1) What have you learned about analyzing learning task and objectives? How can you plan to apply this new information (new to some of you who have not taken an instructional design course) to your design project?

That was a nice review of task analysis, objective writing, instructional sequencing and instructional strategies. As I have a specific project in mind, the review of those instructional design phases becomes more meaningful and effective. The task analysis chapter addresses each of the six information type: facts, concepts, principles and rules, procedures, interpersonal skills, and attitudes. My specific Fundamentals of Technology course will mostly include facts, concepts, procedures, attitudes and principles. For example, types of computers is a fact learning, performing common printing functions is a procedural learning, identifying how to use computers and the internet safely, legally, ethically and responsibly is an attitude learning. Each of the information type requires designer/instructor to design and develop a different instructional strategy. For example, in order to address a learning objective: Be able to search the internet for information, which is procedural information, it is not appropriate to use mnemonics as the instructional strategy. The designer/instructor has to analyze the task in order to find out the type of learning/information and outcomes and plan the instructional activities (by using instructional strategies) based on those types of learning/information and outcomes.

2) Given the learning objectives/tasks you have identified, what instructional strategies or activities you have identified from Bonk and Zhang’s book are useful for your target community members (or learners) to achieve their goals/objectives?

As I reviewed Bonk and Zhang’s (2008), I have identified several good instructional activities for my Fundamentals of Technology course design project. For example, I will ask students to post webliographies about the different uses of computers in their specific areas. This will allow students to practice searching the internet and finding, evaluating, and selecting the relevant Web resources to create a webliography. Bonk and Zhang (2008) state that "this activity includes online exploration, self-directed learning, decision making, and digital literacy skills in browsing, filtering and compiling information" (p. 57).

Another activity that I will use from Bonk and Zhang's (2008) textbook is individual reflection papers activity. I will ask students to reflect on the trendy and useful software of their own areas. This activity will not only help students to learn the concept of software but also relate the concept to their own area.

I am looking forward to design and develop this course. It is amazing that we have so many resources and ideas to use in that project.

Reflective Summary II

Using Technology to Scaffold Learners and to Facilitate Learning

Why do we really use technology in instruction? Obviously, we use technology for several purposes including communication, storing the data, creating instructional products, collaborating, utilizing the media it supports, etc. So, it serves us to facilitate learning. Gay, Rieger and Bennington (2001) have made a research regarding the educational implications of using mobile computers in field experience. Gay et. al (2001) state “The purpose of developing mobile computing applications is to provide resources and communication abilities where they are needed as well as to help prepare students for applied scientific practice. Mobile computing can potentially enable students to share information, coordinate their tasks and more generally, function effectively in collaborative activities. Such skills will prepare students to make the transition to a working world that increasingly stresses the interdisciplinary teamwork” (p.525). In the context of that research, the researchers believe that they should help learners to develop their collaborative skills, and that’s why they chose to use mobile computers as tools to achieve that goal. Some of the activities that learners do through mobile computers are entering notes, uploading data to a central site where their classmates can access all of the collected data, analyzing group findings, and making comments and annotations. So, the mobile computer technology facilitates collaboration through its attributes, and learning occurs. Below is an illustration of the relationship among the goal, instructional strategy and technology as a tool:

Goal: Involvement in teamwork to prepare for working world

Instructional Strategy: Encouraging collaboration in field experience

Tool: Mobile Computer
(It can enable students to share information, coordinate their tasks and more generally, function effectively in collaborative activities)

How about the role of instructor in such a context? We have discussed several times in this course that the instructor is only the facilitator as opposed to being the authority in collaborative learning environments. The instructor only monitors and provides support whenever needed.
My Virtual Learning Community

“I will design and develop an online course for the institution I work. The course is going to be about Fundamentals of Technology. That course will provide students with the fundamental concepts, principles, and ideas needed to understand how business is operated and managed in a rapidly changing global environment, which is needed for success in business-related careers. Basic computer, database and Internet skills will be covered. This course will also provide job readiness skills and soft skills that are critical for success in any workplace setting (Ataman, 2010)”. In my course several instructional strategies/scaffolding will be used. For example, in order for learners to improve their computer skills to get ready for their career, the instructor will demonstrate computer procedures and record instructional videos to be posted online. Smith and Ragan (2005) suggest that demonstrations are useful for teaching procedures.

Also, sharing computer-related resources and ideas will be encouraged in discussion board to facilitate peer interaction and collaboration. Additionally, students will be encouraged to open a LinkedIn account, which is a professional social networking community, to be involved in community of practice to get information about the uses of computer in their field. This will also motivate the learners. “Community of practice is a concept closely related to situated cognition because the community provides a meaningful context for active knowledge construction and meaning making. Students learn to think like professionals while engaging in meaningful, real-world problem solving activities, as shown in the example of Brown and Campione’s (1996) Fostering a Community of Learners (FCL), where the learning community extends not only horizontally across a classroom, but vertically across grades, which allows for learning topics to be revised at increasing levels of disciplinary sophistication (Ge, 2010)”.

Technology provides great opportunities to scaffold and motivate the learners during the learning process, however this doesn’t mean that use of any technology would be helpful. Technology should be selected carefully and used appropriately to achieve our learning goals. Also, students should never be left alone while learning through technology. Instructor or technical support should be provided any time to ensure learning.



References

Ataman, I. (2010, February, 28). Reflective Summary I. Message posted to http://technologyineducation-perspectives.blogspot.com/

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: new environments for education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gay, G., Reiger, R., Bennington, T. ( 2002 ) Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In Miyake, N., Hall R, and Koschmann, T. (Eds.). Carrying the conversation forward. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Ge, X. (2010). Community of Practice Definition in “Situated Learning and Constructivist Perspective” PowerPoint Presentation.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J., (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). NY: Wiley.

The Impact of Emerging Technologies

This week I have read chapters 11 and 12 from CSCL 2 (Koschmann, Hall & Miyake, 2002). In chapter 11 Bell (2002) is "exploring how to orchestrate collaborations around abstract argument representations in the classroom to promote individual learning (pp.449-450)". He used a software called SenseMaker to support students' argument construction in science. The design of the software is made based on the scaffolded knowledge integration and cognitive apprenticeship. It makes thinking visible by modeling expert thinking, providing a process to support individual reflection and promoting the collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas (Bell, 2002). The research results show that 40% of students think that SenseMaker supports their individual learning, while 46% of the students believe that the collaboration features of the software supported their learning. It is interesting that each student perceive and take advantage of a learning tool in a different way. While some believe that they don't learn much from others, the others believe that there is always something to learn from others. The author suggests designing flexible learning environments which can be used by students with different inclinations. His argument makes sense since learning is a social activity as well as a individual activity. It really depends on the context, peers, the level of prior knowledge on topic, etc.

Chapter 12 of the CSCL2 textbook written by Gay, Rieger and Bennington (2002) and chapter 9 of Bonk (2009) are focusing on mobile learning. Based on the evaluations of 4 groups of people who used mobile computers in different "fields", the learners find the mobile devices enthusiastic and useful (Gay, Rieger & Bennington, 2002). The mobile devices allow them to do many things including getting details of the information, entering notes, receiving contextual help, uploading data, analyzing group findings, making comments to other people, searching entries of other people, etc. Basically the mobile technologies allow people to use the information actively during the field study. The devices are engaging, authentic and motivating. A mobile device is an additional resource for the learner during the field study. The learner doesn't have to rely on the observations and the knowledge of the teacher during the field work, but he/she also has access to multiple resources, which might provide different perspectives or different formats of the information. Different learning activities provide different possibilities and different learning environments to construct the knowledge.

Chapter 6 of Bonk (2009) discusses that we no longer listen and learn passively. Instead, we learn by contributing, participating and creating. He introduces several web based tools that let people learn by contributing, creating and sharing. Wikipedia, Youtube, YackPack, Facebook and TeacherTube are some of them. Learners have the control of their own learning as they have access to such technologies. He gives several ideas about educational uses of technology. I wanted to be a practitioner teacher when I read this chapter :) Technology really allows people to use their creativity, and it is amazing that there are many ways of utilizing those technologies for educational purposes.


Bell, P. (2002). Using Argument Map Representations to Make Thinking Visible for Individuals and Groups. In T. Koschmann & R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward The Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bonk, C.J. (2009) The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass

Gay, G., Reiger, R., Bennington, T. ( 2002 ) Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In Miyake, N., Hall R, and Koschmann, T. (Eds.). Carrying the conversation forward. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.)(2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reflective Summary I

So far we have read many studies discussing the factors that should be taken into consideration when building an online learning community, reviewed a couple of virtual learning communities and had many implications regarding the features, structure, etc. of effective virtual learning communities. Now, it is time to synthesize and reflect how we will apply all our knowledge in future design of online learning environments. Below I will mention the context, learners and subject matter of the online course that I plan to design and develop as a requirement of this course, and then discuss my conceptualization of the design. Lastly, I will conclude by mentioning how I have developed my design frame.

Overview of My Project
I will design and develop an online course for the institution I work. The course is going to be about Fundamentals of Technology. That course will provide students with the fundamental concepts, principles, and ideas needed to understand how business is operated and managed in a rapidly changing global environment, which is needed for success in business-related careers. Basic computer, database and Internet skills will be covered. This course will also provide job readiness skills and soft skills that are critical for success in any workplace setting. Learners of this course are high school students and adults.

Conceptualization of My Online Course


















This will be a practice-based community. Riel and Polin (2004) suggest that ‘practice-based communities are groups with shared goals that offer their members richly contextualized and supported arenas for learning (p. 20)’. I will design this course based on situated learning theory (Collins, 1988; Lave, 1988). Collins (1988) defines situated learning as: ‘the notion of learning knowledge and skills in contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life’ (p.2). So, I will use authentic context and activities to ensure that the learning environment reflects the way the knowledge will ultimately be used (Collins, 1988; Jonassen, 1999). I will use a number of theoretically grounded instructional strategies and principles to ensure learning. First, the use of technology will be performed and demonstrated by instructors, and those demonstrations and modeling of processes will be provided in downloadable video formats as well as text and graphic based formats. According to the multimedia principle of Mayer (2009), “people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone (p. 47)”. Second, analogies will be used to introduce complex and hard-to-visualize technological systems to the students (Smith and Ragan, 2005). Third, reflection opportunities will be provided to ensure transfer of knowledge to real world.
Social interaction will be an important feature of this course. Students will be encouraged to discuss and exchange information through forums and real-time communication tools. Subgroups will be formed for each career field, so the students in the same career field will develop their own information database, which will reflect their shared interests, goals and needs. For example, the students in Graphic Design career field will have a designated area to discuss their own professional goals, needs, interests, problems, etc. However I don’t know if it would be possible to develop structured collaboration activities. My concern is that students in individualized learning system study at their own pace. A student can enroll the classes at any Monday. So, each student in the class is at a different part of the course. I don’t know how realistic it would be to track where each student is at and pair the students at the same level.
Another important component of the course will be the application of the knowledge. Students will be encouraged to do hands-on activities to practice the skills they learned. For example, they will be asked to develop a PowerPoint presentation after they learn the procedure of presentation development.
Support will be provided throughout the course. The support should be including but not limited to technological support (Riel &Polin, 2004), promotion of intrinsic motivation (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991), coaching (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991; Jonassen, 1999), and providing opportunities to make choices (Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001). Also, students will be encouraged to sign up for a professional social networking site - LinkedIn to communicate with the practitioners of their field and improve their employability skills.

Conclusion
Each of the class activities (reading textbooks and PPTs, discussing with peers and instructor, reviewing virtual learning communities, writing blogs, etc.) was very helpful in framing these design ideas. While Renninger and Shumar’s (2002) text introduced the basic concepts and sample successful and unsuccessful virtual learning communities (i.e. WISE, MediaMOO, etc.), Koschman, Hall and Miyake (2001) provided the key consideration points in design of collaborative virtual learning communities. Especially, sample virtual learning communities (e.g. MediaMOO, WISE, Ning, MERLOT, etc.) let me see what works and what doesn’t work. Peer discussions and blogs were also helpful since they made me articulate what I learned and how I will use what I learned. Articulation of the knowledge required me to review the text back and forth, which made me see a new point each time. PPTs and additional articles provided by the instructor backed up the necessary design features theoretically. I am really looking forward to developing this online learning environment.


References

Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical
Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46. Reviewed by Dan Watola.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaptelinin V, Cole M. Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In: Koschmann T, Hall R, Miyake N, eds. CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum, Chapter 8, 2002:297-310.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press
Renninger, K.A. & Shumar, W. (2002) Building Virtual Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
Riel, M. Polin, L. (2004). Online Learning communities: common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 16-52.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J., (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). NY: Wiley.

The Human Side of Collaborative Learning

I'd like to mention identity formation (Chapter 7, Suzuki & Kato, 2001) and individual and collective activities (Chapter 8, Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001) in this post. The common feature of these chapters is that both are discussing the human side of collaborative learning. The the seventh chapter Suzuki and Kato are discussing that individual's identity in the community is formed as the time goes by. I have to admit that I had never thought about that before, and actually it is a very interesting phenomenon. We are always shy or introvert when we join a new community. We don't want to be visible or the one in change. Self-perceptions of the individual in a community changes as he/she learns new things and gains experience. And some time is needed to develop a perspective on a topic or the field. Peers, instructor and resources are really affective in identity formation. The person shouldn't feel helpless or unsafe in the learning process. If she/he fells so, this would affect his/her identity development as well as learning process negatively.

As Kaptelinin and Cole (2001) suggest, there are times in which students cannot achieve their goals by themselves. They have to interact with other people to do collective activities and achieve shared goals. In that process, they are supposed to achieve their own individual goals, as well. So, social interaction has an impact in both the social development and the individual development. In order for the interaction to be very effective on the individual development and transfer of knowledge, the area of study should match with the interests of the individual. That way, learner can make more effort to develop the individual and group identity.

CSCL in University and Vocational Education

The characteristics of the learning environment described in third chapter (De Jong, Veldhuis-Diermanse and Lutgens, 2001) is pretty similar to the one in first chapter. Students develop a database (web-based version of Knowledge Forum) collaboratively. The phases have been stated clearly:

-Actualizing
-Planning
-Deepening
-Experiencing

The application of the model requires students to share their thinking and insight during the learning process. Students are expected to be aware of their own learning. To promote metacognitive skills, thinking type tags (i.e. My Theory, What is this about, etc.) are used. Perspectives, experiences and different interests have an important impact on the construction of knowledge. As the students reflect and relate the knowledge to their own life experiences, meaningful learning occurs.

Teacher's role has also been emphasized. He/she really needs to facilitate learning through coaching and monitoring. That's to say, teacher involvement is inevitable even in student-centered approaches.

De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis-Diermanse, E., & Lutgens, G. (2001). Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning In University and Vocational Education. In T. Koschmann, R.
Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2 Carrying Forward the Conversation (pp. 111-128):
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Knowledge Building Communities

Hewitt (2001) is focusing on knowledge building communities in the first chapter of the CSCL 2 book. The benefits of understanding the knowledge as opposed to completing the task has been discussed. It has been stated that learning actively through knowledge building communities is more effective than traditional learning type in which the teacher is the one who transmits the knowledge to the students (Hewitt, 2001; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), a networked learning environment developed by Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow and Woodruff (1989), is introduced and the classroom application of the model is being discussed. In the classroom application, the students are basically encouraged to select a problem and resolve the problem by developing a database collaboratively. They follow specific guidelines during the knowledge construction process. They have to address certain things such as "Problem", "My Theory", "I Need to Understand", etc. One of the key points in that process is that students have to share openly what they know, what they understand and/or don't understand. Otherwise, it is nothing but a "task to complete". Students should think as well as research in order to "understand the topic" and solve the problem.

Research and students' understanding of the problem are important components in the knowledge construction process. After an unsuccessful trial, Hewitt develops some strategies and tries to apply the model again and the results become more positive this time. Better scaffolding during the collaboration and discussion process have brought the success. In order to scaffold, the teacher made the discussion more structured, encouraged the students to respond to each other in a constructive and productive manner in which students offer new ideas instead of simply writing any response, and encouraged reflection to stress understanding. He even involved the parents of the students by encouraging them to ask their kids questions like "What did you learn today?", " What problems are you working on science?" instead of asking simply " What did you do today?". These are all very interesting strategies and they all make sense to me. Some of the key things to do to scaffold and create a constructivist learning environment is clearly depicted in this chapter.

Collin's (2001) response to Hewitt emphasizes the importance of a meaningful end product which would be a presentation, an essay, etc. I agree with Collin on that. If the small groups inside a class don't share what they have understood and/or resolved, would that be a real learning community? Even though they develop a database of knowledge, should they be expected to go back and review other group's resolutions? How practical and effective would that be? Other than that, I think those type of knowledge building communities do enhance learners' problem solving, critical thinking, communication and argumentation skills.

Collins, A. (2001). The balance between task focus and understanding focus: Education as apprenticeship vs. education as research. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.) Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (Vol. 2). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hewitt, J. (2001). From a Focus on Tasks to a Focus on Understanding: The Cultural Transformation of a Torontio Classroom, in Koschmann, T., Hall, R., Miyake, N. (eds) CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, (Mahwah, NJ / London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.