Running Head: Life-Long Learning Model

Life-Long Learning Model 1

Running Head: Life-Long Learning Model

The Developpers: Life-Long Learning Model

Christopher Coquard and Dean Vendramin

University College of Cape Breton

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for Education 533

Dr. David Lloyd

June 1, 2004

Table of Contents

IntroductionPage 03

Phase 1: Identification of content materialPage 04

Phase 2: Selection of Instructional TechnologyPage 06

Phase 3: Concept MappingPage 08

Phase 4: Instructional Components IntroducedPage 09

Phase 5: Final ProductionPage 11

ConclusionPage 12

ReferencesPage 13

Introduction

Gustafson and Branch (1997) write that the role of a model “in instructional development is to provide conceptual and communication tools that can be used to visualize, direct, and manage processes for generating episodes of guided learning” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 1).

“Perhaps the greatest limitation of many models of instructional design is the tendency to over-prescribe those models for all learners in all instructional contexts” (Jonassen et al., 1993, p. 8). Our model is designed as much as possible to be flexible, and responsive the individual student, teacher and the diverse needs, and realities that make up the “educational world”.

Mayes (n.d.a.) notes regarding cognitive theory that, “a whole dimension of analysis about how cognitive operations might be mapped onto the complex business of reality learning tasks is rarely addressed”. With this in mind, the Developpers have created a unique instructional model that incorporates not only cognitive theory from the educational domain, but also cognitive theory from the scientific domain. We want to maximize the benefit of technology, as Reeves and Jonassen noted that “the real power of computers to improve education will only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than passively perceive them as tutors or repositories of information” (Reeves & Jonassen, 1996, p. 696).

In an interview Rand Spiro posited, “this new kind of learning is the kind we most need for this increasingly complex world” (New Educator, 2002). We feel that identifying, and incorporating the tools needed for life-long learning are one important way that technology can help further the cause of education. Technology needs to be liberated from “the same deadly instructivist pedagogy that has stymied intellectual growth” (Reeves & Jonassen, 1996, p. 694) so that the new technologies can be “taken away from the specialists and given to learners to use as media for representing and expressing what they know” (Ibid, p. 694).

“Rather than imposing a prescribed and objective reality on learners, learning environment designers must accept that each learner will interpret the same object or event somewhat differently. That is, despite our intentions, the outcomes of learning will vary” (Jonassen et al., 1993, p. 6). Our model seeks to clarify a general way in which students can learn how to identify what they know about a subject, and thereby also what they don’t – and to provide a model for learning, or filling the gaps in their knowledge. Our approach tries to be as individual as possible, focusing on the student’s schema and upgrading it accordingly.

It is important to mention that this process is not fixed. Teachers need to continually revise their plans and help the students revise theirs as well, through a kind of rapid prototyping. Because our model focuses on the individual student, a generic, pre-fabricated plan cannot work.

Phase 1: Identification of content material

In this first phase we: identify the context, identify the subject material, identify the level of the students, and create cognitive objectives.

Our context is intermediate business reading students at the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. They are English second language students. To make the model clearer, we will apply it to an introduction to business class. During the first phase, we need to consider the content material from which objectives will be made. It is important that the teacher have a good grasp of the subject, enough to be able to predict what students are likely to know and not know about the subject.

It is important for teachers in this phase to consider the levels of knowledge acquisition, such as introductory, advanced, etc. Our learners could be classified as introductory, since it “represents the initial stages of schema assembly and integration” (Jonassen et al., 1993, p. 1). It is important to note here that we have classified them as introductory, where the workplace has classified them as intermediate. Jonassen et al. (1993) go on to note that “introductory knowledge acquisitions better supported by more objectivistic approaches, such as those implicit in classical instructional design models, with a transition to constructivist approaches that represent complexity and ill-structuredness as the learners acquire more knowledge” (Ibid, 1993, p. 2).

Since the objectives relate to the students schema, the ‘cognitive approach’ to objective formation described by Morrison et al. (1999) is called for, since that approach is “useful for describing higher level learning tasks that allow for more than one approach to mastery” (Morrison et al., 1999, p. 41). The specific cognitive objectives will relate to the teacher’s identification of the students’ probable schema. At this planning stage, being able to anticipate, roughly, what the student’s knowledge condition is will be of great importance for the short term. It will allow the teacher to choose texts which will be understandable to the students, and which can begin to “enlighten” them progressively. Identifying their schema adheres to an important belief among constructivists that “what we know is internally generated by the individual rather than received from any external source” (Jonassen et al., 1993, p. 5).

In the case of our example, the students don’t yet know the five fields of business. Therefore, we will start by providing texts, and resources that can help them identify the five fields of business.

Phase 2: Selection of Instructional Technology

During the second phase, we will select the instructional technology. Several factors need to be considered here: Availability of resources, distance from school grammar (culture), teacher knowledge of equipment, and the insurance of the maximization of student creativity.

The chosen technology must be available. Technology which is difficult to obtain, will be difficult to train for, and difficult to technically upkeep. Teachers should use what is at their disposal, and not require too much equipment. The best equipment for what this model needs is an average PC, with Word, Internet Explorer (preferably with a Google search bar installed), and Inspiration.

Zhao et al. (2002) in a study on innovations in technology, refer to one important factor which they call distance from “school grammar”. This “refers to the degree that an innovation differs or deviates from the dominant set of values, pedagogical beliefs, and practices of the teachers and administrators in a school” (Zhao et al., 2002, p. 496). The instructional technology, and its application (i.e. team teaching) should not challenge the school culture too radically. The technology, and the mode of its deliverance, should support the existing structure within a type of administrative zone of proximal development. After reviewing their research, Zhao et al. (2002) suggested an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach (Zhao et al., 2002, p. 512).

The teacher should know the basics, or at least how to troubleshoot the software being used. Zhao et al. (2002) found that their research “revealed that a high proportion of those innovations that required the purchase or installation of new technologies experienced significant delays or complete failure in getting the required equipment or software” (Ibid, p. 499).

Lastly, the goal of the technology must be to foster and support the maximum amount of student creativity. Mayes (n.d.a.) advises that teachers should “think of a software environment which supports a wide range of activities for creating, editing, linking, capturing, storing, retrieving, structuring and otherwise actively manipulating information.” The technology should help the students achieve curricular objectives with a maximum amount of activity on behalf of the learner.

The instructional technology should also remember that the number of objects that can be maintained in working memory without interference is about four (van der Velde & de Kamps, 2003, p. 419).

Phase 3: Concept Mapping

At this point the concept map section begins. Students will generate a concept map at the outset of the unit. The first version will be a type of brainstorming beginning to reveal to them what they know or think about a subject. Throughout the lesson, this concept map will be in a process of continual revision as students edit it, and add to it new things that they learn. Our view of this process is derived from Mayes’ (n.d.b) description of a “mental models approach” which argues that

“Learners should first be exposed to models that make contact with their intuitive naïve models of phenomena. Thus an effective learning environment will be one that offers models that are designed to allow more complex models to be transformed from them. Each model will allow the learner to interact at an appropriate level of complexity. It is not simply an incomplete version of an expert but is a model specifically designed for transformation” (Mayes, i.e., p. 25).

Fowler and Mayes (1999) suggest a way that this can be done is through “dialogue”. “Dialogue provides the vehicle for conceptual movement. It facilitates the transition between the stages and the advance from one re-conceptualization cycle to the next” (Fowler & Mayes, 1999, p. 20). Capon and Kuhn (2004), in their research concerning the benefits of ‘problem-based learning’ mention that the “benefit of problem-based learning we might tentatively conclude then lies not n superior acquisition or recall of new concepts but in the potential for greater understanding reflected in an integration of the new concept with existing knowledge, and with it, the possibility of restructuring and enhanced conceptual coherence” (Capon & Kuhn, 2004, p. 74). They also cite another research that stated that “[connecting information to other packets of prior knowledge] increases the number of possible retrieval paths (connections) to the target concepts. The multiple retrieval paths increase(s) the chances of recovering the relevant concepts” (Shwartz & Bransford, cited in Capon & Kuhn, 2004, p. 73).

Our model therefore takes into consideration the fact that “new” knowledge needs to be embedded with “old” knowledge for learning to occur. This is why the concept map is constantly being updated.

Phase 4: Instructional Components Introduced

During this phase the instructional components are introduced. This is an ongoing process, meant to occur side-by-side with the constant update of the concept map. Here the teacher can begin with introducing basic level information and slowly build up to complexity. In our case the learners are novices, hence the concept maps and the instructional components are aimed at giving them basic information to work from. However, cognitive flexibility is still part of the design. “Spiro believes that cognitive flexibility must be nurtured early in the learning process. Learning shouldn’t begin with massive complexity because it leads to confusion that will overwhelm and discourage learners. But by starting small, students can avoid oversimplification and learn the underlying habits of mind necessary to acquire complex knowledge” (New Educator, 2002). Therefore the instructional components should advance the learners towards complexity slowly, but surely. In the case of our introductory students, we could begin by offering them two points of view on a given subject, before increasing that later on as their learning evolves.

Schwartz and Martin (2004) note, “one way to prepare students to learn involves letting them generate original productions that are incorrect by normative standards” (Schwartz & Martin, 2004, p. 171). For novel learning they add that “it is important to foster accommodation, where people’s knowledge adapts to what is different from what they already know” (Ibid, p. 171). Therefore, during this process of instructional components, the teacher can keep track of student progress, but not stress “normative standards” until the final product – and even then, in accord with their level.

Phase 5: Final Production

“People like to produce things. Pfaffman (2003), for example, found that the top motivation among many types of hobbyists was the opportunity to appreciate the ‘fruits of their labor’. People are also designed for production (e.g., we have hands and make tools). We propose that the opportunity to produce novel structures in the material, symbolic, and social environments is also a powerful mechanism for reinterpreting these environments and developing new ideas … An emphasis on high efficiency is something that becomes important for routinized jobs, but less so for helping people to learn fundamentally new ideas” (Scwartz & Martin, 2004, pp. 171-172).

As well as satisfying the fundamental need to create, this final phase represents an important time when students can “reinterpret” their concept map, and evaluate what they have learned. This represents an excellent opportunity for students to review what they have been doing, and in so doing to refresh their memories about what they have learned.

This final product could be in many forms. It could, for example, be a simple summary of what students have learned – or, it could become much more sophisticated, looking at the specific relationships between thoughts, etc. The issue of assessment is an important issue to address. We think that the best assessment will track a student’s individual progress from novice to expert, and not rely on standard testing, or “one size fits all” quizzes, or exams. Those are appropriate for other subjects.

Conclusion

If a learner (whatever the context of learning) does not engage in the learning activities that are appropriate for, and consistent with, a given kind of knowledge or skill then there will be a decrement of the learning effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. Do we know all the answers for these fundamental learning activities? NO! That is the role of a science of instruction and a technology of instructional design, to continue to explore and find these fundamental principles. Do we know some of these fundamental learning activities? YES! Do we use what we know? SELDOM! (Merrill, 2000, p. 4).

We have tried hard to create a new model based on the cognitive sciences. Our model tries to tap into the student’s schema, and in making the student aware of the schema, and giving the students tools to manipulate the schema, we are hoping our model might be a basis for the acquisition of skills essential to life-long learning.

Our model still remains to be tested, but we feel it is an important step towards retaking education, and retaking learning. The attention of instructional design models is now focusing more and more on the student. Ours is a step even further, focusing particularly on the student’s schema and on the tools to help them upgrade their knowledge that will last beyond the classroom.

References

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61 – 79.

Fowler, C.J., & Mayes, J.T. (1999). Learning relationships: From theory to design. Association for Learning Teachnology Journal, 7(3), 6-16.

Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73 – 89.

Jonassen, D., Mayes, J.T. & McAleese, R. (1993) A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Technology in Higher Education. In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen, & J. Lowyck (Eds), Designing constructivist learning environments. Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-Verlag.

Liebscher, R. & Belew, R. K. (2003) Lexical dynamics and conceptual change: Analyses and implications for information retrieval. Cognitive Science Online, 1, pp. 46-57.

Mayes, T.J. (n.d.a) Commentary: Impact of cognitive theory on the practice of courseware authoring. Accessed online May 5, 2004, from:

Mayes, T.J. (n.d.b). Mindtools: A Suitable Case for Learning. Accessed online May 4, 2004, from:

Merrill, D.M. (2000). Instructional Strategies and Learning Styles: Which Takes Precedence? Accessed online May 4, 2004, from:

Morrison, G.R., Lowther, D.L. & Demeulle, L. (1999). Chp. 3 - Teacher as Designer. In Integrating computer technology into the classroom, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

New Educator: College of Education. (Spring, 2002). Pioneering a New Way of Learning in a Complex and Complicated World. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from:

Reeves, T.C., & Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693-719). New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schwartz, D.L., & Martin, T. (2004). Invetning to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129 – 184.

Van der Velde, F., & de Kamps, M. (2003). A model for visual working memory in PFC. Neurocomputing, 52(54), 419-424.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J.L. (2002). Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 482 – 515.