Unit 4

Refer to the diagram above for an easy break down of similarities and difference among the models.  

What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

I found the first three parts of this unit to be very similar.  In many ways, I felt that they all built upon the previous one in which the foundation is created through Case based learning which then extends into case based reasoning and finally evolving into cognitive flexibility theory.  Throughout each of these designs was a strong emphasis on ill structured problem solving.  The diagram displays many of the similarities like providing multiple perspectives of the case and the development of the participant’s research and reasoning skills.  Through this there is a level of active engagement in learning.  I noted that cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) mentioned feedback as being important; however, this was not specifically discussed with the other models.  The creation of a CFT, case based learning and case based reasoning module is complex; however, their authentic nature helps participants build schema that can be used in future cases.  This can improve future learning and application of the process for solving problems.  While I got the impression that case based reasoning helps students connect their learning to arrive at a solution quicker because of previous knowledge, it seems that foundations developed through case based learning is the foundation for this.  One notable difference was found in the CFT model which requires the adaptation of one’s thinking.  It seems as though each model has participants transferring knowledge beyond the skill.  Unlike the CBL model in which students are given one problem, the CBR model integrates multiple scenarios.  However, integrated with this model are the ideals of CBL.  Finally, the biggest difference seemed to appear in the learning objects.  Learning objects are goal oriented and are uses as support materials.  It seemed to me that the learning objects, being a digital resource, can be integrated into multiply types of lessons.  The learning objects definition reminds me of how classroom instruction is organized.  LO can be interconnected with all of the models mentioned in this unit. In summary, these theories focus on ill structured problem solving as a means of developing reasoning skills.  The use of learning objects assists participants in developing the appropriate reasoning skills as a search tool in order to access and reuse content.

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My initial reaction to these learning theories (CBL, CBR, and CFT) was overwhelming.  In previous units, I found it easy to wrap my mind around the design of the given theories.  However, the complexity in these theories made it challenging.  It is clear that developing a CBL, CBR, or CFT would require the knowledge and man power of a design team.  Moreover, the development of the stories necessary for a participant to offer a solution to the ill structured problem would take a significant amount of time and research.    Even though I was overwhelmed with these theories, I was interested in the development of these models.   I believe the biggest barrier to the use of these is the time, money, and research needed to develop a meaningful design for a classroom of learners.  On the other hand, a benefit would be the accessibility participants would have to stories/research that would be necessary to assist in developing a solution to the ill structured problem.  Additionally, students make connections to the stories and problems which help them index the learning for future use.   Finally, I found that using stories to help students learn vicariously was genius.  I can’t tell you how many times students in my class refer to stories to help explain a problem they do not have a direct experience with. 

*I feel that information regarding the Learning objects was detached from what was discussed throughout the 1^st three theories.  My understanding is LO is not a theory; however, it is used as support material.  This did not seem as intimidating as the theories.  Therefore, I can see myself using the LO as a search tool in order to develop perspective taking.  

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I am on the fence with using these theories in my classroom.  There are clearly benefits that can come from using these theories in my classroom.  However, the time that is needed for development and execution is overwhelming.  Additionally, the time needed for the students to solve the ill structured problem may prohibit me from covering the objects that are expected.   With this being said, I can see myself using the nature of storytelling to assist my students’ in developing reasoning skills to solve ill-structured problems.    I can see myself using components found within learning objects to help build my student’s reasoning skills so that they can solve ill structured problems with more confidence.  

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 these learning theories/models online?

There are a variety of webtools and resources that can be used to carry out these learning theories and modules online.   A few of the tools I have experience with and feel could be adapted for these learning theories are weebly, google docs, voki, video, and blogs  Below you will find each tool with a description of how each could be used.

Weebly: Weebly is a free website creator tool.  Using this as a foundation for CBL, CBR, and CFT can help the creation process get started quickly, since the websites are predesigned.  Weebly also offers drop boxes to submit questions and assignments to the instructor.  Additionally, outside tools can be embedded within weebly to create an appropriate learning environment for the participants.

Google docs: google docs can used as a resource for students to experience the narratives needed in order to develop their perspective.  Moreover, this tool can be used simultaneous among group members who can assist in developing a solution to the ill structured problem.

Vokis/video tools: These tools would be essential in providing background information for the participants.  While google docs can provide some narrative using visual and auditory skills can improve the quality of understanding for participants.  It can also help students who may be intimidated by reading or struggle with comprehension.

Blogs: Using a blog tool can help connect group members as well as provide each group member an opportunity to express his or her thoughts.  This tool can also hold participants accountable for expressing their own learning but at the same tie analyze the perspectives of other group members.   

Unit 3

Right click image to enlarge

1.      What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

As I was reading through the articles for unit 3, there was a general theme that emergedàstudents learn and apply knowledge best when it is linked to meaningful and authentic experiences. Students who are taught using traditional educational methods tend to learn the skills in isolation, thus causing students difficulty in applying the understanding in a new context.  In the anchored instruction and learning by doing teaching methods, there is an overall arching idea that students need to be involved in the developing the questions that need to be solved by the given problems.  Therefore, as students are engaged in developing the problems to be solved, they are building an identity and meaningful connection of the content.  The Star Legacy takes a more linear approach in which students are presented with a challenge and work through each step accordingly.  It seems that the Star Legacy offers more structure in solving the problem in comparison to Goal Based Learning and Anchored instruction.   The STAR legacy brought me back to some of the same ideas expressed in the PSI we learned about in unit 1.  Like the PSI it seems to focus on building the foundation that will help students work in environments which are designed with goal based learning, anchored instruction, or STAR is involved.  I found MOST to have the biggest difference among all of the learning modules in unit 3.  The underlying push with MOST focuses on using video to improve student’s vocabulary and linguistic understanding.  Vocabulary and comprehension are important per-requisites needed for more of the advanced theories mentioned in this unit.   Another noted difference in MOST was the emphasis placed on recall which seems to be a lower level thinking in task in comparison to the problem solving ideas mentioned in the other articles.  You will note in the web above, that there were not any similarities between MOST and the other webs.   It is also important to note, that with GBS and Anchored instruction seem to best fit team of students working to solve a problem unlike MOST and STAR legacy which seems to focus on each student independently.

Furthermore, I noted that the use of videos was prominent in these theories. For example, Jasper projects present the students with a real life problem in which problems and data were embedded for the students to solve.  In goal based learning, the students design their learning based on an inquiry they may have, unlike MOST and STAR.  In the Schank, Berman, and Macpherson article they base their explanation on a teacher made inquiry that a student may have rather than a structured tool like those found in the Jasper study.  Furthermore, in the Anchored Instruction there was a strong emphasis in keeping the student cognitively engaged the entire time through starting and stopping points built into the video.  One difference explicitly noted by Hsu and Moore is the need for student motivation.  Even though this was not brought to the reader’s attention in many of the anchored instruction articles, I can see how this is a huge variable that should be considered in the success of the planned unit.  Another notable difference is in the feedback the students receive.  In the GBS simulation, students develop their advice to give to the character.  This advice is evaluated by the computer system and the learner is told whether it was appropriate/inappropriate.  In the anchored instruction model, students work together to develop answers and are asked to compare these to the experts that are present in the next section of the learning experience.   If the student receives a message stating their feedback is inappropriate, they can watch the video again and reassess their position (Reigeluth, 20010). A downfall to this is that they are not aware of the value their answer has which can ultimately create feelings of defeat. 

*The Web provides an illustration regarding the similarities and differences among the articles for unit 3

2.      What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

I was intrigued by the content of this unit.  I strongly believe that most students apply knowledge better when there is a significant and meaningful connection to their own life.  The notion of moving away from memorizing facts/theories and learning content in isolation is very appealing to me.  The self discovery that is implied by these models, that students need to discover the problems and sub problems as a means of developing a solution is profoundly different than how I structure the learning experiences in my classroom.  However, it makes sense.  Therefore, integrating a GBS

3.      Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I would love to implement the components of anchored instruction into my own classroom.  I can see myself doing this for many of the subject areas that I teach.  One in particular would be for my Christopher Paul Curtis author study.   In the novels that we use, the students witness African American oppression and socio economic struggles in a way they have never seen before.  Therefore, giving them an opportunity to engage in solving problems that may have been or are faced by oppressed citizens has the potential of helping them to better understand and appreciate events such as Rosa Parks choosing to sit at the front of the bus.  Many students are conceptually challenged by historical moments such as these because they have not been given an opportunity to understand it as it relates to them.  I believe that the GBS or Anchored Instructional approaches could be easily modified to meet my students’ current needs.  Schwartz et. al. notes in his article that these instructional designs the need for adaptive instructional techniques in implementing theories such as anchored instruction and GBS.  The LEGACY tool noted in Schwartz et. al. work is an adaptive tool that “…is designed to help both the students and teachers understand where they are in the learning cycle” (1999).  The “Look ahead and Reflect Back” binoculars is one tool that could help students engage in these learning models because it helps the students and teacher create a goal for the journey they will be taking (Schwartz et.al., 1999).  This graphic organizer can eliminate feelings of confusion and frustration that may arise from the group which in turn will lead to better discussion and communication among group members.

4.      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 these learning theories/models online?

To implement any of these models, one could use a resource such as You Tube to present the problems to be solved by the students.  In addition to this video resource, the use of audio clips could be used.  Bit strip could be used to help students retell parts of a story as mentioned in the MOST information.  Furthermore, using PREZI as a tool for students to share their solution to a problem could provide a visual to present student understanding.  Additionally, using a communication tool such as Today’s Meet in order to share ideas to a solution is extremely important.  Gliffy’s could be a resource used to show the progression of a groups solution or to be used as a retelling tool as mentioned in the MOST document. To display a final solution to a problem, students could use Glogster’s to share what they have learned.

Blog 2

1.      What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

This unit’s readings focused on the push toward student based learning through cooperative learning.   Each article emphasized the importance of cooperative learning groups opposed to individual group work.  Haller, Gallagher, Weldon, and Felder state “cooperative learning improves students’ understanding of course material as well as their communication and teamwork skills” (2000).  A striking difference came as I read the  “Enhancing learning-and more-through cooperative learning” article.  While the emphasis remained on cooperative learning, this article discussed the role scaffolding plays in creating a cooperative learning environment.  In this particular article I gained a greater understanding of the techniques that help to incorporate this style of learning in the classroom.  As the readings progressed through, it was evident that the most challenging of the cooperative learning techniques were saved for last.  While reading about problem based learning, I was making connections to the Odyssey of the Mind program many of my students are involved with at school.  Through this program, students work in teams to solve a problem.  While they are monitored by an adult, this adult is not able to help the students solve the problem.  Through problem based learning, students gain a greater awareness of team work and problem solving.  This ultimately was the theme of the combined readings.  Throughout all of the articles, there was an overwhelming focus on the historical roots of cooperative based learning.  However, there is still a sense of fear that many have in implementing it into the classroom.  I find this to be quite surprising.  One of the most prominent principals expressed in all of the articles was the importance of human interaction in learning. 

2.       What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

As I was reading these articles, I was surprised to discover the rich history and research rooted in cooperative learning.  Being a teacher, I constantly learn innovative ways to engage students in the classroom.  Most of these strategies are integrated within cooperative learning.  Many of the articles suggest the importance of cooperative learning for student understanding and perspective.  The most striking component of cooperative learning is this notion that “…learning is produced, not reproduced” (Millis, 2002).    Integrating cooperative learning into the classroom can cause many obstacles for students and teachers.  To effectively incorporate collaborative learning in the classroom, it requires a great understanding of student understanding.  Therefore, fostering relationships between and among students is necessary for effective collaboration to occur.  With a fostered relationship a sense of balance between the students roles can occur.  Hallar et al note in their example of Maria, Bob and Karen that “had Maria taken the role of the teacher in a higher proportion of teaching sequences, it is less likely the others would have grown impatient…” (2000). Therefore, balance in roles is important among group members.  However, to achieve this balance it requires the dedication and time of the teacher. 

One of the biggest barriers is the idea of competition.  As Americans, there is this strong sense of needing to succeed as an individual.  However, it is through group work that the biggest achievements occur (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).  This barrier can be overcome with the work of developing a strong community of learners.  Doing this may require the teacher to create team building activities so that the students get to know each other personally.  Through this, one begins to develop a foundation of self worth which is ultimately a positive outcome of cooperative learning (Asada & DeShazer, 1995).  Another barrier is noted by Collins, Brown, and Newman, as they bring attention to “…the few resources [that] are devoted to higher order problem-solving…” (1989). With this limitation it is often intimidating for teachers to value this style of teaching.   

3.      Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I have always valued cooperation in education.  My early memories of education are not great.  I can remember few opportunities to work with my peers.  I remember feeling a strong competition among my classmates.  Unfortunately, I became disinterested in school and fell behind.   Using this experience has helped me realize what is important for the students.  Prior to becoming a teacher, I knew that what was occurring in the classroom was not fair.  Therefore, my goal as a future educator was to make changes to the classroom experience.  Little did I know that this was exactly the style of learning that had strong roots in research.  Throughout many of the subjects I teach, I include cooperative learning.  When students have an opportunity to work together, they tend to be more excited to learn.  While incorporating jig saw activities are more conducive to the time constraints, I am not opposed to including problem based learning in my classroom.  With problem based learning, I realize that there would need relate to the students’.  Planning to use problem based learning would also require that the students understood how to use conflict as a catalyst for discussion.   Using the suggested strategies in many of the readings, I would be willing to incorporate problem based learning in many of my social studies units.  So many students think of social studies as events to learn about; but neglect in realizing that the choices people make create history.  Therefore, using this style of learning, could help my students understand that things could be different if different choices were made.   With the opportunity to think about historical events in a different light, students learn to challenge and develop perspective which in turn influences how they learn. 

A component of cooperative learning, that I have adopted for my students’ group activities, is a feedback sheet.  As I was reading Millis (2002) work, I was interested in the questions that are suggested to use when monitor group behaviors. Immediately, after reading these, I knew that I wanted to make these part of monitoring tools (Feedback, questions on confidence checkers)

4.      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 these learning theories/models online?

Utilizing cooperative based learning on the web would require a variety of communication tools, such as google docs, wiki’s, wallwishers, e-mail, online forums blogs, and Skype Being able to communicate with group members is extremely important in cooperative learning experiences.  This would be no different in cooperative based learning online.  My group and I are working to create a cooperative learning opportunity for our next module.  We have discovered that to be effective participants will need to have the ability to communicate.  Therefore, we are using a chartroom known as Today’s meet for all of the groups to discuss what they have learned and to prepare their final project. 

As we have been creating this website, we have been reminded how important communication is during online learning.  Therefore, integrating real-time communication through Skype could enhance a student’s experience with collaborative learning online.  Furthermore, using online blogs can be useful in holding each student accountable for their learning.  Often in group projects, some feel they take on more than other group members.  Therefore requiring participants to reflect through blogs can be beneficial.  However, I can see how developers of cooperative learning environments can provide too many resources trying to make it ‘easier’ for the groups.  Therefore, it is important to balance the task requirements with any new technologies a person may encounter.  There should not be more time spent learning the tool than learning the material.  

Unit 1

Technology is ever changing and having an opportunity to investigate several models of self paced learning has me even more excited about this course.  Prior to starting at NCSU, I was unsure about online learning.  My first experience with taking a distant education class was far from fantastic.  I vividly remember feeling extremely confused and lost.    Unfortunately, these feelings left me making a tough decision of dropping the course.  Since this first experience, I have had a change of heart for distance learning.  Learning how web based classes are constructed, I figured my change of heart came with the maturity and patience I have gained over the years.  However, it has been made clear that the construction of the class has a HUGE impact on  one’s success. 

            In Davis and Ragsdell’s article, I was most struck by the notion that traditional learning encompasses a feel of making someone learn RIGHT NOW!  However, this is not the case.  Davis and Ragsdell state “…we should attempt to design learning environments that facilitate asynchronous learning experiences for all students” (n.d.)  What a great idea; however, it seems to assume that the learner is motivated and committed to the learning the content.  Being a 5^th grade teacher, this is a common battle I face with students.  In order to help motivate the students, I create hands on learning activities and opportunities that help students see their success.  As I was reading, I started to understand how this same idea is encompassed within the Keller model.   It seems that this type of teaching relies heavily on a student’s reading ability.  I would be interested to learn how students with learning disabilities are impacted in a web based learning environment.

   Using the Keller model to design a web based learning environment focuses on the notion that a student works at his or her own pace and will not move on until mastery is made.  This is strongly encouraged in the elementary classroom, but seems more feasible in a web based instructional approach.    Therefore, I can see how constructing a Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) model for a variety of units could be beneficial to my students since it is self paced. While reading Koen’s article, I found myself pondering ways to incorporate it into my own classroom.  As I was reading made connections to particular units that I teach, such as ecosystems.   Providing students with an opportunity to learn and be assessed frequently with an integration of remediation has a profound impact on student achievement.  I can see myself using this model of teaching with my own students.  However, the problem in implementing this lies within the lack of available technology access I have during the day.  Therefore, I would rely heavily on students using the unit outside of the classroom for homework.  However, my concern is whether the students would have enough time to effectively use the tool at home.    

The notion that “PSI accommodates the former group and let’s them finish quickly with a minimum of personal contact while providing a maximum amount of personal help to the latter group” allows student learning needs to be met (2005).  Using PSI in an elementary classroom would require knowledge that foundations of the concepts were learned.  If this has not occurred, I can see this style of learning to cause frustration for the student, thus impacting their success of learning. 

                Moreover, reading about audio technology made me feel like I was being taken back in time to the first attempts of distance education.  Moving from the web based learning PSI model, I was surprised by the Audio Technology (AT)pproach.  As I was reading, the impression that I received was that this approach may have been the catalyst for the PSI model.  The striking difference between the AT and PSI model was the task oriented isolation brought on by the AT model.  With the PSI model, there was this strong push for presence; however, there was little discussion about presence in the AT articles.  Both models of learning represent the same idea that “ …learning is an activity done by an individual and not something done to an individual” (Kozma et. al, 1978).  However, the learning seemed very isolated…student get a tape, listen to it, record time spent listening.  Between both theories there is this sense of helping the low and average students succeed without holding the brighter students back.  Essentially, this same idea is expected in the classes that I teach.  The idea of differentiation is extremely important for students in order to keep them motivated and committed to learning.  However, I do not see myself using the AT model in my own classroom.  This seems outdated and lacking in motivation for students that I teach.  

            In order to carry out any of these models, it is important that time and space with regard to technology is available for students.  My teammates and I have found that using online resources is difficult at the elementary level.  Many resources that we want to use require students to be 13 years or older and have a working email address.  While many students have an email accounts, using these at school can be difficult.  Implementing a PSI model, would require access to testing software that can allow students to take different tests countless times if necessary.  Furthermore, there would need to be a communication tool available to students and teachers that allow for regular communication.  Additionally, one would need access to countless information in order to extend and remediate student learning.  Thus knowing how to evaluate materials and websites in order to provide the best instruction to the learners would be an important skill needed by the creator/facilitator.

Davis, R. L., Ragsdell, K. M., The audio tutorial system (n.d.)

Kozma, R.B., Belle, L.W. and Williams, G.W. (1978) Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey.

 

Koen, B. V., (2005). Creating a sense of ‘presence’ in a web-based psi course: The search for Mark Hopkins’ log in a digital world. IEE Transactions on Education 48(4), 599-604.

Montelone, B. A., Rintoul, D. A., & Williams, L. G.M (2008). Assessment of the effectiveness of the studio format in introductory undergraduate biology. CBE- Life Science Education, 234-242