William James is considered by many to be one of the most influential American philosophers, and was instrumental in the beginnings of Psychology. James' father was friends with many famous literary figures, in fact James' godfather was Ralf Waldo Emerson. James earned a doctorate of medicine from Harvard, and taught physiology and philosophy there. Today, the philosophy building at Harvard is named William James Hall. James was a very prolific writer, and to this day his works are being analyzed and applied to our understanding of psychology and learning.
“I am sure that, be it in the end judged true or false, it is essential to the evolution of clearness in philosophical thought that someone should defend a pluralistic empiricism radically."
- William James
About William James
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/james.html#top
Comprehensive site about William James, including biography, writings, etc.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology, includes biography, life timeline, and summary of writings and contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
wikipedia page for James, including biography, and summary of James’ philosophical views
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19950301-000029.html
Article on Psychology Today website about the James brothers.
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/James.htm
Background information and links to other resources
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0111.html
New York Times obituary of James on August 27th, 1910.
http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=66§ion=notes
From the Library of America, is a summary of historical background about James’ writings.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.24.97/books-9730.html
Discussion of James’ contributions to political philosophy
http://website.lineone.net/~williamjames1/
Article that discusses James’ childhood, teaching, and contributions to psychology
Writings
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/index.htm
This is an online version of The Principals of Psychology, the introductory psychology textbook for which James is most famous. Considered by some to be the most important psychology text in history.
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/documents.html
selected works of James.
http://www.mythosandlogos.com/James.html
Links to several of James’ writings and lectures
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_james.html
Quotes of William James
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/author.htm#j
Several primary source documents written by James, found on the Classics in the History of Psychology website.
Pragmatism
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://james.pragmatism.org/
William James Society, an active group of individuals who continue to analyze to life and work of William James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Wikipedia page about pragmatism, James’ primary contribution to philosophy.
http://radicalacademy.com/amphilosophy7.htm
A history of pragmatism, and how James along with Charles Sanders Pierce started the “pragmatism movement”.
Analyses of James
http://williamjamesstudies.press.uiuc.edu/1.1/shusterman.html
Critical analysis by Richard Shusterman (Florida Atlantic University) of James’ view on practical and aesthetic values, and how this impacts life decisions.
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol3/pdf/b96_7.pdf
Article that analyzes James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, and discusses James’ psychological study of religion.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
Web Design Unit Evaluation Report
Web Design Unit Evaluation Report
The purpose of this unit was a pilot test of offering EDTC 3123 in an online format. The web design aspect of the course is commonly viewed as the most challenging unit for students, therefore making this the greatest common factor for offering this course online. In other words, if they cannot complete this unit adequately online, then it really does not matter if the other units can be done online or not.
The unit was broken into 5 lessons, and also included a discussion board where students were to ask questions and respond to challenges faced in each lesson. To evaluate the effectiveness of this unit, students completed an online unit evaluation form. Additionally, I held an informal discussion with the students about what they felt went well and what obstacles were difficult to cross.
Below is a summary of the responses to each question of the survey:
5= Strongly Agree
4= Somewhat Agree
3= No Opinion
2= Somewhat Disagree
1= Strongly Agree
1. I was able to access the learning materials in the unit.
Average = 4.63
2. I understood what I was supposed to do in each lesson.
Average = 3.74
3. The content of each lesson was easy to follow.
Average = 3.47
4. The video tutorials were helpful to me.
Average = 4.74
5. The video tutorials played at a speed that was easy to follow.
Average = 4.47
6. I understood what I was looking for in the example websites in lesson 1.
Average = 4.16
7. Using the html tutorials website was helpful to understand html code.
Average = 3.37
8. By following the instruction in this unit, I was able to build and publish a basic website with FrontPage.
Average = 4.68
9. I understand what a WebQuest is and how to use it in a lesson.
Average = 4.26
10. I feel like I know enough now about web design that I could continue to build on my classroom website and use it for instructional purposes.
Average = 4.37
Discussion: From these averages, most students felt that the unit was effective for them to learn how to design an instructional website. All questions averaged greater than 3.
On questions 2 and 3, it revealed what was reinforced by student comments offered later in the evaluation form, such as:
- I think you need to be more careful about how the directions are worded. It might make sense to someone who already knows what is going on, but to someone who has no idea, the directions were kind of confusing.
- Wording, and a more clear form of what is expected in our assignments.
- The instruction of homework was a little bit confusing. So I needed more detail instruction for that.
However, I am leery of relying too heavily on the feedback from this group of students to fully decide how effective the instruction was. When asked how much time was spent on each lesson, here was the average hours given:
Lesson 1- 1.47
Lesson 2- 2.32
Lesson 3- 2.16
Lesson 4- 2.56
Lesson 5- 3.44
In reality, this unit would have been given about 2 weeks of class time to complete. The sum of average time spent on all 5 lessons is just under 12 hours, which would be equivalent to time they would have spent in class. However, normally a student would be expected to spend time out of class studying and working on the project, so the students actually spent much less time on this unit than should have been.
Video Tutorials
The students felt very strongly that the videos were crucial. They definitely benefited by the step by step instruction in this format, especially for those who “discovered” the video control buttons (pause, play, fast forward, etc.). I think a revision that could be make is to more explicitly point out how to use the video tutorials, perhaps even create a tutorial for the tutorial.
Lesson 2: The Infamous HTML Quiz
Probably the most problematic point of the entire unit was a great misunderstanding of how the students were to complete the html quiz. This was intended to be a very simple exercise, however many students misinterpreted the instructions and made this a very, very complex task. So much that many reported that they felt if lesson 2 was so beyond their ability that they felt hopeless about the rest of the lessons. This was one of the excuses given for why so many students did not even access lessons 3 through 5 until the day before the entire unit was to be completed. I personally think the students just procrastinated, and when they finally went into the lessons were overwhelmed by what they would have to complete within 1 day.
In light of how the html quiz went, I am actually considering the fact that this lesson could be dropped completely, for several reasons. For one, it would save time in an already very busy course. Also, if the point is for students to be able to recognize basic html, the reality is that since most people use web editing software today, most pages do not contain basic html code in their source code. So, for these reason, I believe that the html lesson could possibly be excluded altogether.
Accessing the WebQuest Template
Another problem that many students faced was that the tutorial I created for obtaining the WebQuest template was using the built-in Windows XP Zipped File Utility. However, when students tried to do this on campus, they were presented with WinZip (trial version). When they did not recognize this, they asked for assistance from the COE tech help desk, and were told anything from, “I guess you’ll have to buy it” to “It’s not working here, you’ll have to go to Math Sciences”. In actuality, the students only had to make a few clicks to get the template into their FrontPage website.
Final Thoughts
I believe that this unit could undergo several of the revisions mentioned above and be retried before ruling out whether this course could work online. When I read student comments such as:
“I think this was the ONE unit that should have been done in class. Most of the other units in this class would have been perfect for an online class but this one was too complicated to do on our own. Maybe if we would have taken one class period to discuss what you wanted and then finished the lesson outside of class that would have been more helpful. “
I still have to consider that the students really did not spend ample time working on the unit. One student even offered the complaint (after the fact, of course) that, “Well, we didn’t sign up for an online class”. So possibly, this course would have to be actually offered online to receive feedback from students who “signed on” for an online experience.
Considering the average scores on the evaluation given above, I still believe that the students viewed this unit as effective in accomplishing the unit object which was that students could create an instructional classroom website.
The purpose of this unit was a pilot test of offering EDTC 3123 in an online format. The web design aspect of the course is commonly viewed as the most challenging unit for students, therefore making this the greatest common factor for offering this course online. In other words, if they cannot complete this unit adequately online, then it really does not matter if the other units can be done online or not.
The unit was broken into 5 lessons, and also included a discussion board where students were to ask questions and respond to challenges faced in each lesson. To evaluate the effectiveness of this unit, students completed an online unit evaluation form. Additionally, I held an informal discussion with the students about what they felt went well and what obstacles were difficult to cross.
Below is a summary of the responses to each question of the survey:
5= Strongly Agree
4= Somewhat Agree
3= No Opinion
2= Somewhat Disagree
1= Strongly Agree
1. I was able to access the learning materials in the unit.
Average = 4.63
2. I understood what I was supposed to do in each lesson.
Average = 3.74
3. The content of each lesson was easy to follow.
Average = 3.47
4. The video tutorials were helpful to me.
Average = 4.74
5. The video tutorials played at a speed that was easy to follow.
Average = 4.47
6. I understood what I was looking for in the example websites in lesson 1.
Average = 4.16
7. Using the html tutorials website was helpful to understand html code.
Average = 3.37
8. By following the instruction in this unit, I was able to build and publish a basic website with FrontPage.
Average = 4.68
9. I understand what a WebQuest is and how to use it in a lesson.
Average = 4.26
10. I feel like I know enough now about web design that I could continue to build on my classroom website and use it for instructional purposes.
Average = 4.37
Discussion: From these averages, most students felt that the unit was effective for them to learn how to design an instructional website. All questions averaged greater than 3.
On questions 2 and 3, it revealed what was reinforced by student comments offered later in the evaluation form, such as:
- I think you need to be more careful about how the directions are worded. It might make sense to someone who already knows what is going on, but to someone who has no idea, the directions were kind of confusing.
- Wording, and a more clear form of what is expected in our assignments.
- The instruction of homework was a little bit confusing. So I needed more detail instruction for that.
However, I am leery of relying too heavily on the feedback from this group of students to fully decide how effective the instruction was. When asked how much time was spent on each lesson, here was the average hours given:
Lesson 1- 1.47
Lesson 2- 2.32
Lesson 3- 2.16
Lesson 4- 2.56
Lesson 5- 3.44
In reality, this unit would have been given about 2 weeks of class time to complete. The sum of average time spent on all 5 lessons is just under 12 hours, which would be equivalent to time they would have spent in class. However, normally a student would be expected to spend time out of class studying and working on the project, so the students actually spent much less time on this unit than should have been.
Video Tutorials
The students felt very strongly that the videos were crucial. They definitely benefited by the step by step instruction in this format, especially for those who “discovered” the video control buttons (pause, play, fast forward, etc.). I think a revision that could be make is to more explicitly point out how to use the video tutorials, perhaps even create a tutorial for the tutorial.
Lesson 2: The Infamous HTML Quiz
Probably the most problematic point of the entire unit was a great misunderstanding of how the students were to complete the html quiz. This was intended to be a very simple exercise, however many students misinterpreted the instructions and made this a very, very complex task. So much that many reported that they felt if lesson 2 was so beyond their ability that they felt hopeless about the rest of the lessons. This was one of the excuses given for why so many students did not even access lessons 3 through 5 until the day before the entire unit was to be completed. I personally think the students just procrastinated, and when they finally went into the lessons were overwhelmed by what they would have to complete within 1 day.
In light of how the html quiz went, I am actually considering the fact that this lesson could be dropped completely, for several reasons. For one, it would save time in an already very busy course. Also, if the point is for students to be able to recognize basic html, the reality is that since most people use web editing software today, most pages do not contain basic html code in their source code. So, for these reason, I believe that the html lesson could possibly be excluded altogether.
Accessing the WebQuest Template
Another problem that many students faced was that the tutorial I created for obtaining the WebQuest template was using the built-in Windows XP Zipped File Utility. However, when students tried to do this on campus, they were presented with WinZip (trial version). When they did not recognize this, they asked for assistance from the COE tech help desk, and were told anything from, “I guess you’ll have to buy it” to “It’s not working here, you’ll have to go to Math Sciences”. In actuality, the students only had to make a few clicks to get the template into their FrontPage website.
Final Thoughts
I believe that this unit could undergo several of the revisions mentioned above and be retried before ruling out whether this course could work online. When I read student comments such as:
“I think this was the ONE unit that should have been done in class. Most of the other units in this class would have been perfect for an online class but this one was too complicated to do on our own. Maybe if we would have taken one class period to discuss what you wanted and then finished the lesson outside of class that would have been more helpful. “
I still have to consider that the students really did not spend ample time working on the unit. One student even offered the complaint (after the fact, of course) that, “Well, we didn’t sign up for an online class”. So possibly, this course would have to be actually offered online to receive feedback from students who “signed on” for an online experience.
Considering the average scores on the evaluation given above, I still believe that the students viewed this unit as effective in accomplishing the unit object which was that students could create an instructional classroom website.
Web Design Unit Task Analysis
I never put this over here so I figured I better:
Web Design Task Analysis
Part 1- Effective Web Design
The Student Will (TSW)
- read the introductory text about website design considerations, such as navigation, communication, and layout
- view several examples of websites with POOR use of these considerations
- read additional web design recommendations
- view the “Criteria for evaluating educational WWW sites” rubric
- consider these aspects as they design their classroom websites
Part 2- HTML Basics
TSW
- read the introductory text
- read through html tutorials
- practice html code with online html editing tool
- complete html quiz to demonstrate ability to recognize html tags and their results on an actual web page
Part 3- Creating a Website with FrontPage
TSW
- read the into text
- view the video that shows how to setup a free NetFirms web space account
- setup a free NetFirms web space account
- view the classroom website design rubric that will be used to assess their classroom website
- view the video that shows how to start a website with FrontPage and publish it online
- create a website with FrontPage and publish it to their NetFirms account
- view the video that shows how to use a table to arrange web page contents, add text and pictures
- arrange web page contents, add text and pictures to their website
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- publish the changes
Part 4- About WebQuests
TSW
- read the intro text
- go to the webquest design tutorial website and read about the structure of a webquest and the purpose of each part
- go to the webquest examples website and view several examples
- post to the web design unit discussion board a proposal for what their webquest’s task will be
Part 5- Creating a WebQuest
TSW
- read the intro text
- view the video that shows how to download and extract the webquest template into their already started classroom website
- view the webquest design rubric that will be used to assess their webquest
- edit the pages of the webquest template to construct their webquest
- publish their changes
- post the link to their completed classroom website to the web design unit discussion board
Web Design Task Analysis
Part 1- Effective Web Design
The Student Will (TSW)
- read the introductory text about website design considerations, such as navigation, communication, and layout
- view several examples of websites with POOR use of these considerations
- read additional web design recommendations
- view the “Criteria for evaluating educational WWW sites” rubric
- consider these aspects as they design their classroom websites
Part 2- HTML Basics
TSW
- read the introductory text
- read through html tutorials
- practice html code with online html editing tool
- complete html quiz to demonstrate ability to recognize html tags and their results on an actual web page
Part 3- Creating a Website with FrontPage
TSW
- read the into text
- view the video that shows how to setup a free NetFirms web space account
- setup a free NetFirms web space account
- view the classroom website design rubric that will be used to assess their classroom website
- view the video that shows how to start a website with FrontPage and publish it online
- create a website with FrontPage and publish it to their NetFirms account
- view the video that shows how to use a table to arrange web page contents, add text and pictures
- arrange web page contents, add text and pictures to their website
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- publish the changes
Part 4- About WebQuests
TSW
- read the intro text
- go to the webquest design tutorial website and read about the structure of a webquest and the purpose of each part
- go to the webquest examples website and view several examples
- post to the web design unit discussion board a proposal for what their webquest’s task will be
Part 5- Creating a WebQuest
TSW
- read the intro text
- view the video that shows how to download and extract the webquest template into their already started classroom website
- view the webquest design rubric that will be used to assess their webquest
- edit the pages of the webquest template to construct their webquest
- publish their changes
- post the link to their completed classroom website to the web design unit discussion board
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Assessments for performance-based objectives
1A-Students will write a needs assessment: The assessment will be a rubric that contains an element for each component that should be included in a needs assessment report, with 3 levels of performance for each element (Excellent, Adequate, Needs Improvement). Each of the elements will contain criteria based on thoroughness, clarity, and that the needed information was represented. Other elements included would rate grammer, spelling, correct formatting, etc.
1B-Students will conduct a needs assessment: The assessment will be a combination of a checklist and a rubric. The checklist will identify whether specific tasks were performed or not. The rubric will rate how well the student performed the tasks that could be performed at various levels of quality (such as, did they ask the right questions, did they collect data in the most efficient manner, did they process the data to answer the questions it was intended to, etc.)
1C-Students will plan a needs assessment: The assessment will be an oral presentation of the plan. The student(s) will present the plan in a "proposal" format to the instructor. The student will be required to clearly explain how their plan is suited to their specific situation, and how their methods of data collection and analysis are appropriate and are the best choices. Then the instructor will ask the a series of questions to challenge their plan. The students will have to explain why the choices in their plan were the best choices.
2A-Students will write a research paper on Romeo and Juliet: A rubric will be used to assess the research paper. Students will be assessed on the following:
- did the paper answer the research question?
- did the paper make the points that needed to be made?
- did the paper adequately communicate the research found, why it's relevant, how it relates to the other research sources, etc.?
- did the paper follow the correct format, was grammatically correct, etc.?
2B-Students will research Romeo and Juliet: This assessment will be an observation checklist with additional comments to evaluate how the student(s) perform their research. The checklist will identify if the students developed a solid research question, sought information that is relevant to the research question, sought for information in the most appropriate locations, etc.
2C-Students will analyze Romeo and Juliet: This assessment would be an essay exam. The students will have been a series of points to consider. The essay questions will require that the student explain in their own words based on the analysis they had performed. The student responses will be graded on depth, breadth, and clarity.
3A-Students will reduce fractions: students will solve a set of problems on paper, providing all steps on paper. The responses will be graded on the steps taken to solve the problem as well as the final solution.
3B-Students will demonstrate how to reduce fractions: Students will individually work a fraction problem on the board, and verbally explain each step as they go. Students will be graded how clearly, thoroughly, and accurately they perform the task.
3C-Students will list the steps to reduce fractions: The students will be given a set of fractions, and then will document each step necessary to completely reduce each fraction. The instructor will read the list, then question the student on why they chose the order of steps that they did. The student will be graded on the initial list as well as their "defense" of the list.
3D-Students will identify reduced fractions: This assessment will be a worksheet that present the students with a series of fractions at various stages of being reduced. The student will circle the fractions that are completely reduced.
Students will UNDERSTAND cell division
4A-Students will MODEL cell division: a checklist will identify that each step is represented as the students demonstrate cell division using yarn and paper plates.
4B-Students will IDENTIFY stages of cell division: Students will match images of real cells to the appropriate stage.
4C-Students will EXPLAIN cell division: the students will be assessed with a checklist/rubric. The checklist will identify that the student mentioned the steps and in the correct order, the rubric will rate the quality of explanation (throroughness, clarity, etc.).
1B-Students will conduct a needs assessment: The assessment will be a combination of a checklist and a rubric. The checklist will identify whether specific tasks were performed or not. The rubric will rate how well the student performed the tasks that could be performed at various levels of quality (such as, did they ask the right questions, did they collect data in the most efficient manner, did they process the data to answer the questions it was intended to, etc.)
1C-Students will plan a needs assessment: The assessment will be an oral presentation of the plan. The student(s) will present the plan in a "proposal" format to the instructor. The student will be required to clearly explain how their plan is suited to their specific situation, and how their methods of data collection and analysis are appropriate and are the best choices. Then the instructor will ask the a series of questions to challenge their plan. The students will have to explain why the choices in their plan were the best choices.
2A-Students will write a research paper on Romeo and Juliet: A rubric will be used to assess the research paper. Students will be assessed on the following:
- did the paper answer the research question?
- did the paper make the points that needed to be made?
- did the paper adequately communicate the research found, why it's relevant, how it relates to the other research sources, etc.?
- did the paper follow the correct format, was grammatically correct, etc.?
2B-Students will research Romeo and Juliet: This assessment will be an observation checklist with additional comments to evaluate how the student(s) perform their research. The checklist will identify if the students developed a solid research question, sought information that is relevant to the research question, sought for information in the most appropriate locations, etc.
2C-Students will analyze Romeo and Juliet: This assessment would be an essay exam. The students will have been a series of points to consider. The essay questions will require that the student explain in their own words based on the analysis they had performed. The student responses will be graded on depth, breadth, and clarity.
3A-Students will reduce fractions: students will solve a set of problems on paper, providing all steps on paper. The responses will be graded on the steps taken to solve the problem as well as the final solution.
3B-Students will demonstrate how to reduce fractions: Students will individually work a fraction problem on the board, and verbally explain each step as they go. Students will be graded how clearly, thoroughly, and accurately they perform the task.
3C-Students will list the steps to reduce fractions: The students will be given a set of fractions, and then will document each step necessary to completely reduce each fraction. The instructor will read the list, then question the student on why they chose the order of steps that they did. The student will be graded on the initial list as well as their "defense" of the list.
3D-Students will identify reduced fractions: This assessment will be a worksheet that present the students with a series of fractions at various stages of being reduced. The student will circle the fractions that are completely reduced.
Students will UNDERSTAND cell division
4A-Students will MODEL cell division: a checklist will identify that each step is represented as the students demonstrate cell division using yarn and paper plates.
4B-Students will IDENTIFY stages of cell division: Students will match images of real cells to the appropriate stage.
4C-Students will EXPLAIN cell division: the students will be assessed with a checklist/rubric. The checklist will identify that the student mentioned the steps and in the correct order, the rubric will rate the quality of explanation (throroughness, clarity, etc.).
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sorbet for the brain?
My wife and I went to The Rancher's Club for our 6th anniversary dinner last weekend. This was my first restaurant experience to be given something to "cleanse my palette" before the main dish, in this case a small bowl of raspberry sorbet. So for some reason, during church the next morning I found myself pondering this whole cleansing the palette concept and an analogy to learning psychology donned on me. I've always found that I transition from working on stuff for one class to another class easier if I spend some time on a meaningless mental activity in between, like watching a reality TV show or something. I used to think I was procrastinating, but from now on I'm going to say that I'm "cleansing my cognitive palette"!
ID Research Precis 3
Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Smith and Ragan ID Model
ID Model
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Component Display Theory
ID Theory
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
David Merrill Biography
Biography
EDTC 5753
Mark Jones
M. David Merrill, PhD
Dr. David Merrill is one of the most influential names in the field of Instructional Design. For over four decades, Merrill has provided many contributions to Instructional Design. This is a brief summary of his background and accomplishments.
Dr. Merrill’s interest in instruction began while on his mission for the Mormon Church in 1959. The range of teaching abilities of the missionaries that he observed intrigued him. When he returned from his mission, he decided to pursue his interest in how to best teach people.
Merrill earned his bachelor’s in secondary education from BYU in 1961, and he earned his master’s and PhD from the University of Illinois in 1964. Throughout his preparation, however, he still felt that no one was directly addressing the issue of how to design effective instructional materials. This fact inspired his research and development that today qualifies him as a pathfinder in the field of Instructional Design.
Throughout his career, Dr. Merrill has developed or co-developed several Instructional Design theories, including Component Display Theory, Elaboration Theory (with Charles Reigeluth), and Instructional Transaction Theory (with the ID2 Research group). Component Display Theory is considered by Merrill to be a first generation ID theory and was based on Gagne’s conditions for learning. Instructional Transaction Theory, a second generation ID theory, is intended to provide the specificity lacking in CDT that is necessary to develop the components needed for creating instructional design expert systems, such as an instructional design algorithm and the construction of knowledge objects.
Merrill has also been a pioneer in the development of computer-based instruction. He led the team that developed an instructional authoring system known as TICCIT (Time-shared Interactive Computer Controlled Information Television), which was funded by the NSF. TICCIT has served as a benchmark in many ways to the development of CAI systems today.
Merrill has provided his knowledge and expertise to several academic institutions and corporations. Merrill has been a faculty member for Utah State University since 1987 where he is now an emeritus professor. Other academic institutions he has worked with include the University of Southern California, Brigham Young University, and George Peabody College for Teachers. He has also taught in several institutions internationally, such as Twente University in The Netherlands, and the University of Indonesia. Corporately, Merrill has provided leadership for educational technology companies, including being founder, director, and president of Microteacher, Inc., as well as being founder, director, and Vice President for Research for Courseware, Inc.
Today, Dr. Merrill independently contracts himself as an instructional effectiveness consultant. He has held many major instructional consulting contracts throughout his career, including Arthur Anderson & Company, IBM, the US Air Force Human Resources Lab, and United Airlines Services Corporation. His major research contracts have included the National Science Foundation, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, US Air Force, US Department of Defense, Apple Computer Corporation, and others.
As stated earlier, Dr. Merrill has been a pathfinder in Instructional Design. This is exemplified by the fact that he founded and directed the Instructional Science Department as well as the Division of Instructional Research, Development, and Evaluation at BYU. Merrill has been a prolific author on topics related to Instructional Design. His publications include 12 books, 65 journal articles, 16 book chapters, 123 technical reports, and more. He has also performed work on 18 instructional computer products and expert system prototypes.
Merrill is widely considered one of the founding fathers to the field of instructional design. Just as a father laments seeing his child go astray, Merrill has expressed his disappointment in how the field has moved towards a philosophical base. Merrill firmly believes that designing instruction should rely on scientifically proven methods and procedures. These feelings were outlined clearly in one of the most often quoted instructional design articles, “Reclaiming Instructional Design”, which “threw down the gauntlet” on what Instructional Design should and should not be. He best summarizes his thoughts with the statement. “It is possible to know where we are going. We still have a long way to go, but abandoning the path of scientific method and following the uncertain wilderness of philosophical relativism will distract us from our goal and unnecessarily delay our journey” (Merrill, 1996).
Dr. Merrill now resides in Kahuku, Hawaii with his wife Dixie where he works with BYU Hawaii. They have 6 children and 24 grandchildren. His birthday is March 27th (which is 4 days after mine).
References:
Merrill, D., Drake L., Lacy M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Merrill, D. (n.d.). M. david merrill resume. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/resume.htm.
Morad, O. A. (1997). Research project. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm.
Instructional Technology Global Resource Network, (n.d.). Merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, From
http://www.ittheory.com/merrill.htm.
Amazon, (n.d.). Profile for m. david merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
From http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A32KC62XUJ7YW6/104-2486362-5056749.
EDTC 5753
Mark Jones
M. David Merrill, PhD
Dr. David Merrill is one of the most influential names in the field of Instructional Design. For over four decades, Merrill has provided many contributions to Instructional Design. This is a brief summary of his background and accomplishments.
Dr. Merrill’s interest in instruction began while on his mission for the Mormon Church in 1959. The range of teaching abilities of the missionaries that he observed intrigued him. When he returned from his mission, he decided to pursue his interest in how to best teach people.
Merrill earned his bachelor’s in secondary education from BYU in 1961, and he earned his master’s and PhD from the University of Illinois in 1964. Throughout his preparation, however, he still felt that no one was directly addressing the issue of how to design effective instructional materials. This fact inspired his research and development that today qualifies him as a pathfinder in the field of Instructional Design.
Throughout his career, Dr. Merrill has developed or co-developed several Instructional Design theories, including Component Display Theory, Elaboration Theory (with Charles Reigeluth), and Instructional Transaction Theory (with the ID2 Research group). Component Display Theory is considered by Merrill to be a first generation ID theory and was based on Gagne’s conditions for learning. Instructional Transaction Theory, a second generation ID theory, is intended to provide the specificity lacking in CDT that is necessary to develop the components needed for creating instructional design expert systems, such as an instructional design algorithm and the construction of knowledge objects.
Merrill has also been a pioneer in the development of computer-based instruction. He led the team that developed an instructional authoring system known as TICCIT (Time-shared Interactive Computer Controlled Information Television), which was funded by the NSF. TICCIT has served as a benchmark in many ways to the development of CAI systems today.
Merrill has provided his knowledge and expertise to several academic institutions and corporations. Merrill has been a faculty member for Utah State University since 1987 where he is now an emeritus professor. Other academic institutions he has worked with include the University of Southern California, Brigham Young University, and George Peabody College for Teachers. He has also taught in several institutions internationally, such as Twente University in The Netherlands, and the University of Indonesia. Corporately, Merrill has provided leadership for educational technology companies, including being founder, director, and president of Microteacher, Inc., as well as being founder, director, and Vice President for Research for Courseware, Inc.
Today, Dr. Merrill independently contracts himself as an instructional effectiveness consultant. He has held many major instructional consulting contracts throughout his career, including Arthur Anderson & Company, IBM, the US Air Force Human Resources Lab, and United Airlines Services Corporation. His major research contracts have included the National Science Foundation, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, US Air Force, US Department of Defense, Apple Computer Corporation, and others.
As stated earlier, Dr. Merrill has been a pathfinder in Instructional Design. This is exemplified by the fact that he founded and directed the Instructional Science Department as well as the Division of Instructional Research, Development, and Evaluation at BYU. Merrill has been a prolific author on topics related to Instructional Design. His publications include 12 books, 65 journal articles, 16 book chapters, 123 technical reports, and more. He has also performed work on 18 instructional computer products and expert system prototypes.
Merrill is widely considered one of the founding fathers to the field of instructional design. Just as a father laments seeing his child go astray, Merrill has expressed his disappointment in how the field has moved towards a philosophical base. Merrill firmly believes that designing instruction should rely on scientifically proven methods and procedures. These feelings were outlined clearly in one of the most often quoted instructional design articles, “Reclaiming Instructional Design”, which “threw down the gauntlet” on what Instructional Design should and should not be. He best summarizes his thoughts with the statement. “It is possible to know where we are going. We still have a long way to go, but abandoning the path of scientific method and following the uncertain wilderness of philosophical relativism will distract us from our goal and unnecessarily delay our journey” (Merrill, 1996).
Dr. Merrill now resides in Kahuku, Hawaii with his wife Dixie where he works with BYU Hawaii. They have 6 children and 24 grandchildren. His birthday is March 27th (which is 4 days after mine).
References:
Merrill, D., Drake L., Lacy M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Merrill, D. (n.d.). M. david merrill resume. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/resume.htm.
Morad, O. A. (1997). Research project. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm.
Instructional Technology Global Resource Network, (n.d.). Merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, From
http://www.ittheory.com/merrill.htm.
Amazon, (n.d.). Profile for m. david merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
From http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A32KC62XUJ7YW6/104-2486362-5056749.
A Conversation with David Merrill
While finding information to write the biography about David Merrill, I came across this transcript of a phone interview that a student had with Dr. Merrill. I wanted to post it here for anyone else interested in reading it. It is very interesting.
http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm#_Toc402250328
http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm#_Toc402250328
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Unit Outline
Each lesson contains 2 components: Instruction (I) and Application (A)
L1: What is an instructional website?
I- present examples, best practices, etc.
A- students will evaluate 3 sites based on best practices criteria
L2: HTML Primer
I- html basic info and html tags reference, website file structure
A- students will identify html tags, relative, and absolute references on an example document
L3: Introduction to WebQuests
I- Characteristics of a WebQuest, Browse examples of webquests on webquest.org site
A- Students will complete beginning stages of planning their own WebQuest: Intro and Task
L4: Frontpage Basics
I- information of frontpage basics, tutorials on AtomicLearning.com
A- step-by-step walkthrough to create a WebQuest template page using FrontPage
L5: Creating a WebQuest
I- WebQuest strategies, continued
A- Students use the template page created in lesson 4 to create a complete WebQuest
L1: What is an instructional website?
I- present examples, best practices, etc.
A- students will evaluate 3 sites based on best practices criteria
L2: HTML Primer
I- html basic info and html tags reference, website file structure
A- students will identify html tags, relative, and absolute references on an example document
L3: Introduction to WebQuests
I- Characteristics of a WebQuest, Browse examples of webquests on webquest.org site
A- Students will complete beginning stages of planning their own WebQuest: Intro and Task
L4: Frontpage Basics
I- information of frontpage basics, tutorials on AtomicLearning.com
A- step-by-step walkthrough to create a WebQuest template page using FrontPage
L5: Creating a WebQuest
I- WebQuest strategies, continued
A- Students use the template page created in lesson 4 to create a complete WebQuest
Course Design Documents
I've had these on the wiki, but thought I'd get them posted here also.
Needs Assessment:
The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education issue a warranty on the teachers produced by OSU that guarantees that they are fully prepared to teach in the 21st century classroom. This warranty is based on the 15 Oklahoma General Competencies for Teacher Licensure and Certification, of which includes the following:
4. The teacher understands curriculum integration processes and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills and effective use of technology.
Also, the The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers defines the following standards as being necessary for all teachers:
1 TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND CONCEPTS. Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: ? demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students) ? demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.
2 PLANNING AND DESIGNING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND EXPERIENCES. Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: ? design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. ? apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. ? identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. ? plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. ? plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
3 TEACHING, LEARNING, AND THE CURRICULUM. Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: ? facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. ? use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. ? apply technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity. ? manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
4 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION. Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: ? apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. ? use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. ? apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
5 PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: ? use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. ? continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. ? apply technology to increase productivity. ? use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
6 SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES. Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Teachers: ? model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. ? apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. ? identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity ? promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. ? facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Additionally, Oklahoma State University Professional Education Unit requires that all teacher candidates to meet the OSU L.E.A.D.S core values in order to be recommended for teacher certification. Included in LEADS is the following core value:
Technology - The Professional Education Unit prepares candidates who understand technology as a complex integrated process for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems in situations in which learning is purposive and controlled. The candidates are able to use technology to help all students/clients by providing a conceptual understanding of how knowledge, skills and dispositions related to education and information technology and instructional technology are integrated throughout the curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practices, assessments and evaluations.
Considering the combination of the Oklahoma General Competencies, ISTE NETS-T, and the OSU core values, a clear need is determined for this instruction to prepare teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum.
Another consideration of need for this instruction is the method of delivery. EDTC 3123 has always been offered in a traditional lab environment. However, to be able to offer at least one section of this course online would be of great benefit to students who have difficulty, for whatever reason, taking the traditional course.
Learner Analysis:
The learners in this instruction are nearly all pursuing a teacher certification. When they take EDTC 3123, some have already been admitted to the Professional Education Unit, but many have not. However, most have decided on a specific teacher certification program, and identify themselves by that criteria (i.e. elementary, secondary science, etc.) The learners are mostly Caucasian, and there are generally more females than males. Most are traditional students, ranging in age from 20 to 35 (estimated upper limit). Most of the learners live on or near campus, but a few commute for nearby locations. Most of these learners carry a full-time class schedule, and many also work part-time.
The learners enter this course with a wide range of technology and teaching experience. Many have had previous computer applications coursework, either in high school or college, or have experience through personal use. Many of the learners have used word processors and presentation software in the past, but fewer of them have a working knowledge of spreadsheets, databases, and other non-entertainment technologies. Most are avid consumers of multimedia, and a few have experience in authoring multimedia. Most do have experience with online communication, including email and chat, and some have experience with discussion boards or listservs. Most have little or no experience in designing and developing instruction, especially with the integration of technology. The learners also have very limited prior knowledge in copyright and other legal issues of educational technology.
Context Analysis:
EDTC 3123 is offered each fall and spring semester, during the regular 16 week blocks. The course is a regular education course, and requires that traditional letter grades be assigned (A, B, C, D, or F) according to performance on course assignments and assessments. Students must earn a C or better in order for the course to count towards completion of their program.
The instruction will be delivered online via Blackboard, a web-based course management system. The course content will be organized into modules, and each module will contain links to other online resources (such as Atomic Learning tutorials), as well as to assessments served within Blackboard. All students will be required to have Internet access to complete the instruction.
EDTC 3123 Course Objectives
Terminal Objective: The student will effectively integrate technology into his/her curriculum.
Enabling Objectives:
The student will demonstrate a basic level of computer competency.
The student will design a lesson that integrates word processing.
The student will design a lesson that integrates desktop publishing.
The student will compare and contrast classroom software.
The student will design a lesson that integrates spreadsheets/databases.
The student will design a lesson that integrates presentation software.
The student will teach with a multimedia presentation.
The student will author an original educational multimedia product.
The student will apply copyright laws to classroom situations.
The student will demonstrate efficient Internet search strategies.
The student will design a lesson that integrates Internet resources.
The student will design and develop a website-based lesson.
EDTC 3123 Course Outline
Unit 1: Computer basics
Unit 2: Designing Lesson Plans
Unit 3: Integrating Word Processing
Unit 4: Integrating Desktop Publishing
Unit 5: Evaluation Classroom Software
Unit 6: Integrating Spreadsheets and Databases
Unit 7: Integrating Presentation Software
Unit 8: Integrating Multimedia
Unit 9: Understanding Copyright and other Legal and Ethical Issues of Educational Technology
Unit 10: Integrating Internet Resources
Unit 11: Integrating Web Design
Needs Assessment:
The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education issue a warranty on the teachers produced by OSU that guarantees that they are fully prepared to teach in the 21st century classroom. This warranty is based on the 15 Oklahoma General Competencies for Teacher Licensure and Certification, of which includes the following:
4. The teacher understands curriculum integration processes and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills and effective use of technology.
Also, the The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers defines the following standards as being necessary for all teachers:
1 TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND CONCEPTS. Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: ? demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students) ? demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.
2 PLANNING AND DESIGNING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND EXPERIENCES. Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: ? design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. ? apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. ? identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. ? plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. ? plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
3 TEACHING, LEARNING, AND THE CURRICULUM. Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: ? facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. ? use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. ? apply technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity. ? manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
4 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION. Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: ? apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. ? use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. ? apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
5 PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: ? use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. ? continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. ? apply technology to increase productivity. ? use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
6 SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES. Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Teachers: ? model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. ? apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. ? identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity ? promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. ? facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Additionally, Oklahoma State University Professional Education Unit requires that all teacher candidates to meet the OSU L.E.A.D.S core values in order to be recommended for teacher certification. Included in LEADS is the following core value:
Technology - The Professional Education Unit prepares candidates who understand technology as a complex integrated process for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems in situations in which learning is purposive and controlled. The candidates are able to use technology to help all students/clients by providing a conceptual understanding of how knowledge, skills and dispositions related to education and information technology and instructional technology are integrated throughout the curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practices, assessments and evaluations.
Considering the combination of the Oklahoma General Competencies, ISTE NETS-T, and the OSU core values, a clear need is determined for this instruction to prepare teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum.
Another consideration of need for this instruction is the method of delivery. EDTC 3123 has always been offered in a traditional lab environment. However, to be able to offer at least one section of this course online would be of great benefit to students who have difficulty, for whatever reason, taking the traditional course.
Learner Analysis:
The learners in this instruction are nearly all pursuing a teacher certification. When they take EDTC 3123, some have already been admitted to the Professional Education Unit, but many have not. However, most have decided on a specific teacher certification program, and identify themselves by that criteria (i.e. elementary, secondary science, etc.) The learners are mostly Caucasian, and there are generally more females than males. Most are traditional students, ranging in age from 20 to 35 (estimated upper limit). Most of the learners live on or near campus, but a few commute for nearby locations. Most of these learners carry a full-time class schedule, and many also work part-time.
The learners enter this course with a wide range of technology and teaching experience. Many have had previous computer applications coursework, either in high school or college, or have experience through personal use. Many of the learners have used word processors and presentation software in the past, but fewer of them have a working knowledge of spreadsheets, databases, and other non-entertainment technologies. Most are avid consumers of multimedia, and a few have experience in authoring multimedia. Most do have experience with online communication, including email and chat, and some have experience with discussion boards or listservs. Most have little or no experience in designing and developing instruction, especially with the integration of technology. The learners also have very limited prior knowledge in copyright and other legal issues of educational technology.
Context Analysis:
EDTC 3123 is offered each fall and spring semester, during the regular 16 week blocks. The course is a regular education course, and requires that traditional letter grades be assigned (A, B, C, D, or F) according to performance on course assignments and assessments. Students must earn a C or better in order for the course to count towards completion of their program.
The instruction will be delivered online via Blackboard, a web-based course management system. The course content will be organized into modules, and each module will contain links to other online resources (such as Atomic Learning tutorials), as well as to assessments served within Blackboard. All students will be required to have Internet access to complete the instruction.
EDTC 3123 Course Objectives
Terminal Objective: The student will effectively integrate technology into his/her curriculum.
Enabling Objectives:
The student will demonstrate a basic level of computer competency.
The student will design a lesson that integrates word processing.
The student will design a lesson that integrates desktop publishing.
The student will compare and contrast classroom software.
The student will design a lesson that integrates spreadsheets/databases.
The student will design a lesson that integrates presentation software.
The student will teach with a multimedia presentation.
The student will author an original educational multimedia product.
The student will apply copyright laws to classroom situations.
The student will demonstrate efficient Internet search strategies.
The student will design a lesson that integrates Internet resources.
The student will design and develop a website-based lesson.
EDTC 3123 Course Outline
Unit 1: Computer basics
Unit 2: Designing Lesson Plans
Unit 3: Integrating Word Processing
Unit 4: Integrating Desktop Publishing
Unit 5: Evaluation Classroom Software
Unit 6: Integrating Spreadsheets and Databases
Unit 7: Integrating Presentation Software
Unit 8: Integrating Multimedia
Unit 9: Understanding Copyright and other Legal and Ethical Issues of Educational Technology
Unit 10: Integrating Internet Resources
Unit 11: Integrating Web Design
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Instructional Strategies
Unit Objective: Students will develop an instructional website.
Assessment: A rubric will be applied to assess the website created by the student that will consider instructional quality, overall design, and functionality.
Instructional Strategies:
1. Non-examples
A technique used in direct instruction to help students distinguish between similar concepts. [to make clear what an INSTRUCTIONAL website is]
2. Six Thinking Hats
A metacognitive strategy that encourages people to look at concepts from different perspectives. Each hat represents a mode of thinking. The white hat = look at data, red = feelings, black = judgment, yellow = positive attitude, green = creativity, blue = overview. [groups of students will cooperatively compare the quality of currently online instructional websites]
3. Demonstration [to show students how to click the buttons to make the website]
4. Active Learning
Any approach that engages learners by matching instruction to the learner's interests, understanding, and developmental level. Often includes hands-on and authentic activities. [students build a website that they would actually expect to use in their classroom]
5. Microteaching
A form of practice teaching in which the student prepares a short (6-15 minute) lesson and presents the lesson to peers for constructive evaluation.
Introduction to Microteaching [students will demonstrate their website]]
6. Closure
Any activities which help students summarize key points learned and how the new knowledge relates to the objectives to be learned. [students will reflect on their own as well as other students’ websites]
Assessment: A rubric will be applied to assess the website created by the student that will consider instructional quality, overall design, and functionality.
Instructional Strategies:
1. Non-examples
A technique used in direct instruction to help students distinguish between similar concepts. [to make clear what an INSTRUCTIONAL website is]
2. Six Thinking Hats
A metacognitive strategy that encourages people to look at concepts from different perspectives. Each hat represents a mode of thinking. The white hat = look at data, red = feelings, black = judgment, yellow = positive attitude, green = creativity, blue = overview. [groups of students will cooperatively compare the quality of currently online instructional websites]
3. Demonstration [to show students how to click the buttons to make the website]
4. Active Learning
Any approach that engages learners by matching instruction to the learner's interests, understanding, and developmental level. Often includes hands-on and authentic activities. [students build a website that they would actually expect to use in their classroom]
5. Microteaching
A form of practice teaching in which the student prepares a short (6-15 minute) lesson and presents the lesson to peers for constructive evaluation.
Introduction to Microteaching [students will demonstrate their website]]
6. Closure
Any activities which help students summarize key points learned and how the new knowledge relates to the objectives to be learned. [students will reflect on their own as well as other students’ websites]
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Where I'm at on my course project...
Well, I'm not going to try to hide the truth, I admit that I'm not as far along as I should be in tangible elements of the course project. However, that does not mean that I'm not pretty far along in the planning process, it has just been done mentally. So, "mentally" I pretty much have the following done: needs analysis, learner analysis, context analysis, course objectives and outline, task analysis (partially), and lesson objectives. What I plan to do by this weekend is get all of these different "pieces" posted to my wiki pages.
I need to do a more thorough treatment of the task analysis in order to finish completing the course outline and development of content, but I DO already have a skeleton plan of what I'm doing, I just have to fill in the gaps. The implementation of the web-based instruction will occur the first week of april (conveniently coinciding with the NCATE accreditation visit), so I plan to have all the content and materials, as well as the the formative evaluation instrument ready by the end of Spring Break. Then, after implementation, I'll be ready to get my assessment analysis and evaluation report completed by the end of April.
I need to do a more thorough treatment of the task analysis in order to finish completing the course outline and development of content, but I DO already have a skeleton plan of what I'm doing, I just have to fill in the gaps. The implementation of the web-based instruction will occur the first week of april (conveniently coinciding with the NCATE accreditation visit), so I plan to have all the content and materials, as well as the the formative evaluation instrument ready by the end of Spring Break. Then, after implementation, I'll be ready to get my assessment analysis and evaluation report completed by the end of April.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
ID Research Precis 2
Robinson, D. H., Corliss, S. B., Bush, A. M., Bera, S. J., & Tomberlin, T. (2003). Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites? Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (4), 25-41.
The purpose of this study was to examine the best configuration for presenting graphic organizers (GO’s) to students who are studying chapter-length text . GO’s were presented to students in three ways: as a comlete set (large bites), interspersed throughout the chapter reading (small bites), and in animations of cells within each GO. The GO’s were also presented either before or after the text reading. The study found that it is best to present GO’s as a set, before chapter-lenth text is presented.
The purpose of this study was to examine the best configuration for presenting graphic organizers (GO’s) to students who are studying chapter-length text . GO’s were presented to students in three ways: as a comlete set (large bites), interspersed throughout the chapter reading (small bites), and in animations of cells within each GO. The GO’s were also presented either before or after the text reading. The study found that it is best to present GO’s as a set, before chapter-lenth text is presented.
Why the Critical Incident Analysis
I wasn't really sure about the critical incident analysis until I had finally chosen a topic, and then began to think about what the text says on pg. 91 about how analyzing processes that vary from instance to instance are more difficult than a concrete procedure.
Even though the buttons to click to create a website may seem like a concrete process, the actual practice of web-design definitely is approached differently from one person to the next. What helped me finally understand the purpose of the critical incident analysis was what was also said on pg. 91: "A critical incident analysis can identify the commonalities of various approaches."
Now it makes more sense. While many people design websites differently, I need to identify what is commonly done in creating "GOOD" websites.
Even though the buttons to click to create a website may seem like a concrete process, the actual practice of web-design definitely is approached differently from one person to the next. What helped me finally understand the purpose of the critical incident analysis was what was also said on pg. 91: "A critical incident analysis can identify the commonalities of various approaches."
Now it makes more sense. While many people design websites differently, I need to identify what is commonly done in creating "GOOD" websites.
Final Project Topic
For the ID project, I am planning to build an online-version of the web-design unit that is taught in EDTC 3123 (Ed Tech for teachers). This is hopefully a first step to having this course available completely online. Instead of reinventing the wheel, alot of the "how to click the buttons" instruction will be delivered through tutorials that the students will have access to through an online training site called atomiclearning.com. That way I can focus on more quality in the overall unit design, instead of spending all my time on creating the tutorials from scratch.
I feel that I know the learner and context pretty well already, since I have taught this course 2 semesters, however alot of consideration will need to be given to what changes will occur as a result of this being offered online. Would there be a certain demographic of students more interested in taking the online version of the class? What level of prior computer skill can I expect the students to come into the class with? Many questions such as these are difficult to predict a black and white answer to, but at least giving it thought can help me avoid gross oversights that otherwise might not have been foreseen.
I feel that I know the learner and context pretty well already, since I have taught this course 2 semesters, however alot of consideration will need to be given to what changes will occur as a result of this being offered online. Would there be a certain demographic of students more interested in taking the online version of the class? What level of prior computer skill can I expect the students to come into the class with? Many questions such as these are difficult to predict a black and white answer to, but at least giving it thought can help me avoid gross oversights that otherwise might not have been foreseen.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Sample Task Analysis
Task Analysis:
New Employee Orientation:
- Pay Schedule
- Benefits
- Dress Code
- Call-in procedure
- Tardy Policy
- Performance appraisal
- Acceptable Use Policy
- Intercultural awareness
- Sexual misconduct training
- Confidentiality and the victim
Job Essentials:
- How to work a floor
o General Procedures
§ Shift 1
§ Shift 2
§ Shift 3
o Roundup
o Inmate phases
§ Phase characteristics
· Clothing
· Priviledges
· Responsibilities
§ Moving between phases
o Marching procedures
- What NOT to do
o Things to know that you don’t know that you should know
- How to write a 225
o Definitions
o Examples
- Situation Control Techniques
o Verbal Judo
o Handle with Care (PRT)
- Gang Training
o Recognizing signs, evidence, etc.
o How to handle situations
New Employee Orientation:
- Pay Schedule
- Benefits
- Dress Code
- Call-in procedure
- Tardy Policy
- Performance appraisal
- Acceptable Use Policy
- Intercultural awareness
- Sexual misconduct training
- Confidentiality and the victim
Job Essentials:
- How to work a floor
o General Procedures
§ Shift 1
§ Shift 2
§ Shift 3
o Roundup
o Inmate phases
§ Phase characteristics
· Clothing
· Priviledges
· Responsibilities
§ Moving between phases
o Marching procedures
- What NOT to do
o Things to know that you don’t know that you should know
- How to write a 225
o Definitions
o Examples
- Situation Control Techniques
o Verbal Judo
o Handle with Care (PRT)
- Gang Training
o Recognizing signs, evidence, etc.
o How to handle situations
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Objective Domains Analogy
The other day I was working to create an online version of the evaluation we have cooperating teachers and university supervisors complete to assess our student teachers. As I was going through the questions, I realized that the 3 categories sounded familiar. The 3 categories that we assess our candidates on (in accordance with NCATE guidelines) are Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions. Sound familiar? Yeah, it's the objectives domains: Cognitive (Knowledge), Psychomotor (Skills), and Attitudes (Dispositions). I just thought this connection was interesting.
Can we have multiple objectives?
http://www.ibstpi.org/Legacy-Gagne/chapter%205.pdf
I came across this link to an article that is actually a chapter from a documented conversation between Gagne and Merrill about instructional design. I was most interested in how this article dealt with one of the issues we’ve brought up in class: whether or not a lesson can have more than ONE objective. This particular chapter is about how instructional design should encompass integrative goals (a.k.a. multiple objectives) into an “enterprise schema”. From this article’s explanation, I see the enterprise schema as a way to communicate to the learner where they’re at in the big picture, so as to not miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.
This paragraph pretty much sums up the article:
“We propose that integrative goals are represented in cognitive space by enterprise schemas whose focal integrating concept is the integrative goal. Associated with the integrative goal is an enterprise scenario and the various items of verbal knowledge, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies that must be learned in order to support the required performances. These performances are brought together in a purposeful activity known as enterprise. Examples of enterprises are: operating X equipment, teaching a science topic, counseling someone about applying for a job, giving directions about how to use a weedcutter. The schema representing the goal of the enterprise and including the goal-related knowledges and skills is an enterprise schema” (pg. 9).
Something about the article, revealed in the paragraph above, also caught my attention. If you read close, it sounds really familiar. That’s because it is talking about involving learners in a relevant task to provide context for the content to be learned. Hmm, that sounds like constructivism, but the last time I checked, Merrill and Gagne were NOT constructivists. So, what’s all that talk we always hear about “authentic learning” being one of the characteristics that sets constructivist approaches apart? I’m starting to wonder if there’s really any validity to this whole idea of a “constructivist classroom” or maybe it’s just a catchy phrase some people are using to sell books. Makes you wonder.
I came across this link to an article that is actually a chapter from a documented conversation between Gagne and Merrill about instructional design. I was most interested in how this article dealt with one of the issues we’ve brought up in class: whether or not a lesson can have more than ONE objective. This particular chapter is about how instructional design should encompass integrative goals (a.k.a. multiple objectives) into an “enterprise schema”. From this article’s explanation, I see the enterprise schema as a way to communicate to the learner where they’re at in the big picture, so as to not miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.
This paragraph pretty much sums up the article:
“We propose that integrative goals are represented in cognitive space by enterprise schemas whose focal integrating concept is the integrative goal. Associated with the integrative goal is an enterprise scenario and the various items of verbal knowledge, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies that must be learned in order to support the required performances. These performances are brought together in a purposeful activity known as enterprise. Examples of enterprises are: operating X equipment, teaching a science topic, counseling someone about applying for a job, giving directions about how to use a weedcutter. The schema representing the goal of the enterprise and including the goal-related knowledges and skills is an enterprise schema” (pg. 9).
Something about the article, revealed in the paragraph above, also caught my attention. If you read close, it sounds really familiar. That’s because it is talking about involving learners in a relevant task to provide context for the content to be learned. Hmm, that sounds like constructivism, but the last time I checked, Merrill and Gagne were NOT constructivists. So, what’s all that talk we always hear about “authentic learning” being one of the characteristics that sets constructivist approaches apart? I’m starting to wonder if there’s really any validity to this whole idea of a “constructivist classroom” or maybe it’s just a catchy phrase some people are using to sell books. Makes you wonder.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Affective Domain Objectives...
I've been racking my brain about this concept of objectives in the affective domain. No wonder the section in the text is so short, there's just not much to say about it I guess. Yet, I find myself trying to imagine how you could legitimately state a behavioral objective that would reveal learning in the affective domain. So, if I say that students will "choose" a certain piece of art over others, does that reveal to me that they've learned to "appreciate" what good art is? I've seen alot of different kinds of art, and I gotta tell you, what some people call famous, I call slop.
In light of all this, how in the world can you make a concrete statement such as a behavioral objective that works in the affective domain? Now, I think that a good example of learning in an affective domain is when someone who hears a sermon at church begins to live a better life. I'd say that the preacher (whether realizing it or not) was instructing in the affective domain, and the "learner" achieved the objective. However, when I attempt to port this over to a classroom situation, I keep catching myself focusing on aspects of the cognitive domain. For example, if my objective is for the learners to be better conservationists, I catch myself focus too much on environmental science concepts. Anyway, just documenting some thoughts as I'm thinking through this...
In light of all this, how in the world can you make a concrete statement such as a behavioral objective that works in the affective domain? Now, I think that a good example of learning in an affective domain is when someone who hears a sermon at church begins to live a better life. I'd say that the preacher (whether realizing it or not) was instructing in the affective domain, and the "learner" achieved the objective. However, when I attempt to port this over to a classroom situation, I keep catching myself focusing on aspects of the cognitive domain. For example, if my objective is for the learners to be better conservationists, I catch myself focus too much on environmental science concepts. Anyway, just documenting some thoughts as I'm thinking through this...
Thursday, February 02, 2006
ID Research Precis 1
Moreno, R., & Valdez, F. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (3), 35-45.
This study examined the effects of dual coding and learner interactivity in an instructional multimedia program on learning efficiency. Learning efficiency was defined by a measured relationship between performance (retention and transfer) and cognitive load. The study found that dual coding did increase learning efficiency, i.e. presenting words and pictures, instead of only words or pictures. It was found that the interactive version of the program had a lowering effect on learning efficiency as compared to the non-interactive version. Further testing revealed that requiring learners to self-assess their responses before receiving system feedback increased learning efficiency in the interactive version.
This study examined the effects of dual coding and learner interactivity in an instructional multimedia program on learning efficiency. Learning efficiency was defined by a measured relationship between performance (retention and transfer) and cognitive load. The study found that dual coding did increase learning efficiency, i.e. presenting words and pictures, instead of only words or pictures. It was found that the interactive version of the program had a lowering effect on learning efficiency as compared to the non-interactive version. Further testing revealed that requiring learners to self-assess their responses before receiving system feedback increased learning efficiency in the interactive version.
Needs Analysis and "The Apprentice"
As I read about needs assessment and goals analysis, I was trying to imagine being patient enough to do all this preliminary work before getting started on the "important stuff". Then, I started thinking about one of our favorite TV shows, The Apprentice. On this show, it is very obvious that the successful teams are those that do the fact gathering up front to be sure they are creating what the task actually needs. It is very entertaining when a team is totally off track because of their lack of obtaining the necessary background information. One of my favorites is when the team did the Star Wars display and you couldn't even find Darth Vader, even though the execs clearly told the other team (that bothered to ask) that they wanted Vader to be central to the theme.
I also think an analogy can be drawn to the army performing reconnaissance before planning a mission. If you send in tanks, but you're fighting in a swampy forest, well, good luck with that!
So, I guess if we fail to plan, then we plan to fail, right?
I also think an analogy can be drawn to the army performing reconnaissance before planning a mission. If you send in tanks, but you're fighting in a swampy forest, well, good luck with that!
So, I guess if we fail to plan, then we plan to fail, right?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Like reading a page out of my history as a teacher...
Ok, I was just rereading some of Ch. 1, and caught something I didn't really think about the first time through. On page 15, the authors start to discuss the benefits of ID to P-12 teachers.
On page 16, they write, "Implementing these approaches (project-based, cross-curricular, cooperative, authentic, etc.) obviously requires well-designed expeditions and projects. Where do they come from? For the most part, that responsibility falls on the individual teachers."
Wow! So that all of a sudden puts my "flop" of a first year teaching much more in perspective for me. I went out with the grandiose idea that if I taught the "right" way, I'd never have discipline problems, my students would love learning in my classroom, they'd carry me on their shoulders through the halls chanting my name, yada yada yada. Well, reality hit pretty quick that I didn't have a lick of resources to use to make "that kind" of teaching happen.
It was very frustrating to me to know what I was trying to make happen, but it just wasn't working right, but now I see a bigger picture. What I realized just now after reading page 16 is that the problem wasn't that I didn't have a solid understanding of the instructional strategies. I see that understanding the instructional strategy is only one piece in the larger puzzle in being able to design quality instruction. I was not prepared to fulfill the quote above: that the "responsibility" fell on me to create what really should have been professionally designed and developed already, and I as a new teacher should just have been implementing.
On page 16, they write, "Implementing these approaches (project-based, cross-curricular, cooperative, authentic, etc.) obviously requires well-designed expeditions and projects. Where do they come from? For the most part, that responsibility falls on the individual teachers."
Wow! So that all of a sudden puts my "flop" of a first year teaching much more in perspective for me. I went out with the grandiose idea that if I taught the "right" way, I'd never have discipline problems, my students would love learning in my classroom, they'd carry me on their shoulders through the halls chanting my name, yada yada yada. Well, reality hit pretty quick that I didn't have a lick of resources to use to make "that kind" of teaching happen.
It was very frustrating to me to know what I was trying to make happen, but it just wasn't working right, but now I see a bigger picture. What I realized just now after reading page 16 is that the problem wasn't that I didn't have a solid understanding of the instructional strategies. I see that understanding the instructional strategy is only one piece in the larger puzzle in being able to design quality instruction. I was not prepared to fulfill the quote above: that the "responsibility" fell on me to create what really should have been professionally designed and developed already, and I as a new teacher should just have been implementing.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Comments on article "Reclaiming Instructional Design"
As I read through this article, I couldn't help but keep thinking in the back of my mind about the contrast in two characters on the TV show 'Lost'. Jack, the doctor, is considered a man of science, while Locke, a guy who before the plane crashed was paralyzed but now can walk, is considered a man of faith. Throughout the episodes, they approach each situation from very different perspectives. At times I feel myself relating more to Jack, and other times more to Locke, based on each circumstance.
In regards to instruction, I have no doubt where I stand, and that is in agreement to this article, that it truly is a science that can be studied empirically. However, there is one specific point made that I had hoped would be explained further in the article, but it wasn't. On the first page, the writers compare the science of aerodynamics to the science of instructional strategies. The problem with this is that aerodynamics is based on a number of scientific laws, and laws in the scientific sense is not a term used lightly. Aerodynamics is based on laws such as the Perfect Gas Law, Bernoulli's Law, Newton's Laws, etc (http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Book/laws-01.html). Unfortunately, when it comes to the science of instruction, we do not have a repertoire of laws about learning from which the science of instruction is based on. I believe this is the reason that there is such a range of opinions of what instruction should look like. But that does not mean that there is not a wealth of research into what makes instruction effective, and that is what I'm interested in, knowing what the research says is sound instruction. Not the pseudoscience "Reader's Digest" version, but real, empirical research.
One other note about this article that I thought of is that since instructional design is a technology, then by that definition it is also susceptible to the problems all other technologies face. All technologies can be used in ways that are helpful or harmful. It does not mean the technology is good or bad, it is how the technology is used. Something for us all to keep in mind!
In regards to instruction, I have no doubt where I stand, and that is in agreement to this article, that it truly is a science that can be studied empirically. However, there is one specific point made that I had hoped would be explained further in the article, but it wasn't. On the first page, the writers compare the science of aerodynamics to the science of instructional strategies. The problem with this is that aerodynamics is based on a number of scientific laws, and laws in the scientific sense is not a term used lightly. Aerodynamics is based on laws such as the Perfect Gas Law, Bernoulli's Law, Newton's Laws, etc (http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Book/laws-01.html). Unfortunately, when it comes to the science of instruction, we do not have a repertoire of laws about learning from which the science of instruction is based on. I believe this is the reason that there is such a range of opinions of what instruction should look like. But that does not mean that there is not a wealth of research into what makes instruction effective, and that is what I'm interested in, knowing what the research says is sound instruction. Not the pseudoscience "Reader's Digest" version, but real, empirical research.
One other note about this article that I thought of is that since instructional design is a technology, then by that definition it is also susceptible to the problems all other technologies face. All technologies can be used in ways that are helpful or harmful. It does not mean the technology is good or bad, it is how the technology is used. Something for us all to keep in mind!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Learning Theory vs. Instructional Theory
I just read over this section on pg. 4 of the Morrison text. It seems to clarify and support what we talked about last week in class, that the way you teach does not necessarily label you as an "ism" (i.e., behaviorism or constructivism). Right off the bat, Morrison is making a very clear distinction between learning theory and instructional theory. I like the terms Morrison used to describe each: calling the theories "descriptive" (learning theory) and "prescriptive" (instructional theory).
This has been quite relieving to find out that no matter how you believe that humans learn, all instructional strategies are still on the table as viable options. I do agree that how we believe people learn will affect the instructional strategies that we employ. During my undergrad teaching methods courses, I was pretty much led to believe that anything that resembles "traditional teaching" is a waste of time. I found myself in my first year of teaching completely at a loss with implementing a curriculum that did everything in the constructivist column of the table (if you've seen that table), however had no resources or support to pull it off. After several months of frustration, I resorted in many ways to what I was familiar with, and that was teaching how I was taught: lecture and book work Boring!!!
This is actually one thing that led me to integrating technology into the classroom. I found that I absolutely hate lecturing day in and day out, so I tried to find any kind of supplement possible to replace me being the talking head.
As I said earlier, it is very refreshing to begin to understand now that it is just fine and in fact preferred to employ a range of instructional strategies, and you don't have to live in one "teaching methods column" or another based on the "-ism".
This has been quite relieving to find out that no matter how you believe that humans learn, all instructional strategies are still on the table as viable options. I do agree that how we believe people learn will affect the instructional strategies that we employ. During my undergrad teaching methods courses, I was pretty much led to believe that anything that resembles "traditional teaching" is a waste of time. I found myself in my first year of teaching completely at a loss with implementing a curriculum that did everything in the constructivist column of the table (if you've seen that table), however had no resources or support to pull it off. After several months of frustration, I resorted in many ways to what I was familiar with, and that was teaching how I was taught: lecture and book work Boring!!!
This is actually one thing that led me to integrating technology into the classroom. I found that I absolutely hate lecturing day in and day out, so I tried to find any kind of supplement possible to replace me being the talking head.
As I said earlier, it is very refreshing to begin to understand now that it is just fine and in fact preferred to employ a range of instructional strategies, and you don't have to live in one "teaching methods column" or another based on the "-ism".
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Information vs. Instruction
What’s the difference between information and instruction?
The difference between information and instruction has to do with the goal of each. Information is just there, if someone wants to take it in, fine, but either way, it’s there. Instruction, however has a specific goal to ensure that an audience receives the information, and receives it correctly. Because of this, instruction is more deliberate, and must provide measures to know that the audience has acquired the desired knowledge, and acquired it correctly. This is why instruction must include a) opportunity for the audience to practice or interact in some way with the information, skill, etc. and b) contain some form of evaluation to ensure that the audience can demonstrate their understanding of the information.
The difference between information and instruction has to do with the goal of each. Information is just there, if someone wants to take it in, fine, but either way, it’s there. Instruction, however has a specific goal to ensure that an audience receives the information, and receives it correctly. Because of this, instruction is more deliberate, and must provide measures to know that the audience has acquired the desired knowledge, and acquired it correctly. This is why instruction must include a) opportunity for the audience to practice or interact in some way with the information, skill, etc. and b) contain some form of evaluation to ensure that the audience can demonstrate their understanding of the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
