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).
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)