Unit 4 Blog - Cases and Objects

1.  Similarities, Differences, Common Foundations.

In Unit IV, we studied two last theories of instruction (Case-Based Learning & Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory) and a content resource (Learning Objects) that could be incorporated into almost any of the instructional models we have studied this semester.  A common element of these is that all involve the merging of resources, scenarios, stories, examples, etc. (Learning Objects) for instructional purposes.  Some of these resources can be very “real-life” as we ourselves experienced in the Planation Letters module or as in the Turfgrass Case Library¹, the KITE Case-Based Reasoning engine², EASE History³ , the Technology & the 20^th Century: Impact on Society & Culture⁴ , or the Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext on Transfusion Medicine⁵  about which we read in the articles.  All involve the students working through the case-materials and multiple-representations of content so as to arrive at their own conclusion.  The goal is to improve decision-making and problem-solving.  The student assimilates, indexes, and organizes all the information so as to create a “flexible knowledge” of the material at hand. 

Case-Based Learning supports the development of “flexible knowledge” as promoted by Cognitive Flexibility Theory.  As defined in the Macromedia article on Michigan State, Cognitive Flexibility Theory is “an approach to computer-based learning and instruction designed to promote the mastery of difficult but important ideas and the development of adaptively applicable knowledge.”⁶  Learning Objects can be utilized to design such learning and instruction.  Consider, for example, the Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext on Transfusion Medicine.  A database was designed of different “events” (such as syphilis, Hepatitis A, B & C, etc.).  Students then work through Practice Cases, created from these events in the database.  The goal is to improve the risk assessment by third year medical students in the field of transfusion medicine.  I would think this very much is an area in which “flexible knowledge” would be imperative so as to improve a doctor’s diagnosis skills. 

2.  My Initial Reactions / Barriers to Their Use

While I don’t know if I could apply this to my own teaching in AP Calculus or AP Statistics, I very much can see a use and value to it in other fields.  Medicine (as mentioned above), engineering, and risk management, assessment, & intervention are some fields in which I envision Case-Based Learning & Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory being of great use.  One additional field in which these could be applied is in education … teaching pre-service teachers about classroom management via case examples.  A “what would you do?” kind of application.  (Did we read about this somewhere???)  A database of actual classroom scenarios could be collected and pre-service teachers could work through these to learn how to handle different situations before they find themselves actually in them. 

A major barrier, however, that was mentioned throughout the articles is the time required to develop instructional materials in the vein of these models.  The collection or development of the cases (stories, materials), the merging of them into some kind of logical framework, and the “publishing” of these might be beyond the ability of the normal teacher simply because of the time required.  Having worked through the Plantation Letters module, for example, I can only imagine how much time was required to create a complex module such as that with the transcribing of the letters, the cross-referencing of themes, and the creation of the module itself. 

One “issue” that was mentioned in regard to Learning Objects was the hesitation many (teachers) have to share their materials (Learning Objects) freely with others.  An issue of “intellectual property” for which there is no reward for sharing with others except for the altruistic satisfaction of helping a fellow educator.  As a teacher myself, I think this is something that many of us do grapple with.  I have experienced it in my own career.  

3.  Implementation with My Students

Perhaps the article that resonated with me the most was “Institutional Use of Learning Objects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions”.  We teachers need to start looking at our course and teaching materials as Learning Objects.  Koppi, et. al. defined Learning Objects to be “discrete chunks of reusable learning materials or activities that can communicate with other learning objects to build a learning environment.”⁷  Isn’t that the entirety of my course materials that I have collected over the years to integrate into my teaching?  The PowerPoints I create for the daily lessons are Learning Objects.  Every worksheet for my students that I create is a Learning Object.  Each supplementary lesson I record in Adobe Connect is a Learning Object.  (Here’s one that I made for my AP Statistics students:  http://ncssm.adobeconnect.com/p3t7si5dp5d/ )  The You Tube videos to which I refer my students are Learning Objects.  (Here’s one that I made for my Online AP Calc students:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAlG0Skuh4)  I have a brand new outlook on my materials now! 

4. Web-Based Tools

Given the very nature of Case-Based Learning & Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory, utilization of web-based tools and resources is almost a necessity.  They enable us to house, index, and cross-reference materials (as we saw done with the Plantation Letters).  Online resources such as blogs, Dropbox, Google Docs, and so many more can be used to facilitate the sharing of materials.  The Document Viewer in the Planation Letters module, for instance, used Macromedia Flashpaper and Ning.

One website that immediately came to mind as I read through the articles was one that many of us AP Calculus teachers love … the Wiki “Designated Deriver” (http://designatedderiver.wikispaces.com/).  It is a repository for AP Calculus materials, all “donated” by teachers from all over the US and some abroad.  In a strange coincidence of timing, a big issue on the AP Calculus teachers’ blog just last week was the idea of “intellectual property” and how some teachers hesitate to share materials if there are some others out there who refuse to do so.  Designated Deriver is now password protected and anyone who joins the Wiki is “honor bound” to contribute materials. 

 

Citations:

1.  Janassen, David H. and Hernandez-Serrano, Julian, “Case-Based Reasoning and Instructional Design: Using Stories to Support Problem Solving”, ETR&D, Vol. 50, #2 (2002), Page 74.

2.  Wang, Feng-Kwei, Moore, Joi L., Wedman, John, and Shyu, Chi-Ren, “Developing a Case-Based Reasoning Knowledge Repository to Support a Learning Community – An Example from the Technology Integration Community”, ETR&D, Vol 51, #3 (2003). 

3.  “Case Study: Michigan State University”, Macromedia, 2005.

4.  Jacobson, Michael J., Maouri, Chrystalla, Mishra, Punyashloke, and Kolar, Christopher, “Learning With Hypertext Learning Environments: Theory, Design, and Research”, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1996. 

5.  Jonassen, David H., Ambruso, Daniel R., and Olesen, Julie, “Designing a Hypertext on Transfusion Medicine Using Cognitive Flexibility Theory”, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1992. 

6.  “Case Study: Michigan State University”, Macromedia, 2005.

7.  Koppi, Tony, Bogle, Lisa, and Lavitt, Neil, “Institutional Use of Learning Objects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions”, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2004. 

Unit 3 Blog - Context-Based Instruction & Multi-Media

1.  Similarities, Differences, Common Foundations.

In Unit III, we studied four more theories of instruction:  Goal-Based Scenarios (GBS), Anchored Instruction (AI), the STAR Legacy Model, and the MOST Environment.  The common element of each of these is that students are learning skills of some sort in some contextual environment of real-world tasks or scenarios.  All of them emphasize “learn by doing” approaches¹.  The idea is that the learning in context will generate more interest in the students and enable them to see the relevance of what they are learning.

The models we learned accomplish this relevance and context in very slightly different ways.  GBS provides a “cover story” that sets the stage for that to be learned, creating the need for what is to be learned.  The student then proceeds through activities related to completing the goals with resources and feedback provided along the way.  Students learn that it’s okay to make mistakes and that failures are something from which we can learn.  But as Schank notes, if a student does not care about the information, or does not see why he/she needs it, then they probably won’t learn anything from their failure.²  AI will include generative and cooperative learning activities with the instruction situated (anchored) in “engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students”.³  The goal here is to enable students to become independent thinkers and learners rather than simply be able to successfully do drill-type problems or retrieve simple knowledge facts.  The STAR Legacy model encompasses learning cycles organized around successive challenges of increasing difficulty.  A flow-chart visualization is used to show the student where he/she is in the cycle and how the activities fit together.  Here, as in GBS, students learn that revision and back-tracking are a natural part of learning.⁴  Finally, while the MOST Environment model specifically targets development of literacy in children, it still does so in the context of a meaningful story. 

2.  My Initial Reactions / Barriers to Their Use

I have to admit that I struggled with seeing how I could apply this to my own teaching.  Were I in a different setting, without the “confines” of an Advanced Placement curriculum to teach with very strict skills and knowledge that must be known by the students, then yes, utilizing any one of these models could bring a “breath of fresh air” to mathematics education.  To be able to teach elementary or middle school mathematics in the context of something like the Jasper series or the STAR Legacy challenges would be so much more engaging to the students than what we tend to see now in schools.  I don’t think anyone can deny that.  But maybe I’m just too far removed from elementary or middle school teaching to see the possibilities.  (Any thoughts from those teachers out there?) 

I think one obstacle for some schools might be the technology required to utilize some of these models.  All are very technology, multi-media driven.  Many schools might not have the computer availability. 

3.  Implementation with My Students

Reading about the emphasis of each of these four models on “relevance”, I was reminded of that “dreaded” question that every math teacher hears ... “How are we ever going to use this?”!   I think these models answer that!  As I noted above, I don’t know if I could easily implement any of these with my AP students.  Maybe after the AP Exam when we have time to do “extra learning”.  I very well could see a place for these in that context.  And no doubt the students would love it.  But of course, a concern would be the time required to fully develop a model of one of these types into a rich experience for the students. 

Another use I could see for models such as these are in Summer “math camps” or enrichment opportunities.  The latter, especially, is something we do at NCSSM in our Distance Learning and Extended Programs department.  I would love the opportunity to take a topic and develop a module in one of these veins that could be used by teachers throughout the state.  But again, the development time is a concern. 

4. Web-Based Tools

I very much could see any one of these models manifested in a web module such as those we develop in this course.  Should collaboration across the miles be necessary, Elluminate, Adobe Connect, or FreeScreenSharing.com, or Google could be utilized for the sharing and collaboration on work.  Otherwise, I foresee integration of movie clips (either self-made with Camtasia or similar software, or You Tube), voice threads, reference websites for the content to be learned, online quiz platforms (such as WebAssign or QuizStar4Teachers.org), etc.  Basically, a very rich, inter-active multi-media environment, one that will engage the students and draw them in. 

Citations:

1.  Nowakowski, Alan.  “Goal-Based Scenarios: A New Approach to Professional Education”, Page 4.

2.  Schank, Roger C., Berman, Tamara R., and Macpherson, Kimberli A., “Learning by Doing”, Page 173. 

3.  The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, “The Jasper Experiment: An Exploration of Issues in Learning and Instructional Design”, Page 65. 

4.  Schwartz, Daniel L., Lin, Xiaodong, Brophy, Sean, and Bransford, John D., “Toward the Development of Flexibly Adaptive Instructional Designs”, Page 191.    

Unit 2 Blog - Cooperative Learning models

1.     Similarities, Differences, Common Foundations.

In Unit II, we studied four more theories of instruction:  Guided Design, Cooperative Learning, Problem-Based Learning, and Situated Learning (Cognitive Apprenticeships).  The common denominator in all of these is student active-participation in their learning through working with other students.  As Haller, et. al. expressed it: “Learning is best achieved interactively rather than through a one-way transmission process”¹. Each of these models has students taking on multiple roles, mainly as both teacher and as student.  They also emphasize the building of learning communities for the students.  This community is one such that “each student achieves his/her learning goal if and only if the other group members achieve theirs”².  With these models, the “balance of power”³ shifts as the teacher takes on more of a coach/mentor role, facilitating the learning rather than “dumping knowledge” to the students (a “transfer of knowledge” interaction¹).  Another premise shared by these models is that the learning should be relevant and “authentic”, connecting to real-life problems and situations that the student might encounter in that subject area.  The common goal of these methods, then, is to improve critical thinking and problem analysis & solution through collaboration with ones peers.  I like how Millis summarized the premises underlying cooperative learning:  1)  The teacher’s respect for the students and belief in their potential for success,  2)  Shared sense of community, and  3)  Learning is an active, constructive process.⁴ 

What differs between the models is how they achieve this active-participation.  A Guided Design instructional model will direct students to resolve open-ended problems.  A Cooperative Learning model will engage students in self-guided investigations that are part of a larger, broader topic.  The students then become the experts in these sub-topics and teach their peers.¹  Problem-Based Learning has its roots in an ill-defined problem that the students must set out to solve, requiring them to identify what the problem is and what it is that they do not know.  Situated Learning, finally, is formed around the idea of apprenticeship (cognitive apprenticeships) and that “meaningful learning will only take place if it is embedded in the social and physical context within which it will be used.” 

2.  My Initial Reactions / Barriers to Their Use

My initial reaction to these models was reflection upon how much these are currently being used in colleges across the United States.  I have the pleasure of working with many college students at colleges all along the East Coast and all talk about the “group projects” they have for their courses.  Only occasionally anymore do I hear about students “writing a paper” by themselves ... it’s all about working collaboratively with their classmates.  Some colleges even have molded their entire curricula around the idea of apprenticeship (Drexel University in Philadelphia and Northeastern University in Boston, to name just two).  In these universities, students take courses for one trimester, work in the field in the next, and then another trimester of coursework. 

Due to the more developed cognitive skills and abilities of college-age students, they can “handle” open-ended and ill-defined problems better than high school or elementary age students could.  Perhaps that’s why most of the articles we read were about the use of these methods in colleges.  Unfortunately, high school, and especially elementary students, lack the maturity to work well in groups and guide their own learning.  The Jigsaw method, for example, would require that students become “experts” in an aspect of the subject material and then teach their peers.  How well would that work in a high school or elementary school, given the need for students to adequately master the material in order to pass End of Course Exams? 

3.  Implementation with My Students

I would love to be able to integration these models into the high school courses I teach but question their success for the reasons cited above.  Because all we do is driven by state-mandated syllabi (or in my case, syllabi dictated by The College Board), we need to be focused on getting students to master material ... a wide body of material, to be known with some degree of depth.  Both are required.  As many of these articles noted, implementation of these models might mean sacrificing the breadth of knowledge for depth.  If, for example, my AP Statistics students have mastered Descriptive Statistics to great depth but at the cost of not knowing Inferential Statistics as well, they won’t do well on the AP Examination in May.  The focus in college, on the other hand is different.  In college, you are training for a career in a particular field and Problem-Based Learning, Situated Learning, etc. work really well, as noted by the many examples provided to us from the education of medical students, engineers, etc. 

I think the best I could do it to modify some of these models to serve as end-of-unit or end-of-year summary activities.  One aspect of my courses in the past year has been the use of “group quizzes” once or twice during a unit.  On these quizzes, the students work together on the questions.  Emphasis is on discussion (articulation) and I solicit the help of my class Facilitators at the site in this regard.  It is made clear to the students that they are to be discussing the problems, one by one, helping each other out as needed.  Each group submits a single quiz and all students in that group will receive the same grade.  Before the last one in AP Statistics, one student asked, “What if we don’t agree on an answer?”  My reply was that they should then discuss more and come to a consensus.  To hold the individual accountable though, in the end, the end-of-unit Tests are taken on an individual basis. 

4. Web-Based Tools

What a wealth of resources we have in this regard today!  Group collaboration is so easily facilitated with platforms such as Elluminate or Adobe Connect or FreeScreenSharing.com as well as Google Docs for the sharing and collaboration on work.  With my mathematics classes, students will need web resources to which they can go to learn material.  Some of my most preferred are Kahn Academy, the online math courses of the University of Houston, MIT Open CourseWare, Calculus Video Lectures, Quick Notes Statistics, and all the You Tube videos you can find on almost any math topic.  From the teacher perspective, trying to design the group activities, Google Docs will enable the teacher to “keep an eye” on each groups’ work, guide them as necessary, offer comments and suggestions, etc.  Online quiz platforms such as WebAssign can be used to bring an element of individual accountability to the group work.  Otherwise, materials for the group project, problem, etc. can be posted easily on the course learning management system. 

Citations:

1.  Haller, Cynthia R., et. al.  “Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative Learning Workgroups”. 

2.  Johnson, David W., et. al.  “Cooperative Learning Returns to College”  What Evidence Is There That It Works?”  Change, July/August 1998. 

3.  Blocher, J. Michael.  “Increasing Learner Interaction:  Using Jigsaw Online”, Educational Media International, Vol. 42, #3, September 2005.

4.  Millis, Barbara J.  “Enhancing Learning – And More! – Through Cooperative Learning”, Idea Paper #38, October 2002. 

5.  Herrington, Jan and Oliver, Ron.  “Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia”. 

Unit 1 Blog - Keller Plan & Audio-Tutorial System

“So you want to offer a web based, distance education course?”  As soon as I saw that in Article #1 of our class, I knew I was in the right place.  This is what we do on a daily basis at NCSSM (The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics) in our Distance Education and Extended Programs department!  Reading through the three articles, I now look at the Keller Plan and the Audio-Tutorial system as guidelines or models that can be applied to the creation of a distance education course so as to enhance the quality of instruction for the student.  They also seem to address two concerns that come to my mind when I think about how to best create an effective distance learning course:  1)  the challenge to cater to students with different learning styles, and 2)  how to have the structure of a synchronous class but in an asynchronous environment. 

I cannot help but wonder if these two models were at the heart of the design for our current IVC (interactive video conference) classes and online classes.  The elements of Keller and A-T read almost like a check-list to me of what components my classes.  Starting with Keller, any sound course should have clearly stated objectives, regardless of the method of delivery.  Inclusion of the small learning modules is exactly how our online courses are laid out and this is modeled even in our face-to-face IVC classes.  Assessments, prompt feedback, and lots of positive reinforcement are a part of each.   

While “student self-pacing” is difficult to achieve in our IVC classes, it very much can be done in our online courses.  As preparations for this year began, I actually re-structured the online AP Calculus (BC) course pacing guide to make it more “self-paced”.  The previous pacing guide set forth by my predecessor had students doing task #1 on Monday, task #2 on Tuesday, task #3 on Wednesday, etc.  In my mind, that defeated the supposed-to-be flexible nature of the course.  So I “loosened up the schedule” and now students complete the work in two-week time frames.  I would like to just have the students work entirely at their own pace but we are confined to some restrictions ... primary one being an AP Exam to be taken in May, progress reports and grade reports due throughout the year, etc.  These are only high school students after all and they do require a little bit of structure. 

Turning to the Audio-Tutorial system, the elemental sessions of that are very much a part of our online courses.  The ISS (Independent Study Session) is what the students are set off to do on their own.  We have all the course materials housed in our learning management system (Brain Honey) and from there the students access everything they need for the course.  The GAS (General Assembly Session) is held in July at the “Summer Symposium” for all of NCSSM’s online students.  Our online students come from all across North Carolina and they all come to campus for five days to meet their online teacher(s), interact with the students with whom they are taking the online class(es), learn how to navigate Brain Honey and Adobe Connect, and engage in enrichment field-trips, small projects, etc.  The SASs (Small Assembly Sessions) are comparable to the “residential weekends” we have for each online class, either two, three, or four times during the school year.  For example, I have three weekends this school year with my AP Calculus students.  The one in November will be spent doing some enrichment activities related to the topics we studied in the course to that point.  I see it as a “check-point” to make sure everyone is up to speed on the material, the graphing calculator skills they should have, etc.  The two that I have in the Spring semester will be spent doing something similar to the one in November but then also in concentrated practice for the May AP Examination.

I found the statistical analysis of the data related to the success of the A-T system very interesting.  The data did not seem to be clearly in favor of this system but some of the individual statistics cause you to think the system would be supported.  For example, it was noted that in the one study, 30% of students in a conventional class earned less than a C in the course whereas only 15% in an audio-tutorial style course.  From a teacher point-of-view, that’s pretty significant!  It was also found in this same study that while the mean grades were comparable, there were more “A”s earned in the audio-tutorial class and more “D”s earned in the conventional class.  (“The Audio-Tutorial System”, page 5). 

One sentence that particularly caught my attention was in the Davis article:  “The professor ... must be prepared to help students where they are in the material, when they need the help.”  I think that is something that is typically not done in a traditional classroom.  Teachers, I’m sure would agree it is needed, but the realities of a traditional classroom often make this difficult.  I am about to face this one in my online course as some students will be farther ahead of others in the material as we meet for our weekly online tutorial sessions (via Adobe Connect ... we used to use Elluminate, actually).  How I can best meet the needs of each individual student when they are perhaps “in all different” places is a question I still have to answer for myself. 

I was intrigued by these articles as they seemed to put “names” and theory to exactly how the courses in which I am involved teaching are structured.  These theories now give me a little perspective as I work to continue to improve upon the courses as they are.