Case-Based, Cognitive Flexibility, and Learning Objects

CBR- Case-Based Reasoning
CFT- Cognitive Flexibility Theory
LO-Learning Objects


Similarities and Differences
Case-Based Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory try to avoid over-structured, oversimplified approaches to teaching and learning.  The also use multiple case examples for student reference and support a non-linear transfer of knowledge.  CFT is a form of case-based instruction so the two are quite similar in description.  Although learning objects are not a theory, they do share the flexible and dynamic quality desired within the CBR and CFT models.  All three utilize databases, all categorize information for student access and learning.  A strong contrast, however, is that LO are linear while CBR and CFT emphasize the significance of ill structures. 

Reactions and Barriers
Case-Based
Case-Based studies made me think about the perceptions researchers have regarding qualitative vs. quantitative.  Narratives are considered less scientific and more entertaining while numbers and "facts" are more concrete and verifiable.  I suppose I've always looked at cases as being scientific because they are supposed to document information about real situations.  As the readings suggest, the thick, richness of stories is more in line with human beings' natural way of thinking and communicating.  I do understand why cases can be poorly perceived, especially under the premise that they are bouts of storytelling.  Myths and legends come to mind...For those able to appreciate the usefulness of case studies, the content can be used when things are less clear for decision-makers who have ill-defined problems to address. 

Cognitive Flexibility
My experience with the plantation letters stands out more than what I read.  My initial response to the module we participated in was one of dismay, although it (much) later transformed into appreciation.  I was not excited about going through all of the letters and did not like the functionality of the database.  I had a few technical issues and became slightly frustrated at times.  More positively, being able to see actual letters and read their transcriptions gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling...up until letter number ten.  Nevertheless, I understood the purpose of the lesson.  The format of this model could lend numbers of reactions based on the questions.  I did like the scaffolding of the questions in our worksheet, although they were somewhat leading.  There is great potential for this style of learning and the types of open-ended questions that could be asked.  I think it would have to be utilized multiple times in various ways for me to see full benefits being reaped.

Learning Objects
My first impression of learning objects was that they seemed familiar and easy to use.  I didn't find them out of the ordinary or novice because I access the Web frequently to retrieve information.  Some of the complexities mentioned, however, reminded me of a recent conversation with a classmate about the ephemeral properties of the Web.  Online resources can be very useful, but what happens when they expire?  No one truly knows the availability of online information and tools, thereby making any long-term plans based on initial use hasty. 

The only way I see to get around this is to literally copy information from online, which could be sloppy in the least.  Most multimedia sites have qualities that would require rebuilding in order to get the same effects for information use.  Of course, the information would need to be updated as well; this would be quite laborious and possibly copyright-infringing.  The other practical thing that always stumps me as a teacher is how to select and find the most useful materials among the endless choices.  My supervisor suggests the use of RSS feeds for allowing information to come to you.  This still requires some background knowledge for instructors to have a starting point, nonetheless. 

Quality and credibility are always in question with online resources since anyone can post on the Internet.  With the use of guidelines for distinguishing between trustworthy and illegitimate resources, critical thinking could aid teachers in using more appropriate online resources.  Those learning objects that require funding would have to be used according to financial ability.  With the number of free and open source materials, this does not have to be a recurring issue.  Limited online resources with a few number of uses could be treated as physical consumable items and used as needed or strategically used within assignments. 

Personal Use
I would definitely use learning objects with all things in consideration.  With my former high school students and future K-12 teachers, I could visualize exciting potential.  The Internet is accessible by anyone with a connection and it comes directly to the user.  Sharing the issues of online resources with all students can better prepare them for Internet usage.  For teachers planning to work with technology, knowing such can help them make informed decisions about lesson plan design and content development.

While I appreciate the goals of CBR and CFT, I don't see myself using them with my former high school students or K-12 teachers.  The amalgamation of information seems a bit overwhelming for lesson design and I don't see the benefits outweighing the workload.  Because Art Education is so multifaceted and layered, it would be counterproductive for me to create a tailored complex database of what would likely be art history information.  I would realistically do it once and use it for the next year until I realized how much work it needed just before discarding it.  If there were some prefabricated models available (which I hardly ever like), I would consider their usage.  Again, it would require me to comb through extensive amounts of information for my own analysis prior to incorporating into a lesson.  If I were to use the CFT in the way we did, I would probably have students submit their responses directly to me and later post them for student analysis.  We all had similar ideas and I would want to be able to determine originality before giving students the opportunity to see how their answers related.

Web Resources
Multimedia and Web 2.0 tools were mentioned regularly throughout the readings.  I will list examples of those items mentioned that could utilize Internet resources, but feel that only specific individual research can lead teachers to the tools most useful for their subject matter and students.

• databases to house information (http://grubba.net/)
• constant feedback between students and teachers: (social networks, although quite controversial)
• audio sequences: (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/)
• editing techniques (http://www.moviemasher.com/)
• storyboarding: (http://celtx.com/)
• interview: (http://www.oovoo.com/home.aspx)

CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA

1.    What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

Each of the models presented in Unit 3 emphasizes the importance of meaningfulness and relevance to students' lives.   With the exception of MOST, the models featured a step-by-step process for students to follow.  Those processes were similar, providing opportunities for question development and external resource utilization.  The major differences were in the actual design, who was in charge, and how it was executed.  Anchored instruction and MOST explicitly stated that poorer readers would benefit from the video usage.  STAR mentioned the need for cultural exploration within instruction. 

2.    What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

The overarching issue with most of the models is the inability to keep information consistently current.  They all require some amount of specified construction that should be relevant to students.  With the Internet access now so seemingly omnipresent,  we know that information hardly remains static for seasons.  If teachers were to have an on-call designer who was able to keep up with such changes (as well as major sites like MSN and Yahoo!), then this would be less problematic.  What, however, are the chances?

Another obvious issue was with design and room for adjustment and modification.  For example, STAR requires extensive planning and explicit instruction/information and sounds very complicated for typical K-12 teachers used to traditional instructional design.  No clear/definitive plan is available to facilitate instructional design.  Like the others, it could easily be mis-modified deviating from its original function (personalized organizational schemes).  STAR also leaves room for stereotyping when attempting to be diverse.  The MOST model didn't sound novel until I read further about the strategy.  It was limited in that only some pictures help (How do you determine that ahead of time?)  It also proved to be more beneficial for those "at-risk."  I did appreciate the acknowledgment about the degree of equivalence between verbal and video.  The children correcting the puppets was equally of positive interest.

3.    Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I found myself mostly reflecting to my former high school teaching.  I could see myself using anchored instruction, STAR, and MOST, with a lot of time and patience.  STAR's theories coincided with my former teaching practices.  Revision was an inevitable part of our learning process used to help us get better.  Our group discussions also allowed me to determine what students know and how much I needed to supplement their knowledge.  The idea of shining light on possibly overlooked "old ideas" is something I have observed and see the value in.  Making my own (MOST) videos to complement student learning sounds useful as well.  We used tons of visual examples from various resources along with  my own demonstrations/presentations that could be transformed into story scripts/clips.   

For the future, I think anchored instruction may be best suited in presenting a real-life situation to K-12 teachers learning how to use art and technology to teach.   Multiple challenges with technology integration can naturally arise and be incorporated into such a lesson.  I could easily exemplify real-life complications with technology use.

4.    Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out this learning theories/models online?

I think each of the models could utilize (free) basic websites for creating instruction and accessing information in one location. (http://www.ucoz.com/, http://www.yola.com/, http://www.drupalgardens.com/, etc.)  Videos could be placed online at places like http://www.dropshots.com/, http://photobucket.com/, and http://www.viddler.com/, etc. MOST made mention of voice recognition for pronunciation help so one could use an online pronunciation tool like http://www.screamingbee.com or type text into a site like http://www.howjsay.com/.

GROUP-BASED COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA

GBCIM-Group-Based Collaborative Instruction & Multimedia

GD-Guided Design

CL-Cooperative Learning 

PBL-Problem-Based Learning

SL-Situated Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeships

Key similarities or striking differences 

The obvious goal in GBCIM is for students to utilize people and resources other than themselves, traditional resources, and the teacher to learn.  The four models explored in this session had several commonalities, including a substantial increase in teacher planning, a hope for increase in student social skills, and a reflection component.   A few similarities between models were obvious as well.  The CL Jigsaw approach and PBL push individuals go off to learn on their own before reconvening.  PBL and SL use experts for resources, although guided design encourages thinking like an expert.  With the exception of CL, they all have a specific focus on real life and practical experiences.  There was not consistency with forms of assessment.

  

Initial reactions, barriers, benefits 

Preliminary design played a major role in the success of each model provided.  The readings pointed out ways in which a carefully planned design could eliminate or improve certain conditions, with the exception of a few human characteristics.  Teachers would have to go well out of traditional comfort zones to execute these, but with success would likely find the effectiveness and student engagement to be worth it.  In all cases, students who overcome the barriers would be considered prototypes and naturally succeed/improve in the way the learning theory intended.  A few of my thoughts about the four models follow.

The formulaic quality of GD would work well for those who benefit from such structure, however, seems restricting based on the potential selection of questioning and problems.  Students could define a new problem from the null information in their project, nonetheless. There also the conflict of students trying to think traditionally not grasping the information, but this lack of motivation could occur with any model.  CL sounded most familiar, especially the problems that occur with member roles and concerns for equal participation.  Problem-based Learning and Situated Learning are more adamant about consulting experts, which is not always feasible in a typical classroom setting.  Although multimedia was helpful for simulation, information gathering from experts was still required.  I felt that phone survey recipients may be less reliable. 

 Use in teaching 

It seemed as though pieces of all the models provided would be useful.  I could appreciate the step-by-step process of guided design aligned with the opportunity to think creatively.  For in-service teachers, this could certainly be used to help them understand classroom dilemmas with integrating technology.  Having a recipe-like structure to follow can make extra work appear simpler. Cooperative learning would be useful for teachers when learning to use new tools in the same manner as discussion boards.  If one student is more knowledgeable, they can coach another without interrupting or delaying learning.  

Problem-based Learning seemed a bit infinite and sounds too time-consuming for the short periods of time I may work with in-service teachers who would be more likely to need the breadth that this model lacks.  I think I could safely say that my former Art students informally did PBL when encountering new ideas and materials in class, though.  Situated Learning made me think of when I went on field trips to artist studios, but we were on limited time schedules.  When I taught high school, this model would have been perfect for aspiring artists who needed that insight to make career decisions.  I don’t, however, think it would be practical for my intended work with in-service K-12 teachers unless they were willing to give up a chunk of summer vacation...

Web-based tools or resources 

From what I recall, most of the group-based learning models have already been explored in terms of Web use in some regards.  Nevertheless, I am listing a few that I think would be helpful for components of the different models.

Synchronous meeting and idea recording/exchange- conferencing applications and software Skype, Elluminate or note-taking like Wall Wisher, Google docs, or a shared online journal like Penzu

Expert substitution- interactive software simulation, videos of an expert volunteer who will accept follow-up questions electronically, or a designated student interviewer could follow the expert (video-shadow)with a list of questions prepared ahead by a group 

Written information resources- legitimate online databases (library, museum)

PSI vs. A-T

Similar or Different?  What about both?

Although the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio Tutorial System (A-T) were based on the same premise_to accommodate students of various learning styles and abilities, they differ in methods of content delivery and assignment completion.  Both strategies are designed so low and average performers get their needs met without advanced performers being restricted by typical wait time found in synchronous classes.  Similar elements such as guest lectures, exams, and clear objectives also tie PSI and A-T together.  The Keller plan is clearly more conducive to an online learning environment while the A-T is more face-to-face.

Outstanding

What struck me the most about the Keller Plan was the authors' promotion of student convenience.  This model explicitly states that students are the priority in their learning environment rather than the traditional "lecture/discuss/test" routine.  Based on its description in the Davis and Ragsdell (2000) article, the PSI is more fostering to an online environment in its more original form while A-T is limited to physical-space communion. The PSI was not without flaw as the multiple student locations proved to make meeting impossible; the two-way channels used to alleviate this problem were not available to all complicating matters further.   There was also the matter of inadequate student-instructor contact.

The A-T plan sounded promising at first, but I was later discouraged by the thought of myself button-pressing into a frenzy at a table with headphones on a 1985 tape recorder: stop-rewind-stop-play-stop-fast forward...I can see, however, how this technique would have been advanced in previous years.

My experience

For future work with in-service K-12 teachers, both the PSI and A-T approaches as described in the readings would be useful.  As an instructional technologist, I would like to help teachers with the integration of technology in their classrooms.  The A-T model would be easier to transition less computer-literate teachers into what tends to be quite complex.  For example, those teachers could have "stations" in their faculty meetings/professional development spaces in place of booths. The stations may give them practice with a Web 2.0 tool in their subject area for a specific goal/objective or some other relevant task.  The PSI approach with its Web-based multimedia component could be used with those teachers who are confident and comfortable with online tools and use.

Modern Modification

With some upgrading and updating, I think the A-T model would probably evolve into a PSI with the use of Internet tools.  Instead of the tape recorder, an instructor could create a podcast, VoiceThread, or use some other recording software for voice documentation.  The incorporation of Internet tools would also allow more effective off-campus access for students. In this case, both models could be enhanced with the ability to have synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Guest lecturers/instructors could use screencasts and webcam video recording for posting lectures or conference applications/software like Skype and Elluminate to facilitate synchronous discourse, which could be stored for later access.  Students would be able to use cyberspace to view videos and lectures at their own pace as both models encourage.  Learning management systems (LMS) such as Moodle can serve as "one-stop shops" for students on and off campus.  Instructors' ability to post multimedia items such as video and especially hyperlinks to Web 2.0 tools and resources widens the possibilities for Postlethwait's multisensory aspirations of the A-T model.

Student engagement in Web 2.0 tools corresponds with the goals of the A-T small assembly sessions. E-mail, LMS forums, blogs, and social networks like Twitter and Facebook provide spaces for the communication that students of the PSI lacked with each other and the instructor. These Web-based tools are also conducive to student collaboration and idea-sharing as expected in the small assembly.

There are certainly benefits to the instructors not listed here, but since these models focus on the student, I attempted to keep my attention on learning rather than teaching.

ECI 517 Intro

Hi, I will be using this blog for ECI 517 for Fall 2011-2012.