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.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
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!!!
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!!!
Friday, April 2, 2010
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???
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???
Friday, March 26, 2010
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!
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!
Saturday, March 13, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Situated Learning Environments and Cognitive Apprenticeships
I found several common themes in the five articles reviewed for this week. They all mentioned coaching/modeling, reflection, and real-world experiences.
It was the differences in the articles that I found even more fascinating. The Oliver, Herrington, and the DeBruijn articles introduced the idea of using computers in situated learning environments or cognitive apprenticeships. In my opinion, by far the most advanced of these was Herrington’s use of a student apprenticeship computer based environment, in a statistics course. DeBruijn’s example was the weakest to me. I think that the author over-simplified the needs of adult basic skills learners.
I had the privilege of working with adults trying to earn their GED’s. We used a computer based program similar to the one described by DeBruijn. These problem with these computerized situations are that this is what these individuals face every day. If you are fifty years old and you haven’t been able to make change before. You might be insulted by this exercise. You may have already accepted your defeat. Or these students may be so programmed to get the “right” answer they simply click until they get it.
The real diamonds to me were the Collins and Hammond articles. When I first saw on the syllabus that we would be looking at apprenticeships I thought of the apprenticeships of a trade. I wondered if we could still teach students in this way. Is being a software engineer going to look the same in 25 years? I then took the time to read the syllabus again and saw that it was COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIPS.
I read Collins article first and had two reactions. The first was that I had been lucky enough to take a writing and reading graduate course that introduced many of the concepts that Collins discussed. This was one of the best courses I have ever taken. I had as expert model reader and writer walk me through the processes involved in reading and writing. The second reaction was where do my two passions history and technology fit???
The Hammond article saved me with the wonderful illustration of the history example. What about technology??? What is it that “experts “in the use of technology do???
I definitely think students would benefit from the use of situated learning environments and cognitive apprenticeships. One of the greatest benefits to me as a learner is the confidence that is gained in applying what your learned. And having an expert tell you’ve got it is powerful!
It was the differences in the articles that I found even more fascinating. The Oliver, Herrington, and the DeBruijn articles introduced the idea of using computers in situated learning environments or cognitive apprenticeships. In my opinion, by far the most advanced of these was Herrington’s use of a student apprenticeship computer based environment, in a statistics course. DeBruijn’s example was the weakest to me. I think that the author over-simplified the needs of adult basic skills learners.
I had the privilege of working with adults trying to earn their GED’s. We used a computer based program similar to the one described by DeBruijn. These problem with these computerized situations are that this is what these individuals face every day. If you are fifty years old and you haven’t been able to make change before. You might be insulted by this exercise. You may have already accepted your defeat. Or these students may be so programmed to get the “right” answer they simply click until they get it.
The real diamonds to me were the Collins and Hammond articles. When I first saw on the syllabus that we would be looking at apprenticeships I thought of the apprenticeships of a trade. I wondered if we could still teach students in this way. Is being a software engineer going to look the same in 25 years? I then took the time to read the syllabus again and saw that it was COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIPS.
I read Collins article first and had two reactions. The first was that I had been lucky enough to take a writing and reading graduate course that introduced many of the concepts that Collins discussed. This was one of the best courses I have ever taken. I had as expert model reader and writer walk me through the processes involved in reading and writing. The second reaction was where do my two passions history and technology fit???
The Hammond article saved me with the wonderful illustration of the history example. What about technology??? What is it that “experts “in the use of technology do???
I definitely think students would benefit from the use of situated learning environments and cognitive apprenticeships. One of the greatest benefits to me as a learner is the confidence that is gained in applying what your learned. And having an expert tell you’ve got it is powerful!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Problem Based Learning Environments
Koschman’s work at Southern Illinois University was very interesting. Koschman shares that many thought that the PBL model was “already ideal” and didn’t need enhancement by technology. These articles were written in the 1990’s, but professionals still have a distrust of technology.
Two things struck me from the Southern Illinois University project. The first was that technology seemed to enhance the students’ experience with PBL. The second was that this group was ahead of the time. The learning lab, the case videos and chat features seem obvious solutions now, but they were new at that time.
The Hung, Harpole Bailey, and Jonassen article brought back a lot of positive learning experiences for me. I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science. I started school thinking I’d be a history major. I realized quickly that history in college was the memorization of facts. Political Science classes at my college instead used a “depth” instead of “breath” approach.
It has been over a decade since I completed those courses. I feel even more strongly that this is the best way for students to learn. I would argue that being able to access accurate information is more important now than being able to memorize it.
It is my opinion that students’ ability to evaluate, analyze and incorporate factual knowledge into solving problems is true education. I will ungracefully climb off my soapbox now.
Two things struck me from the Southern Illinois University project. The first was that technology seemed to enhance the students’ experience with PBL. The second was that this group was ahead of the time. The learning lab, the case videos and chat features seem obvious solutions now, but they were new at that time.
The Hung, Harpole Bailey, and Jonassen article brought back a lot of positive learning experiences for me. I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science. I started school thinking I’d be a history major. I realized quickly that history in college was the memorization of facts. Political Science classes at my college instead used a “depth” instead of “breath” approach.
It has been over a decade since I completed those courses. I feel even more strongly that this is the best way for students to learn. I would argue that being able to access accurate information is more important now than being able to memorize it.
It is my opinion that students’ ability to evaluate, analyze and incorporate factual knowledge into solving problems is true education. I will ungracefully climb off my soapbox now.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Cooperative Learning
The three articles this week pointed to a plethora of research on cooperative learning. Each of the authors agreed that cooperative learning was beneficial. Johnson, Johnson and Smith even provided several quotes and examples of cooperative learning accomplishments.
With all this positive support it is interesting to me that each of the authors felt it was necessary to make recommendations on cooperative learning. It seems as if the authors go out of their way to convince the reader that this can really work!
So do we are educators and learners need convincing that this will work? I think we do. It is hard to break through what Johnson, Johnson and Smith called the “myth of individual genius”.
I still remember clearly in sixth grade when a long-term substitute teacher put us in groups of four. We thought of this as cheating and actively fought the process. This patient expert walked us through many of the steps the authors recommended in these articles.
I’d like to hope that we don’t need the “structure, structure, structure” that Millis calls for. I like to think that we are moving away from an individual society to a more collaborative society.
I think the authors point out some wonderful examples of groups that have effectively used collaborative learning. These vary from agriculture, engineering and the military. I think the keys to using cooperative learning are; teacher feedback and helping students identify the collective goal.
I still work on using this model in my own life. I was surprised how much I identified with some of the problems between groups the authors illustrated. It is easy to see how teachers and students give up on this model. However, I agree that is might just be worth all that effort.
With all this positive support it is interesting to me that each of the authors felt it was necessary to make recommendations on cooperative learning. It seems as if the authors go out of their way to convince the reader that this can really work!
So do we are educators and learners need convincing that this will work? I think we do. It is hard to break through what Johnson, Johnson and Smith called the “myth of individual genius”.
I still remember clearly in sixth grade when a long-term substitute teacher put us in groups of four. We thought of this as cheating and actively fought the process. This patient expert walked us through many of the steps the authors recommended in these articles.
I’d like to hope that we don’t need the “structure, structure, structure” that Millis calls for. I like to think that we are moving away from an individual society to a more collaborative society.
I think the authors point out some wonderful examples of groups that have effectively used collaborative learning. These vary from agriculture, engineering and the military. I think the keys to using cooperative learning are; teacher feedback and helping students identify the collective goal.
I still work on using this model in my own life. I was surprised how much I identified with some of the problems between groups the authors illustrated. It is easy to see how teachers and students give up on this model. However, I agree that is might just be worth all that effort.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Guided Design
Guided Design
I had to chuckle when I read the Wilson article. I participated in this exercises in an undergraduate business class. This was the early 1990’s.
A few years later I entered the workforce and attended a “mission statement workshop” where we participated in guided design.
I can’t describe the difference. I found the survival exercise frustrating. There was no explanation of the guided design process. We were thrown in to groups during one class period. The goal in this exercise was not what Trivette promotes that “the goal of guided design is not to get the correct answer.” Instead it was clear to all of us that there was indeed a correct answer.
In contrast, mission statement workshop incorporated many of the components that Trivette stressed. The problem was certainly realistic. We were charged with coming back from the workshop with a draft mission statement. While Casada and DeShazer think that the role of the instructor should be one of a showman, I disagree. The person who guided us through the process at the workshop provided feedback and encouragement throughout. She did not cross the line into salesperson.
I don’t think younger students would enjoy all of the aspects of guided design. I think you could modify the model to be less stringent in its steps if you were going to use this in K-12.
I had to chuckle when I read the Wilson article. I participated in this exercises in an undergraduate business class. This was the early 1990’s.
A few years later I entered the workforce and attended a “mission statement workshop” where we participated in guided design.
I can’t describe the difference. I found the survival exercise frustrating. There was no explanation of the guided design process. We were thrown in to groups during one class period. The goal in this exercise was not what Trivette promotes that “the goal of guided design is not to get the correct answer.” Instead it was clear to all of us that there was indeed a correct answer.
In contrast, mission statement workshop incorporated many of the components that Trivette stressed. The problem was certainly realistic. We were charged with coming back from the workshop with a draft mission statement. While Casada and DeShazer think that the role of the instructor should be one of a showman, I disagree. The person who guided us through the process at the workshop provided feedback and encouragement throughout. She did not cross the line into salesperson.
I don’t think younger students would enjoy all of the aspects of guided design. I think you could modify the model to be less stringent in its steps if you were going to use this in K-12.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Audio-Tutorial
The Kulik, Kulik, and Cohen article was fascinating to read. The authors seem so enthralled with the “new” meta-analysis. Even at this early date it seems clear that meta-analysis offered a more in depth picture of results than the previously used box scores. The authors still seem at times to be leery of this new way of doing things. It is great to not have articles older than 10 years be deemed as worthless.
Okay, back to the A&T stuff. I really thought this method more appealing than PSI. I think the appeal is clearest in the small assembly sessions. I think this is one thing we can all learn from our elementary school educators. When you watch an elementary teacher lead a small group in reading, math etc… they are doing small assembly session. The students gain a trust in that group and they share their ideas. I remember when I was in 4th grade and I was switched halfway thru the year from the bluebird group to the robin group. It took me a couple of weeks to accept that this new group would respect my opinion. Why we suddenly pull this scaffolding away in middle school has always baffled me. I think it comes down to economics in a way. It is more efficient to teach lecture halls of 100 than to teach a SAS of 6-8.
Should we use A&T? I think that unlike the PSI (and its modular mastery) the A&T offers a glimpse into something useful. I agree Kozma, Belle and Williams that “one really learns a subject when one prepares to teach it”. While this isn’t always possible or necessary, it can help solidify the important aspects of a subject.
I think that the A&T system is closer to what we see in online education today than PSI. The best online courses and traditional courses include elements of the A&T model. First you review the evidence (independent study). Then you get expert input (General Assembly Session). Finally, you break down into small groups and quiz and discuss (Small Assembly Session).
Okay, back to the A&T stuff. I really thought this method more appealing than PSI. I think the appeal is clearest in the small assembly sessions. I think this is one thing we can all learn from our elementary school educators. When you watch an elementary teacher lead a small group in reading, math etc… they are doing small assembly session. The students gain a trust in that group and they share their ideas. I remember when I was in 4th grade and I was switched halfway thru the year from the bluebird group to the robin group. It took me a couple of weeks to accept that this new group would respect my opinion. Why we suddenly pull this scaffolding away in middle school has always baffled me. I think it comes down to economics in a way. It is more efficient to teach lecture halls of 100 than to teach a SAS of 6-8.
Should we use A&T? I think that unlike the PSI (and its modular mastery) the A&T offers a glimpse into something useful. I agree Kozma, Belle and Williams that “one really learns a subject when one prepares to teach it”. While this isn’t always possible or necessary, it can help solidify the important aspects of a subject.
I think that the A&T system is closer to what we see in online education today than PSI. The best online courses and traditional courses include elements of the A&T model. First you review the evidence (independent study). Then you get expert input (General Assembly Session). Finally, you break down into small groups and quiz and discuss (Small Assembly Session).
PSI-Davis and Ragsdell
In reading the Davis and Ragsdell article there were two main ideas that I kept mulling over. The first is the time frame that this article was written. The article was written by the course software designer and the course instructor. The article provides an overview for a course offering in 1999. I reflected back on what I was doing in 2000. I was at Michigan State University teaching Blackboard (Learning Management System) to faculty. We were on the verge of dipping our toes into on-line learning. These authors were already there. So I think this article allows us a glimpse into how we got to where we are today.
The second thing that I kept reviewing was the application of Keller’s PSI to this course offering. Some things fit with the course. There were clear educational objectives, small learning modules, self-pacing and a clear emphasis on doing. However, it is almost like the authors were trying to shove the course into the plan. In my opinion, the authors sell themselves short. This course also has real world application, expert lecturing, and a culminating project. The authors provide a dead link to the course offering. This means it is impossible to see how rich the content really was.
Around the same time that this article was written I was involved in using the PLATO software system. I was working with adults trying to obtain their GEDs. These individuals had a marked increase in basic computer skills knowledge. However, very few gained academic success. I also worked with a software tutorial program that “simulated” different Microsoft Office products. This product was simply frustrating. It was impossible to simulate the true environment of the software without having the application open. So you ended up having two computers side by side. It just went downhill from there. Both of these software programs provided all of the elements of the Keller plan.
Do I think PSI has a place in education today or in the future? Honestly no. I think that we have the ability to provide so much more. Why should we limit the tools to these drill and tutorial types of programs? Students need more than modules they need real world application. They need more than happy face reinforcements. Finally, I don’t think students benefit from being islands of learning. They need to collaborate and discuss.
The second thing that I kept reviewing was the application of Keller’s PSI to this course offering. Some things fit with the course. There were clear educational objectives, small learning modules, self-pacing and a clear emphasis on doing. However, it is almost like the authors were trying to shove the course into the plan. In my opinion, the authors sell themselves short. This course also has real world application, expert lecturing, and a culminating project. The authors provide a dead link to the course offering. This means it is impossible to see how rich the content really was.
Around the same time that this article was written I was involved in using the PLATO software system. I was working with adults trying to obtain their GEDs. These individuals had a marked increase in basic computer skills knowledge. However, very few gained academic success. I also worked with a software tutorial program that “simulated” different Microsoft Office products. This product was simply frustrating. It was impossible to simulate the true environment of the software without having the application open. So you ended up having two computers side by side. It just went downhill from there. Both of these software programs provided all of the elements of the Keller plan.
Do I think PSI has a place in education today or in the future? Honestly no. I think that we have the ability to provide so much more. Why should we limit the tools to these drill and tutorial types of programs? Students need more than modules they need real world application. They need more than happy face reinforcements. Finally, I don’t think students benefit from being islands of learning. They need to collaborate and discuss.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)