Holy moly - did you see how many articles/references there were made at the end of the reading for this week? Sheesh!
I did enjoy the reading, however - in particular because I liked how in-depth they got with reading. I guess it feels like we've spent a lot of time and read a lot about how these learning models/theories we're studying can be applied in mathematics/science contexts. Was nice to talk a little about phonics.
I am glad that Kevin explained the overarching message behind the theory though because - and they warned us - they were heavy on the background and not so much on the practical applications (you know what I mean) as of yet. Or at least... I needed a MOST environment to help me fully wrap my brain around MOST. (I didn't really, trying to make a funny... but that one might have flopped.)
The idea of redefining literacy is something that has intrigued me for awhile - and I'm glad that they talk about it within the context of the MOST model (they refer to it as representational literacy). Literacy used to mean ... well, can you read? But I must say I prefer the broader, more expanded understanding. Literacy isn't just about how information gets in your brain via books and text. It's about all of the good stuff and how it gets in your head and then (wait for it) ... what you do with it! (This then leads to a conversation about using your knowledge to create something, or synthesis the information, or what not... just not regurgitating "facts".)
Their idea of multimedia helping to formulate mental models and that therefore helping to increase a student's literacy - love it. More and more I'm finding myself falling for (in a good way) the multimedia ... idea or cause or what not. I loved the correlation made towards the beginning of the article that language learning is all about taking in information from multiple sources of media ... for me this was one of those "Duh!" moments. It just so happens that as of April 2010 we now have at our fingertips ways of creating different kinds of multimedia. :)
Back to the mental models. This makes me thing of last week with the STAR model and having the "big picture" mental map right there for all to see and to help with overall understanding. The same (I think) can be paralleled for this week's model. The video helps to create the mental model in the students' brain - priming the ground for some heavy-duty learning!
And of course - learning happens in context. Love it. Amazed at how often its written about.
Kevin did a pretty good job of giving us examples for implementing this theory using today's technological resources in this weeks' lecture. In particular I think the idea of redifining "clips" more broadly helps me to wrap my brain around how this might be used using some of the Web 2.0 technologies available to us. Trailfire seems like a good start - maybe even Cmap. Then, of course, the old faithfuls. Making a wiki-based website that is easy to edit - embed YouTube videos. I think you could even have tools set up for kids to create their own videos to retell the stories and then post them to YouTube (this would assume a little older students that the K's and 1st graders that were used in some of the studies).
I'm trying to wrap my mind around using the MOST model outside of the context of learning to read. I know they mention in the article the two areas that they wanted to explore (prof dev and reaching out to the community). I'm going to be thinking over the next few days about using this for... I don't know... science. :)
Especially with my idea/theory of instruction as storytelling... I'm wondering if the MOST model might be a good idea to help me frame how learning is "assessed" within this new framework...
Thinking/typing outloud now...
What if you tell the "story" of dividing fractions. Then you have students retell the story using some form of multimedia... video, podcast, VoiceThread, Prezi. Just a thought.
Signing off! Hope everyone has a great week!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The STAR LEGACY Modules: Launch Pads for Learning
Couldn't help myself with the title there. :)
I'm a little later than I had anticipated on my reflection this week. Jet lag and getting back into the swing of life back home took longer than I thought it would.
Really, now. Each week it just keeps getting better and better with these theories!
Lovin' the STAR. "Software Technology for Action & Reflection." Action and Reflection - that's some sexy stuff!
All kidding and joking aside I am quite impressed with this model and I feel a certain connection to it - and I'm not entirely sure if that is based in philosophy/theory or the style/tone of the authors. I am a huge proponent of simplicity. Simplicity = Godliness. And - at least for me - the STAR methodology(ies) seem to just make good sense.
Let's start with the placement of this theory in relation to other theories - middle of the road they say - and I'd agree. The phrase "Flexibly Adaptive Instructional Design" - while a mouthful - says it all. Learning doesn't always happen in nice, neat little objective-sounding chunks. It's not always linear. It's cyclical and it builds on itself and it can be confusing and nerve-wracking. Thank goodness they've figured out a way to hard-wire in reflection into the process!
Launch Pad for learning ... I think I'm changing my middle name to LaunchPad - or STAR. This is exactly how I've been viewing our online modules that we're all creating for this course. While we may be employing and trying on different instructional design theories, the modules that we're creating always serve as some sort of hub of what we're doing. Now there's a theory that standardizes or formalizes this a bit. Whoohoo! (I know, I know... I'm greatly simplifying this, but you get my drift.)
And... drum roll... being thoughtful about your legacy? YES!! I love it! There is just something that happens to you... imagine it... after you've been so invested in learning about ... whatever ... and you're feeling successful and proud of yourself and your group. And then someone asks you - "What do you want your legacy to be?" That's some awesome (and purposefully 'deep') stuff right there. Bring it on!
Final big thought before I bring it on home. Mapping out the journey. Learning is a journey. Sometimes where you though you were headed isn't where you really end up. My methods professor in my undergrad used to talk about our Syllabus as a map. And every few weeks we'd have a "consult the map" talk - where we looked back at where we'd been, where we were headed next, and how the terrain... and map!... had changed in the process. I used to do this in my classroom as a math teacher - in fact it's one of the things I learned about myself as a learner - and that's helping map the terrain, throwing down some boundaries, laying out the context, painting the big picture... pick your metaphor... of what it is we're all about or what we're doing or what we're learning or where we're headed. Love, love, love it.
How could this be done online today? Easy. Just like my group's been doing with our modules and Google Sites, and other groups with Weebly/Wordpress and what not. There's your Launch Pad - some sort of easily editable website. YouTube videos to help with Research. Podcasts the same. Google Docs for reflections. Use Twitter to access experts. Have them Test their Mettle with online quizzes and surveys to test their hypotheses. Going Public... well that's never been easier than right now! Have them broadcast their learning to the world! Get some iPod Touches thrown in the mix and have at it. Cell phones too. ;)
My one overarching question that this article/theory left me with: they talk a lot in their footnotes about the industrial-age paradigm and the "new paradigm." I think I can guess the prior... but I'm wondering where I can learn more about this so-called "new paradigm"... that's, well, not so new anymore - but you know what I mean. I get that there are other theories out there, many that might fit under the umbrella of the new paradigm. What are those? Ideas? Can someone draw me a map and point me in the right direction? ;)
I'm a little later than I had anticipated on my reflection this week. Jet lag and getting back into the swing of life back home took longer than I thought it would.
Really, now. Each week it just keeps getting better and better with these theories!
Lovin' the STAR. "Software Technology for Action & Reflection." Action and Reflection - that's some sexy stuff!
All kidding and joking aside I am quite impressed with this model and I feel a certain connection to it - and I'm not entirely sure if that is based in philosophy/theory or the style/tone of the authors. I am a huge proponent of simplicity. Simplicity = Godliness. And - at least for me - the STAR methodology(ies) seem to just make good sense.
Let's start with the placement of this theory in relation to other theories - middle of the road they say - and I'd agree. The phrase "Flexibly Adaptive Instructional Design" - while a mouthful - says it all. Learning doesn't always happen in nice, neat little objective-sounding chunks. It's not always linear. It's cyclical and it builds on itself and it can be confusing and nerve-wracking. Thank goodness they've figured out a way to hard-wire in reflection into the process!
Launch Pad for learning ... I think I'm changing my middle name to LaunchPad - or STAR. This is exactly how I've been viewing our online modules that we're all creating for this course. While we may be employing and trying on different instructional design theories, the modules that we're creating always serve as some sort of hub of what we're doing. Now there's a theory that standardizes or formalizes this a bit. Whoohoo! (I know, I know... I'm greatly simplifying this, but you get my drift.)
And... drum roll... being thoughtful about your legacy? YES!! I love it! There is just something that happens to you... imagine it... after you've been so invested in learning about ... whatever ... and you're feeling successful and proud of yourself and your group. And then someone asks you - "What do you want your legacy to be?" That's some awesome (and purposefully 'deep') stuff right there. Bring it on!
Final big thought before I bring it on home. Mapping out the journey. Learning is a journey. Sometimes where you though you were headed isn't where you really end up. My methods professor in my undergrad used to talk about our Syllabus as a map. And every few weeks we'd have a "consult the map" talk - where we looked back at where we'd been, where we were headed next, and how the terrain... and map!... had changed in the process. I used to do this in my classroom as a math teacher - in fact it's one of the things I learned about myself as a learner - and that's helping map the terrain, throwing down some boundaries, laying out the context, painting the big picture... pick your metaphor... of what it is we're all about or what we're doing or what we're learning or where we're headed. Love, love, love it.
How could this be done online today? Easy. Just like my group's been doing with our modules and Google Sites, and other groups with Weebly/Wordpress and what not. There's your Launch Pad - some sort of easily editable website. YouTube videos to help with Research. Podcasts the same. Google Docs for reflections. Use Twitter to access experts. Have them Test their Mettle with online quizzes and surveys to test their hypotheses. Going Public... well that's never been easier than right now! Have them broadcast their learning to the world! Get some iPod Touches thrown in the mix and have at it. Cell phones too. ;)
My one overarching question that this article/theory left me with: they talk a lot in their footnotes about the industrial-age paradigm and the "new paradigm." I think I can guess the prior... but I'm wondering where I can learn more about this so-called "new paradigm"... that's, well, not so new anymore - but you know what I mean. I get that there are other theories out there, many that might fit under the umbrella of the new paradigm. What are those? Ideas? Can someone draw me a map and point me in the right direction? ;)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Learning Ahoy! Setting sail for Anchored Instruction Island with the Vanderbilt Crew!
Okay - so I couldn't think of/find a "perfect" quote for this week's theory - hereafter called AI (not to be confused with Artificial Intelligence or some other fancy name with the acronym AI). So, I decided to do the next best thing if you can't find a cool quote - play off the imagery of the title. ;)
I am back on track of my loving the instructional theories. I really enjoyed this week’s – and I think that that is due in large part to it’s grounding in the previous week’s theory, Cognitive Apprenticeship/Situated Learning. I know that there are many similarities to GBS (Yikes! – See my previous posts), but this theory (AI) fits more with the CA/SL theories. Maybe I just want it to fit more with my favorite theory thus far. ;)
I appreciated the extensive examples that were provided by the authors. I got a little tired of reading the phrase “our group” – I get it, your group did it all and wrote a lot about it – but I think they were smart in how they approached their publications. I had heard of the “Jasper” problems before, but I’ve never actually seen them “live and in living color.” I have a vague memory of hearing about a set of very hard “problems” that students between the elementary and college years could work on and still be challenged by, that had content/skills built in. I can only assume based on the readings that these problems I’m thinking of were Jaspers.
I may have mentioned before that I have a developing theory in my head about teaching as storytelling. If I haven’t ever mentioned it before, I have a theory about teaching as storytelling. J AI feels very much like it could fit nicely into that schema for me. And – for some unknown reason – the contextual story that is used to frame the modules we read about which could be paralleled with the GBS “cover story” doesn’t feel exactly the same to me. They feel like two sides of the same coin, but still, two different sides.
The main challenge I’m seeing/thinking about is how intense these experiences would be to create. I mean – did you read how many different examples/projects that they were working on to experiment with their theory? (And also the footnote that all of their research is being funded by a seemingly large grant?) And all of that technology being on DVDs (or compact discs I think they say). How long and how intense is the design process? I’m imagining needing to hire a company to come in and help me design all of the components!
So practically speaking – how to use this. I can see using a form of Digital Storytelling (there are tons of sites out there to help with this). I’m also thinking about ways to use something like YouTube where you could have linked videos… based on where/what the student needed to go you could have any number of videos linked. I also immediately go to Flash… and then shudder a bit as I remember how steep the learning curve is for Flash. I guess I’m thinking that with something like AI you’d have to literally build a content-world from the ground up. That’s some pretty intense web design I’m seeing happening in my head!
Since I’m composing this post in Word (thanks American Airlines for no wifi on a plane – why hasn’t this just been figured out already???) I’m pretty sure I’m way over my normal post length. I’ll stop while I’m ahead and post this when we land and I get some decent Internet. On to reading and figuring out how to sleep upright. Probably more of the former than the latter. Will see you all in the Comments section! Enjoy your Spring Break!
I’m actually writing this post from 33,000 miles in the air! One of the research projects that I’m working on right now is studying how technology can be used to enhance short-term Study Abroad experiences – and I’m en route to my research site as I type! You’ll have to excuse the exclamation points. We’ve been talking and planning and thinking and talking some more about this trip for MONTHS … and here I am on my way across the globe.
I am back on track of my loving the instructional theories. I really enjoyed this week’s – and I think that that is due in large part to it’s grounding in the previous week’s theory, Cognitive Apprenticeship/Situated Learning. I know that there are many similarities to GBS (Yikes! – See my previous posts), but this theory (AI) fits more with the CA/SL theories. Maybe I just want it to fit more with my favorite theory thus far. ;)
I appreciated the extensive examples that were provided by the authors. I got a little tired of reading the phrase “our group” – I get it, your group did it all and wrote a lot about it – but I think they were smart in how they approached their publications. I had heard of the “Jasper” problems before, but I’ve never actually seen them “live and in living color.” I have a vague memory of hearing about a set of very hard “problems” that students between the elementary and college years could work on and still be challenged by, that had content/skills built in. I can only assume based on the readings that these problems I’m thinking of were Jaspers.
I may have mentioned before that I have a developing theory in my head about teaching as storytelling. If I haven’t ever mentioned it before, I have a theory about teaching as storytelling. J AI feels very much like it could fit nicely into that schema for me. And – for some unknown reason – the contextual story that is used to frame the modules we read about which could be paralleled with the GBS “cover story” doesn’t feel exactly the same to me. They feel like two sides of the same coin, but still, two different sides.
The main challenge I’m seeing/thinking about is how intense these experiences would be to create. I mean – did you read how many different examples/projects that they were working on to experiment with their theory? (And also the footnote that all of their research is being funded by a seemingly large grant?) And all of that technology being on DVDs (or compact discs I think they say). How long and how intense is the design process? I’m imagining needing to hire a company to come in and help me design all of the components!
So practically speaking – how to use this. I can see using a form of Digital Storytelling (there are tons of sites out there to help with this). I’m also thinking about ways to use something like YouTube where you could have linked videos… based on where/what the student needed to go you could have any number of videos linked. I also immediately go to Flash… and then shudder a bit as I remember how steep the learning curve is for Flash. I guess I’m thinking that with something like AI you’d have to literally build a content-world from the ground up. That’s some pretty intense web design I’m seeing happening in my head!
Since I’m composing this post in Word (thanks American Airlines for no wifi on a plane – why hasn’t this just been figured out already???) I’m pretty sure I’m way over my normal post length. I’ll stop while I’m ahead and post this when we land and I get some decent Internet. On to reading and figuring out how to sleep upright. Probably more of the former than the latter. Will see you all in the Comments section! Enjoy your Spring Break!
Friday, March 5, 2010
PBL @ NCTIES
Some of you may know that there is a conference happening right now in Raleigh - NCTIES - that I'm unfortunately unable to attend, but am following along voraciously via Twitter... and this just came across my Twitter feed:
RT @swalker2: Just blogged this: Integrating Technology into Problem Based Learning http://is.gd/9KZcR #ncties #wsfcs
Check out the blog post.
RT @swalker2: Just blogged this: Integrating Technology into Problem Based Learning http://is.gd/9KZcR #ncties #wsfcs
Check out the blog post.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Goals + Doing = Learning... Schank's Goal-Based Scenarios (GBS)
Okay. I have to go ahead and lay it out on the line. Not so much on feeling the love for this week's theory. And that actually makes me kind of sad considering the high of last week's with the modeling and coaching and boom! pow! wow! The GBS kind of fell flat for me... and I've been trying for the past few hours to figure out exactly why.
But, honestly? I'm not close to an answer.
Maybe it's that all of the examples seem to be driven and are directly connected to Schank. Does that make sense? It seems like the other theories that we've experienced were tested and explored by a variety of scholars and teachers and practitioners. Only this week there's Schank and then two others who basically copied Schank (I know, I know - it's not "exactly" copied, one was for business training/development and the other was for teaching stats... but you get what I mean).
I didn't originally feel this way when I watched/listened to the overview of the theory this past weekend. I kinda got what direction we were headed in, GBS made sense. I had a happy party in my head thinking of ways to use this theory (and even some elements of the theory that I lived while in the classroom). Then I sat down to read the Hsu & Moore piece - and I don't know if it was the tone (or lack of one) or the matter-of-fact-ness of their writing... the whole piece just left we with an "eh..." attitude. So I grabbed the Schank piece thinking that reading the creator's words would lift me a bit.
I think it's interesting that the theory grew from his studies of memory and the innards of a computer. I don't think the theory is as radical as he makes it out to be. Sure - teaching skills within a context is a shift from the traditional view of teaching/learning. But we've seen (and will see) other models that will accomplish the same goal. His thoughts on memory were so ... "Well, this is it, as you can plainly see, my rationalization of the rational is completely rational. Therefore, doing = learning = memory = rational = good."
I may be being a little too harsh... but if you could hear me talk about this in person, you'd hear the tone of my voice and you'd know that I was only metaphorically poking a stick at Schank and the theory.
I don't agree with his analysis of memory, which he uses as a foundation for GBS. Back to what I was saying about not that drastic of a shift... Skills are still what's important in his theory. Instead of cramming them down students' throats, however, now teachers just need to figure out how to create a scenario to motivate them to learn the skills. (Remember, learn = do.)
I've learned lots of stuff that I haven't "done." I learn tons of things from books and videos.
And I also learn by "doing" as well.
And then there's "goals." Just doesn't sit well with me. Feels too familiar... too similar to what's already there. Like a friend who's just had a makeover to come back to you with a bad haircut and poorly done makeup... do you tell them they look amazing?
Okay - that might not have been the best analogy. Let's try this.
Years ago - when I was preparing myself to go and teach at a Quaker school - I read everything that Parker Palmer had ever written. (His research ranges from the spirituality of education and learning to higher education administration.) I would be 100% lying if I didn't admit that his beliefs and theories about learning did not color my own - and this is probably why I'm struggling this week.
Palmer says (in a horrible simplification) that learning involves three key factors: the learner, the teacher/facilitator, and the content/discipline. The only way anything ever really works in teaching/learning is when all three of these components are in relationship to each other. And he's written pages and pages about what these different relationships can look like.
In this theory, it seems to me that the teacher/facilitator has been all but left out. Sure they make the goals and the "cover" story - but then there's the learner... and there's the content. My job as facilitator is still to "make" the student learn... to motivate them. While I'll embrace that part of my job is to motivate students - it doesn't jive with me that my job is to make anyone do anything.
I guess if the GBS was truly authentic - and it was created with great care, I could go there. I could try it on, and it might be wonderful! This is the section of the course where skills/content drives the theory - and this may be the ultimate cause of my discomfort.
In terms of using this theory with technology/multimedia... I could easily see a series of webpages on a wiki creating an environment like this. Flash too - but I'm not as well versed in Flash. Seeing as I'm currently just beginning to explore SecondLife, I'll throw that hat in the ring as well. Can't you embed links within a YouTube video? If you could... think of how cool THAT might be... (I'm thinking of the "create your own adventure"-ish perspective.)
Must stop before I offend anyone else. Will have to trust that my peers will elder me and show me the error of my ways!
Hoping reading all of y'all's blogs will help me see more possibility with GBS.
But, honestly? I'm not close to an answer.
Maybe it's that all of the examples seem to be driven and are directly connected to Schank. Does that make sense? It seems like the other theories that we've experienced were tested and explored by a variety of scholars and teachers and practitioners. Only this week there's Schank and then two others who basically copied Schank (I know, I know - it's not "exactly" copied, one was for business training/development and the other was for teaching stats... but you get what I mean).
I didn't originally feel this way when I watched/listened to the overview of the theory this past weekend. I kinda got what direction we were headed in, GBS made sense. I had a happy party in my head thinking of ways to use this theory (and even some elements of the theory that I lived while in the classroom). Then I sat down to read the Hsu & Moore piece - and I don't know if it was the tone (or lack of one) or the matter-of-fact-ness of their writing... the whole piece just left we with an "eh..." attitude. So I grabbed the Schank piece thinking that reading the creator's words would lift me a bit.
I think it's interesting that the theory grew from his studies of memory and the innards of a computer. I don't think the theory is as radical as he makes it out to be. Sure - teaching skills within a context is a shift from the traditional view of teaching/learning. But we've seen (and will see) other models that will accomplish the same goal. His thoughts on memory were so ... "Well, this is it, as you can plainly see, my rationalization of the rational is completely rational. Therefore, doing = learning = memory = rational = good."
I may be being a little too harsh... but if you could hear me talk about this in person, you'd hear the tone of my voice and you'd know that I was only metaphorically poking a stick at Schank and the theory.
I don't agree with his analysis of memory, which he uses as a foundation for GBS. Back to what I was saying about not that drastic of a shift... Skills are still what's important in his theory. Instead of cramming them down students' throats, however, now teachers just need to figure out how to create a scenario to motivate them to learn the skills. (Remember, learn = do.)
I've learned lots of stuff that I haven't "done." I learn tons of things from books and videos.
And I also learn by "doing" as well.
And then there's "goals." Just doesn't sit well with me. Feels too familiar... too similar to what's already there. Like a friend who's just had a makeover to come back to you with a bad haircut and poorly done makeup... do you tell them they look amazing?
Okay - that might not have been the best analogy. Let's try this.
Years ago - when I was preparing myself to go and teach at a Quaker school - I read everything that Parker Palmer had ever written. (His research ranges from the spirituality of education and learning to higher education administration.) I would be 100% lying if I didn't admit that his beliefs and theories about learning did not color my own - and this is probably why I'm struggling this week.
Palmer says (in a horrible simplification) that learning involves three key factors: the learner, the teacher/facilitator, and the content/discipline. The only way anything ever really works in teaching/learning is when all three of these components are in relationship to each other. And he's written pages and pages about what these different relationships can look like.
In this theory, it seems to me that the teacher/facilitator has been all but left out. Sure they make the goals and the "cover" story - but then there's the learner... and there's the content. My job as facilitator is still to "make" the student learn... to motivate them. While I'll embrace that part of my job is to motivate students - it doesn't jive with me that my job is to make anyone do anything.
I guess if the GBS was truly authentic - and it was created with great care, I could go there. I could try it on, and it might be wonderful! This is the section of the course where skills/content drives the theory - and this may be the ultimate cause of my discomfort.
In terms of using this theory with technology/multimedia... I could easily see a series of webpages on a wiki creating an environment like this. Flash too - but I'm not as well versed in Flash. Seeing as I'm currently just beginning to explore SecondLife, I'll throw that hat in the ring as well. Can't you embed links within a YouTube video? If you could... think of how cool THAT might be... (I'm thinking of the "create your own adventure"-ish perspective.)
Must stop before I offend anyone else. Will have to trust that my peers will elder me and show me the error of my ways!
Hoping reading all of y'all's blogs will help me see more possibility with GBS.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Model, Coach, Fade = Authentic learning: My Love affair with Cognitive Apprenticeship
You know that phrase/realization that young couples make early in the honeymoon period that they learn to love each other more and more with each passing day? (I'm not being cynical - because I do believe this is true!)
Well - this pretty much feels like my experience with all of these learning theories. I know we've only just scratched the surface of what we're going to learn this semester (actually, I think we're at halfway now that I really think about it) but it seems like with each passing week I like/love that week's theory moreso than the previous weeks'. And here we have my love affair with SL/CA (Situated Learning/Cognitive Apprenticeship). I say love affair because love is confusing and complicated and messy and deep ... and that's how I'm feeling right now about SL/CA. :)
One the one hand I was pseudo-relieved that all of this research had been completed providing a true, theoretically based alternative to "formal" schooling. (If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know that I have quite a bone to pick with traditional modes of education.) On the other hand - I was kind of pissed! Why hadn't I thought of all of this... dismissing, of course, the fact that I was in elementary school when all of this research was being done. Ha!
I just love this theory. Normally every week I carve out a few hours for my 517 reading and I dutifully peruse, skim, highlight, pencil my thoughts in the margins the articles that we are to read for the week. Not so with this theory - I (for lack of a better expression) inhaled the articles this week. Couldn't get enough of it. I'm thinking about being Lave or Collins when I grow up.
Even the name - cognitive apprenticeship - it just sounds sexy! And it makes so much SENSE. In the Collins piece they open their conclusion with "Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally." Thank you, God, for someone else putting this into print. But they don't totally discount other traditional, information transmission models - because (drum roll....) There is no one right way to do anything. Whew. Just had to get that out there.
Another interesting reflection is the cognitive dissonance that I'm experiencing as I try to "fit" the SL/CA model in my brain (thank you, Piaget). I consider myself to be a pretty good teacher/educator. And I'm one hell of a storyteller when it comes to direct, information transmission instruction. But I also feel like there are pieces of the SL/CA process that I used... for lack of a better way of putting it... naturally - meaning I was never "formally" trained to use these processes. I'm thinking in particular about the Model, Coach, Fade trilogy. But then something interesting happened as I was trying to figure out whether I was living the theory all this time or I was trying to make my own teaching fit the theory... I realized that how I learned the Model, Coach, Fade process was by observing it in other master teachers. Throw in the reflection and the post-game analysis as well - I never realized the value in the conversations I used to have after class with my teachers/professors where I became privy to their background and rationale for doing what they did in the classroom. I was a wee little apprentice!
Another component/observation that I found fascinating was that in each of the articles (realizing that I'm not going to realistically be able to talk about each one of them here) there is not that air/feeling that grades and "high achievement" (whatever that means) are lurking in the shadows. (The, "Oh yes, this is a nice theory alright... but what about the grades? What about the test scores?") I also appreciated the depth of the Collins article in particular for its providing detailed examples of the theory in action, thoughts on intrinsic emotion, as well as a framework for future study.
I do have some questions about the De Bruijn article's methodology - but I think some of there statements are fascinating. (Adult learners that are lower educated have a harder time self-directing their learning for instance.) Mainly - they were concerned that students (the adults) didn't take the "coaching" help by clicking the help button to get assistance. I wonder if assuming/imposing the structure of computer help button = coaching might be the problem... not that the students didn't want or wouldn't accept coaching. Also, they make a huge, broad, sweeping claim about lower-educated adult learners being generally passive. Um, if you sat me down with that program I'd probably be pretty "passive" as well. How much of this passiveness that they saw in their participants was culture driven/bound? How much was due to (maybe) a poorly chosen task? (I don't feel particularly motivated by being able to make change, for example.) I have more, but getting away from the point here.
Integrating this into a computer-mediated environment. Hrm. The two examples we read about (the money problem, the business course project) sounded like the software that was produced was costly and time-consuming. So I've been stuck trying to think of ways to get around having to "build" or create a whole other learning environment. Maybe SecondLife could be used as one of the tools to help students? YouTube could surely be used to store videos of relative material. I think it would largely depend on the nature of the skill set and the domain that we're talking about (duh, context) as we're considering possibly technologies to support the instruction. For online instruction, there would need to be a sort of hub... the availability for the student to "observe" (maybe via YouTube or a video-chatting software) the teacher/model... some form of two-way communication like chatting or conferencing to encourage the coaching... and then fading would come naturally... reflection and acquirement strategies could be used via a blog or Twitter account.
I've written too much - but this is pretty much a love note, so I'm okay with it. I'll have to continue to reflect on ways to use technology for SL/AC... but I think that might be a career-long problem. :) Wonder if I'll be as in love next week with Goal Based Scenarios...
Have a great weekend, all!
Well - this pretty much feels like my experience with all of these learning theories. I know we've only just scratched the surface of what we're going to learn this semester (actually, I think we're at halfway now that I really think about it) but it seems like with each passing week I like/love that week's theory moreso than the previous weeks'. And here we have my love affair with SL/CA (Situated Learning/Cognitive Apprenticeship). I say love affair because love is confusing and complicated and messy and deep ... and that's how I'm feeling right now about SL/CA. :)
One the one hand I was pseudo-relieved that all of this research had been completed providing a true, theoretically based alternative to "formal" schooling. (If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know that I have quite a bone to pick with traditional modes of education.) On the other hand - I was kind of pissed! Why hadn't I thought of all of this... dismissing, of course, the fact that I was in elementary school when all of this research was being done. Ha!
I just love this theory. Normally every week I carve out a few hours for my 517 reading and I dutifully peruse, skim, highlight, pencil my thoughts in the margins the articles that we are to read for the week. Not so with this theory - I (for lack of a better expression) inhaled the articles this week. Couldn't get enough of it. I'm thinking about being Lave or Collins when I grow up.
Even the name - cognitive apprenticeship - it just sounds sexy! And it makes so much SENSE. In the Collins piece they open their conclusion with "Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally." Thank you, God, for someone else putting this into print. But they don't totally discount other traditional, information transmission models - because (drum roll....) There is no one right way to do anything. Whew. Just had to get that out there.
Another interesting reflection is the cognitive dissonance that I'm experiencing as I try to "fit" the SL/CA model in my brain (thank you, Piaget). I consider myself to be a pretty good teacher/educator. And I'm one hell of a storyteller when it comes to direct, information transmission instruction. But I also feel like there are pieces of the SL/CA process that I used... for lack of a better way of putting it... naturally - meaning I was never "formally" trained to use these processes. I'm thinking in particular about the Model, Coach, Fade trilogy. But then something interesting happened as I was trying to figure out whether I was living the theory all this time or I was trying to make my own teaching fit the theory... I realized that how I learned the Model, Coach, Fade process was by observing it in other master teachers. Throw in the reflection and the post-game analysis as well - I never realized the value in the conversations I used to have after class with my teachers/professors where I became privy to their background and rationale for doing what they did in the classroom. I was a wee little apprentice!
Another component/observation that I found fascinating was that in each of the articles (realizing that I'm not going to realistically be able to talk about each one of them here) there is not that air/feeling that grades and "high achievement" (whatever that means) are lurking in the shadows. (The, "Oh yes, this is a nice theory alright... but what about the grades? What about the test scores?") I also appreciated the depth of the Collins article in particular for its providing detailed examples of the theory in action, thoughts on intrinsic emotion, as well as a framework for future study.
I do have some questions about the De Bruijn article's methodology - but I think some of there statements are fascinating. (Adult learners that are lower educated have a harder time self-directing their learning for instance.) Mainly - they were concerned that students (the adults) didn't take the "coaching" help by clicking the help button to get assistance. I wonder if assuming/imposing the structure of computer help button = coaching might be the problem... not that the students didn't want or wouldn't accept coaching. Also, they make a huge, broad, sweeping claim about lower-educated adult learners being generally passive. Um, if you sat me down with that program I'd probably be pretty "passive" as well. How much of this passiveness that they saw in their participants was culture driven/bound? How much was due to (maybe) a poorly chosen task? (I don't feel particularly motivated by being able to make change, for example.) I have more, but getting away from the point here.
Integrating this into a computer-mediated environment. Hrm. The two examples we read about (the money problem, the business course project) sounded like the software that was produced was costly and time-consuming. So I've been stuck trying to think of ways to get around having to "build" or create a whole other learning environment. Maybe SecondLife could be used as one of the tools to help students? YouTube could surely be used to store videos of relative material. I think it would largely depend on the nature of the skill set and the domain that we're talking about (duh, context) as we're considering possibly technologies to support the instruction. For online instruction, there would need to be a sort of hub... the availability for the student to "observe" (maybe via YouTube or a video-chatting software) the teacher/model... some form of two-way communication like chatting or conferencing to encourage the coaching... and then fading would come naturally... reflection and acquirement strategies could be used via a blog or Twitter account.
I've written too much - but this is pretty much a love note, so I'm okay with it. I'll have to continue to reflect on ways to use technology for SL/AC... but I think that might be a career-long problem. :) Wonder if I'll be as in love next week with Goal Based Scenarios...
Have a great weekend, all!
Friday, February 19, 2010
PBL: Teacher as transmitter of knowledge/information vs. facilitator of thinking/learning
I have to admit - I find the theory for the week, the PBL, pretty alluring. I found myself wrapped up in its utter uniqueness. I mean, for some reason the earlier theories felt familiar and homey... but for me this PBL, this based on problems and role-playing solutions, felt kind of racy to me. In a good way, of course. :)
I appreciated the background/application pieces this week from the medical field as I think that really gives us a good perspective on this model. And honestly, it's how I'll remember this theory. My mind wanders to my experiences teaching a "mock" lesson during my methods courses before student teaching. I know that PBL has its basis in the group work, and my mock lessons were just little ol' me, though.
Sidenote - how interesting were the medical articles, talking about their eTalk and the whole new room/lab they created for this new and experimental type of instruction. I had one of those moments where I wondered what the authors would have thought if they could have fast-forwarded 15 years later. Wow, 15 years. Didn't realize how long it was until I just typed it.
I think the piece weighing the pros/cons/research on PBL (come on, they were leaning towards the pro side a little) - the one by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen - was quite nice. Quite an easier read, if I do say so myself, much more "accessible" and some interesting ideas and arguments. While I do love the PBL, I'm not 100% sold on their reasoning/rationale in the piece. That's another post altogether.
This theory, more than the others for me I think, requires the redefining of the role of "instructor" - yay! Cooperative learning, yea a little bit. But to truly present students (of any age) with a "real" problem and give them the tools to solve it (or they go after them themselves) - that's the racy part. Love it. I'd love to see myself more in the role of facilitator of learning ... even though I love myself as the transmitter of knowledge, I can't lie. ;)
Accomplishing this via technology is where I'm a bit stumped. And I'm going to have to go to my peers for help on this one. I can see how you can provide a common space or meeting ground like Elluminate or GoogleWave or something like that (wikis too, maybe) for a group engaged in PBL... and then let them hunt for the tools/websites/research articles they'll need... and then have them re-engage online... but is that too simplistic?
My group met this week to really nail down our next module and we considered only for a fleeting moment doing our module using PBL... but quickly steered in another direction because we felt like PBL required SO MUCH preparation - or at least that's what it seemed like. I mean - those medical guys had to build a whole new learning center...
And hell yeah for the depth vs breadth. I'm in the depth camp. Subject matter/disciplines are holographic by definition, thus by studying a few components you can grasp the whole. (Plus, you can never realistically teach ALL of a subject matter... or we'd all be out of a job. :))
Here's an idea... what if a group using PBL used something like Twitter to communicate with each other - and part of their process is to engage "others" along the way to their solution? Maybe they don't "meet officially on Twitter - but in the course of their normal day they use Twitter to continue the ongoing discussion...
Or set up a Ning for the group to work together in...
Okay, the ideas are starting to flow more now. Will have to read my peers' posts tomorrow. Onward! Enjoy the weekend!
I appreciated the background/application pieces this week from the medical field as I think that really gives us a good perspective on this model. And honestly, it's how I'll remember this theory. My mind wanders to my experiences teaching a "mock" lesson during my methods courses before student teaching. I know that PBL has its basis in the group work, and my mock lessons were just little ol' me, though.
Sidenote - how interesting were the medical articles, talking about their eTalk and the whole new room/lab they created for this new and experimental type of instruction. I had one of those moments where I wondered what the authors would have thought if they could have fast-forwarded 15 years later. Wow, 15 years. Didn't realize how long it was until I just typed it.
I think the piece weighing the pros/cons/research on PBL (come on, they were leaning towards the pro side a little) - the one by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen - was quite nice. Quite an easier read, if I do say so myself, much more "accessible" and some interesting ideas and arguments. While I do love the PBL, I'm not 100% sold on their reasoning/rationale in the piece. That's another post altogether.
This theory, more than the others for me I think, requires the redefining of the role of "instructor" - yay! Cooperative learning, yea a little bit. But to truly present students (of any age) with a "real" problem and give them the tools to solve it (or they go after them themselves) - that's the racy part. Love it. I'd love to see myself more in the role of facilitator of learning ... even though I love myself as the transmitter of knowledge, I can't lie. ;)
Accomplishing this via technology is where I'm a bit stumped. And I'm going to have to go to my peers for help on this one. I can see how you can provide a common space or meeting ground like Elluminate or GoogleWave or something like that (wikis too, maybe) for a group engaged in PBL... and then let them hunt for the tools/websites/research articles they'll need... and then have them re-engage online... but is that too simplistic?
My group met this week to really nail down our next module and we considered only for a fleeting moment doing our module using PBL... but quickly steered in another direction because we felt like PBL required SO MUCH preparation - or at least that's what it seemed like. I mean - those medical guys had to build a whole new learning center...
And hell yeah for the depth vs breadth. I'm in the depth camp. Subject matter/disciplines are holographic by definition, thus by studying a few components you can grasp the whole. (Plus, you can never realistically teach ALL of a subject matter... or we'd all be out of a job. :))
Here's an idea... what if a group using PBL used something like Twitter to communicate with each other - and part of their process is to engage "others" along the way to their solution? Maybe they don't "meet officially on Twitter - but in the course of their normal day they use Twitter to continue the ongoing discussion...
Or set up a Ning for the group to work together in...
Okay, the ideas are starting to flow more now. Will have to read my peers' posts tomorrow. Onward! Enjoy the weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
