In search of how the different Theoretical frameworks can affect or relate to the students with trauma and or stressor related disabilities, through which would have the best probable solution that promotes a positive outcome in their academic pursuits. First off, an understanding how and what the trauma and stressor related injuries are and how they affect cognitive and critical thinking skills in students with diagnosed trauma and stressor related injuries.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is the reference manual mental health professionals and physicians use to diagnose mental disorders. In Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Trauma and stressor related injuries studies using neuroimaging have concluded the three areas within the brain that show dramatic changes in the functioning and structure are the hippocampus, the amygdala, and the medial prefrontal cortex. Bremner, (2006) explains how PTSD, trauma and stressor related injuries affect the brain’s functioning ability. The hippocampus is responsible for storage and memory retrieval and differentiating between past and present experiences, PTSD, trauma or stressor related injuries affect the synaptic connections within the hippocampus. These disrupted connections no longer allow the brain to differentiate between past memory and present situations. The Amygdala in a hyper stimulated state appears to be the prominent factor in human anxiety disorders, such as trauma and stressor related injuries. The Amygdala has also been referred to as the Lizard Brain or primitive brain controlling the Fight, Flight, Freeze, and Flop responses found in survival mode or when perceived or actual danger exists. In a hyper-aroused / triggered state will over-ride the normal functions of critically thinking through the frontal cortex reducing or even shrinking the size of medial prefrontal lobe and limiting the function of the critical thinking part of the brain.

There is some good news though, the damage done to the brain can be repaired or the disrupted synaptic connections re-trained, concluding the brains ability to adapt is achievable with the right circumstances and tools in place.  Bremner (2006)

Theoretical frameworks that will accommodate the issues listed above all the while allowing for growth and healing, has lead me to inquire how the variation within the learning theories such as social cognitive theory, transformative learning theory, complexity theory, constructivism theory, and self-efficacy meet these issues.  However, since cognitive load has a bearing on students with ptsd, trauma and or stressor related disabilities, and utilizing a theory that will help build cognitive load capability may provide suitable direction. Cognitive Load theory and the schemas approach that is cascaded through the use of micro goals that helps motivate and engage while enabling the prior knowledge to be assimilated all of which to build on previous knowledge to incorporate ever increasingly more difficult problems Kalyuga, Singh, (2016). My intent is in continuing to research on how or which theories best meet the practices in both therapeutic practices and in improving the ability to grow academically.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Kalyuga, S. & Singh, AM. Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28: 831. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-16

Douglas Bremner, (2006). Traumatic stress: effects on the brain. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 8(4), 445-61.

Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed positive education: Using positive psychology to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemporary School Psychology: The Official Journal of the California Association of School Psychologists,20(1), 63-83. doi:10.1007/s40688-015-0070-x

Gina L. Forster, Andrew M. Novick, Jamie L. Scholl and Michael J. Watt Division of Basic Biomedical Sciences, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA The Role of the Amygdala in Anxiety Disorders http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50323

 

As we are nearing the end of our MALAT program, not only do we now need to focus on what our research question but also how, and where do we publish the research. With my end goal being to assist students with disabilities such as Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI). I would like to publish my research in an open source journal. While looking into where to publish this research paper, looking for the right journal (one which has published similar articles) may be the starting point to look as Klingner, Scanlon, & Pressley (2005) suggest. The goal of being able to provide the research to the VA and The Legion’s service officers and the instructor’s to better understand what theories and best practices are available in providing the learning opportunity for people with mental disabilities such as PTSD, or Anxieties.  The National Center for Learning Disabilities, suggests the opportunity gap is widening with the approach that students with a disability require the self-advocacy skills built on awareness of personal strengths and limitations.  The student therefore has to know if they have the needed skills in place and tools available prior to attempting an postsecondary online program. Having the support in place is one thing, being able to use it, having the skills and understanding the triggers that could distract from completing assignments or participating in conversations is another issue all together. I’m therefore still investigating where the best place to publish is, but also understand the importance of placing this requirement early into the decision making process.

 

 

 

Klingner, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to Publish in Scholarly Journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034008014

 

© [2014) National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. For more information, visit N. org. (no date) ‘Agents of Their Own Success : for Students With Disabilities in the Era of Personalized Learning’. Available at: ncld.org/personalizedlearning.

 

 

Designing and facilitating online learning experiences requires a varying skill set that not only guides the student but lays the foundation for success. Facilitation skills are important and change the extent of student and instructor involvement and affect the success or failure of the program. Motivation in my opinion ties this all together, motivation provides the spark behind the learning fire, motivation sets the stage for how the information is received,  presented and understood. Motivation of others are portrayed through actions and commitment and even if only perceived help feed the flames of learning for both student and facilitator.

Dunlap, Lowenthal, (2018) builds on collaboration and interactivity as discussed with well-defined expectations key to engagement and successful principles. Blended learning environment, however, require expanded teaching skills that adjusts to the differences and similarities between face-to-face and online Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, (2013). Over the last 20 years the online environment has gone through huge changes and tremendous growth in understanding the skill set needed within such a diverse and growing environment. Boettcher. (2011) research describe the ten best practices for teaching online to provide a satisfying learning environment for both faculty and student. His study points to a need for clear communication, supportive community, and clear expectations. (group and individual, customized learning experience)

Motivation also contributes to how well virtual or online teams interface, In Lam, Chua, Williams, and Lee (2005) understanding and recognizing the maturity level within the virtual teams and how the different profiles are used? can either enhance or detract from the learning experience. Thus, knowing the audience, determining the characteristics and student profile types to provide active involvement within the groups, will allow the facilitator to minimize issues within the group’s dynamics. Motivation, commitment and drive plays an important role in success while providing the students with programs designed to meet their learning needs.

How we learn can also be affected by motivation, Bonk & Khoo (2014) elaborate on meeting these specific goals by providing the learning environment suited for the following groups of learners. Verbal and auditory learners, reflective and observational learners, visual learners, and hands on learners may all require a variation in how the facilitators approach is perceived. Expanding on the R2D2 model that examines the learners needs through the acronym TEC-VARIETY (Tone, Encouragement, Curiosity, Variety, Autonomy, Relevance, Interactivity, Engagement, Tension, Yielding Products). Based on the motivational framework through enhancing web pedagogy into a few principles or ideas that, when combined, can dramatically increases the chances for online learning success. This study examined factors that affected the success and failures of the program, looking at learner circumstance, course design and communication factors as well as technological factors cross referenced with the role motivation plays throughout.

 

References

 

Bonk, C. J. and Khoo, E. (2014) ‘Adding some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ activities for motivating and retaining learners online’, p. 367. doi: 978-1496162724.

Boettcher, J. V. (2011) ‘Ten Best Practices for Teaching Online’. Available at: http://www.designingforlearning.info/services/writing/ecoach/tenbest.html.

Dunlap, J. C. and Lowenthal, P. R. (2018) ‘Online educators’ recommendations for teaching online: Crowdsourcing in action’, Open Praxis, 10(1), p. 79. doi: 10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.721.

Lam, W. et al. (2005) ‘Virtual teams: Surviving or thriving?’, ASCILITE 2005 – The Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, pp. 357–360. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84870811803&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.

 

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). T. in blended learning environments: C. and sustaining communities of inquiry. A. U. P. C. 3: F. (pp. 45-61).

Reflection

Wilfrid Laurier Universities, Reflective writing article outlines 6 models of reflection, and the summary of common obstacles in developing a reflective capacity. Expanding and growing my reflective capacity through practice, review, feedback and analysis has reinforced my understanding how empathy can help engage the students and provide a better designed digital learning resource. Reflecting on this complete course and all the steps and models looked at to get here, has helped me not only develop some new skills but expand my viewpoint and assisted me in working through my own personal biases. I had gathered feedback through the original survey questions and in the feedback responses within my digital learning resource. All of which was further expanded on with in person to person feedback discussions from the initial focus group and through individual meetings helped point me to a better understanding of the learning needs for the organization. The survey questions helped to identify and group some of the diverse demographics within the organization, indication both computer skills and readiness to accept and support an online training program. The diversity was highlighted between the large age variance and the three distinct cultural influences all with their own cultural norms. Findings emphasized that the majority of the target audience where very uncomfortable with technology and the act of change will be very difficult to introduce.   Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015) discuss ‘Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change’, the suggestions included getting by in through inclusivity in having a say in both design and data relevance. Weiner, (2009) draws on the motivation theory places a value on the change and the acceptance thereof.  Value directly relates to the level of commitment and the value in which the members put on the change being implemented. Throughout the initial empathy stage questions, input and analysis of the organizational demographics placed the majority of the organization’s executives and leaders in the 50-65+ age group. Many of which with minimal to no computer / technology skills. The goal of my digital learning resource was to introduce some of the different types of interactivity, screens layouts and multimedia to determine how and to what they will respond to the most.

My digital learning resource which I called “How we learn” in return provided extremely valuable data in design and in the reaction to the different display methods and programs it introduced. The biggest surprise I found was how many of the older executive had little to no confidence in their use of technology, but on a positive though enjoyed video and voice over slides that provided a fairly automated process. Much of the feedback relayed to poor eyesight, bad hearing, small print all would distract from the presentation, from this however I also found the need for very simple easy to use formats and interactions to begin with. However, slides with 70% picture and 30% writing that included a voiceover, a very basic interface tools such as next and submit provided that group with an easy way to build their confidence. The linear layout in the Rise program and some of the automation available through storybook where both well received. Having established various methods in place to facilitate communication with the students via the digital learning resource, email and in person, group and one on one discussions, provided a great insight to move forward with. As the end goal is to provide a digital training plan for the executive and key branch official positions that highlight expectations and job requirements. I will be looking into each of the different branch positions and determine the best theories and models to follow.  Taking the insights and viewpoints presented I will be introducing two modules for both the branch President and Service officer positions, that are more automated for the upper echelon to start with and followed up with position specific scenarios to try and expand on the level of learning achieved. As the branch service officer  position generally require a higher proficiency in computer skill Scenarios ‘ and more interactivity was added to this position.  Scenarios help provide relevance and through these also add the life experiences in which to tie the learning event to, not only expand the knowledge gained but help retain the information as well.  Future course development will also be built on the needs of the students within the job / position held.  For those of you that would like to see an example of the how it could look, a second prototype can be accessed through this link.

https://360.articulate.com/review/content/c0a90ff1-d1d1-47e4-9e87-8ecdc9c2c5f7/review

 

 

References

Ally, M. (2007) ‘Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning’, Theory and Practice of Online Learning, (1977), pp. 15–45.

Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015) ‘Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, pp. 234–262. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215.

Anderson, T. (2008). Chapter 2: Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45-74). Edmonton: AU Press.

Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 53-79.

Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2008). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(1), 5-28.

Kozma, R. B. (2001). Counterpoint theory of ‘learning with media’. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 137–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2) 44-59.

Weiner, B. J. (2009) ‘A theory of organizational readiness for change’, Implementation Science, 4(1), pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.

Wilfrid Laurier University. (n.d.). Reflective writing. Write online. Retrieved from http://writeonline.ca/reflective-essay.php?content=section2

Wollery, E. (2017). Design thinking handbook. Retrieved from https://www.designbetter.co/design-thinking

 

 

 

  

LRNT 527 – Unit 3 Activity 1 – Test Phase

 

In our team discussions we chose to utilize LNRT 527 Assignment 2 evaluation rubric to evaluate our own digital resource as well as for our assigned digital resource peer review.  In our readings Leacock,& Nesbit. (2007) introduced  their research on frameworks available to evaluate digital learning resources. An ever increasing growth of the available reusable digital resources leads to a wide variety of digital resource review criteria. One of which, “The Learning Object Review Instruments or LORI” supports a broad foundation in support of evaluating a learning objects strengths and weaknesses. The LNRT 527 assignment 2 evaluation mirrored much of LORI’s list yet simplified the 9 steps into 4 main areas.

1. Design- Which clearly identifies and aligns with instructional design and learning theories or principles through engagement and determination of learning goals. (Leacock,2007)
2. Technology Interaction- How well does the programs digital technology provide an intuitive access to material that is engaging and clearly provides instruction through seamless and effective program operation (Kay, & Knaack. (2008).
3. Engagement and interactivity of the digital learning resource- does the digital resource include an ease of cognitive load through design and interactivity between Students, Instructors, and Content.
4. Presentation of content – Is Formatting, Presentation style, and Organizational layout flow presented in an intuitive error free format. Is the information cited and reference correctly?

 

In the Test phase of my digital resource built for the legion, I encountered overcoming the learning curve when reviewing and utilizing new software or programs can be vary time consuming. Throw in technical issues when switching from free trial software to purchased versions. Compounded by losing all preliminary layouts and compiled data during the upgrade, tight timelines during peak holiday (summer) periods causing delays in reviews and feedback.  All of which emphasizes the need for a review process that highlights and points to the shortcomings and issues prior to launching the assigned course on a large scale. Demographics of the launch was purposely kept to a small group within the organization, consisting of 4 Veterans and two civilian of various ages.  Discussions and review of submitted info high-lighted by the digital resource evaluation rubric areas of required additions through improved clarity, spelling/grammatical issues, program glitches and design inprovements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Ally, M. (2007) ‘Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning’, Theory and Practice of Online Learning, (1977), pp. 15–45.

 

Anderson, T. (2008). Chapter 2: Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45-74). Edmonton: AU Press.

 

Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 53-79.

 

Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2008). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(1), 5-28.

Kozma, R. B. (2001). Counterpoint theory of ‘learning with media’. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 137–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

 

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2) 44-59.

 

Royal Roads University. (2018). LRNT 527 Assignment 2 Description. Retrieved from https://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt527/assessment/assignment-2/

 

Wollery, E. (2017). Design thinking handbook. Retrieved from https://www.designbetter.co/design-thinking

The Define Stage:

Empathetic design thinking concepts may have started in the 90’s to better understand the consumer and aid in the development of successful products Kouprie & Visser (2009).  Fortunately, the research and scope grew into course design and the using empathy to humanize the switch from classroom or person to person interaction too computer to person interactions.

Campbell, S. (2017) wrote a blog that resonated with me in many ways about how important and valuable communication is in so many ways, online course design being just one of those communication methods. It further resonated, not only as a communication issue but how communication methods and reactions can be affected by experience levels, culture, body language,  even smells can trigger different responses.  Just as reframing helps to change your point of view, falling down this rabbit hole with its many branching tunnels can lead you in many different directions. Moving through the empathy stage by compiling, collecting information, then reframing the question in different ways allowing for further views and methods to meet the requirements. Addressing the Point of View (POV) of this project through a “How Might We (HMW)” method of developing survey questions to help you come to the conclusions that guides and defines the necessity of the end user.  Balancing and juggling the viewpoints and deemed requirements of stakeholders and end users in an effort to change and allow minds to grow, learn and understand.

Kouprie & Visser (2009) Said it best,  “To develop empathy is an individual act, but by discussing it in a team, the discussion serves as a trigger for others to make more connections, which will lead to increased understanding”. The quote itself reframes the Point of View (POV) of the word Empathy, linking the definition of empathy to a way of using empathy to promote expanded or reframed thought. In my opinion, also falls under the umbrella of communication and how people communicate, are understood and most importantly have a voice that can be heard.

 

References

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448. DOI: 10.1080/09544820902875033

Campbell, S. (2017). Know About Employee Communication, When I Work, Blog; Articles Small business blog, http://www.wheniwork.com

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

In the search for the perfect Human centred learning approach that can present a view point from various internal cultures and demographics within the organization to effectively bring a diverse group together. Comparing the models and processes available from the assignment reading material, I looked at “the how might we” method from Stanford University d.schools Bootcamp Bootleg (2016) can be beneficial to this organization.

The “How might we” approach appeals to me in it’s ability to base open ended questions to various diverse target groups with in the same document. Presenting a point of view problem statement that allows each group to describe and engage in their own experience will help frame their needs and experience. Since not only are the focus groups different from each other, the age dynamics spans multiple generations, this in itself  is going to affect the needs and cognitive requirements of the course. The questions should also frame the online experience level within the organization and various groups within. Depending on the responses and input, I believe will help present the underlying differences as well as similarities with in the each group. My first set of questions will consist of demographics of each group and what if any computer skills they may have.

I’m hoping to determine through the initial questionnaire;

1. What level of computer skills are present, (How many exec have completed or participated in an online course)
   • Those that completed online courses questions that help describe their experiences Good and Bad in online course completion.
     • Those that never completed an online courses questions that pertain to “What prevented them from completing or participating in an online course”?

Re framing questions to “How might we” to gain the understanding of each group

Understanding the organization;

2. Is there a substantial difference in computer skills between the three main groups, and within each of the age groups present.
3. Whether or not the organization is ready to implement an online training program.
4. is there a certain group within the organization that will need additional assistance in gaining buy-in and acceptance to the new program.

With that, feel the information gathered within an Empathy map to define similarities and differences can be elaborated on in the prototype stage. Utilizing the prototype for empathy method, by combining  different presentation techniques within one course example and apply a survey and questions to determine the presentation design best suited to the organization and the diverse group within the organization.

 

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

In my critical inquiry refection of the Khan Artists teams chosen modality, comparing what I learned from our team members and the wider course’s teams chosen modality. Each modality was interpreted as seen through the various specific areas of research, many of which brought valuable insight into various MOOC style or approaches and their role in education.  The instance reviewed by our team in the Khan Academy (KA) program was “Intro to HTML/CSS: Making Webpages”.  The Khan Artists looked at the interactive videos and how the KA met each area of our study.  Khans’ philosophy of a flipped classroom, brought a different view point from the standard classroom format classroom teaching style. Bishop, J. and Verleger, M. (2013) discussed this, initially interpreting the taking of the traditional ideas that have been presented in the classroom, now presented via video or power-point lectures. Representing re-ordering of classroom and at-home activities not considering the time that can be spent in the classroom for expanding or debating the researched findings. In my research question “Is the KA a viable solution in meeting Alberta home schooling criteria”?  The assumption that not only the flipped classroom approach could be useful from a home schooling viewpoint, the KA provided age or course specific material. The flipped classroom approach peaked further interest in the KA as I had dabbled in applying this process to the on-boarding process at work. I noted, performance and participation improved on the next day’s activities this process was followed. Confirming DeCesare, (2013) research, that students supplied with optional video lectures came to class much better prepared than when they had been given textbook readings. The presentations from our cohort expanded my understanding of available MOOC’s and the interactions through pros and cons as compared to KA program. MOOC’s as Pappano, (2012) stated brevity and interesting instructional video presented by KA portrays the new standard in exciting alternative learning platforms. Even with much positive research available, the KA ability to meet the AB Home schooling criteria don’t meet regulatory standards as is, falling short in language arts and humanities. KA discusses it’s future plans in obtaining a global certification, maybe if this happens the viability of using KA as a home schooling solution could be met.

 

 

 

Bishop, J. and Verleger, M. (2013) ‘Testing the flipped classroom with model-eliciting activities and video lectures in a mid-level undergraduate engineering course’, Proceedings – Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, pp. 161–163. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2013.6684807.

 

DeCesare, J. A. (2013) ‘Navigating Multimedia’, Enhancing Instruction with Visual Media, pp. 11–26. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3962-1.ch002.

 

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher education, 58(6), 841. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dale_Roy/publication/226493136_Inquiry-based_learning_in_higher_education_Administrators%27_perspectives_on_integrating_inquiry_pedagogy_into_the_curriculum/links/5551dd0908ae93634eca729d.pdf

 

Khan Academy. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/

Team  6 – For our team modality, Khan Artists chose the Khan Academy and learning style of course modality. My question asks, does the Khan Academy meet requirements for Alberta’s governing bodies in accreditation through the educational regulatory standards and policies from the Government of Alberta.  Could the Khan Academy program be implemented as an accredited or approved program to meet all three educational options, School Authority programs, Home Education or Blended programs regulations? Taylor, I. (2010) Home Education. Alberta. Handbook.

I started the research process by signing up for an introductory HTML and CSS computer skills course through the Khan Academy. Initially looked at how the course was presented through the following three mediums: iPhone, iPad with and without a key pad, and MacBook Pro lap top. I further tested the Khan Academy app for both iPad and iPhone looking at how the program functioned and compared it to the web access portal on all three access points. My first impressions with the Khan Academy process were both positive and negative. On the positive side, with personal motivation to learn about HTML and CSS protocols, the introduction to both topics, were interactive video instructions allowing for interaction with the subject learned and the ability to participate through challenges and demonstrated input. On the negative side, there were some issues in the technology depending on the method of accessing the course material and the device used. The Khan Academy app didn’t link to the same course structure and I found that the Web Access point performed much better and provided the full list of available courses that the app didn’t.

Thompson, (2011) discusses the benefits and advantages found from the student’s point of view through their testimonials and teachers finding accessed from their achievements and accomplishments. The Khan Academy training methodology isn’t always received with the same enthusiasm and has been compared to being a high tech version of the simple lecture and drills. Thompson, (2011) further stated that according to the constructionist viewpoint, which follows the train of thought that students lose interest in the topic when the content or material isn’t connected to everyday life. As Hogle (2018) stated in her description of the ARCS model, An E-learning design  that bases design properties through the acronym ARCS, which stands for  Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. This model is designed with the understanding of how identifying relationship between  motivational gaps and learning. In Hogle’s report she references Keller’s website, ARCSModel.com with  a quote:

“Motivational design refers to the process of arranging resources and procedures to bring about changes in motivation,” according to Keller’s website, ARCSModel.com.

Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins. (2009) described the Pedagogy of inquiry based learning and the difficulties of implementing new pedagogies, reflecting on the term inquiry and Dewey’s belief that through inquiry critical thinking skills are developed and not based on memorization skills.  The assumption is that higher learning and critical skills are developed through instructor support, to encourage the act of seeking and exploring new knowledge. Thompson, (2011) which in many ways relate to Khan’s philosophy in his view of the flipped classroom and having students engage in instructor lead learning utilizing their study time learning through the Khan Academy courses and expanding that knowledge through more of an Inquiry based learning events. This brings me back to the question of “Is this method compatible with our current system and what or where do the differences lay? Does this make the Khan Academy process a logical area to grow into or does this relegate this process to being a supplemental learning environment?

 

References

Hogle, P. (Learning S. M. (2018) ‘ARCS Model Aids in Designing for Motivation : Learning Solutions Magazine’, 57774, pp. 1–9.             Available at:                                                          https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/2523/?utm_campaign=lsmag&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lsm-news&utm_content=link.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009).

Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’

perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum.

Higher education, 58(6), 841. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dale_Roy/publication/226493136_Inquiry-based_learning_in_higher_education_Administrators%27_perspectives_on_integrating_inquiry_pedagogy_into_the_curriculum/links/5551dd0908ae93634eca729d.pdf

Khan Academy. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/

 

Taylor, I. (2010) Home Education. Alberta. Alberta Education. Home Education Handbook. ISBN

978-0-7785-6151-4 1. Home schooling Alberta Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. LC40.A33

2010 371.042 http://education.alberta.ca/parents/choice/homeeducation.aspx

 

Taylor, I. (2018). Home Education (1st Americ, p. 322). N. Y. D. A. & C. (2018) ‘Home Education’, p. 322. Available at: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_145.pdf.

 

Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy is changing the rules of education. Wired Magazine, 126, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/40764790/Khan_Academy_technology.pdf

Team  6 – Khan Artists chose the Khan Academy and it’s Video learning style of course modality. My question asks, does the Khan Academy meet educational regulatory standards in AB or should this program only be used as a supplement to current curriculum? I started the research process by signing up for a Intro to HTML and CSS computer skills course through the Khan Academy. Initially looked at how the course was presented through the following 3 mediums I-phone, I-pad with and without a key pad, and Mac book pro lap top. I further tested the Khan Academy App for both I-pad and I-phone looking at how the program functioned and compared it to the web access portal on all three access points. My first impressions with The Khan Academy process were both positive and negative. With personal motivation to learn about HTML and CSS protocols, the Introduction to both topics, were interactive video instruction allowing for interaction with the subject learned and the ability to participate through challenges and demonstrated input. There were some issues in the Technology depending on the method of accessing the course material and the device used. The Khan Academy App didn’t link to the same course structure and I found that the Web Access point performed much better and provided the full list of available courses that the App didn’t. Thompson, (2011) discusses   the benefits and advantages found from the students point of view with testimonials on the achievements and accomplishments. This holistic view point isn’t always received with the same enthusiasm and has been compared to being a high tech version of the simple lecture and drills. Thompson, (2011) further stated that according to the constructionist viewpoint, which follows the train of thought that students loose interest in the topic when not connected or seeing a value with everyday life. As Hogle (2018) stated in her description of the ARCS model, and its relationship to considering and identifying motivational gaps. E-learning designers that base design properties through ARCS model look at Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. In Hogle’s report she references Keller’s website, ARCSModel.com with  a quote:

“Motivational design refers to the process of arranging resources and procedures to bring about changes in motivation,” according to Keller’s website, ARCSModel.com.

Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins. (2009) described the Pedagogy of inquiry based learning and the difficulties of implementing new pedagogies, reflecting on the term inquiry and Dewey’s belief that through inquiry critical thinking skills are developed and not based on memorization skills.  The assumption is that higher learning and critical skills are developed through instructor support, to encourage the act of seeking and exploring new knowledge. Thompson, (2011) which in many ways relate to Khans philosophy in his view of the reversed classroom and having students engage in instructor lead learning utilizing the their study time learning through the Khan Academy courses and expanding that knowledge through more of an Inquiry based learning events. Bringing me back to the question of “Is this method compatible with our current system and what or where do the differences lay? Does this make the Khan Academy process a logical area to grow into or does this relegate this process to being a supplemental learning environment?

 

References

Hogle, P. (Learning S. M. (2018) ‘ARCS Model Aids in Designing for       Motivation : Learning Solutions Magazine’, 57774, pp. 1–9.             Available at:                                                          https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/2523/?utm_campaign=lsmag&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lsm-news&utm_content=link.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009).

Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’

perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum.

Higher education, 58(6), 841. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dale_Roy/publication/226493136_Inquiry-based_learning_in_higher_education_Administrators%27_perspectives_on_integrating_inquiry_pedagogy_into_the_curriculum/links/5551dd0908ae93634eca729d.pdf

Khan Academy. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/

Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy is changing the rules of education. Wired Magazine, 126, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/40764790/Khan_Academy_technology.pdf