Ad A Miracle Occurs Die Final Presentation


Published on

A*D [a miracle occurs]*I*E presented at the 2009 Coast Guard HPT Conference

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ad A Miracle Occurs Die Final Presentation

  1. 1. A*D[a miracle occurs]*D*I*E Presented at: 2009 US Coast Guard Human Performance Technology Conference September 2009 Susan Coleman, PhD, CPT J. Kelly Cross Intelligent Decision Systems, Inc
  2. 2. Design Miracle
  3. 3. Critical Thinking Skills <ul><li>“ Active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds which support it and further conclusions to which it tends.” ( Dewey, 1909 as cited in Fisher, 2001) </li></ul><ul><li>“… to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experience; knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning; and some skill in applying those methods.” ( Glaser, 1941 as cited in Fisher, 2001). </li></ul><ul><li>“… reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.” (Noris and Ennis,1989 as cited in Fisher, 2001). </li></ul><ul><li>Several sub skills </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Situational awareness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive agility </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Critical Thinking Skills <ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Critical thinking skills can (and should) be developed within context (Clark, 2008) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Red Flag Scenario </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Red Flag Scenario
  6. 6. Red Flag Scenario
  7. 7. Red Flag Scenario
  8. 8. Cognitive Load <ul><li>How much information we can take in at a given time and make sense of it. (Sweller, 1988) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intrinsic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Germane </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extrinsic </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Easy to overwhelm the learner. (Sweller, 2988; Clark, 2008) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Cognitive Load <ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Use external memory aids. </li></ul><ul><li>Chunk content. </li></ul><ul><li>Assess performance/provide feedback. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide demonstrations/worked examples. </li></ul><ul><li>Practice to automate some skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide an intuitive screen design/easy to use interface. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Learning Styles <ul><li>No single theory unites the literature on learning styles. (Coffield et al., 2004; Menaker & Coleman, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>No data that shows learning styles are related to any learning outcomes . (Coffield et al., 2004; Hayes 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>There is a lack of research demonstrating the relationship between a learning style and a particular instructional strategy in terms of learning outcomes. (Coffield et al., 2004; Menaker & Coleman, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Issues have been clouded by commercialization efforts. (Coffield et al., 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>When the goals of instruction are consistent with strategies to teach that goal, learning is optimal. (Merrill, 2002) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Learning Styles <ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of the task, learners’ prior experience, and understanding of how content will be used are keys to good design. </li></ul><ul><li>Develop learners’ metacognitive knowledge: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conditions under which strategies are most effective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One’s own strengths and weaknesses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-regulation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design to manage cognitive load </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide scaffolding </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Experiential Learning <ul><li>Learners interact with their environment to construct their own knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>The design of the experience greatly impacts what is learned. </li></ul><ul><li>Experiences that work well for novices are not necessarily beneficial for experts. </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive, physical, and affective fidelity must be balanced </li></ul><ul><li>(Kolb,1984; Bruner, 1961; Kalyuga, Chandler & Sweller, 2001; Kirschner et al.,2006) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Experiential Learning <ul><li>Engage the learner mentally </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Balance cognitive and physical fidelity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Purposefully sequence experiential events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deliberately increase tempo and complexity of experiential environments and tasks. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use a purposeful feedback strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Provide deliberate opportunities to promote reflection. </li></ul>Implications
  14. 14. Interactivity <ul><li>3 types of interaction: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner-content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner-teacher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner-learner (Moore, 1989) . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interactivity is dependent on how the instruction is designed (Sims, 2003). </li></ul><ul><li>Interactivity should not only be measured by the frequency of interactions but by the quality of thinking it demands from the learner (Reushle et al., 1992). </li></ul><ul><li>There is evidence that learning is directly related to the level of mental effort put forth by the student. This mental effort must bear a direct relationship to the concepts and principles being taught (Merrill et al. ,1991). </li></ul>
  15. 15. Interactivity <ul><li>When the instruction is passive— </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learners are not forced to examine their cognitive structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The resulting learning is poorly retained </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The content does not relate well to previously learned materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The resulting learning is not easily transferred to new situations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Merrill et al.,1991) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Interactivity <ul><li>Problem-centered instruction provides visuals that illustrate a job setting in which the learner gets a virtual task assignment and learns new skills while working the assignment. (Clark & Mayer, 2003) </li></ul>Item 1-11 - Inspect the Power Entry Panel (PEP). Implications
  17. 17. Motivation <ul><li>Motivation is the energy that accelerates behavior (Richter) . </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation is the combination of a person's desire and energy directed at achieving a goal. It is the cause of action. Influencing people's motivation means getting them to want to do what you know must be done (Military Leadership, 1993) . </li></ul>
  18. 18. Motivation <ul><li>To be effective, motivational tactics have to support instructional goals. Sometimes the motivational features can be fun or even entertaining, but unless they engage the learner in the instructional purpose and content, they will not promote learning (Keller, 2006) . </li></ul><ul><li>The learning task needs to be presented in a way that is engaging and meaningful to the student, and in a way that promotes positive expectations for the successful achievement of learning objectives (Small, 1997) . </li></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>Strategy and Design: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Consider This” Scenario used to: </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce the lesson and establish relevance </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage appropriate attitude and motivate </li></ul><ul><li>Provide context about why lesson/objective is important to job task(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Focus the student and call forth prior knowledge </li></ul>Motivation Self-Aid and Buddy Care (SABC) developed for the US Air Force Expeditionary Medical Skills Division “ Consider This” Example
  20. 20. Conclusion <ul><li>ADDIE tells us when to do Design, but we need the science of learning to know how to do it. </li></ul><ul><li>With the emerging technologies, the need for exceptionally qualified designers is increasingly important. </li></ul><ul><li>We need to demand that designers understand the science of learning and have experience applying it. </li></ul><ul><li>The science of learning can make learning more effective AND efficient. </li></ul>
  21. 21. Sources <ul><li>Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Education Review, 31 , 21-32. </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, R. C. (2002). Applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41, 9 . </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, R. C. (2008). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training. Pfeiffer: San Francisco. </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2003). E- Learning and the Science of Instruction . San Francisco: Jossey Bass Pfeiffer. </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, R. E. (2004). What works in distance learning: Motivation strategies. In H. O’Neil (Ed.), What works in distance learning: Guidelines (pp. 89-110). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. </li></ul><ul><li>Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning; A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. </li></ul><ul><li>Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking, Teacher’s College: Columbia University. </li></ul><ul><li>Hayes, R. T. (2006). The science of learning: A systems theory approach . Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press </li></ul><ul><li>Keller, J.M. Motivational design of instruction. (1983) In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 383-433). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. </li></ul><ul><li>Keller, J.. M. (2006). What is motivational design? Florida State University. </li></ul><ul><li>Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and 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. </li></ul><ul><li>Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Sources <ul><li>Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P, & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychologist, 21 , 5-13. </li></ul><ul><li>Menaker, E., Coleman, S. (2007). Learning styles again: Where is the empirical evidence? In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference . Orlando, FL Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference. </li></ul><ul><li>Merrill, M. D. & Li, Z., Jones, M.K. (1991). Second generation instructional design (ID2). Educational Technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Merrill, M. D. (2002). Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence: In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology (pp. 99-106). </li></ul><ul><li>Military Leadership (1993). Retreived 09/14/09 from http:// . </li></ul><ul><li>Moore, M. G. (1989). Three modes of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-6 </li></ul><ul><li>Reushle, S., Dorman, M., Evans, P., Kirkwood, J., McDonald, J., and Worden, J. Critical Elements: Designing for Online Teaching. Distance Education Centre, The University of Southern Queensland . </li></ul><ul><li>Richter, M. S. (unknown). How learners are motivated. Retrieved from on 09/14/09 . </li></ul><ul><li>Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24 (1), pp. 87-103. </li></ul><ul><li>Small, R. V. (1997). Motivation in instructional design. ERIC Digest . </li></ul><ul><li>Sweller, P. (1988). Effects of cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science , 12, 257-285 </li></ul>