A VoiceThread Group Presentation
This week our group presented two chapters and three case studies from our course readings (see VoiceThread above). We guided an asynchronous discussion on Moodle about the material, focusing on two central questions. Here are some of my contributions to the group discussion.
Question #1: Based on learning theories and the pedagogical approaches (Instructivist, Constructivist, and Connectivist), as presented in the book, which pedagogical approach or approaches do you feel would be more appropriate to use in your instructional design project and why? Please, make a short introduction of your project to understand better your instructional decisions.
"Luba, Your plan sounds very interesting and culturally important. I can see how an instructivist style fits in this case, as it is quite regimented and involves a broader context of accreditation (making the stakes for accountability very high). I am wondering if you are planning to focus more of your attention on the "efficiency" piece or on the "safety checklist" piece. Also, what are your plans for dealing with volunteers who come in with more advanced training or precertification? (Or is this rarely the case?) Is there is final test they could just take to prove their skill/knowledge without undergoing the course? Or are there enough aspects that are unique to your food bank that would require EVERY volunteer to take part in the training? I'm curious to hear more about your project over the course of the semester, as I enjoy learning from instructional experiences that go beyond the K-12 environment. The contexts, restrains, and expectations are so different! Plus, in your case, the learners are quite diverse in their skills, maturity, and motivation. Best of luck!"
"Veronica, Your plan sounds appropriate and exciting. I'm sure your students will enjoy it, especially from a social point of view. On which of the three areas do you plan to focus your design/assessment: writing/typing skills, self-expression, or netiquette? Or are you planning to embed all three into the process? I appreciate that the blogging experience itself will probably be quite loosely structured, flexible, and devoted to interaction. However, I'm wondering if the initial stages of the instruction will need to be a bit more "instructivist" in style to get the students familiar with the navigation of the blogging program and to teach the ins and outs of correctly posting a blog. I suppose with the learner anaylsis process you will find out how experienced they are with blogging and other types of social media. This should help decide how much direct instruction is needed in the early part of the lesson. Once they can demonstrate the "how to" nuts and bolts of blogging, perhaps then they can begin to concentrate on the managing of diverse opinions and seeing each other as knowledge sources that comes from connectivism. The flow of the lesson could scaffold them from instructivist to connectivist with benchmarks along the way. In fact, this could even be a point of differentiation within your lesson. (Some students may remain at the "how to" level, and other may grow into the "what can I do with this?" level. Nevertheless, it's very possible I'm interpreting the meaning of "connectivist" differently from you! It'd be great to hear your thoughts."
"Karin, I think you bring up an important point: just because some knowledge or skill might be taught in an instructivist way, doesn't mean it can't lead to subsequent constructivist or connectivist instructional approaches using the same material. In fact, in many cases, the instructivist approach is only necessary for initial exposure and foundational understanding. Other more creative, open-ended, and student-centered tasks come into play after the bottom of Bloom's taxonomy (knowledge and comprehension) has been fulfilled. In my opinion, information taught with direct teaching methods is often critical, quite objective, and explicit. I see where you are coming from when you include Spanish verb conjugation in this category. I suppose you could approach teaching conjugations in a more exploratory (constructivist) way, wherein students found their own information from patterns they experienced in spoken and written Spanish. (Isn't this sort of how Rosetta Stone approaches that? Through "dynamic immersion:?) However, in a high school classroom setting, this is rather inefficient and developmentally inappropriate for the target audience. Perhaps you could have two components to your ID lesson: an "fundamentals" instructivist portion, and an "real-life adaptation" constructivist portion. The latter piece could involve higher-order thinking, and could include something akin to the bus-driver task where they have to analyze what he is saying to them, apply their knowledge of verbs to create a meaningful response, and evaluate the outcome of this language exchange (e.g. are they allowed on board the bus? Do they get to their final destination?) What were you thinking the constructivist piece might look like? I've studied Spanish myself, and recognize that language is never as simple as input/output. There is a greater diversity of skills and knowledge at play such that a mixture of pedagogy is appropriate. The real challenge, however, is to combine the two without making the learning task too broad or elaborate."
"Nora, this sounds like a fantastic project -- so diverse, complex, and engaging. Your students will love it, I'm sure! For the purposes of the scope and time frame of the ID project, are the activities too diverse in their objectives? (i.e. can they be completed in <3 hours?) For example, are the students already familiar with blogging, or do you have to teach them the technical skills that pertain to that activity first? I think this a great class series and I really enjoy the three-approach nature (diversity is key!) Hopefully there are many points of overlap so that the project doesn't get too complex or time-consuming. At any rate, best of luck and happy planning! It sounds really fun."
"Hi Mike, It sounds like your theoretical eclecticism is perfect for both types of learning task. For this project, I feel you personal interests should dictate which you select. I understand that this wouldn't be the case in "real world" of an instructional designer, but I'd suggest getting your feet wet with a topic that interests you and your students which incorporates a teaching style you are comfortable with. If you would prefer to select the most "needed" instructional goal, then in-depth surveys would be perfectly appropriate, but I can see what you mean when you might prefer to utilize a survey for when the actual topic has been selected. In that case, maybe a less in-depth survey could gauge background knowledge and interest. Or perhaps a short pre-test of terms and techniques used in both project avenues could help pinpoint broader areas of weakness. My opinion is to hold off on the "in-depth" questioning until you select your project. I feel that your students' technical skills (for example video shooting and editing) would be best addressed with an instructivist model, and the resources/set-up of the learning context appear to support that choice as well. (I think you're wise to consider the reality of all components of the classroom, not just the nature of the subject, when choosing a pedagogical strand to serve as a framework.) I'm not sure what the learning product/ formative assessment that would come from leveraging data visualization programs would look like, but if it involves an open-ended project, I feel a constructivist approach is merited. In the case of the multimedia option, if it involves experimentation and peer-critiquing, I think you're right in aligning it to the constructivist viewpoint. I little bit of each can't hurt! My only concern in doing that is that your ID project may get too large and all-encompassing. In the three hours devoted to this task, are the students going to learn technical skills to enough of a degree that they can apply them to an open-ended project, not to mention evaluate other's use of such knowledge and skills? It's possible that there would be no problem with that, but I suppose you won't know where your students are at until you get a sense of their background knowledge, attitudes, and current skill level through surveys, interviews, pre-tests, concept maps, etc. Even though the direction of the entire project may include all three pedagogical theories, it might help to stick to one (with hints of a second) for this singular ID lesson set. Best of luck in making your decision. They both sound great!"
Question #2: In case study #2, Michael Bishop encountered many different barriers getting his educational games piloted in various school districts. What are some of the barriers that stood out to you, and what do you (as an instructional designer) recommend he could have done to overcome these challenges?
"In my opinion, in this case, the chicken came before the egg: The design solution came before the need. Michael is approaching schools that have not previously expressed a desire to get on board with this type of curricular tool, so they are naturally reluctant to "give it a try" when, as Shari has said, too much is at stake. These schools haven't enlisted an Instructional Designer to help with the specific concerns his games are addressing, which are "to use technology to increase the engagement of all students in scientific inquiry in their science classes" (p. 33). These schools aren't really "sold" on the idea of increased time with technology OR inquiry. And for that matter, some are perhaps resisting the unsolicited marketing of this software. I wonder: is the real client his funding agency or the teachers? If it's the latter, he is obligated to change his product (or his sales pitch) to get in line with their desired outcomes. Just like an ice cream company would either have to change their flavors or their advertising strategy if sales were down. Like Shari says, it's Marketing 101. Michael sounds like he's unwilling to change the game or the target audience, so he doesn't have much else to revise expect his "spiel". (By the way, Matt, I think your idea of a captioned walk-through video is a fantastic idea if Michael wants to go for an enhanced sales pitch approach!) However, do you think an instructional designer should ever have to BE in a marketing position? Should they ever have to SELL an idea? Or should they always be in more of a receptive and responsive position, tailoring their designs to others' needs and desires."
"Jeff, I really appreciate your perspective on this, especially considering the fact that I was feeling so sorry for Michael throughout his story. I was thinking to myself how narrow-sighted some of his critics were... however, you are absolutely right in pointing out that taking a chance in a controversial pedagogical practice is putting your job on the line, especially when time, testing, and tradition are working against you. The onus is on him to prove it's worth their risk. Hard numbers and empirical data speak volumes when it comes to selling anything. Therefore, I agree with you: he needs to get support from eager and willing non-traditional student groups, such as home schools, enrichment programs, and camps. However, is this data going to be any good to the administrator skeptical about adopting it in the regular classroom? Are the learners in these "non-traditional" groups, or even private schools, statistically and demographically too different from the average science class to generate meaningful conclusions? Is ANY data better than no data (i.e. Should he just find ANYONE to get on board just to get some numbers to crunch)? Or would his best tactic be to stay true to his desired target audience and instead, perhaps, just focus his energy on better highlighting the alignment of standards and testable skills within the game? I feel that flexibility is key in this point of Michael's predicament. He must start somewhere to get qualitative and quantitative opinions, facts, and statistics to analyze and utilize so that he may a) make any additional changes and b) support his claims, which is crucial in marketing his product accurately."
"Kathryn, you make a great point about the need for the game to have more flexibility embedded into its design. Perhaps the game itself could have different options programmed in that would allow for different lengths of instructional time (perhaps it could have a "one day" option for teachers interested in student engagement but worried about time for test-prep or a more in-depth "week+" option for those with more flexibility and patience for inquiry learning. There could also be a beginner or advanced mode for different entry levels of knowledge and skills (one being more embedded with more hints and examples). I am wondering what changes you had in mind when you suggested including a more instructivist approach? Did you feel this was one of the teachers' criticisms of the game? Since scientific inquiry was the rationale for the game's design and the purpose for which it received funding, do you think Michael or his supporting agency is going to be in favor of altering the format of the game so drastically?"
"Michael does have some great ideas for collaborating, debating, and thinking critically in Rigglefish, and I feel at this point he needs more than generalizations to support his claims. If he is to define and address his "customers" directly, he must be able to speak to them in their terms. That means, he needs to take each of their issues and prove to them why or how his game can overcome that barrier. If it's time, he should show how the game can be played in a shortened way. If it's connection to standards, he must create a list of all the standards and how they are addressed at each level of the game. If it's assessment, he should be willing to create some supplementary assessment material to guide/support instruction. In general, I feel there are small ways Michael can make changes that can convince the schools to get on board with Rigglefish. He must be willing to thinking creatively and flexibly since plan A fell through. Compromise is going to inevitably be part of the process. In the end, he will have a more well-rounded and versatile product to sell anyway."
"Mike, you are spot on to offer the metaphor of the recent graduate looking for work with no experience, but having doors closed because of that predicament. Michael needs to find a more creative case study opportunity to gain the "experience" that will hopefully build data and credence to support his game in the mainstream classroom. Do you suggest he focus his energy on finding that experience, even if it's not ideal? Or should he focus his energy on changing the game to address some of the concerns mentioned by the advisory group (even though, as you say, they aren't really "design" issues? In essence, I'm wondering what's the best next move: should he change his audience, change his sales pitch, or change his material?"
"I believe that many classmates have touched upon what game designers must consider in their game design for a K-12 environment. For the most part they are the same considerations any instructional designer must include: Learner characteristics (including attitude and background knowledge), learner needs, available time, provisions of space and materials, established assessments (and their format), standards, teacher abilities, educational objectives, and accurate, age-appropriate content and skills embedded in the software. They must assume a skeptical audience, initially, and be very conservative in their use of time and resources. Very clear connections (driven by data) to support standards and achievement on standardized assessments drives software adoption as well. Adequate student and teacher support (as MathSnacks did with their supplemental and tutorial documentation and videos) provide guidance and benchmarks for learning so that students can be working on task at all times. There are clear entry points into the established curriculum, so the game adoption isn't as risky or overwhelming. Overall, the game designers have gone out of their way to cater to the reality of the classroom environment, both active and behind-the-scenes. As much as possible they've built in flexibility so that the games are adaptable but always effective."
"I believe that many classmates have touched upon what game designers must consider in their game design for a K-12 environment. For the most part they are the same considerations any instructional designer must include: Learner characteristics (including attitude and background knowledge), learner needs, available time, provisions of space and materials, established assessments (and their format), standards, teacher abilities, educational objectives, and accurate, age-appropriate content and skills embedded in the software. They must assume a skeptical audience, initially, and be very conservative in their use of time and resources. Very clear connections (driven by data) to support standards and achievement on standardized assessments drives software adoption as well. Adequate student and teacher support (as MathSnacks did with their supplemental and tutorial documentation and videos) provide guidance and benchmarks for learning so that students can be working on task at all times. There are clear entry points into the established curriculum, so the game adoption isn't as risky or overwhelming. Overall, the game designers have gone out of their way to cater to the reality of the classroom environment, both active and behind-the-scenes. As much as possible they've built in flexibility so that the games are adaptable but always effective."
No comments:
Post a Comment