Introduction
This blog will be used for my personal reflection paper for EDUC5103 - Integration of Instructional Design and Information Technology for David Lloyd as part of the Diploma of Educational Technology at Cape Breton University. Posts will be created moving from week 1 through the final weeks of the course.
Week 1: Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information Technology
Week 1 of the course was centered around developing our understanding of different learning theories and obtaining our group for the major assessment for this course.
This being the first course in the Diploma of Educational Technology Program, I'd be lying if I didn't start by saying that the notion of performing group work through distance education was worrisome to me. It has been a few years since I completed my Bachelor of Education Degree and I wasn't sure how this was going to work. That being said, the class introduction was an incredible way to see who else was in the class and see common interests. I was contacted almost right away by classmates and had a group formed before the halfway point of the week.
This approach was something that I adopted in my own class almost right away. I remember how reluctant I was to post initially about myself and then how pleased I was with the result later on, that I created an assignment for the Chemistry 12 class in which they had to post an idea for a design lab. From the different posts, they had to find a group to carry out a lab the following week. Most students formed their group by joining up with some friends in the class, but there were some that joined together based on common ideas. It was only the first few days, but I was starting to enjoy the idea of collaboration and introduce it more in my classroom.
The readings for the first week introduced us to the the various learning styles and I must admit, it was an eyeopener. The basic learning styles consisted of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. Behaviourism was one the first learning styles introduced and related more to a direction instruction method of teaching. A lot of reflection took place on my part during this time. As a science and math teacher at a high school level, direction instruction is a method of teaching that I implement all of the time. I had not really considered it's relationship with behaviourism and that learning is more of a conditioned reflex. I started to put myself in my students place during those lessons and really started thinking about the fact that they have been conditioned to get good grades or at least strive towards getting good grades and when I'm teaching at the front of the class they are conditioned to listen to me. (at least sometimes)
One of the main things I started to feel during this weeks readings, was that their was a possibility that the students in my class didn't really have an great deal of motivation to learn because they felt no connection to the material. They are brought up realizing that if they study hard, get good grades, they will get a good job and have a good life. Is this what education is all about?
Culatta, R. (2013). Learning Theories. Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/
This being the first course in the Diploma of Educational Technology Program, I'd be lying if I didn't start by saying that the notion of performing group work through distance education was worrisome to me. It has been a few years since I completed my Bachelor of Education Degree and I wasn't sure how this was going to work. That being said, the class introduction was an incredible way to see who else was in the class and see common interests. I was contacted almost right away by classmates and had a group formed before the halfway point of the week.
This approach was something that I adopted in my own class almost right away. I remember how reluctant I was to post initially about myself and then how pleased I was with the result later on, that I created an assignment for the Chemistry 12 class in which they had to post an idea for a design lab. From the different posts, they had to find a group to carry out a lab the following week. Most students formed their group by joining up with some friends in the class, but there were some that joined together based on common ideas. It was only the first few days, but I was starting to enjoy the idea of collaboration and introduce it more in my classroom.
 |
| Learning Theories. Digital Image. Instructional Design. Web. June 25, 2013 |
The readings for the first week introduced us to the the various learning styles and I must admit, it was an eyeopener. The basic learning styles consisted of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. Behaviourism was one the first learning styles introduced and related more to a direction instruction method of teaching. A lot of reflection took place on my part during this time. As a science and math teacher at a high school level, direction instruction is a method of teaching that I implement all of the time. I had not really considered it's relationship with behaviourism and that learning is more of a conditioned reflex. I started to put myself in my students place during those lessons and really started thinking about the fact that they have been conditioned to get good grades or at least strive towards getting good grades and when I'm teaching at the front of the class they are conditioned to listen to me. (at least sometimes)
One of the main things I started to feel during this weeks readings, was that their was a possibility that the students in my class didn't really have an great deal of motivation to learn because they felt no connection to the material. They are brought up realizing that if they study hard, get good grades, they will get a good job and have a good life. Is this what education is all about?
Culatta, R. (2013). Learning Theories. Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/
Week 2: Learning Theories Continued
Week 2 of the course continued the work with learning theories, but introduced the information technology into the equation.
The first article, Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking (Jonassen, Carr, Yueh, 1998), was used to start thinking about how we use the different software applications that are available for learning. In my own words, software applications can be divided into two categories. The first was software applications in which aided a specific learning activity. An examples that comes to mind would be a word processor. A word processor is most of the time used to produce a document for presentation. The content or the activity done to obtain the content is where most of the learning has taken place. The word processor aids the learner by being able to organize, edit or compile the data for presentation purposes. But the bulk of the learning does not come from the fact that the learner is using a word processor.
I commented on many posts this week that dealt with the use of information technology as tools. Many peers commented that they did not share my particular view and that software applications such as word processors could not only enhance learning, but becoming the learning tools themselves. One example of this that someone brought to my attention would be writing portfolio. I still view it as a stretch (you don't need a computer to complete a portfolio), I could see how the same task may not be able to be accomplished the same with way without the word processor. Therefore, even though I'm still a little skeptical, it allowed me to think a little more openly about the use of technology in the classroom.
The second category, in which I enjoyed reading about immensely, was the use of computers for mindtools. In my own words, mindtools are tools that create learning activities and experiences. My favourite example of this, which I also posted on the discussion, was the use of the phet simulations from the University of Colorado. These simulations for science allow the user to enter into worlds and change variables that they wouldn't normally be able to change or even see in real life. Through the components of the simulation, the learner can build learning experiences and hopefully meet the objective set forth by the instructor. Personally, I use these all of the time for teaching physics. They not only allow me to perform functions that I can't in class, but they have a comedic component sometimes which engages the students.
The second article this week was Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext (Spiro et al, 1995). I'd be lying if I didn't say that this was one of the hardest and most confusing articles I've come across in a long time. I attempted to do some additional reading on cognitive flexibility, but my response to this reading will be short because I didn't really find myself reflecting on the content of the article a great deal. The one aspect that maybe resonating with me a little was the concept the ill-structured domains. These are domains that are constantly changing for the learner, allowing them to apply what they know to a different situation. The example of changing the domain for the training of medical students came up a few times when I was doing some extra reading on the topic. This application made sense because doctors have to use their knowledge in such a wide variety of contexts, that during the learning process, the experiences should have a wide range of domains. I've tried to stretch this to my own students in my classroom, but truthfully I'm not sure that this article had much relevance to teaching at the public school level.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32
Spiro et al. (1995). Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism and Hypertext. Institute for Learning Technologies.
Culatta, R. (2013). Cognitive Flexibility Theory. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html
The first article, Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking (Jonassen, Carr, Yueh, 1998), was used to start thinking about how we use the different software applications that are available for learning. In my own words, software applications can be divided into two categories. The first was software applications in which aided a specific learning activity. An examples that comes to mind would be a word processor. A word processor is most of the time used to produce a document for presentation. The content or the activity done to obtain the content is where most of the learning has taken place. The word processor aids the learner by being able to organize, edit or compile the data for presentation purposes. But the bulk of the learning does not come from the fact that the learner is using a word processor.
I commented on many posts this week that dealt with the use of information technology as tools. Many peers commented that they did not share my particular view and that software applications such as word processors could not only enhance learning, but becoming the learning tools themselves. One example of this that someone brought to my attention would be writing portfolio. I still view it as a stretch (you don't need a computer to complete a portfolio), I could see how the same task may not be able to be accomplished the same with way without the word processor. Therefore, even though I'm still a little skeptical, it allowed me to think a little more openly about the use of technology in the classroom.
The second category, in which I enjoyed reading about immensely, was the use of computers for mindtools. In my own words, mindtools are tools that create learning activities and experiences. My favourite example of this, which I also posted on the discussion, was the use of the phet simulations from the University of Colorado. These simulations for science allow the user to enter into worlds and change variables that they wouldn't normally be able to change or even see in real life. Through the components of the simulation, the learner can build learning experiences and hopefully meet the objective set forth by the instructor. Personally, I use these all of the time for teaching physics. They not only allow me to perform functions that I can't in class, but they have a comedic component sometimes which engages the students.
 |
| Mindtools. Digital Image. Apple. Web. June 24, 2013 |
The second article this week was Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext (Spiro et al, 1995). I'd be lying if I didn't say that this was one of the hardest and most confusing articles I've come across in a long time. I attempted to do some additional reading on cognitive flexibility, but my response to this reading will be short because I didn't really find myself reflecting on the content of the article a great deal. The one aspect that maybe resonating with me a little was the concept the ill-structured domains. These are domains that are constantly changing for the learner, allowing them to apply what they know to a different situation. The example of changing the domain for the training of medical students came up a few times when I was doing some extra reading on the topic. This application made sense because doctors have to use their knowledge in such a wide variety of contexts, that during the learning process, the experiences should have a wide range of domains. I've tried to stretch this to my own students in my classroom, but truthfully I'm not sure that this article had much relevance to teaching at the public school level.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32
Spiro et al. (1995). Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism and Hypertext. Institute for Learning Technologies.
Culatta, R. (2013). Cognitive Flexibility Theory. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html
Week 3: How Learning Theory affects software
This week was very closely related to the topics of last week. The readings related information technology to the different learning theories. Although this week we classified the different types of software.
There are many different ways to classify software, but one general classification type was used for this weeks responses. The two different classifications were instructional software and application or tool software. Although I found many of readings out of date in terms of the types of software available, the general idea was obtained.
Similar to last week, where we thought about computers as mindtools, I continued to think about computers as tools that aid in the teacher in instruction. Certainly a type of software that teachers use on a daily basis is a presentation software such as powerpoint. Teachers use this software to present information to the students, but it's really the content or the delivery that makes the lesson. The software helps the teacher communicate effectively with the leaners, but does not create learning itself.
The other classification of software, instructional software, are pieces of technology which construct learning. The example which I specified in my response was that of the use of a database. A database is a piece of software that doesn't get used too often, but could be a very effective learning tool. This allows the learning to organize data and create it in such a way that it could be searchable based on a specified criteria. By having the learning organize their data, they must understand the content and be able to explain it to another. By using this piece of software, learning is taking place. The student is not just using it as a tool.
The one question that that I pondered greatly was that of the use of direction instruction using software. I proposed that direct instruction is needed, even with the use of instructional software, which would have much more of a constructivist approach. I feel as though it is needed to show students how to properly use the software itself. Not for the goals or objectives of the lesson set forth by instructor, but to be able to use the software more effectively.
Much of the software used to today has a similar user interface. This allows the users to make connections between different pieces of software and transition their use of that software to another very easily. This promotes a self-guided type of instruction when it comes to learning a new piece of software and although the learner might be able to meet the goal or objective of the lesson, there is more often than not a more effective and efficient way to do that. Two of the most effective courses I took in my educational career were Keyboarding in high school and introduction to software in university. Although I could type pretty fast by the time I got to high school, that course showed me proper technique and by the end of I could type up to 60 words a minute. It presented me with a certain skill which I have carried with me throughout the years. The introduction to software course taught me how to use the different applications of Microsoft Office. Again, I was proficient in using the different pieces of software, the course showed me different ways of accomplishing the specific task and ultimately made me more efficient and effective when using these tools for other learning activities.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that learners need to be presented with direct instruction when learning to use a piece of software. If done so properly, they can then use the software as a learning tool for other learning situations later on.
There are many different ways to classify software, but one general classification type was used for this weeks responses. The two different classifications were instructional software and application or tool software. Although I found many of readings out of date in terms of the types of software available, the general idea was obtained.
Similar to last week, where we thought about computers as mindtools, I continued to think about computers as tools that aid in the teacher in instruction. Certainly a type of software that teachers use on a daily basis is a presentation software such as powerpoint. Teachers use this software to present information to the students, but it's really the content or the delivery that makes the lesson. The software helps the teacher communicate effectively with the leaners, but does not create learning itself.
The other classification of software, instructional software, are pieces of technology which construct learning. The example which I specified in my response was that of the use of a database. A database is a piece of software that doesn't get used too often, but could be a very effective learning tool. This allows the learning to organize data and create it in such a way that it could be searchable based on a specified criteria. By having the learning organize their data, they must understand the content and be able to explain it to another. By using this piece of software, learning is taking place. The student is not just using it as a tool.
The one question that that I pondered greatly was that of the use of direction instruction using software. I proposed that direct instruction is needed, even with the use of instructional software, which would have much more of a constructivist approach. I feel as though it is needed to show students how to properly use the software itself. Not for the goals or objectives of the lesson set forth by instructor, but to be able to use the software more effectively.
Much of the software used to today has a similar user interface. This allows the users to make connections between different pieces of software and transition their use of that software to another very easily. This promotes a self-guided type of instruction when it comes to learning a new piece of software and although the learner might be able to meet the goal or objective of the lesson, there is more often than not a more effective and efficient way to do that. Two of the most effective courses I took in my educational career were Keyboarding in high school and introduction to software in university. Although I could type pretty fast by the time I got to high school, that course showed me proper technique and by the end of I could type up to 60 words a minute. It presented me with a certain skill which I have carried with me throughout the years. The introduction to software course taught me how to use the different applications of Microsoft Office. Again, I was proficient in using the different pieces of software, the course showed me different ways of accomplishing the specific task and ultimately made me more efficient and effective when using these tools for other learning activities.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that learners need to be presented with direct instruction when learning to use a piece of software. If done so properly, they can then use the software as a learning tool for other learning situations later on.
Group Paper
It was at this point in the course which the group collaboration forum was introduced and our group, the Noble Nobels, starting talking about the group paper. Throughout the next few weeks, our group would meet via WebEx. This was an online conferencing software hosted by Cisco which allowed us to chat, interact and share ideas via the web. I was pleasantly surprised how well this worked.
Through the weeks that followed, I reflected on many components of instructional design. But my main source of focus when moving forward in my classroom came from the structure of the assignment. I started to think about group work and the concept of collaboration. Traditionally, I've used mostly direct instruction in my classroom. Teaching science is sometimes very methodic. I've tried different constructivist activities and had little success in the past. On paper, science classrooms should be a exploration into content which lends itself greatly to investigation and discovery. But from my experience, these sort of activities fall flat on their face due to lack of ambition and innovation from the students.
When thinking about collaboration in my classroom, I've have been limited to collaboration in my classroom alone. The nature of this assignment got me pondering that collaboration in my classroom needs to be not just inside the classroom walls, but also outside. With access to internet resources and social media, students should be able to collaborate constantly on a learning activity. But if I want students to collaborate more efficiently and effectively, I need to design the activities such that it promotes such an action.
To do so, these activities need to be to given to students such that they have time to collaborate. They need to occur over a longer period of time than just one class and it needs to be decided whether the collaboration would occur before or after the content they are required to learn. This would require long term planning by myself, which made me think about myself as more of an instructional designer. I was starting to consider more aspects to instruction than just the content. This was my first real growth since the start of the course. Therefore, I designed a learning activity with collaboration in mind and assigned it to my chemistry 12 students.
Through the weeks that followed, I reflected on many components of instructional design. But my main source of focus when moving forward in my classroom came from the structure of the assignment. I started to think about group work and the concept of collaboration. Traditionally, I've used mostly direct instruction in my classroom. Teaching science is sometimes very methodic. I've tried different constructivist activities and had little success in the past. On paper, science classrooms should be a exploration into content which lends itself greatly to investigation and discovery. But from my experience, these sort of activities fall flat on their face due to lack of ambition and innovation from the students.
When thinking about collaboration in my classroom, I've have been limited to collaboration in my classroom alone. The nature of this assignment got me pondering that collaboration in my classroom needs to be not just inside the classroom walls, but also outside. With access to internet resources and social media, students should be able to collaborate constantly on a learning activity. But if I want students to collaborate more efficiently and effectively, I need to design the activities such that it promotes such an action.
To do so, these activities need to be to given to students such that they have time to collaborate. They need to occur over a longer period of time than just one class and it needs to be decided whether the collaboration would occur before or after the content they are required to learn. This would require long term planning by myself, which made me think about myself as more of an instructional designer. I was starting to consider more aspects to instruction than just the content. This was my first real growth since the start of the course. Therefore, I designed a learning activity with collaboration in mind and assigned it to my chemistry 12 students.
 |
| Flipped Model Designed by The Noble Nobels |
Week 4: Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts
This week introduced us to our first instructional design models, which propelled us to work on our own ID model for the group paper. There were two readings this week that caught my attention.
The first was from Gustafson and Branch (1997). A loaded article, it was the taxonomy designed by Gustafson and Branch that really brought a smile to my face. Throughout the first three weeks of the course, I couldn't help but ponder about the time constraints in our profession. I agreed with and enjoyed many of the readings in the first three weeks, but couldn't helping asking myself, "who has time to do such intense lesson planning?"
The taxonomy set forth by Gustafson and Branch categorized instructional design based on implicit information the the design model. There were many pieces of information that resonated with me such as time of instruction, instructional designer experience and front end analysis. It was refreshing to read that as teachers we were not supposed to design a lesson to the same scale of that of someone which has the time and resources to design an entire course. In a day and age where our job is cluttered with PGP's, PFI's, CSI's, accreditation, powerschool, staff meetings, so many things that don't direct relate to student achievement, it was refreshing to hear that the expectation for instructional design in our classrooms was realistic.
The second article by Mergel (1998) really summarized the implementation of instructional design and how it relates to learning theories. I have to admit, there was nothing particular that jumped out at me with this reading. I just liked how it talked about learning theories and ID models all at once.
When starting this course, one of the first things I did was try and find out what instructional design actually was. This concept of designing something so someone else could then design something seemed really odd to me. Why do I need someone else to explain to me how to explain something? Sounds odd, right? Well this article really summed everything up for me. By related the ideas of instructional design to learning theories, it really demonstrated to me the reason that we study instructional design.
The first was from Gustafson and Branch (1997). A loaded article, it was the taxonomy designed by Gustafson and Branch that really brought a smile to my face. Throughout the first three weeks of the course, I couldn't help but ponder about the time constraints in our profession. I agreed with and enjoyed many of the readings in the first three weeks, but couldn't helping asking myself, "who has time to do such intense lesson planning?"
The taxonomy set forth by Gustafson and Branch categorized instructional design based on implicit information the the design model. There were many pieces of information that resonated with me such as time of instruction, instructional designer experience and front end analysis. It was refreshing to read that as teachers we were not supposed to design a lesson to the same scale of that of someone which has the time and resources to design an entire course. In a day and age where our job is cluttered with PGP's, PFI's, CSI's, accreditation, powerschool, staff meetings, so many things that don't direct relate to student achievement, it was refreshing to hear that the expectation for instructional design in our classrooms was realistic.
 |
| Taxonomy of ID Models |
The second article by Mergel (1998) really summarized the implementation of instructional design and how it relates to learning theories. I have to admit, there was nothing particular that jumped out at me with this reading. I just liked how it talked about learning theories and ID models all at once.
When starting this course, one of the first things I did was try and find out what instructional design actually was. This concept of designing something so someone else could then design something seemed really odd to me. Why do I need someone else to explain to me how to explain something? Sounds odd, right? Well this article really summed everything up for me. By related the ideas of instructional design to learning theories, it really demonstrated to me the reason that we study instructional design.
Gustafson, K. L., Branch, R. M. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Week 5: ID Model Components
After 5 weeks, we finally got around to learning about some common instructional design models. I had already done substantial research at this point on ID models because our own ID model for our group project was due this week. There were key models shown such as the ADDIE model and the Dick and Carey model. All of these key models have important components that permeate through even more complicated models.
 |
| The Addie Model. Digital Image. Instructional Design Expert. Web. June 25, 2013 |
Although there were some fundamental models with key components, there were a few models that had certain components that I could see myself implementing in my classroom. The first was from Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction. The initial step of this ID model was to gain the attention of the learners. Like the first chapter of a book, if it hooks you, your going to read the rest of the book. If you struggle to read the first chapter, then your most likely not even going to finish it. Dealing with young people works the same way. Most young learners are subjected to so much information through all sorts of different media that they need to see or think about something that they have not before to gain their interest. I cannot tell you the number of times you start a lesson and get right into teaching and the blank look on the faces in your class are many. I try diligently to do something different with my classes almost everyday to gain their interest. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it might not be stimulating content, but you have to try. If you can sink the hooks in, you'll have the learners for the rest of the instruction.
Also from Gagne was to present stimulus material. I attribute this step to creating a context for the material that would relate to the students. How many times have you heard the question, "Why are we doing this?" If the learner was motivated to learn the material, they most likely can. The slogan for the Halifax Regional School Board is "Every Student Can Learn". While this would annoy most teachers in the school board, I tend to agree with it. Although I would question whether all students want to learn. I firmly believe that student achievement is directly related to student engagement. If you can engage the learner, they will learn something. Some may learn more than others, but learning will take place for all.
Center for Instructional Technology and Training. (2013, January 30). Gagne's 9 Events of Instruction. Retrieved from http://citt.ufl.edu/tools/gagnes-9-events-of-instruction/
 |
| Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction. Digital Image. Wikispaces. Web. June 25, 2013 |
Center for Instructional Technology and Training. (2013, January 30). Gagne's 9 Events of Instruction. Retrieved from http://citt.ufl.edu/tools/gagnes-9-events-of-instruction/
Castagnolo, C. (2008). The Addie Model: Why Use It?. Retrieved from
http://theelearningsite.com/2011/03/the-addie-model-why-use-it/
Week 6: Inspection and critique of an IT-ID model
Week 6 of the course brought us to reviewing and assessing an instructional design model for information technology. It was only the second week that we tried to relate actually instructional design models with technology. The model reviewed was iNtegrates Technology for inQuiry - The NTeQ Model. The model had 10 components:
When pondering responses to the weeks guiding questions, I found many steps in this model redundant at first. Seemed ridiculous to specify all the individual activities around the one piece of software the learners will be using. But after working on the group papers and reviewing the drafts of the design models, I started to see the need to be specific in instructional design. If you have a very particular learning context in mind, then the designer must be very detailed in order to achieve the the desired result.
- Specify Objecties
- Computer Functions
- Specify Problem
- Data Manipulation
- Results Presentation
- Activities While at Computer
- Activities Prior to Computer
- After Using Computer
- Supporting Activities
- Assessment
When pondering responses to the weeks guiding questions, I found many steps in this model redundant at first. Seemed ridiculous to specify all the individual activities around the one piece of software the learners will be using. But after working on the group papers and reviewing the drafts of the design models, I started to see the need to be specific in instructional design. If you have a very particular learning context in mind, then the designer must be very detailed in order to achieve the the desired result.
This was one of the main concepts that I took from this weeks readings. Many of my lessons that I design currently involve very little planning. The front end analysis is minimal and the planning of the activities usually are not thought out to any degree. Many times, I know what I want to teach and will teach that particular concept. Over time, I will design or find activities to ensure the lesson improves from year to year. This type of instructional design is called rapid prototyping. After reading about the NTeQ model, even with it's redundancies, I see the need to have detailed components of the instructional design.
In the future, I can see myself taking more time to think about the learners in my classroom and what and how exactly I want them to learn.
Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating Computer Technology into the Classroom, pp. 37-60. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. (Chapter 3)
Week 7: The Future of ID in Instructional Technology
I have to say that this was my favourite week for the readings and online discussions. Thinking about the movement of education in the future is exciting and at the same time very daunting.
The readings for the week revolved around assessment, in particular assessment for constructivist outcomes. Due to the nature of constructivism, the assessment becomes a lot less measurable. The important questions asked were whether there is a difference between constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes and how we feel about implementing these in our classrooms.
My first response is that assessing constructivist outcomes is extremely difficult. Constructivist learning is based on experiential learning and therefore the assessment needs to be based on the process and show a deeper understanding. Traditional outcomes are based on fact and show an understanding on a superficial level. Due to the system that is currently in place in our schools, I feel that these types of outcomes and assessments have no place. Because we are required to produce a mark that is a measurement of what students know about very specific out the school boards and department of education, I am not comfortable assessing constructivist learning and having to produce a single number about what the students know.
In theory I love the idea of constructivist learning. In principle, it would be amazing if we didn't even have to give marks. Students would focus on learning instead of the mark and I assure you that more learning would take place. One type of assessment that I focused on in the readings was the idea of a portfolio. It would be great for students to create a portfolio to track what exactly they have learned. You could assess student learning on an ongoing basis and at the end have a product that would demonstrate student knowledge.
My only issue with this concept is that it doesn't lend itself to producing a grade. I have yet to find a way to do such a project and produce a grade that is truly measurable of student knowledge. When I have done these projects in the past (or even group work for that fact), I always get the feeling that the marks are not indicative what the students really know.
Because of my indecisiveness about these two different outcomes and assessments, I went on a rant in the discussion forums. I feel as though we are constantly push towards professional growth, but are not giving the resources or even the structure to do so. The boards constantly want data collected to support student learning and the growth of the teachers, but new learning theories, such as constructivism, don't support data collection. We must be trusted as professionals to do our job, which involves improving student learning and professional growth.
 |
| Paradigm Shift. Digital Image. Davinci Institute. Web. June 25, 2013 |
My first response is that assessing constructivist outcomes is extremely difficult. Constructivist learning is based on experiential learning and therefore the assessment needs to be based on the process and show a deeper understanding. Traditional outcomes are based on fact and show an understanding on a superficial level. Due to the system that is currently in place in our schools, I feel that these types of outcomes and assessments have no place. Because we are required to produce a mark that is a measurement of what students know about very specific out the school boards and department of education, I am not comfortable assessing constructivist learning and having to produce a single number about what the students know.
In theory I love the idea of constructivist learning. In principle, it would be amazing if we didn't even have to give marks. Students would focus on learning instead of the mark and I assure you that more learning would take place. One type of assessment that I focused on in the readings was the idea of a portfolio. It would be great for students to create a portfolio to track what exactly they have learned. You could assess student learning on an ongoing basis and at the end have a product that would demonstrate student knowledge.
My only issue with this concept is that it doesn't lend itself to producing a grade. I have yet to find a way to do such a project and produce a grade that is truly measurable of student knowledge. When I have done these projects in the past (or even group work for that fact), I always get the feeling that the marks are not indicative what the students really know.
Because of my indecisiveness about these two different outcomes and assessments, I went on a rant in the discussion forums. I feel as though we are constantly push towards professional growth, but are not giving the resources or even the structure to do so. The boards constantly want data collected to support student learning and the growth of the teachers, but new learning theories, such as constructivism, don't support data collection. We must be trusted as professionals to do our job, which involves improving student learning and professional growth.
Final Thoughts
What have I done in this course?
Throughout the course, I have read an abundance of literature, responded weekly to guiding questions, responded to my peers, created an instructional design model with my group, The Noble Nobels, wrote a paper with collaboration from my group and created my first ever blog.
What have I learned in this course?
Throughout the course, I have read an abundance of literature, responded weekly to guiding questions, responded to my peers, created an instructional design model with my group, The Noble Nobels, wrote a paper with collaboration from my group and created my first ever blog.
What have I learned in this course?
Most of what I have learned must be reflected in all the work we have done about learning theories. I have always understood that there were different learners in my classroom and tried my hardest to differentiate learning as best as I can, but having a background in the different learning theories such as historical perspectives and how they relate to instructional design and technology, will hopefully allow me be more effective in differentiating in my classroom.
The concept of instructional design was foreign to me before starting this course. I have made great strides in the ideas and models of ID and have a general understanding of it's basic components by examining fundamental models such as the ADDIE model and the Dick and Carey model.
It is difficult for me to generalize what I have learned about technology in this course. It was not about using or learning about new technologies, but about understanding their use and reflect on how they are used in the classroom. By classifying software, it has allowed me relate many different pieces of technology to the type of learning theories, which will hopefully relate a better understanding of how my students use technology.
What changes in ideas, perspectives etc have I experienced as a result of this course?
What does it all mean to me now?
What changes in ideas, perspectives etc have I experienced as a result of this course?
The main idea that has resonated throughout all of my learning, whether it be reflecting on learning theories, instructional design or information technology, is that of constructivism. For a while now, I thought about the big questions, "What is it that I want my students to know?" and "How do I know if they are learning?". Every class you teach, these questions come up. I can't help the past few years think that there is something missing in my classroom. I could never pin point exactly what I needed nor did I have the time to figure it out. This course forced me to reflect on my practices and actually gave me the background to finally figure out what was needed.
The notion that students create their own learning and the teacher works mostly as a facilitator is something that is not new to me, but always seemed impractical. Direct instruction is a method of teaching that is tried and true, but I can't help and feel as though it supports superficial learning. Constructivism supports a deeper understanding and promotes a type of learning that is more important to students by allowing their experiences to navigate what is learned. I've always tried to create context in my science classrooms, bring in real-life examples and make it important for students. As much as I try, they never seem to care. I never thought that instead of me trying to create the context for the students that they should create the context themselves. If this can happen in my room, I truly feel as though I will have more motivated learners.
What does it all mean to me now?
What does it all mean? There is a loaded question. One of the only things to do now is to implement these changes above to the best of my ability. I've already reflected in week 7 that it is almost impossible to change because our system doesn't really allow for a constructivist approach. But unfortunately I can't make these decisions and I can only try and change my classroom. Hopefully, as I shift the way students learn in my classroom and then someone else might try things to support a shift in student learning.
This course has allowed me to reflect on my teaching practices. Very often, teachers can get stale. Do the same thing year after year and even though we should be growing professionally, it doesn't always happen. Moving forward next year into a brand new school, with state of the art technology, I can hopefully bring some of my knowledge to my staff and have them reflect on their teaching practices, the same way that I have with this course. Something needs to be a catalyst for change and hopefully I can be that for my staff next year.
Educational Technology & Society. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_2/tam.html
Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.de-research.com/PhDFinalPapers/CT_3IDModels.pdf
Teaching Methods Direct Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/mcvittiej/methods/direct.html
Weekly Responses
Week 1
Let me take a different spin on things. I recently became addicted to twitter. Now I’m not tweeting updates about the my life like what I ate for breakfast or pictures of my daughter. But I’ve found twitter to be an excellent real time source of news information. Whether it be breaking news for current events or the latest NHL hockey update, twitter can send me that information in a heartbeat. So ultimately, it’s like a really fast newspaper or news program on TV. The message has not changed though, even though the medium has changed. News is coming at me in through a different medium, but ultimately it’s still news.
So bringing it back to teaching. I feel more than often than not that when teachers decide to teach a lesson with the latest technology or some sort of new medium, they feel more learning takes place. But usually, the teacher has not really changed the lesson. The message is the same. Changing the medium, gives the illusion that the message is different. So it becomes important to remember that the message is not the medium. Careful attention is always needed, regardless of the form of delivery, to the structure and design of the lesson.
Behaviourism most definitely fits best with direction instruction. During direct instruction students are almost conditioned to form the right answer because they know if they get the wrong answer, they don’t get the marks. Therefore, just as as Pavlov’s dogs, students are almost adapting to the environment to get the correct answer. It begs the question, “has any learning really occured?”
Constructivism fits best, in my opinion, with the constructivist approach. During constructivism, knowledge is relative to each individuals experience. This falls right in line with the constructivist approach because learning has multiple outcomes and answers. The students are not assessed on if they know “x, y and z” pieces of information, but rather what they have learned, which can vary for student to student.
Direction instruction has worked best and still works best in my most academic classes. These are the classes where the motivation lies solely in the grade. For example, I currently teach an Academic Chemistry 12 class. For certain students, their acceptance into university is contingent upon getting a certain grade in this class. They want to know what they need to know to get the mark they need.
I find myself in a constant source of frustration when I ask the students to think about what they have learned and apply it in a different context or method. The students constantly struggle with this endeavor, which shows that most have not really learned what I had thought they had learned.
The constructivist approach has worked best for those students who lack the motivation to learn. For most, through a well designed project or assignment, these students will work toward some end goal, that is not necessarily tied to specific outcomes, but will end up learning different concepts along the way.
For instance, in my Exploring Technology 10 class, we have the students construct Underwater ROV (remotely operated vehicles). The students are assigned the task to construct a vehicle that will dive to the bottom of a tank and retrieve some masses and bring them back to the surface. Some general instructions are given, but are broad and can easily be changed. All groups will design a different machine and therefore will encounter different problems which need solutions. By the end of the project, students have taught themselves about electrical systems, thrust and propulsion, ballast systems and buoyancy among many others. Throughout the course of the project, the students don’t even realize all they have learned.
Week 2
One of the most useful learning tools I’ve found to teach science in the past few years are the phet simulations from the University of Colorado (http://phet.colorado.edu/) These simulations cover a wide variety of content areas across a many different grade levels. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh refer to these as “Microworlds”. “Microworlds contain constrained simulations of real-world phenomena that allow learners to control those phenomena. They provide the exploratory functionality....needed to explore phenomena in those parts of hte world.” (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, p. 7, 1998). In using these simulations, I’m able to have students explore a phenomena that I may not be able to simulate in the classroom. Or it could be something that I can model in the classroom and students can witness, but possibly need more further explanation, especially at a molecular level.
These simulations allow students to draw their own conclusions about the relationship about variables through fun and interactive animations. Retention level and comprehension of scientific relationships are greatly increased. Students also have visuals in which we can reference later on during a lesson.
I very much believe that there is a place for direct instruction in certain software applications. Let’s take databases for example. Databases are able to organize information and create relationships between different pieces of information depending certain characteristics. “The database can then be searched and sorted to answer specific questions about the content or to identify interrelationships and inferences from the content...” (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, p. 7, 1998). Constructing these databases requires the learner to develop a backbone in which the data will be sorted and stored for retrieval later on. While it is the job of the learner to identify how the data will be developed into the database, creating the actual database can be extremely difficult and frustrating. Many moons ago I took a database course in undergrad. They are complex systems and require difficult software to use. While it would be beneficial for the learner to use the database to help study the nature of cells and their functions, direction instruction would be required initially to show the learner how to create it. A constructivist learning theory could be used to teach the learner about the software, but they would be missing many pieces and ultimately if the end goal is to help study cells, they will be able to create a more efficient database if instructed properly.
Cognitive Flexibility Theory refers to the nature of learning by restructuring one’s knowledge by adapting to radically changing demands. By displaying complicated information in a variety of ways, learners with construct their own representation of information, which should increase comprehension and retention over time.
This learning their falls right in line with contructivisim because learners are allowed to develop their own representation of information, which can vary from learner to learner.
One piece of the article that resinated with my teaching practices was the notion of avoid oversimplifying. Oversimplifying content occurs in every lesson which I teach that utilize direct instruction. Students are shown small pieces of information in detail. When they have mastered these pieces, we will generally have them enter into a more complicated and challenging learning situation. I am constantly amazed how students cannot make the connections between these small pieces of the puzzle to the big picture. Challenging students more the from the beginning of the lesson and ensuring that their is a wide variety of environments from them to learn from may help learners see the “big picture.”
Week 3
In regards to different types of application software, l’ll consider some of the most common pieces available to me in regards to the school that I teach at. Some examples are, but not limited to, word processing, database, spreadsheet, multimedia, presentation, content access and simulation software, as per Oak, 2011.
Word processing software, for what I have experienced most, would fall under the direct instruction heading for learning theories. A great deal of the time, a piece of word processing software is used more as a tool to aid some other type of instruction. The software itself it not really helping the learner to form the knowledge itself, but rather aid in the construction of knowledge from another piece of instruction. This does not have to be the case though. Students could work collaboratively with a piece of word processing software, which would foster a constructivist approach much more.
A database for example, in my opinion, falls primarily under the category of constructivist learning theory. With the use of a database, what is learned is dependent upon the user of the database. The user must set the parameters for how the database will be structured and therefore is in control of exactly what they learn. Each user might choose to set up the database on a similar topic differently and in turn will have slightly different content, varying the learning process from user to user.
A piece of the presentation software, is one that I feel falls under both categories quite a bit of the time. It could be used a mode of direct instruction by the facilitator to present material to learners. Or it could be used by the learner themselves to create a presentation for numerous activities. When the learner is in control of the material, it promotes more of a contructivist learning theory.
Word processing software, such as Microsoft Word is used all of the time for a variety of classes I teach. The past few years, I’ve wanted to try and cut down on the amount of paper and interact with my student through my moodle site, so I’ve tried to get as many assignments as I could typed and handed in electronically. Also, sadly enough, assignments and labs just look so more much professional when types. The use of Microsoft Word does not control what the student is learning and therefore would very much be a part of a direct instruction lesson I would deliver at a variety of high school levels. I know that word processing software could be used in more of a contructivist approach, but I primarily used it more as a tool.
One piece of software that I use with my grade 11 and 12 physics and chemistry students are the software for scientific probeware. Depending on whether your using PASCO or Verneir, it would be LoggerPro or SparkVue. These applications allow students to investigate a variety of scientific concepts. Since they can handle a variety of different probes, the user can input a variety of variables and investigations can follow. Although I truly feel that labs done at a high school level are created with a direct instruction mindset, students get a procedure, follow that procedure and answer guiding questions, the software could be used to explore whatever the learner wants to. If we allowed students to use this technology in more of an investigative approach, it could foster a contructivist learning environment.
Week 4
A taxonomy for ID models is an aspect of instructional design that I have been searching for since the beginning of the course. Throughout the first four weeks of this course, I have questioned the practicality of ID for teachers. We all know that we are on a time crunch in our schools to get curriculum taught, paperwork filled out, duty performed etc... How much time do we have to properly design instruction? This taxonomy created by Gustafson (1981, 1991) has helped me put the idea of ID in perspective.
There are a variety of unique environments and settings in which different approaches to ID need to be taken. For a classroom orientation in which one or a few hours of instruction is given, the amount of implementation of instruction design is limited. The individual classroom teacher does not have the experience, time or resources to spend on instruction design practices. As for a product orientation, which would apply for self-instructional or an instructor delivered package, it would be expected that since the learning is focusing more on a larger period of study, more implementation of ID would be required. For instance, if a teacher was going to plan an entire unit for the course they were teaching, they might have the help of other colleagues who also teach the same course or have enough time to edit and revise their plan. As for system orientation, which would apply for more of an entire course or curriculum, ID would almost be imperative as the scope of the instruction is so large. The amount of time, people and resources that would be spent on the instruction would be greater than that of everyday instruction and an analysis of learners and goals would be a primary focus.
After completing this weeks assignments, it has become more glaring that most if not all learning theories have a place in ID. Due to the varying degree of unique environments and in turn the vast amount of ID models, learning of all levels takes place during any kind of instruction.
We have to remember to differentiate the learning that takes place in our classroom. As well, there are certain pieces of instruction that lend themselves better to different learning theories. Certain ID models are very general and can apply to a variety of learning situations and there are also some ID models that are more unique for a specific environment or setting. Because of vast amount of learning styles and learning environments instructional design models and instructional designers cannot dismiss one learning theory in place of another.
According to Wilson, et al., rapid prototyping can be defined as “the early development of a small-scale prototype that is used to test out certain key features of the design.” To try and explain that in other words, I feel like rapid prototyping starts with a small idea for a piece of instruction and then is used, reviewed, implemented and then used again.
This happens almost everyday in the classroom. In fact, most designs of instruction come from small ideas which are tried in the classroom, reflected upon and then tried again the next semester with some small improvements. Good teachers almost always make adjustments to their lessons on a daily basis.
Information technology is most definitely changing instructional design. As stated, “Advancements in technology make branched constructivist approaches to learning possible.” (Mergel, 1998) With the vast majority of resources available to the learner and the ability for the instructor to deliver instruction at a distance, learning is taking a constructivist approach. All learners, even within the same setting, are able to learn at their own pace and create their own knowledge with the help of information technology. Instructional designers have no choice to be adapt to this rapidly changing learning style and foster the use of constructivism within their models.
Week 5
One consistent component that I’ve noticed from the vast amount of ID models is that of the analysis. More often than not, it may have a different title (analysis, goals, introduction etc...) but it is consistent in the approach.
In order to effectively design instruction, one must first identify what the instruction is about and who it is for. Without the analysis phase of any ID model, the instructor risks design the instruction that has the wrong focus, wrong level of ability or be incomplete.
Another component that seems to be consistent among most models is the development or selection of materials. Regardless of the type of instruction or the setting, the instructor has a responsibility to select appropriate materials and medium for the delivery of the materials.
I’m not sure that you can identify one particular component of an ID model that address information technology. IT can easily be integrated and implemented into all aspects of instructional design.
In regards to the above response, as the instructor analyzes the learners and identifies objectives , they must take into consideration the skills of the learners. This includes their background in a variety technologies and application software. The development stage addresses many areas of concerns involving information technology. In the development and selection of materials, the instructor must decide what and how the instruction will be delivered. Technology plays a large part in this process.
One model which takes IT into consideration is Problem-Based Learning. Instruction begins with the introduction of a problem; learning starts with the presentation of a real world problem; students, provided with instructor’s guidance and resource material, are encouraged to dive into the problem, construct an individual understanding and finally find an answer to the problem. (Dillon and Zhu {Web-Based Instruction, Khan – editor, p.222})
The instructor would use hypermedia to place the problem in context and also allow the learners to use a variety of resources to research the problem. Problem-based learning could also be used in small groups, which would allow communication between learners.
Problem-based learning is very much a constructivist approach. With the vast amount of technological resources available to learners in the 21st century, constructivist approaches to learning are becoming more popular and problem-based learning seems to fit right in.
Week 6
Like most ID models, I believe this model incorporates all types of learning theories. There are many aspects to instructional design the lesson’s in which they create. All good instructional designers should take into account all types of learners and learning theories.
If I had to identify one particular learning theory that this model utilizes more frequently, it would be that of behaviourism. I find that in many of the steps, the author is asking the instructional designer to identify very specific items and then design the lesson accordingly. For instance, they ask to identify computer functions that would allow the learners to reach the specified objectives. Even though there could be more computer functions than the ones specified in which the learner could use to reach the identified objectives, there are very precise ones identified and they are then used later on in development when planning the activities. These are behaviours that are expected to be carried out by the learner.
When it comes to Information Technology, I see the most valuable component as the second step, Computer Functions. It involves matching computer functions to the objectives determined in the first step. This is due to the fact that it takes into consideration the use of information technology in the initial design phase. Because of this step takes place so early, the designer will have ample time to reflect upon and implement information technology into their design.
The most redundant component in the model, in my opinion, is the Data Manipulation component. The designer has already identified objectives and the computer functions that could be used to reach these objectives. This component, which involves designing how the learners will manipulate the data, will guide the learners with much direction. The next component, which decides the presentation of the data, will ultimately decide how the learners will manipulate the data as well.
In conclusion, the components computer functions, data manipulation and results presentation, are very detailed and could most likely be scaled back. Of the three components, I would remove the data manipulation to allow more discovery from the learners about how they should interpret the data.
Personally, I would think that relating the computer functions to the objectives is a component that I find extremely important. A good instructional designer should place themselves in the role of the learners. This allows them to think first about what components of information technology could be used to meet these objectives. From this step, proper instruction should be able to be designed. I wouldn’t think that for all ID models, this component would be valid, but as it relates to IT, this component would be valid as to ensure we have the correct technology to match the goals or objectives we have set out.
Week 7
Before I get to this weeks questions, I have to start with a story from my latest staff meeting. As we transition to a brand new school next year, our principal was giving us a little pep talk. Showing us some pictures and talking about the overall philosophy of the new school. In a shortened version, this new school is designed with collaboration in mind. Classrooms are no longer call classrooms, but learning studios and out in the halls there is dedicated work spaces block off called learning commons. It is hoped that these learning commons will become an extension of the classroom for group work and such. The design of the school had a very constructivist approach if I dare say.
As she was talking about how we have to shift our thinking and change to adapt to the new philosophy, she dropped a bomb on our staff. She stated, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t even have to give students grades?” Well, I wish you could have seen the look on the staff’s faces. If your staff is anything like mine, change is the last thing they want to discuss and talking about assessment would be a close second. Anyways, thought it was important to bring up given the topic of this weeks questions.
I found it interesting that one author, Straight (2002), seemed to define the difference between assessment and evaluation as how we would define formative and summative assessment, which is assessment for learning and assessment of learning.
I feel as though it is important to distinguish between these two, but I’m not sure it’s important bicker over what they are called. Personally I prefer the terms assessment for learning and assessment of learning as they actually define what the difference is right in the terminology. They are two very important differences that every good teacher should take into consideration when teaching young people.
I very much feel torn between the two. On one hand we have classes like this and leaders at my school (see my anecdote above) that feel we need a shift in the way we approach learning. On the other hand, we are required to by the department of education to adhere to strict guidelines for not only the curriculum, but also assessment.
At the high school level, the introduction over powerschool, has crippled any chance of shifting to more constructivist outcomes. The student and parent want constant feedback and are only concerned about mark they see at the end. I constantly get hounded about marks and assessment, and rarely get asked about how the student is doing. By tracking the grades in real time, we’ve created an obsession with getting good grades and it is stunting any growth in other types of learning. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know that if we want to change, the department of education needs to be the first to change and give teachers the confidence and ammunition to make the change.
I think that there is significant difference between these. Non-constructivist outcomes can be tested easily and skills or information can be put down on the page to show a level of understanding. With constructivist outcomes, the learners must show learning throughout the learning process and be able to apply it to show deeper understanding. Through the application process, I would question whether it is even valid to evaluate the learner because the learning is an ongoing and continual process.
For instance, in my IB Chemistry class students are required to design a lab and then carry out lab and analyze the data. This is a very difficult process and can be painstaking to have the student come up with good ideas. Time only allows them to do this a few times and to do so with different themes. It would be more valid for the students to keep changing and refining their lab. True science never ends does it?
After having more time to reflect on the last question, I firmly feel that there is a significant difference between these outcomes and this poses a huge problem with our current assessment policy that is in place.
Constructivist learning is an active process, and alternative assessment celebrates this active. Instead of testing for the presence or absence of discrete bits of information, alternative assessment instead provides a means to understand whether students organize, structure, and use information in context to solve complex problems. (Olomouc, 2008, pg. 7)
As I reflect on this quote, I realize more and more that learning is not definite. It's an ongoing process and subsequently assessment must also be ongoing. The problem lies in that our educational system is designed in terms of definite standards. We have finite grades levels with finite grades at the end of them. To reiterate my earlier points, there needs to be a fundamental shift from the people of power in order for teachers to change the way the assess.
IQST. (2008). Assessing Science Understanding - a Constructivist Approach: Retrieved from http://www.iqst.upol.cz/project/Assessing%20Science%20for%20Understanding1%20CZ%20.pdf
Let me take a different spin on things. I recently became addicted to twitter. Now I’m not tweeting updates about the my life like what I ate for breakfast or pictures of my daughter. But I’ve found twitter to be an excellent real time source of news information. Whether it be breaking news for current events or the latest NHL hockey update, twitter can send me that information in a heartbeat. So ultimately, it’s like a really fast newspaper or news program on TV. The message has not changed though, even though the medium has changed. News is coming at me in through a different medium, but ultimately it’s still news.
So bringing it back to teaching. I feel more than often than not that when teachers decide to teach a lesson with the latest technology or some sort of new medium, they feel more learning takes place. But usually, the teacher has not really changed the lesson. The message is the same. Changing the medium, gives the illusion that the message is different. So it becomes important to remember that the message is not the medium. Careful attention is always needed, regardless of the form of delivery, to the structure and design of the lesson.
Behaviourism most definitely fits best with direction instruction. During direct instruction students are almost conditioned to form the right answer because they know if they get the wrong answer, they don’t get the marks. Therefore, just as as Pavlov’s dogs, students are almost adapting to the environment to get the correct answer. It begs the question, “has any learning really occured?”
Constructivism fits best, in my opinion, with the constructivist approach. During constructivism, knowledge is relative to each individuals experience. This falls right in line with the constructivist approach because learning has multiple outcomes and answers. The students are not assessed on if they know “x, y and z” pieces of information, but rather what they have learned, which can vary for student to student.
Direction instruction has worked best and still works best in my most academic classes. These are the classes where the motivation lies solely in the grade. For example, I currently teach an Academic Chemistry 12 class. For certain students, their acceptance into university is contingent upon getting a certain grade in this class. They want to know what they need to know to get the mark they need.
I find myself in a constant source of frustration when I ask the students to think about what they have learned and apply it in a different context or method. The students constantly struggle with this endeavor, which shows that most have not really learned what I had thought they had learned.
The constructivist approach has worked best for those students who lack the motivation to learn. For most, through a well designed project or assignment, these students will work toward some end goal, that is not necessarily tied to specific outcomes, but will end up learning different concepts along the way.
For instance, in my Exploring Technology 10 class, we have the students construct Underwater ROV (remotely operated vehicles). The students are assigned the task to construct a vehicle that will dive to the bottom of a tank and retrieve some masses and bring them back to the surface. Some general instructions are given, but are broad and can easily be changed. All groups will design a different machine and therefore will encounter different problems which need solutions. By the end of the project, students have taught themselves about electrical systems, thrust and propulsion, ballast systems and buoyancy among many others. Throughout the course of the project, the students don’t even realize all they have learned.
Week 2
One of the most useful learning tools I’ve found to teach science in the past few years are the phet simulations from the University of Colorado (http://phet.colorado.edu/) These simulations cover a wide variety of content areas across a many different grade levels. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh refer to these as “Microworlds”. “Microworlds contain constrained simulations of real-world phenomena that allow learners to control those phenomena. They provide the exploratory functionality....needed to explore phenomena in those parts of hte world.” (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, p. 7, 1998). In using these simulations, I’m able to have students explore a phenomena that I may not be able to simulate in the classroom. Or it could be something that I can model in the classroom and students can witness, but possibly need more further explanation, especially at a molecular level.
These simulations allow students to draw their own conclusions about the relationship about variables through fun and interactive animations. Retention level and comprehension of scientific relationships are greatly increased. Students also have visuals in which we can reference later on during a lesson.
I very much believe that there is a place for direct instruction in certain software applications. Let’s take databases for example. Databases are able to organize information and create relationships between different pieces of information depending certain characteristics. “The database can then be searched and sorted to answer specific questions about the content or to identify interrelationships and inferences from the content...” (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, p. 7, 1998). Constructing these databases requires the learner to develop a backbone in which the data will be sorted and stored for retrieval later on. While it is the job of the learner to identify how the data will be developed into the database, creating the actual database can be extremely difficult and frustrating. Many moons ago I took a database course in undergrad. They are complex systems and require difficult software to use. While it would be beneficial for the learner to use the database to help study the nature of cells and their functions, direction instruction would be required initially to show the learner how to create it. A constructivist learning theory could be used to teach the learner about the software, but they would be missing many pieces and ultimately if the end goal is to help study cells, they will be able to create a more efficient database if instructed properly.
Cognitive Flexibility Theory refers to the nature of learning by restructuring one’s knowledge by adapting to radically changing demands. By displaying complicated information in a variety of ways, learners with construct their own representation of information, which should increase comprehension and retention over time.
This learning their falls right in line with contructivisim because learners are allowed to develop their own representation of information, which can vary from learner to learner.
One piece of the article that resinated with my teaching practices was the notion of avoid oversimplifying. Oversimplifying content occurs in every lesson which I teach that utilize direct instruction. Students are shown small pieces of information in detail. When they have mastered these pieces, we will generally have them enter into a more complicated and challenging learning situation. I am constantly amazed how students cannot make the connections between these small pieces of the puzzle to the big picture. Challenging students more the from the beginning of the lesson and ensuring that their is a wide variety of environments from them to learn from may help learners see the “big picture.”
Week 3
In regards to different types of application software, l’ll consider some of the most common pieces available to me in regards to the school that I teach at. Some examples are, but not limited to, word processing, database, spreadsheet, multimedia, presentation, content access and simulation software, as per Oak, 2011.
Word processing software, for what I have experienced most, would fall under the direct instruction heading for learning theories. A great deal of the time, a piece of word processing software is used more as a tool to aid some other type of instruction. The software itself it not really helping the learner to form the knowledge itself, but rather aid in the construction of knowledge from another piece of instruction. This does not have to be the case though. Students could work collaboratively with a piece of word processing software, which would foster a constructivist approach much more.
A database for example, in my opinion, falls primarily under the category of constructivist learning theory. With the use of a database, what is learned is dependent upon the user of the database. The user must set the parameters for how the database will be structured and therefore is in control of exactly what they learn. Each user might choose to set up the database on a similar topic differently and in turn will have slightly different content, varying the learning process from user to user.
A piece of the presentation software, is one that I feel falls under both categories quite a bit of the time. It could be used a mode of direct instruction by the facilitator to present material to learners. Or it could be used by the learner themselves to create a presentation for numerous activities. When the learner is in control of the material, it promotes more of a contructivist learning theory.
Word processing software, such as Microsoft Word is used all of the time for a variety of classes I teach. The past few years, I’ve wanted to try and cut down on the amount of paper and interact with my student through my moodle site, so I’ve tried to get as many assignments as I could typed and handed in electronically. Also, sadly enough, assignments and labs just look so more much professional when types. The use of Microsoft Word does not control what the student is learning and therefore would very much be a part of a direct instruction lesson I would deliver at a variety of high school levels. I know that word processing software could be used in more of a contructivist approach, but I primarily used it more as a tool.
One piece of software that I use with my grade 11 and 12 physics and chemistry students are the software for scientific probeware. Depending on whether your using PASCO or Verneir, it would be LoggerPro or SparkVue. These applications allow students to investigate a variety of scientific concepts. Since they can handle a variety of different probes, the user can input a variety of variables and investigations can follow. Although I truly feel that labs done at a high school level are created with a direct instruction mindset, students get a procedure, follow that procedure and answer guiding questions, the software could be used to explore whatever the learner wants to. If we allowed students to use this technology in more of an investigative approach, it could foster a contructivist learning environment.
Week 4
A taxonomy for ID models is an aspect of instructional design that I have been searching for since the beginning of the course. Throughout the first four weeks of this course, I have questioned the practicality of ID for teachers. We all know that we are on a time crunch in our schools to get curriculum taught, paperwork filled out, duty performed etc... How much time do we have to properly design instruction? This taxonomy created by Gustafson (1981, 1991) has helped me put the idea of ID in perspective.
There are a variety of unique environments and settings in which different approaches to ID need to be taken. For a classroom orientation in which one or a few hours of instruction is given, the amount of implementation of instruction design is limited. The individual classroom teacher does not have the experience, time or resources to spend on instruction design practices. As for a product orientation, which would apply for self-instructional or an instructor delivered package, it would be expected that since the learning is focusing more on a larger period of study, more implementation of ID would be required. For instance, if a teacher was going to plan an entire unit for the course they were teaching, they might have the help of other colleagues who also teach the same course or have enough time to edit and revise their plan. As for system orientation, which would apply for more of an entire course or curriculum, ID would almost be imperative as the scope of the instruction is so large. The amount of time, people and resources that would be spent on the instruction would be greater than that of everyday instruction and an analysis of learners and goals would be a primary focus.
After completing this weeks assignments, it has become more glaring that most if not all learning theories have a place in ID. Due to the varying degree of unique environments and in turn the vast amount of ID models, learning of all levels takes place during any kind of instruction.
We have to remember to differentiate the learning that takes place in our classroom. As well, there are certain pieces of instruction that lend themselves better to different learning theories. Certain ID models are very general and can apply to a variety of learning situations and there are also some ID models that are more unique for a specific environment or setting. Because of vast amount of learning styles and learning environments instructional design models and instructional designers cannot dismiss one learning theory in place of another.
According to Wilson, et al., rapid prototyping can be defined as “the early development of a small-scale prototype that is used to test out certain key features of the design.” To try and explain that in other words, I feel like rapid prototyping starts with a small idea for a piece of instruction and then is used, reviewed, implemented and then used again.
This happens almost everyday in the classroom. In fact, most designs of instruction come from small ideas which are tried in the classroom, reflected upon and then tried again the next semester with some small improvements. Good teachers almost always make adjustments to their lessons on a daily basis.
Information technology is most definitely changing instructional design. As stated, “Advancements in technology make branched constructivist approaches to learning possible.” (Mergel, 1998) With the vast majority of resources available to the learner and the ability for the instructor to deliver instruction at a distance, learning is taking a constructivist approach. All learners, even within the same setting, are able to learn at their own pace and create their own knowledge with the help of information technology. Instructional designers have no choice to be adapt to this rapidly changing learning style and foster the use of constructivism within their models.
Week 5
One consistent component that I’ve noticed from the vast amount of ID models is that of the analysis. More often than not, it may have a different title (analysis, goals, introduction etc...) but it is consistent in the approach.
In order to effectively design instruction, one must first identify what the instruction is about and who it is for. Without the analysis phase of any ID model, the instructor risks design the instruction that has the wrong focus, wrong level of ability or be incomplete.
Another component that seems to be consistent among most models is the development or selection of materials. Regardless of the type of instruction or the setting, the instructor has a responsibility to select appropriate materials and medium for the delivery of the materials.
I’m not sure that you can identify one particular component of an ID model that address information technology. IT can easily be integrated and implemented into all aspects of instructional design.
In regards to the above response, as the instructor analyzes the learners and identifies objectives , they must take into consideration the skills of the learners. This includes their background in a variety technologies and application software. The development stage addresses many areas of concerns involving information technology. In the development and selection of materials, the instructor must decide what and how the instruction will be delivered. Technology plays a large part in this process.
One model which takes IT into consideration is Problem-Based Learning. Instruction begins with the introduction of a problem; learning starts with the presentation of a real world problem; students, provided with instructor’s guidance and resource material, are encouraged to dive into the problem, construct an individual understanding and finally find an answer to the problem. (Dillon and Zhu {Web-Based Instruction, Khan – editor, p.222})
The instructor would use hypermedia to place the problem in context and also allow the learners to use a variety of resources to research the problem. Problem-based learning could also be used in small groups, which would allow communication between learners.
Problem-based learning is very much a constructivist approach. With the vast amount of technological resources available to learners in the 21st century, constructivist approaches to learning are becoming more popular and problem-based learning seems to fit right in.
Week 6
Like most ID models, I believe this model incorporates all types of learning theories. There are many aspects to instructional design the lesson’s in which they create. All good instructional designers should take into account all types of learners and learning theories.
If I had to identify one particular learning theory that this model utilizes more frequently, it would be that of behaviourism. I find that in many of the steps, the author is asking the instructional designer to identify very specific items and then design the lesson accordingly. For instance, they ask to identify computer functions that would allow the learners to reach the specified objectives. Even though there could be more computer functions than the ones specified in which the learner could use to reach the identified objectives, there are very precise ones identified and they are then used later on in development when planning the activities. These are behaviours that are expected to be carried out by the learner.
When it comes to Information Technology, I see the most valuable component as the second step, Computer Functions. It involves matching computer functions to the objectives determined in the first step. This is due to the fact that it takes into consideration the use of information technology in the initial design phase. Because of this step takes place so early, the designer will have ample time to reflect upon and implement information technology into their design.
The most redundant component in the model, in my opinion, is the Data Manipulation component. The designer has already identified objectives and the computer functions that could be used to reach these objectives. This component, which involves designing how the learners will manipulate the data, will guide the learners with much direction. The next component, which decides the presentation of the data, will ultimately decide how the learners will manipulate the data as well.
In conclusion, the components computer functions, data manipulation and results presentation, are very detailed and could most likely be scaled back. Of the three components, I would remove the data manipulation to allow more discovery from the learners about how they should interpret the data.
Personally, I would think that relating the computer functions to the objectives is a component that I find extremely important. A good instructional designer should place themselves in the role of the learners. This allows them to think first about what components of information technology could be used to meet these objectives. From this step, proper instruction should be able to be designed. I wouldn’t think that for all ID models, this component would be valid, but as it relates to IT, this component would be valid as to ensure we have the correct technology to match the goals or objectives we have set out.
Week 7
Before I get to this weeks questions, I have to start with a story from my latest staff meeting. As we transition to a brand new school next year, our principal was giving us a little pep talk. Showing us some pictures and talking about the overall philosophy of the new school. In a shortened version, this new school is designed with collaboration in mind. Classrooms are no longer call classrooms, but learning studios and out in the halls there is dedicated work spaces block off called learning commons. It is hoped that these learning commons will become an extension of the classroom for group work and such. The design of the school had a very constructivist approach if I dare say.
As she was talking about how we have to shift our thinking and change to adapt to the new philosophy, she dropped a bomb on our staff. She stated, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t even have to give students grades?” Well, I wish you could have seen the look on the staff’s faces. If your staff is anything like mine, change is the last thing they want to discuss and talking about assessment would be a close second. Anyways, thought it was important to bring up given the topic of this weeks questions.
I found it interesting that one author, Straight (2002), seemed to define the difference between assessment and evaluation as how we would define formative and summative assessment, which is assessment for learning and assessment of learning.
I feel as though it is important to distinguish between these two, but I’m not sure it’s important bicker over what they are called. Personally I prefer the terms assessment for learning and assessment of learning as they actually define what the difference is right in the terminology. They are two very important differences that every good teacher should take into consideration when teaching young people.
I very much feel torn between the two. On one hand we have classes like this and leaders at my school (see my anecdote above) that feel we need a shift in the way we approach learning. On the other hand, we are required to by the department of education to adhere to strict guidelines for not only the curriculum, but also assessment.
At the high school level, the introduction over powerschool, has crippled any chance of shifting to more constructivist outcomes. The student and parent want constant feedback and are only concerned about mark they see at the end. I constantly get hounded about marks and assessment, and rarely get asked about how the student is doing. By tracking the grades in real time, we’ve created an obsession with getting good grades and it is stunting any growth in other types of learning. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know that if we want to change, the department of education needs to be the first to change and give teachers the confidence and ammunition to make the change.
I think that there is significant difference between these. Non-constructivist outcomes can be tested easily and skills or information can be put down on the page to show a level of understanding. With constructivist outcomes, the learners must show learning throughout the learning process and be able to apply it to show deeper understanding. Through the application process, I would question whether it is even valid to evaluate the learner because the learning is an ongoing and continual process.
For instance, in my IB Chemistry class students are required to design a lab and then carry out lab and analyze the data. This is a very difficult process and can be painstaking to have the student come up with good ideas. Time only allows them to do this a few times and to do so with different themes. It would be more valid for the students to keep changing and refining their lab. True science never ends does it?
After having more time to reflect on the last question, I firmly feel that there is a significant difference between these outcomes and this poses a huge problem with our current assessment policy that is in place.
Constructivist learning is an active process, and alternative assessment celebrates this active. Instead of testing for the presence or absence of discrete bits of information, alternative assessment instead provides a means to understand whether students organize, structure, and use information in context to solve complex problems. (Olomouc, 2008, pg. 7)
As I reflect on this quote, I realize more and more that learning is not definite. It's an ongoing process and subsequently assessment must also be ongoing. The problem lies in that our educational system is designed in terms of definite standards. We have finite grades levels with finite grades at the end of them. To reiterate my earlier points, there needs to be a fundamental shift from the people of power in order for teachers to change the way the assess.
IQST. (2008). Assessing Science Understanding - a Constructivist Approach: Retrieved from http://www.iqst.upol.cz/project/Assessing%20Science%20for%20Understanding1%20CZ%20.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)