Learning Objects

I referenced Jack Johnson’s song lyrics from “The 3 Rs” in relation to the Case Based Reasoning model.  The song seems to also apply to Learning Objects as well.  "We've got to learn to/Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"

Learning objects are online resources that can be:

• Reduced to smaller, manageable chunks that can be tagged and shared for later use  (Kopi explains that by classifying learning objects into 5 types, there is better understanding and ability for retrieval.)
• Reused by others for a variety of purposes
• Recycled in new ways, allowing for integration in multiple areas 

Advantages

I understand the benefits of learning objects in regard to cost effectiveness by being able to reuse content & not having to “recreate the wheel”, being able to tailor a program by using smaller applicable “chunks”, and the potential ease of tagging and sharing online.  Merrill writes that the use of “learning objects increases the precision with which instructional strategies can be described.”  Many recognize the benefit of embedding learning objects into web-based instruction models.  Bannan-Ritland, Dabbagh, and Murphy describe the learning object systems as providing “yet another technology-based instructional delivery environment with exciting features and attributes that can empower learner-driven experiences…”

Disadvantages

At this point, there are many disadvantages associated with learning objects (and the means of housing and sharing them).  Because of the economy types, there may not be easy access to the best materials and/or the credibility of content might not be secured.  As with a wiki, users should be aware that just because content is available, it does not mean that the information is accurate.  Another downside is the contextual component.  When the context is removed to break the learning objects into easily tagged bits, it can be challenging to then reframe the objects for use.  Wiley also brings up an interesting point in his article.  He feels strongly that learning objects are merely “content chunks” or “information containers” that limit a learners ability to execute higher level thinking.  He reflects, “They are utilized as glitzy information dumps, or lectures with high production values, as if all that online or distributed learning required was a larger megaphone for the instructor.”

As new ways to develop, shape, store, and share learning objects evolve, there is potential for them to be very effective components of web-based instruction.  I am reminded of the quote that "Rome wasn't built in a day" and recognize that it will take time for the sharing structure to be refined.

I started with a song reference, so it only seems fitting to end with one.  As few lines from an Ed Cash song remind us: 

     But he knew he still had work to do
     Because he remembered that
     Great things take time

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

The school system where I work has proposed implementing Pay for Performance for teachers beginning in 2014.  One of the measures that will be used to evaluate teacher effectiveness with be a value added measure.  Using a formula that includes student testing results, each teacher will be assigned a value added number.  (You can imagine the uproar that this rating system has evoked.)  In an effort to have as much data as possible by 2014, students will be given a summative test (one test for each of the subjects including math, reading, social studies, and science) at the end of this school year.

There is already a significant amount of testing taking place in the system with state EOGs and formal system-wide formative & summative tests (not to mention the myriad of informal testing that takes place throughout the course of the year).  I understand the value of assessing students’ skills to celebrate successes and adjust teaching methods to reach & challenge each student.  Unfortunately, standardized tests most often only assess students on basic level thinking skills. 

There have been major concerns voiced from parents and teachers regarding this new round of testing that will take away from meaningful instructional time.  Another predominant concern is that students and teachers will be focused on test-taking skills and strategies (after all, a teacher's salary will be directly dependent on their students' test performance) rather than on problem-solving skills and higher order thinking which are key components in effective teaching and learning.

Enter the Cognitive Flexibility Theory…

While logistically it’s harder for me to wrap my head around this model, it is a great structure for helping learners to think critically.  By being scenario-based, students are engaged in real world situations.  I love the dual structure that include multiple media representations that introduce the same concepts, but in different formats as well as the multiple case perspectives that challenge students to look at examples from different points of view.  I love the elements of problem-solving and critical thinking that have to take place in this model.  When I think about ideals in education and buzz words linked to student learning, the ability to analyze, problem-solve, evaluate, construct meaning, think critically, make meaningful connections, and synthesize all come to mind.  This model of Cognitive Flexibility/Case-Based Learning go hand in hand to promote rich learning experiences.

So, let’s push for CFT & CBL rather than more standardized tests!  :)

Case-Based Reasoning

“...stories are important to us, not just because they are enjoyable (exciting, funny, imaginative etc.), but because they enable us, through the various characters, to enter into and reflect on a range of feelings and experiences, and apply the insights gained.” 

(https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/teachinglearning/curriculum/religiouseducation/Documents/Primary/Y2_Stories.pdf)

The model of Case Based Reasoning reminded me of Jack Johnson’s song lyrics  from “The 3 Rs” and how important it is to “reduce, reuse, recycle” (or, as the model implies: retrieve, reuse, revise, and retain).

A case-based model builds on stories that provide the backdrop for learning.  The learner is able to select the most relevant information, reuse info from an old case to fit a new problem, revise the solution & test it by simulation, and retain information.

Rather than repeating the past, we are able to learn from it and make informed decisions as we move forward.

MOST

I really liked the MOST model.  I wrestle daily with how to best reach my struggling learners.  This model provides a clear and impactful way to engage students in their literacy development.  Here are a few thoughts and connections as I read about the MOST model…

“at-risk students receive repetitive instruction on things they do not know—instruction that does not allow them to utilize the rich sources of every- day knowledge that they bring to the classroom (e.g., Palincsar & Klenk, 1991).”

"It seems quite plausible that as the poor readers continued to work on decoding skills, they could have been helped to achieve at grade level on listening comprehension because new concepts and vocabulary could have been communicated with strong visual support (e.g., Bransford, Kinzer, Risko, Rowe, & Vye, 1989)."

I recently completed a course directed at reaching English Language Learners.  One of the points that was emphasized was utilizing meaningful text, visuals, etc.  A focus on flash cards for sight words, vocabulary taught in isolation, and a “skill and drill” approach to nonsense word fluency can actually be counterproductive.  The MOST model allows for students to make meaningful connections.  Also, by helping students attach meaning to the visual component, they are building their vocabulary & background knowledge, both critical for language development and growth.

“help students become active, rather than passive, viewers of television”

This notion of “active viewers of television” reminded me of the Baby Einstein video series that is popular for infants and toddlers.  It can serve as a crutch for mothers desperately in need of some “hands-free” time to complete tasks around the house.  The intended purpose, though, is for parents to engage with their child during their early development, building gross motor skills while also listening to classical music and making connections to themes presented on the screen.  The MOST model, similarly, provides a mode for students to engage in what they are seeing on the screen.

“Because there is usually a match between extralinguistic situations and linguistic statements when adults talk to children, children can eventually crack the linguistic code and determine what others mean by what they say.”

The infusion of multimedia in the MOST model provides visuals to “crack the linguistic code” allowing them to comprehend and find meaning in stories far better than through the sole use of print or audio formats.  Allowing students to engage, record, manipulate/sequence, revisit, review, retell, and capture their own words through this model is truly allowing them to influence the trajectory of their learning.  They feel engaged  and are a vital role in the larger story.

I do think that this would be time and labor intensive to create, implement, and maintain… but, oh so worth it so see students succeed!

STAR Legacy Model

There are several elements of the STAR Legacy Model that stand out to me:

1. I like the clear steps of the process.

The learning model is so clearly mapped out with the five phases of Challenge, Initial Thoughts, Perspectives & Resources, Assessment, and Resources.

2. I like that the wrap-up provides an opportunity for the learner to revisit initial questions and reflect on their learning.

I currently teach at an IB school and one of the tenants of the curriculum is reflection.  Students (& teachers) are continually evaluating their ideas and work, determining strengths and weaknesses, and looking for ways to improve.  The STAR Legacy wrap-up allows for the important piece of reflection as learners reevaluate their initial thoughts and reflect on the knowledge & problem solving skills they have acquired as they have moved from Point A to Point B.

3. I like that the model can be enhanced with video clips.

Including video clips in the resource section is a great way to generate student thinking and promote understanding while interjecting important information.  In some ways, it has the feel of the "Ask the Expert" lifeline from the show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.  Without explicitly answering the challenge question, though, the videos help to equip the learner as they seek out answers.

4. I like the term “inquiry cycle” that Schwartz uses to describe the STAR Legacy Model. 

As the learner moves through the 5 steps of the model, they are ultimately looped back to where they began.  Just because the process has come full circle doesn’t necessarily mean that it is finished.  I like that this learning model allows for the possibility of the inquiry cycle to spin off for numerous rounds of more in-depth learning and exploration.

5. I like that it has strong potential for student engagement.

“How Are You Smart?”  This is a question that my TD students are exploring right now.  With so many different types of learners, it can be challenging for a classroom teacher to create lessons & activities that engage all learners.  The STAR Legacy model has the capacity to include elements that would appeal to a wide range of learning styles by embedding video, audio clips, music, activities, etc.

Anchored Instruction

anchor

verb

an·chor

1: to hold in place

2: to secure firmly

The anchored instruction model is one that resonates with me.  In thinking about my educational journey in middle & high school and the ways that problems were presented for me to solve, I rarely had the opportunity to mesh theory & practice through realistic scenarios.  I like how Goldman et al explain that the goal is "to increase students' skills at solving problems that require an understanding of the relationships between data and theory...”

The sample ECI 517 Anchored Instruction modules posted on the moodle provide both a clear big picture goal, while also requiring students to solve intermediary tasks to achieve the desired outcome.  The embedded video component allows the learning to “come to life” in a way that print and/or audio alone lack.

The article “Anchoring Science Instruction in Multimedia Learning Environments” outlines design elements that entwine to create a rich learning experience.  These elements include the narrative format, the generative design of the stories, embedded data, the complexity of the problems, use of video, links across the curricula, and episode pairing.  These components work in conjunction with the design features of posing challenges throughout the storyline rather than just at the end, the need for ancillary materials and/or experimentation beyond the video, and a first-person point of view to aid the learner in taking ownership.

For me, anchored instruction feels very manageable and just plain makes sense.  I enjoy being able to wrap my head around the big picture, work my way through small purposed steps, collaborate with others, have access to visuals (especially in video format), and the opportunity to get involved in a hands-on manner that relates to the bigger picture.  This model encompasses the notion that the learner’s knowledge and understanding will be deep-rooted & secured firmly.

Choose Your Own Adventure

“An interest is a terrible think to waste.”  

(Shank, Fano, Bell, & Jona)

In the article “The Design of Goal-Based Scenarios”,  Schank, Fano, Bell, and Jona provide an overview of the Goal-Based Learning model in their description, “GBSs are problems in the domain of a student’s interest that present definable goals and encourage learning in service of achieving those goals.  A GBS is a type of learn-by-doing task with very specific constraints on the selection of material to be taught, the goals the student will pursue, the environment in which the student will work, the tasks the student will perform, and the resources that are made available to the student.”

The model is very clearly and intentionally laid out.  The components include:

• The Learning Goals (process & content knowledge goals)
• The Mission (motivational & realistic)
• The Cover Story (create a need & allow for opportunities to both practice skills and seek knowledge)
• The Role (the part of the person who will use the skills)
• The Scenario Operations (activities that relate to the mission & goals that have decision points with consequences)
• Resources (provide useful, story based information necessary to be successful)
• Feedback (in the form of consequence of actions, coaches, experts’ stories)

Similar to the life lines (phone a friend, poll the audience, and ask an expert) incorporated in the show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, the GBS model allows access to useful, story based information to guide students in the process of achieving their goals.

I am forever telling my students that we can learn from our mistakes (and here we have a model with an emphasis on doing just that!).  In “Learning By Doing”, Schank, Berman, and Macpherson explain the expectation failure component.  “You made a mistake, and now you have the chance to learn from it.”

This model reminds me of the choose your own adventure books that I loved as a kid.  But this model provides so much more than just a haphazard path to follow.  It allows for student engagement, opportunities to seek knowledge, a platform for testing ideas, and a means of learning from mistakes.

Hsu, C., Moore, D.  (2010).  An Example Implementation of Schank’s Goal-Based Scenarios.  Tech Trends. 54(1), 58-61.

Schank, Berman, Macpherson.  Learning By Doing. Institute for the Learning Sciences at Northwestern University. 161-181.

Schank, R., Fano, A., Jona, M., & Bell, B. (1993). The Design of Goal-Based Scenarios.  Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. 

Apprenticeship

Historically, the apprenticeship model was a means to learn, develop, and master a craft through the intentional relationship with an expert who modeled, coached, and then stepped back and allowed the student to become an experienced craftsman as well.

In their article, Collins, Brown, & Newman note that “Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally.”  The article outlines the underlying characteristics of the Cognitive Apprenticeship model, a beautiful means of meshing facts and problem solving skills as the apprentice is guided through the learning experience.  “Conceptual and factual knowledge thus are learned in terms of their uses in a variety of contexts, encouraging both a deeper understanding of the meaning of the concepts and facts themselves and a rich web of memorable associations between them and problem- solving contexts.” (p. 457)

There are several effective models of apprenticeship including reciprocal teaching in which students learn to form questions, summarize, ask questions, and clarify difficulties.  They take turns having the teacher model these strategies and taking on the role of the teacher to deliver the strategies.

The cognitive apprenticeship model can also be applied to varied subject areas such as writing as demonstrated in Scardamalia and Bereiter's Procedural Facilitation of Writing or math as outlined in Schoenfeld's Method for Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving.  Their methods include the same approach of modeling, coaching, and fading.

Hand in hand with the cognitive apprenticeship model is the use of situated learning in which students are given “real world” tasks or scenarios to solve.  Problem-solving is not learned in isolation, but is framed in a manner that provides meaning or purpose.

In thinking through the shift from apprenticeship & focus on developing a specific skill set to the generalized instruction of all subject areas now imparted through traditional education, I am reminded of the writing of C.S. Lewis.  He reasoned that "In those days a boy on the classical side officially did almost nothing but classics.  I think this wise; the greatest service we can do to education is to teach fewer subjects.  No one has time to do more than a very few things well before he is twenty, and when we force a boy to be a mediocrity in a dozen subjects we destroy his standards, perhaps for life.”

I wonder if we are indeed doing a disservice to students by straying from this model of instruction and/or thinking that we can realistically/fully use this model to teach EVERY subject area well.

Pay for Performance

You may be rightly questioning what Pay for Performance has to do with Problem Based Learning...

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the school system where I am currently employed, has initiated the implementation of a Pay for Performance compensation plan to begin in 2014.  To say that there are kinks and/or ideas to flesh out would be an understatement!

They have solicited the feedback, suggestions, and collaboration of current faculty to create the structure, framework, and specifics of the program and how exactly salaries will be attached or distributed based on teacher performance.  Truthfully, I had a pretty negative initial reaction to the proposal.  I decided that rather than complain, I should step up and be part of the solution.  So, with plenty of spare time (she says sarcastically), I volunteered to participate on a Design Team.

As I read the information this week and listened to the lecture highlighting the key components of Problem Based Learning, I realized that my involvement in the P4P Design Team is closely linked to this model.  

There are about 8 groups that have been tasked with very specific objectives as identified by the school district.  My group, consisting of a team of 10 teachers, was selected from a pool of interested parties to discuss "other options" beyond the basics outlined in groups 1-8.  We were given the open-ended task of creating innovative measures that hadn't yet been considered by the school system.  It has been challenging and yet exciting work!

As in the PBL model, we started with what we knew (and/or researched what was currently "known" or being put into place in other districts). From there, we began to brainstorm ideas and categorize measures that correlate directly with teacher effectiveness.  Our team has gathered a lot of resources, looking not only at current measures implemented in the United States, but seeking defining characteristics of education programs in countries that outrank the U.S.  We have done research individually and then discuss the findings when we come together for our weekly meetings.  A wiki has been set up to store, share, and organize our ideas.  We have established roles within the group to stay on track and manage our work (chairperson, time-keeper, my role of managing the wiki, etc.).  In addition, we also have a team member who is employed by the school system in the P4P department who serves as a liaison.  We've had some great discussion and debate regarding all of the ideas that have been brought to the table so far.  In keeping with the PBL model structure, the group will be compiling data and making a proposal which we will present to the Executive Committee & School Board, making recommendations for the 2014 plan.

While our group has expected guidelines from CMS to meet in person, this work could certainly be done via the web.  The wiki could continue to be utilized and updated by team members for collaboration purposes and our meetings could consist of online interactions through Elluminate, Skype, DimDim, etc.  When we come to the place of solidifying our proposal, we will also need to explore tools that will be effective in presenting our plan.

Speaking firsthand, the PBL model certainly provides a rich experience for the participant!



On a side note...
Reading and hearing the "PB" in PBL this week triggered a memory of the commercials for PB Max candy bars that were a hit in the late 80s/early 90s.
Random? Yes!
A welcomed memory? Yes!

"all for one, one for all"

I think that the motto, "all for one, one for all," shared by the friends in Alexandre Dumas's classic novel, The Three Musketeers, sums up the Cooperative Learning model.


The idea that students are working collaboratively toward a common goal or purpose is the heart of the cooperative learning process.  In many ways, this model is an extension of the guided design process, allowing students to collectively develop problem-solving skills while also learning management skills, conflict resolution, and ways to interact within the framework of a project team.


There are many recorded benefits of this model, including:

• the opportunity to learn with and from one another
• the accountability created by a model where all members will "sink or swim" together ("A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link")
• the interdependency of each member's role 
• creates a "safe" place for those not comfortable sharing in large group settings
• each team member has an opportunity for their voice to be heard
• promotes problem solving skills
• increased student retention
• student engagement
• allows students to develop communication & social skills
• promotes positive self-esteem
• a collective sense of accomplishment when the task is complete

Kudos to the team at NCSU who recognized the learning style of women and incorporated the cooperative learning model as a means to engage & retain women in the field of engineering!  "The use of cooperative learning has specifically been advocated as a means of retaining women in engineering programs, since women tend to prefer collaborative to competitive learning." (Haller, Gallagher, Weldon, & Felder)

There are so many models for how Cooperative Learning can play out in the classroom setting.  Think-Pair-Share is one that I have both participated in as a student and initiated as a teacher.  On the other end of the spectrum, I am reminded of the small group collaboration among students playing the World Peace Game as highlighted in the movie "World Peace and other 4th Grade Achievements" (see trailer below).  The sky's the limit when it comes to finding ways to incorporate the Cooperative Learning model in an educational setting.

Guided Design Process

I currently teach at an International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program (IB PYP) elementary school.  Some of the major goals of the PYP program are to help shape students to be inquirers, problem-solvers, and risk-takers.  The guided design process model seems to be a great vehicle to promote these skills.

I have read several books that align with this philosophy as outlined in this weeks’ lecture and articles.   Both in John Barell’s Why Are School Buses Always Yellow?: Teaching for Inquiry, PreK-5 and in Ted McCain’s book entitled Teaching for Tomorrow: Teaching Content and Problem-Solving Skills, the authors outline how educators can and should present students with meaningful, real life scenarios to develop collaboration, higher level thinking, problem-solving skills, and overall rich learning experiences.  No matter the age level, students can take an active role in learning through the guided design process model.

The instructor plays a key role in developing scenarios, listening to students as they interact and problem-solve, and pose questions for further inquiry and processing.  This is a dramatic shift from the traditional lecture-style method of delivery.  In Wilson’s article, he reports positive results from the model.  Of the 62 teams of students evaluated, he found 90% to work well as a team and 65% showed decision-making improvements. This model of instruction allows students to play an active role as well as develop skills necessary for life.

What Is The Internet, Anyway?

I got a good chuckle watching this video clip from the Today Show that aired in January 1994.

Audio-Tutorial Approach

“You can’t really know where you are going until you know where you’ve been.” 

-Hitch

My initial response to the Audio-Tutorial model was that it seemed antiquated.  The reference to audio tapes evoked a chuckle.  After reading the article fully, the approach seemed to be a workable model.  Much of both class and online courses today mimic the tiered interactions with instructors and peers that are laid out in the 1960s AT approach.  The initial gathering of participants in a General Assembly format helps to set parameters and expectations for learning.  Students are then able to work at their own pace in Independent Study Sessions, listening and reviewing information for understanding.  Fast forward 50 years and we now have a broad range of technology tools available to adapt the audio tutorial approach, making it a much more substantive model.  With the ability to move away from the study carrel to the limitless resources via the internet accessed from any location, students have the ability to engage well with the course material.  I personally enjoy the interactions with peers and the ability to share ideas and challenge each other.  The Small Assembly Sessions for peer review and assessment seemed like a great piece of the larger puzzle.

I think that we would be remiss to disregard the approach because elements of it are “dated.”  Incorporating the use of internet components (images, vodcasts, virtual experiments, etc.) make the model workable in the 21st century.  The whole group, individual, and small group elements provide a balance of instructional methods and accountability.  In order to engage both the audio and visual learners, it would be imperative to include web tools and pictoral components.

I thought that the findings in the two articles to be interesting.  While Kulik didn’t seem to capture any definitive benefits of the AT approach, the findings of Melca, Flocker, and Gould seemed to create a strong case for its effectiveness.

THE AUDIO TUTORIAL SYSTEM

“Melca (1968) found that his AT group scored higher than the traditionally taught group on a post-test, when there was no difference on pre-test scores for 3 measures: Scholastic aptitude test; College entrance exam; and an achievement test in genetics. Fisher and her colleagues (1975) made pre- and post-test comparisons in introductory genetics courses, using a video- based system of AT, and found the ‘video-autotutorial’ approach to be statistically superior.

4Flocker (1972) measured the motivational aspects of the AT approach when he gave 210 AT students an unannounced mid-term exam, which had been taken by 755 conventionally taught students on an announced basis. There was no difference in performance despite the difference in preparedness, demonstrating the highly motivating effects of AT.

Gould (1972) found that only 15% of grades were below ‘C’ for the AT students compared with 30% below ‘C’ in the conventionally taught group.”

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P.A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.