Learning Object Reflection
According to Wikipedia.com, a learning object is “a collection of content items, practice items, and assessment items that are combined based on a single learning objective…Learning objects offer a new conceptualization of the learning process: rather than the traditional ‘several hour chunk,’ they provide smaller, self-contained , re-usable units of learning.”
According to Koppi (2004), “there are many definitions of learning objects…Reusability seems integral to the concept…although it is conceivable that some learning materials or activities are so contextual that they are only used once.” He continues, “(t)he more inherently contextual an object is, the less reusable it may be.”
Articulation is also an important concept for learning objects. Koppi (2004) states that “articulation is something that the teacher does with the object by placing it into a context.” Learning object need not necessarily communicate with one another.
Merrill (1999) describes learning object as “containers consisting of slots including: name, portrayal, and description. The name contains one or more symbols or terms that reference the knowledge. The portrayal is one or more multimedia objects (text, audio, video, graphic, animation) that will show or represent the knowledge object to the student. The description slot is an open compartment into which an author can place any desired information about the knowledge object.”
I think that it is easy to see how learning objects would be useful to the instructional designer. As mentioned in the lecture, however, the ID needs to be aware of the context in which the learning object was created, lest his lesson become a patchwork quilt learning activities with little or no internal cohesion. There appears to be an economic side to the use of learning objects: indeed, it makes little sense to reinvent the wheel, and if someone has created a learning activity that can be employed within the lesson the ID is creating, it simply makes sense to integrate it rather than create a whole new learning activity. Thus time and money are saved. I think a lot of time might be spent hunting for the perfect learning object. As long as they are efficiently indexed, I see no problem with using them.
Certainly I would use learning objects in my lessons. They’re convenient, one draws upon the intellectual capital of other designers, and they can, as already indicated, save much time when putting a lesson together.
I found some great resources having to do with learning objects, such as this learning object tutorial:
http://www.eduworks.com/index.php/Publications/Learning-Object-Tutorial.html
And here’s a handy little repository from Rice University:
http://cnx.org/
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Cognitive Flexibility Theory Reflection
Cognitive Flexibility Reflection
What would happen if the internet, with its hypertext capabilities, and constructivist educational psychology got married and had a child? I think the child’s name would be “Cognitive Flexibility.”
According to Jacobson (1995), CFT addresses “empirically identified problems associated with the acquisition and transfer of complex knowledge.” Using the study of a geographical location as a metaphor, he states that a “rich and flexible understanding of a complex conceptual landscape will emerge only after the learner has made numerous transversals of the domain from different intellectual perspectives.”
Jonassen (1992) describes Cognitive Flexibility (CF) as a theory that provides “a meaningful, case-based approach to accessing information. Learners access information that they need to solve (a) particular case.” He also maintains that “(c)ognitive flexibility theory avoids oversimplifying instruction, provides multiple representations of content, emphasized case-based instruction which results in context-dependent knowledge, and supports knowledge construction and complexity which enables the learner to investigate the multiple perspectives represented in the knowledge domain in an exploratory way.”
CFT prescribes the following five principles as antidotes for the oversimplification of educational approaches:
1. Use multiple conceptual representations of knowledge
“CFT recommends employing multiple ways to represent knowledge in instructional activities…to reflect more accurately the multifaceted nature of complex knowledge.”
2. Link and tailor abstract concepts to different case examples
“CFT recommends illustrating abstract concepts using multiple case examples to demonstrate to the learner the nuances of abstract conceptual variability associated with ill-structured domains.”
3. Introduce domain complexity early
“CFT recommends the early introduction of complexity in a cognitively manageable manner that still reflects some of the multifaceted interactions of various conceptual elements.”
4. Stress the interrelated and web-like nature of knowledge
“CFT proposes that the demonstration of conceptual interrelationships in multiple contexts helps cultivate a rich and flexible understanding of a complex content area.”
5. Encourage knowledge assembly
“CFT proposes that the learner assemble relevant abstract conceptual and case-specific knowledge components for a given application or problem-solving task.”
So what we have here is a methodology which adapts to the flexible way in which we store and retrieve knowledge. Given the epistemic paradigm that learning is more than rote memorization, and that there is no "one size fits all" educational experience, the learner utilizing this approach may expect to synthesize cases and adapt them for his/her use as necessary. This is, of course, an approach suitable for problem-based and case-based education where situations are ill-defined. It appears to be extremely well-matched with the hypertext language of the internet, and affords the learner the flexibility to explore knowledge and transverse the intellectual universe from all desired angles. As the lady in the video says, "you are the learning management system!"
I think that this is an incredibly well-thought out approach, but it seems that one needs a programmer well-versed in HTML and Flash in order to pull off a really good educational product. The subject being taught is also of importance: it is recommended for ill-defined domains such as law and medicine, where no two cases are exactly alike and thus must draw from different perspectives and situations. I would have liked to have seen an example of this approach in a domain other than history: my opinion of this approach is not as concretized as I would like, not having seen such examples.
Drawbacks naturally are the time and expense involved in creation of curricula using this approach. Once again, companies specializing in multimedia educational products could easily produce lessons in this format while the average classroom teacher is left in the dust. Students with the belief that ill-defined problems are best approached in this manner will clearly benefit, otherwise it could be wasted effort.
Given the resources, certainly I would use this approach when creating instruction. It adapts well to internet usage and is supported by research to combat oversimplified educational methodologies. Anyone with a website could put together a lesson with this approach, but, once again, you might need a crackerjack html programmer to help put it together.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Reflection on Case-Based Learning
Wang (2003) describes Case-Based Learning as “a means for collecting, indexing, accessing, and analyzing cases.”
According to the Queen’s University Centre for Teaching and Learning, the eleven rules for Case-Based Learning are:
1. Tells a story
2. Focuses on an interest-arousing issue
3. Set in the past five years
4. Creates empathy with the central characters
5. Includes quotations. There is no better way to understand a situation and to gain empathy for the characters
6. Relevant to the reader
7. Must have pedagogic utility
8. Conflict provoking
9. Decision forcing
10. Has generality
11. Is short
Case-Based Learning strikes me as being a very practical, well-thought-out technique for teaching certain courses which require higher-order thinking skills, foremost among them, problem-solving and synthesis. Synthesis requires that the learner take an idea and mold it to fit his situation. There are no “right or wrong” answers in this approach…just plenty of divergent thinking with the goal of producing multiple responses that would adequately fit the situations for which they are intended. Once again, learning is student-centered and there is plenty of room for collaboration, and situations are relevant as well as authentic.
Jonassen (2002) describes stories as “the most natural and powerful formalism for storing and describing experiential knowledge that is essential to problem solving…Problems are solved by retrieving similar past experiences in the form of stories and applying the lessons learned from those stories to the new problems.” He further describes the ability of human intellect to synthesize and incorporate ideas when he states that “(t)he memory structures used for understanding the story are the same as those used to carry out the task…(g)iven the lack of previous experiences by novices, experiences available through a case library are expected to augment their repertoire of experiences by connecting with those they have experienced.”
Creation of a case library is central to this approach. Jonassen (2002) states that “(t)he process of understanding and solving new problems using case libraries has three parts:
1. Recalling old experiences
2. Interpreting the new situation in terms of the old experience based on the lessons that we learned from the old experience
3. Adapting the old solution to meet the needs of the new situation
This approach simply makes too much sense. All of us, when faced with a difficult situation, have asked people whose opinions we trust how they dealt with that particular situation. More often than not, those people are glad to tell us their stories so that we may synthesize their previously acquired wisdom to fit our situation. This is education in its most natural form, and teachers and instructional designers should be encouraged to use it generously.
There are a couple of difficulties, however, with this approach. As usual, the time required to create CBL is prohibitive, unless it will be used with repetition. Mass production by an educational firm once again is the cure for that ill. There is also the problem of finding authoritative persons who will be willing to give of their time and efforts to relate their own experiences on a wholesale basis.
I would not hesitate to use this theory because of the philosophical basis upon which the theory is designed. Authenticity, well-adapted to multimedia making it accessible to any student at any time, students have the ability to draw upon the intellectual capital of others and synthesize it for their own purposes, the list goes on and on.
Educational modules can easily be presented via internet using video broadcast media including Youtube and Ustream. Wikis, chatrooms , and collaboration sites such as Elluminate and Skype are the perfect companion to video broadcast sites. Not to mention websites presenting the good old standby, text.
Many in this class have already taken ECI 716, “Design & Evaluation of Instructional Materials.” Those who have taken this course have already been introduced to case-based learning, as videos were created for that course that describe situations that instructional designers have faced and require that students reflect upon the material and draw information for their own purposes.
According to the Queen’s University Centre for Teaching and Learning, the eleven rules for Case-Based Learning are:
1. Tells a story
2. Focuses on an interest-arousing issue
3. Set in the past five years
4. Creates empathy with the central characters
5. Includes quotations. There is no better way to understand a situation and to gain empathy for the characters
6. Relevant to the reader
7. Must have pedagogic utility
8. Conflict provoking
9. Decision forcing
10. Has generality
11. Is short
Case-Based Learning strikes me as being a very practical, well-thought-out technique for teaching certain courses which require higher-order thinking skills, foremost among them, problem-solving and synthesis. Synthesis requires that the learner take an idea and mold it to fit his situation. There are no “right or wrong” answers in this approach…just plenty of divergent thinking with the goal of producing multiple responses that would adequately fit the situations for which they are intended. Once again, learning is student-centered and there is plenty of room for collaboration, and situations are relevant as well as authentic.
Jonassen (2002) describes stories as “the most natural and powerful formalism for storing and describing experiential knowledge that is essential to problem solving…Problems are solved by retrieving similar past experiences in the form of stories and applying the lessons learned from those stories to the new problems.” He further describes the ability of human intellect to synthesize and incorporate ideas when he states that “(t)he memory structures used for understanding the story are the same as those used to carry out the task…(g)iven the lack of previous experiences by novices, experiences available through a case library are expected to augment their repertoire of experiences by connecting with those they have experienced.”
Creation of a case library is central to this approach. Jonassen (2002) states that “(t)he process of understanding and solving new problems using case libraries has three parts:
1. Recalling old experiences
2. Interpreting the new situation in terms of the old experience based on the lessons that we learned from the old experience
3. Adapting the old solution to meet the needs of the new situation
This approach simply makes too much sense. All of us, when faced with a difficult situation, have asked people whose opinions we trust how they dealt with that particular situation. More often than not, those people are glad to tell us their stories so that we may synthesize their previously acquired wisdom to fit our situation. This is education in its most natural form, and teachers and instructional designers should be encouraged to use it generously.
There are a couple of difficulties, however, with this approach. As usual, the time required to create CBL is prohibitive, unless it will be used with repetition. Mass production by an educational firm once again is the cure for that ill. There is also the problem of finding authoritative persons who will be willing to give of their time and efforts to relate their own experiences on a wholesale basis.
I would not hesitate to use this theory because of the philosophical basis upon which the theory is designed. Authenticity, well-adapted to multimedia making it accessible to any student at any time, students have the ability to draw upon the intellectual capital of others and synthesize it for their own purposes, the list goes on and on.
Educational modules can easily be presented via internet using video broadcast media including Youtube and Ustream. Wikis, chatrooms , and collaboration sites such as Elluminate and Skype are the perfect companion to video broadcast sites. Not to mention websites presenting the good old standby, text.
Many in this class have already taken ECI 716, “Design & Evaluation of Instructional Materials.” Those who have taken this course have already been introduced to case-based learning, as videos were created for that course that describe situations that instructional designers have faced and require that students reflect upon the material and draw information for their own purposes.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Reflection on MOST Environments
“A major goal of MOST environments is to accelerate children’s learning by organizing instruction around rich, meaningful “macrocontexts” that students and teachers can mutually share and explore…(w)e want to make it possible for children who are at risk of school failure to interact with, teach, and learn from other students who may be more developmentally advanced.”
There is no question that “(l)iteracy skills are foundational for lifelong learning” and that “(s)uccess is particularly important at the beginning stages of reading because strategies, behaviors, and beliefs established early are difficult to change.” It is probably true as well that “at-risk students often receive instruction in phonics, vocabulary and decoding, where each is taught as an isolated skill that is unintegrated with other aspects of thinking and learning.”
Maybe it’s because I have no background in teaching reading or working with at-risk students. Or maybe I’m getting crusty in my old age. Whatever the reason may be, I’m not terribly impressed by this approach.
Our reading related an anecdote where some at-risk students were read a story and others saw the video version of the same story. The students who saw the video version were more able than the others to “retell the story and answer the comprehension questions.” Facepalm. Of course they were. One normally extracts more understanding of a story through use of video than solely through use of text.
Another important feature in this methodology is telling the story to a puppet. As one who intends to create instruction to be administered by Internet or other A-V means, I am struggling to imagine young readers telling the story to an inanimate object after seeing the video on the computer, or even in a classroom. I see frustration looming. Money’s scarce, maybe they can “talk to the hand!”
After reading about the anecdote about using video to support a story about Donald Duck. It seems interesting, has some degree of common sense, but the time and technology required to dice up a story and interject video in strategic locations would be prohibitive. Once again, time and money rear their ugly heads.
I’m sure that I am coming off as bitterly opposed to this approach, and in reality, I am not, it is just that I think that there are better methods for teaching reading comprehension to at-risk students, especially via Internet. If studies show that this approach is effective, so be it. I’m just not excited about children relating stories to puppets and creating a rubric that will determine that child’s reading scores. Teachers can always motivate students to read by choosing books and magazines which appeal to the students.
I began to wonder whatever happened to Sesame Street. As far as I know, the show was cancelled years ago, but it seemed to be fairly effective at teaching children how to read. Children loved the characters, and there was plenty of music and special effects to bedazzle younger learners, essentially selling them on the idea of reading. So I did a little research, and, surely enough, Sesame Street continues to influence the teaching of reading to younger students:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8404427/Phonics-QandA-why-Sesame-Street-learning-is-making-a-comeback.html
I decided to do a little research and came across a Master’s Thesis by Ellen K. Closs. She offers plenty of useful advice on this subject, and after reading her thesis, would tend to lean towards her methodology for teaching younger at-risk readers: Here’s a link to her thesis:
http://www.readinglady.com/mosaic/tools/TeachingReadingComprehensiontoStrugglingReaders-MastersThesisbyEllen.pdf
So, in conclusion, I see time involved and technology needed to create the videos to be a restriction to the use of this approach. If the appropriate videos are manufactured by the folks at Vanderbilt, I suppose they’re worth a shot. At-risk students apparently do benefit from their use, apparently, at least according to the literature. I’m not certain how to assess student learning, unless the students wanted to e-mail their instructor(s) relating what happened in the video.
Once again, I just do not see using this methodology for creation of internet and distance-based education. Embedding information into the videos is absolutely beneficial, and with the time and technology to do so, I suppose that it’s worth the effort. YouTube, Vimeo, and Ustreem would all be excellent ways of transmitting the videos to interested parties.
As for the puppets…well…the students can find their own!
There is no question that “(l)iteracy skills are foundational for lifelong learning” and that “(s)uccess is particularly important at the beginning stages of reading because strategies, behaviors, and beliefs established early are difficult to change.” It is probably true as well that “at-risk students often receive instruction in phonics, vocabulary and decoding, where each is taught as an isolated skill that is unintegrated with other aspects of thinking and learning.”
Maybe it’s because I have no background in teaching reading or working with at-risk students. Or maybe I’m getting crusty in my old age. Whatever the reason may be, I’m not terribly impressed by this approach.
Our reading related an anecdote where some at-risk students were read a story and others saw the video version of the same story. The students who saw the video version were more able than the others to “retell the story and answer the comprehension questions.” Facepalm. Of course they were. One normally extracts more understanding of a story through use of video than solely through use of text.
Another important feature in this methodology is telling the story to a puppet. As one who intends to create instruction to be administered by Internet or other A-V means, I am struggling to imagine young readers telling the story to an inanimate object after seeing the video on the computer, or even in a classroom. I see frustration looming. Money’s scarce, maybe they can “talk to the hand!”
After reading about the anecdote about using video to support a story about Donald Duck. It seems interesting, has some degree of common sense, but the time and technology required to dice up a story and interject video in strategic locations would be prohibitive. Once again, time and money rear their ugly heads.
I’m sure that I am coming off as bitterly opposed to this approach, and in reality, I am not, it is just that I think that there are better methods for teaching reading comprehension to at-risk students, especially via Internet. If studies show that this approach is effective, so be it. I’m just not excited about children relating stories to puppets and creating a rubric that will determine that child’s reading scores. Teachers can always motivate students to read by choosing books and magazines which appeal to the students.
I began to wonder whatever happened to Sesame Street. As far as I know, the show was cancelled years ago, but it seemed to be fairly effective at teaching children how to read. Children loved the characters, and there was plenty of music and special effects to bedazzle younger learners, essentially selling them on the idea of reading. So I did a little research, and, surely enough, Sesame Street continues to influence the teaching of reading to younger students:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8404427/Phonics-QandA-why-Sesame-Street-learning-is-making-a-comeback.html
I decided to do a little research and came across a Master’s Thesis by Ellen K. Closs. She offers plenty of useful advice on this subject, and after reading her thesis, would tend to lean towards her methodology for teaching younger at-risk readers: Here’s a link to her thesis:
http://www.readinglady.com/mosaic/tools/TeachingReadingComprehensiontoStrugglingReaders-MastersThesisbyEllen.pdf
So, in conclusion, I see time involved and technology needed to create the videos to be a restriction to the use of this approach. If the appropriate videos are manufactured by the folks at Vanderbilt, I suppose they’re worth a shot. At-risk students apparently do benefit from their use, apparently, at least according to the literature. I’m not certain how to assess student learning, unless the students wanted to e-mail their instructor(s) relating what happened in the video.
Once again, I just do not see using this methodology for creation of internet and distance-based education. Embedding information into the videos is absolutely beneficial, and with the time and technology to do so, I suppose that it’s worth the effort. YouTube, Vimeo, and Ustreem would all be excellent ways of transmitting the videos to interested parties.
As for the puppets…well…the students can find their own!
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Star Legacy Reflection
The Star Legacy approach is described to be similar to Anchored Instruction, but as I am reading the steps involved, I am struck by its similarity to Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction:
1. Gain attention
2. Inform learner of objectives
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning
4. Present stimulus material
5. Provide learner guidance
6. Elicit performance
7. Provide feedback
8. Assess performance
9. Enhance retention and transfer
The only apparent differences to me between Star Legacy and Gagne are the emphases on context, statements by experts on the problem being addressed (which I suppose could loosely be kin to “provide learner guidance) and on the publishing of final results. Plus, there is the reflective thinking of Dewey that we have come to expect in all of our methodologies.
There is also an eerie similarity to Guided Design:
1. Define Problem
2. State Objectives
3. List Constraints limiting solutions, assumptions one must make, and facts to be known,
4. Generate possible solutions and evaluate using criteria,
5. Select one solution, synthesize,
6. Present results and recommendations as a result, or other project
7. Implement decision,
8. Evaluate results, and
9. Feedback should be provided how an “experienced” decision maker might have performed.
Or maybe all the methodologies are just starting to look alike!
As in Anchored Instruction, this is a marvelous methodology for maximum metacognition (sorry ‘bout the alliteration, it just worked out that way!) We are given a problem that piques our interest, one which is meaningful and authentic…our attention is retained with a motivating mental model (there, did it again!)…we find out what we know and what we need to find out…then we begin to generate ideas in concert with our peers, utilizing perspectives from experts….then we begin to refine our ideas through research…we get feedback from the instructor…our ideas are put to the test…then, once our ideas have gained the “academic seal of approval”, we herald our newly-founded intellectual prowess to others so that others may benefit from our accomplishments!
As with AI, this would be an extremely time-consuming approach for the average classroom teacher to create. However, I think it would be an outstanding approach IF the appropriate software were made available. The learning cycle is the heart of this approach, and therefore the software to be used should adhere to the learning cycle. This would make a most worthwhile endeavor for software developers specializing in educational applications. Obviously the program would need to be made available to the students either online or as software. There appears to be a flexibility that allows adaptation to various disciplines, plus the philosophical foundation of this approach so greatly resembles other well-thought out approaches, so I would not hesitate to use it for teaching and training.
1. Gain attention
2. Inform learner of objectives
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning
4. Present stimulus material
5. Provide learner guidance
6. Elicit performance
7. Provide feedback
8. Assess performance
9. Enhance retention and transfer
The only apparent differences to me between Star Legacy and Gagne are the emphases on context, statements by experts on the problem being addressed (which I suppose could loosely be kin to “provide learner guidance) and on the publishing of final results. Plus, there is the reflective thinking of Dewey that we have come to expect in all of our methodologies.
There is also an eerie similarity to Guided Design:
1. Define Problem
2. State Objectives
3. List Constraints limiting solutions, assumptions one must make, and facts to be known,
4. Generate possible solutions and evaluate using criteria,
5. Select one solution, synthesize,
6. Present results and recommendations as a result, or other project
7. Implement decision,
8. Evaluate results, and
9. Feedback should be provided how an “experienced” decision maker might have performed.
Or maybe all the methodologies are just starting to look alike!
As in Anchored Instruction, this is a marvelous methodology for maximum metacognition (sorry ‘bout the alliteration, it just worked out that way!) We are given a problem that piques our interest, one which is meaningful and authentic…our attention is retained with a motivating mental model (there, did it again!)…we find out what we know and what we need to find out…then we begin to generate ideas in concert with our peers, utilizing perspectives from experts….then we begin to refine our ideas through research…we get feedback from the instructor…our ideas are put to the test…then, once our ideas have gained the “academic seal of approval”, we herald our newly-founded intellectual prowess to others so that others may benefit from our accomplishments!
As with AI, this would be an extremely time-consuming approach for the average classroom teacher to create. However, I think it would be an outstanding approach IF the appropriate software were made available. The learning cycle is the heart of this approach, and therefore the software to be used should adhere to the learning cycle. This would make a most worthwhile endeavor for software developers specializing in educational applications. Obviously the program would need to be made available to the students either online or as software. There appears to be a flexibility that allows adaptation to various disciplines, plus the philosophical foundation of this approach so greatly resembles other well-thought out approaches, so I would not hesitate to use it for teaching and training.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Reflection on Anchored Instruction
Reflection on Anchored Instruction
The Anchored Instruction approach appears to be an eclectic amalgam of the best features of Situated Cognition, Problem-Based Learning Environments, and Goal Based Scenarios. Anchored Instruction is described as “situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers. In the process, they come to understand why, when, and how to use various concepts and strategies.” Once again, as in past models, there is an emphasis on helping students to become “independent thinkers and learners rather than simply become able to perform basic computations and retrieve simple knowledge facts.”
In similar manner as Situated Cognition, I am enamored by the idea of “creating apprenticeships composed of authentic tasks.” What a change would be made in our typical math and science classes, if we were to infuse some authenticity! Subject matter, as is, tends to be inert and irrelevant to real life situations, and most of the approaches we have been studying are directed toward this problem.
In fact, there’s really little not to like about the Anchored Instruction approach. The format is video-based, narrative with realistic problems, generative, embedded data design, challenging in the level of problem complexity, introduces transferable problem-solving skills, and links across the curriculum. What else can a math or science teacher ask for?
I find it highly encouraging that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has made suggestions for changes in classroom activities, such as “more emphasis on complex, open-minded problem solving, communication, and reasoning…more connections from mathematics to other subjects, and to the world outside the classroom…and more use of calculators and…computer-based tools.” Anchored Instruction capitalizes on these recommendations in an innovative manner, I think, highly desirable for today’s classroom or for e-learning.
Just as Anchored Instruction is reminiscent of other approaches, so will be my reservations. The time taken to create adventures such as the ones described would be exorbitant, and as long as they were created and published on videodisk, they would probably be ideal. Since this class is more about e-learning than about classroom environments, publishing adventures online would be a wonderful way to convey the adventures. Then, also, is the concern that students learn the curriculum prescribed by the State Board of Education. If, however, this approach follows the guidelines of the NCTM, I think it reasonable to assume that the State Board would be satisfied.
Once again, Elluminate and Skype would be excellent ways for groups to collaborate, but after seeing the video I am linking to this post, I think that problems could arise when students are not located in the same geographic location. Second Life has not been mentioned so far, and that could prove to be an excellent means for collaboration.
It appears also to be of enormous benefit to those with reading disabilities. I particularly like the emphasis on the use of video disk for that reason, plus the other reasons given in our readings:
It allows students to develop pattern recognition skills
Allows students to more easily form rich mental models of the problem situations, and
Random-access capabilities: allows teachers to almost instantly access information for discussion.
I also like the fact that material is embedded in the video, making it possible for students to review the video while generating solutions to the problems posed. I also like its emphasis on linking to other subjects and giving students practice in addressing complex problems using open-ended thinking, which they’ll need in the real world.
All in all, I think that a creative team of Flash and Java developers, or just some creative people with film-making skills, could put together a wicked little curriculum which would not only motivate online students, but enable them to develop the thinking skills needed for the outside world!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlsnYwp870
The Anchored Instruction approach appears to be an eclectic amalgam of the best features of Situated Cognition, Problem-Based Learning Environments, and Goal Based Scenarios. Anchored Instruction is described as “situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers. In the process, they come to understand why, when, and how to use various concepts and strategies.” Once again, as in past models, there is an emphasis on helping students to become “independent thinkers and learners rather than simply become able to perform basic computations and retrieve simple knowledge facts.”
In similar manner as Situated Cognition, I am enamored by the idea of “creating apprenticeships composed of authentic tasks.” What a change would be made in our typical math and science classes, if we were to infuse some authenticity! Subject matter, as is, tends to be inert and irrelevant to real life situations, and most of the approaches we have been studying are directed toward this problem.
In fact, there’s really little not to like about the Anchored Instruction approach. The format is video-based, narrative with realistic problems, generative, embedded data design, challenging in the level of problem complexity, introduces transferable problem-solving skills, and links across the curriculum. What else can a math or science teacher ask for?
I find it highly encouraging that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has made suggestions for changes in classroom activities, such as “more emphasis on complex, open-minded problem solving, communication, and reasoning…more connections from mathematics to other subjects, and to the world outside the classroom…and more use of calculators and…computer-based tools.” Anchored Instruction capitalizes on these recommendations in an innovative manner, I think, highly desirable for today’s classroom or for e-learning.
Just as Anchored Instruction is reminiscent of other approaches, so will be my reservations. The time taken to create adventures such as the ones described would be exorbitant, and as long as they were created and published on videodisk, they would probably be ideal. Since this class is more about e-learning than about classroom environments, publishing adventures online would be a wonderful way to convey the adventures. Then, also, is the concern that students learn the curriculum prescribed by the State Board of Education. If, however, this approach follows the guidelines of the NCTM, I think it reasonable to assume that the State Board would be satisfied.
Once again, Elluminate and Skype would be excellent ways for groups to collaborate, but after seeing the video I am linking to this post, I think that problems could arise when students are not located in the same geographic location. Second Life has not been mentioned so far, and that could prove to be an excellent means for collaboration.
It appears also to be of enormous benefit to those with reading disabilities. I particularly like the emphasis on the use of video disk for that reason, plus the other reasons given in our readings:
It allows students to develop pattern recognition skills
Allows students to more easily form rich mental models of the problem situations, and
Random-access capabilities: allows teachers to almost instantly access information for discussion.
I also like the fact that material is embedded in the video, making it possible for students to review the video while generating solutions to the problems posed. I also like its emphasis on linking to other subjects and giving students practice in addressing complex problems using open-ended thinking, which they’ll need in the real world.
All in all, I think that a creative team of Flash and Java developers, or just some creative people with film-making skills, could put together a wicked little curriculum which would not only motivate online students, but enable them to develop the thinking skills needed for the outside world!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlsnYwp870
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)