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.
