Learning Objects

I made a pretty major mistake in my last readings. I read the Bannan-Ritland article first. By the end of the article I had learned a lot about different theories and what the authors would and wouldn’t include in learning object. However, I was still confused as to what a learning object was.

I then read the Wiley article and realized it was a simpler concept than I had thought. The idea as I understood it was that learning objects are empty containers of constructivist learning that include little or no context.

The Koppi article stressed the need to have a searchable database of learning objects. So that educators could find the correct one for their specific needs.

In his ITT paper Merrill seemed to be concerned with what he sees as a growing emphasis on content and less on instructional strategies.

Then I looked at Dr. Oliver’s lecture and I got it a little more. My main concern with learning objects is that they are de-contextualized. The authors admit that it takes a lot of time to create a good learning object. Then the teacher/instructor has to provide the context.

I’m sure there is a place for these re-usable objects. However, since creating multi-media environments that are constructivist are becoming easier and easier to create I’m not sure I see the long term benefits.

CFT

I am so glad that I read the Fitzgerald article first. It was a great introduction to cognitive flexibility theory (CFT). I really liked the idea that learners create their own knowledge base. That the learner is active and scaffolding is provided. I also liked that they emphasized prior knowledge.

Then I moved onto the Jacobsen articles. In both articles the authors discuss how a student’s epistemology affects their reaction to CFT. At first my brain froze over, and then I realized how true this is. I took a class that incorporated a lot of CFT. We had individual projects that were part of a collective larger project. The teacher served as an expert and also as a colleague. The professor participated in several of the assignments with us. There was little lecture or regurgitation. Some students found this frustrating. They wanted to know what they needed to do to get a good grade. They thought that the collaborative work session were a waste of time. I remember being extremely frustrated at the time with these students. However, these articles helped me understand that it may have been that these students didn’t think they were learning. In the same way that I get frustrated in a fill and spill course they don’t like a CFT course.


The Jonassen article was interesting. I have to admit it was a little scary to realize that medical professionls have been taught in such a narrow sighted way until recently.

I was saddened and excited to read the short piece on the EASE program at MSU. I have taken several undergraduate and graduate courses in the history and social studies arena had have not been introduced to this resource. I think it a wonderful model.

I really liked CFT. I think it would avoid over simplification. I also like that it like case based pulls on students’ prior knowledge. Making connections in unstructured environments to me is life.

Case Based

This week’s Jonassen article supported the use of case based learning. The authors stressed that there were many reasons that instructional designers should chose case-based reasoning. The Jarz and Wang articles were more about the delivery of case based learning. They both argued that multimedia/ hyperlink was a good delivery method.

Dr. Oliver’s lecture brought up a point that I didn’t see stressed in any of these articles. He mentioned that the instructor should de-brief students about case. I think that this is an important component and should not be overlooked. I remember in an undergraduate business class that I took we did some case based learning. There were several assumptions and questions that students had regarding the cases that weren’t cleared up in the information that was provided.

I agreed with the Wang article that indexing is important in case based learning. If students find it frustrating to access related information they may give up. The Wang article also reminded me of an experience I had working in IT support. I was a member of an extensive help desk team. Finally, someone came up with the idea to have a common problems database. It was easily searchable and cut response times. The better part was that it lowered stress and anxiety for the help desk team.

I definitely agree with the authors that case based or story telling is how humans interact. I think that this may be one of the reasons I found math and science so frustrating in school. We were asked to memorize facts without any context. I hope this is a model that will be used more not just in schools, but in the workplace. Plus, how many articles do you get to read where the authors looked at how photocopying technicians communicate!!!

MOST

I read this article twice because I was sure I missed something. I really
agreed with what the authors lay out at the beginning of the chapter.
They make a clear and compelling case that schools are taking low
achieving readers and drilling them on skills they don’t have. They also
explain that literacy is about more than knowing how to read.
Then I get lost. I understand that multimedia and visuals in particular
have a role in helping students learn. I wouldn’t have chosen the
educational paths I have if I didn’t believe strongly in this. Where I
have trouble is the almost 1980’s notion that students who watch t.v. will
be able to learn.

I get that the authors are not saying let’s put students into a classroom
so they can watch Reading Rainbow together. However, are we as educators
supposed to advocate that kids, especially at risk students, know t.v. so
that is what we need to give them?

Instead of making videos that relate the students “real world” why don’t
we start making online books, comics, or other reading materials that
relate???

Star Legacy

I have reviewed the star legacy model for another class. I liked the model’s step by step approach. I also liked the idea of presenting a challenge. Finally, I liked the idea of having a capstone project.
For this course, the red team has chosen to use this model in our next project. As a member of the team I am excited. It also means I have taken a closer look at what the authors of the article have to say. It is interesting because I had the chance to reflect back on my initial thought of this model from the previous course I had taken. After having more graduate courses and maybe more life experience I have expanded my view of this model.

Here are some incorrect assumptions I made:

1. Assumption: This is a step by step process with no area for change.

After reviewing: In fact the authors came up with this model so that instructional designers, teachers, and learners could collaborate.

2. Assumption: Students need to complete a formal type of assessment.

After reviewing: The assessment could be in the form of essay or even more informal.


I am looking forward to learning even more about this model as we create our project!

Anchored Instruction

I have discussed the Vanderbilt group’s anchored instruction model in other classes. In my past experience in anchored instruction Vygotsky’s scaffolding was emphasized. While the authors mention scaffolding, it was hard to picture the scaffolding in the two projects. These readings really looked at the specifics of the two content areas of focus, math and science.

One of the goals of anchored instruction is for students to generate the questions and become independent thinkers. For me the most interesting findings in looking at the math “Jasper” program was the reactions of college students. While the program was geared toward K-12 even the college students found it challenging. The college students became frustrated when they couldn’t find the solution in five minutes or less. What was challenging to these college students seemed to be the idea that they were to become independent thinkers.

The science project of “Scientists in Action” reminded me of the sickle cell project we looked at earlier this month. To me the most compelling part of this project was the change in students’ perspective of careers in science. The student quotes of both elementary aged and high school aged students were positive after the project.

I definitely think there is a place for anchored instruction. I really like the idea of have a common context to build on. I remember in my undergrad years the entire campus was asked to read the same book. Then in your classes both students and professors were challenged to find applications. At first it seemed cheesy, like a glorified book club. However, it truly worked.

Goal Based Scenarios

When I read the Schank article I had some concerns about Goal Based Scenarios (GBS). My main concern was about putting so much emphasis on one scenario. The adviser to the president example was well thought out and implemented. My concern was what if you had a student in your class that had lived in a war torn area of the world? Or what if you used the sickle cell example and you had a student who suffered from this disease?

Some would argue that this reality and that these students have to deal with it. However, Schank himself points out in the article that we make connections by placing information in categories. If a student’s category for the problem being presented is filled with pain, I think this is a concern.

The other issue I saw was that students might become overwhelmed by always doing GBS. I hated doing math problem solving for example. I don’t know why but I would be come overwhelmed. I don’t know if that sense of too much information to carry could be eliminated with proper design.

The Andersen example really changed my perspective on GBS. I was impressed with the training this company provided for its employees. I thought it was an innovative use of GBS. It seemed from the articles that the employees and trainers found it helpful. Both the employees and the trainers emphasized the collaboration that happened outside of the computerized module. I wonder if this GBS was implemented online if it would loose something.

I think GBS has a place in education today. I don’t think I agree with Schank that it is the answer. I don’t see throwing out all other learning models to use GBS solely. But I think it has its place.