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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your "islands of learning" comment, and I think the lack of collaboration inherent in the Keller Plan is a major problem. Davis and Ragsdell do mention a class with a team project and discussions, but they do not describe these activities in light of the self-paced nature of the class. In my opinion, special provisions would need to be taken (such as deadlines or checkpoints) to ensure that collaborative activities are productive.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree as well that any learner of any age can participate in more social and collaborative activities, and probably socially construct better knowledge from those interactions. There are pockets of uses for individualized instruction, such as when you need to learn a software tool rather quickly--skills instruction.
ReplyDelete