Unit 2 Blog Post
Unit 2 focuses on learning theories/models that are based on
collaboration and communication. In
Guided Design Process (GDP), Cooperative Learning (CL), Problem Based Learning (PBL) and
Situated Learning (SL) a major focus of the instruction is based on group interaction
and effective communication. This is especially true for GDP, CL and PBL where
most of the learning takes place within a group setting. Placing learners into
a group helps team members learn from each other, take ownership of the
problems they are asked to solve, and, usually, teaches the group members
better communication skills. Having groups analyze and research answers for
themselves, versus listening to a fact-filled lecture, develops higher order analytical,
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. These skills benefit the learners
for the rest of their lives, long after the facts are forgotten. Although these
models have much in common, there are also some differences to be aware
of. For example, even though Guided
Design uses group work as a major component of the instruction, there is also an
instructor that is involved in multiple stages of the learning process who
helps guide the discussion and group dynamics. Problem Based Learning, on the other
hand, relies less on instructor guidance and more on the instructor pointing
the learners to the resources and tools they need to use in order to develop solutions
to their assigned group problem. Cooperative Learning focuses on group
processing skills. Group members are
taught to help each other because the group can only succeed if all the members
succeed. Situated learning may, or may not, use group activities to promote
learning, instead the focus is on the premise that learning takes place best
when the problem being solved has some relevance to the learner’s life.
Situated Learning places instruction in the context of “why does it matter?”
Each of these models, when implemented correctly, can offer great benefits
to learners and instructors. Learners
benefit by the higher order thinking skills that they develop, by learning to
take responsibility for their own instruction and by learning to work with
others in a positive manner. These
skills are critical when learners enter the work force. Indeed, employer surveys show that “interpersonal
work skills such as self-motivation, a positive work attitude, high ethical standards
and the ability to work as a team player clearly dominate hiring decisions.” (Mutual
Gains from Team Learning: A Guided Design Classroom Exercise. Wilson, Paul.
2004 pg.3) Instructors benefit from these models through increased learner understanding
and knowledge retention. Their students
are learning more through cooperative learning than from traditional methods. A big area of concern, though, with these
collaborative models is that students accustomed to traditional methods of
instruction don’t know how to work effectively in group settings. This may lead
to poor group dynamics where students can’t work well with others or where
there is not enough self-motivation to research the answers on one’s own
initiative. Instructors using these models need to be careful that they successfully
instruct the learners on group dynamics by making sure that the students assign
roles to each other, take turns leading the group and use positive
communication skills. When problems from negative group interactions are
thwarted, the potential for learning is great.
All the models mentioned in this unit have great potential to improve
learner outcomes and have the flexibility to be used in a variety of settings. I would like to try all of them at some
point, but the model that I think would be most effective where I work is the
Guided Design Process model. Most of what I teach
involves new technology and most of my learners are adults who are familiar
with more traditional methods of instruction.
Since the subject matter I teach involves new concepts and products that
the learners may not have a frame of reference for, Guided Design may offer a
little more instructor assistance than another model such as Problem Based
Learning. Using Guided Design would allow the learners to become familiar with
the new product and then use the group interaction to help each other determine
how to effectively use the product in the classroom. The group interaction
would allow the learners to share ideas with each other that they may individually
not develop on their own. We have actually used similar techniques to Guided
Design for implementing products, such as document cameras, at our school.
A few years ago using these collaborative models would have been very
challenging in a web-based environment. Now
there are many excellent tools that allow for synchronous and asynchronous interaction
among group mates. One set of tools that
has become very popular in educational settings is the Google set of applications. We recently started using Google Educational
Apps at the school where I work. The price is right – free. Google hangout,
where you can have a video chat with up to 10 people, works well along with a
shared Google document used to record minutes. A shared Google spreadsheet can
be used to create a Gant chart for setting up a timeline for the group project.
Dropbox allows users to store and share files and, alternatively, Box does the
same thing without having to download and install software on your computer. A Lino
It bulletin board allows group members to share sticky notes with each other so
that they don’t have to constantly send a slew of e-mails out to everyone. Audacity can be used to record audio portions
of group discussions. The list is very
long with new products being developed almost daily.
Great blog post Marion. Sounds like you already have a pretty good grasp on the elements of guided design at your school. I think google has a lot of potential to make a big impact. As a teacher and trainer, free is my friend. Only if google could make an LMS like Moodle or Sakai! The ease of use and learning curve for google products such as google+ apps is very low and low is good. Perhaps a google LMS may be in the works, who knows.
ReplyDeleteIn our next Module, I am hoping to take the PBL approach in attempt to make a group based activity simulating realistic scenarios.
I haven't used OpenClass, but it might be worth checking out. It's a free LMS that integrates with google. I've heard mixed reviews.
Deletehttp://www.openclass.com/open/home/index
I'll have to look into OpenClass - it sounds intriguing.
DeleteMarion
Hi Marion,
ReplyDeleteI like hearing your thoughts on participants working at the employee level, rather than student level. Do you think that the inherent motivation differs from student to employee (or adult) participants? Or does it depend on the individual, the task, and the instructor? As you mentioned the instructor really does need to set the tone and instruct clearly.
Do you have any best practices to help your participants who end up in a group with a negative dynamic? This has always been difficult for me, because usually the situation is more complicated than it would appear. I would love to hear any thoughts you have on this!
Thank you!
Amanda C.
Hi Amanda,
DeleteThose are great questions! I'm not sure that the inherent motivation of students and adults differs that greatly. Both groups want to be involved in something that they see adds value for the work required. It is up to the instructor to show them that value, as much as possible.
Negative group dynamics are frustrating because they lead to so much unproductivity, not to mention the potential for bruised feelings. I'm not sure I have any best practices for negative group dynamics because ee are in a somewhat unusual position in that our technology initiatives are all voluntary, thus the adults we are working with are very motivated to learn the skills and applications required to successfully use the products. We don’t have the resources to put Ipads, mouse mischief set ups, kindles, etc. in every classroom. Thus, if teachers request a piece of technology they first have to fill out a technology initiative form that asks them what they want to use the equipment for, what the learning objectives are and what the potential outcomes are. This way the teachers have already thought through what they want to accomplish and are more excited about learning the skills. We very often work with an entire grade at a time, which usually consists of three teachers (because they may end up sharing a piece of equipment). These teachers are already used to working together and if there are difficulties they can be referred to their principal. The bottom line, though, is that there seems to be less negative group dynamics if the participants are really motivated to learn. What we have also discovered is that, as these teachers are using the various technology tools with success, the other teachers (who may have originally been nay-sayers) are seeing the positive results and are getting excited about incorporating more technology into their classrooms also.
Of course, that is a totally different story when it involves a non-voluntary technology initiative, such as upgrading to a new operating system. Situations like that seem to bring out a lot of negativity and I would love to have any suggestions as to how to deal with that.
This is very interesting. I really like the idea of a technology initiative form. I might have to implement something like that. Could you send me a copy of it? lillis@email.unc.edu
DeleteAlso, I have the same experience when teaching a group of professors. It's all very positive and they are very motivated. Though I can tell you they've been know to miss some deadlines. I find this personally funny because they are so strict on students for missing them and then act like they can't believe they would be held to one. :)
That is so interesting, Rachel! I would never imagine professors to be late with deadlines. I am sure it's interesting dealing with that as the instructor!
DeleteMarion, thank you so much for you response. I think you are right about that particular group of learners, as compared with students who may not be quite as inherently motivated.
Hi Marion,
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed your post. Very nice way of addressing the similarities, differences, advantages, and your feelings about each. I totally agree with your thoughts on these models. Each can be valuable to use in on online setting and I think it would depend on whether the facilitator wanted to take on a pegdaogy or andragogy strategy of delivering the content. I personally prefer the CLM model because of the accountability placed on the learner. I also like that it emphasizes group work and allows the facilitator to fade out of the process. I will have to investigate the programs you mentioned: Audacity and Google hangout. Sounds interesting. I look forward to reading more from you.
Sincerely,
Cynthia
Hi Marion. Great Blog. It is very clear that you have experience with these models. I think Guided design is great because it helps direct the learners more in the direction they need to go. I think PBL would also be useful to combine with guided design and it would encourage participants to thinks of different solutions. Do you think this would be good model to teach soft skills? I think it might with scenarios etc. Nice job. Gena Gutierrez
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog and found that you really grasped an understanding of these methods. I think that one of the key points you made was that they are all great models if used appropriately. Our school started working with Google apps this year and I will have to try out these free ones you mentioned...gotta love FREE! ;-)
ReplyDelete