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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)