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.