Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology: What Shall Be Taught and How Shall We Teach It?
Short Description:
During this symposium, professors from six leading programs in the field will describe how recent innovative practices in such areas as social networking, e-learning, serious gaming, informal learning, the learning sciences and virtual worlds have affected the Trends and Issues course they teach. The panelists will discuss how these innovative practices have affected their course in terms of the topics covered and the instructional strategies and learning resources that are employed.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
In recent years, a wide variety of innovative practices in education have had a major impact on the field of instructional design and technology (ID&T). These innovations have been in areas such as social networking, serious gaming, informal learning, virtual worlds, the learning sciences and e-learning. As new ideas and practices in these areas have come about, the nature of the field has changed. As the field of instructional design and technology evolves, it is important that the faculty who teach in ID&T programs stay abreast of these changes and make students aware of them. Oftentimes in ID&T graduate programs, the course in which students are first exposed to recent innovations in the field is the “Trends and Issues” course, or a course that is titled differently but has a similar purpose. What innovations are now being addressed in such courses? What types of learning resources and instructional strategies are faculty relying on to help students learn about these innovations? During this symposium, a group of six individuals, each of whom who teaches a Trends and Issues course in one of six major ID&T programs in the United States, will discuss these and other related issues.The specific questions the panelists will respond to will include the following:• Which recent innovations in the field of education do you and your students focus upon in your Trends and Issues course?• How have recent innovations in the field affected the goals and objectives of the course? • How have the instructional strategies and learning resources that are employed in the course been affected by these innovations? What instructional strategies are most effective and why?• In light of the wide array of innovations affecting our field, is it better to try to provide students with a brief introduction to many of these, or to try to address a few of them in greater depth? Why?• Given the wide array of skills students in our programs must acquire, should a Trends and Issues course, which typically is not skills-oriented, be a required course in the curriculum? Why or why not?The panelists for this symposium were chosen to represent a variety of professional viewpoints and a wide range of professional experiences. Moreover, they represent academic programs that differ in several important respects, such as the professional focus of the program (e.g., emphasis on instructional design vs. emphasis on technology applications). Thus there are many differences between the panelists with regard to the set of topics they teach in the course, the instructional strategies they employ, and the learning resources they use. So as to highlight these differing approaches, the symposium will be organized as a discussion, with each panelist briefly sharing his or her views on one question before the panelists turn their attention to the next question. Moreover, as each question is discussed, panelists will have the opportunity to respond to each others’ ideas. This strategy, which the symposium organizer has employed successfully in other symposia, should lead to a lively interplay among the panelists. Members of the audience will also have the opportunity to participate during the latter part of the session.Each panelist will also provide the audience with a brief written description of his or her Trends and Issues course. These descriptions will all be presented using the same format (for ease of comparison) and address the following questions:a. What are the characteristics of the students who typically enroll in the course? In particular:i. how many students enroll each semester?ii. what percentage of the students are: • masters students? doctoral students?• full-time? part-time? • international students?iii. upon graduation, in what settings do the students find employment? what percentage workin each setting?b. What are the goals and objectives of the course?c. What topics are covered in the course?d. What textbook (if any) do you use? What other instructional resources do you employ?e. What is the primary instructional strategy you employ?f. How do you assess student learning?In summary, those who attend this session will have the opportunity to hear a variety of points of view regarding (a) what should be taught in a Trends and Issues course and (b) what instructional strategies and learning resources should be used in such a course. This discussion, plus the basic course information that each panelist will disseminate, should provide members of the audience with a wealth of ideas that might be considered as they and/or their colleagues design or revise a “Trends and Issues” course at their institution.
Friday, February 20, 2009
aect-wikipedia-learning-commuities
What Can Wikipedia Tell Us About Designing Learning Communities?
Short Description:
Educational researchers continually seek more effective ways to design and support group-based learning activities. One approach is to examine existing communities of practice in order to identify and extend their successful strategies to other collaborative learning environments. In this presentation, the researchers will discuss the results of a Delphi study in which they examined Wikipedia, a large-scale online encyclopedia project, and explored the social, organizational, and technical factors that support successful collaboration within that community.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Social constructivists posit that people learn as a result of interacting with others (Vygotsky, 1978). The phrase “learning community” is often used to describe the social context of learning within a group. Examining learning in different communities, Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced the concept community of practice: a group of people sharing common practices who develop their knowledge or expertise through interactions with each other. Lave and Wenger (1991) observed that members of a community of practice not only develop the skills required to participate in community activities, but also gain knowledge about the community’s goals, resources, and principles. This learning occurs through a process called legitimate peripheral participation. New members first participate in peripheral tasks that are less important to the group. Participation in peripheral tasks gives new members opportunities to access community resources and interact with other members. Through practice and interaction, new members gradually learn about the community’s goals and organization and start to build skills and experiences that enable them to move to more central tasks. Lave and Wenger argued that studying this process may provide insights into more effective ways to support and promote learning in community settings. With the advance of online communications and social networking tools, many communities have emerged online since the early ’90s and researchers have used community of practice theory to understand the nature of these virtual groups (Hung & Chen, 2002; Johnson, 2001; Nichani & Hung, 2002). Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) is one such community that has developed to create an online encyclopedia written by Internet users. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by Internet users. “Wiki” technology enables anyone with a browser to edit the encyclopedia and the changes are applied instantly. As a result, Wikipedia is never finished, but rather is always in the process of being revised by its users. As a result of the cumulative work of thousands of contributors, by 2008, Wikipedia featured 12 million entries in more than 200 languages (Wikipedia, 2009), making it one of the most-visited reference Websites on the Internet (Alexa.com, 2008; Rainie & Tancer, 2007). Wikipedia succeeds not only in its quantity but also in its quality. Although many are skeptical that indiscriminate Internet users can generate meaningful information using such a chaotic process, several studies have shown that Wikipedia articles are actually quite accurate and reliable (Chesney, 2006; Giles, 2005; Rosenzweig, 2006). Earlier work (Stalder & Hirsh, 2002) explained the phenomenon simply by the open source philosophy: errors are more likely to be found and fixed when more people have access to them. Later researches focused more on the social process within Wikipedia and pointed out that the quality of Wikipedia content is supported by a communication and administration system that resolves disputes, combats vandalism, regulates behavior, and coordinates projects (Ciffolilli, 2003; George, 2007; Viégas, Wattenberg, & Dave, 2004; Viégas, Wattenberg, Kriss & van Ham, 2007). According to Adler and de Alfaro (2006), there is a reciprocal relationship between Wikipedia’s content and its contributors. On one hand, interactions among contributors improve content quality. On the other hand, the complex process of creating and negotiating content promotes more interactions. Research by Bryant, Forte, and Bruckman (2005) has also observed peripheral participation within the Wikipedia community. Eventually, a social structure evolves to support the interactions. As its contributors work together to carry out the process of encyclopedia editing, Wikipedia appears to fall within Lave and Wenger’s (1991) definition of a community of practice. This study, therefore, takes a first step toward examining the organizational structures, technical procedures, and social interactions within Wikipedia and their effects on the site’s content, contributors, and group social structure in an effort to analyze the success of this community of practice. To achieve this purpose, we chose the Delphi method, as it is particularly applicable for collecting subjective information from experts on a given topic (Linstone & Truoff, 1975; Murry & Hammons, 1995). A Delphi study starts with initial, open-ended question(s) to be answered by a panel of carefully selected experts (Brooks, 1979). The researchers then analyze the experts’ responses and “feed back” those responses in a second-round questionnaire that asks experts to review, rate, and comment on the group’s previous responses. In any additional rounds, panel members receive feedback about the previous round and are asked to re-rank their responses. This process is repeated until consensus is achieved (Linger & Tressolini, 2001). We designed the following open-ended question about factors leading to the creation and evolution of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a Web-based, open-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It has more than 9 million entries in more than 200 languages that have been contributed by volunteer editors from all over the world. It is one of the most visited Websites on the Internet (Alexa.com, 2008) and has evolved into a frequently used information source for many Internet users. From your perspective as a Wikipedia researcher, what are the factors that you feel have supported the creation and evolution of Wikipedia? To find individuals who both knew Wikipedia well and had in-depth experience with its social context, we sent recruitment emails to: (1) the Wikipedia research email list subscribers; (2) 2007 Wikimania conference presenters; and (3) the authors of research publications listed at the Wikipedia in Academic Studies webpage (Wikipedia, 2008). An informational questionnaire was used to gather information on participants’ Wikipedia research experiences so that the experts whose background did not match the purpose of the study could be screened out. Nineteen experts were identified and agreed to participate in the subsequent Delphi rounds. In this concurrent session, the presenters will report the findings of their Delphi study and discuss how key social, technical and organizational factors have characterized the nature of Wikipedia collaboration. In addition, the presenters will discuss how to extend the practices and experiences of Wikipedia to support collaboration in other online learning environments. The presenter will prepare a paper (approximately 5000 words, including references) to be distributed during the presentation; the presenter will not read this paper during the presentation, however.
Short Description:
Educational researchers continually seek more effective ways to design and support group-based learning activities. One approach is to examine existing communities of practice in order to identify and extend their successful strategies to other collaborative learning environments. In this presentation, the researchers will discuss the results of a Delphi study in which they examined Wikipedia, a large-scale online encyclopedia project, and explored the social, organizational, and technical factors that support successful collaboration within that community.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Social constructivists posit that people learn as a result of interacting with others (Vygotsky, 1978). The phrase “learning community” is often used to describe the social context of learning within a group. Examining learning in different communities, Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced the concept community of practice: a group of people sharing common practices who develop their knowledge or expertise through interactions with each other. Lave and Wenger (1991) observed that members of a community of practice not only develop the skills required to participate in community activities, but also gain knowledge about the community’s goals, resources, and principles. This learning occurs through a process called legitimate peripheral participation. New members first participate in peripheral tasks that are less important to the group. Participation in peripheral tasks gives new members opportunities to access community resources and interact with other members. Through practice and interaction, new members gradually learn about the community’s goals and organization and start to build skills and experiences that enable them to move to more central tasks. Lave and Wenger argued that studying this process may provide insights into more effective ways to support and promote learning in community settings. With the advance of online communications and social networking tools, many communities have emerged online since the early ’90s and researchers have used community of practice theory to understand the nature of these virtual groups (Hung & Chen, 2002; Johnson, 2001; Nichani & Hung, 2002). Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) is one such community that has developed to create an online encyclopedia written by Internet users. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by Internet users. “Wiki” technology enables anyone with a browser to edit the encyclopedia and the changes are applied instantly. As a result, Wikipedia is never finished, but rather is always in the process of being revised by its users. As a result of the cumulative work of thousands of contributors, by 2008, Wikipedia featured 12 million entries in more than 200 languages (Wikipedia, 2009), making it one of the most-visited reference Websites on the Internet (Alexa.com, 2008; Rainie & Tancer, 2007). Wikipedia succeeds not only in its quantity but also in its quality. Although many are skeptical that indiscriminate Internet users can generate meaningful information using such a chaotic process, several studies have shown that Wikipedia articles are actually quite accurate and reliable (Chesney, 2006; Giles, 2005; Rosenzweig, 2006). Earlier work (Stalder & Hirsh, 2002) explained the phenomenon simply by the open source philosophy: errors are more likely to be found and fixed when more people have access to them. Later researches focused more on the social process within Wikipedia and pointed out that the quality of Wikipedia content is supported by a communication and administration system that resolves disputes, combats vandalism, regulates behavior, and coordinates projects (Ciffolilli, 2003; George, 2007; Viégas, Wattenberg, & Dave, 2004; Viégas, Wattenberg, Kriss & van Ham, 2007). According to Adler and de Alfaro (2006), there is a reciprocal relationship between Wikipedia’s content and its contributors. On one hand, interactions among contributors improve content quality. On the other hand, the complex process of creating and negotiating content promotes more interactions. Research by Bryant, Forte, and Bruckman (2005) has also observed peripheral participation within the Wikipedia community. Eventually, a social structure evolves to support the interactions. As its contributors work together to carry out the process of encyclopedia editing, Wikipedia appears to fall within Lave and Wenger’s (1991) definition of a community of practice. This study, therefore, takes a first step toward examining the organizational structures, technical procedures, and social interactions within Wikipedia and their effects on the site’s content, contributors, and group social structure in an effort to analyze the success of this community of practice. To achieve this purpose, we chose the Delphi method, as it is particularly applicable for collecting subjective information from experts on a given topic (Linstone & Truoff, 1975; Murry & Hammons, 1995). A Delphi study starts with initial, open-ended question(s) to be answered by a panel of carefully selected experts (Brooks, 1979). The researchers then analyze the experts’ responses and “feed back” those responses in a second-round questionnaire that asks experts to review, rate, and comment on the group’s previous responses. In any additional rounds, panel members receive feedback about the previous round and are asked to re-rank their responses. This process is repeated until consensus is achieved (Linger & Tressolini, 2001). We designed the following open-ended question about factors leading to the creation and evolution of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a Web-based, open-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It has more than 9 million entries in more than 200 languages that have been contributed by volunteer editors from all over the world. It is one of the most visited Websites on the Internet (Alexa.com, 2008) and has evolved into a frequently used information source for many Internet users. From your perspective as a Wikipedia researcher, what are the factors that you feel have supported the creation and evolution of Wikipedia? To find individuals who both knew Wikipedia well and had in-depth experience with its social context, we sent recruitment emails to: (1) the Wikipedia research email list subscribers; (2) 2007 Wikimania conference presenters; and (3) the authors of research publications listed at the Wikipedia in Academic Studies webpage (Wikipedia, 2008). An informational questionnaire was used to gather information on participants’ Wikipedia research experiences so that the experts whose background did not match the purpose of the study could be screened out. Nineteen experts were identified and agreed to participate in the subsequent Delphi rounds. In this concurrent session, the presenters will report the findings of their Delphi study and discuss how key social, technical and organizational factors have characterized the nature of Wikipedia collaboration. In addition, the presenters will discuss how to extend the practices and experiences of Wikipedia to support collaboration in other online learning environments. The presenter will prepare a paper (approximately 5000 words, including references) to be distributed during the presentation; the presenter will not read this paper during the presentation, however.
AECT-online discussion and higher level learning
ONLINE DISCUSSION AND HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING: CONTRIBUTIONS OF CLT-BASED DISCUSSION STRATEGIES
Short Description:
In an online discussion of a particular topic, cognitive load theory (CLT)-Based discussion strategies using worked examples, filtered messages, limited number of postings, and combination of the three are contrasted against the conventional online discussion approach. Based on Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), higher level learning outcomes of each discussion strategy will be analyzed using content analysis. Instructional efficiency of each strategy will also be examined using participant’s performance and mental effort invested in each strategy.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Research Problem Lack of higher level learning presented in online discussion has been documented in many studies (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Schellens & Vackle, 2005; Chai & Khine, 2006). Higher level learning, as defined by Bloom (1956), is activities demonstrating analysis, synthesis and evaluation of knowledge (Bloom, 1956). As a broadly used tool in online and blended instruction, online discussion is expected to enhance students’ learning. The more the higher level learning occurs as a result of discussion, the more successful the online discussion facilitates learning. Thus how to facilitate higher level learning in online discussion has been the focus of many studies (Christopher, Thoman, & Tallent-Runnels, 2004, Jeong, 2004, Spaturiu, Quinn, & Hartley, 2007, Rose, 2004). We contend that use of CLT-based learning strategies in online discussion will enhance participants’ higher level learning.Theoretical Foundation Cognitive Load Theory (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1988, 1999; Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Pass, 1998) provides a framework for designing effective instructions that enhance learning. CTL suggests that due to the limited capacity of working memory, learners must be exposed to new information through an efficient design of instruction. The mental load of instructional material in a learning condition is due to intrinsic and germane load (Paas, et al, 2003; Sweller, 1988, Sweller, et al., 1998). Toward this end, well-designed instructions are employed to reduce the extraneous cognitive load of a learning condition so that learners can focus their mental effort on relevant instructional activities. (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Worked example has been found as an effective strategy in enhancing learning (Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Paas, 1992; Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994; Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999; Darabi & Nelson, 2007; Darabi, Nelson & Sikorski, 2006). When the learner is provided with worked example, his attention is directed to problem states and useful solution steps (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005) thus reducing cognitive load.Another principle suggested by CLT for an effective design is to display interactive elements together to reduce unnecessary cognitive load (Chandler & Sweller, 1992; Sweller, et al., 1998; Sweller, Chandler, Tieney, & Cooper, 1990). In online discussion, in order for higher level learning to occur, learner should process multiple messages at same time, find the general theme of them, and develop opinions or critiques. If the elements of the learning task are scattered, learner will allocate their mental effort to make the connection. When the mental effort exceeds working memory, they will understand them as isolated elements. Under either condition, higher level learning is less likely to occur. One approach to this problem in online discussion could be allowing the user to filter posted messages so that related information will be displayed together.The third instructional structure applied in this study is limiting the number of new information presented to learner at once. According to CLT, when learners are exposed to new and unfamiliar information, the number of piece of information should not exceed the working-memory capacity (Sweller, et al., 1998). Miller (1956) suggests 7 +-2 principles of human judgment limitations when there is only one dimension of stimuli, like text-based online discussion. In the mostly used online discussion board layout, the default setting is displaying 20 messages in each page. If all the 20 messages provide new information, they will obviously exceed learner’s working-memory capacity. Furthermore, if any of the 20 messages do not contribute to the construction of new knowledge, then the relevant elements are isolated by these non-contributing elements that results in higher cognitive load. Learner’s level of expertise is found influencing the effectiveness of worked example as well as learners’ capacity to handle split-source information and amount of new components (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1998; Sweller, 2008; Ward & Sweller, 1990). Learner’s pre-knowledge and skill level is measured and included in the analysis of learning outcome to identify its potential effects. Purposes of the study In this study, we compared the percentage of higher levels learning demonstrated in online discussions constructed with four CLT-based strategies against a conventional discussion approach. Higher level learning outcomes of the five discussion conditions (worked examples, filtered messages, limited number of postings, a combination of the three, and the conventional discussion) will be analyzed and compared using content analysis. Furthermore, participant’s performance and mental effort invested in these activities will be used to examine the instructional efficiency of the strategies.Given the principles of CLT, We hypothesize that inclusion of these discussion conditions facilitates construction of higher level learning compared to conventional discussion board design. We also hypothesize that inclusion of the three structures in one discussion condition will produce a better result in facilitating higher level learning than including only one structure. Methodology Participants. Sixty undergraduate students enrolled in an online class participate in this study. They discuss on two topics of how to professional work with families in distress. Procedure. In a controlled experimental condition, the participants will be randomly assigned to 5 discussion groups as follows: (1) Using discussion board that has worked example; (2) Using discussion board with simulated filtered message display; (3) Using discussion board with 7 messages displayed in one page; (4) Using discussion board that has all these three structures ( worked example + filtered message + 7 messages each page) and finally (5), Using conventional discussion board (no worked example + no filtering feature + 20 messages each page).Measures. Pre-knowledge and skill level is measured by a questionnaire. Mental effort is measured using 9-scale instrument developed by Paas, Van Merrienboer, and Adam (1994). Higher level learning demonstrated in discussion is measured via content analysis based on the 6 levels of learning defined by Blooms (1956). A performance test is also provided at the end of the discussion. Results & Discussions Statistical measures will be used to analyze the data collected on all the conditions. Our hypotheses stated at the outset will be tested and the results will be reported in tables, charts, and graphs. The findings and their implications will be presented and discussed at the conference. ReferencesBloom. B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Chai, C. C., & Khine, M.S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250-261. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognitive and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. The British Journal of Educational Psycholgoy, (62), 233-246.Christopher, M. M., Thomas, J. A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K.(2004). Raising the bar: encouraging higher level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166-171.Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347-362. Darabi, A., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki, S., (2007). Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: Worked example vs. conventional problem solving instructional strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1809-1819.Darabi, A., Sikorski, E. G., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki S. (2006). Efficient, motivational, and effective strategies for complex learning: Computer-based simulation experiments in troubleshooting. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, (3), 233-247.Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36-53. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, (40), 1-17. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. (63)2, 81-97. Pass, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133. Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merrienboer, J., & Adam, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: what about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-976. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Education Review, (43). Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology, January-February, 32-35.Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educantional Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.Tuovinen, J. E. & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psycholgoy, (91)2, 334-341. Paas, F., Renkl, A., and Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. Rose, M. A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88. Spatariu, A., Quinn, L. F., & Hartley, K. (2007). A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussion quality. TechTrends, 51(3), 44-48. Van Merrienboer, J. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. Ward, M. & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1-39.
Short Description:
In an online discussion of a particular topic, cognitive load theory (CLT)-Based discussion strategies using worked examples, filtered messages, limited number of postings, and combination of the three are contrasted against the conventional online discussion approach. Based on Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), higher level learning outcomes of each discussion strategy will be analyzed using content analysis. Instructional efficiency of each strategy will also be examined using participant’s performance and mental effort invested in each strategy.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Research Problem Lack of higher level learning presented in online discussion has been documented in many studies (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Schellens & Vackle, 2005; Chai & Khine, 2006). Higher level learning, as defined by Bloom (1956), is activities demonstrating analysis, synthesis and evaluation of knowledge (Bloom, 1956). As a broadly used tool in online and blended instruction, online discussion is expected to enhance students’ learning. The more the higher level learning occurs as a result of discussion, the more successful the online discussion facilitates learning. Thus how to facilitate higher level learning in online discussion has been the focus of many studies (Christopher, Thoman, & Tallent-Runnels, 2004, Jeong, 2004, Spaturiu, Quinn, & Hartley, 2007, Rose, 2004). We contend that use of CLT-based learning strategies in online discussion will enhance participants’ higher level learning.Theoretical Foundation Cognitive Load Theory (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1988, 1999; Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Pass, 1998) provides a framework for designing effective instructions that enhance learning. CTL suggests that due to the limited capacity of working memory, learners must be exposed to new information through an efficient design of instruction. The mental load of instructional material in a learning condition is due to intrinsic and germane load (Paas, et al, 2003; Sweller, 1988, Sweller, et al., 1998). Toward this end, well-designed instructions are employed to reduce the extraneous cognitive load of a learning condition so that learners can focus their mental effort on relevant instructional activities. (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Worked example has been found as an effective strategy in enhancing learning (Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Paas, 1992; Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994; Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999; Darabi & Nelson, 2007; Darabi, Nelson & Sikorski, 2006). When the learner is provided with worked example, his attention is directed to problem states and useful solution steps (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005) thus reducing cognitive load.Another principle suggested by CLT for an effective design is to display interactive elements together to reduce unnecessary cognitive load (Chandler & Sweller, 1992; Sweller, et al., 1998; Sweller, Chandler, Tieney, & Cooper, 1990). In online discussion, in order for higher level learning to occur, learner should process multiple messages at same time, find the general theme of them, and develop opinions or critiques. If the elements of the learning task are scattered, learner will allocate their mental effort to make the connection. When the mental effort exceeds working memory, they will understand them as isolated elements. Under either condition, higher level learning is less likely to occur. One approach to this problem in online discussion could be allowing the user to filter posted messages so that related information will be displayed together.The third instructional structure applied in this study is limiting the number of new information presented to learner at once. According to CLT, when learners are exposed to new and unfamiliar information, the number of piece of information should not exceed the working-memory capacity (Sweller, et al., 1998). Miller (1956) suggests 7 +-2 principles of human judgment limitations when there is only one dimension of stimuli, like text-based online discussion. In the mostly used online discussion board layout, the default setting is displaying 20 messages in each page. If all the 20 messages provide new information, they will obviously exceed learner’s working-memory capacity. Furthermore, if any of the 20 messages do not contribute to the construction of new knowledge, then the relevant elements are isolated by these non-contributing elements that results in higher cognitive load. Learner’s level of expertise is found influencing the effectiveness of worked example as well as learners’ capacity to handle split-source information and amount of new components (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1998; Sweller, 2008; Ward & Sweller, 1990). Learner’s pre-knowledge and skill level is measured and included in the analysis of learning outcome to identify its potential effects. Purposes of the study In this study, we compared the percentage of higher levels learning demonstrated in online discussions constructed with four CLT-based strategies against a conventional discussion approach. Higher level learning outcomes of the five discussion conditions (worked examples, filtered messages, limited number of postings, a combination of the three, and the conventional discussion) will be analyzed and compared using content analysis. Furthermore, participant’s performance and mental effort invested in these activities will be used to examine the instructional efficiency of the strategies.Given the principles of CLT, We hypothesize that inclusion of these discussion conditions facilitates construction of higher level learning compared to conventional discussion board design. We also hypothesize that inclusion of the three structures in one discussion condition will produce a better result in facilitating higher level learning than including only one structure. Methodology Participants. Sixty undergraduate students enrolled in an online class participate in this study. They discuss on two topics of how to professional work with families in distress. Procedure. In a controlled experimental condition, the participants will be randomly assigned to 5 discussion groups as follows: (1) Using discussion board that has worked example; (2) Using discussion board with simulated filtered message display; (3) Using discussion board with 7 messages displayed in one page; (4) Using discussion board that has all these three structures ( worked example + filtered message + 7 messages each page) and finally (5), Using conventional discussion board (no worked example + no filtering feature + 20 messages each page).Measures. Pre-knowledge and skill level is measured by a questionnaire. Mental effort is measured using 9-scale instrument developed by Paas, Van Merrienboer, and Adam (1994). Higher level learning demonstrated in discussion is measured via content analysis based on the 6 levels of learning defined by Blooms (1956). A performance test is also provided at the end of the discussion. Results & Discussions Statistical measures will be used to analyze the data collected on all the conditions. Our hypotheses stated at the outset will be tested and the results will be reported in tables, charts, and graphs. The findings and their implications will be presented and discussed at the conference. ReferencesBloom. B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Chai, C. C., & Khine, M.S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250-261. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognitive and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. The British Journal of Educational Psycholgoy, (62), 233-246.Christopher, M. M., Thomas, J. A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K.(2004). Raising the bar: encouraging higher level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166-171.Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347-362. Darabi, A., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki, S., (2007). Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: Worked example vs. conventional problem solving instructional strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1809-1819.Darabi, A., Sikorski, E. G., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki S. (2006). Efficient, motivational, and effective strategies for complex learning: Computer-based simulation experiments in troubleshooting. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, (3), 233-247.Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36-53. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, (40), 1-17. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. (63)2, 81-97. Pass, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133. Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merrienboer, J., & Adam, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: what about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-976. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Education Review, (43). Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology, January-February, 32-35.Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educantional Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.Tuovinen, J. E. & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psycholgoy, (91)2, 334-341. Paas, F., Renkl, A., and Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. Rose, M. A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88. Spatariu, A., Quinn, L. F., & Hartley, K. (2007). A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussion quality. TechTrends, 51(3), 44-48. Van Merrienboer, J. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. Ward, M. & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1-39.
AECT-Meeting the Challenges of Developing Quality Online Courses
Meeting the Challenges of Developing Quality Online Courses through the Application of Modular Design
Short Description:
Current literature is focused more on course delivery rather than on the actual course design. Therefore, the purpose of this presentation will be to summarize research-based standards relating to course design and to provide a demonstration of the design and development of online courses using modular design to facilitate student engagement in the course and to encourage communications between the students and with the instructor before the course content officially begins. Multiple online products, software and tools will be demonstrated for P-16 instructors to duplicate within their courses.
Abstract:
The Quality Matters (QM) standards are benchmarks that educators strive to follow as they develop online courses. The QM standards are based on current literature focused on course delivery rather than specifically on course design. One method of course design that educators can use that will work hand in hand with QM and the course delivery standards identified in those standards is the implementation of modular instruction. Modular instruction, as applied to the design of an online course, could be used to provide a well-organized, sequential and navigational web-supported course that represents the QM standards well.Modular instruction could be considered a commonsensical approach to the design of instruction. Modular instruction includes lessons that are made up of standardized units of instruction and/or instructional activities that can be separated from each other, rearranged, or reused as support for additional modules and/or other courses. Although modular instruction may appear to be a simple idea at first, however the effectiveness of the instruction depends greatly on the manner in which the instructional components are divided up and organized based on the instructional objectives and learning outcomes established for the modules and the course as well.Modular design as applied to an online course actually begins within a course site before the content of the course begins. In fact, the modular structure can be implemented during the “introduction” of the course to students. Therefore, to support the modular structure of a course, an Introductory Module is proposed for online or web-supported courses or trainings. With the Introductory module available and not directly related to any specific course content, students will be able to access and review all of the information and instructions (including videos, audio and text-based files and external links) needed to begin the course. If accepted, the presenters will share a summary of standards relating specifically to course design and how course design applies to course delivery issues. Next, the presenters will provide a summary of best strategies that could be used in planning and designing web-supported instruction specifically in the area of modular design and demonstrate two or more courses that currently implement modular design and the introductory module. Participants will be able to duplicate and apply the standards and example products easily after attending this session.Conference participants will benefit from the presentation because they will be able to review the Quality Matters (QM) standards applied but in a way that supports course design (and not just the delivery of the course content). Participants will also benefit in engaging in a conversation with the presenters on the benefits of implementing the module structure to include an Introductory Module and receiving information on what items and/or instructional products should be included in the Intro Module that will support student engagement in the course including the organization and structure of the classroom discussion board to support the modular structure. If accepted, the presenters will share a summary of standards relating specifically to course design and how course design applies to course delivery issues. Next, the presenters will provide a summary of best strategies that could be used in planning and designing web-supported instruction specifically in the area of modular design and demonstrate courses that currently implement modular design and the use of an Introductory Module in online courses. The participants will find the information and examples useful because of the ease of duplication of products and application of standards in their own courses.
Short Description:
Current literature is focused more on course delivery rather than on the actual course design. Therefore, the purpose of this presentation will be to summarize research-based standards relating to course design and to provide a demonstration of the design and development of online courses using modular design to facilitate student engagement in the course and to encourage communications between the students and with the instructor before the course content officially begins. Multiple online products, software and tools will be demonstrated for P-16 instructors to duplicate within their courses.
Abstract:
The Quality Matters (QM) standards are benchmarks that educators strive to follow as they develop online courses. The QM standards are based on current literature focused on course delivery rather than specifically on course design. One method of course design that educators can use that will work hand in hand with QM and the course delivery standards identified in those standards is the implementation of modular instruction. Modular instruction, as applied to the design of an online course, could be used to provide a well-organized, sequential and navigational web-supported course that represents the QM standards well.Modular instruction could be considered a commonsensical approach to the design of instruction. Modular instruction includes lessons that are made up of standardized units of instruction and/or instructional activities that can be separated from each other, rearranged, or reused as support for additional modules and/or other courses. Although modular instruction may appear to be a simple idea at first, however the effectiveness of the instruction depends greatly on the manner in which the instructional components are divided up and organized based on the instructional objectives and learning outcomes established for the modules and the course as well.Modular design as applied to an online course actually begins within a course site before the content of the course begins. In fact, the modular structure can be implemented during the “introduction” of the course to students. Therefore, to support the modular structure of a course, an Introductory Module is proposed for online or web-supported courses or trainings. With the Introductory module available and not directly related to any specific course content, students will be able to access and review all of the information and instructions (including videos, audio and text-based files and external links) needed to begin the course. If accepted, the presenters will share a summary of standards relating specifically to course design and how course design applies to course delivery issues. Next, the presenters will provide a summary of best strategies that could be used in planning and designing web-supported instruction specifically in the area of modular design and demonstrate two or more courses that currently implement modular design and the introductory module. Participants will be able to duplicate and apply the standards and example products easily after attending this session.Conference participants will benefit from the presentation because they will be able to review the Quality Matters (QM) standards applied but in a way that supports course design (and not just the delivery of the course content). Participants will also benefit in engaging in a conversation with the presenters on the benefits of implementing the module structure to include an Introductory Module and receiving information on what items and/or instructional products should be included in the Intro Module that will support student engagement in the course including the organization and structure of the classroom discussion board to support the modular structure. If accepted, the presenters will share a summary of standards relating specifically to course design and how course design applies to course delivery issues. Next, the presenters will provide a summary of best strategies that could be used in planning and designing web-supported instruction specifically in the area of modular design and demonstrate courses that currently implement modular design and the use of an Introductory Module in online courses. The participants will find the information and examples useful because of the ease of duplication of products and application of standards in their own courses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)