Background
We are developing a design solution for an online program component that will encourage students to engage in intellectual risk taking and become more actively engaged in the online learning environment, while also allowing students to have a greater sense of inclusion in their online learning community.
Component Design
While we developed the component for a specific application in the course, Fundamentals of Light and Colour, Concept Art Foundations, Algonquin College, the basic principles of the component could be generalized. Similarly to the dschool design thinking process, our component requires learners to explore a complex problem. It has been shown by Anderson (2016) that “problems often work best when they are ill-structured, open-ended, and are deemed ‘messy’. Such problems force learners to go beyond formulaic solutions to develop capacity for effective problem-solving behaviours across multiple contexts” (p. 38). Our component requires learners to explore methods for a digital painting with complementary coloured lights. This is a complex task that has no single correct method.
Two engagement obstacles that Jason identified were lack of authentic interest in both the subject matter and in the work of peers. We address this by requiring learners to discuss the problem and solutions as a community before researching and testing methods. Learners identify challenges, ask probing questions, suggest solutions, and share an initial opinion on best methods. This serves to fulfil the first of Merrill’s (2002) four phases of problem based learning, activation of prior experience, and also encourages students to develop an authentic interest in the outcomes of various methods by allowing them to take ownership of ideas in a student-led discussion. Discussion also provides learners with a greater sense of inclusion in their online learning community.
The second step is a simple prototype. Learners may research other methods and experiment, quickly creating a basic illustration and notes on their process. This is required but ungraded, to address an obstacle observed in the classroom by Mary: students sometimes resist intellectual risk taking when being evaluated. Gray’s book, Free to Learn, cites various studies that evidence poorer novice performance when under evaluation (Allport, 1920; Beilock et al., 2004; Michaels et al., 1982; as cited by Gray, 2013, p. 132). When tasks involve creative problem solving, evaluation has been shown to negatively impact performance of nearly all participants (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001, as cited by Gray, 2013, p. 133). Therefore, learners will share this experimentation with peers for discussion and will be assessed on their contribution to discussion rather than the artistic quality of their results.
After receiving feedback and answering any questions about process, students apply their learning in a realistic illustration, a common task in studio work, to be shared with peers for discussion and qualitatively graded. The application fulfills the fourth phase in Merrill’s (2002) problem based learning, “integration of …skills into real world activities” (p. 44).
Potential Shortcomings
According to Tuovinen and Sweller (1999) missing appropriate prior knowledge limits available working memory for learners, possibly limiting their performance in complex problem solving. Further, Kalyuga and Singh (2016) found that novice learners are more likely to benefit from explicit direction. Therefore, it could be overwhelming for students to explore in a digital environment if they are new to the online environment or digital tools. In this context, the students are familiar with required tools. Facilitators should consider learners’ prior schema and skill sets when adapting this model.
References
Allport, F. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(3), 159-182.
Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. Emerging technologies in distance education.
Beilock, S., Kulp, C., Holt, L., & Carr, T. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 584-600.
Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life. Basic Books.
Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 831-852.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50(3), 43-59.
Michaels, J., Blommel, J., Brocato, R., Linkous, R., & Rowe, J. (1982). Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in Social Psychology, 2, 21-24.
Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of educational psychology, 91(2), 334.
Hi Jason and Mary!
Thanks a ton for posting this, it adds dimension to some of the ideas that I’ve bumped into since this MALAT journey began and helps me understand them better. I have a couple questions for you:
1 – Do you think that trying to determine in advance how ‘messy’ a project is likely to be would steer the instructor/facilitator to better gauge the amount of prior knowledge required or are the two completely distinct elements?
2 – How do you think we can best help the learners avoid feeling lost and without measurable progress when, as in the case of the complimentary colour exercise, there is no one correct solution?
I’ve wanted to move to a more open style of learning but the above questions have vexed me!
Thanks, Todd.
Hi Todd, thanks for the questions. In First Principles of Instruction, Merrill (2002, p47) points out that “Requiring Students to complete the usual information-oriented preset of material to be taught when they don’t feel that they know the material is frustrating and not productive in activating prior experience.” The initial discussion, before trial and error, not only allows students to gain some direction from each other but also allows the instructor to gauge the student’s level of prior knowledge. Your question does highlight that scaffolding and demonstration are not mentioned in our model. This is something I will be explicit about in part B; the facilitator must step in at some point in the discussion of the prototypes to make sure that required learning has taken place before the final deliverable. In this case, the instructor must be well acquainted with the problem and various conventional solutions and their respective merits. If the instructor is presenting a problem that they don’t have a solid grasp of the breadth of, it must be very clear that the exercise is exploratory and that students are rewarded for risk-taking rather than for providing the answers the facilitator wants.
One way to lower the risk and potential frustration, freeing learners to solve problems creatively in this initial stage, is to frame the first exercise as play. I highly recommend the book, Free to Learn, in which Peter Gray discusses evidence that presenting activities as play helps learners explore creative solutions (2013, p 132-156). This playful environment is also advocated for in the Pearson Forward Skills Paper, Understanding Intellectual Risk Taking (2011):
“People tend to be less likely to take intellectual risks in school-based settings (as compared to game-like settings), and within the classroom, students’ perceptions of teacher support can be crucial. Students’ perceptions of teacher support play a role in determining whether or not students will approach or avoid challenges. Such support from teachers can entail providing encouragement, engaging in interpersonal interaction with students, making jokes, and sharing laughter, all of which can help motivate students to engage in challenging tasks.”
It is key in this stage, where students are experimenting and prototyping, that they are well aware that there is little repercussion for getting it wrong and that they are motivated as much by genuine curiosity as possible. This should mitigate frustration.
References
Annonymous (2011) Understanding intellectual risk taking. Pearson forward skills paper. Retrieved from: http://assets.pearsonschoolapps.com/playbook_assets/Understanding%20Intellectual%20Risk%20Taking.pdf
Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life. Basic Books.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50(3), 43-59.
Jason and Mary
Your prototype is definitely from the creative. My first impression is this well thought out.
As I also come from a creative background, mine is mixed with structure when it comes to developing learning modules. Do you think more guidance is required to help the motivate all learners? I have found that when assignment, exercises, experiential-based learning activities are too open-ended, the learner may not see an attachment to participate. I also have found that participation traditionally drops somewhat if there is no reward or grade.
You have addressed my other concerns in your “Potential Shortcomings” section. Prior knowledge or experience dramatically improves participation rates. This includes somewhat structured guidance from the professor when introduced to a new subject or idea.
With all that said, I do strongly believe that education systems do need more of these prototypes, from early grades right through to university and beyond. As we age, we tend to forget how to play. Your prototype instills the idea of play.
Hi Darin,
The part of our component that has minimal guidance is very short, so I think that helps mitigate the risk of some learners becoming unmotivated. The goal is fairly clear but the process for reaching that goal is open. The product of the experimentation is required for a grade but is otherwise not assessed.
Thanks for your comments!
Thanks Darin for the questions, and Jason, for your answer. I agree with Jason that the goal, in this case, is clear and it is the method that is complex. It is really important to highlight that the level of challenge and prior experience need to be appropriate when adapting this model. A facilitator would certainly run the risk of frustrating the students if this balance is too far off.
I really appreciate your last point, Darin, that this model instills the idea of play. I shared some resources in my reply to TPezzer above regarding the benefits of a playful classroom environment. I do believe that, along with attempts to balance the level of challenge and experience, this helps maintain a healthy, growth mindsets in learners. As a professor, I consider this my meta-goal in the classroom. The second portion of the assignment provides more insurance that students are learning the required material.
Appreciate your comments about the need for problems to open and messy – of course, that tends to create confusion and risk in itself, but I think you can tell we believe in that approach to promote deep learning! Your comments about the Potential Shortcomings are interesting – this brings to mind the notion of just in time learning vs just in case learning. Not sure if you have about the use of case studies at both McMasters Medical and Harvard Law. In both those situations, the cases require the students to learn prerequisite skills and competencies in the completion of the case. It’s a proven approach and fascinating considering both Law and Medicine are regulated fields!
Hello Mary and Jason,
As I read your post I was thinking what would the experience be to have this happening in Kindergarten. When I last taught back in 2015 nothing was online, and probably it is like that to the present day. Nonetheless, I can picture my students in my mind going through your course -with the adecquations needed for the grade-, and I can imagine the fun it would be to see them experimenting with colours… mixing them to obtain new hues! At that age playing is the most natural thing there is, thus having them learn while playing is absolutely ideal.
With regard to the shortcomings, in the case of Kindergarteners there might be some that have prior knowledge but that is the exception. Far from this representing a problem it opens up limitless possibilities since there are no pre-conceived notions about the use of colours, and children love colours!
As Mitchel Resnick stated it at the Creativity and Cognition of June, 2007: “Instead of making kindergarten like the rest of school, we need to make the rest of school (indeed, the rest of life) more like kindergarten.” (Resnick, 2007, p. 1). Furthermore, Resnick mentioned how Friedrich Froebel understood that in order for the children to develop as creative thinkers, we have to provide them with opportunities to create. For that reason Froebel had the first kindergarten classroom in 1837 filled with objects for the children to tinker with (Resnick, 2007). The objects Froebel had in his classroom were blocks, beads, and tiles carefully created for kindergarten. They were later named Froebel’s Gifts. In fact, Froebel was designing for the designer, and this can be considered an early example of Seymour Papert’s constructionist approach to education (Resnick, 2007).
Coming back to the online course, what would your opinions and advice should a kindergarten class be taught online? At that early age, learning from a screen should be as normal as all the things young children are capable of doing with the mobile devices, yet a formal class might be something else.
Cheers!
References
Resnick, M., (2007, June) All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking)
I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. Paper presented at the Creativity and Cognition conference. MIT Media Lab. Retrieved using Google Scholar from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0023/assignment-1-part-a-design-thinking-process-jason-and-mary/#comment-41
Hi Alfonso,
Thanks for your message!
Wow, teaching a kindergarten class online… My first thought is to do it synchronously, as kids that young are unlikely to have the patience to be able to return to tasks to resume them in an asynchronous environment (unless there’s a lot of f2f support). I can imagine the kids experimenting with colour mixing, creating something, and then sharing their creations. Perhaps they could have something resembling a rudimentary conversation at that age? The interface would need to be very easy to use-kids would perhaps click buttons to hear their instructions since they usually can’t read yet.
Hi Jason,
Your first thought concerning synchronous online learning environments for kindergarten is a good one. My rabbi’s children attend only online school; not public school. With other Jewish children from around the world, they logon in the morning (or whatever their time zone) to learn with other children in a global community. I have watched them listen to lectures; do online assignments; work on hands-on real world projects that they show to their classmates and teachers via webcams; and, other activities equivalent to classroom activities. They upload assignments to drop-boxes, too!
I feel privileged to have witnessed these children ‘in school’ and to see what’s possible with virtual classrooms. I even took one of the rabbi’s daughters with me to Calgary when I was visiting my family so that she could meet her ‘best friends’ who she had only known via webcam. The video I have of them when they met in person for the first time is priceless. 🙂
I think my biggest take-away from this exercise is the importance of intellectual risk-taking, with play being an important part of that risk. Thank you to you and Mary for tackling artistic-creative learning in the online environment.
I love the idea of adapting this for young children. I have imagined homeschooling networks of children building community with specialist around the world. It also makes me think of the school in the cloud SOLE model, where the children are on sight together and facilitators video conference in. I posted about the schools in our last course: https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0027/lrnt523-assignment-1-an-example-of-theory-in-action/
I agree that our education needs to bring the kindergarten ethic straight through to university. As a college professor I often feel like I have years of work to undo to get students to play again.
Hi Jason and Mary,
It was great to read your blog post and get an empathetic understanding of artists (or perhaps artists in the making!) as learners. I agree that your design solution is applicable to other contexts. As someone that is a corporate worker in the current information/digital age, I thought it was especially important that you emphasized building skills to handle ‘ill-structured, open-ended and messy’ problems. This skill set is integral when working within multiple work contexts in today’s world, including but not limited to corporations.
I agreed with you that your solution should consider learners’ ‘prior schema and skillsets’. I was wondering how you plan to determine that from your learners’ ? Will there be a pre-test prior to the course? Perhaps, the design could enable flexibility and allow the instructor/facilitator to make adjustments to the course as it goes along to account for the average skill level that learners demonstrate on assignments.
Great job on empathizing with students to determine factors that may limit their intellectual risk taking (ie. the assessment itself) and on your decision on where to emphasize your evaluation efforts. Your identification of this challenge for learners has made been helpful for me to include as a consideration for my future projects.
– Nicolette