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.

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.