Learning Objects: Approaches and Trends

“If good content were enough to support learning and human interaction were unnecessary, libraries would never have evolved into universities” (Wiley et al., 2004, p.511).

The definition of learning objects seem to be very broad: at one end of the spectrum, it is defined as virtually any (digital) item that may be (re)used for instructional purposes (e.g., lesson plan document, photo, sound recording); on the other end are complex systems that integrate entities, attributes and algorithms. However, some degree of re-useability seems to be an ideal goal of any learning object design. I think the digital part comes into play because making copies (hence re-useability) is so much easier than copying physical objects.

I must be a humanist because I found Wiley et al.'s article the most convincing – especially in their statement that “the majority of the value of educational experiences comes from the value added through interactions with human beings” (2004, p. 518). Although their definition was bit broad – “any digital resource which can be reused to mediate learning” (Wiley et al., 2004, p. 514), I thought their typology of learning object types made good sense:

• Fundamental – individual assets which cannot be meaningfully broken down further (e.g., images or PDF handout)
• Combined-closed – contain two or more fundamentals combined in a manner which precludes the simple reuse of the fundamentals (e.g., narrated presentation recording)
• Combined-open – contain two or more fundamentals combined in a way that does not preclude the simple reuse of the Fundamentals (e.g., images and text in a MS PowerPoint slide deck).

I also appreciated their discussion of the 're-useability paradox', since this is something my colleagues and I talk about often when creating instructional content online. Librarians all over the country teach very similar things (e.g., how to search the library catalog, how to find scholarly articles, evaluating resources, etc.) – but local differences, or 'how you do it here' aspects do matter – e.g., which databases your institution subscribes to, how to navigate your library website to get to the specific resources, etc. One way around this paradox is then to make learning objects general but build specific context around it – which is what we've tried to do with some of our 'big picture' videos.

What resonated the most about Merrill's article was his grounding in Gagne's work relating to guided practice, which I am a fan of. And although it seemed a bit overly technical to describe learning processes in terms of '13 instructional transactions', I thought he did provide an interesting approach to analyzing and designing methods for 'how to teach'. There were two aspects of his model I would like to try to apply to library related learning objects. One is his method of incorporating three levels of practice within the learning object:

Levels of Practice

• “Simon says” - do this, now do this, etc.
• “Do the next step” - start here, and you do what comes next
• “You do it” - you start

The second aspect is being able to provide different kinds of guidance options:


Guidance Options

• Explain – given an action, describe what happened and offer reasons why
• Predict – given a scenario or situation, determine what happens next
• Troubleshoot – after a fault is introduced, explain what happened and offer reasons why, offer alternative conditions or actions

I think a big challenge to Merrill's approach is the amount of programming required to create such a system – I have never written an algorithm and don't know where to start! I am also somewhat doubtful that his system would work as well for ill-structured environments as he implies.

Koppi et al's article didn't reveal many surprises: research faculty have little incentive to contribute to learning object repositories. One way that MERLOT seems to have approached their incentive and community building is by holding annual conferences, now in collaboration with SLOAN. While contributing learning objects may not (yet?) count towards tenure, I think conference contributions, or serving as a peer reviewer, are more closely aligned with the existing reward structure in academia.

Wiley et al, provided a nice summary of the two major trajectories in the work around learning objects:

“Commercial educational enterprises will continue to see value in the create once, sell for reuse many times economic model. Humanitarian educational enterprises will continue to see value in the ability to fund the development of one set of instructional materials and open these materials for reuse to individuals in developing nations and other spaces without additional costs.” (Wiley et al., 2004, p.519).

I wonder if a third approach would be to take an 'educational asset management' approach, as it seems with the NC Learning Object Repository - brief case studies are available from Equella (the partnering commercial software vendor).

References

Koppi, T., Bogle, L., Hodgson, N., & Lavitt, N. (2004). Institutional use of learning objects: Lessons learned andfuture directions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 449-463.

Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (2nd ed., pp. 397-424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, D., Waters, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., Wade, D., & Nelson, L. (2004). Overcoming thelimitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 507-521.

Cognitive Flexibility Theory, Literary Criticism and Reference Interviews

Cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) “is a constructivist learning paradigm which emphasizes real-world complexity and ill-structuredness of knowledge.” (Fitzgerald, Wilson & Semrau, 1997, p. 49). CFT was developed to serve as a more suitable means to approach advanced learning in complex and ill-structured domains, rather than introductory learning approaches that tend to over-simplify complex material and emphasize rote memorization (Jacobson & Spiro, 1995, p.303). These statements resonated with me because I'm always weary of developing training for adults that is better suited to developing skills in children or young adolescents.

Jacobson & Spiro (1995) offer 5 principles derived from CFT:

• Use multiple conceptual representations of knowledge (varied perspectives)
• Link and tailor abstract concepts to different case examples (crisscross themes and cases)
• Introduce domain complexity early
• Stress the interrelated and web-like nature of knowledge
• Encourage knowledge assembly (construct meaning) (p.303-304)

Fitzgerald et al suggest in more concrete terms that CFT may be applied in practice through the use of “authentic case scenarios, providing factual and procedural knowledge within the discipline, scaffolding the learner through guided activities, and modeling the reasoning processes of experts” (1997, p. 51)

Although both Jacobson and Fitzgerald emphasized hypertext and multimedia environments, CFT reminded me of my undergraduate studies in American Literature – which did not use hypertext, but merely printed texts – mind you by the end of the course my copies were always filled with sticky notes and cross-references. But the model was still pretty much the same – we discussed different themes and critical perspectives in class, and applied them across the texts selected for the course. I had a great professor who would introduce much of the themes and critical perspectives through provocative questions applied to the course texts – but eventually at the end of class or unit, she would offer her own (expert) perspective. This experience makes me think that cognitive flexibility theory would work well in literary studies. I also think it is a good match for reference work. While there are some aspects to reference questions that can be fairly well-structured, often reference interviews are required to figure out what exactly the patron needs and then figure out where to search for it. If anything, it seems that reference interactions have become much less-structured with an increase in the diversity of information formats, storage devices and retrieval tools. I'm less sure about how this applies to training students in finding, evaluating and using business information...

“The program resides on six floppy disks to enable easy distribution” (Fitzgerald, Wilson & Semrau, 1997, p.52)

This was my favorite line in the Fitzgerald et al. article. Despite some of the outdated aspects of the technologies used, I was impressed by the overall design of the program. I imagine such programs are not meant to be developed by teaching instructors but administered by them – I guess they are created by instructional technologists and I wonder what the industry standard is in terms of the turnaround for developing and implementing such a program. I think one of the key challenges will be to capture or access real-world examples in order to develop authentic cases. I guess you'd have to work closely with practitioners and institutions to obtain internal documentation. You'd also have to identify and interview experts to weigh in on the cases that are developed. Planning out branching scenarios and anticipating learner questions and preparing responses ahead of time are likely critical in delivering a successful learning experience.

References

Fitzgerald, G. E., Wilson, B., & Semrau, L. P. (1997). An interactive multimedia program to enhance teacher problem-solving skills based on cognitive flexibility theory: Design and outcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 47-76.

Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro. R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12 (4), 301-333.

Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239-281.

Case-Based Reasoning Toward Skillful Practice

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is a problem solving approach based on the idea that people draw on previous cases where similar problems and associated solutions were encountered, and that such experiences are captured in the form of stories (Wang et al., 2003).

The readings this week brought together a lot things that are related to my own work and interests. I love the idea of collecting stories from competent practitioners and using that for task analysis and developing mutlimedia content to help novices develop 'expert thinking'. This was the general idea behind the graduate student training module I'd developed last semester. In those interviews I'd asked each of my interviewees very simple, and exactly the same set of questions, to solicit

• information about themselves (name, role at libraries, extent of work experience),
• what customer service meant to them as it related to reference work; how this may differ in providing online reference services vs. in-person
• how they handle in-depth, difficult questions

Since the nature of reference work begins with a challenge or problem such general questions seemed to solicit stories that included strategies and lessons. In comparison to the simple line of questioning I'd used, Jonassen et al.'s recommendations for collecting stories from practitioners is much more problem focused and probing (2002):

• Identify skilled practitioners in the domain.
• Show the practitioners the problem for which you are seeking support.
• Ask the practitioners if they can remember any similar problems that they have solved – then work with the practitioner to
• Identify the problem goals and expectations
• Describe the context in which the problem occurred
• Describe the solution that was chosen
• Was it successful? Was it a failure? Why?
• Identify the points that each story makes
• Decide what the stories teach.

I would love to try some version of this in two subject domains. I'd already been thinking about doing interviews with business librarians in order to tap into their knowledge base, established over several years of practice. In fact one of my early writing submissions was a brief interview with a business librarian who'd recently retired and had been on Jeopardy!. The other domain is in the area of business – I would find it fascinating to interview technology start-up entrepreneurs, small business owners, financial market investors, and academics.

One of the challenges in developing, maintaining and curating a database of such content is keeping it fresh, and relevant. The libraries maintains a complex network of databases that require all sorts of planning, technical development, marketing and training support. Developing a repository of relevant and highly used content is no small project! Learning object repositories like M.E.R.L.O.T and A.N.T.S. come to mind – also proof that you need a pretty vibrant community around any repository for it to stay a live. Or, Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge site perhaps reminds us that prestige, adequate funds and contacts are important to consider when putting something like this together. Also, domains that deal with information technology evolve very quickly; however, I do agree with the adage that 'more things change the more the things stay the same', so I'm sure there are ways to draw lessons from the past about dealing with risk, uncertainty and compromise in new contexts – but it is likely to be tricky to pull off well.

In a previous post I'd mentioned using a Flip camcorder for conducting interviews with my colleagues – mostly in terms of the quality vs. learning curve. What I think is additionally useful to mention here is that the smallness of the camera made it much less obtrusive to film the conversation. I'd used a small tripod to place the camera on the table in between us, but angled it off to the side so that it was barely in their peripheral vision if they were addressing me with their responses to my question.

References

Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 65-77.

Wang, F. K., Moore, J.L., Wedman, J., & Shyu, C. R. (2003). Developing a case-based reasoning knowledge repository to support a learning community: An example from the technology integration community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 45-62.

MOST Environments and Storytelling

MOST Environments (Multimedia environments that Organize and Support Text) was developed by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) in order to help develop literacy in young children (Bransford et al., 1996). The approach used is to organize “instruction around visually rich, meaningful 'macrocontexts' that students and teachers can mutually share and explore” (Bransford et al, 1996, p. 223).

This model was interesting from a few different perspectives:

• It reminded me again of a staple assignment in grade school where we worked in groups to 'publish' a book, using coil binding with cardboard for covers and regular computer paper for the text pages. Today there are so many more sophisticated technologies that students could use to actually publish a pretty good quality bound volume – it seems to me that this assignment would be even more appealing to students. It made me wonder how students would react to the old-school version of the assignment – which I nevertheless enjoyed. 
• The use of the puppet was interesting for me from the perspective of teaching my own (future, hypothetical) children. But it made me somewhat doubtful whether any aspect of this approach could be applied to college learners.
• At a stretch, the idea of using multimedia delivery of information to support mental model building, may be one aspect that applies to college students. I've used concept mapping as a way to get at mental model building – I used it with a 300 level honors seminar class of students. The class was discussing the topic of peer review, and students were asked to map out their current understanding of how the peer review process worked (they'd had readings assigned on this topic for that day, though none of them necessarily explicitly explained this process in great detail). Then we watched the peer review in 5 minutes video, and then students were given a different colored pen to make any adjustments to their map. Many of the students made small revisions, but the kinds of revisions were different across students. The remainder of the class was used to discuss the readings in more detail. I've also had feedback from some of the writing instructors who have used some of our videos – they suggest that the stories seem to 'really stick' with their students, many of them referring back to the videos later in discussions further along in the semester.

In terms of possible tools – I recently re-discovered Aviary's fairly full suite of tools. Considering how expensive Adobe products can be, I think this is a great free resource, though I haven't used it very much yet. There also seem to be fairly good 'freemium' concept mapping tools available either online or for download.

Reference

Bransford, J.D., Sharp, D.M., Vye, N.J. Goldman, S.R., Hasselbring, T.S., Going, L., O’Banion, K., Livernois, J., Saul, E., with the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). MOST environments for accelerating literacy development. In S. Vosniadour, E. De Cort, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (eds.), International Perspectives on the Design of Technolgoy-Supported Learning Environments (pp. 223-255)

Legacy Model Modified for Academic Literacy

The STAR Legacy Modules offer a great instructional design model, that allows for a range of instructors to implement it in flexible ways. (The somewhat strange sounding name, especially when used out of context,   comes from the software shell developed by CTGV and stands for "Software Technology for Action and Reflection where one of the actions is to leave a legacy" (Schwartz et al., 1999, p.189). The model consists of several phases that constitute an inquiry cycle, with increasingly challenging cycles building in succession, which is designed to allow learners to "progressively deepen their expertise" (Schwartz et al., 1999, p.189). The phases of each inquiry cycle include the following:

1. (Initial or successive) Problem or Challenge
2. Idea Generation (recalling prior knowledge)
3. Perspectives and Resources (new and/or expert information, practice, scaffolding)
4. Assessment (formative)
5. Wrap up (present best solutions, fed back into perspectives and resources for subsequent learners) (Schwartz et al., 1999).

This model just makes sense to me in ways that the preceding models somehow didn't quite - and these are the things that I think make it so great:

• It seems to be grounded in a natural cycle of how people learn new things or build on what they already know – except that it makes what are often very implicit meta-cognitive skills not only explicit but well-organized. I think Schwartz et al. stuck a very good balance in this design that is “flexibly adaptive rather than totally prescriptive or totally unstructured” (1999, p. 188)
• I also love that it offers a built in feedback loop to help refresh and evolve the instructional content. In this aspect, the model not only offers a design for instruction, but perhaps can be used to generate better solutions to persistent problems over time.
• It's great that the model acknowledges learners' prior knowledge and the importance of using that to provide context for their learning (instead of assuming that all learners start at the same place, from nothing). This phase also embeds the process of collecting pre-and post-test reslults in a way that is conducive to learning instead of as an extra step outside of the learning process for purely research or administrative reasons.
• Lastly, it provides relevant and expert resources in a way that they must be explored by the learner and worked in with their existing knowledge towards a specific goal – which is a process that is more similar to how problems are addressed in the real world (except that you usually have to build up and maintain your own pool of expert contacts and resources). What I think is a great strength in the thinking behind the model, that is also key to offering flexibility, is that the resources are not there to 'give away' solutions but rather “point toward relevant domains of inquiry” (p.199), regardless of which domain that may be.

All of these qualities are very important for the kind of instruction that I do. It is often a challenge to effectively assess student learning or their skill levels since they come from such diverse academic backgrounds. The Libraries are also in a position of unique perspective in that we work with researchers, students and staff across disciplines and across the range of years they are at NC State. I'm always thinking of ways to make the most of this this unique position and I'm hoping that I can do some of that through the flexible and legacy aspects of this model. I'm hoping to explore the possibilities in a concrete way for the third module assignment for this course – that is, develop a prototype for helping students learn academic research skills using this model. Here is a possible outline of how this might work in one or two inquiry cycles:

Cycle 1

Initial Problem or Challenge:

• Research paper assignment for an ENG 101 course.

Idea Generation (recalling prior knowledge):

• Consider previous experiences (e.g., approaches taken with assignments from high school).
• Strategies for approaching this assignment.
• Possible contacts for help or advice.

Perspectives and Resources (new and/or expert information, practice, scaffolding):

• Online orientation to using the Libraries website for research papers.
• Video tutorials on using Summon, library catalog, print resources.
• Academic writing and references
• Citation management tools

Assessment (formative):

• Paper outline
• Annotated resource list

Wrap up:

• Reflect on most challenging aspect of the process and how it was managed

Cycle 2

Initial Problem or Challenge:

• Company analysis report for a 300 level professional writing course.

Idea Generation (recalling prior knowledge):

• Consider previous experiences (e.g., approaches taken with ENG 101 assignments).
• Strategies for approaching this assignment.
• Possible contacts for help or advice.

Perspectives and Resources (new and/or expert information, practice, scaffolding):

• Sources of company information.
• Business writing guides.
• APA citation guide for business sources.

Assessment (formative):

• Report outline
• Annotated resource list

Wrap up:

• Reflect on most challenging aspect of the process and how it was managed

One challenge will be to think about how such a module may be used either within or outside of course contexts, and being able to administer each cycle in a scalable way. Also, a significant adjustment to the model is that there is limited control over how the students may move through the two cycles. That is, although most freshmen take ENG 101 in their freshmen year, some take it later or not at all. Also, given the large number of sections for either ENG 101 and the professional writing classes (thousands of students take these each year) some sections may use these modules while others use a different approach.

Another, second idea:

Initial Problem or Challenge:

• You are a technology start up and are entering a local New Venture Fund Competition. Submissions require a well-researched business plan. What sources can you use to inform your business plans?

Idea Generation (recalling prior knowledge):

• Consider previous work experience
• Possible contacts
• Resources at hand

Perspectives and Resources (new and/or expert information, practice, scaffolding):

• Business research basics video
• Successful entrepreneur tips (a/v?)
• Annotated resource list

Assessment (formative):

• Annotated resource list

Wrap up:

• Reflect on most challenging aspect of the process and how they managed it as a group.
• Final recommended resource list
• Video with three points of advice

The second cycle in this case would be actually starting to draft the plan, talk to potential customers and prototype products/services - which would be beyond my expertise.

References

Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. Instructional-design theories and models, 2, 183-214.

Anchored in Context

Anchored instruction is based on the frameworks of situated cognition and aims to create an environment in which learning can take place through sustained exploration of problems in 'authentic' contexts (CTGV, 1992). Such contexts are presented in the form of stories in order to manage the complexity of the problem to be solved, as well as the information resources for solving the problem. Given that true apprenticeship is not always scalable to meet the needs of large groups of learners, this approach aims to create situations that help to simulate the learning contexts of apprenticeship, and therefore the benefits associated with it. The model involves a number of different steps but the basic stages may be outlined in the following way:

• Engage with a specific scenario in the form of a story, and explore the details of that story.
• Present a problem within the context of the story.
• Invite learners to use the information that has been provided through the story to solve the problem, reviewing the details of the available information as necessary.
• Students are encouraged to work in groups.
• Students may received expert feedback regarding solutions to the problem.

I like the idea of creating an environment for learning to take place, since I have always thought that you can't ever determine when learning will take place for a student. You can deliver material, provide feedback and pace out the process through the academic calendar, but individual students ultimately have to set aside time to make meaningful connections through all the resources, assignments and problem sets that they must plow through in a given semester. I also thought that the idea of 'inert knowledge' vs. 'spontaneous use of information' was interesting and in many ways very true. It made me wonder if it weren't the case that in an effort to be efficient at developing knowledge, the trade-off has been creating lots of inert knowledge at the cost of inadequately developing the ability to spontaneously make use of any any accessible knowledge. I think a strength of the anchor model is this aim to help train students to “use knowledge as tools” instead of an “arbitrary sets of procedures or facts” (CTGV, 1992, p.247).

Even though the authors opposed using 'contrived situations' in favor of 'authentic life scenarios' – I thought that their scenarios were actually quite contrived. In some ways I think entirely fantastic scenarios that still required real life problem solving would be better than inadequately authentic scenarios. At one point one of the articles mentioned providing an encyclopedia of information and that made me think of a Nintendo game I used to play with my brother as a kid called, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? It even came with a mini encyclopedia!

Given the quality of immersive video gaming environments now available, I think it would be quite expensive to develop multimedia contexts that could compete. It seems that (passable quality) animation in general is quite expensive to produce – especially if the goal is to create sustained interactions. I don't know how attractive this kind of approach would be for adult learners – it seems more appropriate for younger students? I think libraries have begun to create some pretty good videos with some animation explaining concepts and offering advice - a good example is this one by Peabody Library at Vanderbilt:

Perhaps one way to take these production a step further will be to apply some of the aspects of anchored instruction? This made me think about what animation tools were available and here are some I found.

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). Anchored instruction in science and mathematics: Theoretical basis, developmental projects, and initial research findings. In R. A. Duschl, & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp.244-273). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

4th Annual Hexapod Haiku 2011 - Under Age 13 Category

Just wanted to let folks know that NC State's 4th Annual Hexapod Haiku poetry contest is accepting submissions. There is a special category for submissions by children under age 13 - which I thought might be of interest to some of you who teach young children.

I've helped judge for the past 3 years and some of our favorites have been the under 13 submissions, which were often accompanied by hand-drawn pictures - here is an example of a runner-up from a poet under age 13 from 2010.

More info about the contest and submissions here:
http://insectmuseum.org/haiku.php

Goal Based Scenarios & Storytelling

As developed by Schank, Berman & Macpherson, Goal Based Scenarios method of instruction aims to develop skills in learners over gaining factual knowledge (1999). Seven essential components of goal based scenarios are offered as part of this method:

• Goals
• includes process and content knowledge
• Mission
• motivational and somewhat realistic
• Cover Story
• background or context giving rise to the mission
• Role
• who the student will play;
• closely tied to skills and knowledge to be developed
• Scenario Operations
• activities the student does;
• scoped to allow for decision points and consequences but nothing more beyond that
• Resources
• well-organized and readily accessible information
• delivered in the form of stories
• stories as extensions of stories that students already know
• Feedback
• situated
• timely
• delivered as 
• consequence of actions; 
• coaching; and/or 
• domain experts' stories of similar experiences

When I first read Schank et al.'s “Advise the President” cover story, my initial reaction was that it was too artificial and not motivating for the current me or a younger me in school. I think this is a particular challenge to successfully using this method – the instructor may think that a particular cover story is really interesting and engaging but it may actually offer varying degrees of appeal for any number of individual students in a class. However, if you can craft a truly motivating and appealing cover story, I think the notion of using stories to reflect on consequences of actions taken, and doing so as a way to develop expertise, can be very rewarding. I think it is a very useful 'habit of mind' to develop in young children as well as working professionals. In addition to being creative in coming up with a good cover story, the instructor would need to think ahead several steps to deliver meaningful and timely feedback as a result of consequences.

The use of a cover story reminded me again of the library scavenger hunt activity I did with the Engineering Entrepreneurship students. The cover story that I had prepared was that each team was competing for seed money from a venture funding agency. The grant was also geared towards mobile technologies. In order to prepare an application the team had to consult a variety of information sources. In reading Schank, Berman and Mcpherson, helped me think about how I might improve the activity. In hindsight I realized that the consequences and feedback portions could be developed futher, using some of the strategies outlined in this method.

I've had a chance to explore Udutu a little bit, and think it might be a good tool to use for authoring scenario based content – it provides adjustable layouts where you can set out multiple options or actions, and selecting one over the other will take you down a particular path. I think you can sort of do this through careful planning using PowerPoint slides, but then I think you still need to figure out a way to get it online while maintaining the interactive features – all of that is already set up in Udutu though you're more limited in terms of the look and feel (though there are a selection of templates and additional options with paid hosting).

References

Schank, R.C., Berman, T.R., & Macpherson, K.A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (2nd ed., pp.161-182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Revealing Tacit Knowledge in Cognitive Apprenticeship

The instructional method used in a cognitive apprenticeship environment consists of 4 main phases (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990):

• Modeling: Expert practice is modeled so that tacit knowledge is revealed.
• Scaffolding: 'Just enough' structure or support is provided for the learner to be able to practice while being challenged.
• Coaching: Experts provide useful feedback for improving practice of learners.
• Fading: Experts withdraw scaffolding and coaching as learners become more competent. 

Cognitive apprenticeship is a model that definitely resonates with some of the e-learning content I've worked on to date. Revealing the social context around information was an important philosophy driving some of the multimedia projects at the Libraries. The idea was to reveal some of the tacit expert knowledge that librarians and other academics on campus have learned over time, but are hidden or obscure to many students, as 'novice academics'. In the higher education context, (academic) information literacy can be considered a core metacognitive skill, like those related to critical reading, writing and mathematics.

Peer Review in 5 Minutes

Article Databases in 5 Minutes

The model of 'Watch it, Do it, Know it', (Darling-Hammond et al.), very closely maps to the design of another module I worked on last semester. Here is a flow chart I created to illustrate how the learner would navigate through that module.

G.A. Reference Training Module Flow Chart

The module was used for training graduate students who help staff the reference desk during evenings and weekends. Although I was aware of some aspects of situated learning and cognitive apprenticeship, I actually didn't intentionally try to map the design of the module to this theory at that time. However, looking back, the match is not too surprising since the training context is very similar to the apprenticeship settings studied by Lave, which partly informed these teaching methods (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990). If anything, cognitive apprenticeship is even more relevant in the reference work setting, than say a tailor shop, since the nature of the expertise and skill is almost entirely intellectual.

One of the videos showed full time, experienced reference librarians reflecting
on personal strategies for dealing with in-depth reference questions and referrals to subject specialists.

It seems to me that the strength of cognitive apprenticeship methods is in being able to apply them in a variety of contexts, like teaching basic literacy skills for young learners in the K-12 environment, or developing professional practice for working adults. A challenge to using this approach is scalability, since the processes seem very 'high-touch'. Collins, Brown & Newman, writing in the early 1990s were hopeful that computer technologies will play a key role in augmenting the instructor's reach.

It is true that the ability to model expert processes has come a long way – it has never been easier to capture video of expert performance and share it many times at no additional cost. (For example, for the training module above, A Flip video camcorder was used to produce fairly high quality output given the low cost of the technology as well as the low learning curve for learning how to use it. There are also a range of options for free video hosting and broadcasting e.g., YouTube, Vimeo, BlipTV ). Providing scaffolding, in terms of being able to create simple interactive activities or experiences online, is also becoming easier (e.g. tools for designing and delivering quizzes with automated feedback). Given these trends, I imagine that simulations that adequately mimic live coaching experiences will eventually become easier to develop (I think at this point technologies for this purpose still require fairly sophisticated skills in order to develop even very rudimentary designs). Still, the ability to use technology for modelling and scaffolding means that face-to-face or synchronous online meetings can be reserved for the coaching process.

References

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (E.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Lit, I., & Martin, D. (n.d.). Session 8: Watch it, do it, know it: Cognitive Apprenticeship.

PBL and Prior Knowledge

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method that uses case studies taken from real professional practice as the stimulus for learning (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995). Similar to the Guided Design (GD) method, students work in groups to scope the problem, use resources to bridge information gaps, deliberate on possible solutions and then recommend the best solution using judgment and supporting evidence (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995). However, unlike GD, the cases may be presented as vaguely defined scenarios that require students to draw on relevant prior knowledge as well as that of a more advanced practitioner, who plays an active role in facilitating the deliberations (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995).

Since its origins in medical education, PBL has been adopted by professional programs in other domains, and as well curricular programs at undergraduate and K-12 levels, though not without mixed results according to the research literature (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003). I thought it was interesting that Hung et al. defined one of the tensions as what they call 'breadth vs depth':

Critics may argue that PBL focuses on relative finite problems that require students to consider only limited content; therefore, the PBL method limits the possibility of students being exposed to broader content that may be a part of a course or program of studies but may not be directly related to the causes or solutions of the problem under investigation (p.13).

The authors counter argue that PBL may be justified on grounds that depth is sometimes more important than breadth, especially in the current information environment where it has never been easier to look up factual knowledge. I definitely agree with the latter aspect of this statement, but I wonder if the early successes in applying PBL in the original setting had a lot to do with the particulars of that setting. PBL not only has origins in medical education, but in particular, the clinical practice aspect of that training (I think), which typically comes after developing an extensive base of highly specialized knowledge. For this reason I think in the original application, the argument about breadth vs depth would be pretty much moot, or close to it. By the time interns or advanced medical students are asked to apply their 'prior knowledge', those students are actually being asked to draw upon focused, relevant specialized knowledge that they have already spent years developing – and not a random assortment of required and elective high school or undergraduate courses, as the case may be when applying PBL in other contexts.

However, I do think using PBL as a way to help develop self-directedness in students is a worthwhile endeavor, especially as they progress through secondary and post-secondary education. At a time when so much information or factual knowledge is so readily available, helping students develop a sense of curiosity as well as the information literacy skills to pursue those curiosities toward defining and solving problems is crucial. If “...students' lack of self-directedness is a common residue from studying under traditional instructional methods” (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003, p.18), I think we as educators, do a great disservice by limiting ourselves the use of such traditional methods.

One of the main challenges in applying PBL seems to lie in the use of correct timing and context, so as to prevent students from becoming unnecessarily frustrated by the process. In library instruction one of the key things I struggle with is how much scaffolding to provide students during workshops. I've tried assigning worksheets to students to take a first stab at trying things out based on their existing knowledge, before taking up the solutions together as a group. I've also tried providing a little bit of a presentation at the beginning before getting students to work on questions and then going around the room to check on each person to make sure they were at least somewhat successful with the worksheet questions. I've also tried going through one question at a time, with me showing an example, and then having the students try one out, and then moving on to the next question. So far I can't say which of these approaches seem to work the best, since there are often extraneous factors that contribute to motivation (e.g., whether the faculty instructor is present during the workshop or not). And so the experiment continues.

In an online environment I envision the use of something fancy like Cisco's Telepresence technology - applications would likely be limited to corporate or other professional learning environments at this point. I think I've also read about Second Life being used for virtual meetings in this way. Since deliberations are such a key factor in PBL, I wonder if Elluminate or Skype might be too limiting?

References

Glenn, P.J., Koschmann, T. & Conlee, M. (1995). Theory sequences in a problem-based learning group: A case study. Proceedings for Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '95. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, October 1995.

Hung, W., Bailey, J.H. & Jonassen, D.H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Fall(95), 13-23.

Cooperative Learning Environments and the Learning Commons

One of the weaknesses of the Guided Design method was that team performance was unpredictable – while most groups are likely to work well, there are bound to be one or more groups that inevitably become dysfunctional. The cooperative learning approach agrees that team based learning has much to offer – perhaps more than competitive learning arrangements, where student achievement is judged against a bell-curve; or individualistic learning constructs that emphasize personal mastery (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). The cooperative learning approach goes a step further than the Guided Design method by stressing the importance of managing team dynamics in an intentional and purposeful way (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). That is, instead of assigning projects or problems to a random assortment of individuals, instructors should aim to assemble well-structured teams that incorporate the following key elements:

• small group size (2 – 4 members)
• individual accountability
• positive interdependence (individual success and that of the group is perceived as being closely linked by all members)
• group processing skills development (assign roles such as leading, recording, reporting, monitoring; initiate process improvement strategies; encourage positive communication strategies, etc.)

Teams that incorporate these elements are more likely to allow for positive exchanges among group members and ultimately enhance individual student learning within the group (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998; Haller, 2000; Millis, 2002).

I think the greatest challenge in applying this approach in library instruction is that my interactions with students are often so short-lived and ad hoc in nature. Often I might work with a group that has already been established by the course instructor, or work with one or two members of a team who's role is to gather information. I forgot to mention this in my last week's post, but one of the things that stood out to me in Casada & DeShazer's (1995) discussion of using the guided design method was regarding the amount of time it took to get the students to understand the team learning process through out a semester long course – with some of them never quite getting it. That made me wonder to what extent any group based activity in a 50 minute session could be effective. Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998) do offer three interrelated ways to use cooperative learning: formal cooperative learning, informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups. The informal category is definitely the most applicable to library workshop settings:

Informal cooperative learning groups are used primarily to enhance direct instruction (presentations, demonstrations, films, videos); they are typically temporary and ad hoc, formed for a brief period of time (such as intermittent two- to four-minute discussions during a class session). Instructors may use informal cooperative-learning groups during a class by having students turn to a classmate near them to discuss briefly a question posed by the instructor or to summarize what their instructor has just presented. Doing so focuses student attention on the material and ensures that students process it cognitively.

In the past I have conducted workshops where I prepared a bowl of candy and divided the class into small groups of 4 students or so. Then I got the students to work in those temporary groups to answer questions on a worksheet. The worksheet had three different sections and each section introduced different types of business information: industries, companies, markets. If a team completed a section first, then everyone in that team was allowed to 'partake of the candy bowl'. Since there were three sections, there were three chances for any of the teams to win. At the end of the class I also made a representative from each of the teams to come up and demonstrate how they got the answers for that section of the worksheet. I don't think I captured all of the elements of cooperative learning as listed above, but for a 50 minute session I thought it was not too shabby – also, it was before I really knew about the specific tenets of cooperative learning theory. I was just trying to make the session more enjoyable and interesting - therefore help with retention.

Beyond library workshops, I have observed in passing, some of the other types of cooperative learning taking place in the library. Particularly in the Learning Commons area, I often see students in pairs or small groups using whiteboards to review anything from physical anatomy to algebra equations.

Reading these articles made me wonder if there is anything more the Libraries could be doing to promote different types of cooperative learning, in addition to the spaces, furniture, and equipment that we provide.

In an online environment the instructor can't rely on direct observation of group dynamics and has to trust the reporting of individual members to a large extent. I guess if you have groups meet synchronously in live sessions using Elluminate or other chat/teleconference tools, you can drop in to 'observe' how things are going, but it is still more difficult to read than face to face instances. Online instruction often begins with introductions that are recorded, so in that sense it may be easier to note individual characteristics for assembling and monitoring them over time through discussion posts.



References

Haller, C.R., Gallagher, V.J., Weldon, T.L., & Felder, R.M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 27-35.

Millis, B.J. (2002). Enhancing learning and more! Through cooperative learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Guided Design and Information Seeking

The Guided Design method originated with Dr. Charles and his colleagues at the Center for Guided Design of West Virginia University (Casada & DeShazer, 1995). This method is "based on a hierarchical model of thinking skills...used by effective problem solvers" (Casada & DeShazer, 1995, p. 1381). The goal of this method is "not to get the correct answer, but to know the process by which one gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution" (Trivette, 2005). The most interesting thing about this method for me as a librarian is that it calls for learners to assess their information needs and then go out and try to gather the necessary information. Such a component to the method offers a natural place for librarians to lend their expertise to any curricula applying this method.

In conducting a synthesis of various studies on Guided Design, Trivette simplifies the characterization of the original method into four basic components:

1. a sequential process for mastering course content,
2. a team or small-group processing component,
3. the provision of verbal or written feedback from a facilitator/teacher as a professional in the field concerning the solution reached or decision made, and
4. the use of realistic problems to be solved (2005, p.2).

In this simplified form, it is possible to see the Guided Design method as building on the other two methods we've already looked at – the PSI/Keller Plan, and the A-T System of instruction. The first three aspects of the method as Trivette outlines them, are not very different from the previous methods. What has been added, is the fourth component: problem-solving. It will be interesting to know how this differs with the Problem-Based Learning model, once we get to it later in the semester.

In applying the guided design method to case studies, Wilson (2004) cites the following factors as possible barriers:

• Free riding
• Uneven preparation
• Sporadic attendance
• Plagiarism
• Opportunity cost of material replaced by the in-class group exercise (p.10).

I'm not sure if these barriers are inherent to the guided design method. They seem to be related more closely with the nature of team work in general, or academic integrity. Having fresh and real problems to solve, and preparing meaningful feedback for each one – I can see that requiring a fair amount of effort to prepare a head of time. Despite these barriers, I agree with Wilson that incorporating some aspect of guided design into the curriculum offers advantages beyond more traditional lecture based delivery of content.

Similar to how Casada & DeShazer integrated the use of the library, our engineering librarians are fairly well integrated into the engineering curriculum at NC State. I've also worked with the Engineering Entrepreneurship Program (EEP), which is basically a senior design engineering course, but instead of using a simulated problem or random product design, students work in teams to select a real problem and then build not only a prototype to address that problem, but also plan a viable business around the prototype so that it can be applied in the real world. As the business librarian I would make class visits to introduce the various kinds of business information that is available (and typically not available or expensive), as well as establish contact for them to follow up with me when they have more specific questions. I've been very impressed by the work produced by these students – some of them have also secured venture funds to continue their work beyond the scope of the course!

A couple of times I worked with the instructor to organize a scavenger hunt in the library. It took place early in the semester and served as an ice-breaker activity to facilitate team building while learning more about some of the more specialized sources of information. When the same course was offered as an online course for graduate students, I reworked the activity for online delivery. The course was hosted on Moodle so I used the quiz module to create a simple questionnaire that assessed their level of awareness in terms of the key library services available to distance students, as well as the basic aspects of the library website for finding and accessing information. At the end of the quiz the correct answers were given so that if they were not sure of their responses they could be verified with links to additional information on the library website. Then I released to each team a set of questions and clues to guide the activity, and released additional clues if they ran into difficulties. I also provided some slides that introduced secondary sources of business information – I can't remember why I didn't do a narrated presentation but it may have been because of lack of time. Once each team submitted their responses I released the answers and tabulated the scores. An additional motivation for completing the activity effectively and efficiently was that we offered prizes for the winning team. As a follow up to the activity I also asked each individual to write a brief reflective post to the discussion board – and offered specific prompts to consider:

Your reflection may include what you learned about business research, thoughts on the usefulness and limitations of the resources encountered, assessments about how well you think your group worked as a team, how decisions were made, how well you communicated, noting any problems you encountered and how they were resolved (or not).

There were some technical glitches with some of the resources that introduced unnecessary frustrations but overall it allowed the teams to work together, and nobody raised any issues around communication or team work. Some reported that they were fairly fluent with navigating the landscape of business information while others were novices that appreciated the introduction of new resources.

References

Casada, M. E., & DeShazer, J. A. (1995). Teaching professionalism, design, and communications to Engineering freshmen. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Division (pp. 1381-1385). Anaheim, CA.

Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges, 3(1).

Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics (No. 2004-07). Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona.

Audio-Tutorial System of Instruction

Audio-Tutorial (A-T) System of instruction was originally designed as a strategy for remedial instruction, aiming for a multi-sensory approach to help develop students with low or average levels of aptitude for academic performance (Kulik, Kulik & Cohen, 1979). The key aspects of the design include using a combination of the following types of sessions:

• Independent study session
• General assembly session
• Small assembly session, including quizzes (Kozma, Belle, & Williams, 1978).

Kulik, Kulik & Cohen (1979) provide a very detailed meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effectiveness of the A-T system, looking at three measures. (At the risk of over-simplifying their analysis) their main findings may be briefly summarized in this way:

Students using the A-T system of instruction,

• sometimes did slightly better on exam scores;
• withdrew from courses at a moderately higher rate; and
• rated their satisfaction not much differently than students using the conventional system.

When reading about this model, the first thing that came to mind was iTunesU. Although podcasts have been around for a while, I think the relatively recent launch of iTunesU as a separate space for educational institutions to contribute their content has made a big difference, and the concept as a whole is only now reaching some kind of maturity. Aside from listening to course lectures that I’d never found time to as an undergraduate, I've been listening to courses in financial markets, economics and business writing to supplement my grounding in these subject areas for my work as a subject specialist librarian. I am hesitant to take full courses in these subjects because I am not training to become an economist or executive; rather what I need to know are the conventions of discourse and ways of sharing knowledge in stored and ephemeral forms by and within this community of practitioners and academics. I also find the video/audio lectures more engaging than the prospect of reading an introductory textbook on the same topics. For one, you learn how to pronounce things properly, and how practitioners or experts talk about the topic instead of absorbing abstract information. On the other hand, if there is something about the lecture that I find confusing, it does help to have a text to go back to.

The A-T system sounds like a good way to help develop good study habits for students who may not have had the opportunity otherwise to develop them – regardless of their aptitude for school. During my freshman year I had some very nerdy and hard working college mates, from whom I learned these good habits, but I can see how not all students do develop such habits at appropriate times to find them beneficial. One of the weaknesses of the PSI/Keller method was that it seemed to implicitly rely on individual learners being highly self-motivated to complete the course. I wonder if the small group aspect of the A-T system helps motivate individual learners to keep up, or learn from others. I'm not sure if I’m clear on what the key difference is between the A-T System and the PSI/Keller model – maybe only that a stronger emphasis on small group interactions part of the former, and individualized testing for mastery of a skill in the latter?

Would or could I use this approach for library instruction? In a sense the one-shot in-person library workshops map to this model. Often these sessions will begin with a small lecture/presentation to provide new information, context, and a demonstration (general assembly session). If there is time, there is usually a chance to do some kind of break out activity in small groups (small assembly session) to apply or build on the presentation. Usually there is no quiz but information may be shared and evaluated as a larger group to conclude the session. Although beyond the scope of the workshop itself, presumably participants will continue to build on those skills individually using the parameters of their specific assignment or topic (independent study session).

I’m not sure how this would work in an online environment. A virtual classroom like Elluminate Live! could accommodate a similar process for synchronous engagement. For asynchronous arrangments, I guess a combination of recorded presentation, take home assignments and a forum might be used instead for the various session types.

References

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P.A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.

Kozma, R.B., Belle, L.W. & Williams, G.W. (1978). Instructional techniques in higher education. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

PSI / Keller Plan and Libraries

Davis and Ragsdell (2000) offer a good summary of the key elements of the Keller Plan (aka, Self-Paced Instruction, or the Personalized System of Instruction):

• Clear educational objectives
• Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback
• Student self-pacing
• Positive reinforcement
• Student emphasis on doing rather than listening (p. 2.)

In many ways, traditional bibliographic instruction (aka library or user instruction) fits the model of the Keller plan. Traditional bibliographic instruction has focused on how to find information using the library and associated tools - skills that are not too difficult to master, yet regardless are necessary and not always intuitive. Modular pieces may include clear objectives such as, "finding books on a topic using the library catalog"; or "finding a peer-reviewed article on a topic using a citation database"; etc. Students learn these skills best by being shown first, then trying out the tasks for themselves. They receive immediate feedback in the sense that if they are able to find the information they need, they know that they have mastered the skill at least at the basic level; if they cannot find the information they need, they may need further practice or more advanced training.

Today the scope of user instruction has broadened - depending on the values and goals of a given library, user instruction can encompass both the traditional skills of 'how to do' type activities, but also may address strategies for selecting and refining a topic; formulating search strategies using keywords or thesauri terms; issues such as evaluating sources and types of information generally found online beyond the libraries' collections and tools; or using information in ethical ways, or according to the conventions of their academic discipline. These skills as a whole may be described as information literacy, though there are more formal definitions out there, including that from the Association of College and Research Libraries.

Any of the above topics could be approached using the Keller Plan. Many libraries now provide fairly good screen-capture tutorials that provide guidance on how to use many of the information finding tools (e.g., Library Catalog Basics; Article Databases in 5 Minutes; etc.) If users run into problems, they can get feedback fairly quickly using any one of the various contact points with library staff that is available through the AskUs service - including chat. What seems more difficult to do well, and something I'd like to work on for our libraries, is designing good tests for measuring achievement. Often there is no right answer, or the right answer changes since the information landscape is constantly in-flux. Also, because information literacy is in a sense a meta-skill, assessment of these skills often falls outside of the Libraries' role in a sense - in other words, information literacy is often a piece that may not be assessed individually since it is a smaller piece or sub-skill couched within broader learning objectives of a semester-long course.

I still would like to create some tests to help users gauge their competency levels in finding, using, and critically thinking about information and their sources - sometimes helping to identify gaps in understanding or learning is really the first step to learning something new. Hopefully there will be a chance to do it as part of this course. In terms of technology, I'd like to try using the e-learning course authoring tool Udutu.

Reference

Davis, R. L. & Ragsdell, K. M. (2000). Design of an effective, web-based, global learning environment using the Keller Plan. ICEE, Taipei, Taiwan, August 14 - 16. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2000/Proceedings/papers/WB5-1.pdf