IDCL AECT Concurrent Presentation

461 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
461
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Defining the audience and learning goalsThe specific audience of the course was initially confusing, especially with the different composition of the online Ed.D. program as compared to the traditional residential Ph.D. program. The learning goals, while set out in the course objectives, were applied to the course objectives in a more direct way than in former versions of the residential course. In particular, the learning goal for the course was condensed to “thinking like an academic researcher,” and placing the goals for the course within that framework.Meet the goals of critique (which seemed to be primary), while still gaining key content knowledge about IST.Defining/designing Learning Tasks / Sequencing task classesThe learning tasks were difficult to identify as well. The identified tasks came out of our discussion of knowledge claims and theories of knowledge, especially in regard to support of knowledge claims in the context of academic literature. The group discussed a number of approaches to meeting the overall learning goals, but the process wasn’t really solidified until the evaluation process during the summer. Even in the summer work, the learning tasks related to the primary literature review deliverables were left unaddressed (the third learning goal of the course). Finding articles to sequence against each task class was difficult, especially in finding clear examples of know-how and know-that-one knowledge that were foregrounded in articles. Also how to deal with more advanced categorization of knowledge claims.Identifying knowledge claimsAfter working through the creation of task classes, the group worked through each article to identify knowledge claims. Although this seemed like a straightforward task, the team members struggled to identify consistent primary claims in the article. Issues that came up included the role of supporting claims (from other research literature) and unique claims the article was making, and the required knowledge of the reader to understand this differentiation. A member from outside the team reviewed the markups from the summer design work, and provided helpful feedback on the identified knowledge claims. Belief of claims as well (own experience).
  • Fall 2011 residential course includes:Knowledge claims in relation to content rather than content-focused discussionNew readings and some updated readings (new editions) based on summer workA new sequence of deliverables for the course, using an annotated bibliography as the midterm deliverable (replacing a small literature review), allowing students to work toward their major literature review in a more progressive way throughout the semesterA new template to be completed for at least one reading each week. Includes identification of knowledge claims, support for each claim from the article, and the identification of two additional sources that support the reading. (Building research skills and competencies in reading literature critically)
  • We identified critique as a primary element in the course, and believe this goal must be prominent in the online course. This includes the importance of individual critique (through tools like the knowledge claim template) as well as group critique, where multiple viewpoints are considered (replacing group work that often takes place in the residential course).Although development efforts are ongoing, these goals might be addressed through required public presentations via YouTube. This medium allows other class members to collaborate and critique other student presentations through the use of video annotations.
  • IDCL AECT Concurrent Presentation

    1. 1. A Case Study inDesigning OnlineInstruction using vanMerriënboers Ten Stepsto Complex LearningCarol Watson, Colin Gray, Xiaokai Jia,Jiyoon Jung, Yurong Wang, Ted FrickIndiana University
    2. 2. session objectives- Provide background information on the design project- Present an overview of the 4C/ID model and Ten Steps- Discuss challenges and solutions encountered during our design process- Answer questions
    3. 3. background information- Need for project- Why this reading course was selected- Why the model was selected
    4. 4. original course goals- Develop an understanding of key issues and concepts within IST- Develop the ability to critically analyze and synthesize IST-related publications from a variety of perspectives- Develop a literature review for a topic of interest within IST.
    5. 5. (van Merriënboer, 1997)
    6. 6. 4C/ID comparedto Ten StepsLearning Tasks 1. Design Learning Tasks 2. Sequence Task Classes 3. Set Performance ObjectivesSupportive Information 4. Design Supportive Information 5. Analyze Cognitive Strategies 6. Analyze Mental ModelsProcedural Information 7. Design Procedural Information 8. Analyze Cognitive Rules 9. Analyze Prerequisite KnowledgePart-task Practice 10.Design Part-task Practice(van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2007)
    7. 7. academic yeardesign process- Weekly research team meetings- Shared notes taken each week- Fall 2010 - IRB Approval, Data Collection- Spring 2011 - Identification of authentic, whole task - Knowledge claims
    8. 8. knowledge claim chart
    9. 9. summer design process- We addressed multiple "steps" at once - learning tasks and task classes - supportive and procedural information- Development tasks: - Planned a schedule: analysis of development tasks - Consolidated some of the tabled decisions - Defined the learning tasks - Updated the reading list - Changed the sequence - Developed supports: markups of key claims
    10. 10. sample task class
    11. 11. sample article markup
    12. 12. key features- Kept the current goals of the course, but more intentionally designed based on collaborative design discussions - Task-based: Four simple-to-complex, elaborative task classes - Fading levels of supports within a task class - Part-task practice on citing in APA style & searching credible resources - More flexible and modular weekly design- Course is still in development, with target online date of Fall 2012
    13. 13. challenges- Defining the audience and learning goals- Defining/designing Learning Tasks- Sequencing task classes- Identifying knowledge claims
    14. 14. residential implementation- Knowledge claims as a main unit of discussion- Additional/updated readings- Streamlined deliverables for the course - Annotated Bibliography - Major Literature Review- Use of knowledge claim template for readings - Knowledge claims made by the author - Support for each claim listed - Two additional references that support the reading
    15. 15. looking forward- Primacy of critique - Individual - Group- Public presentations via YouTube- Video annotations to encourage discussion
    16. 16. referencesBooth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (1995). The craft of research. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.Frick, T. W. (2011). The theory of totally integrated education: TIE. [Unpublished manuscript] Retrievedfrom http://educology.indiana.edu/Frick/TIEtheory.pdfFrick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations to improveinstruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 58(2), 115-136. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9131-zMaccia, G. S. (1987). Genetic epistemology of intelligent natural systems. Systems Research, 4(3), 213-218.Maccia, G. S. (1988). Genetic epistemology of intelligent natural systems: Propositional, proceduraland performative intelligence. Paper presented at Hangzhou University, China. Retrieved July17, 2011, fromhttp://educology.indiana.edu/Maccia/GeneticEpistemologyOfIntelligentSystems_propositionalProceduralPerformativeIntelligence1988.pdfPeirce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers, Vol. II, Elements of logic (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improvingdesign theories. In Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory.(pp. 633-51).Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Steiner, E. (1988). Methodology of theory building. Sydney, Australia: Educology Research Associates.van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructionaldesign model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational TechnologyPublications.van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematicapproach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    17. 17. questions
    18. 18. original designof the course- Weekly reading list- In-class discussions (both instructor- and student-led)- Written critique of readings (weekly)- Literature Review on a topic in the field (selected by student)
    19. 19. use of “ten steps" 1. Design Learning Tasks --> "most daunting" what does it mean by "authentic"; differs individually:: decided what the authentic task for- class is, and then found TIE to be useful to inform the design process. however, "a conflict" was found. 2. Sequence Task Classes --> a time factor; 3. Set Performance Objectives --> n/a 4. Design Supportive Information --> brainstorming mostly complete; only one type (eg. highlight) were actually developed by the project end but not implemented in FA11 onsite R711; instead a worksheet was used. 5. Analyze Cognitive Strategies --> n/a 6. Analyze Mental Models --> n/a 7. Design Procedural Information --> brainstormed 8. Analyze Cognitive Rules --> n/a 9. Analyze Prerequisite Knowledge --> thought of... but not completely 10. Design Part-task Practice --> brainstormed; APA practice were implemented==> would this sound too "evaluative"===> sequentially address the challenges?

    ×