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.