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