E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs » Jonassen

Discovering Instructional Design, Part 1

Michael Hanley — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:55:00 +0000

At its heart, learning is about growth. The single, central reason for learning, training, and education is to facilitate peoples’ need to acquire and develop new skills, knowledge and expertise.

The E-Learning Curve Blog focuses on the development and deployment of learning technologies, and I’ve been known to discuss approaches to cognition and Constructivism at great length. For one reason or another, I haven’t really discussed the bridge between the theoretical and the practical aspects of education – the twin pillars if you like – so over the next few weeks, I’m going to spend some time discussing this in an occasional series of articles on instructional design .

Instructional Design (ID) is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of instruction and other learning experiences. The ID process can be said to have a number of steps:

determine the current state and needs of the learner
define the end goal of instruction
develop a learning intervention to assist in the acquisition of new skills, knowledge or expertise.

Before we dive in to ID with much gusto, I want to begin by briefly outlining the theoretical basis for pretty much all contemporary approaches to instructional design.

1. Behaviorism

Based on observed changes in behavior, Behaviorism focuses on a new behavioral patterns being repeated until they becomes automatic. The theory emerged from work done by Ivan Pavlov in associative learning and classical conditioning. The theory of behaviorism concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy, 1990). It views the mind as a "black box" in the sense that the response to a stimulus can be observed quantitatively, while totally ignoring the possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind.

In his 1953 text Science and Human Behavior B. F. Skinner developed the concept of operant conditioning and its application in education and training through the use of positive and negative reinforcement techniques. A behaviorist approach to learning was first implemented in educational technology in the 1960’s.

Main characteristics:

Behavioral objectives (performance, condition, standard)
Programmed instruction
Individualized instruction
Computer assisted instruction
Systems approach

2. Cognitivism

Based on thought processes governing behavior, the theory of Cognitivism emerged from the inability of the Behaviorist Model to explain how children do not imitate all behavior. Similarly, the Behaviorist Model could not account for certain types of learning.

Bandura and Walters’ 1963 text Social Learning and Personality Development led to Social Cognitive Theory, a concept further developed by Jean Piaget.

Main characteristics:

schema
3-stage Information Processing Model (sensory register / short term memory / long term memory)

Cognitivism began influencing technology in education in the 1970’s. Its adoption led to a shift from measuring external behavior to focusing on the internal mental processes behind behavior, leading to a greater emphasis on task- and learner analysis. According to Cognitivists, tasks are broken down to move from simple to complex, based on previously-learned mental models, or schema. Cognitivism is currently the principal theory used in instructional design.

3. Constructivism

Based on individual perspectives addressing demand of the real world, The theory of Constructivism emerged from work undertaken by Bartlett (1932).

Merrill and Jonassen (1991) further developed the theory to postulate that our reality is perceived through a process of social negotiation.
First implemented in educational technology in 1980’s and 90’s. Led to a movement from objectively to subjectively focused learning, and the development of more open-ended tasks where results of learning are not so easily measured, and are not the same for each learner. Constructivism is not compatible with simple Systems Approach and outcomes of learning are NOT predetermined.

Main characteristics:

Use of realia (real-world objects)
Authentic tasks – task-based learning
Reflective practice – learning to learn
Use of hypertext and hypermedia – branched learning rather than a linear learning path

More…

___________

References:

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press

Good, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14.

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45-53.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.

–

Thoughts on Evaluating Non-Formal Learning

Michael Hanley — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:35:00 +0000

In previous posts, I’ve suggested that knowledge workers under time-pressure and with high demands on their skills are motivated to continually educate themselves on new topics. In small- to mid-sized enterprises, for example, workers are required to learn new skills, behaviours and attitudes in the context of their functional tasks. As they do not necessarily have the time to take formal training courses, they take advantage of the range of knowledge resources at their disposal, ranging from searching the Web, corporate knowledge bases, and other information repositories, as well as discovering information incidentally through social interaction with credible colleagues to assist their ability to “frame the problem” (Argyris & Schön, 1974).

As organisations are at root, cognitive enterprises, and the sum of the knowledge of the organisation is expressed collectively through the behaviour, skills and attitudes of its employees, the organisation is itself a cognitive entity. One of the ways that such an entity continually constructs itself is through the learning processes its members engage in.

Situated, experiential learning, delivered:

synchronously in a social setting where workers can engage in a dialogue with More Knowledgeable Others, subject matter experts and their peers,

or,
asynchronously accessed when the individual learner has a requirement to acquire information and knowledge relevant to a task at hand

in relevant, context-specific formats, whether in a classroom, live online, on-demand over the web, or via an easily accessible format such as a DVD-ROM to suit a range of learning styles and environments, creates the conditions for “meaningful learning” (Jonassen, 2001) to occur.

Providing workers with a knowledge-centric learning and performance architecture, and structured, goal-oriented content, gives them the motivation or intention to learn, enables them to process “raw” information into actionable knowledge on an ongoing basis, and regularly inhabit a scaffolded environment which encourages the learner’s development. Digitally-based technologies are the optimal mediator for this learning process, which is called ‘non-formal’ in recognition of its flexibility and accessibility for learners, and also because of its pedagogical structure and outcomes-focus.

Over the next week or so, I’m going to look at ways to quantify the learning effect of non-formal learning its target audience beginning with an overview of that stalwart of evaluation, Donald Kirkpatrick.

References:

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996) Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall Inc.

–

Constructivism Pt.10: More Mindtools

Michael Hanley — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:43:00 +0000

Significantly, Jonassen et al point out that learning is not restricted to formal learning environments, and that learners can “acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge in natural learning situations” (p. 28).

Table 1 Characteristics of a computer-based learning environment (after Jonassen, 1994)

Characteristic	Definition
Active:	Learners are engaged by the learning process in mindful processing of information where they are responsible for the result. In natural learning situations, learners, without the intervention of formal instruction, can acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge about what they are learning. Through formal and informal apprenticeships and communities, learners develop skills and knowledge which they then share with other members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills. In all of these situations, learners are actively manipulating the objects and tools of the trade and learning by reflecting on what they have done.
Constructive:	Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or make meaning or reconcile a discrepancy, curiosity, or puzzlement. They construct their own meaning for different phenomena. The models that they build to explain things are simple and unsophisticated at first, but with experience, support, and reflection, they become increasingly complex. They can only know what they know, so they should be supported in the process of coming to know.
Collaborative:	Learners naturally work in learning and knowledge building communities, exploiting each other’s skills while providing social support and observing the contributions of each member. Humans naturally seek out others to help them to solve problems and perform tasks.
Intentional:	All human behaviour is goal-directed (Cleary & Schank, 1995). That is, everything that we do is intended to fulfil some goal. When learners are actively trying to achieve a cognitive goal (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), they think and learn more. Learning environments need to support learners in articulating what their goals are in any learning situation.
Complex:	Teachers oversimplify most ideas in order to make them more easily transferable to learners. In addition to stripping ideas out of their normal contexts, concepts are distilled to their simplest form so that learners will more readily learn them. But the message this gives learners is that t the world is a reliable and simple place. However, the world is not a reliable and simple place. Problems have multiple components and multiple perspectives. They cannot be solved in predictable ways. Learners need to be engaged in solving complex and “ill-structured problems as well as simple problems” (p.31). Unless learners are required to engage in higher-order thinking, they will develop oversimplified views of the world.
Contextual:	A great deal of recent research has shown that learning tasks that are situated in some meaningful real world task or simulated in some case-based or problem based learning environment are not only better understood, but also are more consistently transferred to new situations. Rather than abstracting ideas in rules that are learned by rote and applied to other “canned problems” (p.31), knowledge and skills should be delivered in reality-based, useful contexts and provide new and different contexts for learners to practice using those concepts.
Conversational:	Learning is inherently a social, dialogical process (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). That is, given a problem or task, people naturally seek out opinions and ideas form others. Technologies can support this conversational process by connecting learners across an organisation or across the world. When learners become part of knowledge-building communities they learn that there are multiple ways of viewing the world and multiple solutions to most of its problems.
Reflective:	Learners should be required by technology-based learning to articulate their actions, the decisions they make, the strategies the use, and the solutions that are generated. When they articulate what they have learned and reflect on the processes and decisions that were entailed by the process, they understand more and are better able to use the knowledge that they have constructed in new situations.

The implications of placing learners in this technology-based environment fundamentally affect pedagogical approaches to learning. An interesting subtext to this approach may be the design of the internet itself: as Agre (1999, p.3) points out, the Internet was originally designed for the scientific community. As a result, its underlying design features reflect that community’s high capacity for self-regulation and openness. Applications can be used to represent knowledge that is generalisable to content in different subjects; learners are engaged in critical thinking about the subject; and, as skills are integrated into the learner’s schemata, they become transferable to other subjects (1996). From a practical viewpoint, Mindtools can be developed for applications the learner is already familiar with, and that are non-content specific – the classic example Jonassen gives is semantic organisation using databases (1998). Similarly, computers and the internet enable the learner to engage with microworlds that allow the learner to experience multiple representations or simulation of real-world phenomena and which provide immediate feedback when learners attempt to solve problems (1996).

References:

Agre, P. E. (1999). Life after cyberspace. EASST Review, 18(2), pp.3-5.

Carr, C. Jonassen, D. H. & Hsiu-Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking [Internet] TechTrends 43(2). pp.24-32. March 1998

Constructivism Pt.9: Mindtools cont’d

Michael Hanley — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:52:00 +0000

David H Jonassen, with his colleagues Chad Carr and Hsiu-Ping Yeuh in Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, (1998) proposes that learning is an active and creative process in that information is processed “mindfully” (p.30), since the learner not only collects information but also constructs a format for representing that information and transforming it into knowledge rather than merely aggregating units of information. This active creation of knowledge reflects the learner’s particular understanding and conception of the information, their own act of [knowledge] creation requires a relevant, environmental context.

Jonassen argues that while there are

numerous solutions to over-reliance on single formalisms for knowledge representation, an effective method (though not the only method) for supporting the representation of learner knowledge through multiple formalisms is to use computers as Mindtools to represent their knowledge. Mindtools are knowledge construction tools that learners learn with, not from. In this way, learners function as interpreters, organizers, and designers of their personal knowledge. Each Mindtool uses a different formalism for representing learners’ knowledge, engaging a different set of critical cognitive skills.

(2000, p.1)

He posits that technology, and particularly networked computers provide an appropriate environment for Mindtools to function. Jonassen (1994) identifies eight characteristics of the constructivist learning environment (see Table 1). Computer-based technologies should be used to keep learners active, constructive, collaborative, intentional, complex, contextual, conversational, and reflective (pp.28-32) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 the cognitive web (“Design of constructivist learning environments,” 2007)

References:

Carr, C. Jonassen, D. H. & Hsiu-Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking [Internet] TechTrends 43(2). pp.24-32. March 1998

Constructivism Pt.8: Mindtools

Michael Hanley — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:10:00 +0000

In 2001, David Jonassen argued that “most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to ‘deliver’ knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective” (“Interview with Professor David Jonassen”, 2001). He correctly identified that at the time e-learning was on the ascender of the hype curve, and that e-learning was being perceived as the latest panacea for all of businesses ills (2001). He considered that one of the elements of “substantive change in businesses and universities is to care enough about learning to invest the effort to truly understand its requirements and to create meaningful learning experiences to engage them” (2001). However, as businesses in particular, but also third-level institutions operate from the demands of the “bottom line …meaningful learning” (2001) was seen as being simply too expensive to produce. “So, both entities tell their learners about the world and expect them to fill in all of the gaps required to be able to practice” (2001). His analysis and experience of the e-learning industry in the period 1995-2002 reflects Jonassen’s observations; many, if not most, e-learning content production organisations approached the process of producing content as simply ‘webifying’ extant static content.

If I may digress for a moment I’d like to give you an example of this approach. The Irish e-learning company the Educational Multimedia Group (EMG) – where I served as Digital Media Manager from 1999 until 2002 – developed Microsoft Office User Specialist (MOUS) and European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) courseware. Significant resources in the company were dedicated to the task of extracting static content from tests published by content partner Pearson Publishing and their subsidiaries Que Books and SAMS and ‘making it move.’ Content was authored in Macromedia Authorware 5 and adhered to a very linear learning model: The learner was ‘locked in’ to the content delivery mechanism with little opportunity to explore the content except via the channels facilitated by the format of the content. In many ways, the content replicated a textual approach to information delivery – the learner could move forward or backwards (as one does with a book), could navigate between lessons and so forth, but the real potential inherent in multimedia and multimodal delivery of content was not actualised. The learner typically used the courseware in isolation, with little interaction with fellow learners, and while an attempt was made to integrate an electronic performance support system (EPSS), it was not integrated into the actual application the learner was studying, but into a simulacrum of the application available on a CD-ROM that needed to be loaded into the system and launched as a separate program to be utilised. While this approach represented the state of the art at the time, the learner was presented with non-contiguous, fragmentary and even arbitrary (in that the designers were constrained to develop within the limitations of the resources at their disposal) courseware that did not provide the level of learning reinforcement and support – the authenticity that constructivists deem a prerequisite for effective learning – as from this perspective, there was an implicit assumption that learner could abstract the appropriate knowledge into an environment where it could be used (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989, p.32). This “breach between learning and use” (p.32) is, the authors of Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning contend, is a consequence of the “didactic systems” (p.32) operated by educational institutions, where knowledge is treated “as an integral, self-sufficient substance” without contextual meaning.

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]