Below are some of my contributions to this week's discussion on Streamlined ID chapters 9-10-11 & The ID CaseBook case studies 01, 09 and 20.
Question 1: Considering the seven “…essential tasks common to almost all IDT projects” (Larson & Lockee, 2014, p. 223), what is the greatest challenge Scott's design team is facing on case #1? What challenges, if any, do you see in the makeup of the project teams?
Although the project management requirements will undoubtedly be difficult to fulfill, I feel there is a solid plan in place for their execution. Yes, it's logistically difficult for there to be three distinct teams working on this project, but the rationale is justified. With open lines of communication and patience with all of the inevitable iterations, there is no reason why this delegation can't work. I feel it is an efficient way to execute the design and development task. otherwise there may be too many cooks in the kitchen, which, in my opinion, is already proving to be a bit of an issue in this case. If Scott can gain consensus within his team and manage the development team (at least from the forefront), then there is hope for this SchoolsOnline project. Since the ball has already been passed from the writing team, it important that both remaining teams (design and development) agree to a "project scope document" (Larson & Lockee, p. 226) or another work-flow management tool that includes the budget, schedule, and a description of the deliverables. That way everyone is on the same page.
I believe the area with which Scott's team is having the most difficulty, and which is ultimately holding up the development process, is the identification of project tasks. As others have mentioned previously, this team is just not quite sure where to go in terms of deciding what the learners should be doing. They are having a difficult time agreeing on the best way to align objectives to learning tasks.
When Scott asked his team to "consider" Mission to Mars independently, he should have been more clear about what they were meant to consider. If he wanted to establish a starting point (which I think is fine, to get the ball rolling and to serve as a model conversation for other reviews of the briefs), he should have specified exactly what they were "considering" about the case. When they "put their heads together", they were thinking a little bit all over the place about context, learning objects, setting, pedagogy, level of interaction, feedback, age-group adaptability, and file-size constraints. There was little structure to the dialog, and with that many variables, I feel it's going to be nearly impossible to get consensus. They are a long way away from scripting or storyboarding, and they are only on the first of fifteen discussions!
If, within three months, they would like to have the learning tasks written, developed, produced, implemented, and evaluated, they need to either a) divide and conquer or b) streamline the initial decision-making process by developing a system for more objectively evaluating the 32 written drafts according to what they deem to be key priorities. For example, in evaluating the "Mission to Mars" suggestion, Scott could take the notes from the conversation and create a rubric or scale for assessing the viability of using each "Learning Object Design Brief". This could better guide the introductory question: "Do we think this concept is going to work?" Evaluating the alignment of strategies, technologies, and messages from the beginning (and in an organized and efficient way) will make the exchange with the development team much more effective. However, unless they soon change their strategy of offering designs to achieve the objectives, they will be struggling to stay within the boundaries of their time budget.
[Prof. Trespalacios: Erica, as it is mentioned in the "Implication for ID practice" section (at the end of the case), you summarized the "issues" in this case: Project management and the development process dealing with learning objects and constructivism. Focus on the second one; let me ask you the third question from that section. What do you think are the challenges involved in applying constructivist principles to this type of computer-based environment?]
I believe that the biggest challenge in applying constructivist principles to this type computer-based environment is the fact that the program they are creating requires deductive versus inductive reasoning. In other words, students are making selections from a concrete list of options; they are "deducing" the "correct" answer from a limited assortment of possibilities. The program is then "filling in the blanks" to determine if they have made the right choice. As it currently stands, there is no room for student feedback: justification, evidence, or reflection. The problem with this type of thinking is that it is not in alignment with real world problem-solving. I understand that this activity, as "one off" reinforcement or enrichment opportunity, is not going to turn students into purely linear or binary thinkers. In fact, it may be age and developmentally appropriate to have a deductive-reasoning task fulfill the objectives of distinguishing between needs and wants.
Nevertheless, SchoolsOnlines has articulated that they would like the pedagogical approach to be "more constructivist than prescriptive" (p.15). Even during the discussion of Mission to Mars, Tracey offers concerns about learners' choices being limited and the feedback being inauthentic. Later on, Penny suggests "including some way for learners to express their thinking about how the items they have chosen represent their needs or wants" (p. 20), implying that there might be different rationale from the students' perspective that is not accommodated by the computer program. This idea was not popular, however, is it would increase the learning objects and the file size of the software. Along the same lines, Jeff seemed to think the "discussion" aspect of the decision-making process could take place within the classroom. Therefore, a big limitation to computer-based constructivist learning is the absence of students' voice surrounding the actions they take within the game or simulation.
All in all, the "needs vs. wants" activity they have in mind is in alignment with the stated objectives, but is not necessarily as open-ended or creative as SchoolsOnline may have wished it to be. The fact that choices are limited, that there is no place for justification or discussion, and the fact that students aren't creating their own learning products keeps this project more prescriptive. The students are not as pushed to engage in higher-order thinking skills because knowledge is coming from an external source.
* * * * * *
Question 2: a) Based on the concepts and theories discussed on chapter 10, how do you design and deliver an effective message? b) Thinking in your ID project, what are the most important elements to develop an effective message presentation and flow? As you did in the previous discussion, introduce shortly your project at the beginning to understand better your instructional design decisions.
Designing an effective message means creating media that communicates clearly and produces learning. These "media" could be high-tech or low-tech, and they could consist of aural, visual, or multisensory aspects. Good design strategies are related to learning theories such as Gestalt, Cognitive Load Theory, Dual-Coding Theory, and Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (as mentioned on pp. 206-207 in Streamlined ID).
First of all it's important that we make our message accessible to all learners "technically, physically, and cognitively" (p. 208). We must eliminate all barriers so the information can be both retrieved and perceived. Learners have to be able to make sense of what we're trying to communicate, so we must employ design strategies (such as chunking (spatially and temporally), highlighting essential information, using supportive multi-modal reinforcements, and making messages personalized when possible). Using strategies of organization and repetition also helps ensure the message is cognitively digestible and memorable.
As mentioned from the beginning, Larson and Lockee also stress the importance of ensuring that the design and delivery of the message supports all other aspects of instructional design. It accommodates learner styles, it speaks to targeted learning outcomes, it is aligned with assessments, and it supports the chosen instructional methods and delivery mediums. In order to accommodate all of these components (not to mention time and budgetary constraints) creativity is key!
As I seek to plan the message of my ID project, I will aim to respond to the questions proposed by Larson and Lockee (p. 212):
1. What kind of information should I use in the presentation of the instructional message?
2. How should I organize and deliver the message?
3. What will the learner do with the instructional information?
My ID project is requiring 9-13 year old students to use kid-friendly Scratch programming software to convert a self-authored (previously storyboarded) short story into a short digitally animated scene. The first part of the lesson is instructivist/supplantive in nature, helping them get accustomed to the interface of the program and learning all of the "bells and whistles". I will offer several learning aid/reference hand-outs in conjunction with heavily guided practice. The second part of the lesson will be more constructivist/generative in style, in that the students will explore and problem-solve "scripting" skills by manipulating the programming blocks (through trial and error, logical thinking, and with reference guides) to build simple animations for their characters.
Since I am working with novice learners who are unfamiliar with Scratch, I will ensure that my message is well-paced (erring on the side of slow and methodical at first), chunked as much as possible, void of extraneous information, and powerful in its highlighting/featuring of essential information. I will use a combination of images and easy-to-read text in the reference guides I distribute. The instructional strategy of modelling programming steps on the interactive whiteboard involves using a message that is inherently visual supported by strong and succinct auditory cues.
Unfortunately (or fortunately,depending how you look at it), the Scratch software does not have a flexible interface. As instructional designer, there are already some "givens" or contraints considering the use of this technology. There is the possibility that the students may feel overwhelmed at first, because they are so many visually and aurally stimulating options to click on. It is important that the instructor's message focuses on essential-to-know information. The exploratory "wow factor" part can come later, as the students engage in the constructivist task of the lesson. The first part of the lesson, however, must be clear to highlight common buttons, menu items, keystrokes, etc. that will be important to know to achieve the objective of making an interactive, animated story. This helps learners understand the flow navigation and use of the interface. The message is not meant to give them ALL the information they need to know, as part of the objective of the task is to problem-solve how to sequence programming blocks for desired animation effects. It should, however, ensure they understand how to start, where to find the tools (scripting "blocks"), and what to do with them.
These demonstrations will be reinforced (repeated, in a way) through the associated reference sheets that present the same information with images and text. These sheets will include vocabulary (with pictures) and procedures (with diagrams or screen captures). Having this supporting resources means the message is permanently and independently accessible.
As I work to finalize my instructional design, I will be focused on ensuring my message is appropriate for my target audience in both design and delivery. It should be initially adequate enough to provide a basic understanding of Scratch and propel learners towards independent work, but also be supportive of their problem-solving/exploratory efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment