Concept map: Network based learning
Click for full sized version
Add comment August 19th, 2007
'constructivism'
Thoughts on: Moving beyond instructional comfort zones with online courses (Oliver 2004)
Oliver, R. (2004). Moving beyond instructional comfort zones with online courses.. In R.Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 713-723). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/oliver-r.html
This is another one of those papers that I liked and got a fair bit from because it looks at teaching & learning from a practical perspective – examining some of the weaknesses of designing online courses based on traditional (read – directed/behaviourist) lecture/content-presentation approaches and offering concrete alternatives.
It breaks the design process up into three key areas:
- Appropriate description of course objectives
- Using course content more as a resource to support the development of capabilities
- Designing assessment that measures capabilities
Oliver advocates the “development of learning objectives which focus on performance and capabilities as intended learning outcomes” because these can “provide opportunities for problem and task based learning designs… that support higher order learning outcomes”
It begins with a quick look at instructional design:
“Instructional design is the process of planning and creating learning environments for students that will cause them to engage with the course content and resources in ways which facilitate learning”
It makes the point that:
“Whereas in conventional courses, much of the course planning centred around the activities of the teacher, contemporary views argue that what is more important in a learning setting is what learners are doing rather than what the teacher is doing (eg. Schuell, 1992) ”
In looking at the design of online courses, Oliver advocates:
“Group based activities and tasks providing contexts for learners to learn through the application of their knowledge”
and
“Assessments based on products and artefacts developed (by the learners) from the course materials and content”
In essence, this is about using the content as a resource while you are developing skills rather than learning the content in it’s own right. (Which raises the question, what if the content is in the form of how-to guides?).
It seems to me then that Education is about the design of good activities.
Oliver also makes the point that you have to get the learning outcomes right in the first place if you are to have any chance of building an online course that will succeed.
“Biggs (1999) argues the need for learning aims and learning objectives to be the starting point for effective learning design. The objectives typically indicate what the students will learn, to what extent it will be learned and by what means learning can be assessed”
“Mager argues the need for three elements in any meaningful learning objective: a statement of the terminal behaviour or performance sought; conditions under which this performance must be exhibited and the standard to which the performance should be performed“
(Oliver repeats this point another 3 times in different ways so it’s clearly something he feels strongly about :0) )
He reiterates:
“It is insufficient in the statement of course objectives to stop merely at descriptions of the scope and extent of knowledge gained. The specification needs to include some form of capability or performance and these elements are the critical components of the course objectives. Where knowledge is to be gained, the objectives need to indicate how that knowledge is to be used, under what conditions and by what means achievement can be assessed“
From here he moves on to assessment strategies.
“The assessment strategies that are associated with courses and units in higher education play prominent roles in influencing what students learn and the scope and extent of their learning”
(Presumably because students focus on the assessments to get a real sense of what is valued by the teacher and the institution in their course)
Multichoice tests/quizzes/examinations (and I would add, some games) are useful for measuring knowledge acquisition.
To measure “the student’s ability to apply the knowledge in more meaningful ways” however, you might consider “case studies and problem solutions, collaborative projects and portfolios“.
He moves on to a big chunk about useful assessment strategies which is worth quoting in full:
“Tasks used in performance and outcomes based assessment include essays, oral presentations, open ended problems, hands-on problems, real world simulations and other authentic tasks.
Such tasks are concerned more with problem solving and understanding than in measures of knowledge acquired and retained.
The essence of authentic and performance based assessment is that students produce evidence of accomplishment of curriculum goals. These assessments are characterised by meaningful and authentic problems and often involve students assuming responsibility for self evaluation.
Students involved in self evaluation are more interested in the criteria and substantive feedback than the grades achieved. The interest is piqued by the need for honesty in the application of the criteria for others (peer assessment) and to their own work as well as being able to defend options through evidence over subjective judgements. Self assessment holds students to higher standards because the criteria are clear and reasonable (Wiggins, 1992) ”
Oliver moves on to a general look at re-structuring courses for online delivery, emphasising the need to reshape course objectives and consider the desired outcomes.
“The strategy for re-engineering (eg. Collis, 1997) such courses is to take the course objectives and to re-express them in ways which give context, purpose and meaning to the knowledge”
“Outcomes based approaches require developers to determine what students will be able to do with the acquired skills and knowledge at the end of the course”
This is emphasised with a question that designers should ask themselves in this process -
“What are some examples of real life cases and instances that students should be able to deal with this information?”
Oliver acknowledges that some teachers might question the application of this problem based learning approach in their subject area if they feel it deals too much with “higher levels of formal reasoning” but finds a quote from Jonassen which puts this approach in the context of a continuum, allowing for different levels of use:
“Jonassen describes problems ranging from those where learners simply apply rules to effect a solution, through problems where learners model solutions on existing cases to higher level problems requiring strategic and logical thinking”
He then offers a set of guidelines for a structure to such an environment
- The learners can be cast with roles in a virtual workplace and where they are required to undertake some tasks and responsibilities;
- The learning setting can provide them with access to a variety of resources of an authentic nature which they can access to gather the information needed to carry out the tasks;
- The students can be supported by a variety of means including workplace mentors, collaborative teams comprised of peers and others;
- Assessment of learning can be based on the successful completion of the tasks and problems;
- Assessment can comprise elements of self assessment and peer assessment;
- The learning setting can be scaffolded in a number of ways to support learners as they develop the necessary skills and knowledge to complete the tasks being set and the support can be faded as the learners develop these skills;
- The setting can develop a raft of associated generic skills including capabilities to work in teams, to monitor their own progress etc; and
- The setting can assist learners in learning how to learn as they take responsibility for their own learning.
Add comment August 17th, 2007
Thoughts on: Theory into practice: How do we link (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry 1995)
Theory into Practice: How do we Link?
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy T. M. & Perry J. D. (1995). Theory into Practice: How do we Link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed), Instructional Technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited, pp 100-112.
This reading was as difficult and painful as the last one was enjoyable and enlightening.
While there are a handful of interesting ideas for actually applying the constructivist approach in a practical manner, it largely comes across as a blend of evangelising and lecturing.
Its language is convoluted and highly academic and rather than back up the ideas with analogies or examples, it just keeps plowing on in its own jargonistic way. The position that there can only be one approach and that attempting to cherry-pick the best ideas from a behaviourist/directed method and a constructivist one really wears after a while.
These are the points of interest that I garnered from the thing:
“Objectivism is a view of the nature of knowledge and what it means to know something. In this view, the mind is an instantiation of a computer, manipulating symbols in the same way (or analogously, at least) as a computer”
“Knowledge, therefore, is some entity existing independent of the mind of individuals and is transferred “inside”… thus this school of thought believes that the external world is mind independent (i.e., the same for everyone) and we can say things about it that are objectively, absolutely and unconditionally true or false.”
“Consistent with this view of knowledge, the goal of instruction, from both the behavioural and cognitive information processing perspectives, is to communicate or transfer knowledge to learners in the most efficient, effective manner possible… thus the transfer of knowledge is most efficient if the excess baggage of irrelevant content and context can be eliminated” This strikes me as putting words into the mouths of the behaviourists and cognitivists
“Behaviourist applications will focus on the design of learning environments that optimise knowledge transfer, while cognitive information processing stresses efficient processing strategies” I would have assumed that part of efficient processing would be helping learners to connect new info with prior knowledge and experiences
“Learning is a constructive process in which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge, a personal interpretation of experience. Consistent with this view of knowledge, learning must be situated in a rich context, reflective of real world contexts, for this constructive process to occur and transfer to environments beyond the school or training classroom. Learning through cognitive apprenticeship, reflecting the collaboration of real world problem solving and using the tools available in problem solving situations are key.”
“The constructivist view is different. Since the learner must construct an understanding or viewpoint, the content cannot be pre-specified. Indeed, while a core knowledge domain may be specified, the student is encouraged to search for other relevant knowledge domains that may be relevant to the issue”
“The constructivist view turns toward a consideration of what real people in a particular knowledge domain and real life typically do” This I have some trouble with – imagine someone turning up for their first day of work in a new job – the boss explains to them step by step how certain things are done, there is no “figure it out for yourself in your own time, just remember that we are a cafe/hairdresser/etc and you can find information on Google”. (I know this is an oversimplification)
“The most important goal is to portray tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve a task”
“Constructivists do not have learning and performance objectives that are internal to the content domain (e.g., apply the principle) but rather we search for authentic tasks and let the more specific objectives emerge and be realised as they are appropriate to the individual learner in solving the real world task”
“What is central, in our view, is the development of learning environments that encourage construction of understanding from multiple perspectives. “Effective” sequencing of the information or rigorous external control of instructional events simply precludes that constructive activity”
“For example, it is inappropriate to control or focus the attention of the learner in a manner distinct from a real-world context”
“An essential concept in the constructivist view is that the information cannot be remembered as independent, abstract entities” This strikes me as overly absolutist
“We believe… that the learning of content must be embedded in the use of that content”
“The constructivist view emphasises that students should learn to construct multiple perspectives on an issue”
“A central strategy for achieving these perspectives is to create a collaborative learning environment. Note that while cooperative learning has a long history, the focus in that literature has been on the behavioural principles of learning that can be realised in the group environment. We wish to emphasise instead the use of collaboration to develop and share alternative views”
“With a constructive view of knowledge, the goal is to improve the ability to use the content domain in authentic tasks (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989a). Instruction is the act of providing students with these tasks and providing them with the tools needed to develop the skills of constructing an informed response and for evaluating alternative responses.”
“One possible type of student evaluation activity would ask learners to address a problem in the field of content and then defend their decisions. Another might ask the learners to reflect on their own learning and document the process through which they have constructed their view of the content… Two elements seem to be important: that the perspectives that students develop in the content area are effective in working in that area and that the students can defend their judgments
The second element, the ability to explain and defend decisions, is related to the development of metacognitive skills, thinking about thinking. Reflexive awareness of one’s own thinking implies monitoring both the development of the structure of knowledge being studied and the process of constructing that knowledge representation”
This kind of activity – while useful – doesn’t seem relevant to the areas that the students are going to be developing skills in – how often will a hairdresser need to write a reflection about their work? This could well make them question and strongly resist this kind of assessment – with the argument that they’ve already demonstrated their knowledge by doing the authentic tasks.
In essence, this is all constructivism-rah-rah-rah but it feels like it comes from people dealing with education far more on a theoretical level than a practical one. The repeated assertions that it’s unthinkable to mix styles/approaches and that this is the only way to go strikes me more as the arguments of the freshly converted.
I’m not saying that elements of the approach aren’t highly valuable but there is no magic formula for all situations and that’s the message I feel this reading is selling.
Add comment August 15th, 2007
Thoughts on: Assumptions about Learning – Jonassen, Peck & Wilson (1999)
Assumptions about Learning
Jonassen, D. H., Peck K. L. & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. New Jersey: Merril. pp 2-11.
This is the first thing I’ve read that has given me any kind of real appreciation of the philosophy and theory underpinning Constructivism.
Until now it has all seem far too vague and airy-fairy but this introductory chapter to what seems like a very interesting book is able to clearly explain the learning concepts at the heart of this educational philosophy.
Here are some of the essential points made and some of my thoughts in response to them:
“We learn from experiencing phenomena (objects, events, activities, processes), interpreting those experiences based on what we know, reasoning about them and reflecting on the experiences and the reasoning. Jerome Bruner (1990) called this process meaning making”
“Constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed, not transmitted. Individuals make sense of their world and everything with which they come in contact by constructing their own representations or models of their experiences”
“We believe that teaching is a process of helping learners to construct their own meaning from the experiences they have by providing these experiences and guiding the meaning-making process”
“Knowledge construction results from activity, so knowledge is embedded in activity” Do all facts need “meaning” to be remembered or to make sense – I’ve never stuck a knife in a powerpoint but I know it’s bad. (How do I know this?) What if the urgency with which information is passed on affects our learning of it? – This would be much more about teaching than learning per se.
“Knowledge is anchored in and indexed by the context in which the learning activity occurs… Information about the context is part of the knowledge that is constructed by the learner in order to explain or make sense of the phenomenon” – does this give the learner too much credit? does the learner always do this – or always want to do this? Might they see it as too much work?
Relevant activity enhances information – but is it just another form of info?
Is it just like saying it twice but better (repetition) – reframing/contextualising – like making food easier to digest by pre-chewing it.
Motivation is still of vital importance
“The knowledge that a learner constructs consists of not only the ideas (content) but also knowledge about the context in which it was acquired, what the learner was doing in that environment and what the knower intended to get from that environment” This defines knowledge as a set of unique combined elements
“So the more directly and interactively we experience things, the more knowledge about it we are likely to construct”
“What we really understand about skills and knowledge is the application of them. When we learn how to use a skill, we store that use as a story, which is a primary medium of conversation and meaning making among humans (Schank 1986). ”
Oh, so how do something in WebCT – I guess I have more of a visual physical conception of it – is that a story?
This part is about both relevance and transferance.
“Meaning is in the mind of the knower”. We can share parts of our reality “by socially negotiating shared meanings. That is, we converse with others and agree on the relative importance and meanings for things.”
Everyone’s knowledge is different but if one apprentice chef burns their hand on a pot, it’s very much the same as if another one does
“Therefore, there are multiple perspectives on the world. Since no two people can possibly have the same set of experiences and perceptions of those experiences, each of us constructs our own knowledge, which in turn affects the perceptions of the experiences that we have and those we share”
“Making meaning is prompted by a problem (GAMES?), question, confusion, dissonance (a need or desire to know) and so involves personal ownership of that problem… Meaning making often starts with a problem, a question, a discrepant and inexplicable event, a curiosity, wonderment, puzzlement (Duffy and Cunningham 1996), a perturbation (Maturana and Varela 1992), expectations violations (Schank 1986), cognitive dissonance, or a disequilibrium. We can memorize ideas that others tell use but to actively seek to make meaning about phenomena involves the desire to make sense of things”
My model for the Constructivist approach:
{Context (Information + relevance) Activity} + (Past experiences) => meaning + reflection => knowledge
“Knowledge-building requires articulation, expression or representation of what is learned… For usable knowledge to be constructed, learners need to think about what they did and articulate what it meant. Usually that articulation process is verbal, but learners can construct a variety of visual or auditory representations of their experiences or understandings”
Reflection offers evidence => assessment items
“Meaning may also be shared with others, so meaning making can also result from conversation… Social constructivists believe that meaning making is a process of negotiation among the participants through dialogues or conversations.”
“So meaning making and thinking are distributed throughout our tools, culture and community. As we interact with others in knowledge-building communities, our knowledge and beliefs about the world are influenced by that community and their beliefs and values”
“Just as the cognitive properties of individuals vary, the cognitive attributes and accomplishments of communities also vary, depending on differences in the social organisation of the groups (i.e., the ways in which members distribute cognitive responsibilities) (Hutchins 1991)”. Collective wisdom/shared knowledge depends on how smart the members of the group are.
“Learning can also be conceived of as changes in our relation to the culture(s) to which we are connected (Duffy and Cunningham 1996). As we spend more time in a club, we become more influenced by its beliefs and culture, because the group’s knowledge is distributed among the participants (Saloman 1993)” If this is the case, where does new knowledge, innovation and ideas come from – if everyone becomes like everyone else?
“Within any knowledge-building community, share ideas are accepted and agreed upon. That is, meaning is reflected in the social beliefs that exist at any point in time. If individual ideas are discrepant from community standards, they are not regarded as viable unless new evidence supporting their viability is provided” Oh, that’s where it comes from 
So something is only right as long as enough people believe it and no viable alternatives are proven
“Assessing the viability of anyone’s knowledge involves many criteria” Checks and balances system of knowledge in the group
“In order to engage different types of thinking, we must rethink the ways that we teach and the ways that we use technology in our teaching”
“When learning about things in natural contexts, humans interact with their environment and manipulate the objects in that environment, observing the effects of their interventions and constructing their own interpretations of the phenomena and the results of the manipulation”
Doing gives meaning but it only goes so far.
“Through formal and informal apprenticeships in communities of play and work, learners develop skills and knowledge that they then share with other members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills”
Someone generally shows them what to do and the rules of the game. This reminds me of the paper about experienced people mentoring newbies in MMORPGS at http://users.bigpond.com/colsim/edugames/simpson3/annotate.html#Steinkuehler
“Real learning requires active learners ; people engaged by a meaningful task (not just pressing the space bar to continue) in which they manipulate objects and the environment in which they are working and then observe the results of their manipulations ” Games – but then again, why use a game when reality is available? Well, because it’s not always there or affordable or easily repeatable
“Activity is necessary but not sufficient for meaningful learning. Learners must reflect on their activity and observations to learn the lessons that their activity has to teach… By reflecting on on the puzzling experience, learners integrate their new experiences with their prior knowledge about the world, or they establish goals for what they need to learn in order to make sense out of what they observe… The active and constructive parts of the meaningmaking process are symbiotic. They both rely on the other for meaning making to occur.”
“When learners are actively and willfully trying to achieve a cognitive goal (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1993/94), they think and learn more because they are fulfilling an intention… Technologies need to engage learners in articulating what their learning goals are in any learning situation, and then support them. Technology based learning systems should require learners to articulate what they are doing, the decisions they make, the strategies they use and the answers that they found” And WHY they are doing something. This reminds me of Bronwyn Hegarty’s critical reflection model. Can problem based learning be prescriptive as well as democratic (levels of direction/guidance)
“A great deal of recent research has shown that learning tasks that are situated in some meaningful real-world task or simulated in some case-based or problem-based learning environment are not only better understood but also are more consistently transferred to new situations… we need to teach knowledge and skills in real-life, useful contexts and provide new and different contexts for learners to practice using those ideas” – ok but then we should point out the base, underlying ideas.
“And we need to engage students in solving complex and ill-structured problems as well as simple problems (Jonassen 1997) - like levels/progress in games.
“Humans naturally work in learning and knowledge-building communities, exploiting each others’ skills and appropriating each other’s knowledge”
“Often, educators will promote collaborative methods of learning, only to resort to independent assessment of learning… We cannot forget that most learners are strategic enough to know “what counts” in classrooms, so if they are evaluated individually, collaborative instruction may fail because students realize that group outcomes are not important” This strikes me as a VERY valid point – perhaps collaborative approaches need collaborative assessment to validate the process
Some very interesting explanations of the underlying philosophies of Constructivism here – I think I got more out of this than I have from anything else I’ve read to date.
There was one more interesting point made in the extract about collaboration that seems worth mentioning:
“Collaboration most often requires conversation among participants. Learners working in groups must socially negotiate a common understanding of the task and the methods they will use to accomplish it… When learners become part of knowledge-building communities both in class and outside of school, they learn that there are multiple ways of viewing the world and multiple solutions to most of life’s problems. “
Add comment August 14th, 2007
Thoughts on: Multimedia Instruction Environments (Schwier and Misanchuk, 1993) (EDGI913)
Multimedia Instruction Environments (pdf, 580K)
Schwier, R.A. and Misanchuk, E.R. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Chapter 2, pp.19-33.
While there are some interesting ideas in this chapter of the book about different approaches (prescriptive vs democratic) to the use of multimedia in education, for the most part this came across as something of a historical curiosity.
The rise of the Internet and the social web (which were at the time of writing, in fairness, respectively in their infancy and a mere twinkle in the eye) have rendered much of this discussion irrelevant.
However, because I’m meant to glean some wisdom from this and I have a big assessment on the differences between prescriptive and democratic approaches to education, I’ll press on.
Main points:
“Romiszowski (1986), discussing the function of control in self-instructional media, organizes a schemata of systems for individualizing instruction. He identifies three characteristic positions: prescriptive, democratic and cybernetic”
“Instructor preferences and learner characteristics… impose structure on instructional decisions”
PRESCRIPTIVE
“A prescriptive multimedia environment… prescribes what the learner is to learn. Instruction is concocted and delivered to the learner”
“There are usually specific objectives the learner is expected to achieve, and in most cases learning is evaluated in accordance with the specified objectives” (such as competencies in a VET context but surely there is an element of this is ALL assessment?)
“Access to content is structured”
“Learners are either granted or denied access to areas of instruction based on their progress in the instruction or they are advised which paths would be most profitable.”
“The focus of this environment is the achievement of specified, externally defined goals”
“A popular breakdown of prescriptive instruction designs includes drill and practice, tutorials, most games and some simulations”
“Drill and practice usually takes the form of a string of question-answer-feedback sequences. The purpose is usually to review previously learned material in a test-like environment rather than learn new material” (Reinforcing learning – this doesn’t seem like a bad thing)
“For drill and practice, multimedia instruction can be used to increase the types, amounts and layers of stimuli and feedback presented”
“Tutorials are used to teach new information. Information is usually presented, learners are given opportunities to practice using the information and learning is reinforced.
For example, a typical tutorial environment will have an introduction (including motivational set), organizing material (e.g. advance organizers, objectives, topics), novel content, embedded practice and interaction (e.g. adjunct questions, exercises, activities), feedback, review and evaluation.”
“In mediated tutorial instruction, our challenge is often to provide a rich, vicarious experience which approximates genuine human interaction” (reasonably achieved in the Web age with computer mediated communication)
“…tutorials constrict learner control over instruction. This is desirable in many instructional settings but highly undesirable in others” (making the incredibly insightful point that different learning approaches are needed in different situations)
“Games are usually directed at a specific goal and involve some measure of competition. Simulations provide an abstraction or simplification of reality – some level of mimicry, in which the learner encounters circumstances and tries to respond to them. Instructional gams are rule-based, focused on specific goals or outcomes, usually divorced from reality and based on competition among players or against the system.
Instructional simulations, by contrast, typically use rules to define the parameters of interaction within a model of reality and play ultimately results in one of several available conclusions. Which conclusion is reached by a player is determined by choices and decisions made during instruction. Close approximation of the dynamics of reality is desired and the learner becomes a part of the system rather than a competitor against it.” (Interesting take on games vs simulations – some merit to it although I think it’s simplistic)
Many simulations and games may not emphasize prescriptive instruction, the primary purpose of many games and simulations is entertainment or vicarious experience, with learning as a convenient by-product. (This may be true in some instances but a lot of research has gone into edugames since this was written. It also misses online gaming and the key element of interaction with others)
DEMOCRATIC:
“Democratic environments shift the control of instruction to the user… Democratic environments permit the learner to influence what is learned, or how it is learned, or at least the order in which it is learned” (This talk of learner-centredness reminds me of the approach of constructivists in defining constructivism by trying to belittle the behaviourist/directed learning methods. It seems bigger on rhetoric than solid examples)
Instructors or instructional designers do not impose structured instruction. The democratic environment either supports prescribed instruction or it exists without reference to prescribed instruction .(Um, so which one is it – how can it be different if it is the same?)
“The difference is in intent and control. Learner controlled instruction would supplement prescribed instruction in this case, not substitute for it. The learner chooses to use it or reject it. For other democratic resources, the emphasis shifts from constructing and controlling instructional events to providing easy access to instructional support. These types of multimedia learning resources emphasize navigation, motivation and access and would likely downplay objectives and evaluation” (Reminds me a little of problem based learning – learners first need to work out what they need to know to solve the problem. As far as providing easy access goes, this seems to describe hyperlinks. Moving away from objectives and evaluation sounds better in theory than practice – the StageStruck game offers next to no guidance (certainly none in exiting it) and I found it frustrating. )
Supplementary instruction “assumes primary instruction exists elsewhere. Supplementary instruction either reinforces what has already been taught or it attaches new instruction to what has been taught…the difference is that supplementary instruction is voluntarily undertaken; the locus of decision-making rests with the learner” (As far as I can see, the defining characteristic of democratic learning environments is that learners can choose to ignore all the material presented to them – and doesn’t the notion of supplementary resources just seem like the World Wide Web)
(So to sum up what seems to be the authors point:)
To us, instructionality is defined by intentionality and simply allowing a learner to “graze” informational resources (databases) does not necessarily lead to instruction (Now aside from the horrible mangling of language in that sentence, the point seems to be that a prescriptive, focused approach is better)
“Most well designed learning resources provide multiple avenues of access to material” (this I’m happy to agree with – but an avenue is still a path)
From here the datedness of this chapter becomes abundantly clear as it delves into current developments in multimedia – with respect they do touch on “Nelsonian Hypermedia”, which appears to be a forerunner to html hypertext as we know it today but after 15 years it seems a little less amazing than it did back then.
CYBERNETIC ENVIRONMENTS:
The authors make another interesting point in this section – that a lot of computer based designed relies too heavily on the “book metaphor”. “In other words, we think of interactive treatments in terms of chapters, tables of contents, pages, headings and subheadings” (This can be seen today in a lot of web design – particular web 1.0 )
“By contrast, human thought is a robust metaphor for interactive treatments. Conceptual environments, cognitive mapping and logic approaches may gain high status in the metaphoric pecking order” (definitely an interesting thought – not sure how well this has been realised yet though)
The chapter goes on to look at A.I options for designing interactive educational multimedia and the challenges this offers but again, the rise of computer mediated communication tools and the social web seem to render this a bit of a dead end.
Add comment August 7th, 2007
Implications of the Net Generation on designing interactive multimedia learning resources
Implications of the Net Generation on designing interactive multimedia learning resources
Over the last twenty-five years the exponential growth of ICT (information and communications technology) has had a profound effect on our society. It has sparked a shift from an industrially focused culture to what is known as the Information Age.
We now live in a world where information is easily created and shared and where its skilled application is highly valued. This has significant ramifications for education, as the new tools and new ways of thinking necessitate dramatic new approaches to teaching and learning. This directly affects the design of interactive multimedia learning resources.
The so-called Net Generation (Net-Gen) are the first generation to grow up knowing nothing other than this highly connected, information rich world. As “digital natives”, they “think and process information fundamentally differently.” (Prensky 2002). Their use of ICT and attitudes toward ICT and information in general offer us a set of ideas for a new approach to education which embraces the information age. Among these are an emphasis on collaboration, connectivity, flexibility and experiential learning.
The needs and attitudes of the Net-Gen aren’t the only factors that will influence education and multimedia design in the coming years – ongoing research in education, the priorities of industry and society, emerging technology as well as institutional and teacher needs will all play a part.
Examining the key traits attributed to the Net-Gen however allows us to consider practical changes in approach and design that can be made today.
Who are the Net Generation?
While the precise years are disputed, it is generally agreed that the Net-Gen were born in the period between the early 1980s and 2001. They are also referred to as Generation Y, Echo Boomers, the iGeneration and their apparently preferred term, Millennials. (Wikipedia: Generation Y, 2007)
Alan Kay, a member of the 1970’s Xerox PARC team, has described technology as “anything that wasn’t around when you were born” (Frand, 2000). This means that for much of the Net-Gen, personal computers, mobile phones, digital audio, sophisticated computer graphics and even the Internet aren’t considered technology, they are simply a fact of life.
While it is obviously simplistic to ascribe any characteristic to a large group of individuals, there are a number of traits which appear common to many members of the Net-Gen.
Interested in technology: Having grown up with technology, Net-Gen students consider themselves far more Internet savvy than their teachers and report seeing better ways to use technology than they are offered in the classroom.(Oblinger 2003) “Every time I go to school I have to power down”, complains one student according to Prensky. (2001)
Emphasis on collaboration: They gravitate toward group work (Howe & Strauss, 2000) and want to work with people they click with. (Raines 2003) . Massively multiplayer online games popular with the Net-Gen such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft are strongly based on collaboration.
Need Connectivity: In some ways related to their preference for collaboration, the Net-Gen make heavy usage of a plethora of communications tools including SMS, instant messaging, email and particularly online communities such as MySpace to maintain connections with friends and family. This connectivity is 24/7 and the Internet in particular means that it isn’t limited by geography.
Another interesting aspect of connectivity in online communications is that the Net-Gen have “blasé attitudes about the loss of private space” and an “expectation of speaking to an audience even in personal communication” (Wikipedia:Internet Generation, 2007)
Multitasking: Multitasking is considered to be the most practical response to the exponentially increasing sea of information we find ourselves in. (Frand, 2000). As highly connected digital natives more familiar with this environment, the Net-Gen are considered particularly adept at navigating a range of tasks simultaneously, which may include both work and play.
Goal oriented: Net-Gen learners are more focused on skills than knowledge. “In many disciplines, the half-life of information is measured in months and years. From this perspective, what a person can do is more important than what degree they obtained”(Frand, 2000 p.17)
Confident and optimistic: The Net-Gen are seen as highly positive, confident and optimistic. They expect respect (Raines, 2002) and, conscious of their power as consumers, will either speak their mind or vote with their feet if they don’t get what they want.
According to Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006): “Not only has this generation been born into a prolonged period of economic growth, but they have come too late to experience the severe economic restructuring brought about by globalisation and the information revolution.
They have grown up understanding and accepting that the future is all about mobility, adaptability and change. For the most part, they are preparing for it and they embrace it.”(p.5)
Seek instant gratification: The combination of a customer service oriented world and the immediacy of digital technology means that members of the Net-Gen are felt to have “zero tolerance for delays”. (Frand, 2000 p.22).
Marc Prensky (2001) sums most of these traits up nicely when he says that “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.” (p.2)
Implications for designing interactive multimedia learning resources.
In addition to the obvious technological changes, the Information Age (and globalisation) has had a profound impact on the way people work and live. The increasing rate at which new information and knowledge is generated means that learning has become a lifelong process.
UNESCO’s 1996 report Learning : The Treasure Within (The Delors report) identified a key pillar of education for the future as “Learning to know – the mastery of learning tools rather than the acquisition of structured knowledge. It includes learning to learn and developing concentration, memory skills and the ability to think”. (RED CIT 2000 P.1)
The Information Age, lifelong learning and shifts in family, work and leisure priorities present educational multimedia designers with a range of new opportunities and challenges.
The need for more educational content and new approaches, in combination with enhanced access to tools to create richer and more sophisticated learning resources means that multimedia designers could be well positioned to make a significant contribution to education in coming years.
The learning needs of the Net-Generation feature heavily here and it is their particular desire for these following qualities to be a part of their education that fuels much of this demand. Many of these qualities have also been identified in educational multimedia research as adding to learning.
Flexibility: Flexibility encompasses notions of enhancing access to learning as well as catering to different learning styles. Kearns (1999) takes the position that we can and should “use modern technologies to widen equitable access to education and training opportunities”.
The Internet has long been seen to be a powerful platform for the distribution of information untrammeled by time or space, two significant impediments to learners in the past. It could be argued that multimedia learning resources have been used in one form or another for decades in distance learning practice to address these issues however the speed with which they are now available makes learning more accessible than ever.
Mobile technology takes this accessibility and flexibility to a higher level still by allowing learners to access sophisticated multimedia learning resources anywhere. Many mobile phones, PDAs and other devices support HTML pages, Flash objects, audio and video – any of which could be learning resources. The use of audio and video as podcasts and vodcasts respectively is now well established and offers another option to educational multimedia developers. RFID tags and QR codes (Simpson, 2006) are further options that might considered with mobile technology.
Multimedia learning objects also offer flexibility in terms of providing a wider choice of learning activities which cater to different learning styles. Developers should consider different ways to achieve the same learning outcomes in the process of designing multimedia resources.
Relevance: As already mentioned, the half life of information has dropped significantly in the Information Age (Oblinger, 2003) and this has the potential to quickly outdated some learning resources.
Developers might consider embedding weblinks to information sources (though this too isn’t foolproof), reviewing created resources to a schedule or making some of their multimedia learning resources customisable, allowing teachers/users to make changes if relevant data changes. (Customisability is an underpinning principle of Flexible Learning Toolbox Learning Objects.)
A more significant application of relevance in multimedia learning resources comes when they take the form of simulations and games with problem based approaches. This offers the Net-Generation (and other users) the experiential, skill developing learning that they prefer and enhances learning by making it authentic and context based.
Dalgarno (2001) feels that these support a Constructivist approach to learning, particularly in that they “allow the learner to explore, manipulate, or construct within a world and consequently to discover real or abstract concepts within the domain”. (p.156)
The development of simulations can be an intensive process however the increasing sophistication of multimedia production software as well as the support of growing user communities means that it is getting easier by the day.
It is equally important however for developers to resist the temptation to make use of all of the bells and whistles available to them in the increasingly sophisticated multimedia production software if it is not directly related to the learning content. Pretty pictures and interesting sounds have been found repeatedly to actually depress the learning benefits of multimedia resources. (Colvin Clark & Mayer, 2007)
Interaction: The interactivity of games and simulations is a factor that appeals to many users including the Net Generation. A well designed game/simulation focuses the learners attention and the sense of fun and user control offers high levels of engagement. (Prensky, 2001).
Interaction also has the potential to offer feedback, another key motivator. Virtually any multimedia learning resource can incorporate “practice tools, which require the learner to carry out specific tasks or answer specific questions and provide feedback on the learner’s performance” (Dalgarno, 2001 p.156).
This addresses another of the key Net Generation traits, their impatience with delay.
One issue for educational multimedia developers to consider is the actual nature of the interaction that learners have with the multimedia resources. Does it have to be about pushing buttons or typing? Could it include speaking, singing, gesturing with the mouse, drawing with a tablet, using a web cam? (Dalgarno, 2001)
Structure: The organisation of knowledge is a key factor in teaching and learning. Multimedia offers “more complex and interesting ways to structure and access knowledge.” (Bates, 2000, p.42).
A multimedia learning resource might be structured in a linear fashion like a book, it might work as a website with a hypertext structure or it might consist of a linked list of smaller, self contained learning object, breaking the knowledge up into digestible chunks. These are but three possible approaches of many. The nature of the information age suggests that we need to consider any number of approaches to sharing information. (Bates, 2000)
The goal oriented nature of the Net Generation as well as their desire for flexibility and multitasking tendencies suggests that multimedia learning resources developed with them in mind should offer multiple paths to knowledge acquisition.
Collaboration: The question of collaboration raises a number of questions as to the very nature of multimedia resources and few answers.
Even with interactivity and feedback, do multimedia resources still primarily using a traditional transmission model for learning?
What options are available for learners to collaboratively work on tasks?
Is there a capacity for communication through a multimedia resource?
Could a blog or a wiki be considered a multimedia resource?
Should multimedia learning resources contribute to scaffolding knowledge (or even higher level skills) which the individual learner adds to collaboratively in a separate space or tool?
Given the teamwork oriented, collaboration favouring nature of the Net Generation, these are some of the most significant issues of all to consider in the development of multimedia learning resources.
Bates (2000) makes the salient point that “Learners still need to discuss and argue, to challenge and question what they have learnt”. (p.41). I would extend that to include work together and generate collective knowledge.
As the standard bearers of the Information Age, educational multimedia developers can learn a lot from the Net Generation. Ongoing research in education continues to enlighten our understanding of how multimedia can be more effective but their instinctive use of contemporary ICT and unquestioning acceptance of it as today’s paradigm are driving the need for change now.
It means that the design of interactive multimedia learning resources needs to be more flexible, relevant, engaging and particularly collaborative – and that’s a good thing for all.
(As a Gen-Xer, I would like to mention however that the founders of Google, MySpace, YouTube, Blogger, Odeo and Wikipedia are all Gen X.)
References.
Kearnes, P. 1999 VET in the learning age – the challenge of lifelong learning for all, Paper presented at Post-compulsory Education and Training: Looking to the future, Canberra 27 August 1999.
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook for a new workplace. Mississauga, Ontario : Crisp Publications
RED CIT (2000 August) What is Lifelong Learning? Research Digest Canberra: Research and Evaluation Department CIT
Howe, N. & Strauss W (2000). Millennial Rising: The next great generation. New York, NY : Vintage Books
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students. Educause Review, July-August, 37-47
Bates, T. (2000). Teaching, Learning and the Impact of Multimedia Technologies. Educause Review, September-October, 38 – 43
Frand, J (2000). The Information Age Mindset Educause Review September/October, 14-24
Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Dalgarno, B (2001) Technologies supporting highly interactive learning resources on the web: An Analysis Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12. 153-171
Joshua Schachter. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Schachter
Larry Page. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page
Steve Chen. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chen
Chad Hurley. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Hurley
Jawed Karim. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawed_Karim
Jimmy Wales. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
Evan Williams. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Williams
Generation Y. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
Information Age. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age
Internet Generation. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Generation
Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006 October). Fearless and Flexible – Views of Gen Y. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://www.dsf.org.au/papers/189/SaulwickReport3_0.pdf
Simpson, C. (2006) Make barcodes that can be read by mobile camera and provide web links. Retrieved May 27th, 2007 from http://citfls.blogspot.com/2006/09/make-barcodes-that-can-be-read-by.html
Add comment May 28th, 2007
Heuristic 3 – Modelling concepts increases understanding
When trying to communicate new concepts to learners, it can often be helpful to represent these concepts as visual models or explain them through activities which give the concept a more tangible form.
Many elements of current Constructivist education theory centre around “procedures and operations for representing and reasoning about information” (Greeno, Collins & Resnick 1996). The use of non-verbal and non-textual representations of complex problems and concepts, often facilitated by visualisation tools made possible by advanced computer graphics (Driscoll 2002), is regarded by many as an effective way of presenting information as well as providing alternatives to learners with literacy problems. (Robyler 1997)
My team at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), Flexible Learning Solutions (FLS), has been using modeling techniques to explain the practice of blogging and commenting to less tech-savvy CIT teachers.
In the course of a hands on, non-computer based workshop, participants are given a standard sheet of paper, a pen and a number of post-it notes. They write a “blog” post on the sheet of paper and stick it to a wall and then view “blog” posts from the other participants by roaming around the room. Using their post-it notes, they are able to attach comments to each others posts and also to each others comments.
This simple activity illustrates very effectively the reflective and collaborative nature of blogging and the value of feedback provided through the comments, all in an environment which removes the daunting aspects of the technology from the experience.
This is a useful heuristic as it highlights the fact that it is possibly to present new information to learners that is shaped in a way that allows you to emphasise that which is important and isolate it from less familiar factors that learners can find alienating.
Implementing this heuristic is really just a matter of examining the course content and looking for non-verbal means of expressing it. As mentioned, the ongoing evolution of software (particularly free and open-source software) and the boom in social-web tools offer any number of options but an effective model can just as easily take the form of a paper based simulation.
References:
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72. (abstract)
Add comment May 3rd, 2007
Heuristic 2 – Placing knowledge in context adds meaning to learning
Presenting information to learners in a way that reflects the situations and cultures in which they will use it makes the information more relevant to them and easier to recall.
Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) strongly emphasise the idea that concepts exist in a particular context which helps to shape the concept into useful knowledge. Presenting this information in a form related to its use in the real world, ideally in a form which requires the learner to act as though they are also in that context (i.e. As a mathematician or historian) adds important layers of additional cultural meaning to the information being shared.
This allows the learner to form associations between the new information and their existing knowledge which according to cognitive theory makes it easier to store in and retrieve from long-term memory (Robyler, Edwards & Havriluk 2007).
I recently worked on a project with a teacher at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) focusing on a competency called Practice within legal and ethical parameters. This teaches nurses about legal and ethical issues within nursing practice, the law and their responsibilities. In the past, it had been taught essentially as a list of laws and policies that nurses needed to be aware of.
We created a detailed case study simulation in which nurses make decisions based on developments in a particular patient’s case, consultation with colleagues and other available information.
This added hospital and nursing culture issues to the learning and allowed nurses to connect more personally with the course content.
As someone working in a Vocational Education and Training institution, the richness and relevance of information is of the highest importance as knowledge developed by learners is designed almost exclusively for practical use in specific settings. Finding new ways to contextualise even the simplest foundation skills and to make teachers aware of the importance of this therefore is crucial.
Practitioners wishing to enhance meaning with context might consider:
-
Using more collaborative problem based projects (Ertmer & Newby 1993)
-
Build skills through sequential exercises (Driscoll 2002)
-
Look for a balance between experiential learning, guided mentoring and collective reflection (Dede 2005)
References:
Colvin, Clark, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Using rich media wisely. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 311-322). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1).
Add comment May 3rd, 2007
Thoughts on: Situated cognition and the culture of learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid)
I’m not sure whether these articles are making more sense to me now because I’m getting a stronger grasp on the underlying theories or if it’s just that they are better written. Probably a bit of both.
Brown, Collins and Duguid present their ideas about why content is more meaningful to learners when it is put into context in an easily understandable way, using plenty of examples as well as some very effective analogies. Their approach seems much more anchored in chalkface experience and constantly focusses on educational practice in schools, rather that making lofty prognostications about what approaches might be beneficial for learners.
Key points:
“Many methods of didactic education assume a separation between knowing and doing, treating knowledge as an integral, self-sufficient substance, theoretically independent of the situations in which it is learned and used.”
We should “embed learning in activity and make deliberate use of the social and physical context”
Learning vocabulary with a dictionary and a few example (but out of context) sentences is different to the way words are learnt in day to day life – through use in normal conversation and reading. “Experienced readers implicitly understand that words are situated. They, therefore, ask for the rest of the sentence or the context before committing themselves to an interpretation of a word”
“All knowledge is, we believe, like language. It’s constituent parts index the world and so are intextricably a product of the activity and situations in whch they are produced”
“A concept, like the meaning of a word, is always under construction”
“It may be more useful to consider conceptual knowledge as, in some ways, similar to a set of tools. Tools share several significant features with knowledge – They can only be fully understood with use and using them entails both changing the users view of the world and adopting the belief system in which they are used.”
“People who use tools actively rather than just acquire them, by contrast, build an increasingly rich implicit understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves. The understanding, both of the world and of the tool, continually changes as a result of their interaction”
“Learning how to use a tool involves far more than can be accounted for in any set of explicit rules. The occasions and conditions for use arise directly out of the context of activities of each community that uses the tool, framed by the way members of that community see the world… Thus carpenters and cabinet makers use chisels differently”
“Activity, concept and culture are interdependent. No one can be totally understood without the other two. Learning must involve all three”
“(Students) need to be exposed to the use of a domain’s conceptual tools in authentic activity – to teachers acting as practitioners and using these tools in wrestling with the problems of the world. Such activity can tease out the way a mathematician or historian looks at the world and solves emergent problems. (But maths is a tool used in different ways by different practitioners – eg mathematician vs statistician vs engineer – how do you apply context there – perhaps by looking at the content being covered and seeing who it is most applicable to?)
“Activity also provides experience, which is plainly important for subsequent action”
“Knowledge… indexes the situation in which it arises and is used. The embedding circumstances efficiently provide essential parts of its structure and meaning”
“By beginning with a task embedded in a familiar activity, it shows the students the legitimacy of their implicit knowledge and its availability as scaffolding in apparently unfamiliar tasks”
“By allowing students to generate their own solution paths, it helps make them conscious, creative members of the culture of problem-solving mathematicians. And, in enculturating though this activity, they acquire some of the cultures tools – a shared vocabulary and the means to discuss, reflect upon, evaluate and validate community procedures in a collaborative process”
“Collaboration also leads to the articulation of strategies, which can then be discussed and reflected on. This, in turn, fosters generalising, grounding in the students situated understanding”
“… teachers or coaches promote learning, firstly by making explicit their tacit knowledge or by modelling their strategies for students in authentic activity. Then, teachers and colleagues support student’s attempts at doing the task. And finally they empower the students to continue independently”
“An intriguing role in learning is played by ‘legitimate peripheral participation’, where people who are not taking part directly in a particular activity learn a great deal from their legitimate position on the periphery”
“This peripheral participation is particularly important for people entering the culture. They need to observe how practitioners at various levels behave and talk to get a sense of how expertise is manifest in conversation and other activities”
“Collective problem solving: Groups are not just a convenient way to accumulate the individual knowledge of their members. They give rise synergistically to insights and solutions that would not come about without them”
“Displaying multiple roles: Successful execution of most individual tasks requires students to understand the many different roles needed for carrying out any cognitive task. Getting one person to be able to play all the roles entailed by authentic activity and to reflect productively upon his or her performance is one of the monumental tasks of education. The group, however, permits different roles to be displayed and engenders reflective narratives and discussions about the aptness of those roles” – Is it enough for people to be able to discuss the tasks that someone else undertook in a group task for them to understand what is really involved without having done it?
“Groups can be efficient in drawing out, confronting and discussing both misconceptions and ineffective strategies”
Overall, a lot of interesting ideas here – it got a little more abstract as it continued and the concepts got more advanced but most of it makes sense.
Add comment April 25th, 2007
All about: How people learn (and What technology might have to do with it) (Driscoll, M.P. 2002)
This is one of the best articles I’ve come across so far (and one of the shortest, which might help
Driscoll provides a simple and effective overview of factors that influence learning and examines the ways in which technology can be used in each case. My comments appear in blue italics
Learning occurs in context:
- learners attempt to make sense of something new and unfamiliar by drawing upon their prior understandings and experiences
- offering new knowledge in some kind of context makes it easier for learners to apply appropriate prior knowledge
- real world contexts are generally the most widely shared and add relevance to content
- problem solving in the form of games, puzzles and simulations can be made engaging using multimedia technology
- adding complexity makes them challenging and even more engaging
- building skills through sequential exercises allows learners to transfer new knowledge to newer problems
Learning is active:
- Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand. (Chinese proverb)
- “When students become active participants in the knowledge construction process, the focus of learning shifts from covering the curriculum to working with ideas (Scarmadalia, 2002)”
- Technology tools provide “the means through which individuals engage and manipulate both resources and their own ideas (Hannafin, Land & Oliver 1999)” As opposed to pen and paper? Actually, computer tools would still be easier and more effective here, you’re right
- Other technology tools help to represent knowledge and facilitate communication – e.g. visualisation tools
- Simulations can enable learners to model complex ideas
Learning is social:
- Students benefit from hearing perspectives other than their own in group work. Importance of peer opinion - Just today the Beyond Blue foundation (for depression) was talking about teaching teens the skills to help depressed friends.
- Students may bring different strengths to a complex and lengthy activity
- Learning, then, amounts to increasing participation in and contribution to the practices of a social community
- Concepts such as knowledge building, apprenticeship, and mentoring become paramount, as learners are conceived to be under the tutelage of more experienced peers or instructors.
- A social view of learning focusses attention on making connections among students within a school and between students in the school and the broader community. What about quieter students though – shy ones and less literate ones?
- Students can use software to collaborate “by creating ‘notes’ to express their ideas or integrate outside information about a topic. Then they read and respond to the notes of others, all of which builds a communal database producing shared knowledge about the topic or problem” Like something between a blog and a wiki? More like a blog really
- This can provide opportunities for students to “improve their understanding and become more personally involved in explaining scientific phenomena”
Learning is reflective:
- “Learning is facilitated when students get feedback about their thinking whether that feedback comes from within, a teacher or a peer” Emphasis on source of feedback comes back to the material being taught to an extent
- “Then provided the opportunity for revision, students can achieve at higher levels and reach deeper understandings”
- “Many… technology examples… facilitate discussion in the dialogue that they promote among learners. Where dialogue or discussion is not inherent in the tool, teachers bear the responsibility of initiating and guiding it”
My general observations:
Driscoll has succeeded in helping me to get some key concepts of collaborative work – the usefulness of feedback from all sources mainly – that had been eluding me.
My personal feeling is still that group work is rarely shared evenly and can often cover up for learners who don’t understand everything by allowing them to emphasise their strengths in other parts of the project.
What about the use of competition in collaborative work /projects? Could be a motivator for some (possibly a turn off for others though)
Providing a structure for reflection (much like the one listed in my previous post here ) is important – and sadly I think that so is making it an assessable part of the work with clearly stated guidelines and expectations.
Great article though Marcy Driscoll, thanks heaps
Add comment April 22nd, 2007
