Design instructional programs based on learning principles and theories
What is an instructional program that is not based on learning principles and theories? During this reflection, I rediscovered the intertwined nature of learning theories within all forms of communication. From education and professional communication to marketing and entertainment, communicators want their audiences to retain information: Their meeting objectives, their brand, their lesson, their story. Therefore, an instructional program that is not based on learning principles and theories is forgotten.
Entertainers use behaviorism when they titillate audiences with novel or suspenseful situations, visuals or stories. For example, viewers’ brains release dopamine, a pleasure hormone, whenever suspenseful situations are resolved (Lehne M., Engel P., Rohrmeier M., Menninghaus W., Jacobs A.M., Koelsch S., 2015). The entertainment industry uses constructivism when it replays snippets of previous episodes to remind audiences what led up to the current episode. Audiences use operational learning (also called social learning theory) to learn from the characters and situations depicted. Constructivism describes the way the industry relies on the viewer to fill in missing information.
Similarly, imagine a professional e-mail chain as an instructional program: A regional director communicates to middle management that sales must increase. She sends a bulleted list of instructions for increasing sales. The behaviorist cycle of reward and punishment is implied in the declaration. The list of instructions is akin to cognitivism as it is meant to change behavior by providing information. The flurry of subsequent e-mails between colleagues expresses constructionism: Collaborating in a group to construct understanding from past and/ or collective experiences. Bandura synthesizes this triad with his theory of behavior which posits: behavior is controlled by external stimuli, or consequences or symbolic processes (Bandura, 1977).
Although learning theories permeate my professions; education and library-work, my experience of learning theories and principles has increasingly focused on the idea that less words mean more; a brevity principle. As a Montessori teacher trainee, I learned to distill introductory lessons to three words: e.g. “Division. This is division.” As a philosophy undergraduate, I was challenged to write arguments with the smallest number of words possible. The department head valued concision above creative writing. Again, in technical writing, I learned to edit my communication to the essential ideas. In LIBR 254: Information Literacy and Learning, the MLIS professor presented statistics about the poor performance of long tutorials. She limited our teaching modules to thirty seconds or less.
To me, basing instructional programs on research-supported principles is not just a class requirement but a life-long curiosity. I want to know how people learn. What is human potential? This vein of questioning is especially pertinent in the information overload age because humans are delegating increasing amounts of information to devices. We don’t memorize phone numbers anymore. We store memories on a digital wall and in computer folders and cell phone photo albums. Doctors are now trained to search for information rather than hold it all in their consciousness and recall it on-demand with accuracy.
Competency K is essentially about communicating so clearly that others can, indeed they must remember. Many information professions require education communication: Diversity training, technical writing, providing reference services and interpersonal communication. Barriers that prevent communication prevent education.
My MLIS journey has been a transition from a non-tech person a tech-savvy communicator. Creating instructional materials based on learning principles and theories using technology has been a central theme. In LIBR 250 I created a QuickMOOC, Virtual Learning Commons, Transformations A, B and C (lesson plan templates), a Big Think, tutorials, screencasts and support resources. These resources were based on works by Loertscher, Koechlin, & Zwaan. Info 254: Information Literacy and Learning, focused on learning theory, practical applications and teaching information literacy. Ultimately, I learned to create thirty-second on-demand screencasts that answer specific patron questions. With practice, I learned to create focused learning tools in seconds, not minutes.
My work experience includes two teaching jobs. I learned the Montessori method in a one-year teacher training course in which we designed curriculum, made materials and learned how to present materials. I learned to use the method to focus students’ attention by eliminating extraneous words. The principle of few words meaning more was central to some of my MLIS courses as well. The year after the teacher training, I opened a Montessori school in a challenging area of Chicago, Illinois where I put the training into practice.
A decade later, I volunteered to teach art for a new charter school whose funding for all specials had been cut. I used my background in education, art and philosophy to design an experienced-based curriculum whose materials were art, but whose process was education philosophy. I put the students into situations where they would feel something: excitement, anticipation, urgency. The curriculum focused on using the students’ brains different from their traditional classes. For example, to support a third-grade science teacher, I created stations where students built planets. The gas giant station included Styrofoam balls on a stick. First, students rolled the balls in baking soda until well-coated. Then they choose colored vinegar in mist-spray bottles and worked in pairs to spray the baking-soda balls with the vinegar. The planets foamed and steamed; fumed and dripped. The students had an impactful experience taking turns spraying, turning and dipping the planets to mimic different gas giants. I used excitement, smell, anticipation, collaboration and action to fully engage students in learning about planetary attributes.
The MLIS experience contributed to my understanding of instructional design through experience with many learning tools: Blackboard Collaborate, online quizzes, discussion forums, videos, slideshows, audio lessons and screencasts. It provided opportunities to put principles into practice. Most importantly, it revealed my weaknesses and gave me the opportunity to learn skills such as education technology, student collaboration, education assessment and team teaching.
Evidence 1
The INFO 254 Final Assignment demonstrates my mastery of using focused vocabulary to teach information literacy skills to undergraduates. The set of screencasts is silent: Less words mean more when students are first introduced to a concept (Montessori, 1917). Neurobiologist David Eagleman (2011) said, “People have a finite amount of bandwidth to attend to the details of any given moment.” The assignment was to create a resource for increasing students’ ability to use Google by using controlled vocabulary, punctuation or syntax. I built a website, choose useful punctuation and syntax tools and illustrated at least one sample search per tool with a screencast. The screencasts are links from the resource page to the screencast platform, Jing at Screencast.com. They can be applied to several applications: embedded in university library websites at the point of use, included in information literacy classes and, when applicable, they can be used to educate patrons during online reference interviews. The screencasts illustrate my ability to educate with focused, brief vocabulary on a technology platform.
Evidence 2
QuickMOOC is an acronym that stands for: Massive open online classes. It is the third stage of a learning system designed by Dr. David V. Loertscher. Its purpose is to collaboratively engage students via technology. They are social, evolving, free education resources for both teachers and students (Loertscher, Koechlin & Zwaan, 2009).
The QuickMOOC’s platform is a website. It includes project resources, discussion pages and surveys. The teacher posts information there, but the students can interact with the material, teacher, mentors and classmates. They can make their own changes to the website by adding content, asking questions and using or posting tutorials, pictures and videos. Generally, a QuickMOOC consists of five pages: Home, getting started, gallery, workshop and the big think. The Getting Started page contains a class survey and lectures. The Gallery page contains resources that will enrich students’ understanding of the topic and help them attain key skills and knowledge. It may include tutorials, images and videos. The workshop is a place to post mini-modules that convey short bursts of information that will move the group closer to understanding the topic. Students and teachers can post material to the Workshop page. The Big Think is largely a discussion, or debriefing page. Its purpose is to put it all together. After each lesson or project, Dr. Loertscher encourages educators to ask, “So what?”. He challenges students to apply the project to their lives; to exhibit learning by challenging each other and explaining how their behavior is changing because of the project. The Big Think is a platform for applying knowledge, discussing creative applications and discovering important follow-up questions.
I included the QuickMOOC as evidence of my experience creating instructional programs because it embodies the collaborative, constructivist and social learning theories. It shows my experience creating collaborative learning environments and my potential for co-teaching. The QuickMOOC is a convenient platform for overlapping information literacy training with subject-specific content. Teachers from several disciplines can contribute learning modules; broadening the scope of learning.
Evidence 3
The purpose of Reflection, for LIBR 254, was to synthesize education research and identify areas of personal weakness. First, I researched the history of education. Then I compared the research against my prior education on learning methods and theory. Then I used exposed weaknesses to identify a reading list. The purpose of the reading list was to correct my deficiencies. The reflection paper shows that I have studied the history of education methods and understand how they work together. This methodological interdependence reveals itself in most of my education materials and curriculum design. The reflection explains why I prefer to combine education methods. While individual work-products do not always express my penchant for combining education methods, evidence 3 does make it clear that I do not subscribe to or rely on any single education method.
Over the past two decades, I learned that more words mean less. From earning my undergraduate degree in Philosophy to Montessori training, and recently, studying for the MLIS, I have learned to choose a few effective words rather than to communicate what my senior high school teacher, Mr. Edwards called, “superfluous crap” (SC). Since then, I have learned to cut SC out of my lessons and get to the point. My art students enjoyed more time interacting with the learning materials because I presented the new material and got out of their way. All the words I left out of the lesson manifested as questions the students discovered on their own through experience. The experiential style of encountering problems in context was more effective than telling students about it. The brevity principle also manifests in my short e-mails to colleagues, the silent training screencasts for LIBR 254 and my direct communication style.
I have fully absorbed the value of collaborative learning. I used the lessons about collaborative education methods to design an interactive virtual learning center, collaborative support resources and team teaching resources. Whether designing lessons for students or training materials for colleagues, I will use the most inclusive, group-centered approach to learning because each person is the reflection of a whole lifetime of learning that differs from mine, classmates’ and colleagues’. The combination of individuals’ knowledge is itself a powerful learning tool.
Above all, I have learned how to translate abstract ideas into instructional experiences. This includes flexibility; letting students fail, which is followed by discovery and more focused questioning than cognitive reasoning alone. Moving ideas from abstractions to concrete examples by using analogies, activities and real-life examples educates/communicates more efficiently than do ideas that neglect students’ egos. Get feelings involved. Activate five senses. Raise the stakes. As a teaching librarian I will get students on their feet discovering and experiencing information literacy.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Eagleman, D., (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. Pantheon Books. New York, NY.
Lehne M., Engel P., Rohrmeier M., Menninghaus W., Jacobs A.M., Koelsch S. (2015). Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124550
Loertscher D., Koechlin C., Zwaan S. (2009). The big think: 9 metacognative strategies that make the end just the beginning of learning. Hi Willow Research & Publishing. Salt Lake City, UT.
Montessori M. (1917). Spontaneous activity in education: The advanced Montessori method. Frederick A. Stokes Company. New York, NY.
Evidence 1
https://sites.google.com/site/info254marlonssonguide/
http://www.screencast.com/t/8NxGv0dKDJun
Evidence 2
http://transformationc.weebly.com/
Evidence 3
INFO 254 Reflection
The three-part tutorial set synthesized the skills and attitudes we learned in INFO 254.The take-away is an ability to create flexible digital learning materials that can be tailored to individual students without a moment’s notice. These tutorials can be added to larger sets or included in student correspondence. This course dovetails very well with Dr. Loertscher’s learning resources class, which culminated in the creation of a virtual learning commons. Now I can improve the quality of that work product with screencasts, websites and assessment tools.
Evidence
My Reading Plan identifies three major areas of deficiency: Educational Theory, Curriculum and Assessment, and 21st Century Skills/ Information literacy. The 21st century skills section was my most concerning area, but now I’m feeling more competent. I learned that I knew less that I thought about curriculum and assessment. Collaboration is a familiar area for me so I focused on collecting information about communicating during collaborations.
Educational Theory and Practice
Models of education should overlap. Like gears that turn each other, models should be combined to form a complete machine. A purely student-centered approach can lack discipline and structure. A test-centered approach can damage creativity. This paper seeks to explore education models by comparing their compatibility. What combinations of education models does the literature advocate?
The authors of Curriculum Construction and Teacher Empowerment: Supporting Invitational Education with a Creative Problem Solving Model (Chant, Moes & Ross) advocate the combination of the Creative Problem-solving Model with Invitational Education to foster creativity in increasingly test driven environments. Creative Problem-solving refers to Osborne-Parnes model based on research that identifies and articulates the steps used to solve problems. They developed a six-step process in three stages to deliberately increase creativity (Torrance & Torrance). Invitational Education posits that democratic collaboration is a key aspect of learning (Chant, Moes & Ross). In their 2009 case study, Chant Moes and Ross (2009) used the principles of Invitation Education to enhance the probability of successful CPS student collaborations base on the hypothesis that creativity is a function of social environment rather than an isolated trait as previously thought.
Karnes and And (1985) advocate the combination of differentiated curriculum into open classroom environments using the intellect model for the underlying structure of classroom activities—all of which emphasizes productive and creative thinking. Differentiated curriculum is understood in terms of three dimensions: content, process and product. Content is the material, process is the delivery of the material and product is the students’ understanding, or interaction with the material (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin). Differentiated curriculum is designed to adjust to the ability level of the students. This idea is closely related to research on multiple intelligences and learning styles. The structure of intellect model (SOI), focuses on 26 learning abilities which are organized into modules. One-hundred fifty components of intelligence are reflected in the model. Curiously, SOI also categorizes information into three segments: Content, process and product.
This survey of education models in the context of their combined use in the classroom reveals the importance of knowing the history behind each model, because tracing the lineage of ideas leads to complementary models. More importantly, a firm grasp of the development of models helps teachers connect ideas. For example, the Montessori method is closely related to constructivism; also called the discovery model. The literature shows that constructivism is closely related to experiential learning. Splan, Porr & Broyles (2011) describe the two as aligned: The difference being that constructionism is concerned with the underlying epistemological aspect of knowing/ discovering. Experiential learning is the process by which minds construct.
References
Chant, R. H., Moes, R., & Ross, M. (2009). Curriculum Construction and Teacher Empowerment: Supporting Invitational Education with a Creative Problem Solving Model. Journal Of Invitational Theory And Practice, 1555-67.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development, and Teacher Efficacy. Journal for The Education Of The Gifted, 37(2), 111-127.
Karnes, M. B., & And, O. (1983). Combining Instructional Models for Young Gifted Children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15(3), 128-35.
Splan, R. K., Porr, C. S., & Broyles, T. W. (2011). Undergraduate Research in Agriculture: Constructivism and the Scholarship of Discovery. Journal Of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 56-64.
Torrance, E. P., Torrance, J. P. (1978). Developing Creativity Instructional Materials According to the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Model.Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, v3 n2 p80-90 Sum 1978
Curriculum
Universal Design of Instruction (UDI) is an appropriate place to start this discussion of Curriculum and Assessment because it can underlie other curriculum designs. UDI is an approach to curriculum design that focuses on increasing access. While the term has been connected with disabled students, it is more generic; referring to reducing barriers in the learning environment and increasing access to instruction and curriculum (Rao, Ok & Bryant). According to Rao, Ok & Bryant (2014), the guiding principles of UID include: Communicating clear expectations, including instruction for diverse learning styles, providing diverse methods for students to demonstrate their learning, creating welcoming classrooms, providing feedback that is constructive and timely, promoting school-wide communication and exploring natural learning supports e.g. technology. The terms (Universal Design Learning) UDL and Universal Design (UD) meet similar but separate sets of benchmarks. Now let us layer a different curriculum design on this framework.
What comes to mind is the Core Knowledge Curriculum (CKC), not to be confused with the Common Core, CKC was designed by E.D. Hirsch in 1986. The way universal education concepts relate to CKC is to make accessibility a priority. Without a UDI-type, underlying directive, the CKC can leave some students cut off from instruction due to the sheer pace of instruction, time expectations and volume of material (based on anecdotal evidence collected over a decade from school reviews by parents).
The conclusion of the article: The Influence of the Curriculum Organization on Study Progress in Higher Education (Jansen) reflects common parental opinion of CKC curriculum that is not coupled with a mandate of universality. Jansen (2004) found that more students could complete a course of study when the curriculum reduced its reading load and implemented a more focused curriculum (Jansen).
Assessment
Computation curriculum-based measurement probes refer to a method of charting student progress as they work through computational problems. The method is extremely time intensive but yields precise, actionable data the teacher can correct and assess later. The teacher must copy each missed computation into a chart exactly as it was written and log un-attempted problems as such (Dennis, Calhoon, Olson, & Williams). Over time the teacher logs the data and periodically analyses the computational errors to determine what specific errors are occurring.
Similarly time intensive and sometimes inconsistent are Student Learning Objectives (SLOs). This assessment method relies on teachers to declare what targets a successful student will reach. Value added models (VAMs) however, use end of course data to measure student success (Gill, English, Furgeson, McCullough, et. al.).
References
Dennis, M. S., Calhoon, M. B., Olson, C. L., & Williams, C. (2014). Using Computation Curriculum-Based Measurement Probes for Error Pattern Analysis. Intervention in School And Clinic, 49(5), 281-289.
Gill, B., English, B., Furgeson, J., McCullough, M., Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, (., & National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (. (2014). Alternative Student Growth Measures for Teacher Evaluation: Profiles of Early-Adopting Districts. REL 2014-016. Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic,
Jansen, E. A. (2004). The Influence of the Curriculum Organization on Study Progress in Higher Education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education And Educational Planning, 47(4), 411-435.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models. Remedial And Special Education, 35(3), 153-166.
Collaboration
A great outdoorswoman, Jan Hosnick, once told me she could tell if a young couple would stay married by the way they communicated while learning to maneuver a canoe. Recent psychology articles are reporting on communication cues that indicate future success or failure of relationships. For example, eye rolling indicates a level of contempt that could eventually end a relationship; which is ultimately a collaboration. Similarly, a 2014 study of tense revealed communication trends that predict collaboration success or failure. The study found that micro-events can be detected by parts-of-speech tags and applied to collaborative virtual education applications (Thompson, Kennedy-Clark, Wheeler, & Kelly).
Communication is vital to collaboration. A 2014 article, How Communication and Collaboration Contribute to School Improvement (Rubenstein) analyzed the density of teacher to teacher interaction, teachers’ strategic improvement priorities, motivation for collaborating, sustaining characteristics and support infrastructure along with type of school/ demographics to find what factors predict successful collaborations. The study found that number of interactions between teachers dramatically increase rates of collaboration (Rubenstein). Rubenstein advocates institutionalizing a support structure for collaborative behaviors and to change school culture.
References
Rubinstein, S. A. (2014). Strengthening Partnerships: How Communication and Collaboration Contribute to School Improvement. American Educator, 37(4), 22-28.
Thompson, K., Kennedy-Clark, S., Wheeler, P., & Kelly, N. (2014). Discovering Indicators of Successful Collaboration Using Tense: Automated Extraction of Patterns in Discourse. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 45(3), 461-470.
Information Literacy/21st Century Skills
21st century skills have changed information literacy. The transition from individual bookwork to a group project and technology orientation requires a full paradigm shift. O'Sullivan and Dallas (2010), advocate strategic changes in high school graduation requirements. The suggested requirements are based on college and workforce needs as reported by Jobs for the Future. Employers need employees who can synthesize data across media and process complex information while evaluating the legitimacy of the sources (O'Sullivan, & Dallas). Information and Computer Literacy (ICL) performance assessments can be used to measure high school students’ ability to retrieve, analyze and communicate online information, but O’Sullivan and Dallas (2010) found that ICLs are not helpful because college courses are structured differently: College professors require students to figure out complex problems that do not have obvious answers. The kind of thinking necessary to find evidence, draw conclusions and support a position must be cultivated with increased academic rigor—in partnership with literacy instruction by the librarian. This collaborative approach to teaching literacy combined with increased academic rigor is becoming the new normal.
Instead of creating new graduation requirements, the state of Montana has commissioned a study to determine how best to incorporate the 21st century skills related to information, communication and technology into every school subject (Bartow). The Montana Board of Education went so far as to mandate regular reviews of curricula to ensure that students keep up with national standards, achievement measures and meet the suggested benchmarks of technology experts (Bartow). Most interestingly, Montana decided to keep school technology standards separate from library media standards.
This section is a useful reminder that new policies are like New Year’s resolutions. Setting ones intention, using, a focus group if you must, but evaluate the situation and draft a new way forward.
References
Bartow, C. (2009). How One State Established School Library/Technology Standards. School Library Monthly, 26(3), 19-21.
O'Sullivan, M. K., & Dallas, K. B. (2010). A Collaborative Approach to Implementing 21st Century Skills in a High School Senior Research Class. Education Libraries,33(1), 3-9.