Saturday, November 22, 2008
Week 11: Problem Based Learning and Simulation Games
Amit Deshpande at http://www.amit-deshpande.com/2008/10/simulation-games-4-problem-based.html provides a nice concise distinction between problem-based learning and simulation game based learning. Amit's comments describe simulation game base learning as having problem based learning as a subset but then with characteristics of its own. What makes these approaches appropriate for learning is that they have attributes of constructivism - active, collaborative, and learner centered. The simulation game approach also has the instructor as a facilitator rather than a teacher. Also, where the problem based approach has self assessment at the end of a learning area, the game based approach gives the learner ongoing incentive to get higher scores through more study and reading. Games also have increasingly complex graphics and multimedia displays which aids visual learners. In addition, games usually have help capability, allowing the learner to solve problems encountered during the learning process without extensive help from the instructor. Finally, the games allow the learner to try different strategies and get immediate feedback of the results of those decisions.
Week 10: Learning Objects and Constructivism
Learning objects are an interesting approach by instructional designers to create flexible development environments for the creation of course materials. Using learning objects, the content for a course is made up of small pieces that can be reused, split apart into yet smaller pieces, put together into other larger pieces, and generally reorganized in any way that is needed for course creation. Teaching has shown me that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process. When looking at learning objects, I wonder how they can be used to create a constructivist learning environment. According to Bannan-Ritland, Dabbagh, & Murphy (2001), in order for learning objects to support a constructivist learning environment, they must support the storing of learner-created content and allow for this content to be organized in a way that it can be searched for later use. Availablity of learner-created content allows learners to be involved in the creative process of learning.
Washabaugh (2003) tells us that learning can be divided into two general areas, that of knowledge development where the learner accumulates facts and information, and the area of understanding where the knowledge learned is used in ways that lead to an understanding of a problem and the issues involved in solving that problem. Learning objects seem to focus on the knowledge area and not on the understanding area. In order to support a constructivist learning environment, Washabaugh suggests learning objects engage the learner, provide interactivity, be student-centered, and be socially interactive providing collaboration and team work. Washabaugh sees these learning objects as being like computer games where learners make decisions and see the ramifications of their decisions.
Despite the flexible nature of small pieces that can be reorganzied, it seems that current learning objects provide a structure that is too rigid for student centered learning, focusing more on a teacher-led or computer-led approach based on a fixed plan. There is hope for a change to this with the focus moving to the creation and storing of learner content (which could be learning objects themselves), interactivity which includes team processes and collaboration, and the concept of games and decision processing.
References
Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., & Murphy, K. (2001). Learning object systems as constructivist learning environments: Related assumptions, theories and applications. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Association of Educational Communications and Technology.
Washabaugh, M. (2003). Learning objects in a constructivist curriculum. Teaching With Technology Today, 9(6). Retrieved on November 16, 2008, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/washabaugh.htm
Washabaugh (2003) tells us that learning can be divided into two general areas, that of knowledge development where the learner accumulates facts and information, and the area of understanding where the knowledge learned is used in ways that lead to an understanding of a problem and the issues involved in solving that problem. Learning objects seem to focus on the knowledge area and not on the understanding area. In order to support a constructivist learning environment, Washabaugh suggests learning objects engage the learner, provide interactivity, be student-centered, and be socially interactive providing collaboration and team work. Washabaugh sees these learning objects as being like computer games where learners make decisions and see the ramifications of their decisions.
Despite the flexible nature of small pieces that can be reorganzied, it seems that current learning objects provide a structure that is too rigid for student centered learning, focusing more on a teacher-led or computer-led approach based on a fixed plan. There is hope for a change to this with the focus moving to the creation and storing of learner content (which could be learning objects themselves), interactivity which includes team processes and collaboration, and the concept of games and decision processing.
References
Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., & Murphy, K. (2001). Learning object systems as constructivist learning environments: Related assumptions, theories and applications. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Association of Educational Communications and Technology.
Washabaugh, M. (2003). Learning objects in a constructivist curriculum. Teaching With Technology Today, 9(6). Retrieved on November 16, 2008, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/washabaugh.htm
Week 12: Lessons Learned
Some of the lesssons I have learned in our Computer Technology and Multimedia course include the power of software that provides discussion forums, wiki's for collaboration, blogs for making student knowledge, research, and views available to all on the Internet, podcasts for making course information available, and synchronous communications through video conferencing for remote course capabilities.
Discussion forums have been a part of this course and have given hands-on experience with asynchronous communications. I have also gained experience with the use of wiki's and will have my students use these to create and coordinate various document creation exercises. I will also have students in other courses use blogs to make their views available to all on the Internet in order to perhaps get feedback from people outside the course. After having gained experience in creating a video presentation, I will finally get around to creating podcasts of my course content and make it availabe to students for review. I also hope to be involved in the creation of remote classrooms through the use of video conferencing to provide a synchronous environment for our students.
Discussion forums have been a part of this course and have given hands-on experience with asynchronous communications. I have also gained experience with the use of wiki's and will have my students use these to create and coordinate various document creation exercises. I will also have students in other courses use blogs to make their views available to all on the Internet in order to perhaps get feedback from people outside the course. After having gained experience in creating a video presentation, I will finally get around to creating podcasts of my course content and make it availabe to students for review. I also hope to be involved in the creation of remote classrooms through the use of video conferencing to provide a synchronous environment for our students.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Week 12: Skype Comment
My experiences with skype have been very positive. I will use it next semester as a tool for students to collaborate on team design projects. Skype does not have a steep learning curve and is very intuitive in its use. A very efficient environment will be created by using a wiki to control the development of the design documents and using skype to discuss designs and changes to designs. Students in this course are adults who work full-time during the day and find it difficult to meet as a team face-to-face outside of the normal class meetings. Meeting on skype will solve this problem. The ability to bring multiple people into the conversation is a major plus.
Week 9: Stakeholder and Designer Effect on LMS Software
I have found that when designing a software system, the analysis phase is the most interesting. This phase of a development project is when the needs of all the stakeholders are determined. It is these needs that then determine the direction of the project, and ultimately what the final software system will look like. This sounds simple enough. What could possibly go wrong as long as we find and handle all of the needs? Well, sometimes the needs of the stakeholders conflict. For example, someone financing the project is more concerned about cost than the user who wants a capability that will make him more effective at his job. Then there is the security officer who wants to be certain that solid security is built into to software which may make user access more cumbersome. Ultimately, the find product becomes a compromise between all of the stakeholders needs.
I began to think about this again when I came across a blog by David Jones called “The dissonance gap in systems and LMS evaluations” at http://davidtjones.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/the-dissonance-gap-in-systems-and-lms-evaluations/. LMS stands for Learning Management System. In his blog entry he takes the stakeholder needs idea a step further in that he says that designers (all those involved in designing a system) are affected by their world view that has been created by their past experiences. This world view then will affect the design of the system. The “dissonance” or difference between what the software will support and how you want to use the software can have an effect on your ability to use the final software product effectively. The wider the gap, the less likely it is that you can effectively use the product. Blackboard is used as an example of how groups of users are restricted in some ways as to how they can be organized into discussion groups. This is an example of the “dissonance gap” created by the design (and the designers) between the Blackboard software and the users.
What can you do about it? First, determine how you expect to use the software. What are all of the scenarios that describe how it will be used? Then, does Blackboard, or whichever LMS software you are evaluating, support those scenarios. If not, can you work within its limitations, or do you need to look at another LMS product?
I began to think about this again when I came across a blog by David Jones called “The dissonance gap in systems and LMS evaluations” at http://davidtjones.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/the-dissonance-gap-in-systems-and-lms-evaluations/. LMS stands for Learning Management System. In his blog entry he takes the stakeholder needs idea a step further in that he says that designers (all those involved in designing a system) are affected by their world view that has been created by their past experiences. This world view then will affect the design of the system. The “dissonance” or difference between what the software will support and how you want to use the software can have an effect on your ability to use the final software product effectively. The wider the gap, the less likely it is that you can effectively use the product. Blackboard is used as an example of how groups of users are restricted in some ways as to how they can be organized into discussion groups. This is an example of the “dissonance gap” created by the design (and the designers) between the Blackboard software and the users.
What can you do about it? First, determine how you expect to use the software. What are all of the scenarios that describe how it will be used? Then, does Blackboard, or whichever LMS software you are evaluating, support those scenarios. If not, can you work within its limitations, or do you need to look at another LMS product?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)