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.
I liked your idea of the AT model “morphing” into PSI in the future. If we really listen to the younger students, we would find that Internet, and all things technical/electronic for that matter, are the “norm” for them. It would seem that it is up to us, as instructors, to find a way to fit our instruction to their “norm” instead of trying to pull them into our more traditional instructional delivery. Recently, one of my 18-year old college freshman students told me that he would enjoy school more if he wasn’t constantly lectured to (either face-to-face or via podcast or screencast). This was a bit of a shocker since I thought podcasts and screencasts were modern delivery methods aimed at capturing the younger audience. It’s also disappointing to think that we can only reach some students if we teach from Facebook. I agree with you, in that PSI is employing a more technological approach and is more likely to reach the younger students. I enjoyed reading your post…it really made me think…Terri Scalf
ReplyDeleteYou touch on excellent points made by the authors regarding the "advanced" students. With more emphasis on differentiation in the classroom these days, it seems that these models could be incorporated. To me it is a question of an "all or nothing" approach. While I can find something useful to be culled from a learning model, I am generally hesitant to embrace it fully. Your mention of stations and how the PSI would work with teacher-training could easily be applied to the classroom as well. I enjoyed reading your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteWe've been talking about these two models as two distinct options, but I think what works is to take the best of both and combine them. The A-T plan is very specific with its assembly sessions, but I certainly see the advantage of adding podcasts to a PSI-developed lesson (much like we see used in this class in Moodle).
ReplyDeletePreference,
ReplyDeleteGreat insights into both approaches and great examples of how to update them with Web 2.0 tools. One thing that intrigued me was your comment that A-T was more face-to-face oriented. Are you referring to the small group and large group sessions? Since the way I see it, the self-study portion would certainly be one person in a lab (or in today's technological world, on their laptop or mp3 player).