Reading 9 (Theme 4)

Reading Log 9 (theme 4)
Second reading on Theme 4: Development and Design of courses

Metros, S. (2005). Learning Objects: A Rose by Any Other Name. Educause Review (40) (4) pp.12 – 13. Downloaded on 1 July 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/LearningObjectsARosebyAny/40559

The term “Learning Objects” has not been a common one in my personal readings and studies up to now. Prompted by course readings, I searched for something more and this short article was the first one I found. It addresses reasons for the diminishing use of the term and offers a more specific definition.

Reasons for failure of learning objects to transform education:
• Broad, ambiguous definition
• Unfamiliarity of sharing and reusing material
• Time and cost of developing high quality material
• Lack of indexing standards for easy retrieval
• Low knowledge management investment
• Little documented proof of advantages

Author’s amended definition:
Any digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning and which includes/links to (1) a learning objective (2) a practice activity and (3) an assessment.

In addressing the other bulleted points above, noteworthy comments include:
• Problems with ownership and copywrite
• Poorly designed learning objects may harm learning
• Little formal, published research on the successful use of learning objects

Most recent trends
• Despite decreased use of the term “learning objects” a move towards sharable educational content continues
• They are part of learner-centred, nonlinear, customisable, media-rich educational content
• Contribution-oriented pedagogy (student-instructor codevelopments) enhances quality
• Constantly becoming easier to upload, share, store

DISCUSSION and QUESTIONS:
For me, the value of the article lay in the clarification of the definition. While one of the benefits of learning objects is reusability, I find 2 problems relsted to this:
1. To what extent might designing a learning object in such a way that it can be re-used be a limiting factor in terms of its relevance within specific contexts and thus render it less effective ?
2. One of the benefits of re-usability is the cost factor. Would the need to ensure contextual relevance and the need to deal with specific learner needs (bearing in mind the need to be learner-centred) not mean time and costs in adapting material? By the same token, is there not a danger that the availability of learning objects could drive design rather than the other way round and thus reduce quality?
3 Postscript: According to the above definition, mashups would not be included as learning objects as , from my current understanding, they would/could involve larger amounts of data being incorporated. Nevertheless of interest here is that according to the Horizon Report 2008, a research project at the University of Oregon has created a tool that allows users to collect data about objects in the virtual world of Second Life and export it to a website. The tool is designed to be used to catalogue educational objects that can be found in the virtual world.
(The report may be found at http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf )

Reading 8 (Theme 4)

Reading 8 : first reading on theme 4: Development and Design of Courses

Barbour, M.(2005).Design of Web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning. 9(1), 27-36. Downloaded on 29 June 2008 from http://deanz.org.nz/journal

About the author: Michael Barbour is currently Assistant Professor in Instructional Technology at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Further details are available on his website at http://www.michaelbarbour.com/index.htm

The paper reports the initial findings of a study that investigated design characteristics of a web-based distance education programme for rural secondary school students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Participants were course developers and teachers in a virtual high school context. Research involved interviews and document analysis. Secondary data came from the CDLI homepage, server and developer’s template.

Literature review justifies the need for this research. Post secondary experimenting with technologies is outpacing collection of data to test mediational effects of tools. Adult learners value structure, clear guidelines, increased student-instructor communication and increased opportunities to suggest alternative approaches. (Callini and Barron ,2001-2002; Stein ,2004). Difference between pedagogy and androgogy (Knowles, 1970) – adults are more self-directing; are more experienced; have greater readiness to learn; have more immediacy of application; are more problem-centred.

Earlier research (Collis, 1999) on Web-based course design yielded 10 guidelines for instructional designers.
1. Plan for flexibility and adaptation
2. Design for a variety of interchangeable roles for instructors and students
3. Do not assume use of the course-support site as a primary source of course content
4. Use course-support site to supplement study materials, integrate and manage study activities
5. Design for student and instructor input and use of a variety of combinations of supplemental media and resources
6. Design for minimum levels of technical support, computer-related skills, competencies and online time.
7. Use minimum fixed-text, graphic and iconic elements; provide context-sensitive help
8. Offer a flexible assortment of tools for different communication configurations
9. Design to organisational flexibility
10. Be realistic about what instructors can/will do


This Research found:
a) contradiction between the developer’s constructivist design perspective and the behaviourist-based CDLI template used for lesson development . A comparative table comparing the template with Gagne’s 9 events of instruction is given.
b) 10 initial guidelines developers seem to use when designing secondary courses :
1. Develop a good sets of notes and worked examples
2. Students rarely use “You will learn” / “You should know” sections in the developer’s template but go straight to the activities- include lesson objectives in their lesson rather than separately
3. Lesson should provide student with clear instructions and expectations
4. Limit text
5. Include image or visual cue
6. Include interactive items with selections based on solid content or pedagogy – minimise distractions
7. Use real-life examples
8. Avoid the same format for every lesson; each lesson should offer a sense of choice
9. Design for average or below average student; keep it simple as possible
10. Plan entire course before beginning


DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS:
Of particular interest to me is the appropriacy of using research on post-secondary to inform secondary teaching. Justification based on Knowles’ 4 assumptions of pedagogy as opposed to androgogy was thus interesting but Barbour ambiguously notes that “Many of these assumptions were counter to the picture presented by the interviewees of their experiences with adolescent learners” but disappointingly, does not elaborate other than to note the relative immaturity. To what extent is immaturity sufficient justification for design practice 9 (cater to average/below average)? To what extent would practice 9 also justify exclusion of possible collaborative activities in the design?

With implied criticism Burbour notes that the behaviourist template did not match the constructivist approach of the developers. Does this matter? I am reminded of the observations of Cronje (2006) who suggested that any learning event may draw from both objectivism and constructivism if not simultaneously, then sometimes in such rapid succession that it simultaneous. Can strategies born in objectivist and behaviourist activities not be integrated with constructivism? Could learning objects based on behaviourist strategies embedded in a constructivist design be extraneous cognitive overload for some secondary students and scaffolding for others?

References:
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and
Constructivism in Instructional design and the Learning Sciences.
Educational Technology Research and Development . 54 (4): 387-416.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 32 (2): 183 - 194.

Reading 7 (Theme 3)

Reading 7 Second reading on Issues Trends and Developments

Kanuka, H. & Rourke, L.(2008). Exploring amplifications and reductions associated with e- learning: conversations with leaders of e-learning programs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 17(1) 5-15 Downloaded on 14 June 2008 from http://www.informaworld.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/smpp/section?content=a790657402&fulltext=713240928

Although I have been looking for articles on recent trends and issues in schools, the abstract to this very recent article suggested it would fill some research gaps. However, it really serves simply to remind leaders of benefits and deficits.

The paper explores the effects of e-learning technology from the perspective of Ihde’s (1990) theorem that technology “both amplifies and reduces certain aspects of human experiences through its selectivity and intentionality” and is non-neutral.

The purpose was to probe the changes occurring as a result of e-learning technology used in higher education. While research into the superiority /inferiority of e-learning was prolific, research gaps regarding the amplification and reduction of learning experiences in e-learning existed.

Method: an interpretive approach using unstructured interviews

Sample: 12 senior academics at dual mode, research-intensive universities. All were administrators who also teach and research within their programme.

Findings: Opinions fell into 4 already well-researched categories. They are summarised below with the respective amplification vs. reduction findings.

1. Flexibility and Convenience
Amplification:
- students’ private lives remain unchanged and a first priority
- improved access through removal of temporal,
- geographical and situational barriers
Reduction:
- subordination of study time to other obligations
- a loss of a sense of belongingness
- teacher’s “space slippage” – teachers experience too much familiarity because of unending proximity to students

2. Course design
Amplification:
- greater time, care and collaboration with experts can lead to higher-quality learning experience
Reduction:
- reduction of teachable moments
- Loss of cultural discourse;
- Potential for course stagnation because of time and effort in alterations
- possible decline in academic freedom and teaching as a scholarly activity; intellectual
commercialisation of e-learning packages by textbook publishers partnered with
software corporations

3. Equality and Equity
Amplification:
- equitable opportunity to participate
- equalising presence
Reduction:
- students are not forced to confront their bias
- students can hide their presence

4. Thinking and Learning Skills
Amplification:
- increased interaction between teachers and learners
- asynchronous internet communication promotes critical reflection
Reduction:
- fewer opportunities to develop oracy skills


Recommendations:
*Leaders of e-learning programmes should create a sense of belongingness and provide guidance about social and academic boundaries
*Blended e-learning programs compensate for loss of teachable moments, cultural discourse, campus culture and academic freedom and integrity
*Inclusion of internet-based audio and video communication /conferencing tools

The evidence that technologies represent both losses and gains to higher education must be considered in technology-driven educational reform.


DISCUSSION
1. Lurking is referred to as one of the reductions of e-learning. How can a leader discourage this practice without upsetting the social balance of the online class or making the lurker feel even more vulnerable?
On the other hand, while lurkers may not contribute to discussion they themselves are still absorbing it, so learning is still happening for that person (albeit selfishly and non-collaboratively). Furthermore, to what extent should it be accepted (and/or even accommodated) that a certain amount of lurking will take place for new e-learners as they build up confidence to express themselves so publicly and learn the ethics of collaboration?
2. To what extent would audio-video conferencing truly enhance the learning if an online collaborative community has already been established? For some students this might well be a reduction rather than an amplification - the very anonymity of online discussion which gives the shy learner confidence may be experienced as threatening.





.

Reading 6 (Theme Three)

Reading 6 First reading on Theme Three: Issues, trends and Developments

Graham, Charles, R. (2007). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current trends, and Future Directions . In The Handbook of Blended Learning : Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp3 – 21). C.Bonk & C. Graham. (Eds.) San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Graham’s definition: Blended learning systems combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction.

Besides the most common reason for blending being the combination of the best of both worlds, Osguthorpe and Graham (cited, 2003) identified 6 reasons for blending:

1. pedagogical richness
2. access to knowledge
3. social interaction
4. personal agency
5. cost-effectiveness
6. ease of revision

Graham, Allen & Ure (2003,2005) elaborate on the most common:

· improved pedagogy – increased level of active learning strategies, peer-to-peer learning strategies, learner- centred strategies, improved levels of authenticity, collaborative learning and problem-solving

· increased access and flexibility – especially for more mature learners

· increased cost effectiveness – opportunity for reaching a large, globally dispersed audience in a short time with consistent, semi-personal delivery

Graham distinguishes 4 different levels of blends viz activity-level, course-level, program-level and institutional level then goes on to examine how to blend. He provides a table indicating the categories of blended learning systems that can be summarised as follows:

• enabling blends – address issues of access and convenience
• enhancing blends – allow incremental changes to pedagogy without radically changing the teaching/learning process
• transforming blends – allow a radical transformation of the pedagogy that enable intellectual activity not possible without technology

Six issues and challenges of blending are identified:

· The role of live interaction – under what conditions is human interaction important to the learning process and to learner satisfaction?

· The tension between a learner’s choice of a blended course vs their level of self-regulation

· Aspects of support and training – time factors, technological skills, organisational culture, professional development

· Digital divide between information and communication technologies available to different groups

· Cultural adaptation ; the need to balance global and local interests

· Balance between innovation and production in a constantly changing technological environment

Blends must take advantage of the strengths of each environment and avoid the weaknesses. A table is used to evaluate relative strengths and weaknesses of face-toface discussion with computer-mediated learning environments

Computer-mediated (asynchronous)

• strengths: flexibility, participation, depth of reflection
• weaknesses: spontaneity loss, procrastination, impersonal

Face-to-face (in-class)

• strengths: human connection, spontaneity
• weaknesses: limited participation, inflexibility of time

Future directions require

· identification of successful BL models at all levels that can be adapted to work in contexts.

· Capitalising on the unique affordances available in face-to-face, computer-mediated or distributed learning environments.

Discussion:

1. Without appropriate professional development, there could be a danger that at school level some blends could simply offer the same old teaching with additional novel student appeal. Mayer (2001 in Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006) has shown that under some conditions multimedia presentations can actually hinder learning when visualisation focuses on irrelevant content and detail, a statement reminiscent of split attention problems related to cognitive load theory. How can one ensure the educational integrity of a blended approach?
2. Because of the traditional structure of schools, most school blends would be at the “enhancing blends” level. Should schools stop at this level and leave the transformational pedagogies to tertiary institutions? Is radical restructuring of schools to move to the transformational level justified in terms of the added learning value vs professional, financial and organisational demands?
3. Should some form of blended learning be made compulsory in schools in order to encourage and develop New Zealand’s intellectual capital in keeping with the MOE’s 2002 expectations (Anderson, 2005)?

References:

Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Anderson, B. (2005). New Zealand: Is online education a highway to the future? (pp. 163-178).
In A.A. Carr-Chelman (Ed.), Global perspectives on e-learning: Rhetoric and reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reading 5 (Theme Two)

Reading 5

Third reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2007). New Learning Design in Distance Education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1) pp.81-93.

Downloaded on 20 April 2008 from http://kea.massey.ac.nz/search~S4?/fDistance+Education/fdistance+education/1,2,2,B/l856~b1405259&FF=fdistance+education&1,1,,1,0

Motivation (learner-centred psychological principles 7-9 cited in McCoombs & Vakili’s, 2005 ) resulted in this article arresting my attention. Written from a constructivist perspective this is a report on a study into the actual perception of electronic authentic learning tasks in which perceptions of students at Open University of the Netherlands were contrasted with the designer’s expectations.

A table adapted from Dalgarno (1998) showing 10 constructivist design principles is given but the authors comment that designing by these principles does not guarantee success. The effort in CEEs (constructivist e-learning environments) relies on intrinsic motivation therefore learners’ perceptions are critical. Reference is made to Simons et al’s instructional models of the new learning (competency-based education that integrates constructivism and ICT) viz. guided learning (awakening students’ curiosity); experiential learning (let students follow own curiosity and interest) ; action learning ( organise action to arouse curiosity).

Constructivist principles require CEEs to be challenging and contextually authentic so that learners become intrinsically motivated to explore and control their own learning process. Designer challenges are:

• Difficult to determine what ‘new learning skills” are
• What is delivered is driven by what is technologically possible rather than what is educationally desirable
• Designers must gauge students’ perception
• Paucity of clear guidelines for designing new learning tasks
• Little empirical evidence for claims re supposed motivational impact of “constructivist” e-learning programs

Questions researched: - How do students learn in CEEs that provide a “virtual” reality and authentic problems? - How do students perceive it? - How do student opinions relate to the opinions and expectations of developers?

Tasks used in study were authentic, ill-structured - designed to stimulate intrinsic motivation to resolve the “confusion” thus constructing required knowledge and skills.

Findings:

• mismatch between positive expectations about CEEs and student perceptions;
• amount of intrinsic motivation correlated with amount of self-reported explorative behaviour.

Conclusions

• limited understanding of how complex key variables influence student behaviour;

• crucial variable is intrinsic motivation

Feelings of competence, relatedness and autonomy are crucial for the development of intrinsic motivation. The amount of intrinsic motivation highly correlated with the amount of self-reported explorative behaviour.

Discussion:

1. According to the fourth principle of Androgogy, adults become ready to learn "when their life situations create a need to learn.” (Huang, 2002) . This would contribute to the intrinsic motivation referred to in this article and existing as principle 9 of the learner-centred psychological principles. If intrinsic motivation is crucial to success of CEEs, can they be as effectively implemented indiscriminately with younger (e.g. secondary) students ?

2. What struck me was that not only are the ‘design guidelines vague” but “once the task is delivered to the students there is relatively little control over student perception”. (p.84) What can designers do between design and early online delivery to ensure the appropriate levels of challenge when designers can only “gauge” the students?

References

Huang, H. (2000) Toward Constructivism for Adult Learners in Online Learning Environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology. 33(1), 27-37.

McCombs, B.L. & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centred framework for e-learning. Teachers
College Record, 107, 1582 – 1600.

Reading 4 (Theme Two):

Second reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) The Expertise reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 23-31.

Downloaded on 28 March 2008 by Massey University

This reading was prompted by the previous reading (1 of theme 2) . The authors outline cognitive load theory and then review the empirical literature on the interaction between instructional techniques and levels of learner experience that suggested the expertise reversal effect.

The expertise reversal problem is explained by applying the CLT principles. Many instructional design recommendations give no explicit reference to learner knowledge levels. Some recommendations apply only to learners with limited experience. Experts bring their activated schemas that give full guidance to the process of constructing mental representations of a task. Additional guidance becomes redundant and unnecessarily uses up working memory in cross referencing and integration and results in poorer performance.

The research focused on how expertise can alter relative instructional effectiveness. The article reviews the following empirical studies of interactions between levels of expertise and

• the split-attention and redundancy effects (e.g. text and diagrams);
• text processing (e.g. additional explanation to increase coherence);
• the modality and redundancy effects (replication of information via both auditory and visual sources as opposed to dual-mode presentation);
• the worked example effect (appropriacy of worked example as opposed to problem-solving);
• the isolated or interacting elements effect (mixed instructional method followed by interacting elements);
• the imagination effect (worked examples as opposed to imagining procedures)

Findings from the above research foci consistently confirm the expertise reversal effect. The conclusion is that design must be tailored to the level of experience of the learners.

Discussion:

1. This is a warning that recommendations to use particular designs can be counterproductive if they are not based on sound learning theory, research and knowledge of the learner’s needs. It illustrates the importance of planning in design and suggests that greater collaboration between student and teacher would increase the effectiveness of the design. This points to the importance of the instructor-student relationship which leads me to reflect on Garrison’s Community of Inquiry framework in which the social – cognitive-teaching presence facilitates the educational experience.

2. What can an instructor do in the initial phases of setting up an online class to include some form of reconnaissance of developmental experiences learners bring to the learning situation?

Reading 3 (Theme Two)

First reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Downloaded on 28 March by Massey University

This is the introductory article to an issue devoted to Cognitive Load Theory and with Sweller himself one of the authors, it offers a good overview of the theory and terminology related to CLT which itself provides a framework for investigations into cognitive processes and instructional design.

Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the material being learned. Conscious cognitive processing of the element interactivity is done in the working memory.

Extraneous or ineffective cognitive load refers to problematic instructional procedures in task design that interfere with schema acquisition and automation.

Germane or effective cognitive load enhances learning: working memory resources are able to be devoted to schema acquisition and automation because effective material presentation. Increases in effort or motivation can increase cognitive resources and if relevant to schema acquisition and automation, increases germane cognitive load.

For learning to occur the sum of intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive loads needs to be less than the working memory resources available. Effective instructional design that reduces extraneous load and increases germane load improves learning; schema acquisition reduces intrinsic cognitive load and frees working memory capacity.

The original static focus of CLT aimed to develop instructional techniques to reduce extraneous cognitive load (goal specificity, split-attention, etc). Emergence of a dynamic approach considers intrinsic load as the property of the task and considers alterations in the cognitive load that occur with increasing expertise. Its main outcome has been the expertise reversal effect – previously effective instructional techniques can lose effectiveness with experts.

Some instructional consequences include: need for realistic tasks, simple-to-complex sequencing, provision of worked examples; appropriate timing of information and provision of overarching supportive information (big-picture) .

Discussion and questioning

When this paper was written (2003), little had been done to measure cognitive load. I will have to research more recent developments as it would be very valuable in terms of accommodating learner differences (cf Learner-centred psychological principles 12 – 14) in design.

The dynamic approach that recognises the problem of the expertise reversal effect presents a very practical problem to the designer. How does design accommodate the different stages learners are at in an online task – a problem exacerbated by the variance in time, pace and motivation of online learners? This problem prompts more reading.

Technology influences the learning context. Does one have to be more careful in online learning that important information does not get lost-in-delivery for the more technology-savvy students taking shortcuts while for others the technology itself becomes extraneous cognitive load? How does one accommodate both possibilities in practice?