E-Learning
I love how the authors described the field of instructional design as a moving target. That is so true and felt at any level of involvement. The author believes that online learning is just as powerful as traditional learning. “Because technology is so much more powerful, easier to use, and prevalent, we have been able to mix and match content, media, instructional methods, and modalities … and has led to highly effective learning that has proven to be every bit as effective as prior learning modalities and approaches.” One of the reasons for this is an unintended consequence of informal and incidental learning. Designers have realized the benefits of social learning. E-learning actually promotes constructivism due to its social nature. Designers now keep this in mind as they design learning experiences that afford learners to be the architects of their own learning experiences. Many designers have emphasized that product and process is another one of the unintended strengths. Which also turns out to be another one of the moving targets that is constantly changing and difficult to analyze the outcomes.
Because of the interactive and collaborative functional entities of e-learning, I believe that greater engagement also occurs which facilitates attainment of learning goals and objectives. However, I can’t forget the data from Chapter 21 regarding a constructivist approach that states “student gains on high stakes tests were inconsistent” even in “best practices” scenarios. Even still, in our 21st century classrooms, e-learning should be utilized as a component of our instruction.
All throughout the book, the authors have reiterated the need for social and collaborative learning. While I definitely think there is a place for e-learning, I have missed the interactive part with my classmates in my graduate work. I have greatly enjoyed one of the affordances of e-learning - freedom to work around my schedule. However, especially with the other class I’m taking, learning to work with new technologies without the support of someone sitting next to me, has been really hard. It has challenged me to think on my own and harder than I would with the support, but there were times that I really need the help of a live human in the same room!
E-learning would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Students with visual involvement would be able to participate in e-learning with possible accommodations such as screen magnification software and/or reader, and/or refreshable Braille display. Learners with less visual involvement would benefit from high contrast materials, limited use of complicated tables, avoiding backgrounds, and use of bold and plain fonts.
Web 2.0 and Networking Technologies
The authors really “hit the nail on the head” when they stated in the introduction of the chapter, “These tools, conceived in a networked era often create considerable disruption when inserted into organizations … founded under older conceptions of of work and social organizations … associated with the industrial era.” One of the greatest obstacles is bringing Web 2.0 tools into restricted environments where mental attitudes greatly decrease the power and effectiveness of the tools. New technologies require new pedagogies, learning activities, and roles of the teacher and learner. Designers will now have to create activities and contexts in which learners develop, customize, and effectively use their own personal learning environment.
Again, the authors make a point of the impact that social learning has on a student. Take for example, blogs. When I first introduced blogs in my classroom, I was too afraid of privacy issues to let the students have free-reign of their blogs. While they enjoyed them at first, they missed out on a critical component - the feedback of their peers. When blogs are used as they are designed, they become a much more effective tool. Learning becomes self-directed and initiated by what interests the student. Now they care about punctuation, spelling, and content because they have an authentic audience. Whereas before, they were just satisfying an assignment. Now constructivism has met connectivism and it’s a game changer.
Web 2.0 technologies would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Learners with hearing involvement would benefit from having a transcript. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Students with visual involvement would be able to participate in networking and Web 2.0 technologies with possible accommodations such as screen magnification software and/or reader, and/or refreshable Braille display. Learners with less visual involvement would benefit from high contrast materials, limited use of complicated tables, avoiding backgrounds, and use of bold and plain fonts. Students with visual involvement should not be hindered by their visual limitations, but should have equal opportunity as all other learners.
Rich Media
I thought the chapter on rich media was very interesting! I was surprised that the general findings were “less is more.” Because visual, auditory, and kinesthetic components affect our working memory, which has a limited capacity, it is important not to over stimulate the brain (causing cognitive overload) for learning to be successful. Another surprising point the author made was that there is no compelling evidence for designing lessons to match learners’ learning styles. As a huge believer in the multiple intelligences, I found this information contrary to what I know as en educator.
I do believe that rich media contributes to better concept attainment for our students due to engagement. However, it is important to remember the findings of this chapter that less is more. For our learners with processing disorders or ADD/ADHD, selecting programs with fewer stimuli will provide opportunities for greater success.
Rich media would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Learners with hearing involvement would benefit from having a transcript. Learners with mobility involvement should avoid simulations and games requiring high manual dexterity, avoid timed assessments, and would benefit from incorporating team work and group activities. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Rich media would not be beneficial for learners with visual involvement.
With all three of the new directions in technologies that I chose, the instructor should
be sensitive to ethical issues. Teachers should be aware of the privacy agreements of each student. Teachers and students should credit their sources. Teachers should separate their personal and professional gain. And the teacher should be cognizant
that the different technologies offer a of diversity in stereotypes.
The level of guidance and support would depend on the learner. Students with a higher aptitude for learning would benefit from less explicit instruction. However, students with various involvements would benefit from an initial full guidance with a gradual release of support as needed on an individual basis. As Hannifin pointed out, “No single design methodology is sufficiently robust to address the diversity and complexity of all learning goals.”
How interesting that a common thread throughout the whole text was about the benefits of a constructivist learning environment. Yet, when we get to the last chapter of the book Hannifin argues against it and favors providing more guidance with a gradual release of support.
Resources
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment