Complex Irregularities

As we wrap up our study of learning theories this semester, we have come to the most intensive methods of study - and also likely the most learner rich methods of study.

While I stole the title of this post specifically from Fitzgerald's article about the cognitive flexibility theory 1, the thing that I find most compelling about each of the methods of learning in this unit is that they enable students to make their own varied sense out of the complex and irregular world in which we live.

Cog Flex situates students in the center of a complicated situation and asks them to draw conclusions about it.  Once they have done that, they are then asked to apply what they have learned in another situation.  Case-based reasoning asks students to do something similar by having them delve into specific scenarios and then eventually apply the prior knowledge they have gained from those scenarios to new scenarios.  These two types of learning ask students to do the most difficult parts of learning - critical thinking and application.

While our study of learning objects might seem slightly out of place in this unit, I actually think it is particularly helpful here, as learning objects can help teachers overcome the main barriers to implementing these sophisticated types of learning: motivation and teacher time.  Students can struggle with a lack of prior knowledge and sometimes interest when involved in time and thought-intensive projects such as these.  And of course, as mentioned in my last post, the more independent and in-depth the learning experience for students, the more time and effort it takes from the teacher on the front end to set up a thoughtful learning experience.

The growing popularity and availability of learning objects is making it easier for teachers to conquer the time element of planning activities such as these.  Teachers can now search for the relevant pieces of the puzzle to put together rather than having to create them all from scratch.  Additionally, many of the learning objects being put together now are highly interesting and in-depth materials, something that will keep students more engaged in the long run.

I would certainly want to see theories such as these implemented in the courses that I am helping to create in my current job.  I think it is even more possible in the online environment for students to engage in this type of learning because they are not limited to the time constraints of a class period.  Learning management systems (Haiku is the one we use) allow for easy addition of learning objects and for clear step-by-step pacing of the work students need to complete.

I am working on an AP English III course right now which focuses on the study of language and rhetoric.  Students have to read many speeches and essays to analyze them for how the author used ethos, pathos, and logos to sway the audience.  I think this could easily lend itself to case-based reasoning as the students study each writer's particular craft, attempt to anticipate moves that writers faced with certain audiences will make, and of course write their own speeches and essays.

Tools such as eduCanon and Udutu make it easy to guide students through specific cases (essays in my instance) and Google Docs can allow students to easily create and share their own writing with me and their peers.


_________________________________________________________________________________
1) "The computer-mediated activities provided through these materials are designed to stimulate cognitive flexibility to enable the learner to construct his or her own knowledge based on analyses of complex and irregular situations, and subsequently utilize that knowledge in problem-solving activities."  
Fitzgerald, G., Wilson, B., & Semrau, L. (). An Interactive Multimedia Program to Enhance Teacher Problem-Solving Skills Based on Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Design and Outcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 47-76.

 

The Boon of Active Learning

Each of the theories we delved into for this unit has a strong core of active learning.  While technology used well can encourage active learning, it is still quite possible with some of the theories we have covered in the past to slip back into the sit-and-get mode of education (PSI, A-T, poorly planned collaborative assignments).

However, with this unit's theories (Goal-Based Scenarios, Anchored Instruction, MOST environments, and the STAR Legacy model), it would be very difficult to create a situation where the student didn't have to explore, discover, and create in order to complete the assignment.

Each of these theories asks the instructor to set a trail on the front end for the student to follow.  Whether it be the bread crumbs of the Anchored Instruction model, the scenarios of the Goal-Based and STAR, or the mental model input for MOST, the key element is that the teacher's productive work is up front and the student's work is active throughout.

It is the up-front work required of the teacher that can be the problem to initiating this type of learning in today's schools.  Each of these models requires great detail to set the story and a lot of investigation on the teacher's part in order to ensure that the appropriate resources, trails, and procedures are in place.  We are talking hours and hours of preparatory work.  In today's K-12 environment, at least, that amount of time is difficult to come by.

Additionally, there is the concern that teachers have to develop the skill set of facilitating rather than lecturing.  Many teachers feel like they are not actually teaching if the students are doing all of the work.  Unfortunately, this fear often leads to passive students, active teachers, and little learning.  Models such as we have explored in this unit, though, lead to active students, active teachers, and a lot of learning!  A teacher just has to put in the time and make the leap of faith once to truly believe in active learning.

Technology can help to overcome the time problem in implementing these models.  Because technology and the Internet are becoming more ubiquitous, a teacher can more easily create, store, and edit these types of projects.  What once took hours and a lot of filing cabinet space can now often be created with drag and drop technology and stored in Google Drive or Dropbox.

It is also easier for students to create products of which they can be proud.  Movie production software has become more manipulatable, and software like iMovie, Movie Maker, or YouTube allow students to create polished final products showcasing their new-found knowledge.  We have even begun to go beyond the realm of movie-making to book writing (storyjumper) and infographic production (piktochart).  These things feel "adult," and when students are able to synthesize knowledge to create something attractive and useful, they gain a sense of empowerment greater than any quality lecture or worksheet can ever provide.

Monster or Miracle?

In his paper, "Mutual Gains from Team Learning: A Guided Design Classroom Exercise," Paul N. Wilson cites his colleagues as stating that "team-based decision making can be a monster or a miracle." (Wilson, 2004)  During the time that I have spent in education, I have found this statement to be absolutely true.  Groups either tend to fly or flop and teachers either tend to mostly utilize collaborative learning or avoid it like the plague.

I believe this monster-miracle dichotomy is prevalent because of the inherently difficult nature of structuring group learning and the fact that our society has not built an educational system that is conducive to collaborative work.  I also think that technology is chipping away at the difficulty inherent in collaborative work. 

From our readings, I would argue that cooperative learning is a category that also encompasses the other three types of learning we reviewed.  So, guided design, problem-based learning, and situated learning are more detailed variations of cooperative work.  I believe educators struggle to incorporate any version of collaborative work in their classrooms.  

Mostly, I believe this happens because our system, particularly at the K-12 level, is not constructed to allow it.  Whether most admit it or not, society expects our children to be quiet, sit in rows, and learn the material so that they can recite it back accurately on the End-of-Course test and everyone can breathe a data-driven sigh of relief that knowledge has been acquired.  Even the desks are made for one student to hold their own materials.  There are few tables or surfaces conducive to group work in our public school buildings.  "The myth of individual genius and achievement...is deeply ingrained in American culture," (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith) and we have built a system that reflects that desire for individual achievement.

Beyond the system itself, though, is the complicated nature of ensuring that collaborative work is structured to be the miracle a teacher would want it to be.  In the real world, seemingly miraculous achievements (like winning an Olympic medal or growing human organs) actually require hard work and dedication.  If a teacher wants their students to learn effectively in groups, s/he is going to have to take the time to ensure the lesson incorporates all the necessary elements for success (slightly different for whatever variation of collaboration a teacher is implementing, but always incorporating team-building, specific instructions and guides, and reflection for the group and individual).  Beyond the structure, a teacher will have to accept that they are no longer the "sage on the stage" but rather are the "guide on the side."  This is a difficult transition for many teachers, as Hung et al discuss in their comparison of traditional professors to PBL tutors.  (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003)

All of that being said, there are still plenty of people that utilize collaborative learning in the classroom and see it for the boon to learning that it is.  Particularly once they get past the first few years of trying to survive day-to-day, teachers are able to think about what works best for their students and many turn to collaborative learning.  I think technology has actually made it easier for teachers to utilize this type of learning in their classrooms.  

When I first started teaching, I had one computer in my classroom.  If I wanted to facilitate learning rather than preach it, I had to spend hours of prep culling the resources my students would need to discover and then providing them with materials to create a product.  While creating newspapers, posters, and presentations with scissors and glue using knowledge gained from articles, encyclopedias, or textbooks (all dated) was still much more engaging than listening to me spout, it was not particularly easy for me to set up, and the students weren't getting much of that real-world action that makes collaborative learning so engaging. 

Then, my school went 1:1, and the whole nature of collaborative learning changed.  Once my students had access to up-to-date knowledge of the entire world at their fingertips and the creative power of a MacBook, I rarely ever stood at the front of the room and told them about literature again.  Instead, they were in groups working in a constant cycle of discovering, creating, and presenting.  Of course, it's not that collaborative learning then became easy; it's just that I could spend my time on the more important aspects of managing group interactions and growth rather than creating folders of information for each group to read.  It became more fun, and the success of the group work increased because I could really focus my attention on its structure.  

Because of my own personal experience, I truly believe that collaborative learning is the best approach for students of any age.  I deeply understand how it can be difficult to implement, but I am excited about the prospects as teachers learn to appropriately integrate technology into their organization of collaborative work.    

[Image] General ledger interface: Finished puzzle or pieces scattered about. (2012, October 24). Retrieved from http://www.thgcfo.com/general-ledger-interface/

Hung, W., Bailey, J. H., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (95), 13-23.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (n.d.). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works.

Wilson , P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1-18.

Mastery and Presence

As I read through the articles for unit I, I was struck by the constant balance that educators must find between mastery-based learning and teacher presence.

Koen put this issue quite succinctly when he pondered:

What is the proper way to design a course in the current digital age when Mark Hopkins' log stretches to become the long wire of the Internet?  How can a professor keep the sense of Mark Hopkins in close proximity to his or her student...when professor and student are separated by thousands of miles and, at the same time, schedule the reinforcers necessary for effective education implied by Skinner's observation?  (Koen, 2005)

Both Keller's Personal System of Instruction (PSI) and Postlethwait's Audio Tutorial (AT) system address the concept of mastery well.  In each system, students are allowed to work at their own pace to comprehend material.  The AT system does provide more structure in terms of pacing because of its three components (Independent Study, General Assembly, and Small Assembly).  While a student working through PSI could in theory take as long as they want (barring restrictions placed by a teacher), the AT model suggests that each study session will take place at regular intervals.  If you are a teacher who believes in personalizing instruction and that different people learn at different paces, then one of these systems will likely provide you with the type of learning tool you wish to use.

However, the question of what balance to put on that system of learning then becomes paramount.  Most teachers recognize that learning often requires a structured environment.  There are many distractions in our world, particularly now, and it we allow students to complete work whenever they decide, they may choose to simply not complete the work.  Teacher presence has consistently been a key motivator to encourage students to complete tasks and conquer the roadblocks that sometimes stand in the way of learning.  How do we then ensure that presence exists while still allowing a student to work at their own pace?  How does a teacher balance multiple students at multiple spots in the curriculum and somehow make them all feel equally attended to?

The articles in this unit certainly offered quite a few specific examples for conquering mastery/presence balance concerns.  In all, it seemed that some version of PSI or AT teachings combined with structure provided by a teacher, proctor, or department offered the best way to reach out to students while still allowing them to master material on their own terms.  I personally believe that finding this balance is the key to modern education and wish that more programs would focus their efforts in this direction (rather than funneling massive amounts of money into testing).  Students who are allowed to work at their own pace while knowing there is a support system in place are students who are likely to be successful at learning, and the more successes a student has behind them, the more likely they are to become life-long learners.

I have a personal fondness for this topic because mastery-based learning is one of the key tenets of the online program in which I currently work.  As the program has grown, we have struggled daily with finding the balance between letting students have as much time as they need to complete units (set up in PSI fashion) and providing more structure for them.  I have found that teachers also struggle with discovering how to create a sense of community in an online course when students are working through it at different paces, although because we cap sections, our teachers are still very good at maintaining presence with their students.  I am currently thinking that we may need to add some elements of the AT model to our program in order to help students become better at pacing their learning.


Koen, B. V. (2005). Creating a sense of "presence" in a web-based psi course: The search for mark hopkins' log in a digital world. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 599-604.

Image courtesy of
   by  michaelgoodin