Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Growing instruction programs in LOAM, a tool facilitating the scaffolding of information literacy skills. Szurmak & Petersen

33 views

Published on

Presented at LILAC 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Growing instruction programs in LOAM, a tool facilitating the scaffolding of information literacy skills. Szurmak & Petersen

  1. 1. Growing Instructional Programs in LOAM Joanna Szurmak Andrew Petersen University of Toronto Mississauga
  2. 2. Scaffolding of learning outcomes aids development of competencies in individual courses and across degree programs. LOAM (Learning Outcome Assessment Matrix) supports the scaffolding of learning outcomes in courses.
  3. 3. LOAM helps instructors relate learning outcomes and instructional settings to task complexity levels. LOAM can also relate discipline specific standards or degree level expectations, like the ACRL IL standards, to entire programs.
  4. 4. What is LOAM? An Instructional Design Expert System Instructor is the Expert LOAM is the organizer Different from recent work on standardizing content related to learning outcomes (Laborde et al., 2008; Melis et al., 2008)
  5. 5. Outline 1. Acknowledging the complexity of learning 2. LOAM: relating curriculum objectives to learning outcomes 3. Relating courses and programs to standards
  6. 6. How do we know that learning is complex? • Frameworks differentiating between levels of skill (Proctor & Dutta, 1995): – Fitt’s Phases of Skill Acquisition – Anderson’s Framework for Cognitive Skill Acquisition • Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) (Crandall, Klein & Hoffman, 2006): – Hoffman (Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition) – Glaser (University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University)
  7. 7. We are interested in task complexity of the undergraduate curriculum. • Evidence in discipline-specific studies, e.g.: – CS1 complexity studies • Robins, Rountree & Rountree (2003); • Winslow (1996). • Information literacy in undergraduate courses – Mark, A. E., & Boruff-Jones, P. D. (2003).
  8. 8. The Learning Outcomes Assessment Matrix (LOAM) is a process for identifying connections. LOAM uses a self-scaffolded cognitive taxonomy to analyze relationships between aspects of a course. Mappings and Relationships
  9. 9. Outline 1. Learning complexity to connect course components 2. LOAM: relating curriculum objectives to learning outcomes 3. Relating courses and programs to standards
  10. 10. Instructor-Defined Perspectives Instructional SettingsLearning Outcomes Complexity Metric (Bloom’s Taxonomy) Instructor-defined Perspective (Input) Set of Standards (Input) Standards / Degree Level Expectations (e.g. ACRL IL Standards) Instructor-defined mapping Externally-defined mapping Task Complexity Model
  11. 11. Instructional Settings • Settings where course materials are introduced, practiced, and evaluated Standards • Discipline-specific or domain-specific guidelines and expectations – ACRL IL Standards – ALA/ACRL/STS 2005 IL Standards for Science and Engineering/Technology – ACM Computer Science Curriculum (2008)
  12. 12. Complexity Models • Bloom’s Taxonomy • Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy – Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. (Compl. Ed.). New York, NY: Longman. • SOLO Taxonomy
  13. 13. Mappings and Relationships • Instructor-defined relationships • Mappings from the literature – Between ACRL IL standards and Bloom’s Taxonomy – Between NSSE statements, ACRL IL standards and Bloom’s Taxonomy • Annotated with complexity metric to better relate perspectives
  14. 14. Pre-requisites in LOAM Pre-requisites Learning Outcomes 101 Course Pre-requisite 101 Course Learning Outcome 201 Course Pre-requisite
  15. 15. Outline 1. Learning complexity to connect course components 2. LOAM: relating curriculum objectives to learning outcomes 3. Relating courses and programs to standards
  16. 16. Supporting the ACRL Standards
  17. 17. Using ACRL IL Standards ACRL IL standards are not hierarchical and not self-scaffolded. Relating them in a one-on-one mapping to Bloom’s taxonomy is difficult. IL standards are meant to be used to describe behaviors. Applying them to processes which cannot be directly observed may be challenging.
  18. 18. Scaffolding Standards
  19. 19. Using LOAM in a Program of Study
  20. 20. Recap LOAM supports instructors in scaffolding learning outcomes within and across courses. LOAM is a software-supported process — not an expert system. The use of a self-scaffolded hierarchical cognitive taxonomy may be useful for relating standards to course outcomes.
  21. 21. Selected Sources Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Laborde, C., Dietrich, M., Creus-Mir, A., Egido, S., Homik, M., & Libbrecht, P. (2008). Curricula categorization into ontology (Deliverable #D2.5). Retrieved from the INTERGEO Consortium website at: http://i2geo.net/files/D2.5-Curricula-Categorisation.pdf Mark, A. E., & Boruff-Jones, P. D. (2003). Information literacy and student engagement: what the national survey of student engagement reveals about your campus. College & Research Libraries. 64(6), 480-493. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/2003/candrl2003index.c Melis, E., Faulhaber, A., Eichelmann, A., & Narciss, S. (2008). Interoperable competencies characterizing learning objects in mathematics. In B. Wolf et al. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 416–425). Retrieved from: http://www.activemath.org/pubs/MelisFaulhaberITS2008.pdf
  22. 22. Selected Sources Proctor, R., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172. doi: 0899- 3408/03/1302-137 Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy: a psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3). 17–22, 25. doi: 10.1145/234867.234872

×