Background<\/b><\/p>\n
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.<\/span><\/p>\n Component Design<\/b><\/p>\n 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 <\/span>dschool design thinking process<\/span><\/a>, 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 \u2018messy\u2019. 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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s (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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 <\/span>intellectual risk taking<\/span><\/a> when being evaluated. Gray\u2019s book, <\/span>Free to Learn, <\/span><\/i>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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s (2002) problem based learning, \u201cintegration of …skills into real world activities\u201d (p. 44).<\/span><\/p>\n Potential Shortcomings<\/b><\/p>\n 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\u2019 prior schema and skill sets when adapting this model.<\/span><\/p>\n References<\/b><\/p>\n Allport, F. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. <\/span>Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3<\/span><\/i>(3), 159-182.<\/span><\/p>\n Anderson, T. (2016). <\/span>Theories for learning with emerging technologies<\/span><\/a>. <\/span>Emerging technologies in distance education<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Beilock, S., Kulp, C., Holt, L., & Carr, T. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem-solving. <\/span>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133<\/span><\/i>(4), 584-600.<\/span><\/p>\n Gray, P. (2013). <\/span>Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life<\/span><\/i>. Basic Books.<\/span><\/p>\n Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. <\/span>Educational Psychology Review, 28<\/span><\/i>(4), 831-852.<\/span><\/p>\n Merrill, M. D. (2002). <\/span>First principles of instruction<\/span><\/a>. <\/span>Educational technology research and development, 50<\/span><\/i>(3), 43-59.<\/span><\/p>\n