Unit IV: CASE-BASED LEARNING METHODS, COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY THEORY AND LEARNING OBJECTS

Similarities or differences between the theories/models? Do they share common foundations or principles?

The three learning models presented in this unit, Case-Based Learning, Cognitive Flexibility and Learning Objects, all focus on providing resources. Both Case-Based Learning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory provide cases as a resource for students to explore, compare and reason. These cases are compiled from previous experiences with the intent of others gaining understanding and the ability to compare to their present situation. Like these two models, Learning Objects can be cross-referenced to compare and gain insight from however is not based on learning as the other are. The main difference of Learning Objects is that it provides a tagged resource that others can reuse and repurpose for current situation without recreating. The first two models are based on learning context where Learning Objects are based on learning content.

Initial reactions to learning theories/models? Barriers to their use? Benefits to overcoming the barriers?

Based on my initial thoughts, these models are more appropriate for college or adult learners. First of all I think it would take a lot of planning, preparation and presentation time for teachers to create any of these models. I think that the age group I teach, K-5, would have a hard time using these models based on the premise that they should learn from others experiences. I believe that college and adult learners have more background knowledge and personal experiences to compare with the cases presented in Case-Based Learning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory. I see Learning Objects as a good resource for professionals such as educators and those in the medical field as well as college and adult learners. I believe the different perspectives presented in the Learning Objects could be a beneficial resource for those wanting to learn more about specific topics.

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

The models remind me of teaching my fourth and fifth grade students to use database. With database instruction, students learn how to sort, find and compare information the same as with the Case Based Learning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory. If I could overcome the barrier of the time involved in creating the models and simplify the content to be more age appropriate (and based on experiences of 8-10 year olds), I believe it could be a great resource for students to use higher order thinking skills.

Learning Objects also reminded me of the Smart Notebook Exchange. This is a database where educators post created files with tags for others to view, download, revise and reuse to suit their needs. I like that all of the models presented lend to reworking products to suit current needs yet have been created by individuals with similar purposes. I’m always for not recreating the wheel!

Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind & turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools/resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online? Please spend some time identifying tools and resources for this last point, as this background research should help you complete your projects more efficiently.

Tools that I could see using with these models include:

Edmodo: Edmodo could be used as a discussion board and space to present content. The discussion board would provide students a space to discuss cases and gain insights from each other.

Tangler: Another discussion board application for students to collaborate in real time.

Unit III: CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA

What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

Goal-based scenarios (GBS), Anchored Instruction and STAR legacy modules all focus on connecting learning to real world experiences and having students actively involved in the learning. I like that these models are engaging students and having them use critical thinking skills to solve problems that “experts” or “real” people would encounter. I feel that these modules would strike students interest because they would feel a connection to the problem and care that they helped to find a solution.  Nowakowski explains how GBS has “participants learn skills and knowledge in a realistic task context, which provides a motivational framework that allows learners to acquire individual skills and facts as they work to achieve a challenging goal” (p. 6). In The Jasper Experiment: An Exploration of Issues in Learning and Instructional Design, Anchored Instruction is described as providing a “motivating and realistic context for problem posing, problem solving and reasoning” (p. 65).  GBS, Anchored Instruction and STAR modules also aspire to encourage problem solving for future encounters.  The article on STAR explains that challenges should “promote learning in the context of problem solving so that learning will be more likely to be used for subsequent problem solving and less likely to remain inert” (p. 195).

GBS, STAR and MOST can be presented and assigned to individual’s verses a group. GBS is unique in that it can be used with either a group or individual. Anchored Instruction on the other hand is structured to be presented to a group, with each member having an assigned duty to carry out and present back to the group. MOST is the odd duck in this group of models because it is created specifically for at risk students and presented to help individual students build vocabulary and literacy skills. MOST environments are set up to assist the individual student at whatever stage they are at in their literacy development. Both MOST and Anchored Instruction use the multimedia to present content. Anchored Instruction uses multimedia to embed data that will help the group solve the presented problem whereas MOST uses multimedia to “embed decoding instruction in meaningful contexts and authentic tasks” (Bransford, p. 245). This model strives to motivate students to improve literacy skills, think critically and increase vocabulary. In both Anchored Instruction and MOST models, students are using visual clues in the multimedia presentation to help process information. The difference in these two presentations is that Anchored Instruction has a set path for the group to follow and the media is purposely filled with clues that will help students think about the best solutions to the presented problem. Like Anchored Instruction, GBS and STAR models also have a set process that students should follow. Students are presented with a “problem” then asked to follow the module steps to research, process and present a solution. STAR has the most defined steps of all the modules. If the problem has multiple layers, students will use the same five steps for each layer. Out of all the modules presented in this unit, I could see using the STAR model in elementary school because they have this set path to follow. This would also be a good model for younger students because they are held accountable for their learning when they are asked to present what they already know as well as reflect on what they have learned. We use the KWL (what you Know, what you Want to know, what you Learned) assessment a lot in elementary.

Anchored Instruction, STAR and MOST models favor in the way they encourage students to “learn from one another” (Bransford, p. 223). Anchored Instruction is focused on cooperative learning and students work with their group to find needed details within the multimedia. “Students in groups can also monitor one another and thereby help keep one another from getting to far off track” (ETR&D p. 68). In the STAR model “participants can leave legacies that help the next group that explores a particular topic” (Schwartz p. 189). GBS is structured more towards the individual and students learn through “repeated cycles of planning, doing and reflecting” (Collins, p. 31).

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My initial reaction to these learning theories is that they are a great way to motivate students!  I love how GBS, Anchored Instruction and STAR modules focus on real world issues so that students are invested in finding a solution. While reading each module I also felt that creating the videos or scenarios would take a lot of planning and work to put together! I think this would be a huge barrier to using this in my school. Teachers simply do not have enough time to create such elaborate models. I appreciate the time and details that Vanderbilt put into creating the Jasper videos! I enjoyed reading about the different “problems” that were presented and could just imagine students getting excited to tackle the details and find a solution. I love that the Anchored Instruction videos are set up to be solved, yet they could also be tweaked by asking “what if” questions to gain that deeper understanding. The GBS scenarios reminded me of the super old game I played in middle school, Oregon Trails or of the books you can read and choose the next step by turning to a certain page. Students are faced with a problem and they have choices along the way that affect their path. Again, I love that this model is developed around a set of skills yet designed based on the interest of students through a “real life” issue. In the GBS module students are empowered by the role they are assigned and have to use the resources provided to make the most intuitive decisions to help the situation at hand. 

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I would use all of these models with the elementary aged students I work with. I think that all students would benefit from being engaged and motivated to think critically in these learn by doing models. The models would have to be modified to fit the interests of this age group and the resources would need to be age appropriate. I feel that students would be very excited to work on “real world” challenges and agree with the models that students should learn life long problem solving skills.  I like the idea of using the MOST model to help at risk students and agree that students benefit from learning to “become effective at listening comprehension” (Bransford, p. 243). 

What web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?

Since GBS, Anchored Instruction and STAR models have students research information and use specific media, social bookmarking services would come in handy to keep information organized and easily accessible to use and share. Examples:

• Delicious http://www.delicious.com/
• DZone http://www.dzone.com/links/index.html and
• Clipboard https://clipboard.com/  

The MOST model is based on visual elements and visual information. The model calls for students to produce books and or presentations to provide “an additional means for seeding connections among home, family, and community” (Bransford, p. 247). A few Web 2.0 tools students could use to create books or presentations to share with their parents are:

• Zooburst http://www.zooburst.com/: a digital storytelling tool that students can create and share in 3D popup book style.
• Storybird http://storybird.com/ is another way to create simple digital books.
• Glogster http://www.glogster.com/ is a visual tool where students could add photos, video and text.

UNIT II. GROUP-BASED COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTION AND MULTIMEDIA

All of the articles read for group based collaborative learning had the same theme of students working together for a common goal. I love the idea of students working together to solve problems as the different learning designs presented for this unit. Students working together and using critical thinking skills are skills we all need in the “real world” therefore it is great that there are different ways of presenting materials so students can experience this. All four designs focused on collaboration, higher order thinking, discussion, evaluation, feedback, and a product.  I like that the cooperative learning designs are based on working together to solve problems that are beyond a typical textbook. Although it is more work for the instructor, students will gain a lot more social skills as well as content knowledge using any of these designs. Another similarity of the designs was the focus to use real or authentic problems for students to solve. I think connecting learning to real world experiences promotes student engagement and gives students a sense of reason to learn. Educators should strive to help students relate to topics/content so they have a sense of purpose for learning. Instructor involvement is a key factor in all of the cooperative learning designs. The instructor provides feedback, guidance, support, coaching and mentoring through the collaborative learning process. The instructor steps away from being the key speaker in the classroom, yet hovers close enough to guide students when they need it. I feel that this type of learning helps students become more independent learners as well as strengthens social skills needed for their future in the work place.

Where I found that the designs were very similar based on the collaborative aspects, I also found differences within the different designs. Where the instructor is key to all of these designs and is present throughout the activity, they play a slightly different roll for each design. In the guided design process, the instructor presents the “challenge”, sets up the groups and becomes mediator within the groups listening in, providing feedback and encouragement to all members as needed.  I could see where this could be very difficult with a very large class, especially working with an on-line course because the instructor must keep up with all discussions and provide input and probing questions when necessary.  I feel that this type of collaborative design would work well in elementary or secondary classrooms where there are not high numbers of students and the teacher could float around to the different groups as they discussed the situation and provide the encouragement and assessment of understanding in the moment.

In the cooperative learning design, the instructor is dividing the duties among the group members therefore they have more flexibility to move in and out of the groups checking to see if groups are on task or in need of guidance.  I can see how students would gain a good understanding of the content from this design since they are posed with a question or situation and then left to work together to figure it out. One of the problems I could see arising from using this model with elementary students is having them come to a consensus on an answer. Even though students know they are working for a common goal, the grouping of students sometimes tends to create issues when there are too many strong leaders in the group. I feel that it would take a lot of coaching from the instructor to get the students use to sticking to their assigned roles in the group and understanding that they must all perform well therefore they must help one another do their share and not allow one or two members take over.

In the problem based learning design the instructor is key to being a model of the higher-order thinking skills and strategies. Again, the instructor gets the groups setup for their challenge and then hovers to probe students on their understanding without giving away the their thoughts or leading students towards the thought that there is a “right way”. It is possible to use PBL in elementary and above classrooms incorporating technology through web quests. I starting using PBL in the classroom several years ago and have found it to be a great way to promote collaboration and Internet based research in the classroom. Student’s love that they are presented a challenge or mission and asked to work together using predetermined informative websites. After being presented the problem, students are assigned a job within their group and they all come together to combine information in a product. I agree with the research that this type of learning increases student motivation and interest in the given subject because they are faced with an authentic situation.

In the final designs presented, cognitive apprenticeship and situated learning, the instructor becomes more of a coach and mentor. The instructor guides the student, or as the articles refer to them, apprentices through the correct and or necessary steps to successfully complete the task. In these final designs, the instructor does more of the teaching through modeling and breaks down the content by scaffolding until they can fade out and allow the student to perform on their own. Different from the other designs, the situated leaning and cognitive apprenticeship designs depend more on the instructor to model the thinking process until they feel they can fade out whereas all the other designs the students are encouraged to use critical thinking and cooperative learning to figure out the problem. I can see using situated learning more for math skills as presented in the articles due to the nature of working out problems and sharing the thinking process with group members to find different ways to solve the problem. The cognitive apprenticeship design had the least features of cooperative learning from all the other designs. This design focuses more on the instructor presenting, modeling and coaching the “apprentice” in the skills and understanding needed for the job at hand. I could see elementary teachers using screen-recording software such as the Smart recorder from the Smart products to record themselves working out math problems or working through the writing process then posting it for students to view and practice from.

All of the cooperative learning designs promote life long skills of critical thinking, collaborative learning as well as listening and speaking skills. I feel that any of the designed could be adapted to fit any age level as well as elementary aged students. As mentioned, I have used PBL several times with students from first grade up and the students stay engaged due to the “real” feel of their challenge or mission presented. One of the skills I feel was not addressed enough as I was going through school was speaking. Too many teachers today still feel the need to stand in the spotlight and lecture to students instead of coaching, mentoring, guiding and facilitating as these designs suggest.  I think if we start students out young, working together in the type of cooperative groups presented in these different designs and allow them the opportunity to share what they have learned, they will be more confident speakers as they get older and be more productive and better innovators in the work force. 

Tools for Collaborative Instruction:

Survey monkey http://www.surveymonkey.com/ could be used to create surveys for the end of the collaborative learning module. This tool could give the instructor feedback on what worked well and what could be adjusted. This could also work as a way for students to rate their peers on their contributions to the project.

Our school has a subscription to Gaggle: Student safe email and within this product students can create and share word processing, presentation and spreadsheets. Gaggle is nice for younger students because it provides a constant filter where students are not allowed to post or share inappropriate words or images. Gaggle’s share feature is the same as Google Docs where students can share files and work on them simultaneously. I had my fourth graders use the share feature when working on a collaborative presentation on NC lighthouses last year. It was nice to have everyone assigned to a certain slide and they could work on their portion as well as look in and edit other slides as needed.

Voicethread is one of my favorite tools! I love how versatile it is as well as the ease of use. I think Voicethread could be used as a collaborate tool in many areas of this module. It could be used at the end of the project to share and reflect on contributions and learning or it could be used as a resource tool within the learning module since multiple posts can be made.

UNIT I. INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION AND MULTIMEDIA

 ECI 517--Fall 2012

Unit 1: Personal System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio Tutorial Method

When looking at Personal System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio Tutorial Method (AT) they are both models that are moving towards less time spent in class with lecture based instruction and providing more flexibility for the students to learn at ones own pace with guided instruction in and out of the classroom setting. Both models provide a balance of independent learning and instructor presence. I feel that these models allow for instructors to meet with a greater number of students due to the minimal face-to-face time. They also require students to take more responsibility for their own learning. Given this characteristic, I think the PSI and AT models would work best with older students. I could see using both the PSI and AT models with elementary school aged students in the gifted program. These students are usually the students who are being "held captive" in the classroom as other students work or struggle to understand the material. I feel that either model could be an option for these students, if the teacher felt they were mature and responsible enough to handle managing their own learning time. The studies show that several key factors are necessary for the success of these models however; motivation is one of the leading factors. Students in college are typically enrolled for the purpose of learning, therefore would have the motivation of sticking to the course and navigating through the sessions. I think that the AT model is great for even the older college students because it allows them the time to come back together and express what they have learned with the group. This would especially be beneficial for those students who are struggling or unsure about moving through the course. I like that students have both models provide a way for students to meet with the instructor when needed. Another similarity with the models is a clear progression through the course even though students may progress at their own pace. The PSI model allows students to continue through the course as they demonstrate 100% mastery at each unit or section and the AT model allows students to meet with the instructor to quiz on the unit. With the AT model students must be prepared to give an account of the subject as they discuss the material in the scheduled group meetings. I feel that students are held more accountable with the AT model in that they must be prepared to present their knowledge on the topic with the scheduled group and instructor. The PSI model gives the student more freedom to breeze through the course at their own pace. I see that students using the PSI model must be dedicated to learning the material or they could simply cut corners to make it to the end. As a returning student myself, I appreciate both the PSI and AT models because I'm the type of person who appreciates being able to learn at my own pace and on my own schedule. I would be interested in seeing either model attempted at the elementary level where I work. 

My initial reaction to both the PSI and AT models is that they remind me of early models of distance education courses. In the PSI and AT models an instructor or proctor is available for students on campus the same as DE instructors are available through email or other Internet modules.  I can see where both models could be used in high school and higher education but find it hard to grasp for younger grades. I could see where the AT model could possibly be used in lower grades as teachers already setup “centers” for students to move through to practice specific skills. The AT model could also be beneficial in elementary and middle school if students were not confined to “grades” set by their specific ages. Teachers could serve more than just one class and students could move through the subjects at their own pace. The problem I see with this idea is the lack of maturity elementary/middle school students posses and the question would be arise if they could be responsible for their own progress through the content. On the flip side, students could actually learn more than what is “required” given the freedom to progress through the material at their own pace.  I can see using the AT model with my elementary students as a way to differentiate instruction for students who get bored in class and want to move forward without having to wait on the majority of the class. As I mentioned, elementary students are use to practicing skills they have been taught in centers and the AT model would follow the same format as instruct, independent practice, report, assess and either repeat or advance. I could see the PSI model working with my elementary students and possibly using our intervention teachers as the proctors for the classroom teachers. I could even see web-based PSI working for my elementary students if one-to-one were in place so that students wouldn’t have to depend on the one technology lab at the school. Either model would take major rethinking of instruction and guidance.

Voicethread http://voicethread.com/ is a web-based tool that teachers and students could use to carry out the PSI or AT model. Teachers could use Voicethread to present information and instruction to students through video and students could respond through the same tool. Teachers could use Voicethread as one way to assess student’s knowledge on each unit or section before moving to the next.