The three learning models/theories that
we looked at in this unit, Case Based Reasoning (CBR), Cognitive Flexibility Theory
(CFT) and Learning Objects, all have some striking similarities. Case Base
Reasoning and Cognitive Flexibility Theory are similar in that the instruction
is based on real-life stories (cases). This gives context to the instruction and
allows learners to apply the knowledge gained from a collection of cases and apply
it in new ways to new problems and situations. In Case Based Reasoning,
learners retrieve an old case from
the case library and reuse the
knowledge learned by adapting it to a new case to develop a solution. The learner then checks to see if the solution
works and, if not, revises it to
create a new solution. Finally, the learner retains the new case by adding it to a case library. Cognitive Flexibility
Theory is also case dependent, but adds a dimension of learner flexibility by
offering a wider representation of cases that incorporate multiple perspectives
and different solutions through the use of complex and ill-structured domains. This allows learners to “explore…different
pathways, link information together in multiple ways and develop personalized
explanations and analogies.” (Fitzgerald, Wilson, and Semrau, An Interactive Multimedia Program to Enhance
Teacher Problem-Solving Skills Based on Cognitive Flexibility theory: Design
and Outcome. 1997 pg. 50) Both of these learning models/theories allow
novice learners to solve problems that they would otherwise not have the
experience to deal with.
Learning Objects are somewhat unique in
that they are not really a learning model or theory, but are tagged, online instructional
resources that could be used as building blocks for the models that we have
discussed in this course. Learning objects are designed to be reusable and can
be adapted to fit an instructor’s new instructional module. Thus, as with CBR,
the user is taking something already in existence and reusing, even revising,
it to fit a new instructional need. Also, CBR and CFT are based on a collection
of case stories that have instructional value. The individual cases, if they
are online and tagged, could also be considered Learning Objects. Learning
Objects are wonderful resources that can help developers save time and resources
in the creation of web- based instruction.
Learning modules based on CBR and CFT can
be extremely instructive in many situations, especially when teaching
decision-making skills and in fields where there are lots of possible solutions
to problems, such as in medical school, law school and certain areas of
teaching. The biggest hindrance to creating CBR and CFT, though, is the amount
of time, resources and expertise required to create the instruction. It would
require a team of developers/designers, up-to-date hardware/software technology
and advanced server and web storage capabilities. Not many people or schools
are in a position to be able to afford that. Anyone can use Learning Objects,
though. They are often free, easily accessible and come in a variety of topics.
Many of the teachers where I work are hesitant to develop or incorporate
web-based instruction into their classrooms because they are afraid it is too
time-consuming. Using readily available learning objects to streamline the production
of such instruction might help them overcome their hesitations.
I would be love
to use CBR with the teachers where I work. It seems to me that teachers enjoy
learning through stories/cases. That is evident in the teacher workroom when
you hear one teacher ask the other “what would you do in this situation?” or “Have
you ever experienced this?” It seems to me that the older teachers often mentor
the younger teachers through personal stories. Finding the time and resources
to create online training based on such cases would be something to aspire
to. In the meantime, I would definitely
use the concept of Learning Objects to encourage teachers to find resources
online and use them in conjunction with their instruction. Right now, some of the teachers are creating, saving
and sharing with one another little learning modules using our interactive “Mouse
Mischief” software. I can see creating a small, school-wide, proprietary Learning
Object repository where the teachers can store and share such material with
each other.
CBR, CFT and LO all require a lot of organization
to keep track of the different cases, instructional elements and/ or learning
objects. Using tools that help me stay organized would be a must for this type
of instruction. An online notebook could be very helpful in keeping multiple
pieces of information, links and LOs organized. Two online notebook sites are: Springpad
and livebinders. Another free tool that can be used for uploading, sharing and
storing cases and LOs is Google Sites. Google Sites is mostly recognized as a website
creator, but you can also use it as an intranet site for a group or business
with up to 10GB of storage space.
Marion,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post. Your bring up an important point about organization and resources needed to setup CBR and CFT. Being a student at an accredited university, access to online articles and research resources would not be a problem. However, regardless of the access, the university setting nonetheless requires significant time commitment to setup the activity such the one we participated, Letters to the Plantation. I am interested to see how these two models could be adapted in the K-12 setting.
Hi Dale, you bring up a good point about the challenges of using CBR or CFT in a K-12 setting. I don't think either would be very practical in the lower grades, but in high school American or World history I think that they could be very useful. The Plantation Letters were based on primary documents (letters)from the 1840's. I think history should be taught through the lens of primary documents and creating a CBR, or even a CFT, module based on letters, writings and articles from the colonial period, or from World War II, etc. would add a lot of depth, and a variety of perspectives, to what high school students learn. Of course, creating the module would be challenging -perhaps something a group of university instructional design students might want to take on.
ReplyDeleteMarion,
ReplyDeleteYour summary of this module was brief and clear. Your observations from the faculty room were a great way to prove your point that adults use cases/stories to learn and teach one another, so why not use them to teach students as well. It sounds as if your school faculty are open to and willing to use technology. I have been in schools where the some faculty members would not use technology (passive resistance)and others openly refused to and campaigned to convince others not to use the new equipment. It sounds as if you are in a school that is willing to experiment and collaborate.
Hi Marion,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your great summary. I think you're totally on point about learning objects. I am so glad these were covered even though they didn't fit neatly into the rhythm of covering a weekly model. Mostly because they do address one of the recurring themes we keep bumping against and that is the cost of the individual development of cases and learning modules. These repositories can help significantly decrease the amount of time and multimedia skill required by the instructor. I almost wonder if there is not an opportunity to develop a more uniform national curriculum with these. What do you think? I was at WCET a few years ago and heard Sandra Day O'Connor talk about Civics. She worked to develop a civics game that from what I hear is high quality and effective. That could become the base for civics and if these high-end modules keep being produced and remain free, this could really usher in a sea change. An old NYTimes article said it best several years ago when it said the days of the "sage on the stage" were giving way to "the guide on the side." Yes. Yes they are.
http://www.icivics.org/
Hi Rachel,
DeleteThanks for the link - that looks like a great site and I am looking forward to checking it out. I think it would be a great idea to have a more uniform national curriculum, but trying to get some agreed upon standards throughout the country could be challenging ;)I'm encouraged by the sites like connexions.com where teachers are already sharing their material, but getting more high-end modules would be awesome. The civics site that you mentioned looks intriguing and it would certainly be nice if other sites in other subjects were available. I wonder if there are any grants, etc., available for designers/developers to create such sites...
Marion,
ReplyDeleteYou and I agree that although CBR and CFT are great learning models they would been time consuming to create. I still find teachers that are reluctant to use technology at all much less take the time to research and develop such models. I too think teachers would benefit and enjoy using CBR. I admit I had to look up Mouse Mischief because I hadn’t heard of it before. I love the idea of students having a tool to stay engaged in daily learning. We have Sento clickers and they work similar to the program you mention. I think it is great that your teachers are sharing their lessons. My favorite part of these models is that they were based on reuse and revise. I mentioned SMART Exchange in my post. The teachers at my school use this resource a lot because there are lessons created by teachers to download and revise as needed. I have not heard of Springpad before but checked it our and think that could be a great resource for sharing. Thanks for your insights and resources!