Reflections on Cases and Objects in Teaching & Learning

Exploring Case-Based Reasoning (CBR), Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT), and Learning Objects

What are key similarities or striking differences between these theories/models? Do the theories/models share any common foundations or principles?

Both case-based reasoning (CBR) and cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) fall under an umbrella or category of instructional approaches known as Case-based learning. Case-based learning encompasses a number of different methods and models, all of which emphasize learning in context (also see previous post on context-based learning). 

To create an authentic context for learning, both CBR and CFT utilize scenarios or story lines, called cases, from which students discuss, explore, and formulate solutions for dealing with the situation described in the case. An instructional goal of these two models is to develop the learner's capacity to adapt knowledge gained through previous problem-solving experience to a new situation.

When considering how to present a case to learners, theoretical principles associated with multimedia learning objects come into play. Developing case based reasoning and cognitive flexibility modules require significant time and resources. Creating multiple relevant and well-designed cases is a lot of work, especially since the best cases may be fairly complex. To create an effective learning environment that emphasizes cognitive flexibility, the designer will want to allow for multiple paths, actions, and even outcomes. Merrill (1999) asserts that "the goal of a learning environment is to enable the student to explore some device or setting. The objects in the environment behave in a way similar to their behavior in the real world" (p. 411). Fortunately, multimedia learning object repositories can serve as a valuable resource for the design and development of CBR and CFT case-based learning. 

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

The development of multimedia case studies, such as anchored interactive learning environments (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1994) can be resource intensive, but as Jarz, Kainz, and Walpoth (1997) point out, "the use of multimedia can significantly improve the quality of case studies, especially with regard to their presentation of reality" (p. 23). And, as I mentioned in my previous post, the increase of free online applications and desktop software programs available to educators continue to make it easier and less expensive to create effective and realistic technology-mediated learning in context. Additionally, a number of free, online learning object repositories exist that enable instructional designers to benefit from and build upon others' work.

Case-based learning, as a general approach, provides instructors/designers with a range of options in the instructional design. When making didactic, curricular, and task design decisions, one has the flexibility to scaffold the learning activities as little or as much as is befitting of the specific instructional context, subject matter, and student population. For instance, cases can be structured to direct students toward a specific conclusion or establish a context and provide the resources to enable students to engage with the issues in a more dynamic and open-ended manner (Jarz et al., 1997). Case based learning situates instruction within a navigable framework for understanding complex concepts and information and applying them to real world situations (Oliver, n.d.), which, as discussed in my previous post has been shown to lead to increased motivation and greater transfer of learning on the part of the learner.

The cognitive flexibility model seems great for K-12 teaching and learning. Unlike anchored instruction, in which all of the information needed to solve the problem is embedded within the module, CFT requires considerable thought, discussion, exploration/research and reasoning in order to reach an informed decision or solution. As such, it fosters analytical problem-solving and research skills in younger students who lack the life experience of adult learners. 

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/ models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

As a teaching assistant for graduate courses in instructional technology, case based learning is generally an effective model since it is good for teaching adult learners about the roles they might play in professional settings (such as instructional designer) and the decisions that must be made in those roles. In a course I am currently taking on the foundations of Student Affairs, case based learning activities have proven highly informative and engaging. It gave me a far better sense of the complex and strategic decision-making processes required of college and university administrators who function as student affairs educators. Although this was done in a face-to-face course setting, it would also have worked quite well delivered in a distance educational setting that allowed for asynchronous or synchronous student interaction. 

Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?

• Real World Learning Objects (RWLO) Resource Library - online repository of Internet-based learning objects for college faculty
• Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT) Repository - a free online community and library of learning materials designed primarily for faculty, staff and students of higher education; the repository includes 18 types of learning materials, one of which is "learning objects"
• Tin Can

Reflections on Context-Based Instruction and Multimedia

Exploring Goal-Based Scenarios (GBS), Anchored Instruction, STAR Legacy, and MOST Multimedia

What are key similarities or striking differences between these four theories/models? Do the theories/models share any common foundations or principles?

The contextualized learning models covered in Unit Three could, in some respects, be regarded as an extension of our previous unit on group-based collaborative instruction & multimedia theories. While GBS, Anchored Instruction, STAR Legacy and MOST Multimedia do not emphasize group dynamics and collaboration to the extent seen in GD, CLE, PBL and SL&CA, for which social interaction is a defining characteristic, they do share two key principles or components in common: (a) the role of the teacher as facilitator (these models are learner- as opposed to instructor-focused) and (b) the importance of authentic and relevant learning scenarios and contexts. And, like the collaborative instructional designs from Unit II, context-based designs have also been found to increase learner motivation and retention.

By situating learning in realistic contexts and taking advantage of natural cognitive and learning processes, context-based approaches have application for instruction in a wide range of settings and for students of various ages and stages of development.

With the exception of Anchored Instruction, which is intended for use with groups, these context-based approaches can be used either by individual learners or groups.

The Anchored Instruction, STAR Legacy, and MOST Multimedia models were all developed by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. 

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

I found it interesting that three of the four models we examined were created by the same group at Vanderbilt University and would like to understand more about the evolution of the Cognition and Technology Group and Learning Technology Center. I was particularly fascinated by the results of the Swiss Family Robinson experiment they conducted (Bransford et. al), on the impact of multimedia on extralinguistic processing and the positive effect it has on information comprehension and retention.

Anchored Instruction may be difficult to use within a pre-set curriculum, and the  problem-formulation skills take time (Oliver, n.d.), however the higher order and critical thinking abilities that students gain through engagement in this type of design are crucial for success in postsecondary education programs and for living in the "real world".

Authentic situativity in online Anchored Interactive Learning Environments (AILE) can also be difficult to achieve without significant resources dedicated to the production of these learning environments, but with the increase of free online applications and desktop software programs available to educators, the creation of effective, technology-mediated context-based learning is becoming easier and less expensive. 

I appreciate the MOST Multimedia model's effectiveness in enhancing learning and achievement among at-risk students who may lack basic literacies. Engaging struggling and at-risk learners plays an important role in fostering positive attitudes toward education and developing skills needed to cope successfully with problems and challenges both within and outside of formal education settings.

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/ models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

The STAR Legacy Model was the easiest to understand and the one I would most readily use in courses I TA or might teach in the future. I found the examples on IRIS Center's website, recommended by Dr. Oliver, particularly useful in demonstrating the application of this model to various real-world problems.

As with the collaborative instruction models covered in the previous unit, I think there will be some exciting opportunities in the future to leverage these context-based approaches, particularly GBS and Anchored Instruction, in conjunction with game-based learning theory, as virtual reality extends the reach of applicability of  "serious games" in the classroom and online.

Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?

• Contextualized Instruction Resources 
• Embedded Learning Portal 
• Mendeley 
• Diigo 
• SpringPad 
• Xtranormal
• Google Drive 
• Dropbox 
• Evernote 
• Learnist 
• Bubbl.us 
• Cacoo 
• Mind42 
• Mind Meister 

Reflections on Group-Based Collaborative Instruction & Multimedia

Exploring Guided Design (GD), Cooperative Learning Environments (CLE), Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and Situated Learning & Cognitive Apprenticeship (SL&CA)

What are key similarities or striking differences between these four theories/models? Do the theories/models share any common foundations or principles?

GD, CLE, PBL and SL&CA are instructional approaches that share a common core, or founding principle--namely, that when properly guided by an instructor or facilitator, students will learn more effectively in groups than they will on their own.  While each of these approaches prescribes a distinct set of steps for implementation, they all begin with the premise that learning is a naturally-occurring phenomenon that can be deepened through the active participation and social interaction that takes place during a group's joint efforts to solve or address relevant, real-world challenges.

Some interesting similarities include: (a) the attention given to individual roles not only of the students in a group, but also of the instructors as facilitators or guides; (b) the emphasis on authentic contexts and problems to be tackled by students as a group; (c) many of the same advantages associated with these approaches, such as the development of lifelong communication and collaboration skills, greater recall of knowledge and use of higher order thinking, increased motivation and interest in subjects, and the centrality of student interactivity, and (d) the interdependence of students' academic outcomes (i.e., a student's grade will reflect the work of the group, not just the individual). 

Among the differences that one finds between these learning models are: (a) the ideal group size (e.g., GD is intended for groups of four to seven students, while CLE is best with slightly smaller groups of three to five students); (b) the order of educational events or steps, (c) the amount of cross-group interaction that occurs; (d) the degree of advanced preparation required of individual students, and (e) the ways in which the instructor serves as a facilitator. 


What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My initial reaction to these group-based learning theories is quite positive. Despite admitted barriers and some potential disadvantages associated with their use, collaborative instructional approaches strike me as an important component of a 21st century education.  Critical thinking and problem solving skills, as well as the ability to collaborate and communicate effectively with others (including people from diverse backgrounds and cultures) are all essential to function as productive member of our increasingly global society.  

Even if faculty and instructors may need training to use these approaches effectively in the classroom, be it a F:F or virtual learning environment, there are a plethora of strategies and resources available to assist (I particularly appreciated Haller et. al's (2000) list of principles and considerations.)

I was surprised to learn how vast the body of literature is that supports CLE as an effective instructional approach, and I was particularly struck by the positive relationship discussed by Johnson, Johnson, & Smith's (1998) point between CLE and student retention (as mediated by factors such as academic success, quality of relationships, and higher self-esteem). These points, coupled with the positive changes in attitude toward diverse group members, the course, and even the content, curriculum, and field of study are all substantial benefits. 


Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/ models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

The sheer volume of credible, extant research pointing to their effectiveness (particularly CLE) is compelling. Johnson, et. al (1998) mention that "the research on cooperative learning has a validity and generalizability rarely found in the educational literature" (p. 35). Millis (2002) similarly says that "the research base supporting it is both long-standing and solid (p. 2).

The classes that I TA are distance learning courses, and I can also see PBL working well online, especially supported by the use of some of the tools available online (see list below) for internet-based collaboration.  


Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online?

A wide range of tools that students can employ for synchronous communication, information collection, content authoring, and project management are available on the web and enable students to meet and collaborate at a distance:

• Mendeley - Securely share your papers, notes and annotations. Updates in real time. When a group member adds a note, highlight or summary to a group document, the edit is visible to all the members of the group. 
• Diigo - Diigo can be used as a collaborative research tool and knowledge-sharing community. Students working together can create a group on Diigo to pool relevant resources and share their thoughts and notes.
• SpringPad - Start a notebook, post images, documents, and webpages, and comment on each other’s contributions (can also be used to track group member tasks)
• Google Drive (was Google Docs)
• Wikispaces - has a helpful getting started tutorial; gives you a visual editor and a bunch of other tools to make sharing and editing content easy
• PBWorks - shared workspace free option gives you 1 workspace for up to 100 users and 2GB storage (but has limited customization); track user changes/edits
• Etherpad - a hosted web service that allows real-time document collaboration for groups of users. (I would recommend installing it with PrimaryPad - Etherpad V1.1 created for use in education. It's largest provider of Etherpad installation services and offers 3 month trials of PrimaryPad Pro that are available to anyone.)
• Dropbox - file syncing service; free for basic account; looks like a regular file folder on your computer. When you add or change a file in the folder, the new version is automatically uploaded to your Dropbox online; access your files from anywhere through the website.
• Evernote (requires paid account, though)
• Skype - free account includes free 1:1 video conferencing and multiple person Skype to Skype phone conferencing; in addition to screen sharing, it also has instant messaging (can IM files too)
• AnyMeeting - Completely Free; up to 200 Attendees; Unlimited Meetings, Video Conferencing, Screen Sharing, Application Sharing, Recording, VoIP, Conference Calling, Public Profile, Social Media Integration, Text Chat, Polling, Invitations,No Required Downloads
• Google+ Hangouts - free video conferencing for up to 9 or 10 people; let's you share what’s on your screen and collaborate in Google Docs. If a team member can’t join the hangout, you can also dial the person in by clicking on the “Invite” button and then the “+telephone” link. Calls to the US are free. (source: http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/)
• Blackboard Collaborate - free for NCSU students
• Cisco WebEx - has several plans. The basic package is free and allows for unlimited meetings with 3 people per meeting. Has a whiteboard and enables you to share your desktop and load documents (250 MB storage).
• Join.me - free and fast screen sharing tool
• Doodle - free; does not require registration; helps scheduling meetings and other appointment--simply set up a poll with a set of possible days/times, send a link to all attendees to respond online with their availability for each of the time slots
• When Is Good - a barebones but effective online app for planing the time to have your meeting by co-ordinating availability with all the participants
• Pinterest - Start a pinboard, pin images, webpages, other users' pins. (There is also Learnist...you can request an invite to their beta-release)
• Bubbl.us - free mind mapping/ graphic organization tool that allows users to collaboratively create and edit mind maps. Bubbl.us takes just seconds to figure out and you can try it before registering for an account.
• Cacoo - free collaborative diagram creation resource; allows you to chat with your collaborators in real-time while you work on your diagrams.
• Mind42 - free online mindmap collaboration tool.
• Mind Meister - Free account enables users to collaborate with others, share via email or embedding, and download or export files; ability to add active links to websites.
• KanbanFlow - a simple, easy-to-use internet-based task manager that uses the Kanban system developed by Toyota to help it manage its production process. Has a short, 2-min getting started tutorial for beginners. Has a mobile version of the site too.
• Google Groups - a Google product allowing you to create online and email groups; free of charge, but must be used with non-NCSU.edu gmail though in order to create a new group (access to this feature is restricted by NCSU)
• Toodledo - powerful, internet-based to-do list application; allows for easy collaboration easy to collaborate with other people. When you share your tasks, you have complete control over who has permission to read, edit and/or add items your to-do list.
• TeamSpace - international online groupware system for virtual teamwork; free version for students
• AgreeDo - helps you to create meeting agendas. Let all participants collaborate on the agenda before the meeting, so that everyone is prepared.

Reflections on Individualized Instruction & Multimedia

Exploring the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio-Tutorial (A-T) Approach

What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

Underlying both the PSI and A-T is the fundamental notion that instruction should focus on the needs of the student rather than the teacher. Students must learn rather than simply be taught, and so the role of the teacher is "to provide a situation conducive to learning by providing the direction, facilities and motivation to the learner" (Kozma, Belle, & Williams, 1978, p.1). In both cases, lectures are limited and teachers/teaching assistants serve as facilitators and tutors as needed.

Both aim for student mastery of course content.  And recognizing students naturally attain mastery at different speeds, with varying degrees of difficulty, and with differing amounts of prior, related knowledge, PSI and A-T approaches enable students to progress through lessons at both a pace and schedule that best suit their individual needs.

While both the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and Audio-Tutorial Approach (A-T) date back to the 1960's and 1970's, respectively, both models remain highly relevant to a 21st century education in which technology-enabled learning plays an increasingly important role.

What most obviously separates these two instructional medels is their emphasis on different formats for delivery. Whereas PSI is historically text-based, A-T primarily utilizes audio-based instruction. Additionally, they differ in the level of student collaboration traditionally associated with each approach. A-T has more frequent student interaction, usually in the form of weekly small-group review sessions led by a TA. Instead of relying on teacher-student or proctor-student feedback, the students in their small cohort assist one another in mastering the material each studied on his/her own that week.

What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

My initial reaction to these learning theories/models is mixed. On the one hand, I see tremendous value in individualized instruction, and the focus it places on learning as opposed to teaching. As a student-centered model, it does not overlook the diversity that naturally exists among a group of learners, and it affords students the convenience and flexibility to work at their own pace and schedule.  Furthermore, by producing the instructional materials ahead of time, more time can (ideally) be spent attending to students' progress.

On the other hand, I see how individualized instruction can be very costly as compared to other models if content production tools are not chosen wisely or if the approach is not well matched to the course's subject matter (ex: using A-T for a course with content that must be updated each semester or for a course that teaches skills in the psychomotor domain).

Individualized instruction necessitates significant up-front development (whether the materials are text-based, as in PSI, or audio-based, as in A-T) and may require considerable 1:1 help for students who struggle to get 100% correct on an assessment of a lesson, since they cannot move on to the next lesson until they demonstrate mastery of the one before. I also find it disconcerting that although there is some evidence that students who receive individualized attention and tutoring learn "more" than students who are merely lectured (Oliver, n.d.), there is also a seeming lack of evidence that individualized instruction narrows the gap between advanced learners and students trying to catch up from behind (Kozma, et. al, 1978).

Yet, with the proliferation of consumer technology tools for producing multimedia and the widespread adoption and use of instructional technologies and Web 2.0 tools, content development and socially mediated cognition are becoming more practical and affordable.

I also suspect that as virtual reality, three-dimensional digital modeling and haptics technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the barriers that prevent A-T from being utilized will diminish.  We have already begun to witness some of the compelling possibilities that these new technologies offer.

Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/ models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I do indeed find the PSI and A-T models of individualized instruction to have utility for the distance education courses I currently TA (as well as those I hope to teach in the future).

The students in the courses that I TA are post-baccalaureate adults, and thus the Audio-Tutorial approach is a more suitable model for my classes than it would be for classes taught to students in K-12.  Given the need for students in A-T-based classes to be highly self-directed, motivated, and disciplined, such an approach is more likely to prove effective with an adult student population than with a younger, less mature group of learners.

However, I would not use it for material in the course that will become outdated in the near future, since it could require a considerable amount of time to update and re-record content on a regular basis.

And while audio lends an extra dimension to instruction, it would still be necessary to provide text-based alternatives in order to comply with national and University accessibility standards. This is not necessarily a problem, however, since I would normally write a script before creating an audio recording anyway.

Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could
be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online? Please spend some time identifying tools and resources for this last point, as this background research should help you complete your projects more efficiently.

Quizlet
Screencasts
Jing
Captivate

Adventures in ECI 517

This is a test.