The "Power of Pedagogy" in Computer-Assisted Instructional Materials

 

 

Introduction

With the surge of interest in educational technologies, many educators are relying upon technical experts to convert traditional teaching materials into computer-assisted instructional materials (CAI). However, the resulting CAI may be technology-driven rather than pedagogy-driven (Bernstein, 1998). In fact, there seems to be a belief that learning will take place because technology is present, even in the absence of sound instructional design. This paper provides an overview of some important teaching and learning concepts that should be considered when developing CAI. Learner—Centered Instruction.

Traditional classroom teaching methods have always created a dilemma for conscientious instructors; what is possible for the group may not be ideal for the individual (Somekh & Davis, 1997). Traditional teaching is usually more teacher-centered than learner-centered. This concept is epitomized by an instructor lecturing to a group of twenty students. Each person in the group receives the identical teaching "treatment" yet it is unlikely that each person in the group has identical learning needs or preferred learning styles. CAI may provide an advantage over traditional teaching modalities because CAI can be designed to accommodate individual learner diversities by combining a mix of text and media, and can be accessed by learners individually or in small groups. CAI may be more student-centered than teacher-centered, and may better meet the learning needs of each student (Brooks, 1997).

Learner Diversities/Learning Styles

The term "learning styles" refers to the way people learn new ideas and concepts, and represents one example of diversity between learners. The differences between individual learning styles present a challenge to an educational system that has traditionally assumed that every student can learn the same materials via the identical delivery mode. More learners may benefit if courseware information is presented in a number of different ways (http://www.fwl.org/edtech/learning.html). Identified individual learning styles are:

Each person typically is capable of processing information in several of the learning style modalities. However, each individual prefers one or two of the learning modalities. To complete a learning style inventory to determine what type of learner you are, go to this URL: http://www.howtolearn.com/personal.html. Awareness of the various learning styles evokes images of new and challenging ways to assist learners in constructing knowledge as well as ways to accommodate all of the intelligences possessed by the human mind (http://klingon.util.utexas.edu/TAG/7_Intelligences.html). Multimedia can accommodate the many types of learning preferences that one person may embody or that a class embodies (http://www.fwl.org/edtech/learning.html).

Instructional Design

Effective teaching practices require planning. Instructional design describes the systematic process for translating general principles of instruction into actual plans for learning activities. Instructional design includes the entire process from the analysis of learner needs and learner goals to the development of a delivery system to meet those needs and goals. It includes development of instructional materials and activities, as well as the tryout and evaluation of all instructional and learner activities to assess their effectiveness (McNeil, http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/whatisid.html).

Instructional Design Theories

There are two major instructional design theories dividing educational pedagogy: objectivism and constructivism (although there are often differences in defining each of these). There is also a newer instructional design theory, called the cognitive flexibility theory model.

Objectivist Instructional Design The objectivist model is typical of traditional presentational teaching. Objectivism provides a series of steps that, when followed, lead inexorably to the production of traditional instructional materials. This model take little account of individual differences in prior knowledge and motivation. Objectivists believe that knowledge exists external to the learner; facts exist and learners can memorize them. The objectivist model is best seen in direct instruction, where the goal is usually to have the student acquire and repeat factual information. Most textbooks are designed for, and many instructors are trained in, this type of model. Students either read or are told factual information. Then, they repeat this information as a part of assessment to see if they "learned" it. This type of model is useful when the objectives to be met are for that type of informational memorization.

Constructitivist Instructional Design

When the goals of learning are for students to use higher-order (critical) thinking skills, to understand the causes or effects of ideas or actions, and to become fully engaged in their learning, a different instructional design model than objectivism is needed. This is the constructivist model. Constructivists believe that learning is not a unidirectional technical procedure of teachers injecting knowledge into passive learners (Somekh and Davis, 1997).

One interpretation of the constructivist model ascertains that:

Knowledge is not something external to the beholder. Humans create or construct knowledge as they bring meaning to their experiences. Individuals may have different meanings attached to similar experiences. All new experiences are seen as they relate to existing knowledge structures. Knowledge is always tentative and incomplete because it is a construct of humans and humans are constantly undergoing new experiences. Knowledge grows through exposure. Understanding becomes deeper and stronger if one tests it against new encounters and finds agreement between the previous and current knowledge. The constructivist instructional design theory can be integrated into a learning situation in many ways. However, it almost always equates to the instructor losing some degree of control over what the learners will learn. It also may take longer for certain topics to be covered, and testing is more difficult due to the less structured nature of the learning. In the constructivist classroom, teachers ask open-ended questions and allow wait time for responses. Student autonomy and initiative are accepted and encouraged, their ideas respected, and independent thinking is encouraged. Students are encouraged to connect and summarize concepts by analyzing, predicting, justifying, and defending their ideas. Students are engaged in dialogue with each other as well as with the teacher, and may change or reinforce their ideas based on dialogue with other students, not just the instructor, and are encouraged to pursue original ideas. They need not always agree with each other or with the teacher. The class uses raw data and primary material sources, rather than teaching materials that someone else has already synthesized, integrated and digested. Students learn whole concepts or skills, instead of discrete packets of information. After the learner has an understanding of the whole, then the teacher facilitates breaking that information down into the individual pieces of which it is comprised. Students need the opportunity to apply knowledge in authentic problem-solving tasks, and to reflect (Spiro et al. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/spiro.html; Spiro et al. http://www.ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cogflx.txt). Computer based instructional strategies are perfectly matched to accomplish many of these suggestions.Although the constructivist model allows for a high degree of learner independence, there is yet a newer design theory that emphasizes even more learner flexibility, termed cognitive flexibility and the hypermedia model of instructional design. This model of instructional design may be the most appropriate instructional design model when instruction deals with higher levels of thinking and learning, involves being able to spontaneously reorganize one's knowledge, or requires integrating numerous different sources of information to formulate a response in the midst of an unstructured environment. (Spiro et al. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/spiro.html; Spiro et al. http://www.ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cogflx.txt).

Cognitive Flexibility and the Hypermedia Design Model A common reason for the failure of many instructional systems is the unrealistically simplified and well-structured manner in which things are presented in many educational settings. Deficiencies in the outcomes of learning are, in other words, due to the fact that the knowledge gained from oversimplified settings is not transferable to new cases. In contrast, the cognitive flexibility theory focuses on the nature of learning in ill-structured, poorly defined situations, which typifies real life situations. The theory is largely concerned with learners having the ability to transfer knowledge they have constructed and skills they have acquired beyond the initial learning situation. Flexible learning environments are required for learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills. These learning environments must permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes. By virtue of the flexibility it can provide, the computer domain is ideally suited for fostering cognitive flexibility in ways that traditional teaching methods and modes cannot. This desire for multiple perspectives and knowledge criss-crossing is well supported in the Internet environment, especially using the hypermedia of the World Wide Web in conjunction with on line discussion tools and chat rooms (Spiro et al. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/spiro.html; Spiro et al. http://www.ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cogflx.txt).

Conclusion

Educators may have content and pedagogy expertise, but lack technical expertise, thus making it difficult for many educators to develop CAI. Conversely, individuals with technical abilities can develop CAI, but lack solid pedagogical foundations. CAI should not be developed without consideration for pedagogy. This manuscript provides an overview of some teaching principles a CAI developer may want to consider.

References

1. Bernstein, D. S. (1998, February). WBT: Are we really teaching? Inside Technology Training, 2(2), 14-17.

2. Brooks, D.W. (1997). Lecturing: multimedia classrooms. In K. C. Cohen, Harvard (Ed.) Web-teaching: A Guide to designing interactive teaching for the world wide web. (pp. 165-171). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Plenum Press.

3. Bloom's Taxonomy. Distance Learning Resource Network Technology Resource Guide. Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.wested.org/tie/dlrn/blooms.html

4. Learning Styles. Distance Learning Resource Network Technology Resource Guide. Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fwl.org/edtech/learning.html

5. Gardner, H. The Seven Types of Intelligence. (1996) Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://klingon.util.utexas.edu/TAG/7_Intelligences.html

6. McNeil, S. What is Instructional Design? Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/whatisid.html

7. Somekh, B., & Davis, N. (Eds.). (1997). Using Information Technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning: Studies in Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Education. London; New York: Routledge.

8. Spiro, R., Feltovitch, P., & Coulson, R. Cognitive Flexibility Theory; Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/spiro.html

9. Spiro, R., et al. Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains. Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cogflx.txt

10. Personal Learning Style Inventory. The Center for New Discoveries in Learning. Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.howtolearn.com/personal.html

11. When Learning & Testing Styles Don't Match: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic Learning Styles. Retrieved March, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.howtolearn.com/ndil3.html

[References need to be put in APA style.]

 

Critical Reviews

Q

I would not recommend publication.  The author attempts to cover a very complex topic and I found the paper to be less than helpful. Having said this, some specific technical problems are noted below: 

At the end of paragraph #3, the link http://www.fwl.org/edtech/learning.html returns a "document not found" message.  It looks like there is an inadvertent ")" at the end of the url.

The http://www.howtolearn.com/personal.html url's take the reader to a page where they can request a newsletter.  It wasn't obvious to me how a person gained access to the learning style inventory cited in the text & I didn't care to send my e-mail address to the firm to find out.

The url at the end of the Instructional Design paragraph (paragraph #5?) http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/whatisid.html returned a "file not found" dialogue box

The url at the end of the last paragraph before the conclusion, http://www.ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cogflx.txt
returned a "unable to locate server" message this afternoon when I reviewed the article.

L

Below are a few stylistic comments regarding the above piece. I think the topic is a potentially good one but I was surprised to find myself at the end of the article without what I expected to learn from it.

Although the author does indeed present an overview of learning pedagogies, there is no discussion of specific examples where the pedagogies were or were not put into effect in the CAI conversion of course materials. In fact, the article's expectation that it will be a technical expert doing the conversion without any input from the faculty member seems wholly unrealistic. If a course does not utilize a design for active or cooperative learning prior to its conversion, I don't see how it can do so afterwards without the cooperation of the instructor who will be teaching the course. To suggest that it is the technician's responsibility to redesign the course was an eye-opener for me. Perhaps this is not what the author intended to convey, but this is what I gathered from the closing sentence, "This manuscript provides an overview of some teaching principles a CAI developer may want to consider." Shouldn't the author suggest a joint discussion of these issues between educator and CAI developer?

If my reaction is typical, perhaps a better topic for the article would be a discussion of what is happening with CAI conversions of traditional courses and course materials, and the problems that occur in such real-life situations. I would be very interested in reading a case study of a conversion from an objectivist to a more flexible, learner-centered design, how the developer and instructor worked together on the conversion, what problems were encountered, what ideas needed to be revised, and how the students reacted to the changes. Although the article presented was well-organized and detailed in a fairly clear form how learning styles need to be addressed by a more constructivist design, I was left wondering why I couldn't just read the references, if that was all the article was intended to convey.

"One interpretation of the constructivist model ascertains that..." Knowledge is not something external to the beholder. Humans create or construct knowledge as they bring meaning to their experiences. Individuals may have different meanings attached to similar experiences. All new experiences are seen as they relate to existing knowledge structures. Knowledge is always tentative and incomplete because it is a construct of humans and humans are constantly undergoing new experiences. Knowledge grows through exposure. Understanding becomes deeper and stronger if one tests it against new encounters and finds agreement between the previous and current knowledge.

"The constructivist instructional design theory can be integrated into ..." This reads very clunkily, particularly in an online environment. It might be better to bullet these points and put in a paragraph break beginning with this last sentence.

" Computer based instructional strategies are perfectly matched to accomplish many of these suggestions." Use this sentence to begin a new paragraph.

 

Z

I really don't like the tone of this article. What bothers me is the premise.

With the surge of interest in educational technologies, many educators are relying upon technical experts to convert traditional teaching materials into computer-assisted instructional materials (CAI). However, the resulting CAI may be technology-driven rather than pedagogy-driven (Bernstein, 1998). In fact, there seems to be a belief that learning will take place because technology is present, even in the absence of sound instructional design. This paper provides an overview of some important teaching and learning concepts that should be considered when developing CAI. Learner—Centered Instruction.

The teachers in the real classrooms probably have few pedagogical models but we are not stupid. What I mean is good instructors can always create learning that is powerful with the correct resources. This article is very scholarly and well written but there are some assumptions that make me ill.

There are reseach documents that tell us that the colleges of education, most of them are not doing their jobs. There is research to tell us that teachers do not get quality in service and we all know that there are teachers who teach based on the information they got when they were teachers in training. Here are resources from College professors( research), from a communications focas, an initiative by the White House, an initiative by CEO's concerning business concerns for education , and another Dept of Ed Initiative and research on Teacher Quality. This is really important stuff.

Unfortunately most teachers are self taught. It is the legacy of the well intentioned professional development, and the lack of information by some of pedagogical strategies for developing the vision of technology use , and the lack of time that teachers have or are given to explore the uses of technology( If you have a Cinderella school, don't write me, I know they exist, they are just not the common way). An early indicator of the necessity of training teachers was from this report

Reinventing Schools, the Technology is NOW!

Teachers receive less technical support than does any other group of professionals. Computers occupy the desk-tops of most professionals in the United States, but not in classrooms; there, computers are often used exclusively by students. The average worker in America can take advantage of $50,000 worth of capital invested in that job; the comparable figure for teachers is $1,000. Most teachers do not even have immediate access to a telephone. Despite these obstacles, a small but rapidly growing number of teachers has discovered the power and scope of information technologies-often with computers they have at home. They are using computers and telecommunications to form networks of teachers, comparing experiences and exchanging ideas. They are acquiring curricula and other instructional information over educational networks. They are using computers to reduce administrative drudgery and to track and guide student development. In the process, they are using technology not only to reinvent schools but to reinvent their own roles as teachers. (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/techgap/investing.html)

Chris Dede called these teachers Pioneers .. Here is his statement on that. " Chris Dede on how Technology Changes the Role of the Teacher

Thus far, most educators who use technology to implement the alternative types of pedagogy and curriculum are "pioneers": people who see continuous change and growth as an integral part of their profession and who are willing to swim against the tide of conventional operating procedures - often at considerable personal cost. However, to achieve large-scale shifts in standard educational practices, many more teachers must alter their pedagogical approaches; and schools' managmeent, institutional structure, and relationship to the community must change in fundamental ways. This requires that "settlers" (people who appreciate stability and do not want herioc efforts to become an everyday requirement) must be convinced to make the leap to a different mode of professional activity - with the understanding that, once they have mastered these new approaches, their daily work will be sustainable without extraordinary exertion. How can a critical mass of educators in a district be induced simultaneously to make such a shift?"

There are three initiatives that are going on now. One completed was intitated back iin 1997 which was the NCATE report on the Task Force on Technology. www.ncate.org and the effects http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HTM

Here is what that report said..."The introduction of computers and other technologies into schools is occurring at the same time that three decades of research in the cognitive sciences, which has deepened our understanding of how people learn, is prompting a reappraisal of teaching practices. We know from this research that knowledge is not passively received, but actively constructed by learners from a base of prior knowledge, attitudes, and values. Dependence on a single source of information, typically a textbook, must give way to using a variety of information sources. As new technologies become more readily available and less expensive, they will likely serve as a catalyst for ensuring that new approaches to teaching gain a firm foothold in schools.

Despite the technology changes in society, being a teacher in American schools too often consists of helping children and youth acquire information from textbooks and acting as an additional source of expertise. Teachers are provided role models of this approach to teaching from kindergarten through graduate school; their teacher education courses provide hints for making textbook-oriented instruction interesting and productive, and as teaching interns, they both observe and practice instruction based upon mastering information found in books.

Teachers may be forgiven if they cling to old models of teaching that have served them well in the past. All of their formal instruction and role models were driven by traditional teaching practices. Breaking away from traditional approaches to instruction means taking risks and venturing into the unknown. But this is precisely what is needed at the present time."

The United States Dept of Education has also been involved in this effort for a long time. <A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/edtech/html/edtech_f.html" ThePresident's Educational Technology Initiative</A http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/edtech/html/edtech_f.html Here are the four pillars and there are numerous initiatives to support them.

Teacher Quality....http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/990128.html this NCES study underscore this problem. The NCES study reveals several contrasts between teachers' needs and the policies and practices found in most states and local schools:

The most common form of professional development activities continues to be the kind that teachers tell us are the least beneficial -- the "one-shot" workshops that typically last no more than a day and often carry little relevance to teachers' work in the classroom.

New and veteran teachers alike say they do not feel very well prepared to teach effectively to the four fastest changing aspects of the nation's schools - raising standards in the classroom, students with special needs, students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and use of technology. The fact that newer teachers report as much unease as their veteran colleagues indicates that teacher education and professional development programs are not addressing the realities found in today's classroom.

At a time when we seek to raise standards for teachers, I am disturbed that even the conservative statistical measure used by NCES found far too many teachers teaching out of their field of study. The data show this to be especially true at the middle school level. It's natural to think about the practice of teaching as an individual process. In reality, teaching is not a solo venture. Our teachers need more support and collaboration than ever to get high standards in the classroom and address more diverse students, technology, and a growing list of other demands that we as a society place on them.

A primary cause for limited professional development opportunities is American custom. While doctors and lawyers routinely confer with colleagues, teachers often remain isolated in classrooms. Among teachers whose schools dedicate time for team planning, 40 percent say it improves their teaching "a lot," and another third say it improves their teaching "moderately." Yet, it is an uncommon practice.

Through this study, teachers are telling us the kinds of support that they need and want - more peer collaboration, team teaching, common planning periods. If we don't listen to them, we will shortchange our children and our teachers by hanging on to comfortable but self-defeating practices.

In the coming decade, America's schools will need more than 2 million new teachers.

Most recent was the CEOFORUM See Year Two Report http://www.ceoforum.org/

<A HREF="http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/csp/Abstracts/CrLearn.html" Creating a Learning Society</A for further enrichment... and edification read this report. Through collaborative efforts, communities can devise creative solutions to the problems of equity in funding and teacher training, and create incentives for the use of technology to enhance learning. Potential funding solutions, developed in greater detail in the report, include private entrepreneurship, government guarantees for a lending authority, and school- based development of educational materials with commercial applications.

Certainly it'll be nice when those who prepare teachers have themselves learned enough about all the potential powers of technology for education. But how many of those "preparers" have had that much more time to learn than we? It seems to me the teachers in today's classrooms MUST dare to explore, to trial and error, to learn as we go, to learn from our neighbor teachers (and our students) and spread the word about what is found to be of value. We're on the brink of a revolution (or rapid evolution) in education, the way we learn, the way we teach, whether we like it or not. And today's administrator can't be dragging his feet. She/he should be out there getting more in-service time for technology up-dating, innovating, for his faculty. As Paul Revere said, "Let's go, horse. The patriots need to hear the word!".