Week 6: Reading 3

The Great Media Debate seems similar to "Learning Architect". In that, can one architect someone else's covert process of learning? One person brought up the idea that speech may be considered a media. So, would method then translate to intent, or thought?

The question is, does media affect learning?

Initially, I'd have to disagree. Media is the vehicle for delivery (re: Clark's delivery truck analogy). While media may cause different kinds of responses in a learner based on the presentation; the plan for instruction, the content, etc. is what really affects learning. Without the instructional content, the media (vehicle) has no value.

However, media really is the delivery of a method. So, if the correct media is used (visual representation for visual information, vs. aural), learning has a BETTER chance at taking place than with an ill-fitted medium.

Can media make bad instructional design good??

Week 6 - Reading Two

Impact of Media and Technology in Schools

This article talks about learning "from" vs. learning "with" technology. It talks again about the lack of good research in the field of media-influence on learning. I enjoyed the learning with technology aspects, as it talks about using the computer as a cognitive tool, or sometimes as a tutor. I feel that this is a particularly valid method of learning, specifically when using software to design or code some sort of work. Many people struggle with hypothetical situations when learning complicated software, and utilizing a program to really create something meaningful seems to be how most people learn a tool and retain that knowledge.

I was intrigued over the ideas of using computers for 1-5 grade students, particularly to program a LEGO robot to perform some function. This sounds like fun! Things have certainly changed. I remember learning multiplication tables with a drill and practice computer program -- while the experience is memorable, I doubt it did anything for retention.

Week 6: Reading 1

Computers Make Kids Smarter - Right? discusses the various research available on the effects of technology (computers) on learning. Technology in the classroom can be used for: 1) computer literacy, 2) acquiring new skills (basic - higher order), or 3) alter social construct to be student-centered. In addition, computer-led instruction can be divided into three categories: computer-assisted (CAI), computer-managed (CMI), and computer-enhanced (CEI). The teacher's role in computer-led instruction varies with little interaction in CAI to guiding students with CEI.

It appears that most research findings are not accurate enough to get a true picture on the effectiveness of technologically enhanced classrooms. Matching objectives of computer-led instruction to student performance post instruction can yield better measurable results.

Ultimately, to use technology, one should truly assess the situation and determine what goals will be fulfilled by implementing technology.

Class 5: Learning Models

Tonight teams presented the following models: Anchored Learning, Generative Learning, Cognitive Apprenticeship, the Dick and Carrey Model, and Cognitive Flexibility. All were interesting and discussions were meaningful.

A common theme that was presented was the idea of collaborative learning. While it's usefulness and purpose was debated, I found it very interesting to think about the individual's role in their own learning, as well as their role in the community.

Some models were more flexible than others, spectrum of very fluid to highly structured (sequencing??)

Anchored learning was not so clear to me until we started talking about the application. That really brought the idea to life for me (kind of anchored as it were)

More to come. . . .

Week 4: Reading

The reading Survey of Instructional Models states that analysis, design, development and evaluation are important processes that need to be completed when creating instruction. Furthermore, three main categories of models facilitate creation of classroom, product, or systems (Gustafson's schema).

There are different models that use these four components. Designers should be aware of models that fit into each aspect of Gustafson's schema to better prepare for real-world situations and be a diverse designer.

Class 3: Learning Theories

Theories presented:

• Experiential Learning - Self-initiated, applied, adult education, needs/wants of students, self-evaluation
  
• Situated Learning - learning/collaborating in authentic environmet, novice --> expert,
  
• Constructivism - build on what you know, learner constructs new knowledge on known,
  
• Gagne's Conditions of Learning - 5 human capabilities, 9 events of instruction, etc.
  
• Elaboration Theory - starting w/ big picture, hone in on details, "how-to"
  
• Behaviorism - conditioning, reinforcement, punishment, stimuli, etc. - dog training
  

Behaviorism was certainly interesting with a live model, as was learning a little about all of these theories and how they may or may not have principles in common. I enjoyed learning about Constructivism -- since this seems to be the buzzword since day one in my IT classes. More enjoyable as experiential and situated learning relate to it.

Constructivism is the idea that knowledge is built on what is already known, no knowledge is separate (i.e. class vs. world), and learners, individually or collectively, construct their own learning. Experiential and situated learning (among many, I imagine) fall under the constructivist umbrella. Experiential learning is the idea that knowledge is acquired best through experience. Hands-on activities ring true to learners in relevant situations -- therefore increasing further retention of new knowledge. This seems to differ from situated learning, in that the latter seems to emphasize the role of learning in a community instead of on an individual basis (as experiential learning). Also, a student of experiential learning is simply acquiring new knowledge and skill whereas a student of situated learning is participating in a community of practice with designs of being an expert.

At the root of constructivism is the idea that learning is a negotiation between the learner and instructor. This is a relationship similar to tutoring or coaching, the instructor guides the student, while student negotiates meaning of new learning. Contrary to constructivism, objectivism is instruction that makes hard-fast discriminiations between truth and untruth, with no variance or negotiation. For the learner, constructivism supports the idea of mastery--self-pacing and self-discovery. It is less "structured" (in feeling) than older models and may be better utilized with learners comfortable with their learning styles (i.e. teenaged - adult students). However, children brought up in this type of problem-solving environment (Montessori) may be more effective learners as they grow older.

All of this discussion brings up some pretty interesting questions -- How can situation be defined? varies w/ perspective -- group, outsider, individual? And what determines expertise?

As instructors designing learning experiences for students of all ages and backgrounds, one must not forget "different strokes for different folks". Overwhelming, yes, to know there are so many approaches to learning. But ultimately reassuring, since it confirms that so many of us do things in so many different ways. Finding the middle ground may be key?