This week, I learned that the essence of a Webquest is to provide the learners with the means to complete given tasks.
I feel that it is very important to understand what Webquest exactly is (especially when we are required to design a Webquest), so I shall try my best to convey what I have gathered thus far from the lecture. Webquest does not follow the concept of a spoon-fed procedure which detailedly lists out all the steps to the completion of tasks, neither is it a form of web-based lesson. It is more like a instruction that is also equipped with resources and support to help learners to complete given tasks. As learners complete each step of a task, a good Webquest designer may want to consolidate that step first (i.e. refreshing relevant concepts) before proceeding to the next.
All in all, I think that Webquest definitely has potential as an effective instructional tool in the future. This is because we are living in the information Age and the Webquest has the capability to gather information efficiently for its users. Webquest also supports the learning theory of Socioculturalism, which employs resources and support for the given tasks (in line with Oliver and Herrington's structure of learning design). Moreover, Socioculturalism is something that I have identified in Week 2, Assignment 2's blog entry as a "universal" learning theory (it can be applied to most problems, regardless of its effectiveness), hence Webquest is indeed an instructional tool that has wide-ranging applications and high potential for further development and use.
However, Webquest still has a long way to go before its use can be widely applied. There are still instances where classroom lessons are more effective than e-learning. For example, a cooking class, where all the human's five senses can be made use of (i.e. to smell food, to taste food, and to feel the temperature and texture of food). Currently, a computer multimedia plaform can only overcome a couple of barriers to senses, namely sight and hearing. Perhaps as we continue to discover the potential of e-learning, we should first blend it with classroom lesson before venturing into a pure e-learning class.
I am glad that through the Webquest project, I have value-added myself IT-wise. I seem to have become more IT-savvy (wow never will I attach this term to myself because I'm very much still at the era of MS Word and paint program, if you get what I mean) because I can now execute more IT applications such as the exe program and Zoho programs, all thanks to this project.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Week 9
This week's learning objectives require us to 1) state the definition of "problem-solving", 2) recall the process of "problem-solving", 3) state the definition of "affective learning" and 4) recall the instructional events for "affective learning".
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
Similar to Week 7 and Week 8 (last week), this week's materials are linked to Week 6's. Remember Week 6's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, "problem-solving" is an outcome of learning under both Bloom's taxonomy and Gagne's Cognitive Strategies (problem-solving). "Affective learning", however, is an outcome of learning in both the Cognitive (Gagne's Attitudes) and Affective (Krathwohl's taxonomy) domains.
At this point, it may be important to note that Jonassen does not see "problem-solving" as an outcome of learning (like Gagne). To approach "problem-solving", the problem type should be first identified (refer to Jonassen's Taxonomy of Problems), followed by task analysis (i.e. three-face model) and finally derive solution(s) accordingly. In other words, "problem-solving" should adopt a case-by-case basis approach (instead of a general approach like Gagne's?).
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "problem-solving"?
Reflections
I would like to pen down my thoughts for the lecture's Activity 1. The question is, "Bullet your experiences in thinking about your Webquest project".
Basically, our Webquest is to teach taxi drivers (now, taxi companies' executives) to create a flier in a bid to help the Singapore Tourism Board promote tourism, especially the less popular places of interest in Singapore. Hence, the task of our Webquest is a Compilation Task (based on an informative weblink provided in Week 10's lecture).
Since Week 7 when we started learning about developing instructional strategies for different outcomes of learning, we are constantly reminded to assimilate Oliver and Herrington's structure of learning design. Hence, this is the approach we adopted when we were designing our Webquest, especially the Process section of the Webquest.
For each step (Task, the square) in the Process section of our Webquest that guides our target audience towards creating a promotional flier, we always think of the various web applications, programs and tools (Resources, the triangle) that our target audience can use in order to help them complete that particular step while using our exe program (Support, the circle) to do the Webquest.
The learning theory that our Webquest predominantly applied is Cognitivism (some of Socioculturalism too). The reason coincides with my blog entry in Week 2, Assignment 2 - depending on the complexity of the problem, we apply different learning theories. I do not see our Compilation Task as a problem that is too simple (Behaviorism approach) or too complex (Socioculturalism approach), hence we applied Cognitivism. Our task merely requires learners to source for information that are relevant to the promotional flier and thereafter we guide them to put those information in a ready-made flier template.
We do not intend to shape the learners into choosing information that we want for the flier, instead we want them to think and choose relevant information for the flier by themselves. Hence, a Behaviorism approach is definitely insufficient (since the learners need to be active thinkers).
The Compilation Task is not so complex that the teachers have to actively and constantly interact with the learners, hence a Socioculturalism approach might be too much. However, we do use this approach as well, just that we keep it at the level of web resources instead of active teacher-learner interaction. Thus we say that our Webquest predominantly used the Cognitivism approach, with some Socioculturalism approach. The learners follow the instruction in the Process section of the Webquest to guide them how to think (using examples and web resources) and therefore make relevant choices for the promotional flier and eventually, creating it.
Due to the above reasons, making our Webquest an individual task is ideal. If teamwork is involved, efficiency could be jeopardized due to the need to assimilate various opinions from different people. Although it can be argued that teamwork might increase the effectiveness of a task since people can learn from one another, we trust that our Webquest instruction is effective enough to guide individuals to think reasonably well. :)
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
Similar to Week 7 and Week 8 (last week), this week's materials are linked to Week 6's. Remember Week 6's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, "problem-solving" is an outcome of learning under both Bloom's taxonomy and Gagne's Cognitive Strategies (problem-solving). "Affective learning", however, is an outcome of learning in both the Cognitive (Gagne's Attitudes) and Affective (Krathwohl's taxonomy) domains.
At this point, it may be important to note that Jonassen does not see "problem-solving" as an outcome of learning (like Gagne). To approach "problem-solving", the problem type should be first identified (refer to Jonassen's Taxonomy of Problems), followed by task analysis (i.e. three-face model) and finally derive solution(s) accordingly. In other words, "problem-solving" should adopt a case-by-case basis approach (instead of a general approach like Gagne's?).
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "problem-solving"?
- characteristics of a "problem":
- degree of structure (a continuum from "well-structured" to "ill-structured")
- level of complexity (a continuum from simple to complex)
- degree of abstractness (a continuum from general to abstract - i.e.fine arts; skill(s) involved in solving the problem
- use previously acquired skills and knowledge in a unique way to solve unfamiliar problems
- problem representation (problem identification, analysis, synthesis/ reorganization)
- solution planning and solution evaluation (idea generation, ieda evaluation)
- solution implementation and solution evaluation (implemetation planning, solution appraisal)
- other instructional strategies:
- socratic dialogue
- expert systems
- simulations
- microworlds
- problem-based learning
- develop an attitude - desirable educational goals
- difference between attitude and motivation - the latter is like a subset of the former; the former is an outcome of learning (more general), whereas the latter is more specific (i.e. during instruction, educators try to improve learners' motivation to learn)
- three components to attitude learning:
- knowing why
- knowing how
- practicing the behavior
- three key instructional conditions for attitude learning:
- demonstration of desired behavior by a respected role model
- allow practice of the desired behavior
- provide reinforcement for the desired behavior
- other key instructional conditions include persuasive communications, creation of inner conflict and group discussions
Reflections
I would like to pen down my thoughts for the lecture's Activity 1. The question is, "Bullet your experiences in thinking about your Webquest project".
Basically, our Webquest is to teach taxi drivers (now, taxi companies' executives) to create a flier in a bid to help the Singapore Tourism Board promote tourism, especially the less popular places of interest in Singapore. Hence, the task of our Webquest is a Compilation Task (based on an informative weblink provided in Week 10's lecture).
Since Week 7 when we started learning about developing instructional strategies for different outcomes of learning, we are constantly reminded to assimilate Oliver and Herrington's structure of learning design. Hence, this is the approach we adopted when we were designing our Webquest, especially the Process section of the Webquest.
For each step (Task, the square) in the Process section of our Webquest that guides our target audience towards creating a promotional flier, we always think of the various web applications, programs and tools (Resources, the triangle) that our target audience can use in order to help them complete that particular step while using our exe program (Support, the circle) to do the Webquest.
The learning theory that our Webquest predominantly applied is Cognitivism (some of Socioculturalism too). The reason coincides with my blog entry in Week 2, Assignment 2 - depending on the complexity of the problem, we apply different learning theories. I do not see our Compilation Task as a problem that is too simple (Behaviorism approach) or too complex (Socioculturalism approach), hence we applied Cognitivism. Our task merely requires learners to source for information that are relevant to the promotional flier and thereafter we guide them to put those information in a ready-made flier template.
We do not intend to shape the learners into choosing information that we want for the flier, instead we want them to think and choose relevant information for the flier by themselves. Hence, a Behaviorism approach is definitely insufficient (since the learners need to be active thinkers).
The Compilation Task is not so complex that the teachers have to actively and constantly interact with the learners, hence a Socioculturalism approach might be too much. However, we do use this approach as well, just that we keep it at the level of web resources instead of active teacher-learner interaction. Thus we say that our Webquest predominantly used the Cognitivism approach, with some Socioculturalism approach. The learners follow the instruction in the Process section of the Webquest to guide them how to think (using examples and web resources) and therefore make relevant choices for the promotional flier and eventually, creating it.
Due to the above reasons, making our Webquest an individual task is ideal. If teamwork is involved, efficiency could be jeopardized due to the need to assimilate various opinions from different people. Although it can be argued that teamwork might increase the effectiveness of a task since people can learn from one another, we trust that our Webquest instruction is effective enough to guide individuals to think reasonably well. :)
Monday, April 6, 2009
Week 8
This week's learning objectives require us to know/ explain 1) what is a "procedure" and 2) what is a "principle", followed by designing E-learning instruction/ developing instructional strategies for 3) learning "procedures" and 4) learning "principles".
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
Similar to last week, this week's materials are linked to Week 6's. Remember Week 6's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, under Intellectual Skills, both "procedures" (rules) and "principles" (higher-order rules) are two possible outcomes of learning based on Gagne's version.
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "procedure" (rule)?
What is "principle" (higher-order rule)?
There is an interesting activity given in the lecture notes. Given that practice and feedback are the two hardest instructional strategies in an E-learning environment, we are told to brainstorm some possible solutions.
In my opinion, asking the student to practise something (procedure/ rule or principle) using different scenarios and situations could be an effective solution. For example, if we were to teach a student to do manual-driving (involves steps like using the clutch, finding the biting point, changing of gear... etc.), we can put him through different road conditions. After going through the same procedure/ rule of manual-driving in different contexts, I would say the student has practised his stuff well.
In an E-learning environment, we can simulate different scenarios and situations for the student. A good example from the lecture is the simulation of a boat on the river. Students can be repeatedly exposed to the same Archimedes' principle by changing the boat's dimensions and observing the results. I think students will get a better idea of the principle via such practice.
From reading other students' blogs, I realised a couple of them is discussing about whether practice or feedback is the hardest instructional strategy in an E-learning environment. I agree with them that practice is actually the hardest. A E-learning designer will have to crack his brains to develop creative and interesting lessons so that students can effectively practise what is to be learned. If the practice session cannot capture the students' interest and involvement, it can be deemed as a failure or defeating its original purpose.
In comparison, coming out with feedback seems easier. A E-learning designer can simply refer students to model answers, as demonstrated by Week 7 lecture's "sample lessons for commuters" (places not to flag taxis) authored in exeXHTML. Within the program, the example is located in Lesson Preview > Reflection > Click here. Alternatively, the designer can develop the E-learning system such that it analyses and interprets students' answers (adaptive feedback). An example will be the system employed for the weekly assessment of this course. If the designer prefers something less rigid and more flexible, he can always set up an external feedback system (i.e. forum, e-tutor, digital materials).
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
Similar to last week, this week's materials are linked to Week 6's. Remember Week 6's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, under Intellectual Skills, both "procedures" (rules) and "principles" (higher-order rules) are two possible outcomes of learning based on Gagne's version.
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "procedure" (rule)?
- knowing how
- a sequence of actions
- an algorithm
- mental process and/ or physical skill (activities)
- involve decision points (for complex procedures)
- involve automaticity, an unconscious skill
- note that the difference between procedure (rule) and fact is that the former involves execution (Intellectual Skill) while the latter involves stating (Verbal Information)
- state when to use procedure (appropriate and inappropriate situations to use)
- state the steps of the procedure (involve sequencing and decision points)
- demonstrate the steps by showing:
- worked examples
- whole-to-parts
- parts-to-whole
- student to practise by:
- listing the steps
- executing the steps
- receiving feedback (from teacher)
What is "principle" (higher-order rule)?
- knowing why
- the relationships among two or more concepts
- combinations of rules (procedures), concepts and often facts
- relational rules (procedures) among concepts, expressed using:
- "if-then" statements
- "cause-effect" statements
- state the principle
- state when the principle applies
- present variables/ factors through illustrations and explanations
- make the connections between contexts/ conditions (if-then) through practice and feedback
There is an interesting activity given in the lecture notes. Given that practice and feedback are the two hardest instructional strategies in an E-learning environment, we are told to brainstorm some possible solutions.
In my opinion, asking the student to practise something (procedure/ rule or principle) using different scenarios and situations could be an effective solution. For example, if we were to teach a student to do manual-driving (involves steps like using the clutch, finding the biting point, changing of gear... etc.), we can put him through different road conditions. After going through the same procedure/ rule of manual-driving in different contexts, I would say the student has practised his stuff well.
In an E-learning environment, we can simulate different scenarios and situations for the student. A good example from the lecture is the simulation of a boat on the river. Students can be repeatedly exposed to the same Archimedes' principle by changing the boat's dimensions and observing the results. I think students will get a better idea of the principle via such practice.
From reading other students' blogs, I realised a couple of them is discussing about whether practice or feedback is the hardest instructional strategy in an E-learning environment. I agree with them that practice is actually the hardest. A E-learning designer will have to crack his brains to develop creative and interesting lessons so that students can effectively practise what is to be learned. If the practice session cannot capture the students' interest and involvement, it can be deemed as a failure or defeating its original purpose.
In comparison, coming out with feedback seems easier. A E-learning designer can simply refer students to model answers, as demonstrated by Week 7 lecture's "sample lessons for commuters" (places not to flag taxis) authored in exeXHTML. Within the program, the example is located in Lesson Preview > Reflection > Click here. Alternatively, the designer can develop the E-learning system such that it analyses and interprets students' answers (adaptive feedback). An example will be the system employed for the weekly assessment of this course. If the designer prefers something less rigid and more flexible, he can always set up an external feedback system (i.e. forum, e-tutor, digital materials).
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Week 7
In a nutshell, this week we need to know what is "fact" and "concept", then distinguish between the two. Thereafter, we need to design E-learning instruction (develop instructional strategies) for each of the two... well, concepts.
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
This week's material is actually linked to last week's. Remember last week's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, both "fact" and "concept" are two possible outcomes of learning based on Gagne's version ("fact" is a form of Verbal Information/ Declarative Knowledge, whereas "concept" is a form of Intellectual Skill). A possible reason for not using Bloom's taxonomy is because his outcomes of learning have more to do with writing objectives, which are not mapped to instructional strategies (Gagne's have more to do with learning categories, which are mapped onto instructional strategies).
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "fact"?
Using the familiar ADDIE (processes of Learning Design), we are at Design, Evaluation and Development. We are also at the Planning stage of E-learning process.
This week's material is actually linked to last week's. Remember last week's "Domains of learning"? In the Cognitive domain, both "fact" and "concept" are two possible outcomes of learning based on Gagne's version ("fact" is a form of Verbal Information/ Declarative Knowledge, whereas "concept" is a form of Intellectual Skill). A possible reason for not using Bloom's taxonomy is because his outcomes of learning have more to do with writing objectives, which are not mapped to instructional strategies (Gagne's have more to do with learning categories, which are mapped onto instructional strategies).
Below is a summary of what is learnt this week (Smith and Ragan's readings):
What is "fact"?
- knowing that...
- labels/ names
- facts/ lists
- organized discourse
- organization (organizing strategies) e.g. chunking
- association (linking strategies) e.g. mnemonic strategies
- elaboration (elaboration strategies) e.g. similar to mnemonic strategies, but more complex
- knowing the meaning of.../ knowing what... is
- objects
- symbols
- events
- best example/ definition
- critical attributes
- matched examples and non-examples
When there is a definition, it is a "concept". (e.g. city)
If not, it is a "fact". (e.g. Tokyo)
Note that "fact" is a form of Verbal Information/ Declarative Knowledge, whereas "concept" is a form of Intellectual Skill.
Reflections
There is an interesting question posted on fact-learning in the lecture notes, namely:
Should the instruction do the organization (of learning strategies), or should the learner find his own organization scheme?
In my opinion, I choose the former. This is because as a learner (of facts), I find it more effective. For example, I am given the task to learn the sequence of our nine planets (old version, with Pluto). If the teacher were to immediately reveal the trick* to organizing the information (mnemonic strategies) to me, I would learn it so much faster than having to develop my own set of mnemonic strategies. Developing mnemonic strategies can be a tedious process because one has to come up with a meaningful string of words that can be linked/ associated to the fact(s) in question. One has to draw from both his language and creative abilities in this case.
*by simply remembering a sentence, the sequence of the nine planets is out: My (Mercury) very (Venus) elderly (Earth) mother (Mars) just (Jupiter) showed (Saturn) us (Uranus) nine (Neptune) planets (Pluto).
If not, it is a "fact". (e.g. Tokyo)
Note that "fact" is a form of Verbal Information/ Declarative Knowledge, whereas "concept" is a form of Intellectual Skill.
Reflections
There is an interesting question posted on fact-learning in the lecture notes, namely:
Should the instruction do the organization (of learning strategies), or should the learner find his own organization scheme?
In my opinion, I choose the former. This is because as a learner (of facts), I find it more effective. For example, I am given the task to learn the sequence of our nine planets (old version, with Pluto). If the teacher were to immediately reveal the trick* to organizing the information (mnemonic strategies) to me, I would learn it so much faster than having to develop my own set of mnemonic strategies. Developing mnemonic strategies can be a tedious process because one has to come up with a meaningful string of words that can be linked/ associated to the fact(s) in question. One has to draw from both his language and creative abilities in this case.
*by simply remembering a sentence, the sequence of the nine planets is out: My (Mercury) very (Venus) elderly (Earth) mother (Mars) just (Jupiter) showed (Saturn) us (Uranus) nine (Neptune) planets (Pluto).
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Week 6
As usual, as a start, I'll attempt doing an overview of where we are at currently. Using ADDIE as processes of Learning Design, Week 6 can be said to cover on Evaluation and Design OR Evaluation and Analysis. Week 6 is also still at the Planning stage of E-learning process. To digress a little bit, the purpose of planning is to ensure that the use of technology in e-learning is padegogically informed.
All right, so what was learned in Week 6? Basically, it is an extension of both the Discrepancy Model and Innovation Model. In the case of the former, we learned how to write learning objectives that can narrow/ close the gap(s) between "the optimal" and "the actual". In the case of the latter, we learned how to write learning objectives of the new goals. After writing the learning objectives, we need to sort them/ present them as a Curricular Map (will explain this subsequently after explaining "Domains of Learning").
Writing learning objectives
I shall talk about the steps in going about writing learning objectives for the Discrepancy Model particularly (will explain why Innovation Model is left out in a minute). Since we have established that instruction is present for the Discrepancy Model, we can start with task listing (using the instruction that is already created, of course). In other words, we list the various tasks that a learner has to do in order to complete the activity successfully. E.g. To be a good taxi driver, there is a list of responsibilities to fulfil. The reason for leaving out the Innovation Model is due to the fact that instruction is not present, hence difficulty in doing task listing.
After doing task listing, identify tasks that are problematic (i.e. tasks that cannot be completed successfully). For each of these problematic tasks (i.e. practise safe-driving), write the individual learning objectives that will enable a learner to complete the task in question successfully (i.e. maintain a safe distance from other vehicles, brake early and gently...etc.). After that, delete duplications of learning objectives before sorting them/ presenting them as a Curricular Map.
Learning goals and learning objectives
I would like to highlight the difference between learning goals and learning objectives. The former can be loosely defined as "broad statements of design intent" which constitutes action verbs such as "know", "comprehend" and "understand". E.g. To know safe driving habits.
Learning objectives, however, are made up of sentences which constitute action verbs that are more specific such as "arrange", "label" and "recall". E.g. To state seven passenger pick-up spots correctly. Besides that, learning objectives can follow a guide of ABCD (a form of mnemonics strategies?), which stands for "Audience", "Behaviour", "Condition" and "Degree" respectively. E.g. Given videotaped presentations of patients responding to stressful stimuli (condition), the second year medical student (audience) can distinguish (behaviour) between those who exhibit normal responses, and those who display psychotic responses (degree). It is important to note that not all learning objectives need to follow the ABCD guide (i.e. a learning objective that contains A, B and C but not D).
Domains of learning
Before sorting learning objectives or presenting them as a Curricular Map, it is relevant to know about the Domains of Learning. Three kinds were learned during lecture, namely Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor. For each domain of learning, it is important to recognise that there are various levels of outcomes of learning.
Cognitive
This domain of learning has to do with knowing and thinking/ increasing learner's knowledge. E.g. solving a mathematical problem.
Bloom proposed six levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Knowledge", "Comprehension", "Application", "Analysis", "Synthesis" and "Evalution". To digress a little, learning does not necessarily need to proceed according to this ascending sequence.
Gagne proposed another view of outcomes of learning, including "Verbal Information (facts)" and "Intellectual Skills", amongst others. Under "Intellectual Skills", there are varying levels of outcomes of learning such as "Discriminations", "Concepts", "Rules (procedures)" and "Higher-Order Rules (principles). More details of these outcomes of learning are discussed in Week 7 and 8.
Affective
This domain of learning has to do with feelings and attitudes/ changing learner's attitudes. E.g. to be encouraged to do volunteery work, to appreciate classical music or to understand sculpture as a form of fine arts.
Krathwohl proposed five levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Receiving", "Responding", "Valuing", "Organisation" and "Characterisation". An example from the lecture is learning Falun Gong. When one is willing to hear about Falun Gong (Receiving), one then advances to trying it out (Responding), followed by justifying it as something good (Valuing), followed by developing a new personal meaning out of it (Organisation) and lastly, adopting a new way of life or outlook (Characterisation).
Psychomotor
This domain of learning has to do with doing things (associated with the body)/ building learner's physcial skills. E.g. learning to dance or swim.
Harrows proposed five levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Perception", "Set", "Guided Responses", "Mechanism" and "Complex Overt Response". An example from the lecture is learning to ride a bicycle. When one observes how others balance themselves and ride on their own bicycles (Perception), he is convinced to learn and starts to mount a bicycle (Set). He then finds himself a friend who is willing to help by holding and pushing him (Guided Responses). After that, he rides the bicycle without assistance, although he is still wobbly and sometimes his feet have to make contact with the ground in order to maintain balance (Mechanism). In the end, he can finally balance very well and ride the bicycle smoothly, even going as far as to be able to ride it with the front wheel up (Complex Overt Response).
Curricular map
Having understood Domains of Learning and the various levels/ outcomes of learning of each domain, we are well into the way of sorting learning objectives/ presenting them as a Curricular Map.
The key idea is to sort the learning objectives into different levels according to the outcomes of learning of each domain. An example is what we did in Activity 2 during the lecture, namely "rank the following performance objectives". Thereafter we establish the relationships between these learning objectives by using arrows to join them, e.g. subordinate (lower level than), coordinate (same level as) and superordinate (higher level than). At the same time, learning objectives are sorted into terminal objectives (pointed by arrowhead) and enabling objectives (where the arrow in question originated from). It is essential to avoid too many learning objectives at any one level.
The rationale of sorting learning objectives/ presenting them as a Curricular Map is to inform parties involved in the learning activity (trainers, learners, dominant coalition within an organisation... etc.) about what are going to be taught and the ways in going about them. In this way, a so-called "big picture" can be seen and parties involved can be kept focused on the learning activity.
It is important to note two things. Firstly, a trainer does not necessarily need to teach and fulfil the learning objectives from the bottom (subordinate/ enabling) of the Curricular Map first before advancing to those at the top (superordinate/ terminal). He is free to conduct the learning activity in any way which he deemed as appropriate. Secondly, the level of Prior Knowledge should be specified on the Curricular Map, by drawing a horizontal line across. This simply means that all learning objectives which fall below the line will not be taught by the trainer.
Ending off with a good tip
A good tip for sorting without the hassle of drawing and altering the Curricular Map on a paper is to make use of post-it notepads (courtesy of Alfred). Write one learning objective on each sticky sheet and sort the learning objectives on a big flat surface. A "flowing" Curricular Map is instantly formed, where you can easily change the arrangement of the learning objectives by adjusting the sticky sheets around. My group tried it for Assignment 3 and it was indeed effective! :)
All right, so what was learned in Week 6? Basically, it is an extension of both the Discrepancy Model and Innovation Model. In the case of the former, we learned how to write learning objectives that can narrow/ close the gap(s) between "the optimal" and "the actual". In the case of the latter, we learned how to write learning objectives of the new goals. After writing the learning objectives, we need to sort them/ present them as a Curricular Map (will explain this subsequently after explaining "Domains of Learning").
Writing learning objectives
I shall talk about the steps in going about writing learning objectives for the Discrepancy Model particularly (will explain why Innovation Model is left out in a minute). Since we have established that instruction is present for the Discrepancy Model, we can start with task listing (using the instruction that is already created, of course). In other words, we list the various tasks that a learner has to do in order to complete the activity successfully. E.g. To be a good taxi driver, there is a list of responsibilities to fulfil. The reason for leaving out the Innovation Model is due to the fact that instruction is not present, hence difficulty in doing task listing.
After doing task listing, identify tasks that are problematic (i.e. tasks that cannot be completed successfully). For each of these problematic tasks (i.e. practise safe-driving), write the individual learning objectives that will enable a learner to complete the task in question successfully (i.e. maintain a safe distance from other vehicles, brake early and gently...etc.). After that, delete duplications of learning objectives before sorting them/ presenting them as a Curricular Map.
Learning goals and learning objectives
I would like to highlight the difference between learning goals and learning objectives. The former can be loosely defined as "broad statements of design intent" which constitutes action verbs such as "know", "comprehend" and "understand". E.g. To know safe driving habits.
Learning objectives, however, are made up of sentences which constitute action verbs that are more specific such as "arrange", "label" and "recall". E.g. To state seven passenger pick-up spots correctly. Besides that, learning objectives can follow a guide of ABCD (a form of mnemonics strategies?), which stands for "Audience", "Behaviour", "Condition" and "Degree" respectively. E.g. Given videotaped presentations of patients responding to stressful stimuli (condition), the second year medical student (audience) can distinguish (behaviour) between those who exhibit normal responses, and those who display psychotic responses (degree). It is important to note that not all learning objectives need to follow the ABCD guide (i.e. a learning objective that contains A, B and C but not D).
Domains of learning
Before sorting learning objectives or presenting them as a Curricular Map, it is relevant to know about the Domains of Learning. Three kinds were learned during lecture, namely Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor. For each domain of learning, it is important to recognise that there are various levels of outcomes of learning.
Cognitive
This domain of learning has to do with knowing and thinking/ increasing learner's knowledge. E.g. solving a mathematical problem.
Bloom proposed six levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Knowledge", "Comprehension", "Application", "Analysis", "Synthesis" and "Evalution". To digress a little, learning does not necessarily need to proceed according to this ascending sequence.
Gagne proposed another view of outcomes of learning, including "Verbal Information (facts)" and "Intellectual Skills", amongst others. Under "Intellectual Skills", there are varying levels of outcomes of learning such as "Discriminations", "Concepts", "Rules (procedures)" and "Higher-Order Rules (principles). More details of these outcomes of learning are discussed in Week 7 and 8.
Affective
This domain of learning has to do with feelings and attitudes/ changing learner's attitudes. E.g. to be encouraged to do volunteery work, to appreciate classical music or to understand sculpture as a form of fine arts.
Krathwohl proposed five levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Receiving", "Responding", "Valuing", "Organisation" and "Characterisation". An example from the lecture is learning Falun Gong. When one is willing to hear about Falun Gong (Receiving), one then advances to trying it out (Responding), followed by justifying it as something good (Valuing), followed by developing a new personal meaning out of it (Organisation) and lastly, adopting a new way of life or outlook (Characterisation).
Psychomotor
This domain of learning has to do with doing things (associated with the body)/ building learner's physcial skills. E.g. learning to dance or swim.
Harrows proposed five levels of outcomes of learning, namely, in ascending order, "Perception", "Set", "Guided Responses", "Mechanism" and "Complex Overt Response". An example from the lecture is learning to ride a bicycle. When one observes how others balance themselves and ride on their own bicycles (Perception), he is convinced to learn and starts to mount a bicycle (Set). He then finds himself a friend who is willing to help by holding and pushing him (Guided Responses). After that, he rides the bicycle without assistance, although he is still wobbly and sometimes his feet have to make contact with the ground in order to maintain balance (Mechanism). In the end, he can finally balance very well and ride the bicycle smoothly, even going as far as to be able to ride it with the front wheel up (Complex Overt Response).
Curricular map
Having understood Domains of Learning and the various levels/ outcomes of learning of each domain, we are well into the way of sorting learning objectives/ presenting them as a Curricular Map.
The key idea is to sort the learning objectives into different levels according to the outcomes of learning of each domain. An example is what we did in Activity 2 during the lecture, namely "rank the following performance objectives". Thereafter we establish the relationships between these learning objectives by using arrows to join them, e.g. subordinate (lower level than), coordinate (same level as) and superordinate (higher level than). At the same time, learning objectives are sorted into terminal objectives (pointed by arrowhead) and enabling objectives (where the arrow in question originated from). It is essential to avoid too many learning objectives at any one level.
The rationale of sorting learning objectives/ presenting them as a Curricular Map is to inform parties involved in the learning activity (trainers, learners, dominant coalition within an organisation... etc.) about what are going to be taught and the ways in going about them. In this way, a so-called "big picture" can be seen and parties involved can be kept focused on the learning activity.
It is important to note two things. Firstly, a trainer does not necessarily need to teach and fulfil the learning objectives from the bottom (subordinate/ enabling) of the Curricular Map first before advancing to those at the top (superordinate/ terminal). He is free to conduct the learning activity in any way which he deemed as appropriate. Secondly, the level of Prior Knowledge should be specified on the Curricular Map, by drawing a horizontal line across. This simply means that all learning objectives which fall below the line will not be taught by the trainer.
Ending off with a good tip
A good tip for sorting without the hassle of drawing and altering the Curricular Map on a paper is to make use of post-it notepads (courtesy of Alfred). Write one learning objective on each sticky sheet and sort the learning objectives on a big flat surface. A "flowing" Curricular Map is instantly formed, where you can easily change the arrangement of the learning objectives by adjusting the sticky sheets around. My group tried it for Assignment 3 and it was indeed effective! :)
Week 5
Using ADDIE as processes of Learning Design, week 4 covered on Evaluation and Design, whereas this week covered on Evaluation and Analysis, particularly Needs Assessment.
Needs Assessment
The rationale of Needs Assessment, according to Smith and Ragan's reading, is "to determine that there actually is a need for new instruction to be developed". I interpret it as finding out the factors that will improve the learning context, if any. This is so that designers can prevent themselves from spending unnecessary time on factors that do not pose as a problem for the learning context.
An example of Needs Assessment comes from the lecture activity done by my group. We agreed on studying the learning context of the errant taxi drivers. In the end we established "ineffective learning" as the cause of errant taxi drivers, we thus determine "further instruction" as the solution/ needs under Needs Assessment.
Three conditions of learning context
According to the lecture and Smith and Ragan's reading, the way of going about Needs Assessment begins with determining the condition of the learning context. We learned three main types of conditions (which I'll explain in a minute), although there are many other conditions. Each condition follows an approach to Needs Assessment.
The first kind is the presence of a problem. E.g. errant taxi drivers. The second kind is the presence of new thing(s) to learn. E.g. new traffic rules. The third kind is the presence of a gap between "the optimal" and "the actual". E.g. Using the number of warning letters sent by a taxi company as the guide, "the optimal" is less than 20 within a month, but "the actual" is 40.
Problem Model
A condition with "the presence of a problem" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Problem Model. Firstly, determine if the cause of the problem stems from learning. An example of a problem that does not stem from learning was mentioned during lecture - the cause of cabin crew taking sick leave for short flights (problem) is not due to learning, but due to dissatisfaction with the low allowance given. Thus, if the cause of the problem does not stem from learning, proceed to developing other solutions. In other words, determine the other cause(s) of the problem (instead of learning) and develop solution(s) accordingly. If the cause of the problem stems from learning, proceed to the next step to determine if instruction for these learning goals is offered. If it isn't, proceed to Innovation Model. If it is, proceed to Discrepancy Model.
Innovation Model
A condition with "the presence of new thing(s) to learn" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Innovation Model. Firstly, determine the nature of the "new thing(s)". Secondly, determine the learning goals based on this previously determined nature. Learning goal, as learned in coming Week 6, can be defined as "broad statements of design intent". Thirdly, determine if these new learning goals are suitable and important in the learning context. If they are, proceed to the last step. The last step is to proceed to the next phase of the Learning Design, which I am actually unsure of what it means exactly. Is it something to do with what we learned Week 7 onwards?
Discrepancy Model
A condition with "the presence of a gap between 'the optimal' and 'the actual'" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Discrepancy Model. Firstly, list the (current) goals of the learning context/ "the optimal". Secondly, determine how well these goals are already being achieved/ "the actual". Thirdly, determine the gap(s) between "the optimal" and "the actual". Fourthly, prioritise the gap(s) according to agreed-upon criteria. Lastly, determine which gap(s) are instructional needs and which are most appropriate for design and development of instruction. In other words, determine whether the gap(s) can be narrowed/ closed by changing instruction or developing other solutions. An example of a need to develop other solutions, according to the Smith and Ragan's reading, is when students are performing badly in tests due to absenteeism and not learning (question: doesn't this bring us back to the first step of Problem Model?). More details of the steps in going about narrowing/ closing the gap(s) via changing instruction are discussed in Week 6.
Some reflections
Regarding the effectiveness of analysing the learning context (there are two steps in going about it, namely a) Needs Assessment and b) description of learning environment, where the latter is not covered in lecture but the Smith and Ragan reading), I think I'm pretty convinced by both the lecture and readings - analysis of the learning context is indeed necessary in order to come up with a good Learning Design. As how the idiom goes, "the first step is always the hardest". After going through such tedious chore of analysis, a designer can prevent himself from developing useless instruction that is not targeting at the learning goals at all, resulting in a waste of both learning resources and time. With analysis of the learning context, the designer ensures that he is coming up with a very focused and likely-to-be-useful Learning Design.
Needs Assessment
The rationale of Needs Assessment, according to Smith and Ragan's reading, is "to determine that there actually is a need for new instruction to be developed". I interpret it as finding out the factors that will improve the learning context, if any. This is so that designers can prevent themselves from spending unnecessary time on factors that do not pose as a problem for the learning context.
An example of Needs Assessment comes from the lecture activity done by my group. We agreed on studying the learning context of the errant taxi drivers. In the end we established "ineffective learning" as the cause of errant taxi drivers, we thus determine "further instruction" as the solution/ needs under Needs Assessment.
Three conditions of learning context
According to the lecture and Smith and Ragan's reading, the way of going about Needs Assessment begins with determining the condition of the learning context. We learned three main types of conditions (which I'll explain in a minute), although there are many other conditions. Each condition follows an approach to Needs Assessment.
The first kind is the presence of a problem. E.g. errant taxi drivers. The second kind is the presence of new thing(s) to learn. E.g. new traffic rules. The third kind is the presence of a gap between "the optimal" and "the actual". E.g. Using the number of warning letters sent by a taxi company as the guide, "the optimal" is less than 20 within a month, but "the actual" is 40.
Problem Model
A condition with "the presence of a problem" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Problem Model. Firstly, determine if the cause of the problem stems from learning. An example of a problem that does not stem from learning was mentioned during lecture - the cause of cabin crew taking sick leave for short flights (problem) is not due to learning, but due to dissatisfaction with the low allowance given. Thus, if the cause of the problem does not stem from learning, proceed to developing other solutions. In other words, determine the other cause(s) of the problem (instead of learning) and develop solution(s) accordingly. If the cause of the problem stems from learning, proceed to the next step to determine if instruction for these learning goals is offered. If it isn't, proceed to Innovation Model. If it is, proceed to Discrepancy Model.
Innovation Model
A condition with "the presence of new thing(s) to learn" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Innovation Model. Firstly, determine the nature of the "new thing(s)". Secondly, determine the learning goals based on this previously determined nature. Learning goal, as learned in coming Week 6, can be defined as "broad statements of design intent". Thirdly, determine if these new learning goals are suitable and important in the learning context. If they are, proceed to the last step. The last step is to proceed to the next phase of the Learning Design, which I am actually unsure of what it means exactly. Is it something to do with what we learned Week 7 onwards?
Discrepancy Model
A condition with "the presence of a gap between 'the optimal' and 'the actual'" follows the Needs Assessment approach known as Discrepancy Model. Firstly, list the (current) goals of the learning context/ "the optimal". Secondly, determine how well these goals are already being achieved/ "the actual". Thirdly, determine the gap(s) between "the optimal" and "the actual". Fourthly, prioritise the gap(s) according to agreed-upon criteria. Lastly, determine which gap(s) are instructional needs and which are most appropriate for design and development of instruction. In other words, determine whether the gap(s) can be narrowed/ closed by changing instruction or developing other solutions. An example of a need to develop other solutions, according to the Smith and Ragan's reading, is when students are performing badly in tests due to absenteeism and not learning (question: doesn't this bring us back to the first step of Problem Model?). More details of the steps in going about narrowing/ closing the gap(s) via changing instruction are discussed in Week 6.
Some reflections
Regarding the effectiveness of analysing the learning context (there are two steps in going about it, namely a) Needs Assessment and b) description of learning environment, where the latter is not covered in lecture but the Smith and Ragan reading), I think I'm pretty convinced by both the lecture and readings - analysis of the learning context is indeed necessary in order to come up with a good Learning Design. As how the idiom goes, "the first step is always the hardest". After going through such tedious chore of analysis, a designer can prevent himself from developing useless instruction that is not targeting at the learning goals at all, resulting in a waste of both learning resources and time. With analysis of the learning context, the designer ensures that he is coming up with a very focused and likely-to-be-useful Learning Design.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Week 4
Stuff We Learned
We learned about Learning (adjective) Design (noun) and Design (verb) Learning (noun). The former, based on my own interpretations, is a systematic approach to guide a learner to, well, learn. The latter is about coming up with the systematic approach. I believe the aforementioned "systematic approach" is the core of what we learned for the week.
So, what is this "systematic approach" - such that it can serve as a guide to educators to customize effective learning methods to suit their respective goals, by developing sequences of activities (tasks) that are incorporated with appropriate tools that facilitate learning (resources and support)? Based on what I understood, the "systematic approach" towards designing learning also involves what we learned in Week 2, namely the representation of learning theories (i.e. Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Socioculturalism). I will explain why designing learning involves representation of learning theories in a moment.
To design learning, the educator first looks at what his goal(s) is/are. For example, he wants to teach his student to make a cheesecake online (idea directly "stolen" from my group's lecture activity for the week). He then thinks up the tasks (also known as "mini activities" in the readings) that his student has to complete in order to achieve the goal. For example, his student has to buy ingredients, followed by preparing the ingredients, followed by baking the cake... yada yada. The student is of course not yet capable enough to complete all the tasks by himself at this stage. Thus the educator has to develop/ customise resources and support to help the student as much as possible, so that he learns. The key question lies here: How to develop/ customise the relevant resources and support to help the student complete the tasks? This is where the representation of learning theories from Week 2 comes into the picture.
Using the Octahedron (a form of representation of learning theories), the educator can map the characteristics of each of his tasks to the three axis of interpretation. Namely, individual/ social, reflection/ non-reflection and information/ experience. The first task of baking a cheesecake (to buy ingredients) can be mapped to individual, non-reflection and information on the Octahedron. With this knowledge in mind, the educator is in a better position to develop suitable resources and support for the particular task because he has understood the characteristics/ nature of the task better. For example, he can just create a website that lists down the ingredients needed for a cheesecake (including the exact amount for each) in order to help the student complete the first task, since "buying ingredients" is a fairly simple task that only requires an individual (characteristic of individual) to follow (characteristic of non-reflection) simple instructions (characteristic of information).
In summary, an educator can design learning by using the Octahedron as a pedagogical approach, so that he can be better informed about what resources and support to use for the various tasks (in helping the students to achieve the learning goals/ objectives). I do hope I'm on the right track!
More Reflections
There are different ways to mapping tasks of learning to the Octahedron. The three axis of interpretation is not the only way, although I personally favored that. Another way of mapping is to consider the six characteristics individually, instead of doing it in pairs. Hence, a task can actually consist of as many as five characteristics out of the six. This is not to say that the three axis of interpretation will definitely lead to three characteristics. Each axis of interpretation represents a continuum of two extreme characteristics, thus a task can consist of both characteristics if it falls in the middle of the continuum.
The purpose of mapping tasks of learning to the Octahedron has many uses, apart from the one I mentioned (to inform the educator of a pedagogical approach so he can apply suitable tools of learning). It can be used as a means of evaluation of Learning Design as well. If, upon evaluation, a task of learning maps very closely to the characteristic of individual (strong characteristic of individual), the educator may choose to improve his Learning Design by including more resources and support that involve social interaction. The student can perhaps complete the task more effectively with the aid and input of others, hence learning better.
Week 4 tells us that Learning Design depends heavily on representation of learning theories (i.e. Octahedron). However, I agree with the reading by Conole et al. that representation of learning theories is not all that reliable. Factors such as individual perspectives and cultural differences do affect the usability of representation of learning theories across all learning tasks. Two educators might come up with two totally different Learning Designs for the same task for the same student. Clearly only one of them has the better Learning Design. To view the same factors from another angle, we can also say that it is exactly the flexibility in the interpretation of learning tasks from various individual and cultural perspectives that grants the representation of learning theories its potential power for Learning Design. This is because its flexibility allows it to be applied to various contexts, hence it can actually be applied across many learning tasks. In conclusion, much research work is still needed to determine whether representation of learning theories is a strength or limitation. Making sense?
We learned about Learning (adjective) Design (noun) and Design (verb) Learning (noun). The former, based on my own interpretations, is a systematic approach to guide a learner to, well, learn. The latter is about coming up with the systematic approach. I believe the aforementioned "systematic approach" is the core of what we learned for the week.
So, what is this "systematic approach" - such that it can serve as a guide to educators to customize effective learning methods to suit their respective goals, by developing sequences of activities (tasks) that are incorporated with appropriate tools that facilitate learning (resources and support)? Based on what I understood, the "systematic approach" towards designing learning also involves what we learned in Week 2, namely the representation of learning theories (i.e. Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Socioculturalism). I will explain why designing learning involves representation of learning theories in a moment.
To design learning, the educator first looks at what his goal(s) is/are. For example, he wants to teach his student to make a cheesecake online (idea directly "stolen" from my group's lecture activity for the week). He then thinks up the tasks (also known as "mini activities" in the readings) that his student has to complete in order to achieve the goal. For example, his student has to buy ingredients, followed by preparing the ingredients, followed by baking the cake... yada yada. The student is of course not yet capable enough to complete all the tasks by himself at this stage. Thus the educator has to develop/ customise resources and support to help the student as much as possible, so that he learns. The key question lies here: How to develop/ customise the relevant resources and support to help the student complete the tasks? This is where the representation of learning theories from Week 2 comes into the picture.
Using the Octahedron (a form of representation of learning theories), the educator can map the characteristics of each of his tasks to the three axis of interpretation. Namely, individual/ social, reflection/ non-reflection and information/ experience. The first task of baking a cheesecake (to buy ingredients) can be mapped to individual, non-reflection and information on the Octahedron. With this knowledge in mind, the educator is in a better position to develop suitable resources and support for the particular task because he has understood the characteristics/ nature of the task better. For example, he can just create a website that lists down the ingredients needed for a cheesecake (including the exact amount for each) in order to help the student complete the first task, since "buying ingredients" is a fairly simple task that only requires an individual (characteristic of individual) to follow (characteristic of non-reflection) simple instructions (characteristic of information).
In summary, an educator can design learning by using the Octahedron as a pedagogical approach, so that he can be better informed about what resources and support to use for the various tasks (in helping the students to achieve the learning goals/ objectives). I do hope I'm on the right track!
More Reflections
There are different ways to mapping tasks of learning to the Octahedron. The three axis of interpretation is not the only way, although I personally favored that. Another way of mapping is to consider the six characteristics individually, instead of doing it in pairs. Hence, a task can actually consist of as many as five characteristics out of the six. This is not to say that the three axis of interpretation will definitely lead to three characteristics. Each axis of interpretation represents a continuum of two extreme characteristics, thus a task can consist of both characteristics if it falls in the middle of the continuum.
The purpose of mapping tasks of learning to the Octahedron has many uses, apart from the one I mentioned (to inform the educator of a pedagogical approach so he can apply suitable tools of learning). It can be used as a means of evaluation of Learning Design as well. If, upon evaluation, a task of learning maps very closely to the characteristic of individual (strong characteristic of individual), the educator may choose to improve his Learning Design by including more resources and support that involve social interaction. The student can perhaps complete the task more effectively with the aid and input of others, hence learning better.
Week 4 tells us that Learning Design depends heavily on representation of learning theories (i.e. Octahedron). However, I agree with the reading by Conole et al. that representation of learning theories is not all that reliable. Factors such as individual perspectives and cultural differences do affect the usability of representation of learning theories across all learning tasks. Two educators might come up with two totally different Learning Designs for the same task for the same student. Clearly only one of them has the better Learning Design. To view the same factors from another angle, we can also say that it is exactly the flexibility in the interpretation of learning tasks from various individual and cultural perspectives that grants the representation of learning theories its potential power for Learning Design. This is because its flexibility allows it to be applied to various contexts, hence it can actually be applied across many learning tasks. In conclusion, much research work is still needed to determine whether representation of learning theories is a strength or limitation. Making sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)