Best Practices Blog

Salter, Richards, &Carey (2004), described online classes as an “information system” at the basic level. They go on to explain that tasks must be given to students so that they can learn the content, because giving notes and listing helpful web sites is not enough for learning to take place.  Current literature is consistent with this philosophy and describes best practices that are rooted in a constructivist approach. One such example comes from Ward, Peters, and Shelley (2010) who describes online courses as student centered with emphasis on complex tasks and including multiple disciplines.  

Current trends in online learning are aligned with my personal philosophy of education. A constructivist approach has proven the most beneficial in my personal learning and in my classroom. There are cautions and considerations to keep in mind when providing this kind of learning opportunity. One caution is that students may come to wrong conclusions. Bayrak & Bayram (2011) caution that future learning could be impaired when students draw wrong conclusions. This underscores the importance of strategically placing formative assessments throughout the activity.  Formative assessments provide instructors the opportunity to check for confusion. A personal example where those checkpoints were helpful was the Instructional Design Project. Each week our team had a submission requirement and received very quick feedback. Because of this we were able to stay on the correct path and progress to the next level. Waiting until the culminating activity was graded would have proven disastrous for our learning and our grade.

The experiences of this research and this class have only strengthened my philosophy of education. Both have challenged me to go through current lessons and strengthen the use formative checks and feedback for my students.  This experience has made me a better student and a better teacher.

References

Bayrak, B., & Bayram, H. (2011). Effects of problem-based learning in a web environment on conceptual understanding: the subject of acids and bases. International Online Journal Of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 831-848.

Salter, D., Richards, L., & Carey, T. (2004). The ‘T5’ design model: An instructional model and learning environment to support the integration of online and campus-based courses. Educational Media International, 41(3), 207-217.

Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and Faculty Perceptions of the Quality of Online Learning Experiences. International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 11(3), 57-77.

Chapter 5 and Chapter 6

Summary of Chapter 5

Chapter 5 focused on the modality principle. The modality principle is based on working memory. When presenting information requiring graphics and explanation one should use audio narration rather than on screen text along with the graphics. Students have an auditory channel and a visual channel through which to process this information. Adding text to the graphics can overload the visual channel and limit the benefit of the graphics to students. According to the modality principle one should present words as speech rather than text. The psychology behind the modality principle is explained by the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The theory explains that people have separate channels to process information received verbally and visually. Presenting information that uses both channels splits the information between the two channels and does not overload one.

There is strong evidence for using the modality principle. Clark and Mayer (2008) present several studies that support the use of voice and graphics in lessons rather than graphics and text. They go on to review recent research and found that out of twenty one experiment comparisons all of them exhibited the modality effect in which the students receiving graphics and voice narration scored better on follow up testing than did those who only received text with the graphics. The reported median effect size was .97 which is significant.

The modality principle does not apply in all situations and has some limitations. When students have control over the pacing of the lesson the modality principle is not as important. The modality principle is not significant for students who are not native speakers of the language. They do not receive the same benefits as those who are native speakers. The modality principle can pose certain challenges when equipment is limited. There may be times when headsets or sound cards are not available. There are times when it is not practical to use voice narration due to rapidly changing information or text needs to remain present to aid in memorization.

Critique

Chapter 5 described in detail the modality principle, psychological foundations, limitations, research support, and challenges with using. However, there was no mention of students with learning disabilities. Many learning disabilities fall into the auditory processing or visual processing deficit category. There was no mention of how these students perform compared to others or if they were part of the research piece. There is research that supports the use of technology and multimedia with students who have learning disabilities, but there are limitations. This leads to the next question. Is this one of those times that limitation exists? In the article Clark and Mayer (2008) state that the modality principle is not as important when students are allowed to work at their own pace. If students have control over stopping and starting the multimedia presentation would it be beneficial to allow them to use the voice narrative and the graphics even if they have a learning disability in the before mentioned category? The chapter left many questions for the reader to ponder.

Summary of Chapter 6

The focal point of Chapter 6 was redundancy in multimedia presentations. The redundancy principle refers to adding text and voice to presentations. Text or voice should be used but not both. A view that is in opposition to this view is the learning styles hypothesis which states that learning takes place when information is received. According to this thought process three modes of acquiring information should be better than only two. However, one must remember that the cognitive learning theory suggests that students learn through two channels. A multimedia presentation containing sound, texts, and graphics could increase the cognitive load by requiring students to distribute cognitive processing on comparing the narration to the written text. This could overload the auditory channel and learning could be hindered. Given this information, Clark and Mayer (2008) support the redundancy principle and advocate only using either text or words but not both.

Several research studies were used to support the redundancy principle. In one study students were shown animation on how lighting forms. In one group there was voice and text added to the animation, and in the other group there was only voice added. The non-redundant group found more solutions to a problem solving transfer test in each of the four trails. They produced 43% to 69% more solutions than those of the redundant group. In a similar study two groups were taught how to perform a technique that joins two metals. One group had pictures and text while the other had pictures, text, and words. Once again the non-redundant group outperformed the redundant group on a problem solving transfer test.

There are some exceptions to be considered and time when redundant text should be included.  When the on screen text enhances learning such as in a pod-cast, the redundancy principle does not apply. Research revealed that text and voice groups found more solutions to problem solving transfer test than did groups that received presentations with voice only.  Another appropriate use of both voice and text is in scenarios where the material the instructor is teaching is hard for students to process and in cases where the students have control over the pace of material presentation.

  

Critique

There is ample information concerning the foundation for use, specific uses, and times to not apply the redundancy principle. Clark and Mayer (2008) discuss some specific research conducted, but should include some generalized information concerning other research within the topic. Specifically, three cases were discussed but other questions arise beyond those boundaries. The chapter would be more informative if it contained research pertaining to specific age groups. How does the redundancy principle impact various age groups? Is it the effect the same for middle school students as it would be for college students?

There is a reference to students with learning disabilities, but no reference to impact on various disability categories. Instructors do not treat all disabilities under one blanket plan. Learning disabilities are on a large spectrum and must be handled specifically not generally. The research conducted would provide more information if specific diversities were addressed in the chapter.

Reference

Reference

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction, proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer & Co.

Assessing Online

In an online setting or a traditional classroom it is authentic assessment that reflects the concepts learned. For example, in science classes students are taught how to report measurements and perform calculations using significant digits. The best way to assess this is to have them perform the task as part of another function in the lab. Using this approach allows me to assess students on many standards simultaneously. In an online setting, I could use a virtual lab and give the students the same opportunity to use the material.  Authentic assessments work in an online environment. According to Dennick, R., Wilkinson, S., & Purcell, N. (2009) online assessments can give students opportunities to use moving images, live streaming, and simulations during an assessment.  There are many opportunities to present students with authentic situations that test beyond Bloom’s remembering phase and move them into the applying or analyzing phase. There are online opportunities for assessment that will move students to the creating phase. According to Everhart and Gerlach (2011),”In teacher education preparation programs across the United States, many units and programs have opted to utilize the assessment capabilities of products that often times were intended primarily for student portfolio needs”(p. 97).  Having a culminating activity that blends all the learning into one project is a comprehensive way to assess learning over the course.

Many online courses use formative quizzes to motivate students and help instructors plan course material. According to Ramsaran-Fowdar, Baguant, & Fowdar (2011) formative online quizzes motivate students and keep the instructor informed concerning student progress. Online formative quizzes move students toward unit test by providing quick checks for understanding.

The virtual environment allows students to learn, test, and collaborated with peers as they go about their daily lives. To be effective the mobile environment must assess learning as students move through the course and provide authentic opportunities for students to apply what has been learned in the course.  

References

Dennick, R., Wilkinson, S., & Purcell, N. (2009). Online eAssessment: AMEE Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher, 31(3), 192-206.

Everhart, B., & Gerlach, J. (2011). The perception of unit heads toward the role of online assessment products in standards-based alignment within teacher education units. Education, 132(1), 97-109.

Ramsaran-Fowdar, R., Baguant, P., & Fowdar, S. (2011). A Critical analysis of e-assessment with particular emphasis on the use of different types of online quizzes. International Journal Of Learning, 18(1), 191-202.

Learning Theory

According to Johnson (2009), “Constructivism refers to educational practices that are student-focused, meaning-based, process-oriented, interactive, and responsive to student interest” (p.1).  Teachers are facilitators and lessons are student centered in this method of teaching. Lessons are problem based or question oriented, and students are the leading force in uncovering the information needed to find the conclusion. Usually lessons are open-ended and allow students to branch off into other ideas and answer other questions after the specific lesson is finished. Many students find different paths to the same answer while others find more questions once the answer is derived. Garbet (2011) states, “Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge, beliefs and skills that an individual brings to the experience of learning” (p. 37).

When students engage in constructing their own meaning they become more vested in the learning.  They are able to work collaboratively with classmates in this method of learning and interact with the material through a social outlet. According to Hyslop- Margison and Strobel (2008), Vygotsky’s theory of knowledge acquisition is often described as social constructivism” (p. 81).  The amount of collaboration in this method lends itself to foundational learning in any class as the information is more personal students.

The model has been criticized by those who say that children from more elite backgrounds with more life experiences from which to construct meaning get more from the method. Many say that children from underprivileged backgrounds receive more from direct instruction. Another concern with collaborative work is that individualization is lacking. Many worry that the majority may rule and leave some of the quieter more introverted students to follow the lead of the more extroverted students.

When setting up the curriculum for a distance education course it is important to allow students to use their personal experiences to guide learning. In the distance learning environment one can work through open-ended assignments and relate material to their personal style of learning and background. Using constructivism in a distance learning setting allows students from various backgrounds to be included in assignments without bias from any other group. Constructivism is a way to include all students while actively engaging them.

           References

Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 36-49.

Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86.

            Johnson, G. (2009). Instructionism and constructivism: Reconciling two very good ideas. International Journal Of Special Education, 24(3), 90-98. 

Module 1 Introduction