Learning design Framework

Learning design framework

In undertaking this task, I wanted to demonstrate my learning framework as an activity that I will put together for an ‘imaginary’ class. Once I have outlined my activity I intend to describe the combinations of learning modalities, levels of interactivity, learner characteristics, and pedagogy my learning design framework is based on. Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999). Then I will bring together the framework as it would appear generically, allowing its application to any class, for any subject and for any cohort of students. (Did I just do some Scaffolding?).

The activity I have for my students is a project around solving a problem. That being there school has no money and wants to participate in the Sun Smart program. I want my students to find a way of raising money for the school so it can participate in the ‘Sun Smart’ initiative. By leading and supporting this activity, I will aim for students to apply for funding through an on-line funding grant, to purchase a Sun Smart outdoor marque and to present the marque to the school.

The students will be required to:

•  find the most efficient way to raise the money;
• ]undertake the process of raising the money; 
•  determine what way the school will participate in the Sun Smart program; plus,
• initiate the school’s participation.

My goal with this activity is for my students to learn in a group context (i.e. collaborative teams), learn in a project-based activity and for the activity to have an outside (authentic) focus. Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) refer to this as engaged learning.

Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) Engagement Theory point out that by engaging the students in something meaningful and relevant to them, it is engaging their minds by getting them to create solutions, solve problems, reason, make decisions and evaluate process and outcomes.

The combination of learning modalities used in this activity include Engagement, Connectivism, Constructivism and Behaviourism learning theories, with levels of interactivity including interpersonal (networking, collaboration, meetings, consultation), ICT (internet research, developing proposals, setting up project blogs etc.), project management, developing methods of process and evaluation.

This activity is aiming to accommodate all learning styles as it is not focusing solely on one teaching medium, but rather multiple mediums such as auditory, visual, interactivity, self-paced learning. My pedagogy is to have students in a supported environment where they can learn from each other, from the teacher, from the activity (experiential) from the community and from self-evaluation elicited through journal entries (blog) and group discussion. (Not asking much)

This activity is challenging students creativity (find the best solution to the problem of not having any money), evaluation skills (Assess how the project is going through its stages) and skills in analysing (is the project realistically reaching its goals) along the projects journey. Other elements of Blooms Cognitive Taxonomy Blooms Taxonomy I am seeking to target include the higher order elements of applying the knowledge they have learned (students suggesting other grants for other purposes), understanding (able to represent the project objectives at meetings etc.) and remembering (recalling specific issues, solutions, processes used in the project).

As a more generic outline of my Learning Framework, I intend to focus my teaching on a balance of learning theories as outlined above, catering to the full range of students eclectic learning platform. When I design learning outcomes, it will be through the reflections of Blooms Taxonomy of learning, I.e. all three (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) as I believe the inter and intra-connectivity between all three are a minimum target for learning outcomes that I wish to aspire.

Wiki blog

Wiki Blog

The mobile phone wiki was a good activity for me.  I am finding that the more of these activities I do, the more I am learning about ways to use, and use correctly, my ICT utensils. For example, in my wiki entry I utilised the hyperlink feature. The problem is that I did not recognise that I could actually name the link, rather than insert the very long link address. I now have learned this feature and am using it everywhere as novelty value. ( novelty value)

I see within myself less anxiety around the ICT learning and a greater sense of ‘rising to the challenge’ Some Constructivist learning I.e. breaking down m y reality of scary ICT and replacing it with friendly ICT. Behaviourism as well can be identified I.e. being rewarded for trying new things (Positive reinforcement).

I enjoy participating in the scaffolding exercise and do believe it is catering to all of my learning modalities. But even more importantly, I am experiencing firsthand the benefits of scaffolding, thereby not just learning, but deep rooted learning through sight, sound, participation and exhilaration at some levels of success. As a translation to the classroom, I can implement such initiatives with firsthand knowledge (expert content) of the benefits to pedagogy.

Reflections on week one

My development  of both my Profile wiki and my blog have been firsts for me and as such, I was challenged, frustrated, stressed and unsure and if I’m perfectly honest, I would say the process still has not gone past my Sensory register, let alone entered my long term memory!!!!

I am prepared to say that I am an ICT immigrant http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf and certainly Vygotsky would recognise that my past experiences with ICT have not all been robustly developmental and positive.  I identify with Vygotsky (1962) http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html  in that my previous experiences may be influencing my behaviour of avoidance of ICT devices. (Can we have such interplay of theory???)

All I can say is thank goodness for some of the networks I have sourced through Wendy, as well as networking the forums for direction from other students based on their experiences. (Does Connectivism http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm + Behaviourism http://elearningpedagogy.com/behaviorist.html = learning, or just reciting the processes to get the job done?)

I am experiencing a learning curve that is new for me regarding the ICT for learning processes. For example, by undertaking the various exercises on learning styles I am finding that I have attained a somewhat superficial level of knowledge. This could be explained by the time factors. I am having to manage time for work, family, uni, health and wellbeing so maybe spending more time on the learning/uni parts would facilitate stimulus of my long term memory. Maybe that is not necessary because I am finding that the diversity of learning exercises is making up for the lack of time.

For example, when I reflect on Cognitivism and the time to get knowledge from my working memory to my long term memory, I should be able to say that I have learned more about behaviourism, given that this was the theory I undertook my PMI analysis of for the Learning theories wiki. Certainly I spent more time on this exercise. But I’m not sure my level of understanding is any better than that of the other theories.

Maybe more will be unfolded in week two?

Learning Theories PMI

The fathers of Behaviourist Theory or Behaviourism are I. Pavlov, B.F. Skinner and J.B. Watson. Behaviorism proposes that observable and measurable aspects of human behavior can be scientifically researched and therefore support the theory that human behavior is learned without consideration of any neuro-physical states.

Plus

Behaviorism as a science is underpinned by observable actions, rather than thoughts or emotions therefore making a legitimate basis for findings.

This article also follows the train of thought that if a behavior has been learned, it can be unlearned. (Refer to link for specific process) This of course has great class room implications. Unlearn non-required behavior and learn required behavior.

This article advocates that rewarding required behavior reinforces the behavior making it more concrete. The rewards can be as simple as a positive remark, therefore making behavior modification well within the reach of most teachers in class.

Minus

This article is limited by its singular focus on observable behaviors, virtually discounting many other elements that make behaviors. For example, a person’s lisp. According to this theory, a lisp is a behavior because it is observable, rewardable and punishable. However no amount of punishment will stop most people from lisping as there are organic neuro-physical implications as well.

Interesting

It interests me that this theory advocates abnormal behavior is also a function of learned habits, rather than the inner workings of the brain. I would like to explore this further.

When applied to behavior modification techniques, this theory suggests that what may work for one student may not work for another. The basis of which depends on each student's stimulus and response, and on associations made by each learner. Could explain behavior management techniques that work with some students and not others.

Modeling another person’s behavior, as suggested by Bandura, is a method of behavior learning that a lot of children adopt and learn favourable and unfavourable behaviors.

http://usindh.edu.pk/behaviourism_applications.pdf

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Behaviorism

Siemen's Theory

1. A number of authors contest Siemens' ideas. It is unsettling to be challenged about existing perceptions of "knowing", in particular, the lack of purpose in asking our students to KNOW and be able to RECALL what they know in assessment. Do you agree with them? Can you see Siemen's point of view? What is your position?

2.Give an example of ways in which you could use this theory in your classroom/learning context?

I think Siemen’s theory explains a lot about 21^st century learning, especially his view about the pace at which information flows and becomes redundant. The importance of needing to learn where to get the relevant and sometimes topical information from compared with previous centuries is much higher. I believe a good example at this can be found when looking at a very significant current global issue I.e. the GFC.

Firstly, if I look generally at the corporate sector, there are great advantages for a new employee to learn the idiosyncrasies of an organisation very quickly so as to be in-tune with or able to read the corporate culture and hence learn the appropriate ways to operate. E.g. who’s the boss, sources of power and information, networks, what to do and what not to do, what needs doing and what needs ‘smoke and mirrors’ etc. In many ways I think this represents a good example of Siemen’s theory because one learns less about how to do a good job (content of the pipes) and more about how to fit into the workplace networks and systems (the pipes).

In sticking with the corporate theme, I believe organisations have a pulse of their own I.e. ways of doing things, a culture, beliefs and expectations. I have worked for organisations that seem to learn from experience, move with the times and stay one step ahead of the pack. I do believe that this is because of the Board’s decisions, but where does the Board learn their craft?

The ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable corporate skill and will lead to sources of information (pipes). So perhaps the collective ability of Board members to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns facilitates corporate learning. Or maybe one Board member has this skill and over time, other Board members learn this skill and before you know it, the organism……oops!!!  I mean organisation is living and breathing and recognising patterns to identify where to go to get information that informs their knowledge (pipes) for decision making.

As Siemen (2005) asks, “how do learning theories address moments where performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding?” Sorry for coming back to corporate knowledge, but I believe that employees who recognise organisational patterns, as outlined above, perform well in that organisation. But is the performance to a standard that will suffice in our society?

Government policy is designed to monitor this issue. The problem is that governments also operate in a way that relates to Siemen’s question outlined above. Governments load their human resources with staffers who don’t have complete understanding and yet still make policy decisions based on ‘moments where performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding’. (No knowledge of the pipe’s content).

So coming back to the GFC, if applying Siemen’s theory to the events of the GFC, I guess the first question to be asked is, “Are the mains connected to the pipes”? A question most recent retirees would be asking as their retirement funds ‘goes down the drain’ because most global economists were too busy looking at the pipes and not the flawed economic policy and economic practice flowing within the pipes. How often have we heard global economists ask the question, “How did we not see this coming”? Perhaps because corporations and governments were focused on the pipes and not the content. (Perhaps the public backlash and financial losses will teach them a lesson. A behaviourist learning opportunity  in the making maybe?)

Siemen’s view that networks can be connected to create an integrated whole, I think is true. I expect Einstein was thinking along these lines when he referred to being so smart that he knew everyone’s phone number………by looking in a phone book. The phone book being the network.

For me though I’m sorry but I see this theory of learning as one piece of the learning puzzle. Certainly a 21^st century piece and not one we would have been discussing 30 years ago. Yes it is important to know where the phone book is to source our phone number, but I think it is equally expected to know how to reach your friends and family, police, local member etc. if you’ve misplaced your phone book, which of course most of us can do. Cognitivism maybe?

As for using this theory in one of my lessons. I do see the value of knowing where to go as a means of quick information supply, and so within a lesson I would make that knowledge, I.e. 21^st century sources of information, available to my students. However I would be cautious and I would also supplement this by balancing with traditional research/knowledge/learning methods and I would certainly opt to find out if my students had consolidated their knowledge by mechanisms of testing.

Engage or enrage

1. What is your belief and understanding of the nature of today's learners? Is there substance to the "engage or enrage" argument?

My initial thoughts are reflecting those of Thrupp (2009), where her research showed forms of diversity amongst students with ICT competencies and therefore use of ICT in the class. This finding therefore identifies that any particular methods of teaching in the ICT format presents many challenges. (How do you “Match the Hatch)

I certainly relate to Prensky’s (2001) view of the digital native and digital immigrant (can you pick my accent????), and I guess it goes without saying that a teacher’s bias against using digital technologies to support delivery of their lessons influences a student’s learning, not only of those technologies, but potentially of content. I.e. poor use of ICT by a teacher can mean limited learning of this medium by the students.

To demonstrate my point, one only needs to sit in on an ‘Australian history’ lesson in a Queensland state school as I have done. What I have seen, despite the medium used to deliver a lesson, is teacher bias about pre-European settlement, or at best a teacher’s lack of knowledge about Australia’s true history. Such bias and/or limited use of resources does influence student learning outcomes.

One other element that I believe is missing from the argument ‘Are digital natives a myth or reality?’ is the rate of change in ICT. The rate of change is an influencing factor in the debate and until we see some stabilisation with ICT, I believe we will always have not only teachers, but entire organisations accused with being un-innovative, behind the times and using antiquated process.

I do not however feel at all confortable re: Prensky’s (2005) categorisation of three types of students in his article ‘Engage or enrage’. He fails to consider in any part of the article the issue of what is happening at home to engage the student (very inportant). I.e. do the students come from a supportive learning environment where education is not only supported, but celebrated, or, is the home environment apathetic to education. Big difference with lots of research backing the answer. Essentially, irrespective of what teaching is occurring in the class room, students who come from homes that value education will have greater learning resilience in class and therefore better able to make a go of whatever the content, medium and pedagogy.

The question ‘Engage or enrage’???? Perhaps seek a balanced teaching method so that learning styles, ICT competencies and good old fashioned chalk are considerations of the lesson plan.

As for digital native Vs digital immigrant. Hopefully this course will be my passport!!!!!

Preferred learning styles

1.        What is your learning style? What sorts of learning experiences would suit you best with your learning style?

Results for: Paul

ACT                      X                            REF

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<-- -->

SEN      X                                            INT

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<-- -->

VIS                          X                        VRB

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<-- -->

SEQ                  X                                GLO

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

<-- -->

As can be seen by the above ‘Index of Learning Style’ questionnaire test results, I have predominance for Sensory learning. I completed the survey on two separate occasions on different days. Both of my test scores hovered in the same vicinity as shown above, indicating validity that my learning style, as described by Felder and Soloman (n.d.a), is strongly that of a Sensing learner.

As described by Felder and Soloman (n.d.a),  in Learning Styles and Strategies , the learning experiences that would best suit Sensory learners will be more practical, they are patient with details and good at memorizing facts, and prefer factually based learning experiences, solving problems by well-established methods and doing hands-on (laboratory) work. I would need to be undertaking courses that have apparent connection to the real world and my learning experiences should be without complications and surprises.

2.        In a traditional classroom of 25 students, how would you support the range of learning styles each lesson?

Balance, balance and more balance!!!!!

I would not try to cater to one learning style as this would be too narrow in scope, leading to poor learning outcomes. As Felder (n.d.a) explains, by catering to one dominate learning style the teacher excludes the learning needs of other students, resulting to excessive attrition. In the case of the classroom, it leads to disinterested students, stagnated learning and behaviour management issues. Therefore I would utilise teaching techniques that cater to the full variety of learners.

For example, I would identify what learning outcomes I wanted to achieve for that lesson and go through those outcomes with the students. I would keep this introduction brief but make it meaningful to the students by explaining the process. For example:

                 “Today we are going to learn about ABC. For you (the students, this means reading a handout on ABC, listening to me explain some elements of the handout and then we are going to watch a YouTube video on ABC. After that you will work in groups to solve a problem about ABC and then in your groups develop a brief PowerPoint presentation for the class on how your group will solve the ABC problem……….”

In this example I have provided a goal and an outline of structure. (No surprises for Sensory learners with no repetition for Intuitive learners). Sequential learners will appreciate the logical steps while Visual and Verbal learners are catered to via the hand out, You Tube video and some didactic presentation from me. Some problem solving brings elements together for the Sensory and Intuitive students while the activity of developing the PowerPoint allows the Active learner to get in and do something while the reflective learners are contemplating the problem and setting out the PowerPoint. Plenty of variety for the Global learner to sift through while all learners will see, feel, think, share, read, write and formulate the presentation.

3.        With your current knowledge of ICT, how could your design and digital pedagogy support your learners better?

Given that my current knowledge if ICT is challenged at best, I would be unable to touch on specific process. I feel the very limited Intuitive/Global learner in me is going to have to approach this question. (Less technical and more “Big Picture”)

ICT can provide interactive platforms by which to engage a student in ways other than ‘chalk and talk’, handouts, books, reading etc. This can only mean that as a teacher one is able to open the class room up to a greater variety of teaching mediums by which to engage the minds of students. It is the level of variety provided through ICT such as interactive games, avatars, resources, videos etc, coupled with the interaction ICT allows between these mediums and the student, which affords credibility to improved learning outcomes.

When teachers make the relevant and appropriate digitally designed lesson, (digital content, downloads, links etc)  it is the interaction students have with the digital design that allows them to play a role in managing their learning in a way that best suits them. (They do some of the driving).

4.        What sorts of profiling questions would you be asking about your learners to ensure you cater for everyone's preferences?

During lessons I would be observing student response to open questions such as:

·          How could you approach this task?

·          What do you like about this topic area?

·          Where do you think you can start?

·          What else do you need?

Closed questions can also be useful. For example:

·          Would you do this task this way?

·          Have you thought about this?

·          Do you want more info?

5.        How does ICT support differences in learning styles?

The variety of mediums that are available through ICT means that everything from journal articles, YouTube downloads, discussion forums, interactive games, podcasts etc. can be used as information and teaching resources, but even more importantly, such mediums can be used by the student to creatively post their new found knowledge to their teacher  to assess learning outcomes. The flexibility and variety of ICT can be utilised for different learning styles and reflected upon/assessed with equal flexibility.