Category: LRNT 523

Kirschner (2016) makes the case that learning styles and preferences should not dictate teaching methods. He makes a very compelling argument. As the author notes, there is no substantive literature that shows the benefits of adopting teaching methods to learning styles and producing better outcomes. One of his arguments was that people may not prefer what is in fact the best option for themselves. I especially liked his analogy that in terms of foods we may prefer sweet/salty or fried, but as an entire diet it would probably be a poor life choice.

While Kirschner makes some valid arguments, I am still of the belief that there is something to be had of learning styles and preferences. Yes, there isn’t much literature for improved outcomes by focusing on learning styles, but there isn’t any showing worse outcomes either. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for unhealthy foods. While empirical evidence for achievement is lacking, literature on satisfaction and engagement exists. Kelly and Schorger (2002) found that there was a link between learning preferences/traits and student satisfaction. In fact, they found that extroverts were more satisfied with online learning than introverts.

Also one cannot even say that literature on the effect of learning styles on achievement does not exist. Berenson et. al (2008) found emotional intelligence to be a predictor of academic success in online learning, but when coupled with personality types, it became an even stronger variable. A big factor was sociability, which is a quality that is greatly influenced by learning styles.

Even though Kirschner believes that learning styles don’t serve a purpose in facilitating better outcomes, I’m not ready to toss this idea away just yet. There is a lot of literature out there on this topic, which means I have a lot more reading to do.

 

References

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor for Success in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/385/1036

Kelly, K. L., & Schorger, J. (2002). Online Learning: Personalities, Preferences and Perceptions (Report No. 143). Missoula, Montana: University of Montana.

Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171.

The resource I’d like to share is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory. In essence it’s a personality test. This week we have been looking at the media debate and whether the medium facilitates learning or it’s all in the instructional method. I’d like to add another dimension to the mix and say that both medium and instructional method need to take into account personality type and learning styles.

Some believe that introverts are naturally drawn to online courses since there is little to no face-to-face interaction (Anitsal et al. 2008; Harrington and Loffredo 2010). Over the course of the last few weeks I have found that the answer is not so simple. While people may be classified as introverts and extraverts, there can be great differentiation even within each category. Naturally with each personality type, various instructional methods and delivery formats will have unique results on learners. For example an active more extraverted learner may prefer discussion board posting and engaging in more interaction with peers. A more reflective and introverted learner may well just prefer to observe a posted lecture video and submit their work individually. Both ways show learning, but assessment may not be equal. Instructional designers need to find a balance in what works for all types of learners.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory can be a tool for learners and instructors alike to identify personality and also learning style. There is no one size fits all in learning, so the more we know about our students, the more prepared we can be to teach them. Through my work in Assignment 2, I hope to learn more about personality types and what are the effects on e-learning (e.g., engagement, achievement, etc.).

See links for more information on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

MBTI Basics

Take the MBTI

 

References

Anitsal, M. M., Anitsal, I., Barger, B., Fidan, I., & Allen, M. R. (2008). Student evaluation of course attributes of online courses versus on ground courses: Impact of student personality traits. Proceeding from the Allied Academies International Conference, 13(1), 1–8.

Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89–95.

Contributors: Lorri Weaver, George Tam, May Bahador, Stu Reed, Donna Baker

 

Both Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) acknowledge that instructional methods and delivery of media must be aligned to facilitate learning. The debate is about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether a given medium has capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and whether or not the research is valid.

The debate should extend beyond applying Clark’s replaceability theory, which states that if both Media A and Media B yield a measurable improvement in learning, the issue becomes one of method rather than technology as the influencing factor (Clark, 1994). The debate should be about cognitive efficiency—reaching learning or problem-solving goals through optimal use of mental resources—and the efficiency of the technology to meet desired learning outcomes and instructional goals, and must also consider the complexities of the social situations within which they are used. As Kozma stated, “Rather than causes and effects, then, we are looking for causal mechanisms, which are the underlying processes that produce events. And rather than general laws we are looking for sufficient tendencies, which are the net effects of these mechanisms as they operate in complex social situations.” (Kozma, 1994, p. 16).

Our articles touch on different aspects of the debate.

 

Five benefits of video conferencing to learning

https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning

 

Hunkeler’s (2017) blog post on the benefits of video conferencing to learning supports some of Kozma’s claims (1994), while contradicting elements of Clark’s perspective (1994). While Clark claims that media does not in any way influence learning, Hunkeler asserts that a major advantage of video-based learning is its ability to cater activities to varied learning styles, which may have a direct effect on learning. Having the ability to collaborate through screen and file sharing, Hunkeler claims, results in better decisions and solutions by connecting with both auditory and visual learners. There is no mention, however, of how implementing instructional methods using technology measurably show advantages over face-to-face methods, which does not definitively contrast Clark’s claim that “there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task” (Introduction, para 2).  

Although Hunkeler states technological tools make content more available, as well as allowing access to experts who are not limited by location or time constraints, improved access does not prove that video is necessarily the best way to reach learning outcomes or collaborate in an employment context. The “complex social situations” described by Kozma (p. 15) must be the starting point for choosing the appropriate method and medium to maximize cognitive efficiency.

Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing

http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/

 

The main claim that Clark (1994) makes is that instructional media does not influence learning, and that it is the methods through which the instruction is taught that dictate learning. In the feature article by Marshall (2017), she describes how virtual instruction can nearly replace traditional instructor-led training in terms of providing quality learning. She enforces the notion that virtual instructor-led training may be not only cost-effective, but effective overall in terms of learning goals.

Addressing Clark’s statement about how media does not influence learning, Marshall notes that question and answer sessions may be incorporated in live face-to-face lessons or in a virtual setting, but in virtual settings there may be more engagement and the ability to ask questions at any time, unlike face-to-face sessions. In addition, all questions and answers may be tracked for future reference. It is this change in dynamic to the question and answer session that may alter the learning that takes place, refuting Clark’s claim that media does not influence learning.

The learning revolution:  It’s not about education

https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/

 

Although Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) disagree on whether instructional media influences learning, they both agree the instructional method plays a strong role in learning.  Witte’s article (2014) describes Babbel, a language learning system he co-founded and currently serves as the CEO.  He implies that technology alone will change education, stating, “A new trend is initiated by a whole new breed of learning technology start-ups that set out to make learning easier for everybody” (Witte, 2014, para 4).  

Witte’s article focuses solely on technology as an enabler of change to how people learn, claiming that the learning revolution occurring now is people using new technology for self-teaching (2014). The article does not refer to how the learning environment is designed, the instructional methods used, or whether a learning theory was applied, a perspective that directly contradicts both Clark and Kozma, who both identify the importance of applying instructional methods in learning.  

Social media’s influence on the education system

http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/

 

Brenton (2016) explains that the use of social media  as a tool for learning in schools grows every year, and teachers are utilizing this powerful tool more and more to reach out to students and use it as a learning enhancement. As Brenton states, based on a study done by Harvard University, while completing group activities in post-secondary classes, students that used social media and online platforms to communicate and complete their group activities did much better than the one without using online platforms. She concludes that the improvement in grades is an indication of media influencing learning and having a positive effect in a classroom.

This article contradicts the claim made by Clark (1994) that media does not influence learning. On the other hand, it does support Kozma’s (1994) request that we examine how we, “… use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations” (p. 23).

References

Brenton, L. (2016, June 2). Social media’s influence on the education system [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/

 

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

 

Hunkeler, I. (2017, September 29). Five benefits of video conferencing to learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning  

 

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

 

Marshall, J. (2017, February 21). Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/

 

Witte, M. (2014, January). The learning revolution: It’s not about education [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/

Topic

We (Sean and George) decided that we wanted to learn more about weather forecasting and meteorology.

Resources to Help Us Learn About Weather Forecasting

We found that there were many resources online. A sample of the types include:

• Amateur meteorological blogs
• Discussion groups, forums, and newsgroups
• Journal publications
• Official weather tracking organizations
• Teaching and learning software

We also found that there are many resources offline such as print books and journals along with communicating with meteorologists or faculty at universities/colleges who teach meteorology.

Is There Abundant Content Around Weather Forecasting to Enable Learning and Is It Enough?

Just from a cursory search of resources, we were able to find a wide variety of tools and writings on the topic of weather forecasting. There were many resources aimed towards teachers for teaching in the middle/high school level. The resources themselves were also varied in that they did not just take the form of a written document. We found modeling software, games, and visuals of various identified weather phenomena to name but a few.

While the resources were abundant, we noticed that a lot of it was not geared towards beginners who wanted to get started in learning how to predict the weather (i.e., with zero knowledge). A lot of the resources for learning were intended to build upon previous knowledge and the amateur blogs expected you to have a baseline of knowledge as well. Based on this focused abundance, learning through sets would be possible since through this method you would be reaching out to those who have an expertise in the field. Of course there is no guarantee that the information is entirely correct and you may run into issues such as crowd stupidity and filter bubbles (Anderson, 2016).

Generally speaking, if one were interested in learning about how to simply predict the weather, the barrier for entry is exceptionally low. At risk of sounding facetious, you only need to guess what you think the weather will be, observe the weather, and determine how accurate you were. Additionally, there are numerous radio, television, and web resources to aid your predictions and compare your results against. However, the challenge comes in selecting resources that will take you beyond this entry level.

With the broad spectrum of options from picture books to Master’s degrees, a learner’s first obstacle in this abundance would be to identify how much they are looking to learn, and which resources might match their abilities and goals. For example, are they interested in becoming a professional meteorologist, or are they looking for a complimentary skill for another activity such as sailing. Ertmer and Newby (2013) identify these resource matching tasks as belonging to those of an instructional designer (p. 43). Is an instructional designer really necessary in this context? Weller (2011) points out that in a pedagogy of abundance, it is the time and attention of the learner that becomes the scarce resource, and that abundant options can be overwhelming and make evaluation difficult (p. 10). In our context with an abundance of content, but dealing with a sharp learning curve, learners with intermediate objectives would benefit greatly from an instructor or facilitator that could assist in identifying materials that can fulfill their learning requirements. This suggests that although the resources for learning may be abundant, the skills of an instructor (or instructional design in general) continue to reside in a paradigm of scarcity. Self-directed learning can only get one so far in this field.

As an example of one possible approach to addressing this issue, our proposed course outline lays out the steps that one would take to learn, incorporating a pedagogy of abundance. It is our intention that the tasks described below will activate the benefits of Resource Based Learning, Constructivism, and Connectivism as described by Weller (2011).

Welcome to Sean & George’s Online Intermediate Meteorology Program

Unit 1: Utilizing the prescribed textbook, learners will conduct their own local weather observations and report their findings in a blog post.

Unit 2: Learners will identify a weather forecasting resource to share with their colleagues. Additionally, each student will make note of a seven day forecast by this resource, then make note of the accuracy of the forecast. Group forum discussions would include overall accuracy; accuracy relative to the number of days in the future; and the differences in local weather between the students.

Unit 3: Selecting from a provided list of weather related blogs and forums, learners will report on the challenges and issues faced by that resource. Group discussion will identify connections and comparisons among these resources, as well as the resources identified in the Unit 2 exercise.

Unit 4: Learners will gain skills in the use of online weather radar technology, and explore the more complex considerations of atmospheric prognostication through the use of WSXIM (a downloadable weather simulator application).

Conclusion

There is sufficient information both online and offline for one to dip their feet in and get a general idea of the theory behind weather patterns and why high or low pressure matters. Although, if one wanted to further their knowledge in these concepts to a more advanced level, formal education would be the best route.

References

Ertmer and Newby (2013) do an excellent job of breaking down the structure of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. I believe each of these learning theories have their own merits and validity in suitable situations, hence why we still study them. The authors point to the idea that problems that don’t need much thinking should be best taught through a behavioural lens and problems that require more cognitive ability should be explored via a cognitive or constructivist approach. I find this to be a tad bit of an oversimplification of the theories and downplaying the usefulness of behaviourism.

Constructivism has been a method of choice for many in instructional design as mentioned by the authors. The idea that “humans create meanings as opposed to acquiring it” (p. 55) seems to resonate well, but one cannot forget the fundamentals. In Ontario, the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) run standardized tests for Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10 students. This year, mathematics results for various grades have either flat-lined or decreased (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2017). I feel that basic fundamentals in subjects such as mathematics (e.g. multiplication) should be taught under a behavioural lens. It is only when the basics can be recalled, that you can tackle the more complex problems. Working in the K-12 system, I see the demand for newer and better ways for teaching, but there is no one size fits all. Like Ertmer and Newby put it, “it depends” (p. 60).

Merrill (2002) provides support for behaviourism in his analysis of instructional theories that exemplify the first principles of instruction. He identifies the first principles as:

• Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems
• Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge
• Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner
• Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner
• Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated in the learner’s world.

These are the principles that facilitate learning. Two of the theories, Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center – Star Legacy and McCarthy – 4-MAT both have cyclical phases which in my mind encourages the behaviour of following a certain path to finding the solution (e.g,, generating ideas, followed by research and revision, followed by looking ahead and reflection, etc.).

While technology affords us many more tools to teach, tried fundamentals should not be discarded, especially if the results from the new methods are not to standard. Both constructivism and cognitivism have their place as do most learning theories. With the saturation of e-learning, it’s hard not to tap into online resources that are utilized by many constructivist or cognitive theories. What I hope is that we don’t forget the lessons that need to be taught and not be dazzled by the next shiny object.

This blog post may seem to be a little biased towards behaviourism, but in actual fact I’m an advocate for many and varied learning and instructional theories. I believe there is a time and place for each method, which makes sense in complex learning. What I don’t agree on is the one size fits all model that some feel constructivism can accomplish. Adopting the words of former Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King a bit, I say ‘Constructivism if necessary, but not necessarily constructivism’.

 

References

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2017, September 20). [Provincial Assessment Results 2017] [Infographic]. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/media_room/communication-docs/infographic-2017-elementary-results.pdf

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Please find my (brief) timeline of the history of educational technology in the K-12 setting below. I focus on the technological tools that’s been used over time. Like many of my LRNT 523 classmates, I’ve had issues with embedding the timeline. Instead, please click this link:

https://time.graphics/line/3866

I’ve decided to try Time Graphics for this activity. Enjoy!