Reflection on Davis

Reflection on Davis

“…learning is a very creative activity that can seldom be scheduled. That is, no teacher, no matter how good, can say “You will learn this, now!” Learning is basically an asynchronous, creative adventure. Accordingly, we should attempt to design learning environments that facilitate asynchronous learning experiences for all students. Synchronicity should be a choice not a demand.”

What a profound statement this is, and it is, in my opinion, the most important statement made in this monograph.  Since the beginning of recorded history, instruction has relied on synchronicity, viz., all students are to assemble at the instructor’s feet, as it were, to receive an education.  The instructor communicated the perceived necessary information and may well have used the Socratic method to encourage the use of critical thinking among his students, gauging his disciples’ reactions for evidence of having achieved comprehension.  Such educational activities could hardly be done if the students were scattered in time and in place.

With the advent of modern technologies, it is no longer necessary to require the students to be in the same place at the same time, and, especially with the development of the internet, it is remarkable that some institutions continue to require students to convene in one geographical location at a particular time in order to be taught.  True, there are academic subjects which, by their nature, require a laboratory which is extremely difficult if not impossible to accomplish by means of an internet connection, but generally, we have come to a time in our history when we realize that we need no longer be bound to traditional methods for learning.

That there are efficient learners and inefficient learners is hardly a new discovery.  With modern technologies it is possible to accommodate learners, however fast or slow, however good or poor.

I have long been critical of the “cookie cutter” concept in education that assumes that all students will learn the same material at the same time and at the same pace.  Every student brings his/her own learning ability into the classroom, and it is immensely unfair to expect the slower learners to somehow speed up their cognitive capabilities or for the faster learners to force themselves into a cognitive suspended animation while waiting for the rest of the class to catch up with them.  “Accommodation” is the magic word here:  modern technologies accommodate students with differing learning capabilities, and we do our students a tremendous disservice by expecting them all to learn at the same rate.

The Keller Plan

The Keller plan offers a very simple, commonsense approach to education which is just as applicable in the classroom as it is online or aided by other media such as CDs and other media.

1.                  Clear educational objectives

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) describe three important functions of educational objectives:  to “select and organize instructional activities and resources that facilitate effective learning”, to “provide a framework for devising ways to evaluate student learning” and to “guide the learner.  The rationale is that students will use the objectives to identify the skills and knowledge they must master.”

We have probably all taken courses in which there did not seem to be any particular set of objectives:  the instructor rambled seemingly incoherently as well as indefinitely, taxing the attention levels of the students.  With the Keller plan, students know in advance what cognitive and behavioral objectives will be satisfied.

           

2.                  Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback.

This, I believe, is a common sense approach to education.  The learner is not overwhelmed with a vast amount of information upon which he/she will be tested.  Rather, the lesson is broken up into “bite-sized” morsels which are more easily digested, after which the learner receives input as to how successfully his/her learning experience has transpired.

Learning, I believe, is like painting a portrait:  we do not paint the whole picture and then ask ourselves if it looks like the person we have in mind.  We paint the background and evaluate whether it is to our satisfaction.  Then we do the same with the face, the eyes, the hair, so on and so forth, one object at a time.  Finally, we can look at the overall picture and evaluate ourselves on the whole piece of artwork.

3.                  Student self-pacing

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) indicate that “much evidence supports the belief that optimum learning takes place when a student works at his or her own pace, is actively involved in performing specific learning tasks, and experiences success in learning.”  They add that “the important features for the learner are responsibility, pacing, and successful learning based on specific learning objectives and a variety of activities with accompanying resources.” (pp. 219-220).

4.                  Positive reinforcement

According to Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen (2006), “(p)ositive reinforcers are used to maintain and strengthen desirable behaviors and are those things considered to be pleasant that are presented after the desired behavior has occurred.” (p.41).  Although positive reinforcers are effective when used appropriately in the educational process, Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen include that “(b)ecause it is doubtful that any form of punishment would be very successful within a WBI situation, it is best to apply positive reinforcers and avoid negative consequences.”(p. 43).

5.                  Student emphasis on doing rather than listening

Coscarelli & White (1986) state that “(e)ffective instructional systems emphasize active rather than passive involvement in learning.  “As contrasted with the stereotypical lecture session, individualized mastery approaches will expect the learner to assume active involvement in the class. The teacher is no longer responsible for pouring knowledge into waiting vessels.” (p.6).  There is, instead, an emphasis on learning rather than on teaching.  The teacher, then, becomes  more of a manager of the students’ learning experience.

A few years ago, I earned an Associate of Applied Science degree in Drafting Design Technology.  Lectures were brief, but were given only as necessary.  The greater emphasis was on labs, as the class needed to engage in activities which would result in the successful acquisition of a new marketable skill.  Having been in such an ambience, I can testify to how much better one learns with educational activities rather than by passively listening to lecture.

My initial reaction to this model is that it makes all the sense in the world.  It recognizes that distance education is growing at an astonishing rate and that today’s technology is makes the academic establishment well able to reach those who, for any reason, cannot receive their education within the walls of a brick-and-mortar college.

The key elements of the Keller plan:  clear educational objectives, small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback, student self-pacing, positive reinforcement, and student emphasis on doing rather than listening, are principles that work marvelously in the classroom.  It is all too obvious that these elements would greatly benefit distance education.

Arranging for qualified student assistants to be present during class times can present a problem.  The financial aspect of this may be prohibitive.  Test preparation on the part of the instructor might also prevent time constraints.

I would absolutely use this model when teaching via internet or other media.  It is extremely well-thought out, is based on much research, has been developed successfully at many educational establishments, and has proven to be of great value in distance education.  Perhaps a staff of instructors working in concert could alleviate the problem of recruiting others to monitor student behavior.

There are learning management systems such as WebCT which could be used to leveraged to employ the Keller plan in an online learning environment.  I have used sites such as MyICourse.com to deliver instruction, and it can easily be seen how the Keller plan could operate in concert with that site.  Microsoft’s Learning Content Development System could also easily be employed with the Keller plan.

References:

Coscarelli, W., and White, G. (1986).  The Guided Design Guidebook:  Patterns in Implementation.  Morgantown, WV:  The National Center for Guided Design, West Virginia University.

Davidson-Shivers, G., and Rasmussen, K.  (2006).  Web-Based Learning:  Design, Implementation, and Evaluation.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson Education, Inc.

Morrison, G., Ross, S., and Kemp, J.  (2007).  Designing Effective Instruction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.