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?

Reading 2 (Theme 1)

Second reading on Theme One: What's behind my teaching? A personal philosophy

Kelly, Lynda (2000). Understanding conceptions of learnng. Sydney: University of Technology. Downloaded on 6 March 2008 from http://www.austmus.gov.au/amarc/pdf/research/paper2000.pdf

This paper is written from a learner-centred constructivist and experiential perspective. It records qualitative research into museum learning and looks at how an individual’s “learning image” (their personal philosophy of learning) can be uncovered. The research was located within grounded theory drawing on phenomenography as an analysis tool. It was concerned with how adult museum visitors think and talk about learning.

The authorial researchers argue that in order to understand learning we must start with the learner’s experience rather than the content or outcome of the learning.

Their definition: “learning is a dynamic process dependant on both the individual and thieir environment that focuses on some change ( a change in point of view/the way one sees the world/knowledge/skill level/the way a person sees themselves)

The first part of this paper deals with previously researched conceptions of learning. They cite Marton and Svensson’s (1979) 3 aspects of studying conceptions of learning, viz.
How the person relates themselves to the situation
How the learner makes meaning from content
How the learner thinks about their learning as a conscious act
They surmise that thinking about learning as a conscious act enhances the learning

Marton et al(1993) suggest a hierarchy of conceptions of learning ranging from increasing knowledge to “changing as a person”.

Park (1994) found that respondents felt that learning that had been chosen by an individual is associated with higher levels of fulfilment than learning imposed upon him/her ; self-chosen learning associated with fulfilment.

Griffin (1998) found students thought they were not learning unless they were doing something “formal” as at school

Taylor & Spencer (1994) People regarded formal education as associated with school and “ imposed and prescriptive”; learning was informal, positive, personal, ongoing, lifelong

Some of Kelly’s findings:
Early learning experiences recalled are intensely personal and related to things outside of formal “content” of school
Remembered experiences outside of school link with children’s interests
Social learning experiences were significant
Learning as opposed to remembering
Relevant learning is more satisfying
The internet was seen as a valuable learning tool; often the starting point for finding information

Discussion

Researching the type of learning that occurs in a museum was a novel one for me but offered an interesting context for exploring conceptions of learning. It brings to the forefront the ideas of informal learning vs formal learning and it highlighted the differences in perceptions of learning. The student responses that “just looking around” did not count as learning and that learning is something formal that happened in school confirmed for me the need for conscious reflection and application that makes the learning conscious. It also made me re-think my ideas of serendipitous learning. For example, when I have given students a task that has involved online research, I have always believed that the process may lead to “incidental serendipitous” learning via browsing. Should students be encouraged to provide feedback on the search itself as well as the findings in order for such incidental learning to be recognised and valued?

The other interesting aspect of the research referred to the adult responses. They regarded formal education in a negative light and viewed informal education as real learning and a positive developmental process. The idea of experiencing higher levels of fulfilment from learning that had been chosen than by learning that had been imposed upon them draws attention to the idea of motivation for learning and the possible advantages of including some level of choice. I believe this provides a level of learner empowerment or control that supports a more positive level of self-efficacy and makes me consider the question – To what extent should we include the opportunity for choice in lesson design?

References from article:
Griffin, J. (1998). School-museum Integrated Learning Experiences in Science: A Learning
journey. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Sydney: University of Technology
Marton, F. and Svensson, L. (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning. Higher
education, 8(4), 471-486.
Park, A. (1994). Individual commitment to lifelong learning; individuals’ attitudes: report on the
quantitative phase. Research series no. 32. Moorfoot. Sheffield: Employment Department.
Taylor, S. and Spencer, E. (1994). Individual commitment to lifelong learning: individuals’
attitudes: report on the qualitative phase. Research series No. 31. Moorfoot, Sheffield; Employment Department.

THEME 1

First reading on Theme One: What's behind my teaching? A personal philosophy


Solomon, David L. (2000). Philosophy and the Learning Ecology: The Meaning of Learning Project . Learning Development Institute. Presidential Session at AECT Denver October 25-28, 2000. Downloaded on 1 March from http://www.learndev.org/dl/DenverSolomon.PDF


Introduction:
In 2000 the Learning Development Institution embarked on their Meaning of Learning (MOL) project to explore “the interconnections between, the synergy among, and the complementarity of views represented in the existing dispersed areas of inquiry and practice”. MOL functioned as a community of scholars and practitioners, who collaborated on, and contributed to, the social construction of the meaning of learning. Interaction within this community was facilitated through a web-based learning environment in addition to face-to-face encounters. Further information on this project may be found at http://www.learndev.org/MoL.html

Summary

Solomon provides definitions of philosophy and learning and a summary of phenomenology as a theory of knowledge and as a method of inquiry. The paper explores the meaning of learning by drawing connections between philosophical inquiry and the learning ecology; it offers a philosophical theory of knowledge ; it suggests confluent education as a model for learning beyond traditional instructional context and it suggests implications for educators.

Philosophy involves
- questioning one’s own point of view as well as others
- searching for defined and defensible values
- clarifying one’s beliefs and attitudes
- formulating a framework for making decisions and acting on decisions
A philosophical approach is necessary because
- as an academic discipline it provides a foundation for theory
- philosophical inquiry challenges instructional technologists to think critically about the best ways to facilitate learning
- enables action in accordance with insights when the personal philosophies are clear

Solomon frames his discussion of the meaning of learning on a theory of knowledge based on the assumption that knowledge acquisition is a dimension of learning. In terms of phenomenology, knowledge becomes rooted in perceptual experiences and it becomes meaningful through reflection. As a method of inquiry phenomenology posits that through eidetic reduction, attention is shifted from perceptual experiences to abstract properties bringing direct knowledge to the surface and allowing connections to be made; “thus revealing universal truths”. Solomon uses this reasoning as motivation for embracing the confluent education metaphor (the ‘flowing together” of the cognitive and affective domains) which integrates various dimensions of learning and which he suggests can become a model for a wider meaning of learning which allows us to experience our own perceptions with the understanding that they are not arbitrary but grounded in a knowable universe.

Learning occurs through reflection upon experiences that are unique to a given discipline; presenting multiple perspectives within a discipline enhances learning. In the learning ecology, a change in one part affects all others, so distinct parts of the learning ecology can be influenced to produce a wider meaning of learning.

Key terms and ideas mentioned in relation to learning: immersion in discipline-based inquiry, situated learning , cognitive apprenticeship, authentic environments, reflective practice; interdisciplinary learning; construction of knowledge

Discussion
Solomon presents learning as experience and reflection. Although active reflection is referred to, there is no reference to the action of application that would embed the reflective experience and bring about longer lasting change. While Solomon’s presentation of learning reflects Pratt’s (1998, p. 47) reference to the developmental perspective of learning as being the change in the quality of one’s thinking, he does not articulate the concept of adaptation (Kolb, 1984) as a characteristic of learning. As educators, can we philosophically be “satisfied” that learning has occurred on “reflection”? What is the evidence of reflection? Furthermore, if, considering the interaction of learning ecology and learning experience, learner’s experiences differ – how then can the educator be assured that the correct learning has transpired? Based on this thinking, to what extent then, should a philosophy of learning include some aspect of recognition of the effectiveness and even the “correctness” of the learning?
Solomon’s understanding of learning reflects the developmental, experiential and nurturing approaches to learning. In his suggestions (not summarised above) he recommends metacognitive activities and meditation on the nature of knowledge. There does however seem to be an assumption that the learner automatically wants to learn. While a wide meaning of learning is given here, I miss something about self-regulated learning that encourages the continued cycle of learning.

References:
Pratt, D. $ Associates. (1998). Alternative frames of understanding. Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education (pp35-53). Malabar, FL: Kreiger.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.