What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in this unit? Do the theories/models in this unit share any common foundations or principles?
The one connection among the theories and models in this Unit is that the Cognitive Flexibility theory and case-based methods could utilize learning objects in their implementation. Both the Cognitive Flex theory and case-based methods are more contextual than learning objects. Learning objects are not a learning theory or model and should be decontextualized for sustainability.
What are your initial reactions to these theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
Cognitive Flexibility theory (CFT), case-based models and learning objects would all take a great deal of time and effort to prepare and implement. The creation of learning objects would require certain, more technical skill sets (e.g. programming, flash and other multimedia creation) that faculty may not have. (Nor should they be expected to have.) So, learning objects may require a third-party person such as an instructional designer for their creation. However, once created, they can be used multiples times and so the upfront time and costs would make it worthwhile.
CFT as well as the case-based models would be more suitable for adult learners due to their complexity and because they are closely tied to constructivism, building on what is already known or prior experiences.
Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not?
I see a lot of potential in the building of learning object repositories where educators can find a multitude of free learning objects. I would implement learning objects (LO) in my own courses as well as create LOs for sharing. With the surge in Web 2.0 technologies and tools - it is becoming easier to create learning objects with little technical expertise. LMS vendors are making it easier to find (via access to a repository) and implement learning objects within their systems (using SCORM). It's important to create a culture of sharing when it comes to learning objects - which *I think* has been done with the increase in open source technologies. So, what is the incentive for educators to share their learning objects? I think knowing that they have access to a multitude of free learning objectives is the incentive itself.
What Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?
iSpring Free - PowerPoint add-on which allows you to crate SCORM compliant content
iSpring Free Quizmaker - create SCORM compliant quizzes
Udutu - a new one I found, haven't used it but looks like something worth checking out.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Context-Based Instruction & Multimedia
What
are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in the
unit on contextual learning? Do the theories/models in this unit share
any common foundations or principles?
Most apparent, the key similarity is that all
the all the theories discussed in this Unit support contextual learning. Rooted in the constructivist approach,
contextual learning integrates course content with situations or issues that
are meaningful to students. Each theory
discussed in this unit - Goal-based Scenarios, Anchored Instruction, STAR
Legacy and MOST Environments - has the following characteristics:
- Emphasizes problem solving
- Recognizes that teaching and learning need to occur in multiple contexts
- Assists students in learning how to monitor their learning so that they can become self-regulated learners
- Anchors teaching in the diverse life context of students
- Encourages students to learn from each other
- Employs authentic assessment
How are these models different? Some of these theories incorporate
group/collaborative learning. For
example, an important facet in Anchored Instruction is that students work in
groups to solve problems. Whereas
students could work alone when the other models are implemented – GBS, STAR and
MOST. Lastly, some models are more
complex and would be more difficult to actualize on the web. While the MOST model can be carried out on
the web, it would likely require an advanced technical skill set to re-create
some of the story restructuring activities on the web.
What
are your initial reactions to these contextual learning theories/models?
What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those
who overcome the barriers?
My initial reaction is that these models can
be very beneficial to students because it allows them to work through
real-world problems. Students are not
just memorizing and regurgitating facts and figures but they are learning how
to gather the data they need to solve an authentic problem they may encounter
outside of the classroom.
One possible barrier of using these contextual
models is that is takes much more time to develop course content/lessons (as opposed
to a lecture.) Also, the teacher must
know and understand how the content relates to students in their everyday
lives. However, allowing students to
learn in context will allow them to connect the material to their everyday lives
and will increase the likelihood that they retain the information – and know
how to use it.
Would
you attempt to use any of these contextual theories/models with the students
you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why
not?
As a person who appreciates a lot of
structure, I am instantly drawn to the STAR Legacy model because the 5 step
cycle is clearly defined. This model
provides ample opportunities to assess students’ learning to monitor their
progress. It also enables the instructor
to present content using a wide array of methods and using all kinds of
multimedia. (So it also appeals to the “techie”
in me!)
What
Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these
learning theories/models online?
Well, this list could be quite extensive, but
I’ll try to narrow it down to a few that appeal to me:
Prezi – to present content, an alternative to PowerPoint or other presentation software
Jing – to create videos of something on your screen (screencasting)
Quandary – create web-based action mazes – would be good for creating a branching type activity or ‘choose the correct path’ activity
Polldaddy – online polls, assessments (can be embedded into your own site)
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Group-Based Collaborative Instruction and Multimedia
What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in the unit on Collaborative Instruction? Do the theories/models in this unit share any common foundations or principles?
Most obvious, each theory/model discussed in the unit on Collaborative Instruction incorporates group work in some fashion. The Cooperative Learning theory may be the theory which best promotes group work – or rather group success. Students need one another in order to complete the group’s task….enforcing positive interdependence. Particularly with the jigsaw approach – each group member must research a particular topic and in the end will be responsible for teaching their group members about the topic for which they were responsible. If one group member doesn't follow through with their research, then the others in the group will be penalized.
Also, each theory/model allows students to complete authentic activities which allow learning to take place in situations that are more real than contrived. Authentic activities also allow for multiple interpretations and outcomes. Rather than yielding a single solution, authentic activities allow for diverse and sometimes competing solutions. Students are able to solve real-world problems when these learning theories are implemented in the classroom.
Active Learning definitely comes to mind while discussing these collaborative theories. All collaborative learning models discussed fit under the Active Learning umbrella where learning becomes the responsibility of the learner.
The one theory which seems the least “collaborative” and doesn't promote group work as well as the other theories/models discussed is the Cognitive Apprenticeship theory. This constructivist approach to learning emphasizes the relationship between the expert (teacher) and the apprentice (student). The steps involved in Cognitive Apprenticeship do not blatantly state “group work” as part of the process, however, it is not to say that this approach cannot benefit from the inclusion of group work.
What are your initial reactions to these Collaborative learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
One barrier which comes to mind is one which may be encountered when putting the Cooperative Learning theory into practice. Because students are placed into heterogeneous groups – the students which normally perform better may not do as well when grouped with students who are poor performers.
Disinterested students would also be a barrier in these Collaborative approaches. Because students must be an active participant in their learning, a disinterested student will not perform well. This will always be a problem in any type of instruction, however this problem with not only affect the disinterested student but also his/her group members.
When barriers (like the ones described above) are overcome, students will learn to work with a diverse population. The “quiet” more passive students will learn to work with more aggressive students. The “faster” learners will learn to slow down for “slower” ones and vice versa. Ultimately, students will encounter these same situations once they are out of school, so learning to work with people who are different will be very beneficial.
Would you attempt to use any of these Collaborative theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not?
If I were to implement one of these models, I’d likely choose the Cooperative Learning model and in particular, the jigsaw method. This method teaches students to be efficient – it also prepares students for working in groups outside of the classroom. The jigsaw method promotes discussion, peer learning, problem-solving….and the list goes on. All of which are valuable outside the classroom.
This method also allows the instructor to spend less time lecturing on a topic – teachers become facilitators. Time being of utmost importance for instructors – the time it takes to carry out this technique can generally take the same amount of time it would take to lecture on the given topic. There is little work that the instructor would need to do in advance to carry out the jigsaw method. I can also envision the jigsaw method being accomplished in the online environment. With the addition of various web 2.0 tools – the method can be successful in an online course.
What Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?
Wikis – Google docs, Wikispaces
Online Discussion Forums (not synchronous) – Collaborize Classroom, Google groups, Discussion Forum tools are normally “built-in” as part of any learning management system.
Synchronous collaboration tools – Blackboard Collaborate, Google Hangouts, Skype, Webex
Mind Mapping – bubbl.us, MindMeister, FreeMind
Web Presentation – Prezi, Slideshare, Sliderocket, Voicethread, Google sites
Most obvious, each theory/model discussed in the unit on Collaborative Instruction incorporates group work in some fashion. The Cooperative Learning theory may be the theory which best promotes group work – or rather group success. Students need one another in order to complete the group’s task….enforcing positive interdependence. Particularly with the jigsaw approach – each group member must research a particular topic and in the end will be responsible for teaching their group members about the topic for which they were responsible. If one group member doesn't follow through with their research, then the others in the group will be penalized.
Also, each theory/model allows students to complete authentic activities which allow learning to take place in situations that are more real than contrived. Authentic activities also allow for multiple interpretations and outcomes. Rather than yielding a single solution, authentic activities allow for diverse and sometimes competing solutions. Students are able to solve real-world problems when these learning theories are implemented in the classroom.
Active Learning definitely comes to mind while discussing these collaborative theories. All collaborative learning models discussed fit under the Active Learning umbrella where learning becomes the responsibility of the learner.
The one theory which seems the least “collaborative” and doesn't promote group work as well as the other theories/models discussed is the Cognitive Apprenticeship theory. This constructivist approach to learning emphasizes the relationship between the expert (teacher) and the apprentice (student). The steps involved in Cognitive Apprenticeship do not blatantly state “group work” as part of the process, however, it is not to say that this approach cannot benefit from the inclusion of group work.
What are your initial reactions to these Collaborative learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
One barrier which comes to mind is one which may be encountered when putting the Cooperative Learning theory into practice. Because students are placed into heterogeneous groups – the students which normally perform better may not do as well when grouped with students who are poor performers.
Disinterested students would also be a barrier in these Collaborative approaches. Because students must be an active participant in their learning, a disinterested student will not perform well. This will always be a problem in any type of instruction, however this problem with not only affect the disinterested student but also his/her group members.
When barriers (like the ones described above) are overcome, students will learn to work with a diverse population. The “quiet” more passive students will learn to work with more aggressive students. The “faster” learners will learn to slow down for “slower” ones and vice versa. Ultimately, students will encounter these same situations once they are out of school, so learning to work with people who are different will be very beneficial.
Would you attempt to use any of these Collaborative theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not?
If I were to implement one of these models, I’d likely choose the Cooperative Learning model and in particular, the jigsaw method. This method teaches students to be efficient – it also prepares students for working in groups outside of the classroom. The jigsaw method promotes discussion, peer learning, problem-solving….and the list goes on. All of which are valuable outside the classroom.
This method also allows the instructor to spend less time lecturing on a topic – teachers become facilitators. Time being of utmost importance for instructors – the time it takes to carry out this technique can generally take the same amount of time it would take to lecture on the given topic. There is little work that the instructor would need to do in advance to carry out the jigsaw method. I can also envision the jigsaw method being accomplished in the online environment. With the addition of various web 2.0 tools – the method can be successful in an online course.
What Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?
Wikis – Google docs, Wikispaces
Online Discussion Forums (not synchronous) – Collaborize Classroom, Google groups, Discussion Forum tools are normally “built-in” as part of any learning management system.
Synchronous collaboration tools – Blackboard Collaborate, Google Hangouts, Skype, Webex
Mind Mapping – bubbl.us, MindMeister, FreeMind
Web Presentation – Prezi, Slideshare, Sliderocket, Voicethread, Google sites
Monday, September 3, 2012
Individualized Instruction Methods - PSI and A-T
What are the key similarities or striking differences between Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio-Tutorial (A-T)? Do the theories/models share any common foundations or principles?
Both the A-T model and PSI are similar in that they require students to be motivated learners. I agree with others who say these models may not be a good fit for K-12. There is a certain level of maturity students need before they can be responsible for their own learning. Both models de-emphasize lectures – which is one of the more prominent similarities.
One of the major differences I see is that the A-T method introduces the Small Assembly Session (aka “groups”) whereas the steps in the PSI method do not involve students assembling with other students in a small group. Also, the PSI method may enable students to work more at their own pace than the A-T method. If there are specifics dates/times where students gather for a Small Assembly Session or General Assembly Session – students may need to have mastered certain topics before these assemblies. For example, students might be required to take a quiz in the SAS – so they would have to be prepared – so I don’t think it enables the student to move entirely as his/her own pace. (Although more so than the traditional lecture format)
Both methods require a great deal of time and preparation on the instructor’s part. Whether time is spent developing media for the A-T method or time is spent developing written study guides for PSI – both require a lot of time and work. Maybe more work than preparing for a lecture…but that would depend on the instructor.
What are your initial reactions to PSI and A-T? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
One major barrier would be the time it takes to prepare materials – assessments, study guides, audio or video multimedia. However, if the content does not change frequently, once instructors have taken the time to develop these materials, they could re-use them for one or more semesters (or years, etc) in the future. The obvious benefit – preparation time for the course when taught in the future will be significantly less.
Another barrier would be cost of resources – whether human or technology. The PSI method requires a proctor to give tests/tutoring/feedback – the human factor can be replaced by self-grading exercises/assessments taken online, however costs are also involved in that scenario. Costs may be involved in the following: software, server hardware, human resources needed to develop online assessments. The same applies to the A-T method – you would need the same technology and human resources to develop the audio/video tutorials and interactive activities.
Would you attempt to use PSI or A-T with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of PSI or A-T be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?
I definitely see myself using both models – I envision an integration of the two models. I see myself putting into action the PSI model and replacing or supplementing the written “study-guide” components with audio/video tutorials. It would definitely work for any type of online training or course. Since we have a multitude of technology resources – even the “group” components of A-T can be incorporated in the online environment.
Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?
Both the A-T model and PSI are similar in that they require students to be motivated learners. I agree with others who say these models may not be a good fit for K-12. There is a certain level of maturity students need before they can be responsible for their own learning. Both models de-emphasize lectures – which is one of the more prominent similarities.
One of the major differences I see is that the A-T method introduces the Small Assembly Session (aka “groups”) whereas the steps in the PSI method do not involve students assembling with other students in a small group. Also, the PSI method may enable students to work more at their own pace than the A-T method. If there are specifics dates/times where students gather for a Small Assembly Session or General Assembly Session – students may need to have mastered certain topics before these assemblies. For example, students might be required to take a quiz in the SAS – so they would have to be prepared – so I don’t think it enables the student to move entirely as his/her own pace. (Although more so than the traditional lecture format)
Both methods require a great deal of time and preparation on the instructor’s part. Whether time is spent developing media for the A-T method or time is spent developing written study guides for PSI – both require a lot of time and work. Maybe more work than preparing for a lecture…but that would depend on the instructor.
What are your initial reactions to PSI and A-T? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
One major barrier would be the time it takes to prepare materials – assessments, study guides, audio or video multimedia. However, if the content does not change frequently, once instructors have taken the time to develop these materials, they could re-use them for one or more semesters (or years, etc) in the future. The obvious benefit – preparation time for the course when taught in the future will be significantly less.
Another barrier would be cost of resources – whether human or technology. The PSI method requires a proctor to give tests/tutoring/feedback – the human factor can be replaced by self-grading exercises/assessments taken online, however costs are also involved in that scenario. Costs may be involved in the following: software, server hardware, human resources needed to develop online assessments. The same applies to the A-T method – you would need the same technology and human resources to develop the audio/video tutorials and interactive activities.
Would you attempt to use PSI or A-T with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of PSI or A-T be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?
I definitely see myself using both models – I envision an integration of the two models. I see myself putting into action the PSI model and replacing or supplementing the written “study-guide” components with audio/video tutorials. It would definitely work for any type of online training or course. Since we have a multitude of technology resources – even the “group” components of A-T can be incorporated in the online environment.
Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?
- Blackboard (LMS): can be used for free at Course Sites. Contains a multitude of tools used to deliver content and assess students.
- iSpring: the free version allows you to convert PowerPoint presentations into Flash making them “web friendly.” The vendor also provides a free version of their QuizMaker software which enables the creation of flash quizzes which can be imported into an LMS or simply placed out on the web.
- Audacity: this is a free tool that we use extensively at UNCG. You can create and edit audio files using this software.
- Microsoft Movie Maker: easily create movies using your own slides, images and video footage. Create a “digital story.”
- Google+ : use the "hangouts" feature to have synchronous group sessions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)