for revision or validation of instructional styles and learning theories. Also, by focussing the formative assessment on student learning and not as much on the final product, the model meets the constructivist objectives that we had in mind.
When examining the articles on assessment and evaluation we were asked if we could define a difference between the two terms. Personally, I find trying to define assessment and evaluation similar to trying to define art; I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it. In my opinion assessment refers to feedback, often continuous and formative, that allows the teacher to gain some insight on how the students are doing. I interpret evaluation as a more formal means to gage if students have met the instructional goals. It is often represented as formal testing (pen and paper, projects, presentations, etc.) and is usually summative in nature.
The assessment and evaluation of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes is one that teachers and the public are going to be faced with more and more these days. Societal influences are making teachers more accountable and for most this means improving students marks. Standardized testing is becoming more prevalent and with school rankings becoming public discussion points, there is definitely an over-emphasis on marks.
This guides teachers toward a more behavioral teaching style that has clear measurable outcomes. Constructivist outcomes on the other hand are more subjective and abstract and can be more difficult to assign a numeric mark.
I know that I, like most teachers, would prefer to focus on each student learning to the best of his/her potential, and I feel that constructivist, student-centered learning is one of the best means to accomplish this. However, I feel that it would be naive to ignore that society still bases student achievement with high marks. This is nothing new and in my opinion will not be going away any time soon. Therefore, in the future I will be trying to use more student-centered, constructivist activities that can still be evaluated in some numeric fashion. Like most things in teaching, it is trying to find a balance between doing what's best for the students and keeping our bosses, the Public, happy.
I would like to conclude this paper with a brief overview of what this course means to me. That is to say, is it going to affect my teaching or is it simply another exploration of a teaching theory. I am happy and excited to say that I believe that I will actually be able to put this theory into practice.
I truly appreciated the fact that the information in this course was delivered in a practical, realistic manner. I was able to see where it could apply in my teaching and how it could affect student learning. Many theories that I have studied in my BEd. and Masters courses look great on paper but don't succeed in the classroom. I'm sure that this is much a fault of mine as a teacher than it is of the theories. However, that is not the feeling I'm getting this time.
With Information Technology fully integrating itself into society, it is only fitting that its impact be felt on instruction. The Instructional Design process that we have studied in this course can aid me in using IT to validate and enforce the instructional goals that my students must meet. The ID that we have created in our model is one that integrates IT into the curriculum and allows for multiple types of learning theories and teaching styles. I am more confident about further developing Mindtools within my physics course and am very excited with the prospect of creating a new ID for my robotics course that will encourage Cognitive Flexibility and student engagement. I plan to build on these skills and continue to develop and revise instructional models that will allow my students to use Information Technology to better attain their goals.
References:
Arends, R. (2004). Learning to Teach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Colston, R. (2008). ADDIE Model. Learning-Theories. Retrieved October 24, 2008 from http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html
Direct Instruction Makes a Comeback. (1998). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/april98n.html
Gustafson, K. and Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development. Educational Technology Research and Development. Vol. 45, No. 3, pp 73-89. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://elearning.cbu.ca:8900/EDUC533_91_2008FW/gust&branch.pdf
Hynes, M. and Tada, H. (2008). Assistive Technology Curriculum. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://www.legoengineering.com/images/stories/curriculum/LEcom_AssistiveTechRobotics.pdf
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://elearning.cbu.ca:8900/EDUC533_91_2008FW/learning_mindtools.pdf
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. In Integrating Computer Technology into the Classroom, pp. 37-60. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall. (Chapter 3) Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://elearning.cbu.ca:8900/EDUC533_91_2008FW/Chapter3.pdf
Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobsen, M., & Coulson, R. (1995). Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://elearning.cbu.ca:8900/EDUC533_91_2008FW/CognitiveFlexibility.pdf
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Week 11 Post
Hi all, here are my thoughts for this week. All comments welcome, Ryan.
1. Is there a difference between the terms assessment and evaluation for you? Some authors define a difference.
The terms assessment and evaluation are used interchangeably by different authors and teachers. In my opinion assessment refers to feedback, often continuous and formative, that allows the teacher to gain some insight on how the students are doing. It is an informal way of gauging how students are progressing. I interpret evaluation as a more formal means to gage if students have met the instructional goals. It is often represented as formal testing (pen and paper, projects, presentations, etc.) and is usually summative in nature.
2. Do you feel the push toward teaching to the test and the pull of the less measurable, constructivist outcomes? Do you feel torn between the two?
I feel that there is definitely a trend for teachers to be pressured to teach to the test. Societal influences are making teachers more accountable and for most this means improving students marks. Standardized testing is becoming more prevalent and with school rankings becoming public discussion points, there is definitely an over-emphasis on marks. This guides teachers toward a more behavioral teaching style that has clear measurable outcomes. Constructivist outcomes that are more subjective and abstract can be more difficult to assign a numeric mark.
I'm sure that most teachers would prefer to focus on each student learning to the best of his/her potential, and constructivist learning is recognized as one of the best means to accomplish this. However, it would be naive to ignore that society still judges student achievement with high marks. This is nothing new and in my opinion will not be going away any time soon. Teachers must find a balance between doing what's best for their students and keeping our bosses, the public, happy.
3. Is there a difference between the measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes?
As I mentioned above, non-constructivist outcomes are more behavioral in nature and are easily measured and evaluated. They are less subjective and much easier to assign a numeric mark. Constructivist outcomes are based on prior experience and personal beliefs. Because of this the measure of success will vary on the experiences and beliefs of each student. Outcomes are much more subjective and more difficult to assign a numeric grade.
4. What would a component for and ID model look like for constructivist outcomes assessment? Would there need to be a actual component to the model or could there be an overarching structural, ongoing, awareness for the need to be concerned with constructivist outcomes?
Models should be generic and applied to any one, or a combination, of learning theories (behavioral, cognitive, constructivist, etc.). A system orientation class of model that covers an entire course will have many objectives, some of which will no doubt be constructivist. Smaller ID models will have fewer activities that could be specifically geared toward one particular learning theory / objective. However, I feel that the ID framework should be flexible enough to be applied to any classroom setting. It is in determining the details of each component that the designer must consider the learning theory, constructivist or other, that will best allow the students to reach their instructional goals and learning outcomes.
1. Is there a difference between the terms assessment and evaluation for you? Some authors define a difference.
The terms assessment and evaluation are used interchangeably by different authors and teachers. In my opinion assessment refers to feedback, often continuous and formative, that allows the teacher to gain some insight on how the students are doing. It is an informal way of gauging how students are progressing. I interpret evaluation as a more formal means to gage if students have met the instructional goals. It is often represented as formal testing (pen and paper, projects, presentations, etc.) and is usually summative in nature.
2. Do you feel the push toward teaching to the test and the pull of the less measurable, constructivist outcomes? Do you feel torn between the two?
I feel that there is definitely a trend for teachers to be pressured to teach to the test. Societal influences are making teachers more accountable and for most this means improving students marks. Standardized testing is becoming more prevalent and with school rankings becoming public discussion points, there is definitely an over-emphasis on marks. This guides teachers toward a more behavioral teaching style that has clear measurable outcomes. Constructivist outcomes that are more subjective and abstract can be more difficult to assign a numeric mark.
I'm sure that most teachers would prefer to focus on each student learning to the best of his/her potential, and constructivist learning is recognized as one of the best means to accomplish this. However, it would be naive to ignore that society still judges student achievement with high marks. This is nothing new and in my opinion will not be going away any time soon. Teachers must find a balance between doing what's best for their students and keeping our bosses, the public, happy.
3. Is there a difference between the measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes?
As I mentioned above, non-constructivist outcomes are more behavioral in nature and are easily measured and evaluated. They are less subjective and much easier to assign a numeric mark. Constructivist outcomes are based on prior experience and personal beliefs. Because of this the measure of success will vary on the experiences and beliefs of each student. Outcomes are much more subjective and more difficult to assign a numeric grade.
4. What would a component for and ID model look like for constructivist outcomes assessment? Would there need to be a actual component to the model or could there be an overarching structural, ongoing, awareness for the need to be concerned with constructivist outcomes?
Models should be generic and applied to any one, or a combination, of learning theories (behavioral, cognitive, constructivist, etc.). A system orientation class of model that covers an entire course will have many objectives, some of which will no doubt be constructivist. Smaller ID models will have fewer activities that could be specifically geared toward one particular learning theory / objective. However, I feel that the ID framework should be flexible enough to be applied to any classroom setting. It is in determining the details of each component that the designer must consider the learning theory, constructivist or other, that will best allow the students to reach their instructional goals and learning outcomes.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Week 9-10 Post
Hi all, here are my thought for this week. All comments are welcome, Ryan
1. What learning theories are intended by the author's of this "Instructional Design for IT Model".
The author focuses primarily on behaviourism and cognitivism learning theories in the development of the NTeQ model. The first step in the NTeQ model is to specify objectives. The author states that objectives can be either behavioural or cognitive based. Behavioural objectives would be very specific and easily demonstrated by the students and measured by the teacher. Simple tests and assessments could be devised to determine whether or not the objective has been met. Cognitive objectives would be more abstract or broad objectives. These objectives would be designed to allow students to achieve higher-order learning tasks such as analysis, evaluation, critical thinking, and problem solving. These objectives would be more difficult to assess as there are many different ways that students can demonstrate their mastery of the objectives.
2. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see are the most valuable to Instructional Design for Information Technology?
I feel that the entire model is designed with Instructional Design for Information Technology. Half of the components of the model cannot be completed without the use of IT (Computer Functions, Data Manipulation, and Activities While/Prior/After Using Computer). I suppose the first and third components: Specify Objectives and Specify Problem are where the designer / teacher would have to be most aware of what IT resources are available for use. The teacher must have the forethought to identify what objectives are to be met with the technological resources at hand. In my opinion, all other components of the NTeQ model rely on a clear problem being identified; a problem that will allow students to meet the objective whether it is behavioural or cognitive. Obviously if the teacher has not taken into account the IT resources and requirements, the remainder of the model, and the Instructional Design will not succeed.
3. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see as unnecessary or redundant?
I’m not sure if the components Activities While at Computer, Activities Prior to Computer, and After Using Computer are really all that necessary. It’s not that I don’t see the value of these activities. It’s just that I feel that these activities would have already been considered in the Computer Functions and Data Manipulation components of the model. I feel that these components are somewhat redundant and that the model could be shortened by integrating them into the front matter of the model. I also found it odd that the Results Presentation component is structured in the middle of the model. It seems more logical to me that the presentation of results would be one of the last stages of the model, just prior to supporting activities and assessment. Again, if the three “Computer” components were integrated into earlier components, then the Results Presentation would be situated toward the end of the model.
4. Which new ideas from this model may be beneficial for the construction of your own group project ID model for IT? (It is not necessarily to consult with your partner for this question.)
When reading this article, I paid close attention to the beginning where the author was discussing what types of objectives should be set. I appreciated the description and examples of behavioural versus cognitive objectives. It reminded me of how some high school science curriculum learning objectives are written. General Curriculum Outcomes (GCO) tend to be broad all-encompassing statements, often geared toward developing students’ technological awareness or higher-level thinking skills. These GCO remind me of what the author was describing with cognitive objectives. Many Specific Curriculum Outcomes (SCO) are more concrete and measureable with suggestions to the teacher as to how to evaluate student learning with measureable activities and assessments. These in turn remind me of the behavioural objectives that the author describes.
I found that this article will help me, and my partner, design and develop the objectives of our Instructional Design. I believe that this is the most important step of creating any ID; establishing clear objectives and designing components that can measure whether the objectives are being met.
1. What learning theories are intended by the author's of this "Instructional Design for IT Model".
The author focuses primarily on behaviourism and cognitivism learning theories in the development of the NTeQ model. The first step in the NTeQ model is to specify objectives. The author states that objectives can be either behavioural or cognitive based. Behavioural objectives would be very specific and easily demonstrated by the students and measured by the teacher. Simple tests and assessments could be devised to determine whether or not the objective has been met. Cognitive objectives would be more abstract or broad objectives. These objectives would be designed to allow students to achieve higher-order learning tasks such as analysis, evaluation, critical thinking, and problem solving. These objectives would be more difficult to assess as there are many different ways that students can demonstrate their mastery of the objectives.
2. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see are the most valuable to Instructional Design for Information Technology?
I feel that the entire model is designed with Instructional Design for Information Technology. Half of the components of the model cannot be completed without the use of IT (Computer Functions, Data Manipulation, and Activities While/Prior/After Using Computer). I suppose the first and third components: Specify Objectives and Specify Problem are where the designer / teacher would have to be most aware of what IT resources are available for use. The teacher must have the forethought to identify what objectives are to be met with the technological resources at hand. In my opinion, all other components of the NTeQ model rely on a clear problem being identified; a problem that will allow students to meet the objective whether it is behavioural or cognitive. Obviously if the teacher has not taken into account the IT resources and requirements, the remainder of the model, and the Instructional Design will not succeed.
3. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see as unnecessary or redundant?
I’m not sure if the components Activities While at Computer, Activities Prior to Computer, and After Using Computer are really all that necessary. It’s not that I don’t see the value of these activities. It’s just that I feel that these activities would have already been considered in the Computer Functions and Data Manipulation components of the model. I feel that these components are somewhat redundant and that the model could be shortened by integrating them into the front matter of the model. I also found it odd that the Results Presentation component is structured in the middle of the model. It seems more logical to me that the presentation of results would be one of the last stages of the model, just prior to supporting activities and assessment. Again, if the three “Computer” components were integrated into earlier components, then the Results Presentation would be situated toward the end of the model.
4. Which new ideas from this model may be beneficial for the construction of your own group project ID model for IT? (It is not necessarily to consult with your partner for this question.)
When reading this article, I paid close attention to the beginning where the author was discussing what types of objectives should be set. I appreciated the description and examples of behavioural versus cognitive objectives. It reminded me of how some high school science curriculum learning objectives are written. General Curriculum Outcomes (GCO) tend to be broad all-encompassing statements, often geared toward developing students’ technological awareness or higher-level thinking skills. These GCO remind me of what the author was describing with cognitive objectives. Many Specific Curriculum Outcomes (SCO) are more concrete and measureable with suggestions to the teacher as to how to evaluate student learning with measureable activities and assessments. These in turn remind me of the behavioural objectives that the author describes.
I found that this article will help me, and my partner, design and develop the objectives of our Instructional Design. I believe that this is the most important step of creating any ID; establishing clear objectives and designing components that can measure whether the objectives are being met.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Week 7-8 Post
Hi all,
Here are my thoughts for this week. All comments welcome, Ryan.
1. What are the essential components of Instructional Design?
Gustafson and Branch (1997) state that Instructional Design has been grounded in the following components: Analysis, Design, Development, Evaluation, and Revision. It is the process of determining what learning goals are to be met and then designing and developing instructional resources that can meet these goals, considering students’ needs and learning styles. Feedback (preferably from the user/student) and revision must be part of the process in developing a proper Instructional Design. This is a continual process that will change depending on students experience, beliefs, and past knowledge. Revisions will be generated from both the front end (changes in learning objectives) and the back end (feedback and student evaluation).
2. Which of the essential components from question number 1 need to address issues concerning Information Technology?
I believe that of the five components listed above, the ones that will have the greatest effect from Information Technology will be Design and Development. Analysis of the learning goals will probably not be overly affected by the abundance or lack of available technology. However, as a teacher designs and develops an instructional plan to meet these objectives, the availability of Information Technology will impact the resources and plans that are created. Evaluation of the technological resources, student success with these resources, and the continued availability of these technological resources will be reflected in the Revision component of the Instructional Design.
3. From the models that you have read, which one(s) take IT into consideration? Discuss how the model(s) may be doing this.
I found that all of the readings took IT into consideration in varying degrees. However, I thought that the ADDIE, ASSURE and Gagne models specifically outline how IT can improve an Instructional Design. Gagne outlines how his nine-step Instructional Events can be tailored to e-learning through the use of multimedia and training simulators. The ADDIE model specifically describes synchronous and asynchronous methods of course delivery as well as a CBT and WBT course format. The ASSURE model has the selection and utilization of media right in its acronym. ASSURE mentions how technology should be integrated into the instruction and that students should be “encouraged to participate, engage and construct” (UMDNJ/Douglas College, 2003) by using various media and IT resources.
4. Do you need to use only one model?
Just as there is no one learning theory (e.g., behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, etc.) that can be used for all instruction, I believe that there is not just one model that should be used for Instructional Design. A teacher must be cognizant of the specific student learning styles, desired learning objectives, and available technological resources at his / her disposal. As each of these variables change, so must the Instructional Design. The model must be flexible enough to accommodate these ever-changing revisions. Therefore, I believe that teachers must pick and choose different components from different models in order to customize the Instructional Design to best suit the specific learning conditions and environment.
5. Is it possible for one “Super ID Model” to be used in all educational contexts? If yes, discuss the overall nature and structure of this model. If no, explain why not.
I feel that the ASSURE and ADDIE models take care to be broad enough and flexible enough to be used in most classrooms. However, as I mentioned above, I believe that the complexity and uniqueness of the classroom prevents the implementation of a one- size-fits-all approach to Instructional Design. It is the responsibility and talent of the teacher to determine what aspects of any model are relevant to their classroom. If delivering the curriculum were as simple as following a single step-by-step Instructional Design, we would all be out of a job! I do believe that models like ASSURE and ADDIE can assist teachers in developing resources, analysing student needs and determining appropriate evaluations and revisions. But at the end of the day, even the best, most super ID model is still just a tool to be used at the discretion of the teacher.
6. Do you have a model from above that you believe would work best for your educational context? If so, list it and explain why.
The most common question that I ask myself at the end of a class is “did that lesson meet the objectives that I set out at the start of the day”? For that reason, I believe that components of the ADDIE model would best suit my educational context. Objectives from this model are measurable and sequential. This model helps the teacher keep focus by relating each step of the process back to the objective and goal. In my classroom, I often use student feedback to assess how my lesson meets their needs. Important components of the ADDIE model also rely on feedback, testing and review to assess and revise the plan.
Here are my thoughts for this week. All comments welcome, Ryan.
1. What are the essential components of Instructional Design?
Gustafson and Branch (1997) state that Instructional Design has been grounded in the following components: Analysis, Design, Development, Evaluation, and Revision. It is the process of determining what learning goals are to be met and then designing and developing instructional resources that can meet these goals, considering students’ needs and learning styles. Feedback (preferably from the user/student) and revision must be part of the process in developing a proper Instructional Design. This is a continual process that will change depending on students experience, beliefs, and past knowledge. Revisions will be generated from both the front end (changes in learning objectives) and the back end (feedback and student evaluation).
2. Which of the essential components from question number 1 need to address issues concerning Information Technology?
I believe that of the five components listed above, the ones that will have the greatest effect from Information Technology will be Design and Development. Analysis of the learning goals will probably not be overly affected by the abundance or lack of available technology. However, as a teacher designs and develops an instructional plan to meet these objectives, the availability of Information Technology will impact the resources and plans that are created. Evaluation of the technological resources, student success with these resources, and the continued availability of these technological resources will be reflected in the Revision component of the Instructional Design.
3. From the models that you have read, which one(s) take IT into consideration? Discuss how the model(s) may be doing this.
I found that all of the readings took IT into consideration in varying degrees. However, I thought that the ADDIE, ASSURE and Gagne models specifically outline how IT can improve an Instructional Design. Gagne outlines how his nine-step Instructional Events can be tailored to e-learning through the use of multimedia and training simulators. The ADDIE model specifically describes synchronous and asynchronous methods of course delivery as well as a CBT and WBT course format. The ASSURE model has the selection and utilization of media right in its acronym. ASSURE mentions how technology should be integrated into the instruction and that students should be “encouraged to participate, engage and construct” (UMDNJ/Douglas College, 2003) by using various media and IT resources.
4. Do you need to use only one model?
Just as there is no one learning theory (e.g., behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, etc.) that can be used for all instruction, I believe that there is not just one model that should be used for Instructional Design. A teacher must be cognizant of the specific student learning styles, desired learning objectives, and available technological resources at his / her disposal. As each of these variables change, so must the Instructional Design. The model must be flexible enough to accommodate these ever-changing revisions. Therefore, I believe that teachers must pick and choose different components from different models in order to customize the Instructional Design to best suit the specific learning conditions and environment.
5. Is it possible for one “Super ID Model” to be used in all educational contexts? If yes, discuss the overall nature and structure of this model. If no, explain why not.
I feel that the ASSURE and ADDIE models take care to be broad enough and flexible enough to be used in most classrooms. However, as I mentioned above, I believe that the complexity and uniqueness of the classroom prevents the implementation of a one- size-fits-all approach to Instructional Design. It is the responsibility and talent of the teacher to determine what aspects of any model are relevant to their classroom. If delivering the curriculum were as simple as following a single step-by-step Instructional Design, we would all be out of a job! I do believe that models like ASSURE and ADDIE can assist teachers in developing resources, analysing student needs and determining appropriate evaluations and revisions. But at the end of the day, even the best, most super ID model is still just a tool to be used at the discretion of the teacher.
6. Do you have a model from above that you believe would work best for your educational context? If so, list it and explain why.
The most common question that I ask myself at the end of a class is “did that lesson meet the objectives that I set out at the start of the day”? For that reason, I believe that components of the ADDIE model would best suit my educational context. Objectives from this model are measurable and sequential. This model helps the teacher keep focus by relating each step of the process back to the objective and goal. In my classroom, I often use student feedback to assess how my lesson meets their needs. Important components of the ADDIE model also rely on feedback, testing and review to assess and revise the plan.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Week 6 Post
Hi all,
here is my response to this week’s readings. All comments are welcome, Ryan
1. Briefly summarize the taxonomy found in Table 1 of the Gustafson and Branch article.
here is my response to this week’s readings. All comments are welcome, Ryan
1. Briefly summarize the taxonomy found in Table 1 of the Gustafson and Branch article.
Gustafson (1997, p.80) states that Instructional Design (ID) can be broken into models that are designed for:
- a classroom (to be used for one or two hours)
- a product (an application or program that is instructor-delivered or self-instructional and would be used for several days)
- a system (a long-term and comprehensive instruction such as an entire course or curriculum)
The taxonomy table (p. 81) compares and qualifies these three models according to characteristics such as the amount of time and resources required to implement the models, the necessity for an experienced team or less experienced individual to conduct the model, and the amount of front-end analysis, tryout, revision and dissemination required. In a nutshell, the table seems to indicate that as an ID model moves from classroom to system the analysis, design, development, evaluation and revision requirements move from low to high.
2. ID has its basis in behaviorism. After reading both articles, how can the seemingly conflicting learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism co-exist in Instructional Design?
The idea that behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism can co-exist in ID lies in the fact that there is no one perfect learning theory and that they must be interchanged and overlapped. Dick is quoted by Gustafson (1997, p.88) as stating that the best situation would be one where behaviorism and constructivism can be blended together. Mergel (1998) states that the three learning theories can work together as the learner progresses through their cognitive development.
The behaviorist approach works well in measuring and observing knowledge that might be new to the learner. Cognitivism acts as a bridge between behaviorism and constructivism by allowing learners to use higher-order thinking processes to manipulate and build on the knowledge learned with the behaviorist approach. Constructivism allows learners to use problem solving skills and critical thinking based on the experiences and knowledge gained through the previous two learning theories. A properly designed ID must allow for all three learning theories, and must allow the learners to transfer seamlessly from one theory to another.
3. Briefly explain Rapid Prototyping (found in Gustafson and Branch). Is Rapid Prototyping used in the classroom?
Rapid prototyping is an alternative development process that reduces the time and money required for traditional ID. Rapid prototyping requires less time and money for the front-end work but the number of tryouts and revisions will be much higher. The high number of revisions allow users to have greater input into the final design. In this way the final result might be quite different than the original specification. In traditional ID the final result would look very similar to the original specification.
Rapid prototyping is definitely used in the classroom. Most teachers rely on feedback from the students (users) to guide and revise their lesson plans and activities. Although the original specification (curriculum outcomes) might be the same the means by which they are accomplished might be quite different than what was originally conceived in the textbook or curriculum guide.
4. Explain what Dick is saying in the fourth last paragraph of the Gustafson and Branch article (found on page 5 of Part 2). 'Dick (1996) summarized this perspective well when commenting on the possible obsolescence of the ID model he and Lou Carey have made so popular when he concluded, "There is, in the best of situations, a blending of the analysis and evaluation of the objectivist approach with the simulation and individualized progress of constructivists approaches(p . 62).'
I believe that Dick is saying ID, like Behaviorism, can be observed, measured, planned and evaluated in reliable ways. (Gustafson, 1997) This connects ID to a more traditional learning theory (behaviorism) that may become obsolete as constructivism becomes more prominent. However, if the analysis and revisions that are part of the ID process can be integrated with the scaffolding and individuality of constructivism, there may be a place for ID in the modern classroom.
5. Is Information Technology changing ID? Explain your answer with respect to learning theory.
I believe that Information Technology is definitely changing ID. Curricula are being rewritten to include the advances and changes that technology creates in students’ lives. A major component of constructivism deals with creating new knowledge based on prior experiences and knowledge. Today’s students live in a very technology rich world. Much of their prior knowledge and experiences are created by, or influenced through, Information Technology. The advantage to both teacher and student is the limitless resources now available on the Internet. Materials and information can be gathered from the Web that can be integrated into any teacher’s teaching style or learning theory. Of course, the Internet has also introduced a great deal of misinformation. Teachers and students dealing with Information Technology resources must be aware of what information is relevant and reliable.
References:
Gustafson, K. and Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development. Educational Technology Research and Development. Vol. 45, No. 3, pp 73-89.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved October 13, 2008, form the World Wide Web: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Week 5 Post
Hi everyone,
Please see below my posting for the week. All comments are welcome.
Ryan
1. What do you understand about how the concepts of Mindtools or Cognitive Tools (Jonassen et al) and Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro) can be tied together.
According to Jonassen and Reeves (1996), “Cognitive tools allow learners to function as designers using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others”. These tools (spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems, etc.,) facilitate the development of critical thinking skills. Students learn more by creating, constructing and designing their knowledge than by being spoon fed information from a textbook. Cognitive tools help this process.
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations.
I feel that the two theories can be tied together in that Cognitive Tools can be used as a means to an end, whereas Cognitive Flexibility is the actual desired end. Or said in a different way, Cognitive Tools are the tools that teachers can use to help students obtain cognitive flexibility. Students can use the cognitive tool applications to better transfer or apply prior knowledge to a new setting.
2. Are these theories compatible or are they really talking of different ideas?
I believe that the two theories are compatible but not identical. As mentioned in the Jonassen article, Cognitive Tools can be used in any type of learning environment but have their greatest effectiveness when applied within a constructivist environment. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach. Therefore, both theories are best suited to constructivist environments but each can be used independently and not necessarily in a constructivist setting.
Reference:
Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://142.12.6.6:8900/SCRIPT/EDUC533_91_2008FW/scripts/serve_home
Please see below my posting for the week. All comments are welcome.
Ryan
1. What do you understand about how the concepts of Mindtools or Cognitive Tools (Jonassen et al) and Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro) can be tied together.
According to Jonassen and Reeves (1996), “Cognitive tools allow learners to function as designers using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others”. These tools (spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems, etc.,) facilitate the development of critical thinking skills. Students learn more by creating, constructing and designing their knowledge than by being spoon fed information from a textbook. Cognitive tools help this process.
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations.
I feel that the two theories can be tied together in that Cognitive Tools can be used as a means to an end, whereas Cognitive Flexibility is the actual desired end. Or said in a different way, Cognitive Tools are the tools that teachers can use to help students obtain cognitive flexibility. Students can use the cognitive tool applications to better transfer or apply prior knowledge to a new setting.
2. Are these theories compatible or are they really talking of different ideas?
I believe that the two theories are compatible but not identical. As mentioned in the Jonassen article, Cognitive Tools can be used in any type of learning environment but have their greatest effectiveness when applied within a constructivist environment. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach. Therefore, both theories are best suited to constructivist environments but each can be used independently and not necessarily in a constructivist setting.
Reference:
Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://142.12.6.6:8900/SCRIPT/EDUC533_91_2008FW/scripts/serve_home
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Week 4 Post
Here is my posting for week 4. I decided to choose the set of questions regarding Application Software. Any comments are welcome. - Ryan
Application Software
1. Compare and contrast types of application software with respect to constructivist and directed instruction theories (or other general learning theories).
I believe that application software falls under the category of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) where the computers are used as tools. Most conventional tools can be used for many different purposes depending on the need of the user. I see the same being true for application software. Therefore, I would have a hard time classifying a type of application software solely under constructivist or directed instruction theories. Application software such as word processors, spreadsheets, web page design, antivirus tools, search tools, computer mediated communication, simulations, microworlds and cognitive tools for learning could be used in both constructivist and direct instruction settings. It really depends on the teacher’s focus, the learning outcome to be met, and the specific needs of the students.
2. Under what context would you use the various types of application software (i.e. what subject, grade level, setting, student-ability level, etc.)
I believe that application software can be used with any subject at any grade level. Word processors, simulations, and computer mediated communication (e.g. email) can be introduced at the earliest grade levels with great success. As students progress through their education, more complex and diverse software applications can be introduced to help them demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter. Application software can act to level the playing field and permit students with different ability levels to address their various learning styles. Assistive technology (Kurzweill 3000, Dragon Naturally Speaking, etc.,) is currently being provided to students with learning disabilities to allow them to demonstrate and function academically at their learning potential.
I have personally used application software and interactive simulations (Physics - Mechanics Labs, http://www.darngoodsolutions.com/mms/physics.htm) that allow students to explore and hypothesize about physics concepts. By manipulating the variables and observing the results, students can construct new knowledge based on authentic experiments. I have also used cognitive tools for learning such as Inspiration (http://www.inspiration.com) to allow students to design and present concept maps that demonstrate their understanding of a certain topic or theme.
3. What learning theory(ies) are at play for the software applications that have been mentioned during your discussion?
In my academic physics class I try to encourage students to apply higher- order / critical thinking skills that will allow them to improve their problem solving skills. In this way, I hope that they are able to take the information learned in one situation (classroom setting) and apply it to a different situation (real-world setting, lab setting, etc.). The software applications mentioned above allow my students to expand and elaborate on their past experiences and transfer their prior knowledge to a new environment or situation. In this way I believe that constructivism and cognitive flexibility are the learning theories at play.
Application Software
1. Compare and contrast types of application software with respect to constructivist and directed instruction theories (or other general learning theories).
I believe that application software falls under the category of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) where the computers are used as tools. Most conventional tools can be used for many different purposes depending on the need of the user. I see the same being true for application software. Therefore, I would have a hard time classifying a type of application software solely under constructivist or directed instruction theories. Application software such as word processors, spreadsheets, web page design, antivirus tools, search tools, computer mediated communication, simulations, microworlds and cognitive tools for learning could be used in both constructivist and direct instruction settings. It really depends on the teacher’s focus, the learning outcome to be met, and the specific needs of the students.
2. Under what context would you use the various types of application software (i.e. what subject, grade level, setting, student-ability level, etc.)
I believe that application software can be used with any subject at any grade level. Word processors, simulations, and computer mediated communication (e.g. email) can be introduced at the earliest grade levels with great success. As students progress through their education, more complex and diverse software applications can be introduced to help them demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter. Application software can act to level the playing field and permit students with different ability levels to address their various learning styles. Assistive technology (Kurzweill 3000, Dragon Naturally Speaking, etc.,) is currently being provided to students with learning disabilities to allow them to demonstrate and function academically at their learning potential.
I have personally used application software and interactive simulations (Physics - Mechanics Labs, http://www.darngoodsolutions.com/mms/physics.htm) that allow students to explore and hypothesize about physics concepts. By manipulating the variables and observing the results, students can construct new knowledge based on authentic experiments. I have also used cognitive tools for learning such as Inspiration (http://www.inspiration.com) to allow students to design and present concept maps that demonstrate their understanding of a certain topic or theme.
3. What learning theory(ies) are at play for the software applications that have been mentioned during your discussion?
In my academic physics class I try to encourage students to apply higher- order / critical thinking skills that will allow them to improve their problem solving skills. In this way, I hope that they are able to take the information learned in one situation (classroom setting) and apply it to a different situation (real-world setting, lab setting, etc.). The software applications mentioned above allow my students to expand and elaborate on their past experiences and transfer their prior knowledge to a new environment or situation. In this way I believe that constructivism and cognitive flexibility are the learning theories at play.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Week 3 Post
1. Using your experiences with one or more software applications, support or refute the statement: "...when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning" (p.31).
While teaching my physics and robotics courses, I try to create situations in which my students will be engaged in critical thinking exercises that will hopefully allow them to explore higher-order thinking practices. I agree with Jonassen’s views that computers and “Mindtools” can be used to enhance student learning and allow them to represent what they know in a more dynamic way. Over the past few years David Ramsay and I have been using PASCO probeware (http://www.pasco.com/physhigh/index.cfm) to enhance the delivery of our grade 11 physics curriculum.
The use of probeware allows students to interpret, visualize, and analyse data that they have collected from real-world experiments. By allowing students to change variables in an authentic environment, they are able to hypothesis and construct meaning from the equations and concepts presented during lectures and from the textbooks. David’s posting refers to experiments that we conduct on collisions. Another example that I’ll offer is a classroom lesson where students measure their voice patterns using the probeware and compare and contrast their voice wavelengths and frequencies with other students, other animals, and other inanimate objects. Of course, this information can simply be read in a table of values from the textbook. However, by allowing the students to create their own tables, and visually represent their own voice patterns the information has more meaning.
I feel that I must also mention that using Mindtools is not always rainbows and sunshine. Research conducted by UPEI on using probeware in our classrooms has indicated that there is a steep initial learning curve when the computer technology is introduced. It has also been recorded that female students generally do not appreciate using the probeware and found that it did not enhance learning but was in fact detrimental to their thinking and learning. Of course, this data is based on small sample-sizes but I believe still has some merit and must be considered when Mindtools are introduced or integrated into curricula.
2. These authors discuss constructivism in this article. Is there a place for direct instruction when using these software applications?
How we construct knowledge depends upon what we already know and the experiences that we have had. If I can build on my previous example of using a Mindtool to represent voice patterns, it would be pointless to ask students to analyse their voice patterns if they had now prior knowledge or experience with the concepts of wavelengths, frequencies and wave behaviour. Therefore I believe that there must be a place for direct instruction to be used to deliver new information to the students. Once students have this information, they can use the software application to construct new meaning and build on their knowledge. Constructivism and scaffolding can only be used after the students have a basic understanding of the concepts. With curriculum outcomes that rely on deductive reasoning, direct instruction is often the best way to introduce new equations and concepts. Once the concepts become part of the students' knowledge base, they can then use software applications that promote constructivism, critical thinking, and problem solving.
3. Briefly summarize your understanding of the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility".
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach.
4. What kind of learning theories are being used in this course now? Are you constructing yet?
I believe that this course is being presented in a combination of direct instruction and constructivism. The readings are being used to provide students with the information and content regarding theories in direct instruction, constructivism, behaviourism, and cognitive flexibility. I would interpret providing these basic facts to students as direct instruction. However, in our questions and postings we are asked to build on this information by interpreting it through our own personal experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. In my opinion, this is the heart of a constructivist learning environment. By eliciting personal responses and requiring students to respond to other students’ opinions by citing credible readings, students are constructing and scaffolding new ideas from prior knowledge.
Comments welcome,
Ryan
While teaching my physics and robotics courses, I try to create situations in which my students will be engaged in critical thinking exercises that will hopefully allow them to explore higher-order thinking practices. I agree with Jonassen’s views that computers and “Mindtools” can be used to enhance student learning and allow them to represent what they know in a more dynamic way. Over the past few years David Ramsay and I have been using PASCO probeware (http://www.pasco.com/physhigh/index.cfm) to enhance the delivery of our grade 11 physics curriculum.
The use of probeware allows students to interpret, visualize, and analyse data that they have collected from real-world experiments. By allowing students to change variables in an authentic environment, they are able to hypothesis and construct meaning from the equations and concepts presented during lectures and from the textbooks. David’s posting refers to experiments that we conduct on collisions. Another example that I’ll offer is a classroom lesson where students measure their voice patterns using the probeware and compare and contrast their voice wavelengths and frequencies with other students, other animals, and other inanimate objects. Of course, this information can simply be read in a table of values from the textbook. However, by allowing the students to create their own tables, and visually represent their own voice patterns the information has more meaning.
I feel that I must also mention that using Mindtools is not always rainbows and sunshine. Research conducted by UPEI on using probeware in our classrooms has indicated that there is a steep initial learning curve when the computer technology is introduced. It has also been recorded that female students generally do not appreciate using the probeware and found that it did not enhance learning but was in fact detrimental to their thinking and learning. Of course, this data is based on small sample-sizes but I believe still has some merit and must be considered when Mindtools are introduced or integrated into curricula.
2. These authors discuss constructivism in this article. Is there a place for direct instruction when using these software applications?
How we construct knowledge depends upon what we already know and the experiences that we have had. If I can build on my previous example of using a Mindtool to represent voice patterns, it would be pointless to ask students to analyse their voice patterns if they had now prior knowledge or experience with the concepts of wavelengths, frequencies and wave behaviour. Therefore I believe that there must be a place for direct instruction to be used to deliver new information to the students. Once students have this information, they can use the software application to construct new meaning and build on their knowledge. Constructivism and scaffolding can only be used after the students have a basic understanding of the concepts. With curriculum outcomes that rely on deductive reasoning, direct instruction is often the best way to introduce new equations and concepts. Once the concepts become part of the students' knowledge base, they can then use software applications that promote constructivism, critical thinking, and problem solving.
3. Briefly summarize your understanding of the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility".
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach.
4. What kind of learning theories are being used in this course now? Are you constructing yet?
I believe that this course is being presented in a combination of direct instruction and constructivism. The readings are being used to provide students with the information and content regarding theories in direct instruction, constructivism, behaviourism, and cognitive flexibility. I would interpret providing these basic facts to students as direct instruction. However, in our questions and postings we are asked to build on this information by interpreting it through our own personal experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. In my opinion, this is the heart of a constructivist learning environment. By eliciting personal responses and requiring students to respond to other students’ opinions by citing credible readings, students are constructing and scaffolding new ideas from prior knowledge.
Comments welcome,
Ryan
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Week 1-2 Post
1. Thoughts on "The Medium is Not the Meassage"
There can be no argument that distance learning opens doors that would otherwise be left closed to many students. However, the technology used to deliver distance learning programs is merely a means to an end. The worth of these programs lies in their content and the delivery of this content. Technology can facilitate this delivery, and even enhance the content, but it is by no means the framework on which the program should be based. I see the main shortcoming of distance learning that students are less apt to have face-to-face discussions with their classmates and teachers. A case in point could be the asynchronous nature of these online courses. The coursework that we are completing in Information Technology could just as easily be delivered in a more traditional classroom setting with lecture and discussion. I feel fortunate to be able to participate in these online courses through WebCT but I do not believe that the fact that they are delivered through a technological medium increases their worth or efficacy.
2. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits direct instruction, which would it be and why?
In direct instruction, the teacher presents information to the students and expects students to increase their knowledge based on this new information. I believe that the learning theory that best suites this style of teaching is behaviourism. The learner adapts to the new environment by responding to questions with the information provided by the teacher. This likens students to empty pitchers into which knowledge may be poured. It creates a more passive environment where students react to the demands of the teacher. The student is rewarded if he/she can recite the absolute knowledge provided by the teacher. Higher-order thinking and mental processes are not greatly considered in the behaviourism model. I feel that the same can be said for a broad definition of direct instruction where the teacher’s end goal is to deliver new information to the students with the hope that they can repeat this same information on some form of formal assessment.
3. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits the constructivist approach, which would it be and why?
I believe that the best theory that fits the constructivist approach would be the constructivism theories created by Piaget and Vygotsky. Their early works were instrumental in developing the concept of constructivism in which students “in the quest for understanding, link new knowledge to prior knowledge and construct new meaning”. (Arends, 2004, p. 397) This approach allows students to focus on using their prior knowledge and experiences as a guide to increase their knowledge and establish higher- order thinking processes. This exploration will allow student to move forward through their zone of proximal development and learn to the best of their individual abilities.
4. / 5. By drawing upon past life and/or teaching experiences, where has direct instruction and constructivist styles worked for you?
My teaching experiences focus mainly on teaching physics and robotics. Both of these courses have an arranged set of formulas and procedures that must be understood and followed in order for success. It is in introducing these topics that I often put on my “direct instruction” hat. I cannot ask a student to map out the electrical wiring on their robot if he/she has no understanding of the underlying principles of electric circuits. To allow students to go out on their own and work solely on their prior knowledge would be very time consuming (and potentially dangerous!). Explaining the variables in a new physics equation and letting students practice using the new equation with a given set of questions is a very effective means to learn new concepts. However, once the students have the basics down, I put on my constructivist hat (usually in the same class period) and begin to allow students to explore on their own. I challenge them to think where a certain physics concept is relevant or demonstrated in the real world. Now students are able to draw on past experiences and imagine how these new concepts can be manipulated to create new ideas and theories. Open-ended labs and higher-order thinking projects can be created to allow students an opportunity to hypothesize, formulate opinions and test new beliefs without having to worry about delivering the single right answer.
Reference:
Arends, R. (2004). Learning to Teach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Comments welcome, Ryan
There can be no argument that distance learning opens doors that would otherwise be left closed to many students. However, the technology used to deliver distance learning programs is merely a means to an end. The worth of these programs lies in their content and the delivery of this content. Technology can facilitate this delivery, and even enhance the content, but it is by no means the framework on which the program should be based. I see the main shortcoming of distance learning that students are less apt to have face-to-face discussions with their classmates and teachers. A case in point could be the asynchronous nature of these online courses. The coursework that we are completing in Information Technology could just as easily be delivered in a more traditional classroom setting with lecture and discussion. I feel fortunate to be able to participate in these online courses through WebCT but I do not believe that the fact that they are delivered through a technological medium increases their worth or efficacy.
2. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits direct instruction, which would it be and why?
In direct instruction, the teacher presents information to the students and expects students to increase their knowledge based on this new information. I believe that the learning theory that best suites this style of teaching is behaviourism. The learner adapts to the new environment by responding to questions with the information provided by the teacher. This likens students to empty pitchers into which knowledge may be poured. It creates a more passive environment where students react to the demands of the teacher. The student is rewarded if he/she can recite the absolute knowledge provided by the teacher. Higher-order thinking and mental processes are not greatly considered in the behaviourism model. I feel that the same can be said for a broad definition of direct instruction where the teacher’s end goal is to deliver new information to the students with the hope that they can repeat this same information on some form of formal assessment.
3. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits the constructivist approach, which would it be and why?
I believe that the best theory that fits the constructivist approach would be the constructivism theories created by Piaget and Vygotsky. Their early works were instrumental in developing the concept of constructivism in which students “in the quest for understanding, link new knowledge to prior knowledge and construct new meaning”. (Arends, 2004, p. 397) This approach allows students to focus on using their prior knowledge and experiences as a guide to increase their knowledge and establish higher- order thinking processes. This exploration will allow student to move forward through their zone of proximal development and learn to the best of their individual abilities.
4. / 5. By drawing upon past life and/or teaching experiences, where has direct instruction and constructivist styles worked for you?
My teaching experiences focus mainly on teaching physics and robotics. Both of these courses have an arranged set of formulas and procedures that must be understood and followed in order for success. It is in introducing these topics that I often put on my “direct instruction” hat. I cannot ask a student to map out the electrical wiring on their robot if he/she has no understanding of the underlying principles of electric circuits. To allow students to go out on their own and work solely on their prior knowledge would be very time consuming (and potentially dangerous!). Explaining the variables in a new physics equation and letting students practice using the new equation with a given set of questions is a very effective means to learn new concepts. However, once the students have the basics down, I put on my constructivist hat (usually in the same class period) and begin to allow students to explore on their own. I challenge them to think where a certain physics concept is relevant or demonstrated in the real world. Now students are able to draw on past experiences and imagine how these new concepts can be manipulated to create new ideas and theories. Open-ended labs and higher-order thinking projects can be created to allow students an opportunity to hypothesize, formulate opinions and test new beliefs without having to worry about delivering the single right answer.
Reference:
Arends, R. (2004). Learning to Teach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Comments welcome, Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
