|
| |
“Elearning is the
marriage of technology and education, and most often, the instructional designer's
greatest role is that of
"bridging" concepts between the two
worlds. ...the role of instructional design in elearning is often misunderstood - due to
the perceived complexity of the
process and to poor understanding of the pedagogical requirements of elearning.”
(Siemens,2002)
Introduction to
Denise Forgeron's E-Portfolio
Welcome to my Electronic Portfolio
for Education 533: Integration and Instructional Design and
Information Technology (Spring 2004). This is one of the courses within the Masters
of Education in
Information Technology through Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN), with this course
being based through the University College of Cape Breton (UCCB).
Reflections on Activities
Education 533 has given me the chance to examine Learning Theories and
Instructional Design in the
context of Learning Technologies. Throughout
this term, I was able to reflect on information and
questions posed by Dr. David Lloyd and the responses of my classmates. As a student in
this course,
I participated in class discussions and the sharing of information, weekly group
asynchronous online
discussions, synchronous chats, a collaborative project to produce an Instructional Design
incorporating technology, and this e-portfolio, an on-going reflection of my learning.
After reading the assigned article
by Ely, The Medium is not the message, I reaffirmed my belief that
technology
is just another tool. These tools do "not teach, but the organization and presentation of
content, combined with high levels
of interactivity on the part of the learner and feedback from an authority" are
necessary for online learning. My reason to
continue studying is I want to be informed about what these tools can do to enhance my
instruction and my students’
learning.
The
Effect of Learning Theories and Technology on Teaching
Technology
has causes people to pause and reflect upon the approaches to instruction (based on
theories). Technology
has allowed a paradigm shift from
instructor/instruction-based learning (knowledge acquisition) to constructivist learning.
Education has changed to meet
the learner’s needs as new ideas emerge.
Behaviorism Learning Theory and direct instruction
Direct Instruction, from the teacher
to student, is grounded in Skinner’s
Behavioral Theory of stimulus and response.
Review, practice, and feedback involving memorization for pre- and posttests reminds me of
my early schooling. We were encouraged with grade and sticker (star) incentives to learn
(behave) in a certain way. Technology, as a tool, also has produced some software CDs to
allow for this drill and practice. To enhance
the students’ enjoyment of the exercise, animated characters often offer words of
encouragement. These computer-assisted
instructions (simulations, tutorials, drill and practice) offer extra practice in what
teachers teach.
Cognitive Learning Theory and direct instruction
Piaget's Cognivive Theory
laid the groundwork for thinking there are different levels of understanding and a child,
not at the top level, must begin with information, make it knowledge and work towards
gaining understanding and being able to evaluate. Similar
levels are found as higher levels of learning in Bloom’s taxonomy . Vygotsky’s Social Learning Theory
led to the understanding that learning occurred in social conflicts and situations.
I use memorization or drill and practice for
mathematics or taxonomy when I am learning new information. It gives me a
basic understanding; something to build upon when I then try to analyze situations or
experiments. I enjoy the
reinforcement that comes with group experiences of collaboration and cooperation. Constructivist styles work best for
me when I already have a grasp of some information or a basic knowledge. Then, I want to explore further or see for myself
what else I can learn about a topic. I
believe that is why I study Science and let my students experiment in lab or explore
outdoors in biology. Even though my students and I may be building upon prior
knowledge while constructing new knowledge, in our constructivist environment, I do not feel
our learning has encompassed all that technology has enabled for constructivism and
multiple intelligences.
Constructivism Learning Theory
and cooperative/collaborative learning
Constructivism is
based on the notion that students build upon their existing knowledge. They
construct their own
knowledge by doing meaningful tasks. Technology allows students to complete projects
such as publishing, that
previously were only completed in a workplace. Another
professor who facilitates within this Master's program, Elizabeth Murphy, followed the constructivist model.
Upon reflecting, I realized I see more clearly how the theories evolved from one
another: behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism.
Multiple Intelligences and
cooperative/collaborative learning
Gardner's
Multiple Intelligences Theory gets support with the various tools of technology.
Technology allows students and educators to demonstrate their knowledge through a
media they feel is their strength. I have met students that could draw an image and
then describe it. My son could not remember the names of all the provinces, at 9
years of age, but by learning a Stoppin' Tom song, he learned all ten. I really like
reading about multiple intelligences
because all my students
come from different backgrounds and have various strengths. The computer, as a tool, allows the
student to do more with
information, analyze it, present it in novel ways, their ways, the ways they understand
it.
Reflection: I do not
believe that any good teacher just follows one philosophy for teaching with all
students, all the time. “Not all learning environments must be constructivist
in nature, but learning is
enhanced when teachers pay attention to learners’ pre-existing knowledge and use it
as a starting point for new instruction.” (Schaller et al., 2001)
Software and Learning Theories
Application
software
Learning Theories impact educational objectives and software applications. Educational Software
such as Tool software (also known as application or productivity software), Drill and
Practice,
Tutorials, Simulations, Instructional Games and Problem Solving, and Databases are
assessed to
determine their basis from Learning Theories.
When I examine the technology used today, I realize
that teachers and students in constructivist and instructivist-based learning environments
use
application software. Constructivism seems
to be the final goal in many packages.
Jonassen, Carr and Yueh (Computers
as Mindtools) use the word “mindtool”. Computer software allows students to
‘engage the material’ to ‘analyze and organize subject matter’ while
gaining comprehension and understanding. Mindtools
do indeed enhance thinking and learning in ways a single teacher may not have initially
envisioned. Some packages have
beginning exercises to become familiar with vocabulary (or wizards), which could give
initial instruction in place of a
teacher/texts. This direct instruction may work well for highly self-motivated or
computer-philic students. My students
usually know about systems and functions of the body from having memorized information or
doing searches in previous
years. When these students, who appear to be comfortable with software, use biological
simulations they appear to gain a
greater understanding. Parameters are changed
and results are observed; it is like a light bulb goes on.
Group discussion
of the results occurs as information is gathered and shared. New configurations are proposed and tried. An example is
with physiology software that can examine environmental factors on invertebrate
heartbeats, or salinity on kidney tubules.
My students receive the initial instruction orally and on paper. In my lab, students watch a video or CD and
experiment
hands-on with water fleas. They are
constructing knowledge and I am aware that they learn differently.
I
enjoyed Spiro's article,
which notes that every new theory (bandwagon as a classmate referred), has its limitations
or faults.Constructing knowledge may not be enough.
If chunks of information are learned but cannot be reorganized to be useful in
another situation, there is failure. Knowledge
must be applicable to the real world. I want
my students to leave my lab with skills that will assist them in their future studies and
into the realworld. Spiro states that the
Cognitive Flexibility Theory remedies the problems associated with memory retrieval to get
advanced knowledge acquisition (p.2). The
knowledge gained must then be extracted with the possibility to be presented in different
forms, contexts or media. This problem of
knowing details (of oversimplified units) but not comprehending is common. Students must participate in their learning to get
to these higher levels of knowledge. Mindtools
can simulate various real world situations; examples are, flight and submarine simulators.
Mindtools can allow student to create a presentation or analysis of the information; thus
showing they understood.
While constructivism is the
theory most often used when discussing technology, multiple intelligences can be used to
demonstrate the preferred intelligences of those who like to read text (concrete word
processing), like to see facts
and numbers enjoying making graphs and spreadsheets, or like illustrations and use
graphics. In Instructivist environments the teacher may use software to present
information or may decide to direct the student to use the software. Electronic
communications are becoming a way of life. In my last course, we used speech and actions
to assist with the communications while designing an agent. Video cameras are very
popular. MSN is one of the most popular
communication tool for real time, as a chat line for group collaboration. For those who visually learn in Multiple
Intelligences, this is an important tool. Asynchronous
discussions assist those who are unable to communicate synchronously. Chris
Coquard posted a voice email to break monotony this term.
I use word
processing to prepare student information in the form of lab handouts or booklets. I also prepare tests using
word-processing software. My students use software tools to publish their knowledge. They use this software to prepare
lab reports and papers. The university
library has access to scientific databases that the students and myself use to support our
writing with references. I use spreadsheets
to organize and record grades and I instruct my students to use spreadsheets and
statistical packages to analyze their individual and group collected data. These software packages save time and improve
productivity. Telecommunications is a developing resource.
I have been involved in selection committees than began with telephone and also
videoconferences. Telecommunications are
widespread among students using MSN to chat to each other. Using
WebCT is starting to be used for in-house course discussions and communications.
Instructional software
My students get initial
instruction from text material, their professor and me (Instructivist-led). Drill and
practice and tutorials also use behaviorism as a guide. I believe instruction comes before
constructivism. A foundation to build upon
is needed. They then explore in lab under
direction in lab activities or simulations (Cognitive).
Some students have individual projects and experiments where they do construct their own
knowledge through the activity or literature searches. My students do not use virtual
reality so I cannot say they fully create a biological situation using technology. The closest is in a simulation. They really use
technology a lot as tools not as an instructor.The exploration of a model or simulation,
and searching of databases use cognitive theory to discover knowledge; there is no
creative building. Constructivism could be found in
virtual reality or pedagogical agents in virtual reality and in interactive multimedia. These would also fit with multiple intelligences.
Instructional Development
There are “three different perspectives in which ID [Instructional Development]
models can be viewed” (Gustafson &
Branch, 1997). These are “classroom orientation, product orientation and system
orientation”. Classroom orientation:
Classroom teachers have little time to create learning materials, but often adapt existing
materials to their teaching/learning
style and to that of the present class of students. There is not much time or resources
put into trial runs, technology or
revision. Product orientation: An interdisciplinary team can produce an original product.
This may be like a module or
unit of instruction. There will be resources to do preliminary analyses, use technology
(Tam, 2000), pilot runs not done by
the team and extensive evaluation. This is a professional product that can be marketed.
System orientation: A team of
developers and subject –matter experts will have resources to preliminary assess
needs and gaps , use technology, pilot
the design to many stakeholders outside the development team and revise a course or
curriculum package. These different directions have led to many types of ID.
Although ID has its basis in behaviorism, technology causes other learning theories to be
more widely accepted to bring
about higher levels of learning. Instructional developers must know a variety of learning
theories and being able to create
interactive environments. Ideas from a variety of theories are needed to get the
desired learning outcomes (Gustafson &
Branch 1997).
Instructional Design
The History of Instuctional
Design reflects upon Bloom’s taxonomy of knowledge from the 50’s , to the
60’s with Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction, objectives, evaluations, and individualized instruction for those with
special needs, to Multiple Intelligences of the 70’'s to Constructivism and rapid
prototyping of the 90’s. Instructional Design can be examined in
many ways. After examining
the
Instructional Development (ID) models, outlined by Remley (2002) including Dick and Carey's which requires
time and mooney and then Valenzuela (2000), I believe the essential components of ID
are assessment/analysis, plan/design,
development, implement, and evaluate/revision.
I propose a circular model
that is similar to the ADDIE model. My reason
is ADDIE is the simplified version for Business and Industry for teaching a unit of
information. I like simple. I realize that an
educational design will look at educational settings. Learners and teachers have
various backgrounds and thus, these contexts must be taken into account when developing
the instruction. The instructional curriculum
or lesson may be used for an extended period of time and for various types of learners so
it is continuously evaluated and revised. An
educational setting is more concerned with objectives and outcomes. Often there is not a great deal of time for the
needs assessment or a lot of money to delve into every aspect. I feel this model allows the developers the
opportunity to do what is necessary.
Instructional Design Models
Some ID models that may fit into different
environments. Every model can
be modified to take IT into consideration.
With the easy access to information,
the design and development of ID using IT can make
better lessons than ever before. Siemens (2002) stated,”the growth and
success of elearning is closely linked to the design of quality learning, enabled through
the use of technology". "The greatest objective of ID
is to serve the learning needs and success of students through effective presentationof
content and fostering of interaction.”
Rapid
Prototyping is ID that does not do a lot of preliminary assessment, but gets a general
sense of thegoal (Gustafson & Branch 1997). A limited design is produced
before trials begin and edits are continuously made to make improvements. When time
is a limiting factor, this is the model. This reminds me of a teacher making lesson
plan
revisions after each cohort of students comes throughand of software upgrades that are
occasionally available online.
Click on this worksheet to
be familiar with some notes to begin a design.
I am very proud of the DJM Model of
Instructional Design for Instructional Technology.
Please click here to
view our design. Myself, Michael Carrigan and Janice Gough created the Design for June 1,
2004.
We examined Information Technology in all stages of the design.
Objectives in Instructional Design for
Instructional Technology
An Instructional Design for Information Technology should teach a student
how to “manipulate data or information to solve problems while learning new content
or skills” (Morrison et al. 1999,p.37). Morrison
et al. (1999) presented both
behavioral and cognitive objectives to describe what the student will be able to do after
the instruction; the outcome of the
learning. The behavioral objectives will be
used as a measure of students demonstrating the ability to DO something. The
behavior may be to calculate identify, arrange or observe.
The accomplishment of the objective can be measured with a
test. This is used for general understanding
of terminology and knowledge.Cognitive objectives are useful to “describe
higher levels of learning”. They require
more descriptive responses of student learning; eg. working in a group, searching
information on the internet, explaining meaning of a story, creating an essay or project,
interpret a graph. When students
use the computer as a tool to solve a problem, “their motivation and engagement”
increases.(Morrison et al. 1999,p.38)
Assessment- the future of IT in Instructional Technology
Assessment can be defined as the process that facilitators
and learners' undertake to get information that can be used diagnostically to alter
teaching and learning" ( Liang & Creasy, 2004). Assessment in online
classrooms encompasses more than appraising learning through written tests.
Assessment includes peer assessment, self-reflection, "teacher observation, classroom
discussion, group collaboration, and analysis of student work" (Liang &
Creasy, 2004). Assessments are used to provide feedback; did learning occur.
assessments are a reflection of what students learned and can do (Fredman, 1998).
"Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement"
(Liang & Creasy, 2004).
Evaluation is the examination of the instructional design to see its worth. Grades
are assigned. Each step/stage can be examined in formative evaluation. The
teaching methods are evaluated. the final dsign and product can be examined in the
summative evaluation. An evaluation of instructional models will determine if the goals
and objectives have been met and if improvements can be made.For more reading on Assessment in a
Constructivist Classroom see http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as7const.htm.
Learning theories and outcomes
Ehrmann (2002)
defines outcomes as “who can learn
and what it is they can do by the time they’re finished with the academic
program.” There should be a difference between the
measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes because online
constructivist learners are “responsible for their own
learning” and assessment
should reflect this increased student autonomy (Liang & Creasy, 2004).
A behaviorist outcome may appear as:
·
Knowledge or ability to design/create a
graph and label the axes.
The measurement of this may be tests/exams to demonstrate if a student has
learned a behavior.
A cognitivist outcome may appear as:
·
Ability to analyze a graph.
The measurement of this may be to communicate in a paragraph the analysis of the graph to
ensure higher levels of learning.
A constructivist outcome may appear as:
· Ability to work in teams to design
creative, realistic work.
The measurement of this may use a
rubric to examine the creative use of technology and assess the performance, collaborative
learning and skills within teams.
The measurement of constructivist outcomes may include rubrics to evaluate or assess
written work: reflections, or journal entries. Rubrics
may also evaluate proficiency in content and creativity: e-portfolios, Power Point
Presentations, Inspiration flow chart and other electronic creations. Rubrics allow individuals, peers and/or teachers
to evaluate the time commitment and quality of learning during group projects (Liang &
Creasy, 2004). Students are involved in the
assessments and there are a variety of assessments in constructivist environments
(Freedman, 1998). Blignaut
(1999) suggested that when mindtools are used in constructivist environments, knowledge is
constructed not reproduced, the teachers and learners should create the outcomes together,
and they should reflect real-world situations of learning. I would like to note that as I have been
studying within this degree, I have noticed that constructivism allows for more
individualized programs of study. This is
similar to what was done a few years ago with special needs (http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed395500.html). It seems that constructivism and Multiple
Intelligences Theories of learning, celebrate individuality.
I believe, after implementation, an assessment
of instruction needs to occur to see if learning occurred as planned. Collaboration and communication of learning, often
including a demonstration of proficiency in technology and higher levels of learning, must
be assessed. The best tool available today to assess constructivist learning would be a
rubric. “Assessment rubrics listing benchmarks for student achievement assist in this
evaluation by providing objective guidelines to measure and evaluate learning. These
rubrics also improve learning because students who understand them before a project is due
can take the evaluation criteria into account as they complete their work” (Holzberg,
November 2002).
The
outcomes should be written in the instructional design.
Outcomes do not include the overall goal of the instruction or the
objectives of learning that the teacher hopes will occur in the classroom. The constructivist outcomes include what the
student will have learned and will be able to do because of the collaborative environment
where knowledge in constructed, not reproduced.
Summary
As a student in Dr. Lloyd's Education 533, I reflected upon the effect of learning
theories on software design, technology as a mindtool, and instructional designs to
incorporate software and technologies. I discovered I learned more about assessment versus
evaluation. I think my analytical skills improved as I found great URL links for
this site. My editing skills improved as I helped create the DJM Model. My
perspective will change how I view objectives - I think I will find myself asking- what
learning theory influenced this objective. I think as I continue in this program I
become more aware of the influence cognitive psychology has on education. I am
definitely aware of constructing knowledge in the Biology lab and realizing presentations
are a student's way to shine. I enjoyed my group interactions and reading the new sources
of information presented by the professors and my classmates. I hope I will be a better
facilitaor for students to learn with and about technology.
References
Blignaut,
A.S. (1999). The
use of computer-based mindtools in teaching and learning. Retrieved June 6, 2004 from
Education 533 : http://hagar.up.ac.za/
cie/med/modules/ oro800_2000/resources/theory/ assessing.html
Ehrmann, S.C. (2002). Improving the
Outcomes of Higher Education:
Learning From Past Mistakes. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved June
8, 2004 from http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/Visions/Improving_Outcomes.html
Freedman, R.L.F. (1998). Constructivist
assessment practices. Retrieved June 6, 2004 from
http://www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/1998AETS/t1_7_freedman.rtf
or http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:_d-Vi3vmyuMC:www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/
1998AETS/t1_7_freedman.rtf+constructivist+outcomes+assessment&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Gustafson, K. and Branch, R. (1997) Revisioning Models of Instructional
Development.
Educational Technology
Research and Development. Vol.45, No. 3, pp. 73-89.
Holzber,
C. (2002). Assessment, Assessment Rubrics and Evaluation Guidelines. TechLEARNING.
Retrieved June 6,
2004 from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/evalguid.html.
Liang,
Xin & Kim Creasy (2004). Classroom assessment in web-based instructional environment:
instructors’
experience. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(7). Retrieved June 8, 2004 from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=7.
Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating Computer technology
into
the classroom. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall. Ch 3:pp. 37-60.
Remley, C. (2002). Instructional Design Models. Retrieved April 2004
from
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/c/m/cmr226/Instructional%20Design/ISD_2.htm#Dick_Carey
Schaller, D. Allison-Bunnell,
S. & Nagel, S.
(2001). Developing goal-based scenarios for web education. National
Association of
Interpretation
Conference paper. Retrieved May 24, 2004 from
http://www.eduweb.com/goalbasedscenarios.html
Siemens, G. (2002)
Instructional Dsign in Elearning. Elearnspace. Retrieved May 24, 2004 from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionmalDesign.htm
Spiro, R. J. (1993). Cognitive
Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for
Advanced Knowledge
Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains. Institute for Learning Technologies. Retrieved
April 2004 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/Spiro.html
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for
Transforming Distance Learning.
Educational Technology & Society,
3(2). Retrieved May 2004 from
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html
Valenzuela, S. (2000). The ADDIE instructional Design Model. Cal State. Retrieved April
2004,
from http://distance-ed.fullerton.edu/pages/faculty_staff/online_guide/guide24.htm
|