Learning objects

I did not know that sharing learning objects was a "formal" practice, rather I thought it was something that just occurred naturally. A natural phenomenon of sorts. Since teachers have been using the internet, they have been pulling pre-developed resources from other teachers, sharing lessons, and collaborating on instruction. Teachers did this before there was internet, but (like with all communication) internet access has enhanced it. I have been using learning objects since I began teaching, only I did not know that was what they were called. I use videos from teacher tube, resources from other teachers websites and files, simulations provided by educational organizations regularly in this class. The idea that all of this could be compiled and organized into a single-large database is astonishing. What a wonderful and valuable resource this would be. In a sense, the students would be benefiting from the collaborative efforts of teachers across the country and all over the world. Two heads are better than one right? How about thousands? This also can serve as an aid to students with different learning styles because they are receiving content in various forms. One barrier to most of the modules we have discussed in this course is that such models take a great deal of time and perhaps even expertise to develop. If there were a bank of learning objects from which to pull these modules, that would certainly fix such a problem.

Of course, the barrier with this idea is not that few teachers would utilize learning objects. More so, the barrier may be that few teachers would be willing to develop, share and contribute learning objects. It's easy to utilize a resource. It's harder, and takes more time and effort, to give back and contribute.

CFT

I would say that Cognitive Flexibility Theory could be described as an improved version of case-based reasoning. By which I mean, it is basically the cased-based reasoning model we looked at last week...but it much more focused and complex. It seems as though the developer of this model took the idea of CBR and simply took it to the next step. I feel that many of the models we have looked at in the course have aligned with the constructivist theory of education. However, I feel like this example is highly constructivist. Being a fan of constructivism, it's hard to find things that I do not like about this model. I could raise all the same arguments for why I like CFT for the same reasons I like CBR.

CFT also seems to fit extremely well in a multimedia environment. Rather than being told which cases to use or which cases are important, the student is left to sort through a number of candidates and determine which one best aligns with the problem and which ones provide the needed information. Could anything be closer to real research. Sure, the database is smaller and contained within the lesson, so it's not quite as vast as a real database of case files would be. But still, aside from learning the content...the student is learning how to conduct proper and efficient research. This is a skill that any future college student is going to need to develop before he/she gets to college...so I like that aspect of it as well. I also like the fact that cases need-not simply be a textual document which the student must read. Rather, the EASE example provides videos and photographs and other materials which provide information and are used as cases or examples. This is an excellent and proper use of multimedia to enhance a learning experience....because it also demonstrates the importance and power of media while conveying information simultaneously. And, let's face it, this type of user interface is much more efficient and friendly than a huge stack of case files for a student to read.

I also thought the last example in the lecture was very interesting. The student uses the cases, and information contained therein, to make decisions while treating a virtual patient. The consequences of the decisions are manifested in a simulation. This type of learning module would be very complex to develop and require quite a bit of expertise but I think it is an excellent example of how useful and effective this method can be. This can be especially useful for educating future doctors, lawyers, teachers, and even engineers. The possibilities are endless.

CBR

I like case based reasoning for many of the same reasons I prefer qualitative research findings to quantitative findings...because I understand them better. I agree with the assigned articles' statements that story-telling is something that seems to be built into our psyche and culture. It almost seems to be the most natural way to communicate and event or idea, through narration. So why is it not used more often in academia? I agree that it leaves room for conjecture, subjectivity and bias....these are things that have to be weeded out for something like a case-study. But I feel that these are barriers that can be overcome.


I really don't see how some professions or areas of study could get by without using case-based reasoning in some form or another. Physicians, lawyers, judges, detectives, psychologists, anthropologists, even sports coaches. It seems that these professions would (and do) rely heavily on previous cases in order to solve new cases...how could they get by without case-based reasoning? How to you train a doctor to make a diagnosis without relating it to some sort of past case? How do you train a lawyer without having them to read through old case files and study them at some point? I really wonder if it can be done. I think it's examples like this that allow case-based reasoning to speak for itself. Not only is it a useful method, sometimes it is an essential method.

Another interesting thing about using cases, that differs from the other problem solving models we have looked at, is that it stresses using actual events. The other models rely on a designer to create situations or problems which simulate a real world problem. When using cases, you don't have to simulate a real problem...you use a real problem that has actually occurred and been documented. Doesn't really get more "real-world" than that.

MOST multimedia environments

I want to start by saying that I found the Bransford article to be very interesting and insightful, perhaps my favorite reading assignment from this course. I feel that it raised some very good points and presented fairly clear evidence to support the arguments contained therein.

It's my opinion that those who are cynical about the use of multimedia and video was a learning aid are stigmatized by popular television. It is true that much of what is presented on television is neither educational or helpful to development (aside from, perhaps, the acquisition of vocabulary) and it can serve as a distraction or deterrent from reading or study. However, there is a difference between television that is presented for entertainment and multimedia that is presented for development. I feel it's also important to point out, to the cynics, that no one is implying that multimedia should be the sole source of content; but, rather, a supplemental aid to content (which I feel may be another misconception).

I agree with the article in it's statements that the presentation of video to supplement the text does provide the reader/learner with a context in which to place the provided content. The Swiss Family Robinson and Donald Duck video examples were both good illustrations of this. I feel that this are similar to the illustrations found in children's books. The child who is reading or hearing the story may understand the words and comprehend the story being read; however, an illustration which accompanies the story does not only serve the purpose of entertainment. Rather, it provides the reader with a picture that illustrates a concept (or action) that may be abstract or confusing. Furthermore, it aids the reader in developing a mental model of the situation which helps them to further imagine the actions which are taking place (an hopefully mentally fill in the gaps between the illustrations). I feel that he use of video can serve the same purpose and would not particularly be limited to small children. Developing a mental picture, or even being presented with a representation, allows the reader/viewer to examine the situation in a new light because it becomes concrete rather than remaining abstract.


Something I always try to avoid in teaching a concept or communicating an idea is abstraction or generalization. Although my method is not entirely similar to those pointed out in the article, I feel that showing a video in class which illustrates a process certainly aids in comprehension. I feel it also aids in teaching the vocabulary for the lesson because the students are presented with a image which can be attached to the words, giving the terms a concrete meaning and aiding in retention. Is this not similar to how children are taught to read, by being presented with the word c-a-t and then shown a picture of the cat? How is video/multimedia any different, if not better?

STAR legacy model

I have heard of this model before but I have never had the opportunity to really study it closely. After watching the presentations and reading some of the articles about it, one thing I have come to appreciate about it is (in comparison to some of the other models at which we have looked) is it's simplicity. Not only does it's simplicity make it easier to understand but to implement as well. Simplicity of a model can give the user much more flexibility and room for creativity, which I feel can be a very positive aspect of any instructional method/model. I also like the cyclical nature of that model, which is a feature not-seen as often in the other models we have studied.

Another good feature of this model is that it explicitly states that time should be devoted to initial thoughts as well as reflection. I have always felt that this is an important step in any learning model. Although the other models we have looked at may allow for these two components, I do not feel they were stressed as much as in this model. This could be in the form of a pre-assessment and post-assessment as suggested by the article but I do not feel it is limited to that. First asking the students about their initial thoughts and asking some informal preliminary questions gives the students expectations about what is about to be learned as well as what aspects of the content will be important. This is something I have always tried to do with any lesson. Whether it comes in the form of a pretest, simply stating the objectives, or making a list of questions the students should ask themselves as the content is presented. The reflection (wrap-up) should not be limited to a post assessment either, but perhaps just allowing the students to look back and think about what they have actually learned during the lesson. I feel this is an important step which can often be left out of a model. In any learning experience, there should be some sort of reflection on what has been learned.

Some other good aspects of this model are common to the other models as well. This model is problem or scenario based and allows the students to use the content by applying it to a real-world situation. Just as with the other models, the content is more meaningful and more likely to be retained because it is presented in a way that makes it less abstract and it is utilized by the student rather than simply memorized.

 The STAR legacy model also shares the same problems and boundaries with the other models as well. Time and preparation of the model can be demanding or tedious and the model seems to sacrifice breadth of knowledge for depth of knowledge. However, this model does not demand that the students work in groups. The article mentions student groups but I do not feel that it was explicitly stated as a requirement for the activity. I also feel that the questions and problems presented (in the examples at least), are tasks that could be completed by a single student; eliminating the barriers that come with group-work and troubles over group dynamics.

Anchored Instruction

At a first glance, anchored instruction seems to be more or less a variation of Goal-Based learning and Problem-based learning. However, after reading some of the articles, I have arrived at the conclusion that Anchored instruction seems to have a different angle of attack, as it were. As the articles have pointed out, AI concentrates on the what is not tested through formal assessment, rather than what is tested. In other words, typically when students are presented with a word problem, they are given information about a real-world problem (i.e. building a fence in one's own back yard, and information on the size of the back yard) and then asked to calculate the perimeter in order to determine the length of the fence. In contrast, AI would likely as the student to determine how long it may take to build the fence and the overall cost. This would not explicitly ask the student to calculate perimeter, the student would have to assume that. Furthermore, the problem is much more complex and does not stop with a single calculation. The student would have to determine the perimeter, then determine the amount of material needed in light of the cost of the material (per square foot, etc) and then combine the calculations in order to solve the problem. This is a very simplistic illustration of how AI works, but I think it illustrates the differences in other approaches.

Another unique aspect of AI is in the presentation of the content and the problem. If one were to use the Jasper Woodbury materials, the problem is presented in video format and the content is embedded in the presentation of the problem. Using the example of rescuing the eagle, as the problem is presented, the student learns about the ultralight craft as the instructor communicates to the pupil. This puts the information in context but also provides more information that would be needed. This leaves the student to determine which bits of information is important and which pieces are not.

Another aspect I noticed that was often pointed out in the literature was the importance of utilizing content from more than one area of study. In some of the Jasper Woodbury problems, the student must not only use math, but science and history, etc as well. This is also a more realistic approach to real life because these skills are typically not separated in their application.


I think that this approach would have many of the same barriers shared by PBL and GBL. Again, we have to consider the problems that often arise with group work and group dynamics. This seems to be a common thread amongst many of the approaches we have looked at in this course. Therefore, strategies for overcoming this barrier would be similar. Another barrier, also common amongst the other approaches, is the time and preparation. If one were to use a Jasper Woodbury problem which is provided to them, then this would not be quite as difficult. However, if one were not to rely on such resources, utilizing this approach would require a great deal of effort and attention.

GBL

I am noticing a trend in the approaches we have been covering as of late. Most of them deal with allowing the students to learn by applying content to real-world situations. For the most part I am normally a supporter of this method, since it is a method I often use myself. Call my cynical, but I am less impressed with GBL than some of the other methods we have previously looked at. This may partially due to the fact that this is the first time I have been formally exposed to GBL and perhaps I do not fully understand it. I like the fact that a skill set is identified and then the lesson is built around creating a scenario or activity which will teach the student to apply those skills.

But after reading the scenarios and some of the applications of GBL, I did see a few things that I found undesirable. I feel that sometimes, and in some of the scenarios, educators put far too much effort into catering to the student. Before I go any further, let me preface by saying that we SHOULD cater to the students learning needs and attempt to convey content in a way which they find interesting and meaningful. Sometimes games and fun-activities are a good thing and can prove to be very effective. However, I feel like sometimes it is easy to get carried away and the activity is more about fun and entertainment than education. I can recall times in my own education experience where this would happen. Sure, I had fun...but I don't feel like I learned that much. It seemed there was a great deal of time invested in an activity that offered little content, in other words...it was inefficient.

To be honest, there are just some subjects or areas of study that it is hard to get a student excited and willing to learn about. This is especially true in mandatory courses. For myself, math was always one of these subject areas. Later in life, I grew to appreciate math and see it's relevance but as a high school student, I was less enthusiastic. I noticed I was not the only one. It seemed like some of the teachers would often devise games and activities similar like some of the GBL scenarios I have been reading about. They didn't typically help me to learn the content, and seemed more like a busy-work assignment or a game.

Again, I realize I sound cynical, but perhaps I am speaking more to improper application of this technique. Maybe I will have to actually use some of these GBL scenarios and get a little better acquainted before I can make a complete judgment.

Cognitive Apprenticeship

I have always found the work/thoughts of both Dewey and Vygotsky to be both interesting and helpful aids to my own teaching philosophy and methodology. In fact, I am currently reading Dewey's book "Democracy and Education" which I would recommend to any future or practicing educator. Recently I have adopted Dewey's views of "learn by doing" as somewhat of a motto for my teaching methods. That is to say, in order for a student to fully grasp, understand, and retain the content; they must apply/use it in a real-world situation. This is one of the core traits of apprenticeship. Rather than dealing simply in abstracts, the student learns the content through application.

Many of my most meaningful learning experiences have been in the form of apprenticeship (outside of formal education as well as within). The very skills I teach today, I learned through apprenticeship at an after-school job rather than in a school setting. Even the student-teaching process which every educator must go through is somewhat of an apprenticeship program. The student is placed in the care of a practicing educator where he/she observes the professional and slowly takes on the same responsibility while being coached and aided by the teacher. Although some would disagree with me, I feel that the student-teaching experience prepared me more for teaching than any other experience in college. There are few things that can compete with one-on-one coaching with an expert who guides you through formal application of a trade or skill.

Until reading the articles and watching the lectures, I hadn't considered the application of apprenticeship in areas such as reading an math; which I found to be a very interesting concept. If this method works for teaching complex skills and trades, why can't it work in other areas. I feel this is especially novel in something like a math class where most of the concepts are so abstract and detached from real situations (in many cases).

Another thing I had never considered was an adaptation of apprenticeship to multi-media, distance ed., or online learning. To me, the purpose of the process was one-on-one contact with a professional. I definitely agree that there are some barriers to applying apprenticeship through multi-media and web tools. Where this method may work for things like math and reading, I think it would be less applicable in some of the situations I have mentioned earlier such as student teaching or learning trade (such as woodworking, sculpting, printing, etc.) These are skills where it is most helpful to have the professional to observe the student as he/she carries out the task and then guide-coach them along the way; something that would prove highly difficult when relying on multi-media. For instance; when I teach a student to use a table saw, I feel it is best to stand next to them while they perform the task. This is for several reasons. First of all, the student is more comfortable having supervision or a coach (especially if this is the very first time they have used such a dangerous tool). Secondly, I am there to stop any mistakes before they occur; preventing injury and hazards. Third, I can provide feedback as a mistake is being made or improper usage occurs. Instant feedback allows for immediate correction. The process can be repeated over and over and I can gauge the students progress and gradually allow the student to work on his/her own (scaffolding). I feel that this would be impossible if I were contacting them through something like elluminate.

However, I realize that replacing a classic apprenticeship to teach a trade through media was not what the articles had in mind. I am simply raising the idea that it multi-media would not suffice in all situations (although it could be perfectly sufficient in others).

PBL

I see many parallels and commonalities between this approach and the guided design approach. As I stated last week, I am a huge fan of guided design; so naturally I am a fan of this approach as well. However, I have to say that I am less-partial to this approach than the guided design approach. Unless I have misunderstood the model, this approach is not a simple project that students are allotted a week or two to work together on in groups, this is a long-term model. Essentially there is no formal lecture or instruction but the students teach themselves along the way of solving the problem which is presented. I believe this is a novel approach and is a great idea (given the proper situation) but I do feel there are times when formal instruction is necessary. Perhaps this is why I favor the guided design approach more-so than PBL.

In the case of guided design, the student is presented with content and then asked to apply it. In contrast, PBL says "you must determine the knowledge you need, learn it, then use it". This puts an enormous burden on the student, in my opinion. I believe this process is valuable in creating students who are self-directed and life-long learners but I think that we are overlooking that fact that students are....well, students. Though they are capable of teaching themselves under certain circumstances, it shouldn't be left to them to fully instruct themselves. I also agree that there is a barrier with sacrificing breadth for depth. It raises the question of which is better, depth or breadth. Perhaps a good balance would be to shoot for breadth in general and then go for depth on the most essential elements of the course. If I were to use this model, I would use formal lecture to cover the breadth of the subject and then give the students PBL activities to focus on the most important areas of the curriculum. I am sure are many who will disagree with me on that statement (because it defeats many of the purposes of PBL) but it is merely a suggestion or food for thought at least.

Cooperative learning

I have a love-hate relationship with this approach. I feel like it shares many of the same problems and barriers with the guided design approach. Group dynamics  and management of the groups can be the very thing that makes or breaks cooperative learning (from my experience). One thing I have learned is quite a bad idea is allowing students to choose their own groups. If this is done, you will definitely have groups which are homogeneous and many groups will have a greater advantage over the others. Again we face the problem of the students who are either unwilling to work with others or prefers to do all/none of the work. I was intrigued by the article that pointed out these types of students and categorized them as individuals such as constant pupils. These were definitely patterns and roles I have noticed in the past.

However, I think the cooperative learning method can be highly effective and useful if done properly. My first experience using this method produced less than desirable results, mainly because I let them get into groups and then I stood back and watched. Later on, I found that the more involved I became in selecting the groups and supervising the groups, the better results I received. I think there may be a misconception that this type of activity requires less work for the instructor, if anything (done properly) it should be more demanding.

Guided Design

Of all the approaches we have looked at so far; guided design, by far, is the one to which I am the most partial. This is due, in part, to my background in Tech. Ed. The guided design approach is one that Tech. Ed. both supports and uses frequently (although not in an online or distance ed. setting). This is a technique that is often found in technology education courses because we are firm believers that design and problem solving are two areas that deserve a great deal of attention. Not only does this approach allow the students to apply the knowledge, but to apply it in a real-world scenario. Answers to divergent problems are not solved by plugging equations or resorting to a one-size-fits-all solution. Divergent problems must be solved through design. Design is rarely done by a single person alone; but, by and large, is done by a group of individuals who all bring a diverse array of expertise and knowledge to the table. This is what guided design teaches and fosters.

 Aside from the obvious benefits of using this approach, it is also a break from monotonous lecture, worksheets, and reading. It is, in some cases, a chance for the students to roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, and use their new knowledge. This is a much better method to ensure retention of that knowledge (as opposed to relying on rote memorization, which has been proven to be ineffective). Technology education courses are often-times project based. In a project-based course, this approach is very practical. However; I feel it is both practical and applicable in many other, if not all other, areas as well.

 As pointed out in the courses readings, this approach is not without its faults and barriers. Though many students relish a chance for collaborative projects, there are just as many who would prefer to work alone. I, myself, was one of those students in high school. I preferred to work alone, not because I was not social, but because I wanted full control of the project and its outcome. I eventually grew out of this after entering the TDE program, mainly because I was forced to do so (which I feel was to my benefit). The student who wishes to work alone can benefit from collaborative work even if they do not enjoy the process. After all, our job as educators is not to entertain and make learning seem like recreation (although it helps) but to use sound and effective methods to convey content that will be retained by the mind of the student. Even if this approach is one that all students do not find to be the most enjoyable, that does not imply that it is not an effective approach.

Another thing pointed out in the readings was that guided design can also be used to teach students in a group to discern a division of labor and work professionally just as they would in a future career. Still, it goes without saying that there will be those situations where one or more students are happy to sit back and watch the others do the work. However, with proper classroom management and efforts by the instructor, this is a barrier that can be dissolved.

A-T model

At a first glance, I was fairly impressed with the novelty and creativity of this method. This approach is obviously one that is meant for college level courses. It would be impractical to have an elementary school full of students who wandered about all day with no structure, with hopes that they may pace themselves. On the surface, this approach is very similar to the online courses we have now. However, there are some benefits this approach has over online courses. One benefit is that the students do, from time to time, meet face to face with an instructor or TA. This allows for questions/answers and immediate feedback (perhaps even tutoring or reinforcement) that one cannot often achieve online. The second benefit is the use of manipulatives and hands-on experimentation. Although multi-media can mimic such activities, I am a firm believer in that there is nothing that comes close to a hands-on experience.


 Though it seems to me that this approach could only work at the college level and cannot be easily molded to fit the typical classroom experience. Another draw back is the time for preparation and the cost of materials. It's impractical to use this method today because it is much cheaper to develop an online course. But I do think that, for it's time, it was an approach that was both effective and creative.

If I were to find myself teaching an online course at some point, I am certain that I would modify or borrow certain aspects of this method to enhance the learning experience of my own students. It goes without saying that most students who take online courses do so in order to avoid a rigid schedule of meeting times or coming to campus altogether. However, its reasonable to think that I could convince the students to make one or two trips on a scheduled date (if possible) for a face-face meeting and some sort of hands on activity here and there. Though this model is not one I could likely use in the future, it is great food for thought and something I could use to build upon or develop more ideas for my bank of instructional methods.

Week 1 Reflection

Though some would disagree with me, I believe that an asynchronous model is a great model (given the right circumstances). As an educator, and I think most other teachers will agree, there are few methods that can compete with learning in a classroom setting. Nothing can compensate for interaction with an instructor who can answer questions and give prompt, and hopefully useful, feedback. I do think that online and distant education courses are very effective, they are not for everyone. I think it takes a certain kind of student (one who can pace his/her self and has the drive to lean on their own) to succeed in this type of course. Whereas, in the classroom setting, the instructor is there to motivate the student and offer additional help if needed.

However, I do feel that asynchronous learning is a great model for those who cannot become a full-time student. The asynchronous learning model allows busy students to learn at their own pace so that the class does not become a hassle of inconvenience. Given that all learners do learn at a different pace, learning at one's own pace allows them to devote ample time and attention to subject matter and assignments in order to truly absorb a given unit before having to move on to the next one. To reiterate; I think this is a good method, under certain circumstances, but it should not be a complete replacement for the semester calender that university systems currently use.