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. 

Situated Cognition & Cognitive Apprenticeships...More Collaborative Instructional Models

    

     My initial reaction to situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeships is that it reminded of Problem-Based Learning. The basic steps in both theories are rooted in collaboration and resemble one another.  Higher order thinking skills are modeled and students take on definitive roles.  As Collin’s article points out, it fosters cooperative problem solving.  Computer based modeling can be cost-effective as well.  It is important for learning activities to be appropriately sequenced in order for this model to be effective.  Cognitive Apprenticeship is ideal for writing, reading, and particularly math.  Again, this reminds me of our CMP math curriculum in middle school.  Herrington’s article points out that there are definitely clear educational advantages.  Among those advantages include, promoting critical reflection, involves making predictions, hypothesizing, and experimenting to come up with a solution to a problem.  Students take on an instrumental approach to solving these problems.  This is simulated in real life application of knowledge in the work environment, such as the business course example listed in the text.  Like problem based learning, I do see somewhat of a barrier with much younger students.  It can be more difficult for them to overcome the challenge of being socially responsible and ready to interact and collaborate among group members.  This is where the facilitator who ideally “fades out” needs to be strong and model appropriate collaborative skills in the beginning.  Again, I think ideally this theory is best with older, more mature learners.  Some students may not possess the reasoning skills to exercise higher order thinking skills needed.  Coaching and scaffolding is crucial for this model to be effective.  In terms of a web-based situated learning/apprenticeship environment, scaffolding may be a bit of a challenge.  There are certainly various on-line tools that can be used for the integration of this model.  Tools can include VoiceThread, Screencasting tools, Voki, NetMessaging and Elluminate. 

     According to NCDPI, we are moving towards adopting new national core standards for the NCSCOS.  It appears that in the very near future, the traditional multiple choice EOG’s/EOC’s will be substituted to reflect more open-ended questions.  As we are moving towards the implementation of the new standards and curriculum, more group based collaborative instructional models will be our focus. If implemented and executed appropriately, I think that it can have great educational benefits for the students.  What is a better way of learning, than learning through doing in real-life applications? 

Thoughts on Problem Based Learning- Week 6

     I think that Problem Based Learning can be very beneficial.  It appears that it is most beneficial in professional and secondary education, however it is being widely used in K-12 education.  It provides a social interactive experience, which in turn can result in a rich learning experience like no other.  It encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning and adjust the learning to fit their own learning styles.  This year our school district adopted a new math curriculum, called CMP.  It is based on the foundation of project based learning.  Students are placed in groups, assigned roles, and given real-world open ended problems to solve.  A vast amount of our students have struggled with this curriculum.  They have struggled with their refined roles as group members, struggled with collaboration, and many do not have the higher order thinking skills to solve these "open-ended" problems.  They cannot grasp the concept that there is more than one "correct" way to solve the problem.  They are so conditioned to receiving explict and direct instruction that they have had a difficult time coping. 

     Other barriers mentioned in the readings this week include having to focus too much on "teaching to the test", roles need to be clearly defined when working in groups, the Teacher needs to be a strong facilitator as opposed to just a transmitter of information/learning, and the Facilitator needs to be strong to empower and encourage students to work together collaboratively.  I think as Hung's article points out, PBL promotes good problem solving skills and if the barriers can be overcome, PBL fosters better retention of knowledge overa  longer period of time.  Also, students are more likely to become self-directed learners.  We are taught the importance of connecting text to real-world situtaions, so PBL definitely applies.  I think that it is important that the Facilitator explain things in the ways that students can easily grasp.  This could serve as one way to modify and adjust based on the learning needs of the students.  As discussed in Ryan and Koschman's articles, I think that technology can strengthen PBL.  In an effort to align PBL with web-based instruction, some tools that can be used could include Digoo, GoogleDocs, Writeboard, Wikis, Blogs, and Elluminate.  Any of these tools can be used to collaborate in an on-line environment. 

Cooperative Learning Thoughts...Week 5

     All three readings for this week supports that cooperative learning is focused both on enhancing individual learning and group learning.  The purpose is for groups to learn from each other while trying to accomplish a shared learning goal.  Cooperative learning should be a multi-faceted, fluid and interactive experience. 

     I found several important points made in Haller’s article.  He pointed out that individuals should be grouped heterogeneous in ability.  He also noted that differences in participants, such as their prior knowledge and background are important when grouping students together.  In order for cooperative learning to be effective and successful, I think it has to be “fine-tuned”, per se’.  Haller’s article discussed the interactional problems that may arise and the social dynamics to consider when grouping students in teaching sequences.  The Instructor has to have an active role in order for cooperative learning to be successful.  The Instructor should encourage students to be flexible, educate the students on the various problems that may arise within their group and provide strategies that promote team work.  I liked the strategy that Haller’s article pointed out to give students a voice within their group.  Reporting problems anonymously, by simply writing down the concern on a piece of paper and handing it to the Instructor.  This saves “face”, with hopes of the Instructor being able to rectify the problem.

     Johnson made a good analogy in his article about team work.  He referenced that “sports players are seen as individuals, not viewed for their team work.”  I had not thought of it in this aspect.  Johnson’s article also discussed several theories that are intertwined within the cooperative learning process.  He also made note that engagement is “key” and students need to have the social skills to function effectively within their group.  Often, I find that students have to be taught these necessary social skills on a daily basis.  We can’t assume that they come to us “knowing how to act.” 

     I found Millis’ article to be very helpful. It provides some good strategies for enhancing and managing cooperative learning activities. 

     I think, if executed appropriately, cooperative learning has many benefits.  Cooperative learning can empower students to assume ownership of their own learning as well as others.  One thing that I have found is that It can boost self-confidence in the struggling learner.  I began to reflect on my own experiences with cooperative learning, both as an adult learner as well as cooperative learning activities that I have organized in my class.  After reading this week’s articles, I have been able to reflect on the barriers and challenges that I have experienced in my personal and professional life.  I strongly believe that the benefits outweigh the barriers to its use.  It just requires additional time for planning and careful monitoring of the situation.  Of course, web based tools that could be used could include any that provided a course of collaboration such as Moodle, Word Press, Elluminate, and social media.  Although group work can be beneficial in an on-line learning environment, it can be more challenging than face to face opportunities.

Guided Design Process

     Initially after reading Casada’s article, my first thought was “this will not work for my students”.  As discussed in Casada’s article, the “hierarchical thinking model of thinking skills”, I can see many barriers for use and implementation.  The Guided Design Process appears to be more directed for the motivated or self-directed learner/student.  In reflecting on my Inclusion classes, it would be very difficult to facilitate several small groups within the context of the whole class.  When taking into consideration, the time element involved needed for planning, I don’t think that it would really be beneficial in my particular situation.  Regular Education Teachers and I do not have an adequate enough time as it is to co-plan together.  It seems that with the Guided Design Process, the amount of time to plan and coordinate materials needed would be a hinderance.

     If the appropriate selected group is targeted, there are some great benefits to this theory.  The theory is grounded in utilizing real world problems to assist students with acquiring higher order thinking skills.  This will be key in preparing students for being productive members in the 21^st Century.   Having students work together in groups promotes collaboration and team building skills.  Another advantage is that it is a clearly organized approach to learning.  Perhaps, if the unmotivated student would actually engage in this design process, he or she may actually be more inclined to become motivated.  This design process may spark their interest and they may develop a more positive attitude towards learning. 

     Web-based modules could include discussion forums, Elluminate discussions, GoogleDocs, and perhaps even Second Life. 

Audio-Tutorial Method

     According to the reading this week, studies conducted on Postlethewait's theory has had a minimal impact on learning.  Initially, I thought the impact may depend upon how well the course was designed.  The advantages are that it can be individualized, students can regulate their own learning, and can take on a multi-sensory approach to learning.  There are some barriers with the use of this method.  The low functioning student may not be as self-directed in their learning as the higher functioning student.  I would think that it would be safe to assume that the pace, method, and content would be important elements to consider.  Since adult learners are usually more self-directed in their learning, I think that it would definitely benefit the adult learner in higher education.  Perhaps, the non-traditional student (possibly being educated in an alternative learning environment) could take advantage of this learning opportunity. 

     Although, I think that the audio tutorial may not be completely suited for the non-motivated, low functioning student, I do believe that it could be used as a supplement to instruction.  Web-based 2.0 tools could be used for the creation of the audio-tutorial such as podcasting, voice thread, scribblar, and JayCut.  With the theories of learning and instruction, more consideration is given way in which student learning occurs.  There are so many ways to include audio-tutorials, even if they are used as a supplement to instruction.

Session 2 - Davis

Certainly there will be challenges in designing web-based instruction, however with the technology available today nothing is impossible!  The asynchronous learning environment which is reflected in the Keller Plan seems to meet the diverse needs of learners today.  I am in favor of The Keller Plan because it allows for students to assume ownership of their own learning, become self-directed, and is capable of providing a rich and effective learning environment.  With the demands of our jobs, financial burdens, and overwhelming burdens in our personal lives, asynchronous learning allows for convienience and flexibility.  In turn, this reduces some of the stress in our lives as opposed to a more rigid or structured synchronous learning environment.  I think in order for this environment to be effective, both the student and the professor has to be supportive and active in the learning process.  For those who prefer some face to face instruction and/or synchronous learning opportunities, the communication technologies are endless.  Examples that can be used is Twitter, Elluminate, and such.  It is important to not veer from the key elements as outlined in the Keller Plan.