I really enjoyed the article I read for this week. It had plenty of good ideals in it. The only issue I took with it is that it kept implying that online collaborative learning needed to be studies from a developmental research approach, but never quite suggested how one would go about taking that approach.
It does highlight a key problem with the transition from face-to-face classrooms to online learning. Basically with all the power of technology to supposedly enhance online learning, it is the goal of many institutions to simply replicate the face-to-face environment online.
This goes back to the ideal that things are done the way they have always been done. Teachers are not inclined to learn a new way of teaching in addition to learning new technology to teach. Those that are forced to will learn how to use the technology to teach in exactly the same way they have always taught...
How do I deliver a lecture online? How do I allow the class to ask questions while I deliver my lecture? How do I post lecture materials where the class can find them? How do I examine the class using the technology available?
Teachers have simply tried to use the technology to replicate what they do in the classroom without having the classroom in front of them.
The article points out that part of the reason is that faculty are not given sufficient time, training, or support for properly transitioning, but "perceive the primary problem as an inability of academic staff and instructional designers to think "outside the box" when it comes to developing online courses"
One other note of particular interest was in describing changes that would need to be made to meet the "vision" of online collaborative learning, "Educational researchers should be rewarded for participation in long-term developmental research projects and their impact on practice rather than for the number of refereed journal articles they publish."
Not sure I agree with the first part, but I agree 100% with the second part of that statement. (The part after rather than).
This goes back to some of the things that we have been touching on the entire semester. How do you change a system that has been in place for so long? At what point do you try to change the system. This paper obviously calls for a change not only to the way course materials are designed and taught, but to the way the higher education functions in general.
If colleges begin to change the way they “teach” students, then how does primary education (elementary, middle, and high school) adapt to prepare students for this modified learning environment? Will students begin to attend high school classes online from the comfort of their home? Does this get pushed down into the middle and elementary schools? Is a better vision to hold class in the classroom, but use the technology as if the classroom were virtual?
We have talked about a pedagogy change multiple times this semester, but I am still trying to figure out where that change would occur. At what level does the educational system need to be modified (or does it). Is the whole thing not working or do we just have a modified vision of what the educational system should be doing? I guess the question is what exactly is the problem that is created by the current educational system and where does that problem occur?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I have to say, this was the best of the four articles I read this week JR (which is not saying much). At the beginning I was reading it (The Vision part) and I was like, what is this? Don't they realize that this doesn't happen? It reminded me of the Blended Learning Guru Garrison that I read last semester. All of his books take on that vision approach of extreme over-optimism. It is so unrealistic and gushing as to make my head swim. Anyway, then I realized that the reality did not match the vision as Larry Cuban would definitely say or Clark for that matter.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm possibly in favor of rethinking thinking as well but maybe not in the way that all of the fadists seem to be "thinking". The more I read, the more I see data come in on online learning, etc., the more I doubt the whole Vygotvsky, Dewey, etc. approach to learning at all and the more I return to the best learning might be by rote (at least at the start).
The problem as I see it is that constructionists get the cart before the horse. They want "student learners" to do problem solving before they have the long term memory bank full. The kids are empty-headed going into problem solving which is analogous to the working memory in a computer. Problem solving occurs in the working memory but if the LTM has nothing in it to draw upon the WM is overtaxed and basically a paralysis sets in and the brain just sits there.
A great reference for this is a paper we had to read for Jay last year:
Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Controlled experiments have shown that learners need to be shown how to problem solve, how to do it. Research indicates that constructivism did NOT work. Even though failures were always shown in the empirical studies the constructivists just gave new names to the learning and continued on: discovery learning, experiential, PBL, and now constructivist. Those who use constructivist methods end up providing guidance, pretty much are forced into it.
Some words the authors used to describe students learning science under constructivist methodology included: lost, frustrated, inefficient learning, misconceptions, and lack of transfer. As to cognitive load it seemed to be greatly increased with free exploration of discovery learning without adequate information up front. OTOH, increased guidance approaches led to longer term transfer and better problem-solving skills. Worked examples greatly aided problem solving abilities and decreased WM load. Problem solving methods were more effective for experienced learners (those that already had good LTM). In this case, worked examples could become redundant (on “experts”) and cause an expertise reversal effect.
Specific
A meta-analysis of 101 quantitative, LSI studies from 275 dissertations and 624 articles by Kolb showed that there was no real correlation between learning styles, etc. Validity and reliability of the studies was too low. One interesting finding was, “that strong treatments benefited less able learners and weaker treatments benefited more able learners”. This is to say that direct instruction methods benefit novices much more than experts. Some ATI studies showed that discovery methods actually caused a loss of learning. The less able learners might choose the easier discovery methods and feel good about themselves but still learn less than less able learners who would choose more direct methods.
Empirical evidence about science learning from unguided instruction showed that direct guidance is much better. The discovery science learning is only successful when the knowledge base and structure is strong.
Many medical schools have gotten away from direct instruction and more into PBL yielding higher clinical scores but worse results in actual practice such as proscription of unnecessary tests in their practices, unsure diagnoses, and much higher costs per patient with less benefit.
The paper finally returns to the point that, “the epistemology of a discipline should not be confused with a pedagogy for teaching or learning it. The practice of a profession is not the same as learning to practice the profession.”
Conclusions
50 years after the initiation of PBL there is no support for its effectiveness in actual learning and, in fact, in some cases it results in a loss of learning.
Misconceptions can occur along with incomplete and/or disorganized knowledge. The authors contend that the assumptions that experiential learning are better than the teaching of body of knowledge of a discipline and that the pedagogic content of the learning experience is identical to its methods and processes is in error.
Future
The authors would like to see scientists apply the same rigor to learning sciences as they would to their own data.