We've Moved

I know...It's been a while since I've posted to this blog. Just in case you've stumbled upon it and want to talk instructional technology and design, please meet me at Twitter. www.twitter.com/tamankwatia

Instructional Designers vs. Instructional Technologists?

I've recently found myself wondering (again) how much people really know about the instructional design field.

I've been trying to hire a designer and have everyone from talent and performance coaches to graphic artists applying for the position. I've met wonderfully gifted people, but wonder how well instructional designers are able to communicate what we do and how well people can distinguish our talents and skills from some of the other sub-skills (such as gap analyses and assessments and graphic design) that inform our work. I have also run into the talented instructional technologist that applies for the instructional designer job. Why do you think this is the case?

Negative Knowledge and Instructional Design

Winn (2003) acknowledged that the instructional design field was currently being forced to rethink the procedures it applies to instructional design when it accepts the assumptions of cognitive theory. One such cognitive theory that appears worth exploring is Bickhard’s (2001) naturalized model of rationality with a focus on the dynamics of learning about error—what counts as error—and handling error knowledge—developing a kind of internalized variation and selection, or quasi-evolutionary reflective process. Designing learning environments to construct this type of “negative” knowledge seems largely neglected in instruction, and yet is relevant for providing learners with an understanding of why and how “positive” knowledge works.

Various findings from studies involving error detection and feedback seem to substantiate the potential boon of negative knowledge to learners. For example, some human-computer interface researchers found that learners were willing to learn by exploration but were often lost, even with the aid of manuals, when they encountered irrecoverable errors (Carroll, 1981; Carroll, Mack, Lewis, Grischowsky & Roberston, 1985; Rieman & Young, 1996). Also, students in a foreign language study revealed they learned more from self-correction (Chandler, 2003). Further, Chambers (1994) reported that learners sometimes got conflicting explanations about their errors from teachers and that teachers and researchers who know a subject well had difficulty seeing things from learners’ perspectives. Furthermore, a study recommended that assessment developers design tests that enable learners to demonstrate their skills and knowledge and for teachers to help learners apply appropriate problem solving and metacognitive skills (Boston, 2003). Each of these studies seems to support a need for instructional designs based on a rationality model for constructing and evaluating knowledge about errors or error types to enhance student learning.

Reflections on Perelman's School's Out

Perleman (1993) claimed that the present US educational system is a threat to our economy. He argured that the function of schools and the purpose of degrees do not support preparing people to work with hyperlearning tools in a knowledge-based economy that will require "mindcraft" instead of handicraft. Perleman's article and book School's Out: A Radical New Formula for the Revitalization of America's Educational System(1992) asked some important questions that could guide real education reform. For example, his comments on the accessiblity of technology by the "have and the have nots," revising the nature of vouchers, the potential of anytime, anywhere access to information, and the reasons for past government reform failures are important factors in real school reform. However, his fantasies about how and why hyperlearning(HL) will make teachers, schools, and credentials obsolete were tenuous, at best.

For instance, his argument about the role of the Microsoft Access "Wizards" and "Cue Cards" did not reflect the nature of teaching and learning. He claimed that the HL would make schools obsolete because an Access's wizard could replace a professional programmer by asking questions that only required a click as the wizard performed the work. He said that Cue Cards provide a coaching function and would situate learning within the data the person is working through. These "expert" systems he stated would make the teacher obsolete by providing just-in time training and information. However, his example says nothing about the true nature of learning and teaching. It is not apparent by asking a wizard that students have moved through any of Bloom's (1971) domains of learning. It is also not an assurance that any of these HL technologies are designed well to support learning and thinking in ways that the Bishop framework (2000) suggested. The example of using an expert system was a poor example of teaching. The manner in which it conveyed the know-how was no different from direct instruction by a teacher. The only new information he introduced was situating learning and immediate feedback and access to information. A teacher with students in a constructivist one-to-one learning environment can accomplish this and more.

Finally, Perleman's fantasies about attaining and showing competency without credentials was also weak. It would be highly inefficient not to have some type of certification to assess the baseline information workers and students need to operate in certain environments. Did he really think that someone who believes he can be a heart surgeon can perform a successful operation by using hyperlearning tutorials? How many tutorials does one need to go through and for how long before he or she is deemed competent? Does he think that assessment and competency don't play a role in the conferring of a degree or certificate? His argument would be stronger and more credible if he suggested we reform aspects of or degrees and not eliminate them.

References:
Bishop, M. J. (2000). The systematic use of sound in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(07), 2669.

Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Perleman, L.J. (1992). School's out: A radical new formula for the revitalization of Amercia's educational system. New York: Avon Books.

Perelman, L. (1993). School’s out: The hyperlearning revolution will replace public education. Wired Magazine, 1(1), March/April. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/hyperlearning.html.

Implications of Assessment Reform on Learning

During this season of new government-mandated assessments, the critical eye has been cast once again toward traditional selected-response type testing. In general, these critical educators and administrators contend that assessments such as multiple choice test cannot validly and adequately measure higher-order thinking and student performance in real-world contexts. I agree. It is indeed doubtful that an objective test on decontextualized grammar and spelling "rules" will ever tell us how effectively a student can compose a focused, coherent essay.

This time of educational assessment reform and accountability should also present opportunities for a fresh look at total learning reform. That is, we can take real steps to shift our view from merely improving teaching and instructional material to helping learners improve and understand their own learning processes. With this view, our instructional strategies and material, learning environments, and curriculum all would be candidates for reform. All of the aforementioned aspects of learning (including assessment) should be and can be reformed in tandem. An NCREL's (http://www.ncrel.org/) Pathwa yto School Improvement article Critical Issue: Rethinking Assessment and Its Role in Supporting Educational Reform (Bond, 1995) addressed all of these issues. It pointed out that assessment reform can be viewed as a means for reforming student learning goals, curriculum, and staff development programs.

The article also conveyed the attitudes of some who claim that "we have to teach to the test" or "what gets assessed is what gets taught." In order for our students to do well on current assessments, I do not believe that educators have to abandon teaching underlying concepts for skills in order for students to succeed. Neither do I believe that they have to abandon all constructivist instructional activities in favor of only direct instruction in order for students to do well. In fact, I believe an eclectic approach helps strengthen the case for assessment reform that includes alternate assessments and greater teacher participation.

The encoding specificity principle that holds that retrieval cues should match the original encoding conditions comes into play here (Tulving, 1983). The teacher provides the greatest guidance concerning the encoding strategies employed during instruction. So, he or she must not be left out of the assessment reform process. And, when a teacher is asked how she aligned her instructional activities and assessment, she could respond that "I contextualized learning experiences. For example, to help prompt implicit memory processes, I provided the tools and opportunities for learners to rehearse procedures and skills in authentic contexts. They transferred skills by trying them in related contexts after some time (reliability). Now, let's figure out how we can best demonstrate for you indicators of their performance. How can we make students' creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and assessment skills visible in a reliable and valid manner?"

References:
Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Retrieved April 14, 2006, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Web Site:http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cultural Diversity and Learning Environments

Most likely you've heard that without attention, learning cannot take place. A culturally responsive learning environment is an important way to to gain attention, convey relevance, build confidence, and increase satisfaction for learners. What role does cultural diversity play in your evaluation of learning environments and instructional materials? Reeves(1997) challenged educators to be sensitive to diversity and pluralism as a value and to create learning environments that are enriched by the values inherent in various cultures. But how?

For a good pedagogical and theoretical background, see Culturally Responsive Teaching by Geneva Gay(2000) and Multicultural Education by James Banks (1994). I've also developed my own principles for creating culturally diverse learning environments based on my experience as an instructional designer and an educator who has taught internationally and diverse learners.

Principles for Creating Culturally Diverse Learning Environments1. Avoid a superficial, simplistic level of content integration that is normally evidenced by over-generalizations and stereotypes or a single-subject application (e.g. reading instruction only during Black History month).
2. Determine the credibility of any source to accurately represent customs, rituals, traditions and social norms of various cultures.
3. Have others share their perceptions of how closely the learning environment aligns with their history and experiences.
4. Eliminate all derogatory words and portrayals based on things such as gender, ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic status.
5. Communicate verbally and non verbally to all learners that you care and they count by

• setting high standards
• providing equitable learning opportunities
• providing high quality instructional materials
• utilizing various teaching strategies

References:
Banks, J. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reeves, T. C. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Bloom in the Springtime

I think spring is a good time to reflect on the contributions of Benjamin S. Bloom, a native of Pennsylvania. This entry will comment on his ideas on learning for mastery. Bloom's contention was that schools provide successful learning experiences for only some students, and that student, teacher, and administrator attitudes, along with teaching strategies and evaluation processes needed to change in order provide success for at least 90% of students (see Bloom, 1968, 1971).

Bloom made some good observations that should be revisited today by educators. I believe that students, teachers, administrators (and parents) at schools such as Vann Elementary might find many answers to their tremendous struggles. Vann is an inner-city school in Pittsburgh plagued by the pressures school administration and teachers put on low-income, disadvantaged minority students to meet the requirements of PA's standardized tests.

Bloom argued that mastery learning requires five conditions which can be summarized as differentiated instructional strategies, absolute standards, and time. Bloom believed that aptitude tests are better predictors of the rate of learning rather than the level of learning. Some of Vann's students come from homes where the parent(s) or guardian didn't successfully complete high school and do not supervise the student's homework and learning for various reasons including having to work long hours or being disengaged due to a drug dependency. These conditions work against the effort, time, and support needed for students to achieve and demonstrate mastery in basic subjects. The challenge is for educators to find the materials and methods to assure the greatest level of student achievement on standardized test.

References:
Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1 (2). University of California, Los Angeles. (ED 053 419)