Unit 4: Cases and Objects

My Initial Reactions

My reaction to Case-based Reasoning (CBR) was very positive. This was another model which I had implemented elements of without knowing the formal term. The context-based models seem very natural ways to learn, and I thought CBR, with the connection to various cases and stories, would be a model I could see being used in many different educational settings. The steps to the CBR (retrieve, reuse, revise and retain) seemed to provide a needed structure to the exploration.

I found Cognitive Flexibility Theory to be a challenging model. It involves learning in complex, even messy contexts-thus learning is interconnected as opposed to the more linear compartmentalized traditional approach in covering units of content. The component of Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT) I find most appealing is the focus on the transfer of complex knowledge. This was clear in the Plantation Letters sample lesson we worked through as students. Learners started with the accounts about the plantation letters, but quickly progressed to questions about evaluating the information on the letters and the questions about public health. The learners would take the knowledge gained from the previous scenarios and apply it to create a disaster response plan. The lesson was designed to give a lot of different contexts for the knowledge and learning as well as yield multiple perspectives in an interactive online environment-which it clearly did.

Finally I was familiar with Learning Objects prior to the course, but found the section and materials did increase my knowledge on the subject. I am interested in the ways Learning Objects and the sharing of Learning Objects might continue to progress. The sharing of these resources might be a great benefit to instructors in online environments.


Similarities and Differences
These models all  reminded me of each other and some other models we've studying with the common focus on context, elements of real-world scenarios and problem solving. Goal-Based Scenarios and Anchored Instruction from the last unit have elements of the exploration and problem solving (you might even go back to the PBL model). While CFT lacks the structure of the GBS and Anchored Instruction models, it is clearly in the same family.  Case-based Reasoning is also about contextual learning and would belong in the same group. Learning Objects is in a different category because it is not a learning theory or model but instead resources you might use in a learning theory. Another difference is while many of these models we've recently explored depend on context, a drawback of using Learning Objects may be the loss of context. However some kind of Learning Object could be used appropriately in any of these courses and was a good topic to bring closure to the course.



Would You Use It?
Like most of learning theories we explored this semester, I think there are areas of content these models would be very appropriate for and may make units of study much more engaging and interdisciplinary. However I think CBR would be a little easier to use and think there may be challenges to setting up the CFT model. Challenging isn't bad but the success of CFT in a course or class might hinge on the learners and how prepared they may be to undertake this new model. In addition, the instructor in a CFT lesson would want to be very clear about what the outcomes would be and how learning would be measured because it does lack the structure of a CBR lesson. I could see using Learning Objects if I could find a quality resource that fit my course. If so, I would gladly use Learning Objects, but would caution a Learning Object that doesn't fit the context of the learning or is poor quality would do more harm than good in many courses.

Web-based Tools and Resources
I've listed several tools in these blog posts and both the Case-based Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory seem to be better suited for a platform rather than a tool. Because the learner would be exploring cases or pages of content it would be good to have a site or platform. The "Plantation Letters" Ning was a good example of the kind of interactive platform that would best be used for these learning models. I think it might be best to find one platform like Moodle, WordPress, Edmodo or Google Apps that offer many ways to communicate, create webpages of content and post resources. You also might be able to accomplish the same environment with a wiki site-which again would allow for the creation of several pages. Two good sites for free wikis are wikispaces and pbworks.
Finally, Learning Objects are available but you'll need to search to find the right fit for your course. Here are some sites to get you started:

• MERLOT is great place to look for free and open resources for  higher education.
• The North Carolina Learning Object Repository (NCLOR) is a little "hit and miss" but it is worth checking out for shared learning objects.
• Another site to check out with a lot of content is the OER Commons . It's a good source for both K12 and higher ed, but you'll need to devote some time to explore. 
• Finally Creative Commons has a page devoted to listing  OER Resources . Again there are several sites here and some may be better quality than others but it's worth looking into. 

Unit 3 Blog Post

The third unit in ECU517 covered four learning theories all concerned with multimedia and contextual learning. After reading and viewing materials in the course, the following is my breakdown of the theories and how they might be used in a learning environment.

Goal Based Scenarios

My initial reaction to the GBS approach is that it sounds a lot like the "choose your own adventure" novel or the early computer game "Oregon Trail" I enjoyed as a kid, so the notion that GBS is about connecting to interest and curiosity made a lot of sense to me. The process of coming up with the information in order to address "decision points" in the mission makes the learning more relevant, and working in roles provides structure but still allows for social learning. GBS also seems to give a little nod to the PBL model in that many of the missions and cover stories begin with a problem to address or define. It seems this model is less about delivering a "curriculum" to the students and more about engaging students in a project that can be infused with curriculum. Again like many of these theories we've studied recently, this seems like many of the ways I think a lot of people learn in "informal" ways outside the classroom. It also seems with the rise of the LMS and availability of websites which would allow the instructor to create pages and content, it would be much easier to implement this than even a few years ago.

Anchored Instruction

The "Anchored Instruction" seems a lot like the GBS and PBL approaches in the key way it addresses the role students play in the learning process, as well and the focus on a meaningful problem to address. It differs from PBL because Anchored Instruction has "seeds" of embedded data for students to find, but I think the approach seems like it might generate more excitement among independent learners. The social element of working in groups and the student-driven exploration into authentic problems make anchored instruction another approach from creating critical thinkers and learners. Despite the compelling case for many of these approaches, I am reminded how little I see or have seen evidence of these in my years in education. Even the narrator in the lecture video makes note of how this is a departure from the models you'll often see in K-12 and higher ed classrooms.

STAR Legacy
I like the simplicity of the model and think that might be appealing to instructors and learners. The five-step process (challenge, thoughts, resources, assessment and wrap-up) allows some independence and variation, but also could provide more structure when needed. I like that the final stage really is a reflection on what was learned and reconnects with earlier steps in the process. And a strong challenge at the beginning of a lesson could really engage students with the learning activities and resources. The STAR Legacy model is similar to others in unit 3 with the focus on contextual learning and possibility of real-world engagement but seems a little more organized in ways that might be appropriate for shorter units or courses where more structure is needed.

MOST Environments
The MOST Environment, in contrast with the STAR legacy model, seems the most complex and perhaps limited in scope. It's not to say there would be scenarios where this model couldn't be used effectively, but it's not as easily applied to diverse learning environments. MOST Multimedia Environments support literacy and at-risk learners in environments designed to be engaging and motivational. This model and some of the examples sound very specific, but at its heart it appears to be about using video or interactive multimedia and storytelling to improve literacy and learning. When reading about this model I am reminded of how many kid's websites have interactive tutors guiding the learner and asking questions or encouraging them to put stories in sequence, as well as the overwhelming number of web2.0 tools designed to help kids tell stories. While the MOST environment may be very effective, its focus on literacy and struggling students may make it less applicable for all classes than some of the above.

Would I Use These Learning Theory Models?

Since the first blog post of the semester, I've subscribed to the, "it depends on the content and learning objectives" model for whether I would use these learning theories in a course. It's also extremely important to consider the learners in these modules. I am attracted to the ideas behind many of the models in unit 3, but I am aware of the effort it would take to implement some of these, like the GBS and Anchored Instruction. The STAR Legacy seems the easiest to use as a template in many settings, while the MOST model appears to be the most difficult. With all these it seems to me these theories are not designed to be casually implemented in a class, and it would require many students and teachers to leave their comfort zones. So while I can think of scenarios where all could be well-used, it truly would take some time to examine both the learning objectives and the learners in the module.

Web-tools One Might Employ in these Models

Platforms -these modules need a platform for the content and ways to deliver content. The following are a few sites for web2.0 platforms.

Google Sites, Edmodo	both provide pages and tools for integrating multimedia
PBworks, Wikispaces	both wiki platforms could be used to create online modules
Wix , Weebly	easy website creation sites
WordPress, Blogger	very versatile blogging sites

Stand-alone tools- all these models use storytelling and multimedia creation either by the instructor, teams or individual students. The following are links to tools that could be used for creating multimedia videos or storytelling.

Creaza	a web-based toolbox for storytelling and multimedia creation
Go Animate	a site for creating animated videos
Edu Voicethread	interactive discussions
Kerpoof	create videos or an animated picture
Make Beliefs Comix	create comic strips
One True Media	mix photos with text and animations
PhotoPeach	create slideshow stories
Storybird	students create visual stories
StoryJumper	a site for story and book creation
YouTube Editor	provides some basic tools for video editing

Learning Theories in Unit Two

The second unit in ECU517 covers several significant topics and learning theories. Not only were more models covered in Unit two, but all these models seemed to have many layers to them. As a whole, there was a lot for reflection and consideration in these Unit Two learning theories.

Reactions, Benefits, Similarities and Differences

While I had different initial reactions to Guided Design, Cooperative Learning, Problem-based Learning (PBL) and Situated Learning Environments/Cognitive Apprenticeships, it seemed all of these worked in some of the same arenas. I liked how these theories seemed to address the collaborative, social aspects of learning and might allow for addressing more critical thinking skills than other models we'd studied. In addition these theories all seemed to draw learners into a lesson by rooting the experience in real world, authentic examples or challenges. This connection to real world and context are very clear in the Guided Design, Situated Cognition and PBL models, but could also be parts of the Cooperative Learning as well. This kind of learning can be more relevant and meaningful to students and may make a bigger impact on the learners.

In addition the interdependent nature of learners in Cooperative Learning, PBL and Situated Cognition would seek to create an environment in which groups that work and learn together succeed. Learning to work with others and share a common goal is another crucial life skill.

Overall I see a lot I like about these theories and notice there are more similarities than differences among them.

My Experiences and Using These Theories in the Future

While I've maintained on my earlier blog post that the appropriate theory might depend greatly on the objectives and content, I think all of these theories could be effective in learning environments. One of the greater benefits in these models may be engagement of the learner when the teacher becomes a facilitator and the students work together.

However, there are challenges or risks in this as well as problems that may arise in the group dynamics, and there may be resistance in learners who feel more comfortable or accustomed to another approach. If a learner is successful using another model closer to the traditional models of lecture and individual assessment, they may wonder why they need to work in groups on real-world problems. While most of my experiences with the kinds of group work found in cooperative learning and PBL have been positive, if a member of the group is not participating effectively, the work of the entire team may suffer. In learning models that depend on interdependence, this can create real issues for the remaining members of the group. It's critical that the instructor who is connected with the group make certain everyone is making contribution and give coaching when needed. This role of "teacher as facilitator or coach" comes with a different set of challenges, no less time consuming. And if not monitored properly these theories might cause headaches for teacher and students.

While I've seen and experienced the cooperative learning and PBL models more often in various classrooms , I can see where the Guided Design and Situated Learning Environments might be very effective as well, because they do make connections and use social learning. It seems to me a lot of the informal learning we do outside of a classroom is context based learning through problem solving and group work. As a parent of school-age children, it troubles me that our current system of high stakes, standardized testing in K-12 public education seems to lack so much of the above theories.

Yes, I can see value in using these theories/models in a learning environment, but I think all the theories we've covered likely have their place in some kind of learning or lesson. While I like the social learning and real-world applications of these theories in Unit Two a little more than those in Unit One, I think the content and objectives would likely point one to the best theory for the module.

Web-tools and Resources

There is no shortage of web-based tools or resources that might be used to take these theories online. One might look to tools that would provide work spaces for students to plan, discuss, collaborate and finally present their ideas.

If students have google accounts, then Google Apps would be an all-in-one solution for giving students tools for communicating and collaborating on content (Google Chat, Google Docs ,Google Sites) and presenting (Google Presentations). Wikis are good platforms for this as they easily allow for this kind of sharing and user contributions. PBworks and Wikispaces both provide platforms that allow for discussions and user-generated webpages. Finally, a good option for a free, but more closed LMS-like environment would be Edmodo which is designed as a hybrid social platform/virtual classroom.

If one was looking for a disaggregated solution for web-based tools or resources the following might be useful:

• TitanPad, TypewithMe , Bubbl.us and Wallwisher are good options for collaborative planning and group work.
• Today's Meet would be a simple text-based communication tool for meeting with groups.
• Skype or Oovoo could be used to have synchronous meetings with teams or learners.
• Group presentations might be prepared on Glogster, Vuvox, Prezi or Sliderocket.

PSI and Audio Tutorials

The most striking similarity between the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and the Audio Tutorial approaches may be the ways both allow for self-paced learning and the teacher/instructor provides an environment and materials to support the learning. The differences may lie in what happens after the unit is completed. In the PSI model the student must demonstrate "mastery" or they may not move on - this sounds like a programming "if then" scenario and in the Audio Tutorial model the final step would be a sharing session followed by a quiz or test assessment. Neither scenario reflects the more traditional classroom model of teacher delivering content in a synchronous face-to-face session.

I think my reactions to each depend greatly on the kinds of courses or objectives these methods were being used to teach. While some courses or content would fit these methods nicely, I wonder about opportunities for social learning that take place in a course, and if the content can be put into blocks and interactions monitored by TA's or proctors, what value is the instructor bringing to the course?

However there are courses or units of instruction that could best be measured by these kinds of methods - units developed on rote learning that could be measured by a quiz. If learning objectives can be achieved by the tests at the end of units in the PSI or by the end of unit reviews, then I see no problem with either method. However if these methods were used in course that is designed to measure critical thinking skills, I imagine there might be issues in these approaches.

Finally both approaches are based on the learner being responsible for progressing through the material and unit blocks with a large amount of independence. There are some groups of learners that might not excel in this environment.

I don't think either of these options would be my primary approach for teaching. But there are many factors to consider, and I don't know that I would reject either outright. I do think elements of each could be used from these approaches. While reading on these models I thought a couple of times about the "flipped classroom" and all the sites that make tutorials available (like the Khan Academy) . And I know there are aspects of these theories still being used in my courses today. The elements I like about both involve the responsibility and autonomy given to the learner and the ways face-to-face time can change if content can be delivered in other learning spaces.

I think the Internet is the gamechanger in regards to the ways these tools and resources can carry these to an online environment. However I don't just mean the use of the Internet to provide content in an LMS. I'm referring to the Internet as the source of resources. Many subjects and resources have been created in iTunes, YouTube and in Open Educational Resources - so content which used to be very scarce and bound to a place is now very easy to access. Therefore the challenge again becomes if a student can access courses and knowledge from teachers around the world, how does an instructor add value to the course. I don't think it will be as a creator of more tutorials or content, but I think there will be a great need for a teacher as a guide, colearner and veter of information. And the need for that role is seen in both of these methods/theories.