And in the end….

I DREADED the idea of this class.  All that talk about philosophy, theory, and principles -- I've done well enough thus far in life without principles, why consider them now?  My misconceptions about the usefulness of this kind of class led me to postpone taking it until the end.  Boy was I delightfully surprised!

I enjoyed this class, theories and all.  And waiting to take this class at the end of my studies actually worked in my favor.  Applying these concepts in retrospect to past classes and coursework, past class experiences enabled me to develop better understanding of the theories and principles.  In my case, I don't think I would have made the same level and range of connections had I taken the class at the beginning of my studies.  But who knows, maybe a knowledge of learning theories might have enhanced my comprehension of other class experiences.  

Taking 621 along with 651(instructional message design) and 764 (Planned Change), was fortuitous.  The readings for 651 reinforced the cognitive theory reading in this class.  Donald Norman's book, The Design of Everyday Things, added a unique way of thinking about the power of cognitive learning theory and how it affects how people learn -- or more specifically, fail to learn -- how to operate such common place things like doors, light switch panels,  copy machines base on cues from the way the objects are designed.  Instructional design typically focuses on teaching people in a "class" environment.  Norman's book reminds us that instructional design learning principles can apply to how people figure out how to operate "stuff" when they are not in an instructional setting.  The book teaches designers of commonly-use "stuff" to heed cognitive learning principles so that "stuff" users can successfully operate their "stuff" without having to open the manual.  I had read this book back in 1993 or 1994, when I  was a cable TV equipment product line marketing specialist and applied the concepts that Norman presented in my product specifications (Hey, Norman advised Apple's design teams, and Apple products were elegant and easy to use, so why not learn from success?).  But reading the book this semester while studying learning theory took my comprehension of the book to a significantly  deeper level.  It was fun reading the Norman chapters, and then the Ormrod chapters:  lots of elaborating took place. 

While reading planned Everett Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations book for 764 (Planned Change), I could see how cognitive learning theory might  be used to explain some of his generalizations and conclusions.  Social learning theory, in particular, helped me understand the information diffusion process.  While searching searching the web for material for my social learning theory knowledge base, I came across some information about the work of Bandura that described his work in several developing countries to address some health related problems using -- from his perspective -- social learning theory.  But you could consider Bandura's success from an information diffusion perspective as well (e.g., the power of homophilous groups and opinion leaders to influence change in behavior).  However, social leaning theory can explain WHY information diffusion can persuade people to change.

Oh this was an exciting semester!  What we studied in 621 really supported the other two classes, and vice versa.  Had I taken 621 at another time, however, I doubt that I would have experienced the same level of understanding and excitement.  I am an associative thinker.  I love it when stuff reminds me of other stuff.  When my brain starts "seeing" connections, possibilities, relationships between what I read, see or hear to other things I've already read, seen or heard, I get energized.  The act of seeing connections and possibilities gets me SO EXCITED!  I wanted to run out of my house and start solving problems!

As for the course, it was brilliant!  (No, I'm not sucking up to Tiffany who will read this post.  She grades using a rubric, so sucking up won't work because it's not part of her grading rubric.) The subject matter was complex, and preconceptions and misconceptions could have sabotaged our ability to meet the learning goals of the class.  The text, the instructional theories and strategies, the activities and supporting materials worked effectively to teach difficult subject matter. 

 
One activity I thought was effective was this knowledge base.  The idea of creating the knowledge base was terrifying, and creating it was laborious (I referred to the process creating each knowledge base as "giving birth":  the information was inside of me and now I had to figure out a way to move it from inside of me out into the world).  The activity effectively served to make us synthesize what we learned.  It highlighted areas of confusion.  And helped me realize that I understood more than I had thought.  In addition, the process enabled me to evaluate other learning theory synthesis projects that I found on the web.  If I had more time this semester, I would have liked to have been more creative with my knowledge base.  However, the one advantage of having written my knowledge base as a word document is that I can now use it as a reference document.   And using the word document format allowed me to be more precise in how I described my content.  I'm not a fan of using powerpoint as a word variation. 

The next activity that I thought was effective, much to my surprise, was the reflection journal.  I HATED having to write reflection journals in my other classes.  But that was not the case in THIS class.  My positive feeling about the journal in this class could be due to what I chose to write.  In addition to the requirement of reflecting on what happened in class, I chose to write about how what I had studied related to other readings and experiences.  Writing about these other things helped me to construct (see, social learning theory!) richer understanding of the concepts I was learning.   THIS journaling experience worked for me.  In 651, one of the readings that explained the concept of deep learning suggested the use of reflection journals as a method to promote more engagement with the material.  And why is that important?  Cognitive learning theory suggests that more learners use or engage with the material, the richer the elaborations will be in long term memory.  Journaling can promote generalization of the material as well.  Whatever.  In this class, the journaling activity worked for me. 

So, what did I learning about learning?  That it's amazing that we learn anything at all, and when we do learn, that we manage to develop a common understanding, more-or-less, of the things we do learn.   It's amazing that we can share an understanding of knowledge, and it's no longer a mystery when people do not share a similar interpretation of an  idea or concept or situation.   I learned the importance of making active choices about instructional strategy to increase the probability that learning -- desired learning -- will happen.  I learned that instructional design, when done effectively, is challenging and hard.  But hard in a good way.  My cousin considers her self an instructional designer.  My cousin is an actor, screenplay writer, and acting teacher who has supported herself by training people how to use software and by writing technical instructional material, as well as by doing minor technical writing project management.  It is hard for me to explain to her -- without sounding condescending -- that her version of instructional design is only one small piece of what instructional designers do.  As I explained to her the other night: SOMEONE has to decide that what YOU create is needed.  That would be ME.  I would decide that a paper-based user manual is required, and that it will be structure THIS way.  I would hire YOU to write it.  I don't think she was offended.  She didn't hang up on me.  Learning theory, combined with the instructional message design class concepts would allow me to assess, edit and guide my cousin's work to make sure that what she writes will facilitate learning.  I doubt that anyone she has worked for has played that role with her. 

What has this class taught me about my own learning?  Well, despite my protestations, I'm a social learner.  Allow me explain my resistance to what I used to consider social learning.  

I jokingly justify my dislike of social learning by professing a dislike of people, but this is not why I did not willingly immediately embrace the social learning theory of learning.  There are two things that fueled my resistance: 1) poorly thought out group assignments, and more recently 2) the current trend in education that promotes social learning as THE ONLY WAY to learn.  I'll start with my previous definition of "social learning".  

Prior to this class, social learning meant group or team learning projects.  My experience with group projects has been mixed, leaning toward miserable.  In business school each class had a group project, and the group experience included: a struggle between two type A personalities vying to be team leader (not me; I was reticent back then), group think, a struggle get the team to define a common understanding of the problem BEFORE dividing project tasks (I was the one who typically forced the problem statement issue; typically the engineers wanted to skip ahead to the writing without know what they were to write).   My group experiences during my IDDE studies were better than those in business school.  This might be because my IDDE classmates are younger and therefore have more experience with working in collaborative study groups (or it could be that IDDE is not an ivy league #5-7 ranked business school program filled with type A business personalities).  My impression of groups projects during both periods was that a lot of energy went into activities that had little impact on what I was supposed to learn. The work we submitted was OKAY not great, in my humble opinion.  I MIGHT have developed a deeper understanding of the subject matter as a result of these group projects, but I think I learned more about group dynamics in an educational setting (and how differently corporate America operates from academia; in retrospect, I NOW understand the behavior of those Type A business school classmates ).  

The second barrier to social learning is my reaction to the current trend to make all learning collaborative.  Let's put all the learners in a room, throw some knowledge in the room, and allow the learners to make sense of it while the teacher "facilitates" (whatever that means).  No lesson plans, no organization, no instruction are required.  Learn like you used to learn when you were a kid.  Collaboration proponents are probably not that hands off, and I admit to not having spent much time reading various collaboration strategies.  I am probably victim of provocative headlines.  But the implication is worrisome. 
    

The social learning module in Tiffany's class made me change my attitude about social learning.  When I  considered the theory with an open mind, I came to realize that social learning actually describes how I have learned most things in my post-high school life (I can't recall much about learning in high school, it was 30+ years ago).  Foreign languages, dancing, dog training, the pros and cons of cholesterol medicine, the strengths and weaknesses of proprietary versus open-source 64 QAM compression technology -- most of the things I've learned had a significant social element.   My only issue about accepting social learning theory as my learning theory is that I still have so many questions about how it actually works. 

Well, I will stop here.  I hope that I've provide a sufficient summative reflection about my experience with learning and this class.  The class exceeded expectations.  It didn't kill me, so I'd like to think it will make me a stronger, more effect instructional designer.

What do Thanksgiving Learning Have in Common?

They're both social!

Okay, it's official.  Even though I don't quite understand this theory, I believe that social learning theory most accurately describes learning.  Ooooh how I wanted to be a cognitivist -- the focus on the organization of information is soooo attractive.    But when I consider my personal experience in learning in both school and work, social learning concepts describe my learning experience. 

But beyond the fact the world revolves around me,  what I DID understand about this theory makes sense.  Observing what happened in 621 class -- as well as other classes --  as my fellow classmates express their understanding about topics, made me realize that learning is highly personal and is constructed through interaction with others.  The puzzled looks on instructors faces that seem to say "how did they derive THAT from THIS?  And I organized it so well."   My own reactions to others' comments: "Clearly I understood the material differently than they did."  And more importantly, my realization of how in-class synchronous discussions shape my understanding of the things that I study.

This leads me to online classes.  I keep wondering why I dislike online classes.  Social learning could provide a clue.  I find asynchronous discussions via message board frustrating and ultimately useless.   I like being able to ask questions when they arise, and to receive a real-time answers.  And real-time class discussions DO help me construct understanding of material.  Online classes -- the ones I have experienced -- don't effectively address the power of casual social learning experiences.  By casual social learning, I mean class discussion and question and answer sessions.  My online instructors try to engage students in interaction, but some how the combination of asynchronicity and student tendency to procrastinate and to provide the minimal effort required defeat the learning power of interactive engagement.  I feel isolated in online classes.

Group projects -- the ones in which I've participated -- also fall short on their interactive intent. Students tend to divide and conqueror on group projects.  The team "collaborates" to agree on what will be studied, to assign roles and responsibilities, and maybe to review the final product.  There is little time or desire to discuss each person's piece of the project.  One person serves as the final editor, combining the pieces and trying to make the content coherent.  Discussion MAY occur if members take the time to seriously read and critique the drafts, but my experience has been that such discussion rarely occurs unless ONE person insists that the team meet and review the components.  If that "pushy" person does not exist on the project, the discussion doesn't happen.

In Tiffany's distance learning class, I insisted that our team "meet" on the phone several times.  I found a free bridge number.  I scheduled the meetings.  Our group discussed our project.  I insisted that we go section by section to review, change and approve each piece that team members contributed.  And I insisted that we, as a group, on the phone, discuss and approve each piece of the final paper.  If I hadn't been so ME, I doubt that this level of interaction would have occurred.  And I did learn through these phone discussions.  There were pieces of the requirements that were confusing, and listening to my team helped me better understand the project and subject matter.  The fact that we did this via phone was powerful.  I think that trying to do this via instant message would have failed.  In fact, our group messaging experience with Tiffany drove me to find a way to meet virtually by voice.  

I don't know what the answer is to address the low level of social interaction in online classes.   But after three years of eight online classes, I find that social learning theory gives me a glimpse of why the online experience, for me, is unsatisfying.     

And on that, it's time to see an oven about a roast.
Happy T-Day!

Class Reflection

It's sad when you can't recall what you did two days ago.  I'll blame it on the bug I seem to be fighting.  Yeah, that's it.

Okay, so we started with a review of what we did the previous class.  What did we learn from that session?  What did we learn from having to defend a point of view about a learning theory.  Did this activity impact our understanding of learning theory?  This was an open class discussion. 

Next she had us continue the exam.  There were four questions.  The first was more of an activity.  She had us describe the elephant drawing exercise that we did during the first class using one learning theory.  Although multiple people were assigned to a theory, we wrote our answers individually.  Then in open class discussion, each group took turns discussing how they viewed the elephant drawing exercise from their learning theory.  We took turns describing and then adding/building to other members descriptions.  After all groups went, we discussed the exercise as a class.

At some point we were asked what our definition of learning was.  We discussed what the major/key attributes for the concept of learning were -- that it's a relatively permanent change in the learner, that is a result of experience.   

Then we continued with the remaining questions on the exam.  I don't recall the questions exactly, but the result was a synthesis of learning theory, instructional theory and instructional design.  This lead us to discuss  the role of instructional design, and why learning theory was important.  While I'm not a fan of tests, this one was okay, especially day 2.  The frustrating part is that each time I think I understand this stuff, the exams/activities point out that I don't quite get it.  I understand a lot, but not as much as I would like.  I understand that more reading is required to fully understand this stuff.  I want to know it all now.

Next everyone shared their cover pages.  Saw some great stuff, but nothing that I wanted to include in mine.  My only pet peeve is people who use powerpoint and fail to make their slides readable at a distance.  If I can't see the words, then why use them?  when I can't read the words, I get distracted.  So make them readable or omit them.

Gotta go nap.

Constructivism v. Cognitivism

Can't we all just get along?

My message design class applies cognitivist theories to explain how the brain perceives and processes information.  As a result, I am told that I should design my instructional messages based on principles that will facilitate cognitive style learning of the material. 

But what if I'm constructivist?  Does that mean that message  and graphic design principles are a waste of time?  Do I get to tell Jerry that his class is malarkey because no matter how I design and present the material, the learner will construct whatever meaning they wish, meaning, they will learn what they will learn no matter how I present the material?  [This seems to be happening in Tiffany's class. I'm sure she is not meaning what I'm constructing.]

According to Tiffany, constructivism and cognitivism are mutally exclusive....

I'm still confused, but afraid that if I ask Tiffany about this desire to co-mingle again, she's going to give me the evil eye again. 

Learning styles in the work world

My friend was assigned to a high profile project at her place of work.  She is part of the team that is documenting what needs to occur for the organization to transfer from one computer-based management system to another one.

From her description, it seems like everyone meets in a large room.  Each person has their own laptop.  The project leader discusses different issues, requirements, instructions, and then everyone works on their piece on their laptop.  People need to consult with each other as they work on their piece.  The project leader is a young guy who is "a 30 year old genius who can multitask" (apparently he can manage both this project and the construction of his own new house at the same time).

As I listen to my friend discuss her experience in this collaborative working environment, I think about how how learning and instructional theory might be applied in this context to facilitate their work.

The 30 year old wunderkind explains what needs to be done verbally to the entire group.  Nothing is written down, much to the frustration of my friend.  Mr. 30, throughout the day, explains what is to happen, and facilitates the group's activities.  This method of "instruction" seems to frustrate not only my friend, but Mr. 30 himself because he seems to tire of having to repeat different pieces of information to the group. 

In this situation, it appears to me that Mr. 30 is the SME, and is extroverted personality whose learning style preference is auditory: He likes to discuss stuff.  His level of SME-ness means that he already understands the subject matter, and he is impatient because others don't grasp his understanding when he tells them.  He does not understand that the others in the room may not share the same learning style, and may prefer to see things written in words, tables, diagrams while listening to his explanations. 

I'm certain that the company and the team responsible for this project do not perceive the instructional components of this project.  The fact that Mr. 30 SME has stuff in his head that must move from his head to the heads of the people doing the work implies instruction.  The complexity of the material, combined with the short deadline (is there ever a long dead line in corporate america), means that some attention to how the transfer of information from the SME to the workers is required. I also think that the term "instruction" is viewed as the opposite and enemy to "collaboration":  We don't have to organize how we present our content.  We'll just put everyone in a room, throw the content out in the room, and let them collaboratively figure out what it means and what to do.  If they have questions, they can ask.  While they're collaboratin', I'll check in on my house contractor.

My friend is frustrated because she can't remember everything Mr. 30 tells her.  She explains her "deficiency" by stating that she doesn't remember stuff she doesn't need in the moment.   She also says that she needs time to process what is explained to her.  Specifically, she needs to go to a quiet place with her computer, read stuff, and work through the material to understand it.  I tried to explain that there's nothing wrong with her "old" brain,  that her brain is working normally.  Of course she wouldn't remember what she doesn't need to know -- she didn't perceive it or attend to it.  Nor did she encode it in her long-term memory.  She requires time to employ the learning strategies that work for her to actually make sense of what was explained during the day.  She has to LEARN IT!  But she perceives herself as being a  slow learner because she can't simply take Mr. 30's words and immediately move them to long-term memory.  Because she can't recall what she never perceived or learned in the first place.  Sigh.

If I'm put in charge of a project, I'll recall this scenario.  And I'll use my IDD expertise.  Instruction and learning happen in the darndest places.  

Social Learning and Constructivisim

I go to class thinking I understand this stuff and then by the end of class I feel like I understand nothing.   Well, I'm sure I learned something.

I'm a couple of classes behind in reporting what we did in class.  During the second social learning class, Tiffany had us work in several small groups to discuss social learning instructional strategies, and then each group shared their discussions with the entire class.  Then she divided the class into three groups, and assigned each group one of the three learning theories.  Each group had about 15 minutes to create a mini knowledge base slide presentation, which was presented to and critiqued by the entire class.  I came away feeling more confused about social learning theory, and was concerned because I had a social learning theory knowledge base to turn it. 

This past Monday Tiffany discussed constructivism.  I thought I understood the readings, but then I couldn't fill out the damn advanced organizer table.  I hate those things.  I never seem to think about the subject matter the way the advanced organizer implies I should.  Any way... we worked in small groups, AGAIN, but this time we had to try to negotiate from the perspective of one the three learning theories.  There  was one other perspective, but I can't recall what it was.  Whatever it was, it had some overlap with social learning theory.  This class session seemed to engage in more discussion.  Or maybe it seemed like more discussion took place because more people chose to discuss things. 

It's interesting how after each class I feel confused.  But maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe this confusion signals that learning is happening inside my brain. 

SLT - It's everywhere

Despite the fact that I still can't define or explain what how this SLT stuff works, I seem to see social learning EVERYWHERE.

For example, I'm doing a peer review of a classmate's evaluation paper.  As I read (environment?) what she's written (behavior?) , I think about my own paper (perception?) and realize (learn?) ways that I can improve my own for draft 2.  I see reciprocal causation EVERYWHERE, but yet I can't identify the parts.  This is driving me CRAZY.  Back to this example.... So I'm learning what I should include in my paper by reading another person's paper.  It's social (she's voice, opinions, perspective with me as I read), I'm constructing meaning based on my prior knowledge. 

Another example:  My Cole cat has a urinary problem that needs to be treated.  I'm learning about the problem and possible solutions by interacting with my vet, the internet, other knowledgeable people, and I'm constructing my own knowledge about the situation.  I'm not simply accepting my vet's advice, I'm building my own opinion and making my own judgments.  The learning environment is rich -- conversation, reading, internet.  Let's try identifying the reciprocal causation: B= discussing, listening reading? P= Evaluating? E= Internet, Vet's office, the phone?

I know that I engage in social learning, however, I am still unclear how to apply the concepts and identify social learning in action. 

This is so frustrating!

Collaboration

Okay, I'm having a hard time accepting what I think I understand about Social Learning Theory.  At the moment I'm reading about collaborative learning.  The authors says that the environment has to be conducive to collaboration for learning to occur.  yeah.

Way back in the old days, when teachers and education were less informed, and  teacher heavily prescribed what students would learn, and the class environment was oppressive, many people managed to learn quite well.  And how about schools like the one Tiffany described in India, where  four grade levels were taught in a single classroom. Or the school in Peru that had no books or desks.  Collaborative learning probably takes place in these peruvian and indian classrooms, however, but the instruction is not specifically structured to faciliate such learning.

I'm having a difficult time accepting this SLT theory.  My skepticism might be due to the fact that I don't understand this theory.

the theory of leaning socially

Today we discussed Social Learning Theory in class.  Guess SLT must be true because I certainly didn't understand the text chapter accurately.  The meaning I constructed was incorrect, and it took Tiffany's explanations and class discussions and group exercises for me to start to construct a more accurate and socially approved understanding of the theory.  I still don't totally understand SLT, but maybe after I sleep on it things will click. 

In class Tiffany used questions to engage the class in trying to develop a class consensus about the definitions of learning, and other SLT principles.  She had us work in small groups to create definitions, then we discussed our discussions in the class.  I doubt we all reached consensus, but apparently we offered enough satisfying definitions that Tiffany moved on other class topics.  Or maybe it was a time issue: she had ground to cover and we'll review this stuff again next week.  There I going constructing.

[I haven't used the verb "to construct" so much outside of working for Habitat for Humanity.]

What's causing me confusion?  Hmmm....
First, figuring out how to apply the reciprocal causation concept.  Specifically, being able to explain/think of examples of the reciprocity between each of the components P-B-E.  Next is how framing cognitive terms in an SLT framework. 

What little I do understand leaves me with the impression that controlling learning -- by either the student or teacher -- is difficult.  There is so much internal and external noise that can impact the desired learning outcome.  How do you control for this as a teacher if you believe in SLT?  Right now I prefer  cognitive learning theory because what little I understand seem to have mechanisms that allow student and teacher to have more control internal and external noise.

Well, I need to move on.  More next time. 

Oops!

For message design class, I read a chapter about why people make mistakes.  Donald Norman, Design of Everyday Things, discussed the basic cognitive reasons about why errors and mistakes happen.  Very fascinating! 

As part of the discussion he introduced the connectivist theory about how information is organized and stored in memory, which results in knowledge or experience being stored in "similar" and "exception" categories.  Information that we experience and interpret as similar to prior knowledge/experience get "mushed" together such that the different parts are not stored.  Information that is perceived as "different enough" or unique get stored separately.  The similar category of experience gets more weight/value in the mind, and the the exception categories get less weight or value (because there are few of them).  This means that when you access information to explain something, diagnose or solve a problem, your brain tends to go with the more heavily weighted "similar" information first.  Apparently some sort of comparison of the new against the old takes place. The brain tends to ignore the lesser valued "exceptional" category of prior knowledge even when THAT information is applicable.  The brain uses the less detailed and heavily weighted information during recall and can result in mistakes.

Gee, did I understand that correctly? 

Last Class Observations

Doh! I can't believe it's been a week since last class.  I had meant to post this the tomorrow after last class.  Well, technical IS a tomorrow after last class.

At any rate, last class we discussed what characteristics cognitive instructional theories would possess.  She did this by asking us questions that required us to apply our knowledge of cognitive learning theory to identify attributes of cognitive instructional theories.  Next (sorta) we discussed Gagne's 9 events of instruction, and she reviewed (activated prior knowledge) the information processing model diagram had studied previously and reminded us how each of the nine events reflected the information processing process (reviewing, elaborating, connecting gagne and instructional theory to cognitive theory and vice versa, organizing information for better storage and easier recall).  We discussed how each of the nine events could be implemented.  Then we broke into groups and practiced applying Gagne's model to one of the learning scenarios (rehearsal; enactment).  In this exercise we received feedback from peers on our instructional strategies, then had a chance to reflect as a team about the feedback our team's idea received (feedback; group reflection; deep processing).  Afterward we shared our experiences with the entire class.

Given my ever present suspicion about the assertion of the superiority of the team over the individual, I will remark about group exercises.  I notice that in these short group exercises that it works best (i.e., the group finishes the assignment) if I do not challenge the logic of the group.  Not that I think my way is superior, but sometimes I think the group makes assumptions that not all members share and time is wasted in clarification and discussion of why group progress is heading in the direction it is going. 

Okay, so in my group, the group immediately started creating a strategy for introducing the entire learning scenario, and not a piece (which would have been my preference for it might have yielded cleaner application of the assignment concepts).  I decided to go with the flow, and in the end our team learned that some of the strategies we chose didn't quite fit from a timing perspective.  They learned this from the outside peer feedback session. (to be fair, one of the critiqued piece was my suggestion!) Had this been a real working scenario, I would be the fly in the ointment, however, in class I've learned to keep quiet.  In the end we did learn quite a bit from this exercise.

And Another Social Learning Type Thing...

With these posts today, I should be good for my reflecting on SLT in the future :-)

I wanted to reflect, briefly, on group learning.  My personal distaste for group assignments (can't explain why, just that I dislike it) colors my willingness to accept that learning can happen through working with a group.  But recent experiences -- whether I like it or not -- is causing me to have to CHANGE my belief about this concept (there's a principle or two out there in my mind that I can't retrieve that includes cognitive dissonance valence).  First, my experiences in these group exercises that Tiffany has us do in class DO assist in my understanding and application of the focus concepts and principles.  Second, my experience in discussing my change class paper assignment with Chuck.  In both these scenarios, discussing with others has improved my understanding and application, and hopefully my final outcomes.

Once again, I'm going to have to accept that those various theorists were correct about the value of social learning, and change my beliefs.   Oh, quick,  I should use change theory to dissect my CHANGE of heart!

Schema and script, here I come!

Risk of High Self-Efficacy

Some of these posts are not directly related to what happened in 621 class, however, they will relate to the concepts we are studying in class.

This post is about self-efficacy. Actually, we don't study this until a few week from now, but I accidentally read the social learning chapter (once again failing to read the syllabus and relying on my memory bites me in the time commitment)

Self-efficacy: A person's belief about how well they can do something.  With respect to learning stuff, I've developed REALLY high self-efficacy.  Having learned two of the world's most difficult languages -- Mandarin Chinese and Japanese -- having learned Spanish in nine weeks at age 40 + several years, having had to rely on self-study to learn half the extremely technical (science, computer science, physics and engineering) concepts that my various work positions expected me to learn, has taught me that I can learn and apply complex concepts and principles on my own.  (That I may have some incorrect understandings and poor organization of the things I've studied is a strong possibility.)

At any rate, my success at learning, combined with high achievement needs seems to have put me in a precarious situation this semester:  I took too many classes.  Three classes contain a lot of new concepts for which I do not already have existing knowledge.  The fourth -- Planned Change -- presents knowledge that I have from my business school and product development marketing work experience, supply applied in a different way.  Thankfully, this Change class makes it easier to accommodate? this knowledge and principles into my existing schema (ooh ;-) ).  However, the number of classes seems to color my perception of my ability to succeed at all four: My self-efficacy for each class, right now, is low.  I find myself having to use positive thinking ("just shut up and do the work; it will work out") or negotiation ("okay, I can take a hit on THIS assignment because it is only worth xx points") to counter-act my low self-efficacy.

Last night I talked with Chuck about my Change paper.   He helped me refocus my topic and outcome so that NOW I have greater self-efficacy for THAT class, and for my other classes as well.  I wonder if I'm applying this "self-efficacy" concept correctly.  Can self-efficacy be relative or cumulative?  

It's so cool to have vocabulary, concepts and principles -- theory -- to help describe my experience.  I never thought of myself as someone who had a use for theory.  Guess I was wrong.

Perception and Misconception

Here are a couple of incidences from last night's class that brought home the reality of reality, or rather, the power of one's perception to understand information that is received.

1) The learning strategies exercise. I simply COULD NOT understand the instructions of the  group exercise.  I WANTED to understand, however, something prevented me from grasping the instructions.  Something in how I perceived the assignment, in how I perceived the instructions prevented me from grasping the assignment.  Luckily George understood and helped our team finish the assignment.  I have moments like that quite often these days.

2) The last group exercise where we practiced analyzing an instructional situation.  This time the perception problem lay with a team mate.  He provided a beautiful response to a totally different question.  He even got me doubting my understanding of the assignment.   It wasn't until another team member stated that she did not think that his response addressed the question asked.  Later in our team discussion, it became clear that this same guy didn't understand what cognitive theory attempts to describe.  Our team spent significant time trying to get him to see that the process IS important to cognitive theorists.  Sadly, I don't think he changed his mind.

Week 8: On Being Mental

So today we started discussing cognitive learning theory.  I thought I understood, but then my understanding turned to mush in class when I tried to apply what I read.  Apparently "it' in there", finding it is the issue. 

About today's class and cognitive instructional strategies. 

1. Tiffany typically uses questions to have us apply what we've learned, and to INFER if learn has occurred.  Tonight was no difference.  
2. Periodically through out class she would ask us to define "learning" from a cognitive theory perspective to help us internalize the definition of learning for cognitivists.   
3. While reviewing famous cognitive theorists, she asked us to supply key terms and ideas for each theorist, and provided cues to help us supply the terms she wanted.  
4. While discussing perception, she went to a website where we looked at several images that were specifically designed to be interpeted in two ways.  This was a concrete and fun example to illustrate that perception is in the eye of the observer.
5. Several activities fostered deeper learning
1. the learning strategies exercise that we did in small groups
2. the exercise where we practiced applying cognitive concepts to one of three practice learning situation
3. after each group activity, she had us summarize what our groups discussed or created
6. Her powerpoint presentation served as way to organize some of the cognitive information we have read.
7. Scaffolded our learning about how to create instructional strategies by starting with an overview of the 9 point model for cognitive learning, then asked us what cognitive instruction is trying to achieve, then introduce Gagne' 9 events of instruction as a cognitive instructional theory, which applies the 9 point model for cognitive learning to instruction.

That's all I can retrieve for now.

Loving Omrod

Okay, I'm really liking the Omrod textbook.  Tiffany picks great texts.  In each of her classes -- 631, the distance ed class, and now 621 -- the texts have excellently communicated potentially complex and easily confounding material.  Furthermore, these texts afford rapid (more or less) reading of the material they present.  In other words, I can read them relatively rapidly and understand them.

What makes Omrod's text work?

1. Formatting.
   The text size, the use of white space, the occasional use of graphics, all work together to motive my eyes and brain to want to read the material.  Format can be a big deal for me.  Use of tiny print is hard for me to read, not simply because of the size, but I have a problem with my eye muscles that make it hard for me see a single line of text (I see two rows and use glasses to fuse them into one row).  Paragraphs of small text make it hard to fuse rows of sentences into single rows, which means more brain work is require to manage the physical act of reading.
   
   White space, combined with effective use of breaking concepts into smaller, succinct paragraphs help reduce the overwhelming nature of the content.  When texts try to pack too much info on a page, my brain screams, and I have to "force" myself to read.  Once I get started, I'm okay, but each time I have to restart the reading of such textbooks, I have a struggle with my brain.
   
   The use of lines to separate modules within a chapter is appreciated.  It's reinforces that "we're moving on to another module".
2. Motivation.
   Omrod's use of personal anecdotes at the beginning of the chapter motivates me to want to read the chapter.  She picks excellent anecdotes that clearly introduce the concepts that will be introduced in that chapter.  And she refers to them as makes sense in the chapter or in the book. 
   
   Whenever possible, she uses examples that use people -- specifically students -- to help explain or serve as evidence of concepts or principles.  Use of people examples over scientific lab examples makes the material more approachable, thus inducing motivation to continue reading.
3. Writing Style.
   Omrod's writing style is professional, yet causal enough to facilitate understanding.  There's another book I'm reading "Foundations of Program Evaluation" by Shaddish, Cook and Leviton, that use the writing styles of each of the authors, and none of these authors write in an easy to understand way.  It could be that the subject matter is simply so complex and multidimensional that there IS NO WAY to simplify writing about it.  Or it could be that these authors are academics and have an academic writing style that uses specific evaluation vocabulary.  Their writing style, combined with the 8 point font, making reading the book an excruciating experience.  And a de-motivating one because I never know if I "got it".  Even after we discuss in class, I still don't know if I "got" it.  Moving on....
   
   Her organization of chapter content facilitates understanding as well.  The summary presents the key concepts presented in the chapter.  The introductory sections clearly explain what will be presented.  Listing the concepts at the top of the chapter indicates what will be learned.  Each concept is introduced, explained, and has at least one example to clarify the point.  She knows how to introduce concepts in a way that builds so that by the end of the module or chapter, she has successfully explained very complex ideas.   Her level of detail is excellent; it does not overwhelm.

Yes I like this book.  Just thought I'd try to analyze why.

Deep Learning

So THAT's what Tiffany's up to.  Trying to get us to develop deep learning of the material she's introducing to us. 

Just finishing reading some material about deep learning strategies for another class.  As I read I keep thinking, "so  THAT's why she's making us do this or that."  Yay! I'm building schema!  Don't know how deep my learning goes.

A example of deep learning activities I recall from class are:

• Keeping a reflection journal in which we note our observations about class activities and strategies that Tiffany uses.
• Those "pair and share" activities in which she has us engage.
• The knowledge bases assignments
• The reflections we do for each knowledge base, which can serve as a self-assessment of said knowledge base
• The types of questions she asks during class (can't recall specifically right this moment, but they do attempt to get us to do more than exhibit declarative knowledge).

Cool.  

Who's On First...

Oh well, I can't find my notes from last class...

For some reason, I just don't get it, this theory, learning theory, instructional theory.  It's the word "theory" that trips me up.  Tiffany drew a graphic that helps, but we'll see if I can recall the difference next class.  The Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First" comes to mind... Here's a link to a clip of the routine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

Thank goodness Tiffany reviewed the KB assignment again.  I thought I understood it, but apparently I didn't.  Maybe because I'm stressed that I just can't seem to follow directions this semester.  But back to the class.

After class I asked Tiffany ignoring a student when they give a wrong answer is a negative reinforcement or a negative punishment.  We decided that it depends on the student.  If the student dislikes getting ignored, then the student will reduce giving wrong answers -- then silence is a negative punishment.  If the student increases giving correct answers, then the silence is a negative reinforcement. 

While it seems that instructors tend to favor one theory to explain learning, it is possible to chose an alternative theory if the situation warrants it.  For example, if you are a cognitivist, but the learner is an animal, then wouldn't you use behaviorist instructional theories to teach the animal?

Oh well, if I find my class notes, I'll add more about my impressions of last class.

Behaviorism, Part 1

 Today we began the discussion of behaviorism.

Tiffany changed the rules of class engagement to demonstrate how a behaviorist approach is used to teach behaviorism.

She used positive reinforcement when we produced the correct responses.  She threw Halloween candy at us.  Everyone but George was into the candy.  George tried to refuse the chocolate, but Tiffany insisted he take it and then give it away.  Not all learners value the same type of reinforcement.

She had us repeat the definition of behaviorist learning through out class -- repetition of the desired S-R behavior increases learning.  In this case the S was the question and the R was, well, the response.

She gave plenty of feedback, including sounds of disapproval and grimaces whenever we failed to produce the desired response.

After we demonstrated a basic knowledge of some of the behaviorist learning concepts, Tiffany gave us programmed instructional learning tool.  The booklet contain 34 pages that broke down learning into chunks of information.  Concepts were introduced in chunks, and then every other page we were assessed to determine mastery.  If we answered the questions correctly (demonstrating mastery/behavior change), we were rewarded with the right to progress to the next concept chunk.

She used operant conditioning to get to raise our hands to seek permission to speak.  She used positive reinforcement (candy) when we raised our hands and answered correctly, and positive punishment (withdrawal of attention, aka ignoring us) when we exhibited the undesired behavior of speaking without raising our hands and waiting to be called on.  This reduced our tendency to call out answers and comments.

We also had the opportunity to practice applying behaviorist concepts to work in teams to design a instructional strategy for a instructional scenario.  This demonstrated to Tiffany what we learned thus far.  She gave feedback, but not any reinforcement that I can identify.

For me, the one the biggest take a ways was expanding my understanding of what activities are considered behavior, stimulus, response, reinforcement. 

I think I might have learned something.  At least my observed behavior in today's class indicates that learning may have occurred.

Week Three: I'm trying to think but nothing happens

Okay. I'm feeling overwhelmed by this course.  On the one hand, the knowledge base (KB) assignment sounds really cool, but on the other hand it's scary.   If I just following the rubric I should be able to do it.

Philosophy. Theory. Strategy. Between IDE 621, 651 & 741, I've read these definitions and examples a billion times in the last three weeks, and yet my brain hurts whenever I think about the definitions for these terms.  Clearly I'm a constructivist/cognitivist, but my brain won't construct or cognate or epistemologize or .... To quote Curly from The Three Stooges, "I'm trying to think but nothing happens." 

So what did I observe in today's class....
Constructivism is a philosophy (I forgot that from last class).  That learning theory describes and can't be applied, but instructional design theory prescribes methods and strategies.  That my dog can't teach me anything.  I liked the terminology exercise we did in class.  I liked opening the definitions up for discussion in the class.  Hearing fellow classmates definitions and explanations helped bring me closer to an understanding of the terms we discussed.  Social learning?

We had three activities where we broke into groups to discuss.  It didn't seem that any of these three opportunities to discuss was a fruitful as discussions that were held in other groups seemed to be.  Especially the ice cream sundae exercise.  Our team barely go through the instructions for how to make the sundae.  We never got to create a instructional strategy with job aides, diagrams, practice, etc.  It was interesting how each group heard the assignment.  We focused on the steps, not the design of the instruction.  But I like this method of using us to generate examples of learning issues, of instructional issues, etc.

Let the learning begin!

This class is definitely more organized and learner friendly than that IDE756 Management of Distance Education course I took with Tiffany this summer. 

Yeah, yeah, I KNOW. These are two different types of classes: 756 was an online class, and the 621 is a face class.  And I know that Tiffany put intentional confusion in the organization and structuring of the online class so that we could experience the kinds of confusion that can befall an online/distance learning class environment. 

That being said, I can certainly appreciate the work Tiffany puts into organizing blackboard for 621:

• assignments and deliverable dates were not spread out over several locations
• expectation are clearly spelled out
• she has limited the number of blackboard features to which we have access
• she walked us through the blackboard class site and explained how things work
  

And effort she has put into refining the process in which she introduces these potentially overwhelming and confusing learning terminology and concepts was evident in tonight's class.

• I loved the overview of philosophies, learning theories, learning strategies, using the pyramid and showing the connection between the philosophies and theories and strategies.  I was able to following this 30K foot explanation.  Typically I get overwhelmed and confused by philosophies and theories.  But not so tonight.  
• the name game was a simple way to review prior knowledge of learning strategies
• the elephant exercise was an effective way to solicit prior knowledge of an instructional model (i.e., Gagne's 9 Events), as well as to bring awareness of the challenges learners face internally when receiving instruction.
• the fact that she used a combination methods to engage us versus a lecture with powerpoint.  We drew, we strategized, we presented, we interacted.

Right now,  the fact that we will be learning and applying learning theories to frame our instruction seems very overwhelming to me.  But I also feel that if I just apply what Tiffany teaches, I should be able to do this.  I'm not a philosophy/theory type of gal.  THEORIES?  I don't need no stinking theories.