ID Meets IT Part 12: Learning Objects and Repositories

My first reaction, or association rather, when watching the presentation on learning objects was the site Learn NC, an online collection of learning resources aimed at NC Educators. While perhaps not the best example of an online repository of learning objects, Learn NC is a fairly extensive collection of not only lessons and articles related to North Carolina teaching standards, but also contains a decent collections of what could be considered "learning objects", or rather digital resources that could be used to facilitate learning. In a sense, learning objects remind me of set of Legos in that they can be selected and used to for a variety of purposes based on the designs of the creator. Ideally, an instructional designer could locate a number of these learning Legos related to a given topic and create a meaningful lesson from them in much the same way my fourth graders could magically assemble an rebel X-wing from a seemingly disparate set of plastic blocks. However, as any moderately tech savvy teacher can tell you, and as mentioned by Wiley as a potential paradox with learning objects, is that finding a learning objects that fits your instructional context can be a challenge. On the one hand, if they are general enough to be reusable, their actual use may be quite limited; and if they are specific enough to be useful, they may not be applicable to your instructional context or, more likely, very difficult to locate.  However, if you are able to locate a suitable learning objects, this can save a great deal of time in having to create one yourself.

As an instructor I've used learning objects both online and off. My offline collection of "learning objects" consisted of rack full of plastic bins that contained a variety of content area manipulatives. There were math learning wrap-ups, flash cards, pattern blocks, Cuisenaire  rods,  fraction bars, dice, counters, chips, circuit boards, geoboards, game boards and quite a bit more.  On their own, their instructional value was limited (though the entertainment value for the imaginative was without bound), but combined with a well designed plan, their instructional potential was unlimited. I think that digital learning objects share these characteristics with their offline companions. Stand alone learning objects need a well designed plan to really make use of the instructional potential. I wish I could relay in the next couple of sentences exactly how this is done, but my own experiences utilizing digital learning objects is seems fairly basic compared to what's possible. On our classroom website, I incorporate a number of images, games, clips, etc. into online instructional units, and had a "toolbox" and discussion rooms that contained a set of links to learning objects centered on a given topic, but these objects were used minimally compared to our offline learning objects. This partly due to limited access, and greater experience and ready-made lessons with offline objects.

Fortunately, there are growing number of online resources that make it easier to incorporate digit learning objects into meaningful lessons. For those of you with SMART Boards, the SMART Exchange has become the go to source for everything SMART board. What used to be a chore is... well, honestly is still kind of a chore, but it has made finding resources to use in SMART Board enhanced lessons a little less painful.  Or, if you happen to be Canadian, the Virtual Muesum of Canade --and large scale museum sites in general are great repositories of LOs-- is an amazing collection of potential learning objects related to all things Canada, including, but not limited to, the great Tim Horton of hockey and donut fame. Hopefully, as search engines like Google and Bing begin to leverage our social graph, locating useful learning objects will allow us to rely less on known but lmited repositories like the SMART Exchange and museum websites, use broad search engines like Google to locate very specific and relevant resources to use in our teaching.

ID Meets IT Part 11: Cognitive Flexibility Theory

Cognitive Flexibility Theory seems like a natural fit for learning given how we casually pick up new concepts, knowledge and skills in our everyday environment. For example, my knowledge and gradual acquisition of cooking skills --my wife would probably insist on quotes around that last word-- came from various attempts at cooking, comparison of recipes and techniques over time, reflection on success and failures, and experiences with televisions, books and observation of others. Fortunately, I've had the luxury of learning over a long period of time, with little at stake other than an occasionally burned meal or some very runny cookies (true story). Unfortunately, teachers in the classroom have neither of these luxuries. The several inches thick curriculum guide partitions standards and objectives into months, weeks and even days, and the penalties for failure in teaching and learning of these standards and objectives is growing increasingly harsh. In L.A. you run the risk of having you name published online and being publicly shamed if your students do not meet these standards. In Florida, 50% of your teacher evaluation will be tied to test scores. And in Indiana, your pay may soon depend on it!. Hence, one problem that I see with this method from a classroom and educational institution standpoint is a problem of efficiency. 

It's no secret that our curriculum is a mile wide and and inch deep. From what I understand of CFT, students are asked to explore content in depth, to soak in it, and to get to know the waters. When a 4th grade teacher has roughly 30 broad math objectives to cover in roughly 40 weeks, minus several weeks for testing and test prep, every hour and everyday is required to be as productive as possible and exploration of a wide range of materials in multiple formats will seem like a luxury to most teachers. Each day must be accounted for and each lesson must directly linked to a given standard with an explicit objective that can be measured at the end. On a side note,  I'm reminded of an excellent This American Life Podcast on the closing of an experimental GM/Toyota plant collaboration that tried to buck the traditional assembly methods by focusing on the quality of individual cars over the productivity of the line as measured by the sheer number that passed through and made it to the lot. While production moved more slowly due to the empowerment of workers to stop line when problems were sighted, the vehicles were of much higher quality and resulted in few problems with the cars over the life of the vehicle. In some of the traditional plants, production was moving as such a breakneck speed that employees were repairing new vehicles exiting production on the plant's parking lot, and the number of repairs needed after production by dealers was appallingly high. I think this is a fitting analogy for our for the problem described above and I will allow you to make the connections.

I know I've constantly referred to the application of these models in math and science in previous posts, but I've had the fortunate opportunity to be exposed to excellent programs and training in the math a sciences and I think some of the leaps and bounds made in experiential and contextual-based learning due in large part to the advocacy of great organizations like NCTM and the NSTA. In science, I've used curricular materials from the BCAMSC with units such as Magnetism and Electricity that allow students to explore related concepts through a diversity of investigations, readings, and literature. Although these lessons differ from CFT in structure and the degree of cases involved, I've witnessed first hand the academic and motivational benefits of allowing students to explore a topic in depth, approach it from different angles, and tie together a multitude of experiences to make sense of a problem of phenomenon. I've seen students who enjoyed learning for its own sake, who felt empowered to pursue their own line of reasoning, and who were curious about the material to be learned.


While technology can do little to solve the time/testing dilemma, I do think the Internet has brought he possibility of incorporating CFT within greater reach for the digitally literate teacher. The sheer number of primary source material and instructional videos now accessible online, not to mention quality online educational databases, personal blogs, and powerful search engines, have made gathering and collecting material for CFT possible. The way that software like garage band, movie maker and photoshop brought professional media production within reach of the average person, the resources mentioned above brought the material and tools needed for creating content and resources rich lessons within reach of teachers. 

ID Meets IT Part 10: Case-Based Learning

As pointed out in the lecture, the case-based method appears to have a lot in common with several other contextual-based instructional methods presented in previous weeks. There is the presence of a narrative structure to present content, an emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, and a context anchored in real-world situations.  At the elementary level, case-based instruction as used in secondary and higher education poses a challenge for teachers due to the limited reading skills and the ability of students to follow lengthy narratives. If used on a very small scale, however, it is very useful approach to framing instructional problems. The realistic narrative format can allow student to connect new content and skills to existing knowledge and prior experiences and provide that necessary bridge between the known and unknown.

I’ve often made use of “cases” with my elementary students in the context of math and science instruction. The quotation marks, however, signify that these cases are really small scale versions of what would be considered a normal case. It usually consists of a short paragraph, perhaps two at the most, detailing a semi-realistic situation in which the problem at hand might occur. For example, in mathematics, we might be working on area and perimeter, and the lesson would begin with a short story about a boy and his grandpa interested in building a sandbox, but are limited by the amount of building material and sand that they have.  While a “case” like this doesn’t involve the complexity or amount of embedded content that a true case-study may entail, it does provide a realistic application for the content to be learned. 

I can easily envision MOST environments and case-based scenarios meshing well to provide elementary students with an opportunity to explore more in-depth case studies. While lengthy text-based case studies may be too difficult for students to attend to, providing video or media embedded cases could provide the necessary supports for students to explore them. Although these may take time too much time for a teacher to develop, there are countless video clips and longer videos through sites such as YouTube and United Streaming that are at the teachers disposal.

ID Meets IT Part 9: MOST Learning Environments

On reading Bransford's article about Multimedia environments that Organize and Support Text (MOST), I found it discouraging to realize how little progress we've made in the past 20 years in adapting technology to support the natural reading process of our struggling learners. I've recently worked for several years in a Title I school with a disproportionate number of disadvantaged students, many of whom had reading problems described by Bransford et. al, and who are also subjected to the same decontextualized drills mentioned in the article. What has changed since Bransford's time, however, is that these drills are now packaged and sold as popular "standards-based" software programs (read: isolated practice of basic skills), and this form of remedial instruction is now delivered by computers instead of skilled professionals. The problem with this is best summarized by this excerpt:

Overall, at-risk students receive repetitive instruction on things they do not know—instruction that does not allow them to utilize the rich sources of everyday knowledge that they bring to the classroom (e.g., Palincsar & Klenk, 1991). Knapp and Thrnbull (1990) argued that typical instruction for at-risk students tends to:

• underestimate what disadvantaged students are capable of doing;
• postpone more challenging and interesting work for too long—in some cases, forever; and
• deprive students of a meaningful or motivating context for learning or using skills that are taught.

The solution to this deficit driven approach proposed by Bransford et al. is a little counterintuitive at first glance. Rather than focusing on traditional approaches using oral and written language, the MOST models makes use of "multimedia technologies that allow the interaction of print and oral language with video and audio media." The following passage, short yet powerful, pinpoints the shortcomings of traditional instruction in closing the language gap between at-risk students and their peers: 

Because they are less likely than their developmentally average or advanced peers to understand all the vocabulary used by their teachers and story authors, they are less likely to benefit from purely verbal descriptions of background information, which could help their subsequent comprehension.

The authors argue that the incorporation of multimedia elements not only facilitates the process of conceptual and language development, but the process of learning to read as well.  Unlike the previous models examined, the MOST model provide little in the way of prescriptive practices to be followed by teachers. However, based on a list of features provided by Bransford, it's apparent that the increasing ubiquity of educational technologies in classrooms may already be supporting the inclusion of MOST environments. My elementary school, for example, was fortunate to be provided with a SMART Board for each classroom and this tool alone has done an impressive job supporting MOST environments for the typical classroom teacher. I've know several teachers who have created slideshows with images and video clips to support both narrative and non-fiction texts. At the elementary level, myself and several other teachers have incorporated multimedia infused literature through the use of animated storybooks from sites like Tublebooks. My wife has also used sites like Starfall to embed phonemic awareness activities within the context of a story. Although, these examples are limited, I do believe they demonstrate how even within a traditional classroom setting, tools such as the SMART Board can facilitate the incorporation of multimedia elements to support instruction.

As appealing as the MOST environment is, I see several barriers to widespread and rapid adoption of this approach. The first rests on an assumption brought up by Bransford and one I've seen with a strong foothold among the teachers I've worked with over the years. The assumption is that skills development, including those required for reading, must follow a strict hierarchy from "the basics" to "higher-order thinking". When translated into curriculum, this means that teachers will work with students on basic skill mastery before progressing activities that require more complex thinking, i.e. authentic and likely more engaging activities. Unfortunately, struggling students may spend disproportionate lengths of time working on "the basics" and, as I tend to agree with Bransford, this emphasis on can create misconceptions about the goals of reading, and ultimately turn them off to it altogether is they see books as simply "something you look at and say the words." Another barrier I see to this approach, though I believe there is a misguided logic behind it, is that since reading is achievement is measured entirely through short passages silently read, the MOST model may be seen as technological crutch that students will not be able to rely on when it come time to take the big test. Finally, there is a problem I mentioned in a previous post, and one I feel applies here as well. Designing media rich lessons is beyond the reach of many teachers, and even for the tech savvy teachers it would still be a time consuming process. Perhaps because of the reasons mentioned above, prepacked software programs that focus on isolated skills have become so appealing.

However, I do believe their is hope. While print-based literacy skills and literature will, and should, still have place in contemporary society, much of our print-based environments are already migrating to multimedia ones via the web. Although they require a new set of skills, they are also capable of supporting traditional ones. Reading the news online is not only a potentially more dynamic experience, with embedded video and photo galleries to accompany articles, but is also becoming increasingly common. And the advent of mobile computing through smartphones and tablet devices such the iPad, has made available a countless array of educational apps and storybooks that extend the reading experience beyond static text, allowing not only the support of multimedia elements, but also the creation of products that allow readers and learners to extend the reading experience and connect with others.  Hopefully, with the increasing presence of multimedia environments and rise of mobile computing devices, I think that schools will begin to recognize that our educational standards need to reflect these new literacies and prepare our students, especially for those at risk, to learn from them and with them. Otherwise, I fear, the language gap discussed by Bransford will also be joined by a widening digital divide.


Bransford, J. D., Sharp, D. M., Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L., O'Banion, K., Livernois, J., Saul, E., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). MOST Environments for accelerating literacy development. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 223-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

ID Meets IT Part 8: STAR Leagcy

If Anchored Instruction (AI) and PSI were to meet at college during their student teaching year, fall in love and have a brief yet passionate engagement, wed shortly after at the Alumni Chapel on campus and later give birth to a bouncing baby girl, that child would be named STAR Legacy. Her father, AI, has passed down to her his love of expertise, tackling real-world problems, and spinning a good yarn. Her mother, on the other hand, shares her independence, her desire for structure, and a belief that action speaks louder than words.


Family metaphors aside, the STAR (Software Technology for Action and Reflection) Legacy model presents a middle ground between between two instructional models at opposite ends of the design continuum. As with Anchored Instruction, STAR shares the instructional philosophy that learning should be contextualized within "meaningful, if not authentic, tasks". Content is often presented by "experts" in the field through video or audio recordings, and within an evolving narrative that follows a set of individuals as the work their way through the "challenge" they encountered. As with the PSI, STAR follows a linear, though cyclical, format and learners are consciously aware of where exactly they are in the learning process.  The figure below shows the components of the STAR process.

As was intended with its creation, the STAR "shell" was designed to be a flexible format with room for adaption to meet the needs of the teachers and students within their local context and implementation can vary. For instance, STAR as laid out by Schwatz incorporates the use of collaborative learning and provides perspectives and resources for completing tasks primarily outside of the STAR shell similar to PBL. STAR as implemented through modules on Vanderbilt's Iris Center website, however, follows take a PSI model approach with students working through modules independently, and as in AI, resources for solving problems are embedded primarily within the module, at least from those that I sampled. Regardless of the implementation, STAR still has it's roots in problem-based learning with the unique contribution of a legacy component, the creation of projects or products by students to be left behind for the next generation of learners.

According to Schwartz, the purpose of this approach is to:

teach a deep understanding of disciplines-while simultaneously fostering the skills of problem solving, collaboration. and communication-through the use of problem-based learning followed by more open-ended project-based learning.

As mentioned in a previous post, "aside from from the inquiry and problem-solving skills gained by placing an emphasis on learning as a process, students of PBL have also demonstrated deeper understanding and retention of content, increased motivation and teamwork skills." I've also mentioned in a blog posting on AI the potential for increased motivation resulting from immersing students in a complex problem that allows them to creatively solve more open-ended problems, while also fostering critical skills that are given a lot of lip service in education, but take a back seat to knowledge and skills that are easily measured by standardized tests.

While I have little experience with the STAR model specifically, the components of the model align almost directly with Gagne's nine instructional events and these I have considerable experience with as an educator. In fact, most of the models in this series incorporate these events in some fashion and differ primarily in how they present the content (event 4), provide "learning guidance (event 5), and elicit performance (event 6). Although I have little experience with this approach, I have used a mathematics program that frequently makes use of problem-based learning. In fact, two years ago I served on the textbook adoption committee for math and was able to help sway the committee in adopting a program called NSF funded program called Investigations that frequently makes use of the approaches discussed in the past few posts. A number of units in this series are prolonged "investigations" that are anchored to a particular situation or problem. One unit in particular was an extended study of the differences in heights between 1st and 4th graders which the students found especially engaging.

I've already mentioned several drawbacks to these contextualized approaches in previous posts, so in this post I want explore the difficulties we encountered with our first year of implementation of Investigations. As with any new program, Investigations was received with skepticism by many, and even disdain by a few.  As dramatically different is the PSI model from Anchored Instruction or Problem-Based Learning, so was the difference between Investigations and our previous Houghton Mifflin math text. From a teacher standpoint, it was a giant shift in how instruction was delivered. The older series was a teacher-centered approach with each lesson throughout the entire text following the exact same format of sample problem, teacher modeling of correct method for solving the problem, guided practice and then individual practice. Teachers had grown comfortable and some even successful with this approach, so implementing an approach that focused on group work, student solutions and problem solving over computational fluency was a difficult change. If teachers had difficulty adapting, it's not surprising that students did as well. My 4th grade students that came to me had very little experience working cooperatively and learning from classmates, and previous years of "correct" solutions and standard algorithms led to a sort of intellectual dependency on the teacher making creative problem solving and independent thinking very difficult for students. While these difficulties are confined to very specific setting and situation, I would imagine that implementing a problem-based approach like STAR at any level would pose similar problems for teachers and students.

In previous posts I've discussed ways in which technology can enhance these older models and bring them into the digital fold.  Returning to the analogy from the beginning, if PSI and AI are the "digital immigrants" of instructional technology family, then the STAR model is a "digital native" having been conceived and brought up in a digital world.  As demonstrated in the STAR modules from Vanderbilt, this model has been adapted to utilize the multimedia potential of the online environment. Each model is rich with text, image, audio, and video content, is easily navigable with links, and includes a wealth of material that would be nearly unmanageable in a physical format. But STAR, at least as presented at the Iris Center, is clearly starting to show her age. STAR Legacy is static and isolated and represents the height of instructional technology circa 1999. What it needs to bring about the full conception of the model as presented by Schwartz is an infusion of social media and web 2.0 tools for creation, communication, and collaboration. While re-imagining STAR in light of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wordpress, Zynga and the like is beyond the scope of this post, its not difficult to envision STAR as part of a dynamic network of online learners working together to share perspectives, collaborate on solutions, and create legacies of their learning for next set of learners.


Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (2nd ed., pp. 183-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

ID Meets IT Part 7: Anchored Instruction

Arising from a desire to situate learning within a context mirroring the actual world students inhabit, early educational thinkers and doers such as Dewey and Gragg made the case for anchored instruction as an alternative to the rote memorization and recall of isolated facts and principles typical of the 1940's classroom. Unlike the traditional educational approach of passive absorption by pupils followed by the parroting of expected behaviors, Anchored Instruction (AI) requires students to work in small groups to tackle problems that experts in any given area might encounter. 

Like Goal-Based Scenarios and Problem-Based Learning, AI consist of students working in groups to solve authentic, and often complex problems set within a narrative backdrop. AI also shares some characteristics of the apprenticeship model in that "experts" in a given field are called upon to serve as models and to guide learning. What sets AI apart from these other approaches, however, is that facts and information need to solve problems are carefully embedded within instruction so that independent research in unnecessary. Solutions to problems are also less open-ended and the "expert" guidance found in the apprenticeship model is simulated, though as realistically as possible.

As one might expect when straying from the traditional instructional path, the implementation of AI in a K-12 classroom setting poses some problems for the practitioner. As Goldman et al. point out, the contexts in which instruction is anchored may span weeks and even months. For the teacher in a typical classroom, spending weeks or even months on a given problem might indeed be a fruitful endeavor, but is unrealistic given the pacing guides and content coverage required of most teachers. While it might be possible for a very creative teacher to weave the content to be covered into meaningful whole, this would likely be a very time consuming and difficult process for a teacher who already spends what little time they have not working directly with students filling out paperwork or attending professional development or meeting in PLCs to help struggling students. Aside from curricular conundrums, supporting the diverse range of students needs, monitoring the progress of not only student groups but the individuals within them, and providing feedback and support in this dynamic context could overwhelm even the most experienced of teachers.

Despite these challenges, research has suggested that while the achievement of factual knowledge was shown to be on par with students in traditional classroom settings, conceptual understanding, transfer of knowledge and application of information may be better over both the short and long term. But aside from the potential achievement gains, I believe there is an important motivational and affective component that comes from immersing students in an authentic situation with exposure to solving real problems that take time and expertise. Sadly, there are very few "problems" that we don't expect student to be able to solve by the end of hour long lesson. I believe part of this stems from the very narrow focus in our schools on standards and objectives that are expected to be obtained by students by a very precise date. While there are many praiseworthy standards written into our every state's grade level curriculum, not every standard is easily measurable and therefor not subject to testing. I can recall several staff meetings in which we were given a breakdown on the percentage of the test that each standard represents and therefor which standards to devote time to. Unfortunately, important objectives such as these, behaviors often touted as much needed 21st century skills and that are vital to producing competent and curious life-long learners, are too difficult to assess on a multiple choice test and, sadly, are rarely emphasized as a result:

• 1.06 Read independently daily from self-selected materials (consistent with the student's independent reading level)
• 3.04 Make informed judgments about television and film/video productions.
• 3.06 Conduct research for assigned projects or self-selected projects (with assistance) from a variety of sources through the use of technological and informal tools (e.g., print and non-print texts, artifacts, people, libraries, databases, computer networks).
• 4.03 Make oral and written presentations using visual aids with an awareness
  of purpose and audience
• 4.04 Share self-selected texts from a variety of genres (e.g., poetry, letters,
  narratives, essays, presentations).

While I would love to boast that I have used AI to the extent outlined by Goldman, I'm afraid my science instruction (and other content areas for that matter) has fallen more in line with inquiry-based methods that lack the narrative backdrop and extended focus. While I try provide problems and learning experiences that provide the necessary scaffolds to allow children to arrive at a solution or learning goal through a route that makes sense to them, as Goldman points out, this only represents a small part of expert practice.


Fortunately, I do see technology playing a role in easing the process for educators interested in implementing anchored instruction. As video has played such a major role in the past of providing the AI stroyline and simulating interaction with experts in the field, the ubitquity of video sources courtesy of the Internet (both freely available form sites such as YouTube or behind paid wall like Discovery's United Streaming) provides teachers with easy access to resources to fit virtually any problem. In addition, the explosion of online collaboration tools make it even easier for students to address the objectives listed above. Although I feel that technology may easy the process, the added role of instructional designer that a teacher would have to take on places too great a burden on an already demanding job. I believe for educational approaches like these to really become a part of the teacher's repertoire, those responsible for the development and/or selection of curricular materials will have play a larger role.

Goldman, S.R., Petrosino, A.J., Sherwood, R.D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J.W. (1996). Anchoring science instruction in multimedia learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 257-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum. 

Pichert, J. W., Snyder, G. M., Kinzer, C. K., & Boswell, E. J. (1994). Problem solving anchored instruction about sick days for adolescents with diabetes. Patient Education and Counseling, 23(2), 115-124. doi:10.1016/0738-3991(94)90049-3 

Voices Behind the Visions

The 2020 visions of our students clearly bring into focus the views our student have about technology and education. And I think with a little imagination we could even use their visions to create something akin to a photo mosaic of what the classroom of 2020 might look like. A classroom where where every student has a small portable computer that allows them to read text, link to media rich databases, collaborate with peers, engage in stimulating environments, and access learning at any time, place or pace. However, I think if we look beyond the visions, and listen rather to the voices of 2020, we will hear something even more significant. We will hear that our students are not really asking for technology gadgets and gizmos, they are asking for the tools, opportunities, support and change that our schools are failing to provide.

A New Tool

The visions of 2020 show us that children want devices that are small, portable, convenient, and easy to use: a single thin book-size computer, for example, that allows them to access all kinds of media formats and resources with a single device. One that can be used effortlessly to record and communicate ideas and be carried around for instant access. They are asking for a new tool that will replace the multitude of tools we currently provide such as textbooks, pencils, keyboards, PC’s, draft books, folders, crayons, paper and so on and so forth.

That is what they are showing us, but what are they really telling us? I think if we listen we will hear that they what they really desire is a tool that will remove the barriers to learning created by the multitude of tools they must currently master before they can get to the learning that matters. For instance, in order for our students to learn to efficiently communicate ideas and access information electronically, the must learn the laborious task of learning to type. Or if a student is interested in a subject and desires to learn more, they must first locate the proper book among hundreds of books, sift through its pages for the proper content, and hope that they find what they are looking for. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should look to technology to replace important literacy skills, but we should being considering how the classrooms of 2020 can use technology can remove unnecessary learning obstacles and get the learning that matters.

Access to Opportunities

Our students also show us visions of technology that will allow every student access to the information they need, when they need it, and the ability to share this information with peers all over the world. They are showing us a school in which technology is not partitioned to a separate wing of the building, or allotted to students at given times of the day in heavily filtered doses of isolated access, but rather technology that is a accessible to anyone,
anytime and anyplace.

What our students are telling us about our schools is that they are failing to provide students with opportunities to utilize a powerful tool for learning. They are telling us that the opportunities we do provide are isolating and limited. They are telling us that they are not happy with their alloted times for restricted computer access. If we are truly listening to the voices of 2020, we would hear that we need to increase access to technology by providing our every student the opportunity to frequently utilize it in ways that will allow them to easily explore, connect, and share.

Just-in-Time Support

The visions of 2020 also show us technology that will be used to support our students in ways that will meet their specific needs at the time when it is most needed. These visions, though often rather fantastical, show us numerous ways that the classrooms of the future can help students on homework, link students with the necessary resources, and provide students with immediate access to resources that will satisfy their curiosity. In the classrooms that
students envision for the year 2020, the support student will need will be available at the click of a button.

Sadly, perhaps more so than any other section of the 2020 report, is that what these voices are telling us if we are only willing to listen, is that our schools are currently failing to provide students with the support they need. They are telling us that students are eager to for feedback and are willing to ask for the help they need, but for whatever reason, overcrowded classrooms or overburdened teachers perhaps, our schools are not providing our students with the one thing that requires no knowledge of technology whatsoever: support, guidance, and feedback. If technology is able to provide this someday, I fear we may all be out of a job.

Learn Different

Apple’s popular slogan, “Think Different” could aptly apply to how students see technology changing how they learn in the future. They see games used for learning, they see virtual field trips to distant lands and distant times, they see learning that requires no physical classrooms, teachers or even books and is tailored to their personal learning styles. They see learning in a completely different way than they learn in a typical school setting. They see
change.

Our students are telling us that our schools need to begin thinking differently if they are going to remain relevant to today’s digital student. They are telling us that this is how we live, this is how we learn and with some changes you can connect learning to our lives in a powerful way we understand. If our schools can learn to adapt, learn to listen and learn to think differently, we too will begin to see the potential for technology to reach today’s students who learn different.

The student visions of 2020 are showing us more than what our students think about the schools of the future. They are telling us what they currently think about the schools of the present. And their voices are loud and clear. They are saying our schools need to remove barriers, expand opportunities, provide support and make some changes. Let us hope that we will begin to listen long before the year 2020 so that the learning students envision today, they will experience in the near future.

ID Meets IT Part 7: Goal-Based Scenarios

Video Games!! That was the first thought that flashed through my head as I read about the Goal-Based Scenario (GBS) model for instruction. But not the arcade classics such as Pac-Man, Street Fighter II, or NBA Jam --though it could be argued that they too incorporate some elements of GBS-- but rather console and PC classics such as Sim City, The Legend of Zelda and Civilization. In fact, I think it would could be argued that game based learning and GBS frequently intersect. The appeal of GBS for kids is not only the idea that they have a goal or mission to complete but that, like any adult who hates to read instructions while putting together that cheap IKEA bookshelf, kids would rather learn what they need to along the way, and only what they need to in order to reach their goal.

I'm afraid I haven't be quite clear yet as to what GBS is. Goal-based scenario (GBS) is an instructional method designed to solve two age-old educational problems: 1) we teach students, students forget what we teach and 2) students aren't motivated to learn what we teach. With goal-based scenarios, students learn by doing as they practice target skills and use relevant content knowledge to help them achieve their goal. As part of a simulation, students are provided with coaching and just in time support to reinforce knowledge and skills gained along the way.  In a sense GBS is a Trojan Horse in which the knowledge and skills students need to learn as part of the curriculum are hidden inside a more attractive package that is designed to entice their interest and maintain their engagement. As one would expect, GBS consists of a Goal or mission designed to appeal to students, a cover story for framing that goal (not unlike many video games), a role students take on as part of the scenario, the scenario itself, resources and feedback in the form of consequences, coaching or stories.

Personally, I have very little experience with GBS as an instructional method either as a teacher or student (video games excluded, of course). I've seldom seen it used by teachers, with the exception of a 5th grade team teacher of mine who used it occasionally in Social Studies. I think part of the reason is not that we teachers do not find the approach appealing, but rather for a variety of reasons mentioned in previous post. GBS is seldom incorporated into mainstream curricular materials which means that the burden of design is placed on the teacher, and the burden of design is a heavy one for teachers already treading water just to keep up with the everyday demands of the profession. Another barrier to use of this model is lack of training in its use so that it is efficiently and effectively employed. I think there might be the fear from teachers that management of this approach would be overwhelming and that students may not master the isolated skills on which they will be tested. As appealing as this approach may be, I don't believe there are enough supports in place for teachers to feel comfortable using it beyond small scale implementations spanning a few lessons.

Technology seems to be suited to some models more than others,  playing a support role in some cases such as in problem-based learning or a dominant role such as in the Personalized System of Instruction, but in GBS I believe there is the potential for technology to play a leading role. I've already mentioned a couple simulations that adapt this approach to create incredibly engaging learning environments, and I've also used Zoo Tycoon in the past as a powerful tool for students to learn not only factual information about animal survival needs and adaptations, but also as a means to teach budgeting, multitasking, problem-solving skills. Zoo Tycoon is one of those rare games that matched well with the Standard Course of Study, however, as engaging and powerful these types of games are, they often do not align with the state curriculum and the games or software that . Aside from games and simulations, technology can also play a support role in helping students navigate non-game-based scenarios such as those mentioned by Schank. Whether it is looking up information on the fly to help make a decision or solve a problem, or whether it's role playing with students, coaches or experts at a distance through video conferencing tools, technology can play a role in supporting this approach provided the support is there for teachers and students to use the technology.

Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (2nd ed., pp. 161-182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

ID Meets IT Part 6: The Cognitive Apprentiship

The apprenticeship is likely as old as civilization. A skilled practitioner in a given field takes on a starry-eyed youngster and learns him the tricks of the trade by showing him how its done and cudgeling him til he gets it right. At least was the impression I got from watching the master/pupil relationships on USA network's Kung Fu Theatre as a child. Perhaps a more apt example, however, is the relationship between Almanzo and his father in Laura Ingalls Wilder's Farmer Boy mentioned in a previous post. In that instance, young Almanzo gradually learned the skills of the farmer from his father by "observation, coaching, and successive approximation"  as Collins, Brown, & Newman (1999, p. 453) point out. These early apprenticeships, however, were intended to "transmit complex physical processes and skills" of a very particular field (p. 455). Aside from teachers in a trade or specific professional school, this teaching model poses a problem when the complex skills and processes aren't necessarily tied to a specific trade, or even a physical act like farming or kung fu, but rest more in the cognitive and metacognitive domain, or the realm of thinking and thinking about thinking.

The desire to translate the apprenticeship model from the world of physical trades to the classroom setting is certainly understandable. As Collins et al. point out, the apprenticeship is capable of teaching complex skills without resorting to lengthy practice of isolated subskills" (p. 456), something I'm sure both teachers and students would appreciate. Other cited benefits include increasing relevancy for students by anchoring instruction in authentic settings and supporting students in the achievement of complex and desired skills through careful scaffolding and gradual release. But translating the apprenticeship of old to the classroom requires a new kind of apprenticeship, the cognitive apprenticeship. Under this model:

Apprentices learn these methods through a combination of what Lave calls observation, coaching, and practice, or what we, from the teacher's point of view, call modeling, coaching, and fading. In this sequence of activities, the apprentice repeatedly observes the master executing (or modeling) the target process, which usually involves some different but interrelated subskills

Although the ideal one-to-one apprenticeship model is unlikely to be seen as the primary means of instruction in the modern classroom due to the substantial number of students in a given classroom, and supporting these students in such a way would be unrealistic, I think you'll find aspects of the apprenticeship and situated learning in the classroom of any decent teacher. The sort of coaching has been a part of the repertoire of reading teachers for decades as teachers model reading skills to a small group of students and coach students through the process of reading. The aspects of the apprenticeship  also played a large role in my writing instruction, both before and after my training on Write from the Beginning, which relies heavily on teaching modeling of the writing process and think alouds of complex processes. At the level of higher education, the apprenticeship model was a primary strategy in my teacher education program through a year-long internship with a master teacher. During this internship, observation, reflection, practice, coaching and gradual release from my cooperating teacher was the model used to assist me in developing the complex skills --yes, being a teacher is a complex profession despite the current trend in belittling our field-- required to effectively manage a productive classroom.

So what is technology's role in supporting the apprenticeship model and the benefits to be gain from it? First off, technology has the potential to connect students to true masters in a given field. The elementary teacher is a jack-of-all-trades, master of none, making some aspects of the apprenticeship a difficult task. But through video conferencing tools such as Skype or websites such as Shout! students are able to connect with true experts in a given field. Access to online video also provide students now with a wealth of expert models demonstrating or discussing their professions such as this video of writing Mary Pope Osborne discussing the craft of writing for budding young authors and fans of Magic Tree House books (as many of my 4th graders were). One role I particularly see technology playing, especially as 1:1 classrooms begin to emerge, is the use of tutorial software programs for basic skill instruction, practice and assessment (perhaps using the PSI model), thereby freeing up the teacher to work with students in small groups on complex tasks and authentic activities. This would delegate, and in effect automate, basic instructional tasks to computers, and allow teachers to focus their energy on coaching small groups of students at similar skill levels and scaffolding instruction to help them move beyond the basics.

In summary, I think in every good classroom you will find aspects of the apprenticeship model in action, though there are limits given the large pupil-teacher ratio. Modeling and thin- alouds have become pretty standard practice at the elementary level and coaching to a certain extent, though typically more so with needier students as the time a teacher can spend with individual students is limited. Technology has a role in that it can connect students with experts in the field previously inaccessible, or at the very least provide us the opportunity to observe them as I did so often on a Sunday afternoon watching Kung Fu Theater.

ID Meets IT Part 5: Problem-Based Learning

Anyone familiar with a KWL chart and its big brother the KWHL chart, probably has at least some experience with problem-based learning (PBL). In it's simplest form, PBL starts with what you (K)now about a problem, identifies gaps between (W)hat you know and need know to solve the problem, progresses to (H)ow you will bridge this gap, and ultimately evaluate what you've (L)earned. This process repeats, continuously building upon prior knowledge, integrating new knowledge and ultimately synthesizing what's been learned until there is enough information to solve the problem. I this sense, PBL flips the traditional deficit driven approach to learning on it head by having student immediately address the problem first with what they know, not informing them of what they don't. Students tackle problems immediately, acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills along the way, rather than being taught the skills and content necessary to solve the problem beforehand.

Having watched several episodes of House with my mother-in-law over last winter break, it's not surprising PBL originated in the medical field, at least if anything about the true medical professional can be inferred from a fictional dramedy about a crotchety caregiver and his supporting staff. As an instructional method, PBL was designed to address two problems in the medical field: the need for doctors to develop relevant knowledge and problem-solving skills, and the ability to continue doing so in a constantly evolving profession.

The later adoption of PBL by other professional schools, undergraduate programs and even the K-12 level makes increasing sense in a world that is rapidly changing as a result of the exponential growth of new technologies and the problems and opportunities they create.  Aside from from the inquiry and problem-solving skills gained by placing an emphasis on learning as a process, students of PBL have also demonstrated deeper understanding and retention of content, increased motivation and teamwork skills.

Despite these advantages, its been my experience that PBL still remains on the relative fringe of K-12 and even higher education. Hung, Harpole & Jonassen (2003) suggest a number of reasons for this, but two that I think especially resonate with K-12 education --obstacles in which I've encountered myself-- are depth vs. breath and long term gains vs. short term outcomes. As elementary practitioner, I'm familiar with the vast number of objectives that students are expected to individually demonstrate mastery of, both on regular formative assessments and summative benchmarks and end of grade tests. NCLB has in some sense turned education into a series short games by indirectly placing an emphasis on frequent assessment of isolated skills. Because the rationale behind PBL, and cooperative learning in general, closely align with my own personal philosophy of learning, I've frequently used group work and cooperative learning, and PBL proper to a lesser degree, on small, structured activities like designing floor a plan during a perimeter/area unit. But using PBL on a larger scale and over longer periods, despite the long-term advantages for the student, feels like a very risky endeavor to many teachers who are in school where assessment results are constantly being monitored and are a primary means of evaluation for the student and teacher.

That being said, Hung et al. provide a number informative strategies, but I think technology also plays a role in solving the very problems it helped to create, i.e. the need to continuously learn in an rapidly changing world and the need to keep pace with the technologies that are driving this change. Individual accountability, a difficult task in PBL, can be addressed through virtually any online collaboration tool requires an account, as these technologies allow teachers to easily track individual contributions such what students already (K)now.  The search engine and online databases such as NC LIVE provide powerful tools for filling the gap between what's known and (W)hat needs to be known in the form of relatively quick and easy access to nearly limitless supply of information. Of course effective use of these tools requires digital literacies which need to be taught, but once gained, provide a key to unlocking the (H)ow learning gaps can be bridged. And whether our learners or face-to-face or distant, presentation tools allow students to share what they've (L)earned with a larger audience and in a more engaging way.

I mentioned the importance of digital literacy in assisting problem based learning, but I think PBL addresses something far more important and is best summed up with this quote by Alvin Toffler, "The illiterate of the future will not be those who cannot read or write. They are those that can not learn, unlearn, relearn."

ID Meets IT Part 4: Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning has probably played a role in public education long before the radical new models shunning traditional learning spawned during the '60s. In its simplest form, cooperative learning is a small group of students working together on a specific task (Millis, 2002). This is something students have been doing in American schools since the time of the one-room schoolhouse. As part of some enjoyable self-assigned readings in preparation for future read-alouds with my baby girl, I've been blazing through the the Little House series and can recall several instances of cooperative learning that happened both out of necessity and out of intention. In one instance, the children were simply too poor have their own separate readers, so consequently they shared the materials and worked through the exercises together. In another, Laura Ingalls and classmates were working together on a recitation for the folk living in and around the little town on the prairie. Outside of the classroom, I would wager that cooperative learning has taken some shape or form since the first band of wandering neanderthals roamed the earth in search of mammoth meat.

Officially, "Cooperative Learning" proper differs from traditional small group work through its careful structuring designed to maximize the learning potential inherent in the possible interaction between students (Millis, 2002). And unlike the "natural learning" that occurs when members of a community simply work collaboratively on a common task, such as Almazo Wilder learning the ropes of farming by working along side his brother and Pa, cooperative learning results from highly structured situations (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).

The premise behind cooperative learning is simple: students learn better by interacting with their peers than by learning alone (Haller et al., 2000). The bold claim is not without evidence. Slavin stated that cooperative learning is "one of the most thoroughly researched of all instructional methods" (as cited in Millis, 2002).  Among the documented benefits are improved students achievement, interpersonal relationships, attitude and self-esteem.  Millis noted that this "enhanced learning" is conditional upon number best practices related the "structure" mentioned earlier. These key principles include heterogeneous grouping to maximize knowledge base and talents, individual accountability, criterion-reference grading, continuous monitoring, and formative assessments of progress.

Given these potential benefits, one would expect to find cooperative learning in nearly every classroom, yet I think that is seldom the case. Based on my experience as an elementary educator, I think this approach fall prey to number of barriers mentioned in my previous post. The key principles laid out by Millis, as well as number of other suggestions she recommends, require an intense commitment from the teacher in terms of detailed planning, as well as a deep faith by teachers that students can be trusted with taking responsibility for their own learning by working productively with their peers. I think many teachers fear that students will see cooperative learning as an opportunity to socialize rather than learn, though ideally the latter results from the forum. In addition, from my own experience with arranging what I believe to be potentially functioning groups, and from creating a second set of instructional materials because this approach is seldom incorporated into the materials I've been provided by my school (with the exception of what are feel are some excellent programs such as Investigations and Battle Creek Area Math and Science Center's Science Curriculum) and calls for a lot of time-consuming planning and structuring that many teachers simply don't have. 

Since this is ID meet IT, I feel it's necessary to address the translation of the approach to today's technology enhanced or fully online classroom. For classrooms with the luxury of 1:1 learning, the accountability and monitoring piece of cooperative learning can be facilitated through networked spaces such Moodle, Ning, Edmodo or even Facebook allowing teachers to easily access student work and provide feedback both in and out of the classroom. Since much of the communication aspect is done face to face, technology becomes an additional tool at the student's and teacher's disposal and can extend learning beyond the classroom.  For distance learners working entirely online, cooperative learning is certainly feasible with the plethora of online tools aimed at collaboration and communication, but poses additional challenges for both the instructor and student. Communication, especially among a small group, is certainly easier face-to-face than it is online. While there are a number of video conferencing tools such as Skype that can simulate this process, students and teachers need to place a certainly amount of effort into not only learning how to use these tools, but also focusing part of their attention on using these tools that could be directed towards their group. With the exception of incredibly well designed and supported tools, technology becomes a distraction to the conversations and collaborative effort rather than and enhancement.

Personally, I feel that cooperative learning both powerful and problematic. When I've used cooperative learning in my own practice, it was either because I had the desire to make learning more engaging for my students and the time to due so, or because I had the luxury of curriculum designed with cooperative learning in mind. Cooperative learning taps into a way of learning that humans have been using since the prehistoric hunt, the medieval apprenticeship, or life on the prairie. In fact, the classroom is one of the few places in which you will find a group of people not interacting and learning from one another; where columns and rows of students studiously working in quiet independence is likely to elicit praise from parents and administrators. I think Johnson summed it up when when he stated, "While it is never easy to implement, when all the critical elements are in place, it is very powerful."

Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., &  Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.

Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning and more! Through cooperative learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns To college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 27-35.

ID Meets IT Part 3: Guided Design

The 60's were apparently fertile ground in the transformation of Instructional D & D. The Guided Design process is linked both to the A-T approach and the PSI model with the inclusion of self-paced instruction, sequential lessons, and it's emphasis on mastery learning. What sets guided design apart from the others, however, is it's emphasis on real-world problem solving through cooperative learning.  Guided design does share some of the rigidity of the other models in this component, however, with its systematic, linear approach to solving  problems, be they convergent on single solution or divergent with multiple answers. Trivette (2005) neatly summarizes this model by providing it 4 major components:

1. a sequential process for mastering course content,
2. a team or small-group processing component, 
3. the provision of verbal or written feedback from the perspective of an expert in the field
4. the use of realistic problems to be solved.

The rational behind this model is not difficult to grasp, and seems just as relevant today is it did in 60s with it roots growing out of the field of engineering. If anything, the model's combination of an emphasis on self-motivation, team work, information gathering and problem-solving skills seem even more relevant today given the job market's shift from a manufacturing-based society to that of a knowledge-based one. As Wilson (2004) mentioned, these skills are often more valued by an employer than their content background and are a standard skill set looked for during the hiring process. It's also difficult to find a set of educational standards that don't include the direct mention of collaboration and problem-solving. Just take a look at the National Educational Technology Standards, the Partnership for 21st century Learners, and even the Common Core Standards that most states will be implementing in the coming years. Additionally, in a synthesis of the research on guided design, Trivette (2005) concluded that when the components above were included, it was likely to increase the learner's ability to retain instructional content, critically apply the content to realistic problems, and increase confidence in their learning ability while being generally satisfied with this type of instruction as well. 

So, given the convincing rationale behind this model and its apparently important skill set, one would think that guided design would be a common model used in schools. Although I can't speak for the upper grades, I can safely say that it's use at the elementary level in the schools I've worked in has been infrequent, and to be honest, is becoming increasingly rare despite what I believe to be a consensus among educators on the importance of these skills. One simple reason for this is high-stakes testing. While guided design incorporates self-instructional components to master prerequisite skills, the emphasis is on tackling complex problems through group deliberation, fact finding, decision making, and evaluation of results. All of which are undeniably important skills that unfortunately our standardized tests do not assess. Rather, they focus on a broad range of isolated skills that the individual student possesses and with the importance placed on these tests. This does not provide much of an incentive for teachers to take risks on methods that may not specifically help their students perform better on a test that could seen be tied to their evaluations and even their pay, especially if these method such as guided design present additional obstacles for teachers.

As a teacher, I've used guided design components on several occasions, particularly in math and science, but I've also frequently given into the temptation of teaching specifically to the test and its format, especially towards the end of the year when time is tight. Aside from testing, I think there are also a couple additional barriers that prevent teachers from having student tackle real-world problems through group-work. In schools where students have little experience working in groups, either in school or out, managing cooperative activities can be stressful and take a lot of preparation. The skills needed to work in groups also often need to be taught, which places and additional burden on teachers. Time for teachers is also limited, and with many teachers relying on district provided instructional materials that don't incorporate this model (as many prepacked curricula don't) teachers have little additional time to adapt these materials. There is also the worry that skills and content learning through this approach will be difficult for students to transfer to other contexts, including standardized tests. In summary, testing, time, and transfer pose problems for teachers, even though who see the benefits of adopting such an approach.

While this model was designed prior to the availability of the Internet and the number of tools for communication and collaboration available online,  I have come across this model in used in higher ed, though with about the same frequency as I've seen at the elementary level. Because my graduate education has consisted primarily of online coursework, this may have biased my perception. Wilson (2004) states that guided design can be either a monster or a miracle, the monster being a "complete collaborative breakdown" that can result from competition, conformity, lack of leadership, or time. While I've encountered a number of group projects and discussion over the years, group problem-solving tackling relevant, real world issues has been rare, not only because of the issues mentioned above, but because distance education provide an additional barrier with due to the asynchronous methods usually employed and the difficulty for students in collaborating online, either due to scheduling or lack of technical expertise. This is an additional worry for educators who fear Wilson's monster. Though, there are obvious constraints when considering guided design for web-based instruction, a number of web-based conferencing tools such as Skype, Dim Dim, Adobe Connect and Elluminate now make this feasible. 

Despite the infrequent use I've encountered with guided design, I feel that is a greater need for its incorporation in education. Not only because of the essential job skills it fosters, or the potential learning benefits found by Trivette (2005), but because of the potential for students to see perspectives and solutions beyond their own and because, as demonstrated by Wilson (2004), the group can often think of a solutions to a complex problem that is superior to what the individual come up with on their own. For educators interesting in incorporating this model, either online or off, careful planning, and possibly instruction, is need to prepare students for working in teams and to ensure that the work and credit is distributed equitably.  Additinal considerations need to be made by distance educators as well, including technical training for students on online tools for communication and collaboration listed here.

Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges , 3 (1), 1-28.

Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resources Economics , 1-18.

The Etiology of LD

It's not difficult to understand the skeptic’s point of view as to the reality of LD as an actual disorder.  Skeptics have suggested that behaviors associated with LD could have been the result of a number of environment conditions, rather than some innate cause. For example, troubles with reading could simply have been attributed to lack of exposure to print at an early age, or students' lack of motivation, or student dispositions toward reading. In other words, it could easily have been argued that environmental conditions are just as plausible a reason for difficulties and that there is little reason to believe that child A doesn't have the same innate ability to learn how to read as child B. I’m sure I myself, and other educators I have known, have at some point in the past ascribed a child's lack of performance to his living conditions or lack of effort, rather than consider the possibility that their difficulties may actually be due to something physically taking place within the child's brain. These "causes" are so tempting to educators, and perhaps to researchers for other reasons, given how often we have seen first hand the impact a child's home life can have on their academic performance or dispositions. Perhaps the reason for suggesting that learning disabilities are the result of environment conditions rather than due to abnormalities in the physical brain may be due to the hope that improved conditions and interventions can improve the difficulties students have with learning. Attributing them to the brain is almost equivalent to admitting defeat. 

Today, however, there is evidence that neurological differences are likely to be the cause of these difficulties. That, in fact, there is something physically different about child A and child B that results in one having a more difficult time in learning to read than the other.  Although our book is a little dated given the speed of technological advance, the research done in neuroimaging, and in postmortem studies prior to this, have discovered structural and functional differences between patients with and without reading difficulties.  The evidence of heritability of disabilities provides additional evidence of the physiological cause of LD. In fact this physiological link between brain and disability seems well established, even at the time of these studies the studies in the text, Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching. It is likely that the most recent literature only confirms this link.

Although I know very little about brain development and the impact of environment on the developing brain, I wonder if there is yet still room for skeptics, even with the widespread acceptance neurological differences as the root cause of learning disabilities. Is it possible that while regional brain differences are the causes of learning disabilities, could environment factors affecting the growing child be the cause of these differences? In other words, how malleable is the growing brain? I'm aware of the concept of familiality, the greater likelihood of relatives having the learning disability, but couldn't these family members also be exposed to similar conditions causing an abnormal brain development, and subsequent disability? For example, I wonder what effects long-term dire poverty has on the development of the growing brain. Could child A have had the same reading ability as child B had he not grown up in severe poverty? An article in Science Daily, in addition to the improvement of reading ability of students with dyslexia, suggests that the brain is malleable to at least some degree, and that environmental conditions can impact brain functions. My concern isn't about the reality of LD, but rather that a sort of physiological fatalism may prevail, and that the emphasis on impersonal brain imaging may overshadow the real personal and dire socioeconomic conditions that can put children at risk of neurological dysfunction. In fact the textbook Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching only dedicates a single paragraph to environmental factors, despite this link. It make you wonder how many of these learning disabilities (as well as a host of other problems) may have been prevented, or corrected for, had more attention been directed at eradicating poverty and improving the living conditions of these children?

ID Meets IT Part 2: The AT Approach

Digging deep once again into the archives of instructional design, we come across another model of self-paced instruction: The Audio Tutorial (AT) Approach. Devised by Postlethwait in the early 60's, the AT approach initially utilized audio tapes to deliver supplemental lectures to students from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to assist them with complexity and pace of the material. Shortly afterward, the supplemental program evolved into a full blown system for delivering a complete instructional program via weekly "learning kits" that provided students with a set of audio instructions and the materials and media (photos, text, films, etc.) needed to complete the assigned activities.

Like the PSI model discussed in the previous post some features included in AT were small learning modules, frequent assessment,  an emphasis on doing rather than listening (despite the name), and student self-pacing (to a degree). However, the two models seem differ in two fundamental ways: pacing and people. Whereas the PSI model, or Keller Plan, allowed students move at there own pace throughout the entire course and under the condition of demonstrated mastery of the previous modules, the AT approach move students along on a weekly schedule, allowing them to spend as much or as little time as they needed to complete the week's unit. Beyond the independent study session, the AT approach also incorporates a social component (guest lecturers, small group work) to the classroom beyond the basic tutoring sessions of the Keller plan. It is the value added by the social component that I believe sets the AT approach apart from the PSI model. Granted, the inclusion of this component restricts students from truly moving at their own pace through the entire course, but I think that for many, the understanding that is gained from the unscripted conversations and exchange of ideas, viewpoints and experiences that take place when students interact, is worth it.

If you were to describe a rough sketch of this approach (learning kits complete with instructions and materials) to any elementary teacher, they would probably respond with something like this, "Oh, you mean centers." Though I'm ashamed to admit that I know many elementary teachers who deal exclusively in whole group, lecture style instruction even with younger children,  it's standard practice among elementary teachers to incorporate a set of independent activities at stations throughout the room for students to work on at their own pace. Some teachers even have centers that they change on a weekly basis, much like the AT appraoch. Of course these centers are not likely to involve the complexity and rigor of AT, but from the teacher's standpoint, they provide them with an opportunity to set students meaningful (albeit lower level) curriculum related tasks while they work more closely with a single child or a small group of students. The inclusion of small group tasks is often mirrored in centers as well, with students working as study partners or peer tutors. Due to the constraints on the complexity of task that students can work on independently, I don't see this approach moving beyond a supplemental role to classroom instruction, at least at the elementary level. However, when we make the leap to high school and especially college campuses, I believe this approach has already caught on in the form of virtual high schools and online courses and degree programs.

Despite this approach's origins in on-campus learning labs and audio cassettes, I can't help but see this model's broad adoption (wittingly or unknowingly) among distance learning courses I've taken at the college level, plus or minus a few components. The semi-self paced nature is especially appealing to older students, particularly those with full-time jobs and families to juggle, but the weekly format allows it to fit into the traditional academic calendar and incorporate collaborative or cooperative activities among students. In the majority of courses I've taken, a learning management system such as Moodle or Blackboard was used to organize content into weekly sessions complete with resources and actvities, or rather, an online "learning kit". The tasks assigned are often adaptable to the students' situation and learning preferences, provided the instructor allows options or choice. And moving through the course with an entire course still gives students the perception that they are part of a group, though from what I've read in the literature, this sense of community is harder to establish in an online course than its face-to-face counterpart. The weekly format also helps to regulate the amount of feedback and support the instructor is to provide, making the instructors job a little easier than keeping up with a classroom of students all scattered throughout the course material as in the PSI model.

Overall, I see this approach as a happy medium between the PSI model and the traditional lecture based classroom. With the AT approach, structure is given to students, but flexibility to accommodate learner's needs is allowed. Accommodations are still made for students' learning speeds, but learning doesn't become an isolated activity. I should note here, though, that some students, particularly those with cooperative group experiences, prefer this. My wife is currently working on her Masters online through Michigan State University and though most of the course follow the AT approach, with collaborative projects thrown in here and there, one of her favorite courses was a completely self-paced course with no student interaction. 

Beyond the standard use at the elementary level, virtual schools at the high school level, and online course in higher ed described above, I see the potential of the basic framework of AT (i.e. carefully structured "learning kits") to reach learners beyond the institutions in which they are created. Now that these "kits" can be digitized, they can made available online to anyone with an Internet connection and accessed by anyone who is passionate about learning. The Opencourseware movement, behind which academic powerhouses such as MIT, Stanford, and the University of Michigan have thrown their weight, now makes available high quality courses, including the materials in many cases, available freely on the web (sans instructor feedback and credit, of course). And with the rise of social networking applications, I can envision an number of self-organized learners, particularly in countries where access is limited, supplementing the instructional support missing from these "kits" to create true online learning communities. It would be fitting that a model originally designed to help struggling learners, could become a tool to empower those eager to learn,  yet struggling because of their lack of opportunity.

Kozma, R.B., Belle, L.W. and Williams, G.W. (1978) Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Educational
Technology Publications, New Jersey.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.

ID Meets IT Part 1: A Classroom of One

This is the first post in a series of postings examining historical and contemporary instructional delivery and design models and their implications for instructional technology, hence the title, ID Meets IT.

Individualized instruction may be a familiar buzzword for today’s educators, but its historical roots extend deep into the educational soil.  At a time during social upheaval, cultural revolutions, and questioning of authority, it no surprise that in the early 60’s F.S. Keller devised an unconventional plan to address a problem many teachers still face today: why students refuse to learn. The Keller plan was a dramatic break from the traditional system of instruction in which the teacher delivered the same instruction, to the same group of students, and at the same time, same speed, same order.  Davis (2000) succinctly outlines the system as:

…a plan, which was designed to maximize learning by stressing achievement and positive reinforcement. This approach has come to be known as The Keller Plan, Self-Paced Instruction, or the Personalized System of Instruction. The key elements of the system are:
   •    Clear educational objectives.
   •    Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback
   •    Student self-pacing
   •    Positive reinforcement
   •    Student emphasis on doing rather than listening

Although Davis doesn’t explicitly state the rationale for why PSI will make students want to learn, it’s not too difficult to infer a primary reason. Students that traditionally have difficulty learning won’t be frustrated with unsuccessful attempts at keeping up. Likewise, students who excel academically won’t be bored with the slow pace.

While Keller’s plan was perhaps revolutionary at the time, personalized systems of instruction (PSI) have found several niches in today’s classrooms.  During my undergraduate years, I was a volunteer at the University of Michigan’s Family Housing Center assisting with an afterschool English program helping the children of foreign graduates students learn English. The system in place consisted students working at their own pace on small self-guided activities (games, worksheets, etc) contained within files folders. An assistant assessed their work immediately, a sticker was added to their progress chart, and they were allowed to select a new activity within their leveled range until all similarly color-coded unit activities were completed, after which they were allowed to move on to the next level. In my work as an elementary educator, I’ve personally used, and have known many educators who have also incorporated a watered down version of PSI into centers or individual seat work while the teacher works with a small group of students on a skill they’ve yet to master, on collaborative projects, or on small investigations in which supplies are limited. 

While I believe PSI still plays a limited, supplementary role in the classroom in terms of instructional delivery, one of the biggest trends I see in the re-emergence of PSI is in the field of educational technology. Technology takes the appealing aspects of PSI (self-pace, immediate feedback, emphasis on activity) and makes it both feasible and scalable.  K12, a primary vendor The Florida Virtual School, incorporates a series of self-paced modules for students to work through at their own pace with frequent assessment checks that are conditional for advancement to the next lesson.  On a side note, Moodle, an LMS that is probably familiar to anyone who has taken and online course at the university level, recently included the ability for instructors to include conditional activities. I’ve also seen PSI take a dominant foothold in elementary computer labs and middle schools concerned about standardized test scores. PSI based software packages such as Classworks, Waterford, Study Island and a whole slew of similar programs appeal to these schools because of their emphasis on mastery of specific, concrete, curriculum aligned objectives. Students move at their own pace, are immediately given feedback through quizzes or games, and teachers can easily monitor the progress of an entire class all working on separate skills, an incredibly difficult task in a normal classroom setting. 

Despite these advantages, PSI, both in technology based and traditional classrooms, is not without problems.  Any teacher with a classroom of 20-30 students knows how difficult it can be to monitor, support and provide feedback to students working on the same lesson, let alone 20-30 different lessons. And while technology provides a solution of sorts to this problem, the kind of feedback and support a machine can provide to a child or adult is severely limited. I’ve had the opportunity to both score and write assessment items for Pearson and for my district and quality items the assess higher order thinking skills are very difficult to write, especially when limited to closed responses such as the multiple choice and matching items found in these types of technology programs. The multiple assessment items required are not only difficult to write, but are also very time consuming, as is the preparation and management of a vast quantity of instructional materials. This is one of the reasons I think PSI has become more prevalent in the field of educational technology.

In addition, I also question Davis’ contention that PSI is suited to different learning styles. The very linear, lock-step oriented methods of PSI allow students to move at their own pace, but in the implementations of PSI that I have seen, they are still marching down the same path. Moreover, with the technology-based versions of PSI mentioned above, they are going it alone. PSI in an online environment can be a terribly isolating experience, and not just for distance learners working from computers at home. Walking into a computer lab with 30+ headphone-clad students sitting silently and staring at computers while they cycle through lessons is a somewhat disturbing experience.

A final point needs to be addressed and ties into the two points above. The division of instruction into small, frequently assessed units of distinct objectives, compounded with the method of assessment available through technology or the feasibility of creating assessments, and added to the fact that students will likely be working alone or with an ever changing small group, equals a severely limited range and type of activities (and activities are the emphasis) that can be performed by students. Modeling skills as they are likely to be applied in students’ personal lives or at some point in their careers seems to be a difficult task to ask of PSI. Moreover, while I’ve seen higher order thinking skills addressed in these programs or assessments, it is usually in such an isolated context that it is difficult to apply or transfer that skill into another setting.  

In conclusion, PSI has a place in education, but I would proceed with caution. PSI would be well suited to basic skill remediation or acceleration, but PSI models are a big investment, both online or off. PSI requires a big investment both in the time to develop materials or money to purchase them, and the manpower to monitor and support students or the technology that can do so. I see a lot of school districts seduced into technology packages that follow a PSI model because they are so laser focused on test scores that measure a discrete set of isolated skills, they are blinded to the wider view of how technology is increasingly being used in schools and in daily life to inquire, create, and connect. And online or off, it is these connections with people that further inspire us to create, to spark our curiosity and teach us the art of inquiry.