Happy 200th birthday, Edgar Allan Poe.Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Reducing Extraneous Cognitive Load by Accounting for Individual Differences
“I built a computer in my Electrical Engineering classes…” or “Of course I can use MS Word; I’m an English major…” or “I took a computer class in high school...do I really have to take the CIL tests?” What is our response every time? “Just show me.”
Computer and Information Literacy (CIL) is a series of 6 tests designed for freshmen at Utah State University to display that they have basic skills in regards to using a computer and finding and ethically using information on the Internet, in the library, or from other sources. By gaining these skills early in their college career, these students will have tools at their disposal that will allow them to work more efficiently than they may have otherwise. Of course, many of those students that try the hardest to get out of the tests or simply postpone them as long as possible are the very ones that have difficulties passing one or more tests.
Cognitive Load and Cognitive Information Processing
Students come to college for many reasons. Ask 10 random students on a university campus why they’re here, and you may not be surprised to hear 11 different answers. Of course, that is because everyone is different. We come from different backgrounds, with different interests. But deep down, we’re all computers, at least according to Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) Theory, so why should learning computers be so hard?
CIP theorists postulate that information flows through the brain similar to how data flows through a computer. They describe the brain as a system which receives input in various forms, patterns are recognized and loaded into short term memory if relevant, the information is then processed further to create a response, and finally experiences may or may not be loaded into long term memory for later retrieval (Driscoll 2004).
Tools like chunking, sequencing, imagery, and mnemonics can be utilized by an instructor to help a student process information and build on existing knowledge. Some claim that if no previous knowledge exits, CIP does not apply, since new knowledge cannot be related to any existing schema (Gee). Regardless of whether we actually learn as CIP theorists propose, it is important for instructors to be familiar with the tools available to them, whether technical or theoretical, and use that which is best for their learners.
Some of the most interesting research going on in the field of Instructional Technology is Cognitive Load Theory. The relationship between intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load has some of its beginnings in CIP, which intuitively theorizes that the brain can only think about or encode a small amount of information at any given time. Intrinsic load is generally thought of as difficult or impossible to manipulate and thus ignored, as it refers to the processing that has to be done by the brain to encode practically anything. The goal should be to minimize extraneous cognitive load, which could be anything that distracts a learner, and increase germane load, or those processes that allow the learner to actively participate in the encoding process. As van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005) point out, however, “instructional manipulations to improve learning by diminishing extraneous cognitive load and by freeing up cognitive resources is only effective if students are motivated and actually invest mental effort in learning processes that use the freed resources.”
So let’s say that we follow Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction (Driscoll 2004) and we know that we must motivate our learners by Gaining their Attention and Informing them of the Objectives of our instruction. For CIL, we gain their attention pretty easily by standing in the way of graduation if not completed, and our objectives are the 6 tests they must pass. Of course, this is an area CIL could use some improvement. Yes, it is a graduation requirement, but it is more than that. These are important skills which allow students to work more efficiently. If we can help them understand that, they will be more willing to work to increase germane load and learn the material. Motivating students to take the tests sooner is a topic that does need further attention, but the fact is that we do have a captive audience, so I will focus here on how to help students once they come to us.
Learning Styles and Individual Differences
According to Shute and Towle (2003), “the challenge of improving learning and performance largely depends on correctly identifying characteristics of a particular learner.” Some characteristics of a given learner include existing knowledge, cognitive ability, personality, learning styles, and interest in the subject matter. A variety of supports are available to help students pass the CIL tests. Online tutorials are available for students to review, practice tests are available, review sessions are provided twice a week, and the actual tests give a breakdown of the topics with which the student needs some help. The problem with each of these supports is that they require the student to track manually for themselves what it is they need to work on and to decide which resources to study with.
Some of the skills we test on lend themselves to simple memorization/regurgitation through a multiple choice test and others require some critical thinking and demonstration of skills. Given multiple types of content and varying skill levels of test-takers, where do we start when developing instruction? Although it is necessary to dynamically adjust the number and type of examples and guidance for any given learner, this accommodating for individual differences, according to Reiser and Dempsey (2002), “is secondary to the fundamental content-by-strategy consistency required for effective instruction.” The type of content and goals of instructions are primary; learner styles should be reserved as a fine-tuning or adjustment to the content-based strategies. As such, we provide straight-forward text and still images for the concept tests but animated screencasts in addition to a few text explanations in the tutorials for the performance tests. A thorough review of all the CIL tutorials needs to be done to ensure that the content does match the presentation method used.
A review of our instructional materials would also help to avoid issues like the Expertise Reversal Effect (Kalyuga et al., 2003). This phenomenon shows reduced extraneous cognitive load for novices when illustrations and text are physically integrated. As expertise increases, that difference in cognitive load decreases and eventually reverses, with experts becoming distracted by all the extra information they don’t need. This is a perfect place to bring in software that can track learner knowledge and personal preferences and suppress unnecessary and distracting information from the advanced learner who does not need it.
Technology to the Rescue
In their recent book, van Merriënboer and Kirschner (2007) extend their previously published Four Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model. A central piece of both the 4C/ID and the extended Ten Steps to Complex Learning is that of providing Just-in-Time (JIT) information to the student right when it’s needed. They give the example of a coach who observes her players from the side of the playing field and shouts directions like “remember to bend your knees...” or “no, keep your eye on the ball...” It is difficult to explain just why a certain piece of information is exactly what a learner needs at a given moment, but a master teacher can predict just what the learner needs next. They point out in their book that the more complex and open-ended the learning task, the more difficult it is to create intelligent help and tutoring systems to provide that JIT information.
A great number of online courses are simply a copy of old print materials that have been converted to PDF or HTML and placed on the web. “Instead of the page-turners of yesterday, we now have scrolling pages, which is really no improvement at all. Adaptive e-learning provides the opportunity to dynamically order the pages so that the learner sees the right material at the right time,” say Shute and Towle (2003). They go on to provide a list of essential components for an adaptive learning tool to be truly effective:
Koedinger and Anderson (1997) describe a study in urban Pittsburgh high schools helping at-risk students learn algebra skills in the context of real life situations, such as comparing the prices of two moving companies or rental car agencies. The learning environment included a grapher, calculator, spreadsheet, and an organized curriculum of problem situations. The system contained psychological modeling techniques for what they called model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing is used to monitor student progress through a problem solution. Knowledge tracing is used to monitor student learning from problem to problem. Together, the software could individualize problem selection and optimally pace students through the curriculum giving immediate feedback while working on a problem. Stress from making errors was reduced because others in the class didn’t see their mistakes. The program was so successful that all students were sent through the more advanced algebra class than the basic math class and standardized test scores at the end of the year increased 15%. Additional high schools were brought on board. An important observation from this study that CIL needs to take into consideration is making our examples and test questions reflect real situations that a student may find himself or herself in. Rather than use spreadsheets, for example, to manipulate data on yearly sales figures for a store, they should be calculating grades in a class, budgeting for school and living expenses with just a part-time job, or tracking basketball box scores.
What next?
Given the large number of students we see, and the large variance in individual learning styles, there is a lot we could do at CIL to improve both our testing and teaching methods. We can currently track performance on the actual CIL tests already, but by implementing a tutoring system that would track student behaviors as they prepare, we would be able to compare that preparation data to test performance data and figure out if the students are simply practicing Selective Attention (Driscoll 2004) or if there is a problem with the tutorials. By tracking students through the tutorials, we can provide additional assistance to the students that barely slip through with the minimum score after expending a lot more effort than was necessary. Currently, the only way to really collect that kind of data would be to “ask test takers to reflect aloud on the cognitive and evaluative processes” used to study and take tests (Gall et al., 2007). Of course, asking students to track their own actions and thoughts adds extraneous cognitive load, which decreases their performance. The next step is to load our content and practice items, after whatever updates need to be made, into an adaptive tutor system to find out what’s really going on.
REFERENCES
Driscoll, M. (2004) Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Gall, M., Gall J., Borg, W. (2007) Educational Research (8th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gee, D. Learning Theories. eLearning Source. Accessed February 2007.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38(1).
Koedinger, K., Anderson, J. (1997). Intelligent Tutoring Goes To School in the Big City. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8.
Reiser, R., Dempsey, J. (Eds.). (2002) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Shute, V., Towle, B. (2003) Adaptive E-Learning. Educational Psychologist 38(2).
Van Merriënboer, J., Kirschner, P. (2007) Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Merriënboer, J., Sweller, J. (2005) Cognitive Load Theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2).
Computer and Information Literacy (CIL) is a series of 6 tests designed for freshmen at Utah State University to display that they have basic skills in regards to using a computer and finding and ethically using information on the Internet, in the library, or from other sources. By gaining these skills early in their college career, these students will have tools at their disposal that will allow them to work more efficiently than they may have otherwise. Of course, many of those students that try the hardest to get out of the tests or simply postpone them as long as possible are the very ones that have difficulties passing one or more tests.
Cognitive Load and Cognitive Information Processing
Students come to college for many reasons. Ask 10 random students on a university campus why they’re here, and you may not be surprised to hear 11 different answers. Of course, that is because everyone is different. We come from different backgrounds, with different interests. But deep down, we’re all computers, at least according to Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) Theory, so why should learning computers be so hard?
CIP theorists postulate that information flows through the brain similar to how data flows through a computer. They describe the brain as a system which receives input in various forms, patterns are recognized and loaded into short term memory if relevant, the information is then processed further to create a response, and finally experiences may or may not be loaded into long term memory for later retrieval (Driscoll 2004).
Tools like chunking, sequencing, imagery, and mnemonics can be utilized by an instructor to help a student process information and build on existing knowledge. Some claim that if no previous knowledge exits, CIP does not apply, since new knowledge cannot be related to any existing schema (Gee). Regardless of whether we actually learn as CIP theorists propose, it is important for instructors to be familiar with the tools available to them, whether technical or theoretical, and use that which is best for their learners.
Some of the most interesting research going on in the field of Instructional Technology is Cognitive Load Theory. The relationship between intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load has some of its beginnings in CIP, which intuitively theorizes that the brain can only think about or encode a small amount of information at any given time. Intrinsic load is generally thought of as difficult or impossible to manipulate and thus ignored, as it refers to the processing that has to be done by the brain to encode practically anything. The goal should be to minimize extraneous cognitive load, which could be anything that distracts a learner, and increase germane load, or those processes that allow the learner to actively participate in the encoding process. As van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005) point out, however, “instructional manipulations to improve learning by diminishing extraneous cognitive load and by freeing up cognitive resources is only effective if students are motivated and actually invest mental effort in learning processes that use the freed resources.”
So let’s say that we follow Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction (Driscoll 2004) and we know that we must motivate our learners by Gaining their Attention and Informing them of the Objectives of our instruction. For CIL, we gain their attention pretty easily by standing in the way of graduation if not completed, and our objectives are the 6 tests they must pass. Of course, this is an area CIL could use some improvement. Yes, it is a graduation requirement, but it is more than that. These are important skills which allow students to work more efficiently. If we can help them understand that, they will be more willing to work to increase germane load and learn the material. Motivating students to take the tests sooner is a topic that does need further attention, but the fact is that we do have a captive audience, so I will focus here on how to help students once they come to us.
Learning Styles and Individual Differences
According to Shute and Towle (2003), “the challenge of improving learning and performance largely depends on correctly identifying characteristics of a particular learner.” Some characteristics of a given learner include existing knowledge, cognitive ability, personality, learning styles, and interest in the subject matter. A variety of supports are available to help students pass the CIL tests. Online tutorials are available for students to review, practice tests are available, review sessions are provided twice a week, and the actual tests give a breakdown of the topics with which the student needs some help. The problem with each of these supports is that they require the student to track manually for themselves what it is they need to work on and to decide which resources to study with.
Some of the skills we test on lend themselves to simple memorization/regurgitation through a multiple choice test and others require some critical thinking and demonstration of skills. Given multiple types of content and varying skill levels of test-takers, where do we start when developing instruction? Although it is necessary to dynamically adjust the number and type of examples and guidance for any given learner, this accommodating for individual differences, according to Reiser and Dempsey (2002), “is secondary to the fundamental content-by-strategy consistency required for effective instruction.” The type of content and goals of instructions are primary; learner styles should be reserved as a fine-tuning or adjustment to the content-based strategies. As such, we provide straight-forward text and still images for the concept tests but animated screencasts in addition to a few text explanations in the tutorials for the performance tests. A thorough review of all the CIL tutorials needs to be done to ensure that the content does match the presentation method used.
A review of our instructional materials would also help to avoid issues like the Expertise Reversal Effect (Kalyuga et al., 2003). This phenomenon shows reduced extraneous cognitive load for novices when illustrations and text are physically integrated. As expertise increases, that difference in cognitive load decreases and eventually reverses, with experts becoming distracted by all the extra information they don’t need. This is a perfect place to bring in software that can track learner knowledge and personal preferences and suppress unnecessary and distracting information from the advanced learner who does not need it.
Technology to the Rescue
In their recent book, van Merriënboer and Kirschner (2007) extend their previously published Four Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model. A central piece of both the 4C/ID and the extended Ten Steps to Complex Learning is that of providing Just-in-Time (JIT) information to the student right when it’s needed. They give the example of a coach who observes her players from the side of the playing field and shouts directions like “remember to bend your knees...” or “no, keep your eye on the ball...” It is difficult to explain just why a certain piece of information is exactly what a learner needs at a given moment, but a master teacher can predict just what the learner needs next. They point out in their book that the more complex and open-ended the learning task, the more difficult it is to create intelligent help and tutoring systems to provide that JIT information.
A great number of online courses are simply a copy of old print materials that have been converted to PDF or HTML and placed on the web. “Instead of the page-turners of yesterday, we now have scrolling pages, which is really no improvement at all. Adaptive e-learning provides the opportunity to dynamically order the pages so that the learner sees the right material at the right time,” say Shute and Towle (2003). They go on to provide a list of essential components for an adaptive learning tool to be truly effective:
1. An independent and robust delivery system and a predictably structured independent content system that can be adapted to each learner.
2. Embedded assessments, delivered to the student during the course of learning, which triggers the presentation of more of the same topic or a new topic. Assessment should really be integrated throughout to guide the instruction, rather than be simply tacked on at the end.
3. Genetic programming, which can take an initial set of human-designed rules, perhaps set with data from a pilot study, and evolve as the system is used to increase its accuracy.
Koedinger and Anderson (1997) describe a study in urban Pittsburgh high schools helping at-risk students learn algebra skills in the context of real life situations, such as comparing the prices of two moving companies or rental car agencies. The learning environment included a grapher, calculator, spreadsheet, and an organized curriculum of problem situations. The system contained psychological modeling techniques for what they called model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing is used to monitor student progress through a problem solution. Knowledge tracing is used to monitor student learning from problem to problem. Together, the software could individualize problem selection and optimally pace students through the curriculum giving immediate feedback while working on a problem. Stress from making errors was reduced because others in the class didn’t see their mistakes. The program was so successful that all students were sent through the more advanced algebra class than the basic math class and standardized test scores at the end of the year increased 15%. Additional high schools were brought on board. An important observation from this study that CIL needs to take into consideration is making our examples and test questions reflect real situations that a student may find himself or herself in. Rather than use spreadsheets, for example, to manipulate data on yearly sales figures for a store, they should be calculating grades in a class, budgeting for school and living expenses with just a part-time job, or tracking basketball box scores.
What next?
Given the large number of students we see, and the large variance in individual learning styles, there is a lot we could do at CIL to improve both our testing and teaching methods. We can currently track performance on the actual CIL tests already, but by implementing a tutoring system that would track student behaviors as they prepare, we would be able to compare that preparation data to test performance data and figure out if the students are simply practicing Selective Attention (Driscoll 2004) or if there is a problem with the tutorials. By tracking students through the tutorials, we can provide additional assistance to the students that barely slip through with the minimum score after expending a lot more effort than was necessary. Currently, the only way to really collect that kind of data would be to “ask test takers to reflect aloud on the cognitive and evaluative processes” used to study and take tests (Gall et al., 2007). Of course, asking students to track their own actions and thoughts adds extraneous cognitive load, which decreases their performance. The next step is to load our content and practice items, after whatever updates need to be made, into an adaptive tutor system to find out what’s really going on.
REFERENCES
Driscoll, M. (2004) Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Gall, M., Gall J., Borg, W. (2007) Educational Research (8th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gee, D. Learning Theories. eLearning Source. Accessed February 2007.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38(1).
Koedinger, K., Anderson, J. (1997). Intelligent Tutoring Goes To School in the Big City. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8.
Reiser, R., Dempsey, J. (Eds.). (2002) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Shute, V., Towle, B. (2003) Adaptive E-Learning. Educational Psychologist 38(2).
Van Merriënboer, J., Kirschner, P. (2007) Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Merriënboer, J., Sweller, J. (2005) Cognitive Load Theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2).
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A small quilted luxury
At the end of this week's Chris Matthews Show, a quick discussion took place regarding the fact that sales are way up for a new product, Quilted Northern's three ply toilet paper. It's more expensive, but people are still buying it in spite of the recession. So what does that say? They suggested it's perhaps a sign that we're going for small luxuries now instead of big ones. Of course, they immediately follow up talking about the toilet paper with the fact that high-end luxury cruises with Abercrombie & Kent are way up, which definitely isn't a small luxury. Maybe people are just following Katt Williams' advice.
So what's going on? Are we just in the most luxurious recession ever? If we see a 6-blade disposable razor come out, I think that question will be answered.
My real question is whether we are being pushed into a recession by the media's claims that we're in one, which causes us to cut back our spending and thus bring to pass their claims. If tomorrow the media started reporting that the recession is over, would people start spending again and thus cause a recovery? Is there harm in trying that strategy?
So what's going on? Are we just in the most luxurious recession ever? If we see a 6-blade disposable razor come out, I think that question will be answered.
My real question is whether we are being pushed into a recession by the media's claims that we're in one, which causes us to cut back our spending and thus bring to pass their claims. If tomorrow the media started reporting that the recession is over, would people start spending again and thus cause a recovery? Is there harm in trying that strategy?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Artificial Science
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
At first glance this article may seem somewhat strange, with the author listing about 25 self-citations, however given the format of the article, it actually makes sense. It is written as a qualitative longitudinal review of the author’s own work over about a 15 year period, with comparisons between that work and the work of others in the field during a similar time period. It is definitely a different approach to writing an article, but it shows an interesting pattern of various ideas becoming popular among researchers and practitioners and then giving way to something else. Brown also follows the same method in writing the article about past research as when writing specific research articles – giving an overview of the entire study and the general trends, flavored with detailed information about an interesting case. In this article Brown shows us the general pattern to the studies and then gives us specific examples, such as the biology class studying carnivores and herbivores.
The actual point of the article seemed to be that just because a study doesn’t follow a strict scientific convention doesn’t mean that it’s not still useful. The author discusses some common criticisms of her work. With some results being discounted as a Hawthorne effect, Brown explains why it was not just a Hawthorne effect but even if it was it may still be a valid study with good results. The major issue pointed out by Brown is that learning outcomes depend on many interacting factors, and the act of controlling for all factors and varying just one, in addition to the fact that the observer is there watching in the first place, makes the environment become artificial. So is it better to be very scientific and be able to show a given effect size of one particular variable in an artificial environment, or to simply interact within a natural environment where most everything is out of the control of the researcher? Neither one can really be generalizable or applicable to other situations.
In terms of how this relates to my interests, since this article was not about a specific intervention, rather methods of implementing research, I can only really take the article as advice for planning my own studies. A purely scientific, sterile approach does not necessarily always provide the best information. A messy, unorganized study could very well be a poor study, but it also may be useful if providing real information about real-world environments. It is important to understand research practices to be able to implement protections against internal and external validity issues, either to prevent them from happening or to defend yourself against others that may claim your work is subject to them.
At first glance this article may seem somewhat strange, with the author listing about 25 self-citations, however given the format of the article, it actually makes sense. It is written as a qualitative longitudinal review of the author’s own work over about a 15 year period, with comparisons between that work and the work of others in the field during a similar time period. It is definitely a different approach to writing an article, but it shows an interesting pattern of various ideas becoming popular among researchers and practitioners and then giving way to something else. Brown also follows the same method in writing the article about past research as when writing specific research articles – giving an overview of the entire study and the general trends, flavored with detailed information about an interesting case. In this article Brown shows us the general pattern to the studies and then gives us specific examples, such as the biology class studying carnivores and herbivores.
The actual point of the article seemed to be that just because a study doesn’t follow a strict scientific convention doesn’t mean that it’s not still useful. The author discusses some common criticisms of her work. With some results being discounted as a Hawthorne effect, Brown explains why it was not just a Hawthorne effect but even if it was it may still be a valid study with good results. The major issue pointed out by Brown is that learning outcomes depend on many interacting factors, and the act of controlling for all factors and varying just one, in addition to the fact that the observer is there watching in the first place, makes the environment become artificial. So is it better to be very scientific and be able to show a given effect size of one particular variable in an artificial environment, or to simply interact within a natural environment where most everything is out of the control of the researcher? Neither one can really be generalizable or applicable to other situations.
In terms of how this relates to my interests, since this article was not about a specific intervention, rather methods of implementing research, I can only really take the article as advice for planning my own studies. A purely scientific, sterile approach does not necessarily always provide the best information. A messy, unorganized study could very well be a poor study, but it also may be useful if providing real information about real-world environments. It is important to understand research practices to be able to implement protections against internal and external validity issues, either to prevent them from happening or to defend yourself against others that may claim your work is subject to them.
Staying culturally relevant in today’s global society
Given the speed at which technology is advancing, both in innovation and distribution, groups and individuals seem to be classified as technology haves or have-nots. The haves are seen as smarter or more successful than the have-nots. The haves then suppose it their duty to impart their ways on the poor have-nots, whether or not their help is needed or requested. Looking deep down, however, it does not appear that technology itself really causes anyone to change, rather it facilitates desired changes. Whether those desired changes are for the better or the worse depends, of course, on the situation.
In addition to technological advancements, there are many more aspects by which various cultures may differ, including geography, religion, language, social structures, traditions, available resources, etc. Technology is hailed by some as an equalizer, allowing members of cultures that might not otherwise have a voice to publish their story for the world, but it may come at a price of lost traditions and ways of life (Bowers, Vasquez & Roaf, 2000).
That is not to say that cultures should not communicate and mix to create new traditions and understanding of others. Quite the opposite is true. As we come to learn and know how and why we are different, we will understand our own background better and realize that because of our differences, everyone has something to offer. As the field of Instructional Technology continues to develop and make advances in understanding and dealing with accommodating differences between individuals and groups, practitioners find themselves developing more personalized instruction that must be sensitive to the cultural needs of their constituents.
Thomas, Mitchell & Joseph (2000) point out that the traditional ADDIE process of instructional design addresses culture in the analysis phase, but go on to encourage designers to continue interacting with the learners throughout all phases of development. In fact, they propose a third dimension to ADDIE consisting of Intention, Interaction, and Introspection that are meant to be continually evaluated during each of the steps of the standard model.
These three I’s in their three dimensional ADDIE model serve to ensure that designers pay attention to what cultures they are developing instruction for, communicate and collaborate with stakeholders, and reflect on their own thoughts and actions throughout the entire process. These additional steps may seem redundant, i.e. introspection sprinkled throughout the process just like evaluation; however, the difference between their three I’s and the existing five steps is that the I’s are specifically focused on culture, since that element is often forgotten. By adding the third dimension, designers are reminded that their instruction cannot and should not be culturally neutral, so an extra measure of care should be taken regarding cultural issues.
That said, other than recommending that designers think about culture throughout the process, this three dimensional ADDIE model does little to actually provide any real framework for incorporating cultural methods into instruction. In order to provide a meaningful model to follow, it is likely that a systematic approach is needed. Such an approach provides a scaffold for novices, which they gradually remove as they become expert designers. It is not that experts do not need to perform all the same steps, but they usually perform them intuitively and naturally. The challenge, then, in a new framework is to integrate cultural sensitivity in such a way that experienced designers will be willing to take the time to adjust their current methods and established knowledge to take into account the additional dimension.
In order for an organization to make such a change in their own methods and cultures, a change management program may be required. Jones, Aguirre & Calderone (2004) present a set of 10 tools and techniques for helping a company transform, providing means for individuals to manage their own change and an entire organization to implement a change as well. Without individual change, no collective change can be effected.
Their 10 Principles of Change Management include the following steps:
In making a case to each level of the organization (Step 4), the need for change must be established and a viable roadmap must be presented. Just as andragogical principles, such as the need for adults to know why they are learning something and that adults learn better with a problem-based approach than with a passive “fill me up with knowledge” approach (Freire, 1970), guide instruction of adults, they must also be utilized in any change management system (which is really just instruction anyway).
This andragogical approach to change management will ensure that all levels of the organization will claim ownership and participate in communicating the message to others (Steps 5 and 6). Steps 7 through 10 are really the core of this approach to change management, since they deal directly with changing the culture of the organization in question. This is especially interesting in terms of the current question of how to ensure the consideration of culture in instructional design.
Of course the new culture must be assessed before it may be addressed. Thorough assessment of the culture will identify values, beliefs, sources of leadership, and sources of resistance. It may be worth a reminder that this model is a change management model, which can be used for any business-related change, not just for instructional projects. A new culture may be desired or two merging companies may be combining their cultures. It also may be that other changes are made within an established culture. This model applies to instructional projects within a different culture, as long as the designers remember their obligation to develop materials that fit within the appropriate cultural context without intentionally or unintentionally disrupting established culture. It may be that an intervention is designed to change culture, such as recent campaigns in China to encourage taxi drivers to shower and brush their teeth in preparation for the Olympic Games held there earlier this year. Even such an intervention that is meant to improve cultural practices needs to be approached correctly in order to obtain buy-in from all stakeholders.
Throughout the change process, all those involved should be prepared to expect the unexpected. No plan goes perfectly, but by being willing to deal with issues as they arrive, everything will go more smoothly. The reason there are differences is because people are involved. The stakeholders should be respected, consulted, and otherwise involved in the process.
When designing instruction for those of other cultures, it may be that it is new instruction from the ground up or it may be a remix of existing instruction. The differences between a designer’s background and that of those who will be participating in the instruction need to be defined and integrated with the appropriate design model. ADDIE principles apply in any situation really, as long as the above-mentioned steps are taken to ensure integration with the new cultural milieu. Hites & Casterline (1986) discuss a few steps in designing instruction for other cultures. Based on a needs analysis, they recommend asking if technology is appropriate to the situation and if the objectives are the same. Next, they remind us to consider motivational factors, the level of English comprehension, entry skills and knowledge, and learning style preferences. At this point, all existing training materials and their delivery methods are up for change as needed. An important observation they make is the need to provide training for the instructor if he or she is not from the same culture as the students. Instructor training should include both content and culture. Following the ADDIE process, formative and summative evaluations should be held and appropriate revisions made.
By utilizing a combination of these models, it is more likely that effective, culturally relevant instruction will result. Designers should stay aware of their own cultural biases and backgrounds, stay focused on providing the best instruction while doing no harm, utilize stakeholders throughout the process of analyzing, designing, and developing instruction to create ownership among those to receive instruction, prepare the instructors as needed, and be flexible.
REFERENCES
Bowers, C.A., Vasquez, M., Roaf, M. (2000). “Native People and the Challenge of Computers: Reservation Schools, Individualism, and Consumerism.” American Indian Quarterly 24(2).
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Hites, J.M., Casterline, S. (1986). “Adapting Training for Other Cultures.” Annual Conference of the National Society for Performance and Instruction.
Jones, J., Aguirre, D., & Calderone, M. (2004). “10 Principles of Change Management.” Strategy+Business.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., Joseph, R. (2000) “The Third Dimension of ADDIE: A Cultural Embrace.” TechTrends 46(2).
In addition to technological advancements, there are many more aspects by which various cultures may differ, including geography, religion, language, social structures, traditions, available resources, etc. Technology is hailed by some as an equalizer, allowing members of cultures that might not otherwise have a voice to publish their story for the world, but it may come at a price of lost traditions and ways of life (Bowers, Vasquez & Roaf, 2000).
That is not to say that cultures should not communicate and mix to create new traditions and understanding of others. Quite the opposite is true. As we come to learn and know how and why we are different, we will understand our own background better and realize that because of our differences, everyone has something to offer. As the field of Instructional Technology continues to develop and make advances in understanding and dealing with accommodating differences between individuals and groups, practitioners find themselves developing more personalized instruction that must be sensitive to the cultural needs of their constituents.
Thomas, Mitchell & Joseph (2000) point out that the traditional ADDIE process of instructional design addresses culture in the analysis phase, but go on to encourage designers to continue interacting with the learners throughout all phases of development. In fact, they propose a third dimension to ADDIE consisting of Intention, Interaction, and Introspection that are meant to be continually evaluated during each of the steps of the standard model.
These three I’s in their three dimensional ADDIE model serve to ensure that designers pay attention to what cultures they are developing instruction for, communicate and collaborate with stakeholders, and reflect on their own thoughts and actions throughout the entire process. These additional steps may seem redundant, i.e. introspection sprinkled throughout the process just like evaluation; however, the difference between their three I’s and the existing five steps is that the I’s are specifically focused on culture, since that element is often forgotten. By adding the third dimension, designers are reminded that their instruction cannot and should not be culturally neutral, so an extra measure of care should be taken regarding cultural issues.
That said, other than recommending that designers think about culture throughout the process, this three dimensional ADDIE model does little to actually provide any real framework for incorporating cultural methods into instruction. In order to provide a meaningful model to follow, it is likely that a systematic approach is needed. Such an approach provides a scaffold for novices, which they gradually remove as they become expert designers. It is not that experts do not need to perform all the same steps, but they usually perform them intuitively and naturally. The challenge, then, in a new framework is to integrate cultural sensitivity in such a way that experienced designers will be willing to take the time to adjust their current methods and established knowledge to take into account the additional dimension.
In order for an organization to make such a change in their own methods and cultures, a change management program may be required. Jones, Aguirre & Calderone (2004) present a set of 10 tools and techniques for helping a company transform, providing means for individuals to manage their own change and an entire organization to implement a change as well. Without individual change, no collective change can be effected.
Their 10 Principles of Change Management include the following steps:
1. Address the “human side” systematically.Steps 1, 2, and 3 really state that any change must be planned out before it is implemented, modeled by the leadership of the organization, and implemented everywhere. If it is not, that shows a lack of commitment and the change will fail. Change is embraced by few, especially when it is not carefully thought out before implementation.
2. Start at the top.
3. Involve every layer.
4. Make the formal case.
5. Create ownership.
6. Communicate the message.
7. Assess the cultural landscape.
8. Address culture explicitly.
9. Prepare for the unexpected.
10. Speak to the individual.
In making a case to each level of the organization (Step 4), the need for change must be established and a viable roadmap must be presented. Just as andragogical principles, such as the need for adults to know why they are learning something and that adults learn better with a problem-based approach than with a passive “fill me up with knowledge” approach (Freire, 1970), guide instruction of adults, they must also be utilized in any change management system (which is really just instruction anyway).
This andragogical approach to change management will ensure that all levels of the organization will claim ownership and participate in communicating the message to others (Steps 5 and 6). Steps 7 through 10 are really the core of this approach to change management, since they deal directly with changing the culture of the organization in question. This is especially interesting in terms of the current question of how to ensure the consideration of culture in instructional design.
Of course the new culture must be assessed before it may be addressed. Thorough assessment of the culture will identify values, beliefs, sources of leadership, and sources of resistance. It may be worth a reminder that this model is a change management model, which can be used for any business-related change, not just for instructional projects. A new culture may be desired or two merging companies may be combining their cultures. It also may be that other changes are made within an established culture. This model applies to instructional projects within a different culture, as long as the designers remember their obligation to develop materials that fit within the appropriate cultural context without intentionally or unintentionally disrupting established culture. It may be that an intervention is designed to change culture, such as recent campaigns in China to encourage taxi drivers to shower and brush their teeth in preparation for the Olympic Games held there earlier this year. Even such an intervention that is meant to improve cultural practices needs to be approached correctly in order to obtain buy-in from all stakeholders.
Throughout the change process, all those involved should be prepared to expect the unexpected. No plan goes perfectly, but by being willing to deal with issues as they arrive, everything will go more smoothly. The reason there are differences is because people are involved. The stakeholders should be respected, consulted, and otherwise involved in the process.
When designing instruction for those of other cultures, it may be that it is new instruction from the ground up or it may be a remix of existing instruction. The differences between a designer’s background and that of those who will be participating in the instruction need to be defined and integrated with the appropriate design model. ADDIE principles apply in any situation really, as long as the above-mentioned steps are taken to ensure integration with the new cultural milieu. Hites & Casterline (1986) discuss a few steps in designing instruction for other cultures. Based on a needs analysis, they recommend asking if technology is appropriate to the situation and if the objectives are the same. Next, they remind us to consider motivational factors, the level of English comprehension, entry skills and knowledge, and learning style preferences. At this point, all existing training materials and their delivery methods are up for change as needed. An important observation they make is the need to provide training for the instructor if he or she is not from the same culture as the students. Instructor training should include both content and culture. Following the ADDIE process, formative and summative evaluations should be held and appropriate revisions made.
By utilizing a combination of these models, it is more likely that effective, culturally relevant instruction will result. Designers should stay aware of their own cultural biases and backgrounds, stay focused on providing the best instruction while doing no harm, utilize stakeholders throughout the process of analyzing, designing, and developing instruction to create ownership among those to receive instruction, prepare the instructors as needed, and be flexible.
REFERENCES
Bowers, C.A., Vasquez, M., Roaf, M. (2000). “Native People and the Challenge of Computers: Reservation Schools, Individualism, and Consumerism.” American Indian Quarterly 24(2).
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Hites, J.M., Casterline, S. (1986). “Adapting Training for Other Cultures.” Annual Conference of the National Society for Performance and Instruction.
Jones, J., Aguirre, D., & Calderone, M. (2004). “10 Principles of Change Management.” Strategy+Business.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., Joseph, R. (2000) “The Third Dimension of ADDIE: A Cultural Embrace.” TechTrends 46(2).
Friday, December 19, 2008
SteadyState
Many people I've talked to lately have either had some kind of spyware infestation, the notoriously scamacious Antivirus 2009 (or 2008), or just something that the kids did weird that messed up their computer.
In looking around for something to help keep computers under control, I found Windows SteadyState, which is a free program put out by Microsoft for locking down Microsoft Windows. As much as I dislike some of Microsoft's business practices and their frequent security problems (stop laughing Mac fans - the Mac OS has been bitten by malware as much as Windows has lately), this is a program that appears to have what it takes to really lock down a computer. It won't help in cleaning one up after the fact but in keeping it from getting messed up in the first place.
I used it to create an account for the kids. The account is locked down so no programs can run except Internet Explorer. Then IE is locked down so it is more limited than normal. You can set it up with a whitelist or only specific sites that can be visited, but I didn't turn that feature on.
If something strange does get installed even with the limited version of IE that is running, when you log out of the account, all changes made to the computer are automatically removed. Pretty cool. You can unlock the account so you can make changes and then just lock it back up.
I'm still playing with it, so I don't have a full review for it yet, but I recommend trying it out.
If you don't want to totally lock down your computer to just a small list of websites but still want good protection, I recommend K9 Web Protection from Blue Coat Systems. It's free for personal use. It lets you pick from a huge list of categories of sites that you can block and logs all sites that are visited.
And if you do happen to get the Antivirus 2009 trojan installed on your computer, I've found System Restore, which is automatically enabled in both Windows XP and Vista, to be the easiest option to remove it.
In looking around for something to help keep computers under control, I found Windows SteadyState, which is a free program put out by Microsoft for locking down Microsoft Windows. As much as I dislike some of Microsoft's business practices and their frequent security problems (stop laughing Mac fans - the Mac OS has been bitten by malware as much as Windows has lately), this is a program that appears to have what it takes to really lock down a computer. It won't help in cleaning one up after the fact but in keeping it from getting messed up in the first place.
I used it to create an account for the kids. The account is locked down so no programs can run except Internet Explorer. Then IE is locked down so it is more limited than normal. You can set it up with a whitelist or only specific sites that can be visited, but I didn't turn that feature on.
If something strange does get installed even with the limited version of IE that is running, when you log out of the account, all changes made to the computer are automatically removed. Pretty cool. You can unlock the account so you can make changes and then just lock it back up.
I'm still playing with it, so I don't have a full review for it yet, but I recommend trying it out.
If you don't want to totally lock down your computer to just a small list of websites but still want good protection, I recommend K9 Web Protection from Blue Coat Systems. It's free for personal use. It lets you pick from a huge list of categories of sites that you can block and logs all sites that are visited.
And if you do happen to get the Antivirus 2009 trojan installed on your computer, I've found System Restore, which is automatically enabled in both Windows XP and Vista, to be the easiest option to remove it.
Codec
I recorded some digital video recently. When playing the resulting mpg files on my computer, the video was fine, but there was no sound. I could hear the sound when I played it back on the camera but nothing when it was copied to the computer.
I installed the XP Codec Pack and the sound worked fine. So cheers to you and some link love, too.
The file wouldn't play at all in Quicktime for some reason - only in Windows Media Player. I didn't install the XP Codec Pack media player, just the codecs.
I installed the XP Codec Pack and the sound worked fine. So cheers to you and some link love, too.
The file wouldn't play at all in Quicktime for some reason - only in Windows Media Player. I didn't install the XP Codec Pack media player, just the codecs.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Chocolate
Me: Chocolate muffin, please.
Coffee Shop Girl: Would you like light, dark, or pumpkin?
Me: Chocolate.
Coffee Shop Girl: Which kind do you want?
Me: Chocolate. [a little slower]
Coffee Shop Girl: There are three different kinds: light, dark, and pumpkin.
Me: I just want chocolate. [pointing to chocolate muffin behind glass]
Coffee Shop Girl: [Pulls out a regular muffin with chocolate chips.]
Me: I wanted the chocolate one. [pointing again]
Coffee Shop Girl: Oh, so you want the double chocolate. [Pulls out chocolate muffin.]
It wasn't until she pointed out my mistake in calling it chocolate, instead of double chocolate that I figured out her confusion. I just thought she couldn't hear me or something. No, she was blinded by the chocolate chips. You'd think that someone who sells muffins for a living would understand the difference between a pastry that is substantially chocolate and one that is accented with chocolate chips. She did well at covering her frustration, although I could still tell it was there. But what else was I to say? At least I was able to provide her a stupid customer story that she can complain about to her barista friends.
In a semi-related incident at the bagel shop a year or so ago, I learned that bagel people don't like it when you use the term 'fruity bagels.' I told them I wanted a dozen assorted but didn't want any fruity ones. I wanted the good ones that people actually eat, with cheese and garlic and herbs and sunflower seeds. Apparently, the kinds with fruit in them are 'breakfast bagels.'
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Not the brightest
I was at the store looking at some LED lights to replace our current energy-sucking conventional C9 lights. They are more expensive than regular lights. I overheard an employee explaining to a customer that, "they are more expensive because they last longer." That's just dumb. The fact that they last longer, combined with the energy savings, mitigates the fact that they cost more; however, just lasting longer is not justification for charging more. It may be that they cost more to make, which is fine, but that's not how she explained it. Chances are neither the employee nor the customer would have even understood the difference between what she said and reality, though, so maybe it doesn't matter.
Combine the savings mentioned above with Logan City rebates of $5 per string of old lights that you turn in, and it makes sense to go LED, right?
Well, I can't get a good photo that really shows how bad the LED lights are, but they're a weird color and not very bright. So much for trying to go green, as an extra trip to the store is now in order to return the new lights, plus any future temptation to purchase LED lights will be met with skepticism.
It did give me an excuse to play around with the shutter speed setting on my camera that I've never had a reason to learn how to use before. The bottom shot was the longest exposure. It's not as obvious as seeing it in person, but you can tell that the mini incandescent lights are brighter than the C9 LED lights.
Combine the savings mentioned above with Logan City rebates of $5 per string of old lights that you turn in, and it makes sense to go LED, right?
Well, I can't get a good photo that really shows how bad the LED lights are, but they're a weird color and not very bright. So much for trying to go green, as an extra trip to the store is now in order to return the new lights, plus any future temptation to purchase LED lights will be met with skepticism.
It did give me an excuse to play around with the shutter speed setting on my camera that I've never had a reason to learn how to use before. The bottom shot was the longest exposure. It's not as obvious as seeing it in person, but you can tell that the mini incandescent lights are brighter than the C9 LED lights.
Dear Comcast, please distribute this post for me.
From the current Comcast High Speed Internet service agreement:
So while they do state that they're not going to try to steal anything you transmit through their network, they immediately follow that by stating that by using their network, you agree that your materials may be copied and published by pretty much anyone. Of course, it would be impossible to use the internet if material was not freely copied and distributed around the world. So then is such a clause unnecessary? Could it be misinterpreted by someone who pirates your intellectual property as giving them permission to republish such? I realize they are just trying to say that if someone steals your stuff, Comcast isn't liable. It just seems that adding unnecessary clauses like this makes such an agreement unnecessarily complex, and thus open to misinterpretation. And provides job security for lawyers everywhere.
Comcast does not claim any ownership of any material that you publish, transmit or distribute using HSI. By using HSI to publish, transmit or distribute material or content, you (1) warrant that the material or content complies with the provisions of this Agreement, (2) consent to and authorize Comcast, its agents, suppliers, and affiliates to reproduce, publish, distribute, and display the content worldwide and (3) warrant that you have the right to provide this authorization. You acknowledge that material posted or transmitted using HSI may be copied, republished or distributed by third parties, and you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Comcast, its agents, suppliers, and affiliates for any harm resulting from these actions.
So while they do state that they're not going to try to steal anything you transmit through their network, they immediately follow that by stating that by using their network, you agree that your materials may be copied and published by pretty much anyone. Of course, it would be impossible to use the internet if material was not freely copied and distributed around the world. So then is such a clause unnecessary? Could it be misinterpreted by someone who pirates your intellectual property as giving them permission to republish such? I realize they are just trying to say that if someone steals your stuff, Comcast isn't liable. It just seems that adding unnecessary clauses like this makes such an agreement unnecessarily complex, and thus open to misinterpretation. And provides job security for lawyers everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)