Tag: Activity

How much influence do students need or want in creating the learning experience? How much of a learning experience should be curated by the teacher? And how do learning preferences impact comprehension and retention, also known as cognition? Exploring and defining the tenets of optimal learning environments is a great challenge.  

Our 526 team assignment is helping our cohort explore these challenges through an activity of our choosing. Our team, Alisha, Ben, Melissa, & Sharmila, chose to explore an open educational resource hosted on an eLearning platform in a community setting. The tenets of constructivist and social constructivist learning helped us establish common ground and momentum by reminding us to carefully define the environment (assignment) and carefully define the available tools and preferred methods.  

This blog post outlines Team 4’s progress so far.  We introduce our chosen learning event, our investigative process so far, and questions we hope to tackle during our team presentation.

We are exploring Pottle’s (2022) “Teaching online or hoarding frogs in a wheelbarrow” eLearning course from the Ontario eLearning Consortium (OELC). This ArticulateRise experience offers a self-assessment for teachers of all student ages but is curated by just one individual. Readers are encouraged to submit new ideas via email and therefore contribute to the intellectual depth of the course. However, upon initial review, we do not yet trust the author would incorporate new ideas into the curated materials. This disconnect between the collaborative invitation and the curator’s recognition of other contributors (or lack thereof) challenged us to explore the resource’s characteristics, including the community of possible contributors, and initiate our critical analysis deliberately. 

Initially, we considered the resource a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC); however, the content’s collaborative and changing nature led us to define the platform as an artifact of a Community of Practice (CoP). Standard features of a CoP include 1) sharing resources, information, and skills, 2) advancing and creating knowledge, and 3) all associated with the specific needs and interests of one community (Akkerman et al., 2008; Dron & Anderson, 2014; Wenger, 2000). While there is more to a CoP, the challenge of defining our learning event initiated our investigative process.  

At this time, our investigative process includes background readings that further define CoP (Wenger, 2011, Wiley, 2014) and compare the guiding principles of the author and the Ontario eLearning Consortium (OeLC website) with the neighbouring Edmonton Regional Learning Consortium (ERLC). 

Most interestingly, we confirmed that our learning event was NOT an open educational resource (OER) as defined by Wiley (2014) because the OeLC community guidelines do not explicitly permit participants to retain, reuse, revise, remix, redistribute content. In addition, our OeLC resource in question is not shared with a Creative Commons license, counter to the traditional CoP intention whereby resources are freely shared between all parties. 

Although our team discussions inspired creative and intriguing viewpoints and more questions than we had time for in this collaborative assignment, we narrowed our investigations to the following. 

• Alisha: How does engagement through social presence affect cognition?
• Ben: How does the resource utilize constructivist and behaviourist learning methods?
• Melissa: How do misinformation and bias affect resource quality (credibility & accuracy), especially when community members are encouraged to contribute?
• Sharmila: How do we define quality? Who gets to define quality? 

Learning is messy (Cormier, 2017), and finding common ground is challenging when the environment is fuzzy or difficult to define. To help us establish a clearer vision for eLearning experiences that respect both the reader’s time and the value of their lived experiences for future readers, we look forward to continuing our investigation in the coming week and sharing our insights with you during our presentation.

Therefore, we invite you to share your thoughts about a recent eLearning or Community of Practice experience. Did you get a chance to contribute or comment? What other elements helped you enjoy the experience?

References

Akkerman, S., Petter, C., & de Laat, M. (2008). Organizing communities‐of‐practice: facilitating emergence. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(6), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620810892067

Boros, C. (n.d.). eLearning at the Upper Canada District School Board, supported by the OeLC. https://www.oelc.ca/testimonial/

Cormier, D. (2017, April 18). MALAT Virtual Symposium: Intentional messiness of online communities, [webinar]. https://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt521/dave-cormier-virtual-symposium-presentation/

Dron, J, & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds. Athabasca University Press. (Note: free PDF available for download). Chapter 4 – 7.

ERLC. (n.d.). What is a community of practice?  https://www.communityofpractice.ca/background/what-is-a-community-of-practice/

Hildreth, P. M. (2004). Going virtual : distributed communities of practice. Idea Group Pub. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www-igi–global-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/gateway/book/430.  

Selwyn, N. (2010), Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26: 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Veletsianos, G. (2021, May 31). Effectiveness, Efficiency, Engagement and Equity in Online and Blended Learning settings. Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences – Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association(OTESSA) [Online Keynote Session], University of Alberta, AB. https://www.veletsianos.com/2021/05/31/otessa-2021-congress-keynote-effectiveness-efficiency-engagement-wheres-equity/

Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=wenger+communities+of+practice+a+brief+introduction&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Wiley, D., (2014, March 5). The Access Compromise and the 5th R. http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221

Welcome back, readers!

LRNT 525 – Leading Change in Digital Learning is now complete!

Our last major assignment asked us to design a change plan to introduce a digital learning program at our workplace. The project helped us consolidate the academic literature from previous units, including leadership, change management, project management, and data analysis.

The project also reminded me just how important it is to understand and articulate our personal and organizational “why”. And it is not an easy task. Defining words is hard. Using them correctly is even harder! And getting two groups of people to agree on the shared meaning or impact of those words can feel like an impossible challenge.

Without understanding our values, we cannot act genuinely. After all, that is the meaning of being genuine and abiding by the values and ethics we hold dear.

Understanding our “why” helps us in moments of cognitive overload or when we walk into that meeting feeling unprepared. Indeed, if we know our guiding principles, we aren’t unprepared at all. We have an ethic that can steer us through unknown territory and a set of behaviours that can help us navigate the most delicate of steps along our journey.

In comparison to the leadership activity we conducted in week 1, little has changed for me regarding the leadership qualities I hold in high esteem. However, I understand these qualities in a much greater depth.

• Leaders who focus on ideas, not people, inspire me.
• Leaders who believe in the power of transformation, inspire me.
• And leaders who aim to inspire, are truly lost.

As we see the winter melt away and the busyness of spring take sprout, I encourage you all to consider all of the victories you have achieved this past season, large or small. Cherish those memories. Make them your superpower. And keep putting one foot in front of another, because after all, you never know just how far your legs can take you.

Welcome back, readers!

Previously we unpacked change management. This week, we are exploring the tenets of project management (PM) to help us reflect upon a change project at work that used PM concepts… or not!

Project management provides a structure that helps us create unique and tangible products that may change how we do business (Knolscape, 2013). To learn more about project management, check out this 4-minute animated video.

On this blog, I have previously discussed how I developed Cycling Canada’s new grassroots cycling program, HopOn, and its curriculum and instructor training. Overlaying the process with project management phases has been an enlightening reflective process. Let’s take a quick review:

• Initiating
  • If we focus only on the 2020 season and not the preceding five years of information gathering, community engagement, and development through trial and error, the project outline started in early May 2020.
  • The document included a strategic overview of the implementation process, a SWOT analysis, and a needs assessment. They were presented to Cycling Canada during 2-3 meetings in May 2020.
• Planning
  • I started with the end-user in mind (easy to read) and capacity for future edits (avoid Adobe products, use PowerPoint instead due to institutional competencies).
  • Needed 1-2 page summary for instructors for each program: school and community
  • I needed a detailed textbook with narrated videos, ready to integrate into an eLearning software like Articulate360. At the time, I didn’t know what Articulate360 was or even understood other common options.
• Executing
  • June 1: PowerPoint structure and four units started to come together, albeit quickly, by building upon previous versions of the slide deck.
  • June 5: first edits shared with stakeholders
  • July 7: final draft completed early July, including 10-page executive summary (with 1-page curriculum summary) and 150-page textbook, including screenshots of all movements and drawings of all 50 games.
  • July 15: digital learning ‘engineer’ secured on contract and access to the Cycling Canada account provided
  • August 1: Articulate360 design starts, uses a google sheet to communicate changes between designers
  • August 31: all videos recorded.
  • September 25: all movement videos (110) edited, narrated, and shared. Articulate360 units 1 and 2 updated to reflect these new resources.
  • October 25: all games videos (45) were edited, narrated, and shared
  • November 15: resources uploaded to Articulate units 1-4
  • December 7: final Articulate360 draft and textbooks complete, send for translation.
  • February 15: Uploaded to Cycling Canada LMS, errors discovered
  • March 15: Updates complete, system functioning correctly. Everything is resent for translation.
• Monitoring and Control Process
  • March 15 – May 15, Cycling BC used the new system to effectively onboard 30 new staff members. Best season to date.
  • Since this time, no administrative or other errors have surfaced. We are now rolling into our 2^nd season of using the system and resources.
• Closing
  • Although no official end-report was finalized or presented, the system appears to be working.
  • At this time, the instructor tool is password protected and made available for free to nominated instructors and coaches across the country.

In our MALAT program, we have also recently explored the pros and cons of system thinking. System Thinking challenges us to consider both internal and external factors to expand the scope of an organization’s problem-solving process when considering the best courses of action (Conway et al., 2017). This can help an organization understand how stakeholders may react or benefit from changes but can also overwhelm and paralyze organizations that take on more than they can chew (Conway et al., 2017).

In creating the HopOn instructor tool, the learner was paramount. This guiding principle helped us develop the program’s structure and content without reinventing the wheel. Acknowledging the 100 contributing authors (instructors from 2015-2020) built favour among existing stakeholders and scaffolding information using short chapters welcomed new instructors, who were not cyclists, learn the curriculum quickly and focus their attention on developing interpersonal skills through the season.

Moving forward, we are exploring how we can create further updates to instructor and coach training leveraging the lessons learned through the above process. But, again, using system thinking and project management principles can help us include key stakeholders and achieve our timelines. Because, after all, cycling is all about efficiency and speed!

References

Knolscape. (2013). Introduction to Project Management.

Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.

Welcome back, readers! Our cohort has started our 5^th course, Leading Change in Digital Learning. We’ve started with a two-week 10,000-foot view of leadership practices across all domains. This is a topic I am excited to explore in greater detail. In fact, one of the readings discussed Lance Secretan, an author and supporter of transformational leadership I’ve been reading since 2005. His CASTLE principles: courage, authenticity, service, truthfulness, love, and effectiveness helped me formulate an ethos in my twenties that propelled the development of leadership traits I employed as a community leader across multiple sports teams and university groups. This post explores how recent readings have bolstered my understanding of leadership traits that support and propel a community towards its potential. Most interestingly, when crafting these traits into actions, I discovered an overlap with the National Coach Certification Program’s (NCCP) making ethical decisions framework. Leaders with awareness, understanding, and the courage to act, when necessary, align with my view and is supported by the literature.

Our cohort started this course with a word scramble exercise that tasked groups of four to define, and rank leadership traits by importance. This activity followed the 1-2-4-All liberating structure I use as a National Coaches Certification Program (NCCP) coach developer, welcoming participants to reflect individually, then in pairs and small groups, before sharing with the entire cohort (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014). And if role-modelling is a key aspect of effective leadership (Schwartz & Castelli, 2014), this activity reminds us to bring groups together by defining language. As a result of this exercise, our group established communication standards in both the way we use words and how we listen and contribute. By contributing to the exercise to the best of our ability, each participant earned the status of the in-group member, a concept introduced by Tafjel’s (1970) Social Identity Theory and refined by Self-Categorization Theory later in the decade (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, I’m reminded that awareness of the factors in play, not necessarily mastery of said factors, remains the foundational element of effective leadership because awareness can inform the use of activities that guide group development.

Acknowledging conflict as natural and healthy (Kudonoo et al., 2012), and fostering an appreciation for the potential of an individual’s ability to grow and transform, builds upon a leader’s sense of awareness. Acknowledging our strengths and vulnerabilities as leaders remain paramount. Without this “homework,” little can be said about our abilities to judge others and posit corrective or guiding measures. Values-based leadership consolidates this concept and reminds us that effective leaders embody the ability to reflect, balance introspection and the courage to act, self-confidence in previous experience, and humility in error (Castelli, 2016).

The most interesting component of our group 1-2-4-All activity occurred during our group discussion. Our group dramatically increased their ranking of the word “broad-minded.” The ability to place oneself in another’s shoes and see the world from their point of view is challenging. It is arguably impossible when these other people are associated with an in-group that the leader is not a member. In our case, due to the nature of our group’s dynamic, broad and sweeping changes in perception occurred quickly.  Why did this take place? Perhaps because the member proposing the new idea did so with an appreciation for the audience and conducted the conversation by role-modelling the thought process of truth-finding, rather than stating their perspective as an outright and definitive claim. Therefore, leaders can aim to clarify language, listen, and contribute only the minimal necessary feedback.

Broad-mindedness also requires a certain degree of trait openness to experience, under the Five Factor Model of personality, and trait agreeableness, especially the sub-trait compassion. With appreciation for the academic discussion taking place between psychologists like Freud and Dweck as to whether personality traits can be altered, or if perhaps behaviours can instead be patterned to optimize one’s personality disposition, I wish to acknowledgement the challenge of exhibiting an effective mix of leadership traits (Cherry, 2021).

Finally, leadership requires the ability to act and manage the consequences. Under the ten leadership styles explored by O’Toole (2008), this matches Contingency leadership, whereby leaders can do what is necessary for moments of action. I would argue that patterns of this behaviour also manifest trust between leaders and followers, and a history that fosters a culture where the knowns are clear, and the actions in the face of unknowns, are agreed upon.

To avoid this post turning into a paper, I wish to briefly relate the above tenets: awareness, self-reflection, broad-mindedness, and courage to act, with the NCCP’s making ethical decisions framework. Coaches often face challenging situations. This required module helps coaches understand how to gather the facts and decide if a scenario is indeed ethical or legal. From here, coaches are challenged to brainstorm as many possible courses of action as possible, including non-action, and the benefits and costs of each option. And finally, coaches learn to make the best decision with the information available to them at the time and manage the consequences to the best of their ability.

As a sports leader in a position of influence, I aim to role model actions stakeholders can use to effectively lead groups. Defining language, listening for the purposes of understanding and crafting recommendations with an appreciation for and if possible, contributions from all stakeholders, provides leaders with the confidence to act in the moment and help achieve the goals of the community.

As we shift our focus to leadership in digital learning environments over the coming month, an example may include a strong appreciation for the place our learners are joining us from. What are their challenges? How can we help maximize the learning experience? This exploration undoubtedly requires us to put on new shoes! And humbly enter conversations we didn’t even know existed to effectively expand our domain of knowledge. Onwards into the unknown!

References

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Cherry, K. (2021, February 20). Attitudes and Behavior in Psychology. Verywellmind.com

Kudonoo, E., Schroeder, K. and Boysen-Rotelli, S. (2012), An Olympic transformation: creating an organizational culture that promotes healthy conflict. Organization Development, Journal, 30(2), p. 51-66.

Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Liberating Structures Press.

O’Toole, James (2008). Notes Toward a Definition of Values-Based Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1).

Secretan, L. (n.d.) The Secretan Center.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), p. 96–102.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. The Social Psychology of Inter-group Relations. Brooks/Cole.

Welcome back readers, this week are continuing our exploration of design cases and using both Howard’s (2011) and Gray’s (2020) criteria for comprehensive design case precedents. After exploring the literature, we searched for two recent examples from the Scholar Works journal and today I’m using the criteria mentioned below to critique one of the examples I reviewed.

To keep my lens in the world of sport and coaching, I read a design case about grade-school teachers using a variety of coaching methods to help students build a more complete association with homeless populations, and conversely, an interactive game-based learning method to help prepare sports coaches to handle violent emergency situations. For today’s post, let’s look at the latter case.

For reference purposes, the following criteria informed this critique:

• Howard (2011)
  • situating and describing the design,
  • depicting the experience of the design, and
  • developing trustworthiness and purpose.
• Gray (2020)
  • interest to other designers,
  • rich representation of the design,
  • articulation of transparency and failure,
  • accessibility of style, and
  • acknowledgment of complexity and scope.

Current research indicates that interest in and motivation to complete self-defence training is not high in the public domain (Honess, 2016). Moreover, since defence training is often compartmentalized and skill development focused, it is not effective in real-world scenarios (Korner & Staller, 2018). The design case does a great job exploring the context of the study, or situating the design, during the introduction by including the above points from the literature.

With regards to promoting trustworthiness and a rich articulation of transparency, the design acknowledged “the recurrent issue of a lack of motivation in former mandatory training settings was frequently brought up by participants of the program” (Staller et al., 2020, p. 2). In response, the simple structural model was used to engage the learners. The final certification, therefore, included a 45-minute mock lesson run by groups student groups. This session included skill initiation in a controlled space, acquisition with a partner, and consolidation in a game-based environment. This progression matches skill development best practices across the sports sector.

With regards to depicting the design, the author included photos of the game and disclosed the photos and videos may be potentially triggering.

With regards to acknowledging the complexity and applicability of the design, the authors discussed how the rules may be modified in the future to better simulate real-world scenarios, therefore optimizing the effectiveness of the game.

In summary, the author used the below headings to guide their design case and I enjoyed getting acquainted with a real design case sample.

• Introduction (includes literature)
• Context of the design case
• A game of self-defence
• Reflection on the game
• Conclusion

Next up, we are writing our own design case, due this weekend. Until then!

References

Gray, C. (2020). Markers of Quality in Design Precedent. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.31193

Honess, R. (2016). The mandatory delivery of ongoing training within the police service of England and Wales and its relationship to the adragogical principle of self-motivation (Unpublished dissertation). Canterbury Christ Church University.

Howard, C. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1).

Körner, S., Staller, M. S. (2018). From system to pedagogy: Towards a nonlinear pedagogy of self-defense training in the police and the civilian domain. Security Journal, 31(2), 645–659.  http://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0122-1

Staller, M. S., Heil, V., Koch, R., & Körner, S. (2020). “Playing Doom”: A Design Case in Self-Defense Training. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(2), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i2.24108

Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Field, J., Lane, W., Collins, J., & Stiles, A. (2016). Framing, Reframing, and Teaching: Design Decisions Before, During and Within a Project-based Unit. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19427

Welcome back, readers! The winter weather is here (the first snow in Vancouver today), and excitement for the holiday season is building. Why are the holidays so special for so many people? It is a time to reconnect with our family and friends, reflect on the lessons learned in the previous year, and explore the cultures that make us unique and beautiful from one another… like snowflakes. (Aside, learn about snowflakes here).

In our MALAT studies, my cohort and I are now in our 4^th course and are exploring instructional design or how to create a curriculum and project manage the creation process. This week we are investigating the DESIGN CASE! The design case is an informal yet scholarly work whereby instructional designers reflect and unpack the entire process they experienced by creating and deploying a curriculum (Lawson, 2004).

The literature explains the purpose of a design case is to share a precedent (Boling, 2010). A precedent is a uniquely personal experience one gains by using a specific instructional design, and that new knowledge can inform future use (Oxman, 1994). Design cases, therefore, help others understand what designers exactly did in each circumstance and how future designers can balance these choices in future contexts. Lincoln & Guba (1985) remind us that this naturalistic inquiry is not to be generalized but rather understood. Therefore, design cases should include as much context as possible to help readers match the author’s choices with their circumstances. As a result, design cases encourage authors to take a leap of faith (Cross, 2007) and accept the bias created by their lived experiences (culture). The challenge is to disclose the factors of the decision-making process as best as possible (Bruce Archer, 1965) because it isn’t easy to articulate our tacit beliefs! (Cox & Osguthorpe, 2003; Rowland, 1992).

In preparing to write our design case for assignment 2, this week’s blog asks us to reflect on the tools we currently use in our workplace and articulate a superpower or talent that helps us apply these tools effectively. By exploring our relationship with instructional design with a criticality for our bias in a very phased, Vygotskian manner, our professors are helping prepare us for the next assignment.

As an NCCP master coach developer responsible for helping club and performance coaches achieve certification and preparing coach developers to lead workshops and debrief calls, I use various instructional design tools. I prefer to begin using a large whiteboard in the office that invites colleagues and stakeholders to articulate and connect ideas for the first time. Products like Powerpoint and fillable PDFs provide guidance for new workshop facilitators and coaches in training and encourage the most critical aspect of coach development, speaking and writing. We also employ a learning management system, google sheet templates and articulate 360 for step-by-step instructional theory. We often use a blended learning method that introduces theory concepts during on-demand modules and facilitated breakout rooms. Outdoor, interactive workshops and applications follow to help pattern new knowledge. Mentorship includes weekly video calls, outsourcing, and lots of prototyping. As a result, I aim to role-model and invite coaches to be creative and comfortable with a hybrid of AGILE and ADDIE instructional design (see last week’s Assignment 1 post) to keep trying new things until the ‘spaghetti sticks on the wall.’

Therefore, I fulfill the roles of facilitator, designer, narrator, demonstrator, informed by my recent experience as a student and coach in training. I have capitalized on my organizational superpowers throughout recent professional development to optimize resources (spreadsheets, documents) and help participants focus on the important stuff, speaking and writing. I also have focused on improving my public speaking abilities to use tone, word choice carefully, and body language to invite and engage audience members in a journey of discovery rather than a story to absorb passively.

This week’s readings about design cases remind authors to embrace their lived experiences and bias and use them as a superpower to propel engagement and defer the decision-making process to the next designer.

This concept matches nicely with the excitement for the holiday season, where we again are awarded the opportunity to reconnect with those who helped formulate our constitutions and propel us into the next annum’s adventures.

References

Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London, UK: The Design Council.

Boling, E. (2010). The Need for Design Cases: Disseminating Design Knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.919

Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R.T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45-47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763476

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, Gambits and Precedent: Some Factors in Design Expertise. Design Studies. 25, 443-457. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.

Oxman, R.E. (1994). Precedents in design: A computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies, 12(2), 141-157.

Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x

If you can’t play, at least don’t take the ball away.

A good playground game is fun. It allows us to try something new. If we are successful in the game’s challenge, we can change our position in the game itself. We can transform into a member of another team, from the have nots to the haves. But cheating our way to that moment is self-serving at best, and at worst, ruins the game for everyone.

Teaching and learning are the same. Our playground games are all grown up and moved inside to the pages and pens of our adult selves. Teaching and learning is a tug-of-war between the keepers of knowledge and those wishing to grow. And like the sand and slide outside, in this playground, cheating is not acceptable.

What are the ways to cheat on the playground? We can change the rules midway by fiat, we can disregard the rules and win through force, or we can undermine the community’s etiquette and take advantage of our shared reliance on goodwill.

When we speak with our grandparents, a socialized person listens and maps the experiences of our ancestors upon the challenges we face today. This ability to listen allows us to place ourselves in their shoes and undercover how much we are the same before exploring, together, how we may consider making careful improvements in the future. Speaking with others is the key to this process. Social etiquette reminds us to award those we are listening to the benefit of the doubt. It allows each party in the conversation to see past the emotional load we each bear from our experiences and craft common ground.

However, removing this social element and interacting with the past through just the written word makes it so easy to cheat in this game of knowledge.

This blog post explores how the current academic discussion has lost its way and works too hard to undermine one another instead of role-modelling the pedagogical methods we write about and wish to see. For this assignment, let’s examine just one example for our recent readings on instructional design methods.

The Pebble in the Pond instructional design method has been discounted as a culturally insensitive and behaviourist method and is irrelevant in the post-war era (1945-present) (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). This is similar to the ADDIE model that Heaster-Ekholm (2020) argues fails to articulate an operational failsafe that satisfies the need of the post-modern left and acknowledges the student’s lived experiences and how that may impact their learning experience. When post-modern authors attempt to discredit generic language like analyze, design, and evaluate, stating that they feel that these words do not meet the needs of today’s society, they need to offer equally succinct guiding principles.

Applying this concept to the Pebble in the Pond (PITP) method, whereby instructional designers create learning experiences that match their teaching capacity at the time, does not represent a method so poorly crafted it should be wiped from the records book. Instead, it is a valuable learning tool that, if used appropriately, can provide transformative learning experiences for students. The PITP model uses behaviourism and cognitivist learning theory to suggest educational designers articulate a central problem and create content that helps learners create knowledge (Merrell, 2002; Thomas, 2019). When Heaster-Ekholm (2020) claims that the PITP model falters because the “content rather than learner need or preference determines instructional strategies,” it begs the question of what words Merrell should have used to accommodate the author’s worldview (p. 56). How does the problem-based approach directly propagate systemic culturally insensitive modes of educational practices?

In the hopes of reframing the discussion and proposing a helpful way forward, I suggest exploring how educational designers can best match various methods with specific scenarios.

The PITP model encourages stakeholders to craft a response to a problem and share it with the world, like dropping a pebble in the pond. The resulting ripples represent the effectiveness of the intervention. For example, we know that inviting students into ‘the game’ of teaching and learning is one of the most effective ways to create lasting knowledge. We also know that role-modelling is a powerful way to encourage new behaviours. I suggest that the PITP model is a very effective learning process when the student is crafting and dropping the pebble!

When teachers create environments that help students ‘just start’ and try their best, they can participate in the game. When teachers encourage students to develop resources based on their current understanding, it role-models a growth mindset and the patience involved in life-long learning. As students grow and mature, their ability to accommodate the needs of others may expand, and the effectiveness of their creations, and the ripples they create, may travel further than before. Framing the PITP’s program-based approach as a student-led project activates elements of all four learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, social constructivism, connectivism). Creating open education resources and using evaluative schema to refine their constructions allows students to learn at their optimal rate of cognition. This is encouraging. This is inspiring. This is role-modelling.

How is this mode of being reflected in the current academic dialogue? Dron (2014) and Dousay (2017) both suggest a more ‘holistic’ learning method. Instead of using just one of the four prominent learning theories as a lens that guides the thoughts and actions of educators, we must see the benefits of each theory equally, like tools in a toolbox, and understand when and how to match these tools to our unique learning environments. I rest assured that this new ‘holism’ lets us step out of the intellectual playground and see the learning theories not as competitors to cheer for but as participants to encourage. As supervisors of the knowledge game, we must now encourage participation, reward excellence, and facilitate fair play.

Because after all, if you aren’t able to play the game, at least don’t take the ball away.

References

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.).

Dron, J. (2014). Chapter 9: Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Heaster-Ekholm, K. L. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: Their Theoretical Roots and Cultural Considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). “A pebble‐in‐the‐pond model for instructional design”. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 41-46. Retrieved from http://learninginnovationlab.com/uploads/1/2/0/0/12000341/merrill-pebble_in_pond.pdf

Thomas (2019, Sept 20). Pebble-in-the-pond Instructional Design model in Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. Mybrainisopen. https://www.mybrainisopen.net/pebble-instructional-design-model/

Authors: Ben Chaddock & Emma Keating (posted here as well)

Today’s post compares Kozma’s (1994) and Clark’s (1994) positions in the Great Media Debate with recent examples of techno-deterministic thinking by pro-tech firms. The Great Media Debate took off in 1983, with Clark’s article summarizing how fundamental learning methods will remain fundamental, despite technological changes in delivery methods or content that may improve efficiency.

Below we review articles about a new learning app for Microsoft teams and a sales-support article from a wifi installation and management firm and overlays Kozma and Clark’s outlook on both.

Article 1: New learning app for Microsoft Teams LINK 

This new app allows employers to collaborate all the learning they want their employees to do in one place (Our Training tab), including company-specific training. Users of the app can assign activities to their employees and track who has completed them.  Group chats enable peer conversation, and users can share links to media and training with each other. The app also links to Microsoft Learn and LinkedIn Learning for professional collaboration.

Kozma argues that the attributes that make media successful are not consistently present in the various forms of media to be relied upon to assist in learning. For example, in this new Teams learning app, many attributes may impact the quality of the learning, but it is very challenging to isolate a particular component that guarantees success. Moreover, the app does not provide a comprehensive library of modules, contributing to an inconsistent student experience that should not be relied upon for successful learning.

Clark would comment that the new media of the Teams app may not influence learning as it may not consider the cognitive or motivational factors of learning. Although the app includes some social components (chats and inter-user communication), it does little to support those aspects throughout the methods of the actual learning. For example, tracking employee training completion progress may motivate some, but little evidence is available that shows this action will positively influence learning or ensure comprehension and retention. 

Article 2: Pro-Techno stance from cloud company LINK

American wireless internet implementation and management firm SecurEdge is in the business of helping install custom wifi systems to schools and companies. This article lists numerous ways that digital tools and classrooms can help students learn.  Their claims include that digital classrooms help students of different learning styles, increase student engagement, that “traditional passive learning model is broken… [and] technology transforms the learning experience” (Mareco, 2017).

Kozma (1994) would agree that technology and digital mediums help create objects that generate conservation from an interactionist perspective. The unique features of the students, their beliefs and goals, interact with these digital objects and transform them from inert tools into a host for emerging ideas and hopefully meaningful dialogue between all parties (p. 21). However, Kozma (1994) also claims that traditional teaching models do not acknowledge or accommodate the interplay between media, method, and situation (p. 21); and that they are bound by the tenets of behavioural psychology and shy away from the messy nature of social constructivism (p. 21). 

Clark (1994) retorts that any medium, digital or otherwise, that supports learning includes characteristics that cause learning. For example, the difference between a printed textbook and a digital textbook.

Clark (1994) would associate the digital nature of the latter as a surface feature of the learning environment, and that the structural or fundamental element of the resource is the fact that both tools consolidate large amounts of information into a helpful and encouraging format for consumption, or most aptly, comprehension. Further, that the “active ingredient” should be distinguished in the process of assessing the quality of new teaching technology. Otherwise, we may become lost in our evaluation of what is fundamentally impacting our students’ learning (Salomon, 1979, as cited by Clark, 1994, p. 4). 

In conclusion, Amara’s law offers an important reminder that “we tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run” (PC Mag, n.d.).

References

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

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

Mareco, D. (2017, July 28). 10 Reasons Today’s Students NEED Technology in the Classroom. Securedge Networks. https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10-reasons-today-s-students-need-technology-in-the-classroom

Pradeep (2020, July 8). Microsoft reveals the all-new learning app coming to Microsoft Teams (video). MS Power User. https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-learning-app-microsoft-teams-video/

PC Mag (n.d.) Amara’s Law. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/amaras-law