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. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment