Cognitive Flex Theory
CFT focuses on knowledge construction, not transmission. The teacher is not there to guide the student through the material along a linear path, rather, it is the cris-crossing of back over the material in new and different ways/approaches which brings out the different facets of the material and in turn, the learning from the material. Through this approach, diverse learners would be catered to and allow for open exploration by all level of student. Clearly, the Plantation Letters site was a wonderful example of CFT. In reading the preface of the purpose of the Plantation Letters, the matrix we were given concerning the subject lines of the letters was not to be given. In reading through the keyword search results (cris-crossing), a more dynamic picture of the life of the times and situations begins to emerge allowing for the more organic learning and transfer of knowledge from classroom to other experiences.
Learning Objects
Simply put, tagged online resources of different sources. It, in itself, is not a theory, but can be used in so many ways. Ultimately, if it can be put together, it will constitute a huge savings in that instruction doesn't need to be constantly recreated across the teaching landscape, rather, the usage of a common core of knowledge and resources to gain educational leverage. Why? sharing is good.
CBR - Case Based Reasoning
Vicarious learning. The explanation of this theory is a beautiful one. Since the dawn of time people have shared their history, traditions and culture through the use of story telling. Before cuneiform existed, stories were present. In these stories were shared the purpose and plan for all those who heard. Farming, hunting, survival were all a part of this vicarious discovery. As it exists today, the greatest managers and teachers I have had were all great story tellers. This wealth of knowledge now for our benefit and transference to our own situations and livelihood.
1/ What are the key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Common foundations?
CBR reminded me a lot of Learning objects but in a contextualized fashion. These case-based Reasoning stories, though intended for the benefit of all, were very focused on one or two items each. "And the moral of the story is..." But learning objects are meant to be decontextualized so that they can be spread and shared through loose connections and applied in many different ways.
CFT appears to be random items, loosely or strongly connected, but which can be reorganized in a myriad of different ways. Again, through the cris-crossing of the material, new facets emerge. Non-linear thinkers and material are strongly encouraged here. So to put it together with CBR/Learning Objects. CFT could incorporate the smaller cases or learning objects into a non-linear hodgepodge of a specific theme to give the learner pieces of the whole, but not the whole from which to draw their own conclusions. Yes, convoluted, but this is how I process the whole.
2/ Initial Reactions/Barriers/benefits?
I think many of us already incorporate Case-based reasoning in our teaching. As a marketing profession for The Walt Disney Co. prior to coming to teaching, I have stories for stories. This is how I see the marketing curriculum - formalized terms and procedures that I learned from others in mastering a craft. Learning objects would require the formalization of my experiences in a manner from which others could explore, use, apply. As the readings acknowledged, though I feel my teaching is good, I am not sure my informal learning objects would pass the muster of others in their teaching. This is the true barrier of Learning objects for me. Case Based Reasoning would only apply to those with the experience or either having done it previously or through the age old tradition of story telling to pass on knowledge. Younger teachers would have a harder time with this. Teachers with limited exposure to the real world of their field/specialty would also struggle.
Concerning CFT's, what a beast! Two thoughts - students and teacher. Students must be allowed to gain experience and exposure to this type of learning - chucking comes to mind/baby steps, if not, a huge barrier to learning will arise. Concerning the teacher: The plantation letters and the more recent events exercise were incredible. A delineated story encompassing past, present, real stories that we were able to explore through - Wow! But how to recreate? There is the rub. Once I feel my stories are sufficient enough and could pass as a Learning Object, in gathering together enough of these and from others, an original CFT could find its way into my teaching. Until then, I need to find others who have already invented the wheel and tag along for the ride.
3/ Would I attempt these?
CBR - yes
Learning Objects - for me, this is the next step in my teaching, to formalize many of the smaller parts of my teaching to be more efficient in my time. Through this class, learning the basis of online learning/developing I feel I have the confidence in developing modules for the students to explore more openly than my lectures of the past. This summer will be busy with lesson revisions and additions.
CFT - not in developing my own but to use another's if I can find the right mix of elements for the classes I teach.
4/ Web based tools to transform these into working online modules?
With such a wealth of examples, I feel even more emboldened to tackle a module or several in my own teaching. The examples given were great. EASE looks promising as a stand alone Learning Object and a CFT to see the parallels of modern time ads with historical ones. I will need to explore this one during the summer. I currently use TEDx as case based reasoning and will use it more as I now have time to explore it more fully since my master's program has come to an end.
Curriki and Connexions - I think these will feed in nicely to what I need to begin my online endeavors. Read, incorporate, learn, build and share back to the community. In short, not just another profession community, but a vital one to extend the common core of what this masters program has shown me possible to achieve in my own teaching.
It was a good semester.
Keith Murphy
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Unit III - GBS/Anchored/STAR/other
As an overview of the items:
CBR begins with a goal and then backtracks into the methodology of the lesson. Essentially a map principle. If one knows where one is going, one can set the appropriate steps in reaching said goal. This with a twist though. For the student, other paths must be laid out that through trial and error, the students can devise the best path to completion. It reminds me a lot of the "Choose your own Adventure" series of books. You could take many different paths, but only a few work out to the logical and fruitful end.
Learning goals
The Mission
The Cover Story
The Role
The scenario operations
The Resources
The Feedback
(Hsu)
Week 9 brought us Anchored Instruction and the iconic model of the Jasper Series. The essence of this contends that individualized skills are totally meaningless unless learned in "context." Anchored instruction allows for this authentic learning in context, macro to micro contexts allowing for right size chunking of the material. The greatest this is the ability of the instruction to lend itself to higher level functioning. The students learn in part, then allowed to expand their learning through variations of different scenarios...all based on the original problems. Depth, not breadth. And all of this guided by storytellers, not teachers.
The problems taken from the readings exhaust the kids. As much as they like this new thought process, it is very mentally taxing and the duration seems a bit limited of nature.
The good...the more the kids become involved in anchored instruction, the better the quality (give and take) of learning takes place.
Seems similar to MOST from week 11. Immediate immersion into the problem, but with much more team play.
Week 10
STAR legacy...glorious. It says it right in the name..."R" - Reflections. This in depth spiral of the material, not just in one glance, but rather, a systematic uncovering of more and more material, much like an archeological dig. This allows for deeper understanding of the material. In this way, like Anchored Instruction...deeper, not wider. Seems to take longer in its approach of uncovering the truths that lie just beneath the surface.
I loved the idea of allowing the kids to Leave a legacy. They take with them (on CD or whatever) their own work and then are allowed to help future others in the solving/exploration of the same. What Schwartz et al. stated was to go public with the knowledge thus allowing the thinking visible. The kids see their work, not just on a sheet of paper, but standing the test of time for future students to use.
Week 11 MOST
Targets At Risk Learners. Again, like Jasper/Anchored Instruction, STAR Legacy, GBS, pre-learning still isn't basis, rather, given a scenario in context (really the key to all of them) and allows for students decode along the way. Like STAR, the idea of reflection (though MOST interprets this as retelling of the story) remains strong. I do like the research as it stated from the camtasia intro, retelling works if only to a puppet. The expression (much like STAR again) out there, not only internally, allows for the students to embrace the knowledge and through speaking, clarify what they know.
The verdict
All of these revolve around the lack of push for the pre-learning. There almost seems a transition from the GBS to MOST as to the amount of pre-learning allowed for...at least in my mind. I think these strategies to be full of promise. As it explicitly states, MOST is for those students who are truly at risk. If this is your class, this would be a great strategy to research and implement...though I feel for a younger crowd. As written though through Bransford, seems s bit hard to build one out.
I love the idea of STAR Legacy crossed with GBS sprinkled with Anchored Instruction. Though by accident, I have implemented a version of this in my Sports and entertainment class when it comes to event planning. With almost everyone having experienced an event one time in their lives, given this as a starting point (GBS), one can begin the journey backwards as to the beginnings of what is required to put one on. This is a long process through the event prep minutia (STAR/Anchored Instruction). I can see this on a larger scale, but it will take proper planning and guides to implement this fully.
My Sports and Entertainment class is more of a hands on, and in being so, allows for this unit's usage. As for my Marketing, Marketing Management and Honors Strategic, these methods could be used, but I need more time to decide how and to what extent. Branding, being a major component of each of these classes may be a hard sell in an anchored instruction form.
I remember seeing a storybook program through one of the social studies grades the boys were in...mystorybook. Though I only saw one example, it sounds like the retelling aspect of MOST. Xtranormal (as given by another colleague in this class in previous weeks projects) would allow for storyboarding and retelling as well, and maybe even the initial challenge (STAR) or GBS goal. Easy to use and not a lecture teacher.
Murphy
CBR begins with a goal and then backtracks into the methodology of the lesson. Essentially a map principle. If one knows where one is going, one can set the appropriate steps in reaching said goal. This with a twist though. For the student, other paths must be laid out that through trial and error, the students can devise the best path to completion. It reminds me a lot of the "Choose your own Adventure" series of books. You could take many different paths, but only a few work out to the logical and fruitful end.
Learning goals
The Mission
The Cover Story
The Role
The scenario operations
The Resources
The Feedback
(Hsu)
Week 9 brought us Anchored Instruction and the iconic model of the Jasper Series. The essence of this contends that individualized skills are totally meaningless unless learned in "context." Anchored instruction allows for this authentic learning in context, macro to micro contexts allowing for right size chunking of the material. The greatest this is the ability of the instruction to lend itself to higher level functioning. The students learn in part, then allowed to expand their learning through variations of different scenarios...all based on the original problems. Depth, not breadth. And all of this guided by storytellers, not teachers.
The problems taken from the readings exhaust the kids. As much as they like this new thought process, it is very mentally taxing and the duration seems a bit limited of nature.
The good...the more the kids become involved in anchored instruction, the better the quality (give and take) of learning takes place.
Seems similar to MOST from week 11. Immediate immersion into the problem, but with much more team play.
Week 10
STAR legacy...glorious. It says it right in the name..."R" - Reflections. This in depth spiral of the material, not just in one glance, but rather, a systematic uncovering of more and more material, much like an archeological dig. This allows for deeper understanding of the material. In this way, like Anchored Instruction...deeper, not wider. Seems to take longer in its approach of uncovering the truths that lie just beneath the surface.
I loved the idea of allowing the kids to Leave a legacy. They take with them (on CD or whatever) their own work and then are allowed to help future others in the solving/exploration of the same. What Schwartz et al. stated was to go public with the knowledge thus allowing the thinking visible. The kids see their work, not just on a sheet of paper, but standing the test of time for future students to use.
Week 11 MOST
Targets At Risk Learners. Again, like Jasper/Anchored Instruction, STAR Legacy, GBS, pre-learning still isn't basis, rather, given a scenario in context (really the key to all of them) and allows for students decode along the way. Like STAR, the idea of reflection (though MOST interprets this as retelling of the story) remains strong. I do like the research as it stated from the camtasia intro, retelling works if only to a puppet. The expression (much like STAR again) out there, not only internally, allows for the students to embrace the knowledge and through speaking, clarify what they know.
The verdict
All of these revolve around the lack of push for the pre-learning. There almost seems a transition from the GBS to MOST as to the amount of pre-learning allowed for...at least in my mind. I think these strategies to be full of promise. As it explicitly states, MOST is for those students who are truly at risk. If this is your class, this would be a great strategy to research and implement...though I feel for a younger crowd. As written though through Bransford, seems s bit hard to build one out.
I love the idea of STAR Legacy crossed with GBS sprinkled with Anchored Instruction. Though by accident, I have implemented a version of this in my Sports and entertainment class when it comes to event planning. With almost everyone having experienced an event one time in their lives, given this as a starting point (GBS), one can begin the journey backwards as to the beginnings of what is required to put one on. This is a long process through the event prep minutia (STAR/Anchored Instruction). I can see this on a larger scale, but it will take proper planning and guides to implement this fully.
My Sports and Entertainment class is more of a hands on, and in being so, allows for this unit's usage. As for my Marketing, Marketing Management and Honors Strategic, these methods could be used, but I need more time to decide how and to what extent. Branding, being a major component of each of these classes may be a hard sell in an anchored instruction form.
I remember seeing a storybook program through one of the social studies grades the boys were in...mystorybook. Though I only saw one example, it sounds like the retelling aspect of MOST. Xtranormal (as given by another colleague in this class in previous weeks projects) would allow for storyboarding and retelling as well, and maybe even the initial challenge (STAR) or GBS goal. Easy to use and not a lecture teacher.
Murphy
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Unit 2 - ECI 517 - Keith Murphy
Due to the embodiment of so many great items from Unit 2, I wished to break it down in smaller digestible chunks for both my benefit and the reader or two who, in their wandering, chances to come across this post.
I have never been a fan of group projects...not back in my secondary schooling, pre-secondary schooling or during my undergraduate work. But for rare occasions, I have not subjected my past or current slate of students to the facade of cooperative learning due to my personal experience with the method. I now am beginning to see the not only why my past experiences were doomed to failure, but in seeing these caveats, where the opportunities lie in setting the stage for my future students to find benefit in doing it right.
Week 4
Before we get to the great panacea we are forming our opinion on concerning guided design process, let us look at the basics. The strengths of such a program caught my eye as being beautiful by any measure. There is an increase of interest and motivation, improved communication skills (interpersonal) and the application of it all helps retention (opening powerpoint). And isn't this what we are here to do? Apparently there is a diminishing return with the status quo lecture (but we are so good at it)...but I think a lot of teachers feel this is simply an ugly rumor that will soon pass. As we have learned in the business world, autocratic works for the inexperienced and easily led, but is a poor substitute for the promise of empowerment.
Not to extoll the virtues and leave without remarking of the pitfalls we face with the guided design method, I am confronted with time (preparation length), Small group management (sit down and shut up doesn't fit too well in this process), the unmotivated and the propensity of the teachers to rely too heavily on lecture.
Casada and DeShazer (C&D) bring a couple of great points not just to the goal of guided design, but to the format of any guided design process. Firstly, go engineers! (my sister is one). With basic factual knowledge, guided design has little purpose. But with (in the CTE field) the introduction of the new RBT standards emphasizing problem solving, the professional world's currency of professionalism and communication, and the all important push of teamwork/networking - Guided design must be embraced.
So what did I learn? Guided design is not passive. One must interact with both the material and others in the group. C&D contended if the individuals can persevere through the process, problem solving skills will result, but getting there often requires the cheerleader and encouragement role of the teacher/facilitator to see the progress maintained.
Wilson stated "that structured group problem-solving activities enhance student learning." The relative ease of opening the book/notes and begin reading while keeping rhythm with a powerpoint slideshow is no more. Time will be involved to properly build up to a goal mastery surrounded by its smaller required skill sets. No! It doesn't make time sense in creating these modules, but taking this a step further - the mastery of these real world values (professionalism, communication, problem solving) will take these students beyond the academic germane and into what HR professionals really want of their workers. Gophers and followers we have. Factory jobs we do not. We need a better class of graduate. Wilson also states the breakdown in such a dream of guided design include "perceptual biases, emotional attachments, knowledge and information limitations, communication challenges, external distractions and cultural dispositions." I guess our work is cut out for us (ha!).
In keeping with Wilson's contentions and findings, Bridges states that guided design's goals isn't to actually get a correct answer, but rather, "to know the process by which one gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution." In other words, not just the one way of learning (namely the teacher's way), but the methodology of a transferable skillset the students can take with them and overlay any problem/learning challenge and either overcome or at least be in the right direction once the smoke clears.
Lastly for week 4, a quick shout out to the 200 page "The Guided Design Guidebook." I agree with White and Coscarelli when they state "95% can learn", if (!) given enough support and time. I sometimes think DPI forgets this small aspect. The other takeaway was the incredible visual (Figure1.2). So simplistic in form, but it really hit home as to "how to" arrange a guided design module. Long, but a good read nonetheless.
Week 5
So cooperative learning is important. In all of the readings from this week, there seems to be recurring themes. Johnson, Millis and Haller all chime in with research stating many strides can result from Cooperative learning environments. All three advocate for small groups, lest the groups themselves become an impediment to the learning overall. The ideal size seems to be no larger than 5 with preference to groups 3-4. They also agree that learning strides regardless of race, culture, sex, etc can be made in these settings...though not always. Haller contends though that many see good results in student learning, not all students will benefit from this group learning dynamic. The "constant student" and the "blocker" are both stumbling blocks to the groups as a whole. The constant student's goal isn't to master/fully explore the concept, rathere, simply get close enough and allow the educational flow to take them home. The blocker is simply in their own world and unbeknownst/known to themselves, position their work in such a way as to be above reproach...i.e. not a team player.
So my take aways for this weeks readings include:
Group Size - keep it small
Training - many students do not possess the skills to adequately behave in the group's interest inside said group.
Be clear - a follow up from training, the teacher must be explicit in their directions and expectations. The processes can be open to interpretation, but the underlying expectations must be crystal.
Hand select the participants/groupings - ensure a balance and equitable platform
motivate - we are still the cheerleader
Evaluate at the end, each other, group effort as a whole - keeps everyone honest and working hard...regardless of the learning theory (intrinsic/extrinsic rationale) employed or believed in from the group/leader
Smith - Quick-guide - did a wonderful guide. it is easy to follow and implement.
But the real challenge is getting all parties involved to buy into the idea of cooperative learning to begin with.
Week 6
PBL...better than Lecture, but what isn't?
Hung brings us to the conclusion that PBL can and does work as well as non-PBL interactions, but with the added bonus of higher level thinking. The higher level thinking doesn't always improve immediate results, but does provide added value to the learning that takes place, including the transferable skills into later life. The trouble, hung continues, is not with the learning itself,provided that one can extoll the virtues of PBL to the students, it will slowly take hold as a viable and valuable alternative to non-PBL learning. In short, the students will begin to see the added value as they progress through real world application of what they know in life. The other trouble is transitioning the teacher to the role of tutor (Hung & Koschmann). Teacher connotes lecture. Tutor helps facilitate. Hung continues that the more of an expert the teacher is, the harder time they have transitioning to the role.
Though not read, I can only conjecture that the teacher in this spot has set their mind in the course that teachers are for teaching and tutors are something lesser on the totem pole of education. Also not read, I see this as being a competent basis for online learning, especially for what I see the educational push (time/financial/HR rationale) being in the next 5-10 years. Even with this push, common areas of meeting (in person or virtual) will be required to properly share/disseminate information, teach, banter, build community within the group and ultimately reflect on one's own journey and that of the group (Koschmann).
Further in Koschmann's article, it is concluded that this type of authentic exploration is vital, especially for non-linear application. The group dynamic, brainstorming, exploration and ultimate reflection, works very well in medical learning. Personally, I cannot see why this wouldn't lend itself to any other non-linear line of thinking and knowledge acquisition.
In all honesty, Ryan's article did little for me. The small take away I have from this is collaboration is paramount for the success of any PBL. Clearly, the basis of PBL is that it is project based...I know, it's the title. I go back to the word previously used, authentic. This style of learning provides for the most organic style of learning I could imagine. I think back to Week 5 material and the element of time. PBL takes an extraordinary amount of time to properly implement and see through to the end.
Needed...yes. As with Group based Learning, there has to be a certain mix of material, teacher/facilitator/tutor, student, and a new one...administration to see it through.
Week 7
I really like Collin's idea of Cognitive Apprenticeship. I am fascinated by the medieval apprenticeship/journeyman/master career flow. I see great parallels between what Collins is advocating and what the educational system was suppose to create in each student who passes through its doors. Clearly, this has not been the case. Mental acuity in a subject area is nice, but without being able to transfer the skill to new and different areas, it is all for not.
Cognitive Apprenticeship then is the ability to base one's own learning off of another's action. Then in time, to separate from the other and be one's own teacher. Self talk comes to mind as well as the process of self checking one's thoughts and actions in the course of the material one is trying to understand. Modeling, coaching, fading. This discourse (reciprocal teaching) between the parties involved - iron sharpening iron. Collins continues by adding that the knowledge acquired should be in some small part, in the environment that it will be seen again, tested in, expected from. As is PBL, the group/partner discourse is key in developing the problem solving skills/strategies to overcome. These skills and strategies are best learned from another (hence Apprenticeship). Learning should be down for one's own sake, not for the extrinsic award afforded others. Apparently Extrinsic motivational routes only discourage inner drive when students are allowed to their own devices. But when left in the capable hands of the master, in time, one learns to become a master themselves.
I enjoyed the take that De Bruijn showed us concerning the "functionally illiterate" learning environment. In short, modeling helps those who are unfamiliar with their ultimate outcome. The results impressed upon me the importance of showing the kids at school not just the directions, but also the how to, especially in the beginning stages of an activity. This semester alone, I have 4 kids who for all intents and purposes, cannot/do not read on grade level. Not just a little behind, 2-3rd grade reading levels and they are in high school.
Seeing how long this writing has become, it must be added that Darling and both Herrington articles impressed upon me the importance of scaffolding (fading from Collins). Isn't this what was really happening back in the days of apprenticeships? The master did not give his/her pupil the masterpiece and say "reverse engineer it!" No! Methodically, chunking the process down into smaller bites, mastering each one and progressing to more and more elaborate compilations did the master show his/her student how to model their style and expertise. DeBruijn showed us even those without real reading ability can be shown and eventually model what they are shown. From the lowest to the top performing students, this too is possible. The real difference between the low and the high? the ability to catch on quickly or to self review into knowing once more what was fresh a few hours, days,, months ago.
What disservice have we done by our students in our previous teaching, the administration and especially DPI a a whole for implementing all of the lofty higher level thinking goals without first allowing for the children, in their own timing, to become proficient at the basics. Algebra before adding. Clearly, it is the teachers fault for not being able to teach the kid. One year behind isn't bad until one tries algebra to one who cannot do 1 step problems.
What did I learn? Break it down, model it, show the students what to do, not just once, but multiple times. Train their minds, in context, and the student will follow...eventually. Make it organic, make it PBL in reaching these goals. "Standardized tests" falls just short of blasphemy in my mind.I know it is needed to ensure high standards, but there is a subset of the population who need retention, not social promotion to allow them to fully reach their potential, not just a limited embrace in four years. Few will every learn outside of the constructs of education save for very specific job environment learning, but this is America, being good at just one thing still has its place...until all of the manufacturing jobs leave us. Hey, we still have service jobs. I digress. Teamwork, social skills and the like will keep it all humming along for the near future. Maybe these are the real 21st century skills.
Keith
I have never been a fan of group projects...not back in my secondary schooling, pre-secondary schooling or during my undergraduate work. But for rare occasions, I have not subjected my past or current slate of students to the facade of cooperative learning due to my personal experience with the method. I now am beginning to see the not only why my past experiences were doomed to failure, but in seeing these caveats, where the opportunities lie in setting the stage for my future students to find benefit in doing it right.
Week 4
Before we get to the great panacea we are forming our opinion on concerning guided design process, let us look at the basics. The strengths of such a program caught my eye as being beautiful by any measure. There is an increase of interest and motivation, improved communication skills (interpersonal) and the application of it all helps retention (opening powerpoint). And isn't this what we are here to do? Apparently there is a diminishing return with the status quo lecture (but we are so good at it)...but I think a lot of teachers feel this is simply an ugly rumor that will soon pass. As we have learned in the business world, autocratic works for the inexperienced and easily led, but is a poor substitute for the promise of empowerment.
Not to extoll the virtues and leave without remarking of the pitfalls we face with the guided design method, I am confronted with time (preparation length), Small group management (sit down and shut up doesn't fit too well in this process), the unmotivated and the propensity of the teachers to rely too heavily on lecture.
Casada and DeShazer (C&D) bring a couple of great points not just to the goal of guided design, but to the format of any guided design process. Firstly, go engineers! (my sister is one). With basic factual knowledge, guided design has little purpose. But with (in the CTE field) the introduction of the new RBT standards emphasizing problem solving, the professional world's currency of professionalism and communication, and the all important push of teamwork/networking - Guided design must be embraced.
So what did I learn? Guided design is not passive. One must interact with both the material and others in the group. C&D contended if the individuals can persevere through the process, problem solving skills will result, but getting there often requires the cheerleader and encouragement role of the teacher/facilitator to see the progress maintained.
Wilson stated "that structured group problem-solving activities enhance student learning." The relative ease of opening the book/notes and begin reading while keeping rhythm with a powerpoint slideshow is no more. Time will be involved to properly build up to a goal mastery surrounded by its smaller required skill sets. No! It doesn't make time sense in creating these modules, but taking this a step further - the mastery of these real world values (professionalism, communication, problem solving) will take these students beyond the academic germane and into what HR professionals really want of their workers. Gophers and followers we have. Factory jobs we do not. We need a better class of graduate. Wilson also states the breakdown in such a dream of guided design include "perceptual biases, emotional attachments, knowledge and information limitations, communication challenges, external distractions and cultural dispositions." I guess our work is cut out for us (ha!).
In keeping with Wilson's contentions and findings, Bridges states that guided design's goals isn't to actually get a correct answer, but rather, "to know the process by which one gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution." In other words, not just the one way of learning (namely the teacher's way), but the methodology of a transferable skillset the students can take with them and overlay any problem/learning challenge and either overcome or at least be in the right direction once the smoke clears.
Lastly for week 4, a quick shout out to the 200 page "The Guided Design Guidebook." I agree with White and Coscarelli when they state "95% can learn", if (!) given enough support and time. I sometimes think DPI forgets this small aspect. The other takeaway was the incredible visual (Figure1.2). So simplistic in form, but it really hit home as to "how to" arrange a guided design module. Long, but a good read nonetheless.
Week 5
So cooperative learning is important. In all of the readings from this week, there seems to be recurring themes. Johnson, Millis and Haller all chime in with research stating many strides can result from Cooperative learning environments. All three advocate for small groups, lest the groups themselves become an impediment to the learning overall. The ideal size seems to be no larger than 5 with preference to groups 3-4. They also agree that learning strides regardless of race, culture, sex, etc can be made in these settings...though not always. Haller contends though that many see good results in student learning, not all students will benefit from this group learning dynamic. The "constant student" and the "blocker" are both stumbling blocks to the groups as a whole. The constant student's goal isn't to master/fully explore the concept, rathere, simply get close enough and allow the educational flow to take them home. The blocker is simply in their own world and unbeknownst/known to themselves, position their work in such a way as to be above reproach...i.e. not a team player.
So my take aways for this weeks readings include:
Group Size - keep it small
Training - many students do not possess the skills to adequately behave in the group's interest inside said group.
Be clear - a follow up from training, the teacher must be explicit in their directions and expectations. The processes can be open to interpretation, but the underlying expectations must be crystal.
Hand select the participants/groupings - ensure a balance and equitable platform
motivate - we are still the cheerleader
Evaluate at the end, each other, group effort as a whole - keeps everyone honest and working hard...regardless of the learning theory (intrinsic/extrinsic rationale) employed or believed in from the group/leader
Smith - Quick-guide - did a wonderful guide. it is easy to follow and implement.
But the real challenge is getting all parties involved to buy into the idea of cooperative learning to begin with.
Week 6
PBL...better than Lecture, but what isn't?
Hung brings us to the conclusion that PBL can and does work as well as non-PBL interactions, but with the added bonus of higher level thinking. The higher level thinking doesn't always improve immediate results, but does provide added value to the learning that takes place, including the transferable skills into later life. The trouble, hung continues, is not with the learning itself,provided that one can extoll the virtues of PBL to the students, it will slowly take hold as a viable and valuable alternative to non-PBL learning. In short, the students will begin to see the added value as they progress through real world application of what they know in life. The other trouble is transitioning the teacher to the role of tutor (Hung & Koschmann). Teacher connotes lecture. Tutor helps facilitate. Hung continues that the more of an expert the teacher is, the harder time they have transitioning to the role.
Though not read, I can only conjecture that the teacher in this spot has set their mind in the course that teachers are for teaching and tutors are something lesser on the totem pole of education. Also not read, I see this as being a competent basis for online learning, especially for what I see the educational push (time/financial/HR rationale) being in the next 5-10 years. Even with this push, common areas of meeting (in person or virtual) will be required to properly share/disseminate information, teach, banter, build community within the group and ultimately reflect on one's own journey and that of the group (Koschmann).
Further in Koschmann's article, it is concluded that this type of authentic exploration is vital, especially for non-linear application. The group dynamic, brainstorming, exploration and ultimate reflection, works very well in medical learning. Personally, I cannot see why this wouldn't lend itself to any other non-linear line of thinking and knowledge acquisition.
In all honesty, Ryan's article did little for me. The small take away I have from this is collaboration is paramount for the success of any PBL. Clearly, the basis of PBL is that it is project based...I know, it's the title. I go back to the word previously used, authentic. This style of learning provides for the most organic style of learning I could imagine. I think back to Week 5 material and the element of time. PBL takes an extraordinary amount of time to properly implement and see through to the end.
Needed...yes. As with Group based Learning, there has to be a certain mix of material, teacher/facilitator/tutor, student, and a new one...administration to see it through.
Week 7
I really like Collin's idea of Cognitive Apprenticeship. I am fascinated by the medieval apprenticeship/journeyman/master career flow. I see great parallels between what Collins is advocating and what the educational system was suppose to create in each student who passes through its doors. Clearly, this has not been the case. Mental acuity in a subject area is nice, but without being able to transfer the skill to new and different areas, it is all for not.
Cognitive Apprenticeship then is the ability to base one's own learning off of another's action. Then in time, to separate from the other and be one's own teacher. Self talk comes to mind as well as the process of self checking one's thoughts and actions in the course of the material one is trying to understand. Modeling, coaching, fading. This discourse (reciprocal teaching) between the parties involved - iron sharpening iron. Collins continues by adding that the knowledge acquired should be in some small part, in the environment that it will be seen again, tested in, expected from. As is PBL, the group/partner discourse is key in developing the problem solving skills/strategies to overcome. These skills and strategies are best learned from another (hence Apprenticeship). Learning should be down for one's own sake, not for the extrinsic award afforded others. Apparently Extrinsic motivational routes only discourage inner drive when students are allowed to their own devices. But when left in the capable hands of the master, in time, one learns to become a master themselves.
I enjoyed the take that De Bruijn showed us concerning the "functionally illiterate" learning environment. In short, modeling helps those who are unfamiliar with their ultimate outcome. The results impressed upon me the importance of showing the kids at school not just the directions, but also the how to, especially in the beginning stages of an activity. This semester alone, I have 4 kids who for all intents and purposes, cannot/do not read on grade level. Not just a little behind, 2-3rd grade reading levels and they are in high school.
Seeing how long this writing has become, it must be added that Darling and both Herrington articles impressed upon me the importance of scaffolding (fading from Collins). Isn't this what was really happening back in the days of apprenticeships? The master did not give his/her pupil the masterpiece and say "reverse engineer it!" No! Methodically, chunking the process down into smaller bites, mastering each one and progressing to more and more elaborate compilations did the master show his/her student how to model their style and expertise. DeBruijn showed us even those without real reading ability can be shown and eventually model what they are shown. From the lowest to the top performing students, this too is possible. The real difference between the low and the high? the ability to catch on quickly or to self review into knowing once more what was fresh a few hours, days,, months ago.
What disservice have we done by our students in our previous teaching, the administration and especially DPI a a whole for implementing all of the lofty higher level thinking goals without first allowing for the children, in their own timing, to become proficient at the basics. Algebra before adding. Clearly, it is the teachers fault for not being able to teach the kid. One year behind isn't bad until one tries algebra to one who cannot do 1 step problems.
What did I learn? Break it down, model it, show the students what to do, not just once, but multiple times. Train their minds, in context, and the student will follow...eventually. Make it organic, make it PBL in reaching these goals. "Standardized tests" falls just short of blasphemy in my mind.I know it is needed to ensure high standards, but there is a subset of the population who need retention, not social promotion to allow them to fully reach their potential, not just a limited embrace in four years. Few will every learn outside of the constructs of education save for very specific job environment learning, but this is America, being good at just one thing still has its place...until all of the manufacturing jobs leave us. Hey, we still have service jobs. I digress. Teamwork, social skills and the like will keep it all humming along for the near future. Maybe these are the real 21st century skills.
Keith
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Jan 29th - All is well with ECI 517 and my login to the blog
Session 3, Unit 1:
The Audio-Tutorial approach to learning struck me as a stark contrast to the traditional thought of lecture teaching. Truly, in this day and time, I know of few teachers who deliver stoically their instruction using only lecture as their mode of material deliverance, but it was interesting to see how an entire course (biology in this instance) had been remade into the likeness of the AT model.
What interested me the most about this "experiment" was the final results. Not that I rushed through to the end of the paper to see if it was Col. Mustard with the Candlestick in the Library, but I wanted to see the outcome nonetheless. Though the overall passing/fail were comparable, it was the reflection on the learning from the students themselves that told the true outcome of the class. They felt they received more out of the class in general...that the learning was deeper.
This deeper learning was of course from the small group sessions they did rather from the GAS/General assembly sessions. These smaller, more intimate group sessions allowed for a greater comfort of the material int he give and take of ideas flowing from each other rather from the instructor only. The idea that the small sessions were than concluded with the quiz on each session concerning the material also allowed for the students to walk away with something, though not tangible, more permanent than simply the lecture had previously. As Kulik concluded in his paper, A-T is comparable to the Lecture method, but lacking in terms of comparison from the PSI method.
Now we must speak of the PSI method/Keller: It feels like A-T but as the readings say, it is more objective based. This reminds me of a correspondence/distance learning course I took to get my mathematics certification. Your own pace, but completion of the objective was required before one could move ahead. In most high school settings, this would be the style of learning that I have seen. In fact, I am gearing up to implement a module or two for a homebound student in my Marketing class. The thing that caught my eye the most about the Keller method was the instant feedback. Between the self pacing, more personalized instruction and the feedback was the greatest draw of this method for me and for possible application in my classroom.
Share any common foundations?
Quite so. The main difference is the whole approach with A-T. A-T really strived to be lecture on tape...at a distance...with several small assembly sessions to bring the kids along and to keep their cadence throughout the course. The commonality between PSI and A-T is the focus on a non-lecture environment for the benefit of the student. Both of these methods approached this lectureless format a bit differently, but with the same goal of removing the direct instruction to one of greater functionality for the student.
Barriers/Benefits and the like?
Motivation and sticktoitness would be the greatest drawbacks of both. There is something to be said about the pacing of a teacher in front of you. I am not saying that in itself drives students, but the teacher cheerleader can push one to a regiment.
But if one can overcome this stumbling block, both have the potential to either deliver the same (A-t) if not better (PSI) results from regular lecture. This intrigued me. Was it really from the delivery method? or have we as a society turned off our receptors to lecture as a whole just like overuse of antibiotics makes one resistant to the benefits therein? I see the duality of the PSI approach, hearing it, seeing it, replaying it, applying it (though only sometimes).
Current Application
I see this as being the next step in my teaching. I know the lecture model is nearly dead. It isn't until the kids seek out the answer and bring back a problem do our time together really click. Objective based learning is all we have done for the last 4 years in Marketing due to the class set-up/guidelines from the state. To take these objectives and present them to the students in different forms such that all students, regardless of their individual learning styles can take hold of the material and master it, yes, this has a future in my class.
I look to better fulfill this ideal when we break fro summer thus affording me the time required to truly overhaul the deliverance of the curriculum for benefit of the students. I see great benefit in frankensteining these learning methods into something I think the students will gain from in my classes.
Go Go Gadget!
As mentioned above, I have a student who just was placed on homebound status. Part of the draw of my class is not the material, but rather me. I am very animated in my delivery and by doing so, my energy is shared with the kids. I really feel a Podcast or concept video series (made up of shorts) no more than 5 minutes long each to describe/highlight the learning without videoing the entire class. I may be fun, but 90 minutes of me repeatedly would probably get on my nerves.
I have previously tried to make a webquest, but I haven't found they work too well in the exploring of the marketing concepts. It is me and my creativity doing battle. This is simply something I need to work harder on.
The Audio-Tutorial approach to learning struck me as a stark contrast to the traditional thought of lecture teaching. Truly, in this day and time, I know of few teachers who deliver stoically their instruction using only lecture as their mode of material deliverance, but it was interesting to see how an entire course (biology in this instance) had been remade into the likeness of the AT model.
What interested me the most about this "experiment" was the final results. Not that I rushed through to the end of the paper to see if it was Col. Mustard with the Candlestick in the Library, but I wanted to see the outcome nonetheless. Though the overall passing/fail were comparable, it was the reflection on the learning from the students themselves that told the true outcome of the class. They felt they received more out of the class in general...that the learning was deeper.
This deeper learning was of course from the small group sessions they did rather from the GAS/General assembly sessions. These smaller, more intimate group sessions allowed for a greater comfort of the material int he give and take of ideas flowing from each other rather from the instructor only. The idea that the small sessions were than concluded with the quiz on each session concerning the material also allowed for the students to walk away with something, though not tangible, more permanent than simply the lecture had previously. As Kulik concluded in his paper, A-T is comparable to the Lecture method, but lacking in terms of comparison from the PSI method.
Now we must speak of the PSI method/Keller: It feels like A-T but as the readings say, it is more objective based. This reminds me of a correspondence/distance learning course I took to get my mathematics certification. Your own pace, but completion of the objective was required before one could move ahead. In most high school settings, this would be the style of learning that I have seen. In fact, I am gearing up to implement a module or two for a homebound student in my Marketing class. The thing that caught my eye the most about the Keller method was the instant feedback. Between the self pacing, more personalized instruction and the feedback was the greatest draw of this method for me and for possible application in my classroom.
Share any common foundations?
Quite so. The main difference is the whole approach with A-T. A-T really strived to be lecture on tape...at a distance...with several small assembly sessions to bring the kids along and to keep their cadence throughout the course. The commonality between PSI and A-T is the focus on a non-lecture environment for the benefit of the student. Both of these methods approached this lectureless format a bit differently, but with the same goal of removing the direct instruction to one of greater functionality for the student.
Barriers/Benefits and the like?
Motivation and sticktoitness would be the greatest drawbacks of both. There is something to be said about the pacing of a teacher in front of you. I am not saying that in itself drives students, but the teacher cheerleader can push one to a regiment.
But if one can overcome this stumbling block, both have the potential to either deliver the same (A-t) if not better (PSI) results from regular lecture. This intrigued me. Was it really from the delivery method? or have we as a society turned off our receptors to lecture as a whole just like overuse of antibiotics makes one resistant to the benefits therein? I see the duality of the PSI approach, hearing it, seeing it, replaying it, applying it (though only sometimes).
Current Application
I see this as being the next step in my teaching. I know the lecture model is nearly dead. It isn't until the kids seek out the answer and bring back a problem do our time together really click. Objective based learning is all we have done for the last 4 years in Marketing due to the class set-up/guidelines from the state. To take these objectives and present them to the students in different forms such that all students, regardless of their individual learning styles can take hold of the material and master it, yes, this has a future in my class.
I look to better fulfill this ideal when we break fro summer thus affording me the time required to truly overhaul the deliverance of the curriculum for benefit of the students. I see great benefit in frankensteining these learning methods into something I think the students will gain from in my classes.
Go Go Gadget!
As mentioned above, I have a student who just was placed on homebound status. Part of the draw of my class is not the material, but rather me. I am very animated in my delivery and by doing so, my energy is shared with the kids. I really feel a Podcast or concept video series (made up of shorts) no more than 5 minutes long each to describe/highlight the learning without videoing the entire class. I may be fun, but 90 minutes of me repeatedly would probably get on my nerves.
I have previously tried to make a webquest, but I haven't found they work too well in the exploring of the marketing concepts. It is me and my creativity doing battle. This is simply something I need to work harder on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)