Muddy Concepts

This week I am writing on “muddy” concepts to which I have been exposed this week.  I had several candidates I was relatively enthusiastic about.  Then, along came Fair Use.

For those not in-the-know, Fair Use is a caveat to copyright law which allows for limited use of copyrighted works within an educational setting and for an educational purpose.   This week I watched a video in which a Liberty University staff member attempted to clarify the concept and remove some misconceptions.

The primary misconception listed regarding Fair Use was that copyrights could be virtually ignored when used within an educational setting.  According to the video, this is wrong, and I understand and concur.  Next, the video gave the explanation, which also provided clear indication as to why the assumption exists in the first place and failed to clear the muddy waters.

Four factors are listed clearly against which one can measure the probability that the use of copyrighted material is legal with Fair Use.  The problem is that no specific threshold for any of the factors or combinations of factors is provided against which a prospective user could definitively state the use is legal.  The measurement of each factor only makes the Fair Use more or less probable.  In fact, at the end of the video, I am not sure I could say for certain if anything but the most extreme cases was either one or the other.

Even my explanation of the explanation is confusing.  Undoubtedly, the inability of the video to clarify this muddy concept is that the legal issues are ambiguous to begin with.  In the end, I believe the misconception still persists despite the clarification.  Unless I am selling tickets or adversely effecting the profit generated by the copyrighted work, an argument could be made that any educational use is Fair Use.

David Bennett

Liberty University

Interactivity and Distance Education

This week I ran across an interesting article as I was researching for a later assignment this week.  The article had to do with the efficacy of interactivity utilized in distance education as it relates to the relative level of student motivation.

Initially, I assumed that the article would find that the level of motivation rose in direct relation to the level of interactivity.  From my constructivist standpoint, this would make sense.  It would certainly be easier to lead students toward discovery using greater levels of interactivity, something I also associate heavily with synchronous learning.  Building a similar level of ability to lead, without the interactive options, places that burden to deliver on the curriculum and lesson plan development.  Challenging, though not impossible.

With this assumption in mind, I immediately disliked the article.  As an individual, I so value the asynchronous nature of distance education that I do not want to see research indicating greater synchronicity is the better practice.

What the article found was surprising, however.  The higher levels of interactivity were only effective to a point, and then became counter-productive (Mahle, 2011) at least in reference to motivation.    The news was not all good, at least for me.  The study also assessed the level of student confidence with the material after the course was complete and the level of interactivity was found to correspond directly with the level of confidence (Mahle, 2011).  Student attention during the course was not found to be effected significantly by the level of interactivity while levels of retention and proficiency with the instructed concepts benefited from moderate levels of interactivity.

For those involved in the design of distance education courses, this tells us we need to build in some level of interactive tools for optimum efficacy.  We should not overdue it though.  At some point, it would appear that the overuse of interactive and synchronous tools becomes no more than a gimmick.

David Bennett

Mahle, M. (2011). EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVITY ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION IN DISTANCE EDUCATION. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 12(3), 207-215.

Where the Economy, Education, and Technology Intersect.

Best Practices in Distance Education

                Today it has been requested that I do some research and discuss best practices in distance education (DE).  In most cases, I would do my research and only then begin writing my post in an effort to ensure I put forward the most knowledgeable and professional version of myself.

                Today, however, I am going to do this a bit different.  As an introduction to this assignment, I was provided an excerpt from an article concerning best practices in DE.  It discussed the journey that DE educational philosophy has taken; from direct instruction, to constructivism, and now a burgeoning push toward interaction.

                As any of you that have read my blog can attest, I am rather stuck on constructivism, and I am not ready to move on from it.  So, in an effort to keep myself honest in front of my readers ( both of you) I will go on record before having done the research and state that I am not a big fan of required interaction in a distance learning environment. 

Interaction itself is beneficial in a distance environment; however the standard method of implementation for instructors that want to require interaction is the “group project”.  Problems surface in this format that do not exist to the same extent in traditional group project formats.  Variations in student motivation and expectation are exacerbated by the increased feeling of anonymity caused by the natural filter of the distance format and reduced feelings of team responsibility caused by the short lengths of many distance classes.

With the cart firmly before the horse, I will begin my research and my words from here forward will be more informed.

The first article I run across is Distance Education: pedagogy and best practices in the new millennium published in the 2003, July through September edition of the International Journal of Leadership in Education.  This article has some interesting things to say about over use of technology by distance educators, and seems to agree with me that constructivist pedagogy is essential, but then it goes on at some length to say how essential social presence and interaction are to successful distance education (Miller, King, 2003). Well, that article is old anyway.  Best to move on.

Another slightly more recent article seems to agree with the first.  Gunawardena et al., in their article New Model, New Strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities, insist that collaboration and interaction are essential to the efficacy of any online program (2006).  They also subscribe enthusiastically to socio-constructivist philosophies and use these as a basis for the Wiscom Design Model upon which they suggest creating distance education classes.  This design model is built on the creation of a learning community that collectively engages in the common pursuit of educational goals (Gunawardena et al., 2006). 

Wiscom sounds a little utopian, but nice at the same time.  The challenge, of course, would be fostering such community.  As I mentioned earlier, the short asynchronous classes do not lend themselves well to building community.  Wiscom has some answers to those difficulties.  Mechanisms for mentoring and learner support are central to their model.  Pairing of learners with mentors helps to integrate learners into the community, but takes more staff than the average distance education format can commit.

Finally, we have an article by S. Gulati in 2008 titled “Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalization of learning?”.   Gulati begins by stating that social constructivism is, at it’s core, a method of acquiring knowledge which is inherently social in nature, and therefore contains requirements for interaction and collaboration.  The study did find that much of the actual online interaction in distance education environments was actually off topic and that little of the interaction contributed toward concept mastery.

The article then goes on to articulate how compulsory participation contribution to group formats is a normalizing influence, the need for which wrongly assumes that learners must express their knowledge to an external, formal authority; an action antithetical to constructivist philosophy ( Gulati, 2006).  If this is the case, strict adherence to constructivist philosophy would make assessments difficult indeed.  This seems extreme to me, and even if assessment s run counter to a constructivist philosophy, they are necessary from the educational institutions accountability standpoint, and not necessarily from an educational standpoint.

                Gutani then goes on to describe an alternate constructivist role that is viable, but not available within the current educational environment: that of the radical independent constructivist.  This person learns and internalizes concepts more efficiently through observation and contemplation.  Given the choice, the preferred choice of participation in the online community would be that of a silent observer.  Gutani asserts that this is akin to a learning modality that is suppressed at the expense of learner autonomy (2008). 

                I would put forward that the radical independent Constructivist educational experience is available to learners, even in our current distance educational environment.  If a learner desires to observe, and learn with no responsibility to demonstrate the acquired knowledge, that option is available if they have the money and ignore their grades.  It is not until the learner desires to be recognized by an institution or society as having acquired the knowledge that learner autonomy is voluntarily sacrificed.

                All in all, I believe these articles generally agree with the stance that I expressed originally.  Interaction is important and beneficial.  Collaboration requires community.  Enforced community has consequences.

David Bennett

Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalization of learning?. Innovations In Education & Teaching International, 45(2), 183-192. doi:10.1080/14703290801950427

Gunawardena, C., Ortegano‐Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., & Jennings, B. (2006). New Model, New Strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities. Distance Education, 27(2), 217-232. doi:10.1080/01587910600789613

Miller, T. W., & King, F. B. (2003). Distance education: pedagogy and best practices in the new millennium. International Journal Of Leadership In Education, 6(3), 283-297.

Review of Chapters 3 and 4

            This week I will be reviewing two chapters of the book e-Learning and the Science of Instruction, by Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer.  This is a book which I am using as a resource in a Principles of Design and Management in Distance Education class at Liberty University.

Chapter Three

            Chapter three covers application of something the book terms the Multimedia Principle.  The basic principle of this chapter can be summed up in one brief sentence.  According to Clark and Mayer, the use of textual instruction in conjunction with the integration of instructional graphics is significantly more effective than the use of textual instruction alone (2008).

            Beyond this basic principle are a host of details which provide guidance in the application of the Multimedia Principle. For example, some graphics are more effective than others.  Decorative graphics and representational graphics which are just a simple visual representation of an object, are the least effective usage.  Optimal efficacy is obtained when textual instruction is coupled with graphics which demonstrate relationships between processes or concepts .  These types of graphics are called transformational, organizational, or relational graphics (Clark, Mayer, 2008).

            There are some very specific reasons the authors support the use of dual instructional formats.  The first has to do with cognitive learning theory.  The authors subscribe to an active learning theory as opposed to an information acquisition theory.  According to this belief, presentation of the instructional information is not adequate.  The instructional goal for the educator is to launch the learner toward processing of the information in conjunction with previously mastered concepts to achieve understanding of the relationships the new concepts have with the old. 

            The second reason is that research indicates that textual and graphic instructions combined are simply more effective (Clark, Mayer, 2008).  In virtually every instance, studies found that students mastered concepts more thoroughly and performed better on tests when provided combined instruction than students provided only textual instruction.

            The ramifications of the concepts in this chapter are significant.  For many years, direct instruction and traditional adherence to information acquisition theory have led to education primarily as an oral or written presentation of concepts (Gutek, 1995).  Though this educational philosophy can lead to memorization of facts without understanding of the underlying concepts, the ability to regurgitate and recall facts works well with standardized testing procedures, which has lead to the use of information acquisition theory well beyond it’s ability to be justified by research.

            Use of multiple presentation formats is vital especially in a distance learning environment.  In a traditional format, educators can spontaneously provide visual cues for students, such as hand gestures or diagrams on chalk boards that can serve the same functions as the graphics described in this chapter.  The unavailability of spontaneity means the distance educator must be more purposeful in their pursuit of this principle because the graphics must be designed well in advance.

It is encouraging as a parent and educator to see such a foundational change occurring in the application of modern educational theory.  As more and more studies are published that support a constructivist theory of learning in which learners actively build their knowledge, educators will find that the Multimedia Principle will draw learners toward more active engagement of topics and widespread application seems a foregone conclusion.

Chapter Four

            Chapter four is the discussion of a principle that relates closely to the Multimedia Principle discussed above.  The Contiguity Principle is a guideline for the application of the Multimedia Principle.  In its basic form, it states that textual and graphic instruction, when combined, should be presented in an integrated fashion in order to achieve near simultaneity (Clark, Mayer, 2008).

            This principle comes into play in several ways.  Presentations in which an audio portion is presented first, followed by a text and graphic representation of a concept would be an example of a failure to apply this principle.   Presenting both formats in conjunction with each other helps students to make connections and build relationships between concepts.  Timely feedback is another area in which benefits of the Contiguity Principle are made apparent. 

            In hindsight, this principle seems obvious.  Peruse the many presentations available to educators today, and it becomes apparent, however, that designers of many learning objects are not considering contiguity as a tool.  Learners are required to flip from screen to screen or page to page to make connections, or close pop-up windows to view necessary information.

            A good portion of an educator’s job is communication, and this boils down to a basic communications principle as well.  A good communicator considers the perception of the audience, the intention of the communication, the context and the format before initiating a communication (Seiler & Beal, 2008).  Usually, the goal for an educator is to help students make connections with concepts, and it is only common sense to make those connections as easy as possible by minimizing the lengths a learner must go to in order to make them.

           

               

References

Clark, R., Mayer, R., (2008).  E-Learning and the Science of Instruction, Chapter 3, Applying the Multimedia Principle, San Francisco: Pfieffer

Gutek, G, (1995), A History of the Western Educational Experience, 2^nd Ed., Chapter 13, Froebel and Montessori: Early Childhood Education, Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove I

Seiler, W., Beal, M. (2008). Communication: Making Connections, 7^th Ed., Chapter 1, Connecting Process and Principles, Pearson Education Inc., Boston

Assessment, Constructivism, and the Online Environment

            It would appear this blog is turning into a long praise of constructivism.  That was not my intention, though I admit I am an enthusiastic adherent and often find the answers to educational dilemmas to be buried in the constructivist philosophy.  With that said, here it comes again to the rescue.

Constructivism and distance learning make a complementary pairing.  In fact, evidence suggests that educators following a constructivist philosophy in general tend to exhibit more frequent and more effective overall use of technology (Overbay et al., 2010) which may explain why most distance learning environments are designed based on a constructivist educational philosophy ( Pange and Pange, 2011).  What are the reasons this relationship exists?

One of those reasons this may be that technology lends itself toward more complex projects and engaging projects.  The ability to use these learner lead projects as primary assessment tool provides several layers of advantage in the summative assessment stage.  Learners may utilize their strongest learning modality, optimizing their potential to assimilate and demonstrate the new concepts.  They can also minimize extraneous cognitive load by using familiar contexts within which to perform assessed tasks (Sweller, 2007).   As an added bonus, the educator is not forced to grade the exact same project over and over.

Another large advantage of constructivist type assessment in a distance learning environment is the issue of time.  Many e-learning classes are shorter than the traditional classroom option.  Trying to assess traditionally by testing every individual basic concept along the way takes too much time out of an eight week class.  A constructivist, however, realizes that demonstration of the most complex concepts necessitates mastery of the supporting concepts as well, and reduces the total allocation of resources necessary for assessment.

           

David Bennett

Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: findings from the IMPACTing Leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103-120. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.492675

Pange, A., & Pange, J. (2011). Is E-learning Based On Learning Theories? A Literature Review. World Academy Of Science, Engineering & Technology, 8062-66

Sweller, John. (2007). Human Cognitive Architecture, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, (31), 369-381, Taylor and Francis Group