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/.
The issue of currency is certainly relevant. The Millennials and their technology make most instruction outdated before you can blink! We all know how instructor time is at a premium now. Our classes are larger, expectations are higher, and there is more and more review to make sure we are teaching towards specific objectives in courses, and toward program objectives in general. With such time-intensive models, how would we keep them current enough to maintain relevancy? However, there may be more shelf life for applications of these theories if presented to younger students, those not yet addicted to the information highway.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about the relevancy of the information in these models. Although the literature discussed how they are time consuming to create but once created, can be used continuously, they did not mention the fact that the teacher will have to go through it each time to make sure her information is up-to-date and the links are still working. And if the link goes dead, there is time needed to find the same information somewhere else. I like your pragmatic look at these models as I had not considered that aspect of them (although I should have, considering that for my methods class Moodle page, I have had to change a link to a particular online magazine several times over the semesters because they keep changing their links!)
ReplyDeleteAs the other comments mentioned, good observation about relevance of the material; but one perspective I would offer is if you think of textbooks, changing one element, even as tiny as a particular quote, means republishing the entire textbook. With multimedia modules such as the ones mentioned in this unit, you may be able to get away with just changing a link - certainly less time-consuming and cheaper than republishing a textbook. :)
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to comment about your statement that STAR leaves room for stereotyping when attempting to be diverse - how true! That is definitely a caution to keep in mind as you develop any instruction, but especially one where you attempt to present different viewpoints.