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.  

Mr Rogers versus Sesame Street

My issue with so many of these models is that I cannot start to visualize them from reading the articles or listening to the lecture. I start to have a cursory understanding though when I look at the examples. Usually when I see the examples the light bulbs go off and it starts to come together. But with Anchored Instruction, even when I saw the examples, I still could not get my head around it. It reminded me slightly of what it was like to watch Mister Rogers compared to what it was like to watch Sesame Street. The examples shown demonstrating this model, seem much more like Mr. Roger's in comparison to other models we have been seeing. Like other models we have discussed this seems to be much more geared towards elementary education. I could sees the value in using this model with students who can overstimulated if there too many audio or visual cues to process. Again, there was always something very calming about watching Mr. Rogers and that element popped out at me when I looked at these examples. Simple and easy to process. One tool though that I could see using with Anchored Instruction is Prezi. Prezi allows you to create a presentation where the viewer can move around at will. It would make it more Sesame Street than Mr. Rogers in that it would allow for more non-linear approach. Still, I am not sure when and if I would use this model with the students or participants I work with.

Goal-Based Scenarios

When I first read the pdf of Kevin's camtasia presentation (the audio on my computer has been acting wonky - and yes that might be because it knows that I am longing to chuck it out and just simplify my life by getting the 2nd generation Ipad, which by the way has not just one but two Moodle Apps) I sort of thought it hearkened back to my middle school days when we got to do a lot of role playing in a somewhat misguided, swinging sixties/seventies (please remember this was towards the end of the Vietnam War) attempt at education.  Not a lot of core learning was accomplished but we had a great time!  


When I started reading the articles, I realized that it holds closer to what I did in my early days of corporate training.  Back then I did a lot of exercises that really stressed the experiential  aspect of learning.  We would present a scenario to participants, in which there was a problem to solve.   They in turn had to work together to solve the problem in a given time period and with a given set of resources.  This would usually be done within a  larger framework of a program in which larger concepts like change, leadership, communication, teams, etc were being addressed.  These types of activities were designed for participants to apply the concepts of the classroom in a "real" situation to garner further learning and start to apply that learning forward to work.  To me this type of learning is similar to the apprentice-based learning we discussed last week, where we put students in situations where they really have to incorporate what they have learned in a real situation - not just a case-study application which stays at a more theoretical level.    


This is one area that I struggle to incorporate effectively when I have taught online. The trainings that I have been involved in have not been the most successful and really do not get at the same type of learning by doing.  One project involved the use of Second Life.  Participants created their own avatars and participated in role playing.  The problem was that in this setting the ability of creating a realistic setting was limited at best.  There  was little to no buy-in from participants and what happened was that the scenario fell flat.  But I have also worked with a lot of military groups over the years and the military has had great success with creating realistic virtual training scenarios that really do help provide a realistic platform to test competencies.

Situated Learning

This model brought to mind a faculty meeting that I attended last month when a welding instructor talked about how he taught logarithms to his students everyday but he never called them logarithms and because the students are actually using the math, they are not scared of it and they are able to apply it and use it.

This model also has the most personal appeal simply because I have always learned best by doing, not necessarily by abstract application of material.  While this model works extremely well in concrete apprenticeships it also works well in more abstract arenas like experiential education.  At the same time I can see the connection with project-based learning when even in a controlled setting, the student gets to apply the concepts - similar to our projects that we work on in this course.

In my mind, apprenticeships, internships, mentor-ships, etc are all an essential piece of the educational process.  In this day when jobs are not easily come by, they offer the student an opportunity to build a skill set that is more applicable to what they will face, and the ability to demonstrate those skills.

So...how will I incorporate this? Hmmmm, to be honest, I am not sure but I can say that this feels instinctively like the next step in my journey.

Problem-Based Learning

…Or as some might call it the Pepto Bismol of Learning.  The reason I say this is simply one must be not just a teacher or instructor but also a conductor, facilitator, coach, project management expert, etc, etc.  This is not a model that one goes into lightly given the complexity and the time it takes to do this well.  This complexity seems to be a factor that could send even the bravest running for the hills.  Jess said in her blog last week that she has moved away from incorporating aspects of cooperative learning as her life has become busier and busier with its many demands.  I think this is true for many of us.  While we want to provide a quality learning experience for our students it must be balanced with the other demands that are part of our lives.  To me Problem-Based Learning thus might be best for a team teaching scenario where the joy and responsibilities can be shared.

One way I can see using PBL is as a model for action learning with corporate clients.  Right now CCL does a lot of action learning with long term clients who are sending intact groups through a long-term process where they come to CCL a few times over the space of about 1 year.  Part of their learning is to create action-learning teams where they work on issues that are being faced by their organiztion.  They have to work colloboratively but each person on a particular team has their own piece of the pie, so to speak, that they must research, investigate and report back to the team.   As with PBL, there are a lot of project management skills that goes along with this model, both by the instructor and the participants.  Right now the model that CCL uses to manage this process is slighlty cumbersome and extremely expensive.  It involves more face to face times at intervals that are spread out over months.  It does not necessarily help keep participants engaged in the process.  I have been working on a design that would use the online classroom as the tool to help keep teams on task, engaged and able to communicate more effectively (especially since more often than not these are globally dispersed teams).   Often organiztions have internal structures like Sharepoint that can be used to help facilitate this process but tools such as Webex, Yammer, Adobe Connect, Wiggio, can all be used to give teams a central organization spot and allows an instructor to help facilitate the process on an ongoing process.  But again, in doing this, one must be committed to the process and willing to see it through to the end for participants to really gain from this expereince.  So get out the Pepto Bismol, here I come!

Lost in a fog!!!!!!

So now I am more confused than ever trying to wrap my head about how to clearly distinguish these three models.  I even spent time today, simply copying and pasting from Kevin's PPT's to have one visual that maybe I could start to tweeze out the differences.  Getting closer but still the fog is dense!!!!!!

	Project Components	Project Steps
Guided Design	·      groups consist of 4-7 students ·      defining roles can help promote participation: leaders, planners, researchers ·      after self-instruction, instructor guides students through open-ended problems in class, provides feedback ·      self-instruction provides for... o  prerequisite knowledge ·      group projects provide opportunity to practice decision-making skill and intellectual thinking: o  recall, translate, manipulate, interpret, o  predict, choose	1.    define problem 2.    state objectives 3.    list constraints limiting solutions, assumptions one must make, and facts to be known 4.    generate possible solutions, and evaluate using criteria 5.    select one solution, synthesize 6.    present results and recommendations as a report, or other product 7.    implement decision 8.    evaluate results 9.    feedback should be provided indicating how an “experienced” decision maker might have performed
Cooperative Learning	·      use small groups, 2-5 ·      heterogeneous groups suggested by research (e.g., mixed gender, race, and ability levels) ·      low ability student typically improves performance when grouped with higher ability student; higher ability student sometimes decreases in performance ·      individual and group accountability: o each student is accountable for a specific task or topic as well as topics assigned to other group members ·      positive interdependence: o each team benefits when all members perform well, and is held accountable when one or more members do not; “sink or swim together” ·      group processing: ·      students coached on group process skills--supporting differences, listening, providing feedback, gatekeeping to ensure all participate, coaching others, reaching consensus	1.    promote group process by assigning roles 2.    leaders keep groups on task, ensure everyone participates and understands 3.    recorders manage group files and folders, tracking each team member’s contributions 4.    reporters give responses to the class about a group's activities or conclusions 5.    monitors act as timekeepers for activities
Problem-Based Learning	·      students work in groups--opportunity to employ synchronous tools to meet as a problem team from a distance (see twoway audio--Elluminate, Skype) ·      students I.D. what is known, what information is needed, and next steps-- opportunity to employ project management and information collecting/organizing tools ·      groups break out and conduct individual research, before reporting back to the team ·      need for a project space that allows individuals to collect and share what they have found ·      Cmap folders would allow groups to store links and documents, and begin to map out a problem space ·      also supports synchronous, real-time mapping and chat/discussion ·      students ultimately report what they have found and make a recommendation--opportunity to employ Web-based presentation tools ·      students evaluate themselves and others' performance on a PBL team--opportunity to employ online assessment tools ·      presents an ill-structured problem ·      provides access to resources to help solve that problem ·      strings together a powerful set of tools to help students collaborate and work through the required steps (e.g., discussing what is known/unknown, collecting resources, meeting online)	1.       students divided into groups 2.       real problem is presented and discussed 3.       students identify what is known, what information is needed, and what strategies or next steps to take 4.       when gaps are identified in needed information, these "learning issues" are divided among group members for further research 5.       group researches different issues, gathers resources 6.       students return to group and evaluate collected resources 7.       cycle repeats until students feel the problem has been framed adequately and all issues have been addressed 8.       after adequate framing, possible actions, recommendations, solutions, or hypotheses are generated 9.       tutor groups conduct peer/self-assessments

 ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN HELP??????

Alright, PBL is the chimichanga and I am getting heartburn trying to clearly differentiate the three!

Enchilada or Burrito?

If guided design is the enchilada of the group-based/collaborative models, then cooperative-learning environments might the burrito.  What does this mean?  Well, the ingredients that make up these models are so similar it is difficult to determine the clear distinctions.  To me the biggest distinction and possible barrier is that the success of the individual relies on the success of the group.  Another barrier is that this model seems to be based on students having shared learning goals.  I think this might be easier to establish with younger students but the older the students are, the trickier it becomes since often adult learners have a variety of learning goals that are not always aligned.  While these different goals can bring different perspectives, they can also bring a lot of difficulties that can affect the group learning process.  But if done well, it seems that the group in this model might have a great chance at success in part due to the structure given to the group process that is established through clear roles and responsibilities. 

I think using this model in conjunction with module I discussed last week could be very successful.  One arena that I could see using this is with community college students who might need more structure to the group process.  This model helps students work towards gaining those collaboration skills along with the content knowledge.  

Guided Design Process

FINALLY - a model that resonates!  As soon as I started reading and listening about Guided Design, I recognized this as a model I know well.  This model focuses on using “real world problems” as an avenue for students to apply course material.  Students are broken into groups and given a problem to which there is no clear solution.  Working together, students come up with a number of different solutions and then determine which solution they think is best.  Some barriers to this model are that some students do not have the requisite skills or knowledge to work though problems.  While this can be advantageous to these students it can be less so for students who have these skills and as a result often carry the burden.  Another issue with this model is the group aspect.  In my experience group projects rarely result in an equitable distribution of work and outcomes.  If there is a disconnect between motivation levels of the different group members then what happens is that motivated students often take up more of the work than less motivated students.  This is not necessarily the fault of the students but is a factor in how the instructor manages group projects.  If the group project can be managed effectively then the outcomes can be worth the effort.  Not only does this model allow for the application of course material but it often pushes higher levels of learning as a result of the interactions.  The other positive of this model is that it reflects what students will face out in the real world not just in the problems that they are trying to solve but also in the communication and collaboration skills they need to apply.  More than a few birds with one stone!

This model has been extremely helpful when teaching my graduate HR courses.  I break my class into small groups that work together through the semester on a series of HR-related problems – usually some type of case study scenario.  When I break them into groups, I do not break them into groups until I get a chance to assess skills, motivation and learning styles.  I often assign students to similar groups, especially when it comes to motivation.  This allows the students who are more motivated to benefit from being with a like minded group and what I have also found is that the groups that might be labeled “less” motivated rise to the occasion.  The other logistical aspect is that I define the time frame of the work required.  I create a “guide” for students that have all the pre-information that they need to start looking at the problem.  They have a time frame to work on an individual basis with the information, communicate with each other and gather any additional material they may need.  Then the group work happens when they come together for a synchronous course meeting.  I put them into break out rooms where they meet to discuss the problem.  I have done this where there are 4-6 groups meeting at the same time or they are meeting one at a time on different nights (more consuming for me).  Either way, I am going in and out of their meeting and helping them facilitate the process.  After the groups have met, they present their findings and there is a final debrief and wrap-up.  Feedback from students on this process has been extremely positive.  Students have loved the synchronous interaction this model allows for an online course but they also love that is a group project with parameters on the time and effort involved. This model definitely requires a different role for the instructor in that it is much more of a facilitative role as opposed to an instructional role but it brings clear rewards to both the instructor and the students.

Another favorite web tool

This is my current blog posting after submitting it to Wordle.  I think it makes it easier to understand!

1.      What are your initial reactions to this theory/model? What are barriers to its use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My reaction when I listened to Kevin’s lecture was that the A-T system was a very passive form of learning but once I read the articles I began to comprehend that it actually is a very engaging process that involves the learner in a more active process than the more traditional higher education setting (I am thinking large lecture hall) or even corporate training setting of a large seated classroom.  I think one of the biggest barriers could be the cost of developing and maintaining the materials necessary for this type of learning to be successful, especially for any area of study where content changes often.  While this may be a barrier it also may be worth it since one advantage I can see in this is that you would start to address accessibility and ADA issues with the ability to deliver resources and lessons multiple ways.  

2.      Would you attempt to use this theory/model with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theory/model be modified so that it would work with your current/future students?

I am not sure about whether I personally would use this simply because of the audio aspect.  I have not always felt comfortable with delivering content in this way, though it may be worth getting over this fear I have of hearing my voice recorded (personally I loved the ringing phone and the laughter in Kevin’s lecture since it made is seem more “real” and accessible).  The aspects that I currently use are the opportunities to practice and reflect on the learning before taking it to the next level of learning.  Another aspect that resonates is that with this model, the instructor is more of a facilitator than the “teacher”.  Finally I do a lot of small group work in my courses which corresponds to the small assembly sessions – again all the different modalities of this model allow the learner to make connections on many levels with the material, the instructor, and other learners.

3.      Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out this learning theory/model online?

One just has to look at a resource such as Jane Hart’s annual list of Top 100 Tools for Learning, to realize that there are methods being created daily that made this model possible.  Some of my favorites are Prezi and Jing.   

Daniel Pink - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

Thoughts about the Keller Plan

When I first read about the Keller Plan, it reminded me of training programs companies implemented years ago (back when the dinosaurs roamed….you know about the late 80’s to mid ‘90’s) where an employee would work through the "program" a module at a time, having to pass some form of assessment before being able to move onto the next module.  These types of trainings had little buy-in from employees and there was little motivation for completion.  T & D departments had a reputation for spending money on programs that had little impact (the ROI was negligible at best).  In fact online training in the corporate world has had to battle a bias against it in large part due to these types of programs.  But once I read about how it was implemented in the 6 Sigma program, it hit me that like many plans, the pedagogical basis can be sound but if it is not implemented correctly then it will not have the intended impact. 

So as always I come back to basics: “Learning is basically an asynchronous, creative adventure”.   In this the core aspects of the Keller plan naturally lend themself to online learning and thus the best aspects of online learning:

o   Clear educational objectives

o   Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback

o   Student self-pacing

o   Positive reinforcement

o   Student emphasis on doing rather than listening

If looked at in a traditional mode: “Keller (1968) outlined five basic components that he deemed to be essential for a PSI class: (1) mastery of course material, (2) the use of proctors, (3) self-pacing, (4) stress upon the written word, and (5) use of lectures and demonstrations primarily for motivational purposes”, then the PSI or Keller model fits the worst case scenario.  When looking at Bloom’s Taxonomy, it might achieve at best the first three levels but it will not advance the learner’s abilitiies to reach higher levels of learning.  But if looked at from how it was incorporated with the Six Sigma program, then it goes beyond those three levels and looks at higher levels of learning.

If e-learning focuses on the instructor being a facilatator of the learning process instead of the focus of the learning process then the Keller model might be an avenue to reach this.  One of the possibilities that online learning offers is a new look at colloborative efforts that more closely mirror what students will expereince in the work place.  What was clear from the Davis article was that students prefer to be at the focus of the educational process as opposed to instructors being at the focus!

Reference 

Davis, R. L. & Ragsdell, K. M. (2000). Design of an effective, web-based, global learning environment using the Keller Plan. 

An interesting article

This article in today's NYTimes brought up an interesting aspect of copyright issues!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/business/16ping.html

My first post!!!!

Trying to figure this whole thing out!!!!!