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.