Unit 4 Blog post - CBR v Cog Flex

Kevin’s explanation of case-based learning as a superordinate “learning in context” concept under which a multitude of models can be organized.

It does make sense that this originated in law school, and it is a very large component of the bar exams in most states.

Using case models in person seem more straightforward and less resource intensive than doing so completely in an electronic format. With the complexity of cases, and the vast difference in the way each student may approach a case, it becomes problematic for “incorrect responses elicit the “playing” of a correct response” (Kevin Oliver CBR Lecture slides) because each incorrect response is incorrect in a different way.  However, a benefit to having students struggle through a case online and individually would be that instead of playing off of one another each online student would need to think more deeply and problem solve more thoroughly, not relying on others with more problem solving or direct experience. However, it also diminishes knowledge transfer. The sharing of that experience can be a crutch or a future benefit, depending on the students. So, how this case-based learning is executed online could be challenging.

In my particular field of new media, cases would need to be redone every time a course is offered. Twitter, facebook, blockbuster, redbox, storify, etc are a topic of conversation now, but in a year blockbuster v redbox will have no relevance. It almost doesn’t now. So, in things that change quite quickly the investment in case development will need to be very strategic. Most of our courses do have at least one case study every week, with some having about three per week, each highlighting a different approach or application of the same theory. However these cases are usually presented in text pages with little multimedia. Students then discuss the case in the discussion board with the instructor leading the discussion. They are fairly similar to the cases provided by Virginia.

I think we use case-based reasoning because we are a professional degree. All of our students are working full time and have three years of full time experience in the field. We encourage them to look at the presented cases and frame and reapply them in the context of something they either have dealt with at work or see on the horizon. In program evaluations we ask students how the program has benefitted them professionally and we get reports of how they’ve applied coursework directly and indirectly in solving complex problem in their organizations. I wasn’t previously aware of the CBR cycle, but we do follow that surprisingly well. The idea of repair and re-versioning solutions as part of the application of case theory is important as nothing is static and even if a solutions fits now, in our industry the model can change overnight, literally. So repair is perpetual and necessary.

I see the difference in cognitive flexibility and case-based reasoning is the idea of similarity. I think in cognitive flexibility the cases/simulations are chosen specifically to stretch a student. The concepts are more difficult to apply intentionally, but the cases are still very familiar. The familiarity of the case allows the learner to have “pegs” on which to hang new information and approaches. An ability to incorporate what they’ve learned into a larger worldview and making them capable of applying it more broadly than just on the specific case/situation it’s transferred to. At least, that’s what I’ve taken away as the difference. Agree? Disagree?

PS – Learning objects – I didn’t really want to cover that in my blog post, which I see as more an evaluation of models, in this case CBR vs cog flex. I believe learning objects are great and could be used more. The school of public health has a large learning object they’ve developed to understand public health decisions and how government, budget, and the public impacts the process. They want to expand that object and use it in other programs across UNC-CH. In addition there are some things available nationally.  In my field, Poynter has some learning objects we repurpose in our courses. One example is The Language of the Image at Poynter's News University: http://www.newsu.org/courses/language-image
(The course is free and self-directed. It takes about an hour to complete.)

UNIT 3: CONTEXT-BASED INSTRUCTION & MULTIMEDIA

Four context-based theories are manifested in Goal Based Scenarios, Anchored Instruction Environments, STAR Legacy Modules, and MOST Multimedia Environments. As the over-arching theory indicates, the fundamental commonality between the four models is that learning is done in the context of a real-world scenario that is realistic and engaging. Because of the nature of solving problems and challenges, these models are all generative, requiring the application of prior knowledge. Also these challenges, problems, scenarios, whatever the specific model wishes to call them, all utilize multimedia quite heavily in their presentation.  It seems to me that this is one of the barriers to adoption. The development of multimedia materials can be time and cost prohibitive. I provide some links for free resources at the end, but that doesn’t magically create more hours for teachers. Especially now as primary and secondary teachers are being plagued by new standards, testing, etc.

The differences between these four models is more discrete. For instance, after the main story is provided to students the STAR Legacy Model provides students with questions to answer while anchored instruction students generate problems to be solved.

To be honest, the overwhelming similarity between these models made it difficult for me to determine how best to explain them. I’ve come to think of it like pronunciation. Even though many of the same elements are present in each of the models, the difference is nuanced. I draw a parallel with heteronyms, words that have the same spelling but different meanings based on pronunciation like desert (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_%28linguistics%29 for examples). Goal Based Scenarios places emphasis on the quality of the process by setting process as well as outcome goals. Anchored Instruction is the only model that emphasizes group work even though the others can (and it seems do) use it. STAR Legacy has a very prescribed process. It is perhaps why I am drawn to it, the ease of implementing a well-defined set of steps. The MOST model seems to be specific to literacy instruction and at-risk student intervention.

While I am not currently teaching, I would (And will) use the STAR legacy model to develop faculty trainings for UNC’s new LMS Sakai. This model will allow me to fold in a few main concepts into the challenge making it not only useful as an orientation to the new LMS, but also require faculty to think deeply about the how and why of how they approach interaction virtually.

Utilize graphical storytelling through comic strips.
Resource: Bitstrips http://www.bitstrips.com/

Present scenarios verbally using a narrator.
Resource: Voki http://www.voki.com/

Use of animated dialogue.
Resource: Xtranormal http://www.xtranormal.com/

Problems can be presented via screencast, sharing all of your local audio and visual information that way.
Resource: Screencast-o-matic http://screencast-o-matic.com/

Problems can be presented in video from a webcam.
PC Resource: VLC Media Player http://youtu.be/5Z5c28rd5Wk
MAC resource: Quicktime Player http://youtu.be/2g8xv2MhRm4

Team task sharing
Trello https://trello.com/
Asana http://www.asana.com/
Planbox (free for educators) http://www.planbox.com/
Wedoist (free for three people) https://wedoist.com/

Project scheduling, presentation of advanced timeline in gantt format.
Resource: Gantter http://gantter.com/

Unit 2

1.                   What are key similarities or striking differences between the theories/models in a given unit? Do the theories/models in a unit share any common foundations or principles?

All four models had several common elements that all centered around the idea of collaborative learning to complete a task. That student-to-student interaction around a realistic problem, scenario or situation is essential to the learning experience. The emphasis on authenticity of the problems, context and process increased with each model. Also, the role of the instructor changed throughout. Guided design emphasized the creation of pre-instruction materials. Cognitive apprenticeship stressed modeling of process skills and critical, context-based problem solving that had instructors fading into the background after setting the students up with scaffolds.

Below I break out a few of the main characteristics across the models. I had to do this for organization.

Model of group-based collaborative instruction	Guided Design	Cooperative Learning Environments	Problem-Based Learning Environments	Situated Learning Environments & Cognitive Apprenticeships
Role of group	Allows each student to play active role in decision making	“Positive Interdependence” – Group held responsible for underperforming individuals	Resource gathering, small groups encourage higher-order thinking, requires each student to engage	Provide context for problem solving
Group characteristics	Roles promote participation, roles based on role in group – roles are optional	“Group processing” – Individuals instructed on skills like listening to and coaching each other Assigned specific, well-defined roles Groups designed for diversity	Roles are “authentic” and assigned based on the problem	Small group to practice modeled behavior
Primary means of foundational knowledge acquisition	Self-instruction (prerequisite to group activities)	Various groups, those in similar roles can work together then rejoin group - Jigsaw	Acquire resources to frame the problem – Resources can be text, audio, video, software, human – Framing and reframing the scenario is a big part of the model	Problems are put into realistic context to provide relevancy, motivation, and understanding
Primary means of skills acquisition	Group project	Group work, explaining their topic to the group	Working through real-world scenarios that have many possible solutions Filtering, organizing and utilizing resources	Discussion with other students about problem solving methods, context
Role of Instructor / Facilitator	Develop self-instruction materials	Group problems, roles, and strategies. Coach students on group processing.	Models higher-order thinking. Asks stimulating questions to prompt group discussion and thinking. (process questions)	Model, coach, fade Model positive process behavior Design scaffolds, coaches students
Method of assessment	Feedback at each stage of group project	Student in leadership role responsible for monitoring group	Students evaluate themselves and others	Metacognition questions, students asked to assess own learning
Possible issues	Students without self-motivation get left behind	High preforming students aren’t challenged. However lower ability student are challenged, improvement occurs.	Multiple possibilities for solutions and scenario branching makes it difficult for teacher, no definitive answer key. Greater recall from students. Develop life process skills. Grows community.	Student motivated by relevancy of problem solving. Process skills exhibited after acquiring via instructor modeling.
Notes	Focus on decision making	Critical thinking	Focus on resources, authentic problem solving	Focus on process, real-world solutions

2.                   What are your initial reactions to these learning theories/models? What are barriers to their use? What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?

I think that having adult learners work in groups is difficult. We have one MA course where the teacher insists on having a group project. Every year she gets dinged on her evaluations from some unhappy student. I have to say, I would rather do twice as much work on my own than work in a group. I know when I’m available. I know what I like. I’m deadline driven (journalist) and therefore working way ahead and planning a plan is foreign to me. I think that these group activities can be done online, but would be more useful if synchronous. That limits flexibility of students that work, in my opinion. However, there are lots of software to facilitate group work online now, so the means isn’t a problem. I think making sure the availability of people is looked at before grouping is critical. A night shift worker and a school teacher might not have much time to work together, for instance,

3.                   Would you attempt to use any of these theories/models with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theories/models be modified so that they would work with your current/future students?

I loved the jigsaw method or cooperative learning. We’ve never used it online, but I’d like to find a way to. Grouping students by role and having them discuss then break back into another group where they all share their role, it seems very engaging. We would use asynchronous discussion in Sakai and make Elluminate available for those that prefer real-time interaction.

4.                   Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out these learning theories/models online? Please spend some time identifying tools and resources for this last point, as this background research should help you complete your projects more efficiently.

As mentioned above Elluminate for real time interaction, screensharing, application sharing, etc. TodaysMeet could be used for some synchronous chat. Google hangout is also great for “connecting” since students can see each other, but I find that I don’t like that. I really like the anonymity of online classes. It does allow for screen and file sharing, which can be very helpful. Google Drive (formerly docs) is a great way to share working documents… and not lose your work. Although I’ve noticed on longer docs it can have some trouble.

UNIT 1: Individualized Instruction, PSI v A-T

        In the ever-changing landscape of e-learning, institutions of higher education are constantly striving to make both knowledge acquisition and student experience equivocal in some way to that of what is available on campus. Both the PSI and A-T models offer some insights in how that might be accomplished. Though first conceived in the 1960's to break away from traditional "stand and deliver" lectures, parts of the models lend themselves surprisingly well to today's increasingly asynchronous worlds.

        What I think works about both of these models is the ability of students to self-regulate. However, this would only work for students that are disciplined. The ability for students to move through at their own pace allowing those with prior knowledge to go more quickly or those very interested to slow down and search for supplemental material is well-suited for e-learning. The interim quizzes proctored in PSI and worked into the small assembly meeting for A-T are a wonderful way to assess learning. I do however see a big problem in holding future materials from students until a 100% is achieved in the PSI model.

        The Audio Tutorial approach seems too time intensive for most content considering the quick versioning of literally everything. Even if you develop the multimedia assets for a history class where nothing changes, you still have everything around it changing. What media will the audio assets be stored in? CD, mp3, DVD, BluRay? Changes and upgrades in LMS could suddenly not support your media. Having students come to a lab isn’t feasible. Changes like Apple effectively killing Flash or W3C instituting HTML5, ever changing accessibility standards, all of this swirling around makes it almost impossible to produce an evergreen piece. This method makes itself overly reliant and therefore vulnerable to the changing tides. Also, the need to meet in small assembly groups with the professor and the weekly synchronous general assembly sessions adds to the time intensity. This would not be cost effective.

        The PSI holds its own difficulties for e-learning. Chief among them is the proctor giving feedback on the exam and then releasing the next lesson. Because of the self-paced nature of PSI I would assume students could be working late. If they take a test and the proctor is unavailable to review the test and provide feedback, the student is stuck waiting. In a world where busy professionals are carving out chunks of time for school, I find this unacceptable. This seemed like a key to the model, but I couldn’t tell if the examples in the reading actually held the next unit until mastery was acquired. Also, though Koen professes an adherence to PSI it seems that students were not required to obtain a 100% to complete the lesson, which I find in direct opposition to the model.

        I do believe the self-paced model will begin to take hold. The truth is education is now where newspapers were ten years ago. Everyone knows fundamental change is coming but believe they have such a quality product that they are not in danger. That is not true. I’m not sure what the future holds, but I imagine providers like Coursera, MIT’s OpenCourseWare, and Khan Academy will be leading the way as the new model.  Check out Duke’s Coursera offerings: http://cit.duke.edu/blog/2012/07/duke-coursera/ 

UNC Sakai

Okay. Post your email address as a comment if you would like to be added to my UNC Sakai worksite.
-Rachel