EDU 533 Reflection Paper

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