Finals Review

What are the essential differences between behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism?

·         Behaviorism:  explains learning as a change in behavior due to the presentation of stimuli.  Behaviour adapts in response to those environmental stimuli.  Learning has occurred when the learner displays the correct behavior in response to a particular stimulus. 

**The focus is on overt, observable behaviours—what learners do!

**The goal of instruction is to strengthen the relationship between stimulus and response through the use of performance cues & reinforcement.  

 

·         Cognitivism:  explains learning as a change in mental models or frameworks and the development of encoding & retrieval strategies.  Learning has occurred when the learner can retrieve information that was previously encoded.

**The focus is on internal mental processes—what learners know & how they know it or how it is represented in their mind (mental processes, strategies, etc.)

**The key focus here is changing the learner by helping them use appropriate learning strategies

**The role of the instructor is determining what mental models or structures the learner already possesses and how new knowledge can be introduced and organized in a way that allows the learner to assimilate it--how to help learners organize, store, and retrieve new knowledge.

·         Constructivism:  explains learning as the formation of personal meaning/understanding as a result of lived experiences and reflection upon those experiences.  Learning is an active process and understanding is provisional and dynamic, changing and adapting in response to new experiences, particularly exposure to varied perspectives and new experiences.  

T   The role of the instructor includes helping learners learn to construct or create their own meaning and (2) placing them in authentic environments, performing authentic tasks and (3) providing opportunities to participate in social negotiation (varied perspectives).

**

 

What are the differences between HPT, IT, & LS?

·         Instructional Technology:  Concerned with design and application—designing learning environments and instructional products that improve learning.  Are interested in learning theory inasmuch as it informs practice; however, the ultimate objective is to improve actual learning.

**  Design processes & systems with the goal of improving learning.  

·         Human Performance Technology:  Is strictly concerned with performance and explicit, observable behaviours.  Analyzes performance gaps and then develops interventions for improving performance.  Some interventions might include training; however, HPT takes a much more broad view than IT and includes job aids, rewards/incentives, physical layout of space, etc.

** Develop interventions to improve performance gaps.

·         Learning Sciences:  Concerned with developing theories that describe how learning takes place, rather than dictating how it should take place and making specific recommendations regarding pedagogy or instructional strategies, although these theories might suggest certain strategies.

** Develop conceptual models that help explain and describe learning

 

What is the difference between science & technology?

·         Science:  Is analytic and descriptive.  Seeks to build conceptual models that can explain observed effects.  Asks different questions (e.g. “Why did this happen?”), produces general principles or theories that describe effects in the natural world. 

·         Technology:  Is prescriptive (“synthesis towards a goal”).  Is synthetic in that it builds causal models that can be used to design or develop artifacts (tools, interactions, etc.) that are intended to bring about certain effects.

o   The structuring of space/time to achieve a specified purpose within within the bounds of specified problem constraints and to a predetermined level of criterion.

o   Asks different questions (“how can we make this happen?”)

**Builds causal models that can be used to design tools or processes that are intended to bring about specified effects or outcomes

 

Media vs. Method Debate

·         Clark—Media are just vehicles for delivering instruction and can be separated from method

o   Adheres to the “replaceability test”—if the media can be changed and the same learning is observed then it isn’t the medium but the method that has led to the learning.

o   Argues that research analyzing the influence of media elements on learning haven’t controlled for instructional method and are confounded.

o   Although media elements might have some impact on learning it is the “active ingredient” of method that is the key determinant in the learning that occurs

§  He argues that method is the “active ingredient” because of the replaceability test—e.g. different media with same learning results.

§  The instructional method is embedded within the medium that delivers the instruction

o   Media may influence cost or speed; however only method can influence what is actually learned.

·         Kozma—Media characteristics have an impact upon the mental models and cognitive structures that are formed by learners; thus, media do influence learning.

o   Learners actively collaborate with the instructional medium to construct learning

§  Different learning occurs depending on what medium is used

·         This seems accurate a picture would cause a learner to form a different mental representation than would a verbal definition

o   Method and media cannot be separated all of the time like Clark suggests

§  In good designs they are integrated and have a synergistic effect upon learning

Lean Management

Our conversation in class today about Lean Management was interesting and got me thinking about "production" and "efficiency".  It makes sense to me that HPT professionals in manufacturing settings would be concerned with productivity and would want to avoid waste.  And, on the surface, it seems like anything that doesn't directly impact production would be something that could be improved.  Employee down-time, side conversations, waiting, etc. could be perceived as negatives because all of those things decrease productivity.  

However, the question that I was left with was what impact things like breaks, conversations among co-workers, etc. have on morale and what impact morale has on productivity and effectiveness.  Those are probably difficult things to measure, but I think it might be a mistake to approach productivity from a strictly technical, non-human standpoint.  I guess that from a Human Performance Technology standpoint these sorts of things fall into the category of incenvites/rewards, organizational culture, etc.  All of the efficiencies in the world still don't eliminate the fact that much of manufacturing depends upon human agents and that they can't be treated just like production machines.  

I guess that the challenge in all of this for practitioners is finding that balance between efficiency and practices that promote morale.

Humility & Life-long Learning

One of the things that I have learned as I have listened to the career reports in class is that one of the things that makes a good instructional designer or instructional technologist is humility and a desire to be a life-long learner, both of which I think are closely linked.  

I  noticed that a number of the professionals that have been interviewed how important it is to be well read (some even mentioned being well read outside of your discipline).  They seemed to have a passion for learning and that was one of the things that they enjoyed most about their work--the opportunity to continue learning even after their formal education had ended.

Many of the professionals interviewed also talked about the importance of managing relationships, working with stakeholders, soliciting feedback, etc.  It seems like a certain amount of humility is necessary in all of this because designers are constantly being asked to incorporate the ideas of others into their designs.  An attitude of "I have all of the good ideas" or "No one does it better than I do" could be dangerous in doing this kind of work.  

All of this reminded me of a book that I read over the summer called Learning in the Light of Faith.  It is a collection of essays that were adapted from a lecture series that was offered at BYU back in 1995 and features essays by Pres. Eyring, Pres. Samuelson (before he was affiliated with BYU), Elder Maxwell, and Elder Oaks among others.  The theme of the essays is "disciple-scholarship" and I noticed that every author mentioned humility, meekness, or a related concept as being key in learning.  In another talk by Pres. Eyring (A Child of God, a 1997 Devotional Address) he discusses the attributes of great learners and mentions a willingness to "seek correction" as one of these attributes.   

It has just been interesting to see all of these things coming together and to realize how important this humility and passion for learning is in our field.

Conscience of Craft & Accountability

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/04/humanities

This is an article about a meeting that took place at the annual meeting of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.  The meeting was focused on accountability in the humanities and a common refrain from the faculty that were present was "You can't measure what we teach!".  That got me thinking about the discussions we have had recently about conscience of craft and accountability.  For the record, I don't think that this attitude of "don't assess me because it might mean that I will need to improve something" isn't unique to the field of humanities, for some reason or another they always end up being the whipping boy when it comes to discussions about accountability.   This is a general problem in academia and other work settings--people don't want to be held accountable for their work.  I can understand the argument that outside bodies don't always know what to assess or evaluate, but that can't be an argument for throwing out assessment all together.  If humanities faculty don't want someone else assessing the learning of their students, then they need to step up to the plate and develop their own evaluations and then be able to justify the utility of those evaluations to accrediting bodies, politicians, students paying tuition, etc.  

What makes a person competent?

Throughout the presentations today and as I was researching for the presentation that Brian and I gave, I kept having the thought "what qualifies a person to call themself an instructional designer or an evaluator?" It is interesting to me that a fair number of professionals in the field do not have any formal training in instructional technology or have taken a workshop focused on evaluation.  The question that I have is that does that sort of thing harm the profession or those of us who do have formal training?  If there are people calling themselves designers but who haven't completed the training that we have, does that undermine our field or minimize the value of the graduate programs that exist?  On the other hand, if those of us with formal training aren't any more effective than those who haven't, then maybe we should do away with graduate programs all together.  

I just think that this sort of thing is important for us to think about if we want instructional technology to be a viable field that is respected.  What would happen if we had self-taught physicians performing heart surgeries?  If learning and teaching are moral acts that have the potential to help or harm individuals then it seems justified to require that those involved in those practices have some sort of credential.

Just my musings.

Collaborative Learning Tools

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/03/audio

This article appeared in Inside Higher Ed this morning.  The author discusses recent studies that have suggested that collaborative learning tools (especially those that facilitate the inclusion of visual images) enhance learning for students participating in those collaborative learning experiences.  Google Docs is mentioned specifically.

The other really interesting thing about the article was the mention of a new feature in Adobe software where a reader can attach sound clips to electronic documents and send them back to the author with feedback, etc.  Apparently this is being used by faculty to comment on student work and seems to have a positive impact on improving their writing.  I hadn't ever heard of this and thought it was pretty interesting.

Moral Issues in Education/Learning

I think it is important that we are finishing our course with discussions about moral issues surrounding education, specifically our work as instructional technologists and instructional designers.  It's something that I have been thinking a fair amount about recently, particularly the idea of conscience of craft and the moral obligation we have to do things that are in the best interest of the learners that interact with our designs, products, and experiences.  Occasionally, I think that we make decisions about our designs based on our own convenience.  In my work with first-year students I sit on a number of committees that are charged with developing educational programs and courses for new students at BYU.  I have noticed that quite often when ideas are presented that seem to have the potential to lead to very meaningful experiences for students the response from some is "that would complicate things too much" or "something like that would take far too much effort".  While I recognize that we all have limited resources in terms of time, budget, etc. I feel like the "it's too complicated" response is used far too often.  

I also thought that Sarah Westerberg's comments centered on "commitment" in yesterday's University Devotional Address are connected to this discussion.  When we make the decision to become instructional designers or take a position at the university that puts us in a position to impact student learning I believe that we are making a commitment to do everything we can to enhance learners' experience.  

This isn't to say that I am perfect in this area.  I catch myself drifting into the convenience mindset all of the time--I think that is human.  The important thing is that we continually remind ourself of the commitments we have made as educators and find ways to keep our working engaging enough that it is satisfying to go beyond the minimum in our work.