Learning Objects (I think I can see the barn door in the distance)

Learning Objects is a term that I have often felt has lost its meaning through the years as more and more people create what they call "learning objects" but are often just a collection of links or resources that have no set purpose other than a theme or focus.  According to the lecture, learning objects should have three parts: "a learning objective, a unit of instruction that teaches the objective, and a unit of assessment that measures the objective".  Having all three components makes the difference between a robust learning object and one that does little to advance learning or understanding.  To me this means that that every unit or learning object within a course should have its own set of objectives and outcomes that are connected to the course objective and outcomes.

At the same time, when I think of learning objectives in of themselves, I think these are where an instructor can bring in a lot of their own creativity.  Right now I am designing a "book" within an orientation course for student's who are switching from Blackboard to Moodle.  The book has the ability to be dropped into different courses so that it can serve as part of the orientation course or instructors can put it the book into an individual course for students to use without having to enroll in the orientation course itself.




Here are some LO's that are fun to look at:

Immune Response

Immune System

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

THIS IS MY BRAIN

THIS IS MY BRAIN ON COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY THEORY

When I first read about CFT, and the connection to constructivism, I was really excited.  I liked how Cognitive Flexibility seemed to be about teaching a student the ability to switch their behavioral response according to the context of the situation.  But once more when I looked at the examples like EASE, the application seems to have little relation to the theory. 

According to the website Museum of Learning, one must, “to design a learning environment so that it is consistent with Cognitive Flexibility Theory:

·         Use multiple case studies to insure that a variety of possible situations are presented.

·         Focus on cross-case differences in how concepts and principles are applied.

·         Allow users to ‘criss-cross’ the materials in flexible ways, to see the same content in different contexts

·         Modularize content to exist in multiple contexts (or provide enough background information for each concept to be understood in each context)

·         Consider multiple perspectives (individual points of view) as an aid to understanding the connected nature of the domain concepts and promoting flexible knowledge building.”

The above points make sense to me but when I looked at how they are applied in the EASE model, there seems to be too many disparate pieces to be able to make connections or assemble the information in any meaningful way.  The learning guides help to a certain extent but the problem with learning guides is that if they are not done carefully, then you are disallowing the benefits of constructivism that allows for the learner to create the meaning – not the instructor. 

I can see the amount of work that must go into creating a CFT based model is huge and daunting.  This could be one reason why I look at this model and shy away from it.  I do not see this as a one person show.  To really do this model justice, it would seem that it would take a team approach to really make sure you are capitalizing on the multiple perspectives.  But I think I would really take time and think about how to use this model in a way that really mirrors the situations that employees face in a job context - similar to the ER context.  

http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/cognitive_flexibility

Photos used under Creative Commons from BlatantNews.com and GE Healthcare 

MOST

MOST has been the a difficult model for me to embrace but is has nothing to do with the model or how it is applied.  It brings back memories of students reading the Cliff Notes as opposed to reading the book.  I also remember when my daughter was in HS, students watching the video (the modern version of cliff notes).

What I like about the model is that it uses the of building mental models to allow the learner to understand verbal information that may not have been possible without those visual cues.  But one thing that I struggle with is the comment that "multimedia may actually accelerate the development of literacy".  While I am not saying it won't, I am at best ambivalent about this being the case.   What I can see is that we are slowly replacing our modes of how we are developing our ability to learn and process information.  These different methods can compliment each other but there must be care taken that the one method does not replace other methods of learning.

Nicholas Carr had written a book about how the internet and technology is changing how we think and process information.  He does not necessarily say it is a negative thing but he does show how historically anytime any new method of imparting information (maps, printing press, etc) happens, there is a  change in how information is processed.  Part of me feels that we lose something by not forcing a student to learn to read Shakespeare (as an example) but then when I think about what can be learned by first seeing a Shakespearean performance and then reading Shakespeare, I think the opposite.  Another aspect of technology that I am in love with when it comes to reading, is that when I read on my Kindle, and I come across a word that I do not know, I can simply put the cursor on it and see what the definition is.  So I guess what I am saying that there has to be a balance created so that we do not over rely on any one method of teaching and learning.

THE SHALLOWS: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains
By Nicholas Carr

When You Wish Upon A Star!

 All right I have to admit that I like anything that has a nice graphic - flow charts make me happy!   So when I saw the Star Legacy Model, I jumped up and down for joy and then recreated the below graphic.  This is a model I can get behind!

When I was creating this model though, it made me think about other models that were similar, such as the ACE Star Model:

This is a model that I have seen people use for change initiatives within organizations.  It is similar in that change is essentially a learning process, so this goes hand in  hand.

Another model that is near and dear to my heart is the 4mat model of design:

Again, I look at this as a process we are taking any student through when we want them to really learn and integrate a new set of knowledge, skills and/or abilities.  What I like about all of these is the open flow so that is it understood that is not a closed loop but hopefully an open loop.  Once you get to a certain level of understanding, you can establish a new challenge or a new discovery you want to make that builds upon the last one.

This method I could see using in a multitude of ways with a multitude of different students - the possibilities seem endless.  Another aspect that I like about this model is that I can see how it could work for either groups of students or individual students, allowing more flexibility for instructors who must meet a multitude of needs.

The possible drawbacks seem to be the need to created a full scaffolding of knowledge ahead of time.  Except that as I write this, I think that may occur more when you are using this method for asynchronous instruction.  When I have used 4mat, I have always been training f2f which allows for participants to be engaged in setting the direction of the learning.  In this way it becomes a more constructive methodology.  If I wanted it to be the same in an online learning environment, I would probably use some type of small group format.  In this way, it could be a great model for an action learning group;  giving a group the ability to test out new methods of operating before applying them to the organization.