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
