Learning Objects

     Even after reading all of the materials this week, I still want to reference this as “learning objectives.”   I think that this is a great approach to enhance any content area.  As noted in the readings and lecture for this week, the learning object must contain three components:  a learning objective, a unit of instruction that breaks down to teach the objective, and a unit of assessment to measure the objective.  The benefits are evident.  The learning experience is maximized by allowing access to tagged, on-line resources, it is manageable by breaking down the content into smaller parts which increases flexibility, ability to foster collaboration, and the potential to save time, money, and work.  Wiley’s article discussed how learning objects can be reused and transverse.  Some things that you would need to be mindful of is the legal issues surrounding the use of learning objects and it would be important to focus on creating a constructivist path of learning as well.  It would be easy to steer away from this. 

     As far as creating a multi-media environment, the web 2.0 tools and other collaborative tools available would play a significant role and it would be easy to mainstream.  Gelling all of these together could easily create a rich learning experience and fulfill the purpose of learning objects.  As Bannan’s article notes, creating a multi-media environment allows for appropriate scaffolding of instruction as well.   The object can begin with highly scaffolded and proceed to somewhat of an open exploration of sort.  Bonk’s excerpt discussed how learners traditionally accessed information, such as from Encyclopedias.  This brings back some memories!  Now, we have so much more information at our fingertips!

Cognitive Flexibility Model

     When I initially began reading the articles, I thought that this is more complex than the other models previously discussed in this course.  Basically, as Jacobson’s article points out, “CFT is a “multi-faceted” complexity of knowledge, CFT uses multiple themes, schemas, analogies, intellectual points of view in instructional activities.”  CFT is also grounded into case based learning/reasoning.  Cases are used to build knowledge around “real world” situations.  This model ties into constructivism and experiential learning.  The neat idea of CFT is that the knowledge and/or content overlaps.  Learner’s should be able to assess and evaluate various ways to approach a problem from a variety of resources.   The Learner’s are making connections with the CFT model.  I think that in order for student’s to benefit the most from this model, is that authentic and “real-world” situations/problems should be provided.  It is equally important as to how the information or problem is represented.  With the CFT model, I definitely agree with the readings, that learner’s will take away more from this type of model.  They gradually build upon their own prior knowledge and they will likely recall what they have learned.  As with the other models discussed, the integration of multi-media options would be endless.  It seems that anything is possible and enhanced with the use of technology and creates a rich learning experience.  The disadvantages of course would be the time involved needed to design this model, expense, the ability level of the teacher would need to be taken into consideration and possibly designed from a team oriented approach. 

This is a cute comic that represents CFT:

http://postgutenberg.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/21/zippy_copy.gif

Case-Based Learning/Reasoning...The Life in Which We Live...

     I must say, this model immediately took me back in time to my undergraduate years and graduate school at ECU.  In both Criminal Justice programs, we relied heavily on these methods of learning.  I cannot begin to count the number of cases that were relayed to us from our professors, researched, read and analyzed.  This was merely learning in context.  The learning outcome, which is problem solving, for this model and the previous instructional models researched has been similar.  Jonassen’s article stated, “The rationale and means for analyzing, organizing, and presenting stories to support problem solving are defined by case based reasoning.”  Also, his article points out that stories are used for instructional support and “stories are the oldest and most natural form of sense making.”  I think we can all agree with that.  Whether we can recall stories being told from parents, grandparents, teachers, professors, or any one in general, it provides us with being able to understand a diverse group of people.  I can also recall stories being used in various trainings that I have attended, including my teacher orientation class.  As discussed in our lecture, I can see where I can recall how I used Case Based Learning and Case Based Reasoning synonymously when I worked in the public mental health sector.  We often staffed cases and discussed solutions based on past cases and experience with other patients.  I think we can all benefit from information from others where they have lived and learned through experience.  As Wang’s article further discusses, this ties back into Experiential Learning.  Stories have the capability of providing us with a rich learning environment and as learners, we are able to likely apply the lessons learned from those stories to new problems that we may encounter.  I think we have probably all encountered a situation, particularly at work where we may be confronted with a task and try to recall a situation that was similar in order to come to a resolution. 

     Yes, I would definitely employ this method in education, as I have found that I already have in the form of advice.  Although, I think that primarily it can be more beneficial in higher education and training programs, it also has a place in K-12, perhaps not as pronounced.  Jarz’s article discussed how multi-media case based studies can be beneficial and have a huge impact on learning.  I agree that the use of multi-media can improve the quality of education.  The multi-media options could include video, audio, podcasts, numerous web 2.0 tools, including bookmarking tools, such as diigo, and many other avenues of addressing various learning styles.  It is important that we keep in mind the challenges associated with the instructional design piece.  There will definitely be a huge amount of time needed to develop this, a team oriented approach will be needed, and there is always the possibility of being too biased when trying to recall the most appropriate cases when applying reasoning. 

     I wanted to share this quote:  “Story is far older than the art of science and psychology, and will always be the elder in the equation no matter how much time passes.” —Clarissa Pinkola Estes

MOST Environments for At-Risk Students...Hmmm!

     As stated in the Bransford article (pg. 223), “A major goal of MOST environments is to accelerate children’s learning by organizing instruction around visually rich, meaningful “macrocontexts” that students and teachers can mutually share and explore.”  Like other models that we have delved into, MOST is designed to support a diverse group of learners.  What initially captured my attention was the focus on our at-risk population and how this model can be designed to embrace this “hard to reach” population.   One important statement that stood out in the Bransford article (pg. 224) is “Literacy skills are foundational for lifelong learning.”  I also found to be very interesting was the assumption that emphasized that there is rigid hierarcy of skills development that proceeds from the “basics” to “higher order thinking” (pg. 225).  Is this true or can one exercise critical thinking skills without the “basics?”  That is certainly “food for thought.” 

     As Bransford identified special problems with the programs that are designed and used with at-risk students, I found myself relating to this.  We have a scripted curriculum called “Language!”  that is used from elementary through high school in our district.  This program is a component of our state improvement plan.  This is a highly structured curriculum that literally begins with the “basics.”  It is designed to improve their reading, grammar, and writing.  However, while I think that it is ideal at the elementary level, trying to get the 8^th graders on board is quite the challenge.  They actually begin learning phonemic awareness with words like, “cat”, “hat”, and “bat.”  They do not appear to be challenged by this at all and it is easy to tune in to their self-esteem plummeting.  I am on board with giving them challenging work that enables them to exercise their higher order thinking skills.  With the multimedia rich world out there, I think that this model would definitely benefit at-risk students more so than the traditional curriculum.  As the NCIP article noted, MOST environments create a motivating environment for the students to learn, empower them to exercise their higher order thinking skills, there are opportunities to scaffold learning, professional development to assist struggling students, and there must be effective communication maintained between the school and home.  So many of our at-risk students fall behind because their talents and what they are able to do are never tapped into.  Perhaps, if we would “think outside of the box” more and tap into their strengths and not their deficits they would be more successful.  I think collectively as Educators, it is engrained into us to focus on what students cannot do and remediate, remediate, and remediate.  This is mostly due to the standardized testing and what the norm is.  The other common challenge to overcome is the lack of planning to time to effectively create a MOST environment.  Also, it is important for others, PLC, and Administrators to be “on board” with this instructional model. 

     With the abundance of Web 2.0 tools out there, the possibilities are endless.  There are so many different channels to explore.  Trailfire, LuLu, LetterPop, JumpCut, and BubblShare are just to name a few. 

Thoughts on STAR Legacy Modules…

     As Schwartz’s article stated, the STAR Legacy Modules is designed to “teach a deep understanding of disciplines, while fostering the skills of problem solving, collaboration, and communication, focusing on problem-based learning, followed by open-ended project based learning.”  This module focuses on creating another inquiry-based learning environment for students.  The learning objectives are closely connected to the subject matter and in order to get to the solution, it requires the navigation through several steps.   I am not sure why, but initially this module seemed more complex to me than the others.

     This module would allow for both in-class and asynchronous activities.  It would work well as outlined in a web-based module as well.  Initially, when reviewing the resources for this week, some of the challenges that came to mind was the ability for some students to activate their prior knowledge, be able to competently generate ideas, and the ability to collect data for research that would be geared towards a purpose.  I think that it is important for the Facilitator to be “strong” as well.  As noted in the article (Schwartz), the Facilitator can pose questions that can direct the learners towards what variables should be represented in the module and keep them focused on the goal of the challenge.  Other challenges may be the ongoing responsibility of raising test scores.  Does this align with the role and accountability efforts of the educators?  As we all know, these challenges are not new to us, as we have posed these questions throughout our blogs throughout the semester.

     I think that students would benefit from this module in an on-line environment.  Additionally, as the examples of the modules provided to us this week, the modules are capable of supporting the issues of differentiation, accommodations, and collaboration.  I think that it is important for the challenge posed to be interesting and students should be able to make connections between the material and the challenge.  Adequate time should be given to complete the module.  The reflection component is equally as important.  As a common theme with the prior theories, teachers would need additional planning time to carefully plan accordingly.  Cases can be embedded with multi-media tools.  Various podcasting tools, Voice Thread, Clipshack, Castpost, JayCut, and collaborative tools can be used, such as Wikis.  There are endless possibilities when enhancing the module with multi-media.  The audio and video can help to reinforce and enhance the content.   

Anchored Instruction

     Anchored instruction reminds me of a quote by Carol Ann Tomlinson…”Learning is a process that never ends.”   As Vandy’s (1) article points out, anchored instruction is similar to problem-based instruction.  This method of instruction also helps students see the need to learn and acquire new information.  This is another instructional strategy where learning becomes a meaningful experience because it is situated in a realistic situation, where students will be posed a problem, exercise problem solving and reasoning skills.  I think that this type of instruction can work with students from diverse backgrounds.  With anchored instruction, it can be made as simple and/or complex as needed.  There are ways to scaffold instruction and simplify as needed.  With that being said, it is important not to lose sight of keeping it meaningful in context.  I think as Vandy’s (3) article pointed out, it is important to monitor the progress and perhaps use means of formative assessment as opposed to summative assessment.  Students could simply be monitored by evidence of on-task behavior, rubrics, or perhaps a peer review.  It is important for teachers to monitor their progress and challenge them at the same time.  This can be a bit difficult trying to manage all students.  The teachers could just manage this by simply providing hints to students as they proceed through the problem. 

     Anchored instruction is yet another great way to integrate knowledge across the curriculum.  I think another barrier could be if the situation or problem posed is not interesting to students.  This could be a hindrance.  It is important for the situation to be as realistic and interesting to the target audience as possible to engage them in this type of instruction.  As educators, aren’t we always trying to design “engaging” lessons for our students? 

    Overall, I think that delivery of an anchored instructional activity within a web-based module could create an enriching and engaging multi-media experience for students.  The possibilities are endless with the use of multi-media, web-based media and other interactive technology.  I would definitely consider using this instructional model, especially in my CMP math class. 

Goal-Based Learning Scenarios

     This is another “learn by doing” approach.  My initial reaction to the Goal Based Learning (GBL) theory is that it resembles the problem based learning theory.  Both are unlike the traditional approach to instruction.  Students are given open ended, real-world problems to solve.  Learning teams are an integral part of this theory as well.  Roles are assigned and resources are provided.  In Schank’s article, he pointed out that elementary students strive to please the teacher and this age group learns because they are motivated to do so.  As we evolve into adult learners, the dynamics change a bit.  In GBL, goals are identified, questions are produced, and questions are addressed.  As Hsu discusses further in his article, the learner is given a realistic mission and is driven by the motivational interests or powers of the cases/problems.  Team work is encouraged, an end goal is in mind, and students can be flexible to select their own strategies to meet that end goal. 

     One barrier that comes to mind is that in order for GBL to be implemented successfully, whether teacher-led or computer-led is that the learner must be motivated to tackle the end goal.  I would think that this would involve a great deal of planning to ensure that all learners were on board.  If it were computer-led, there would need to be the appropriate technology infrastructure to support this.  I can easily relate to that one barrier.  A component of this perspective of learning is that it builds upon prior knowledge.  I can see that as being a barrier for some learners. 

     Once again, I think GBL can be very beneficial to learners.  There is nothing like the experiencing the simulations as it would present itself in the real world.  As Nowakowski’s article points, out if the learners are afforded the genuine experience of applying their skills, they are more unlikely to forget what they have learned.  Real world tasks essentially prepare our students to become resourceful and prepare them for the real-world in which someday they will have to function in.  I can see where this theory would also build their confidence for future learning and/or endeavors.