Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Feb 2000 to 22 Feb 2000
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 23:14:37 MET
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:14:37 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Feb 2000 to 22 Feb 2000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Gilbert goes on to
> > suggests that since anything that is designed for educational use is
> > designed for specific learner groups and learning aims in mind successful
> > use for learning outside that scenario will be purely accidental.
>
>* Does anyone make a distinction between "education" and "training"
>anymore? The whole field of Instructional Design sprang from
>successful WWII efforts to "train" GIs. It then spread to other fields
>such as "education. Repurposing LOs for "training" is a positive
>no-brainer. IMHO, it is antithesis (except at the most basic LO levels
>such as clip art and such) to what "education" is. I think Gilbert's
>point is fundamental.
Actually, I think education and training are two ends of a continuum having to do with the degree to which you want transfer (or conversely, very context-specific behaviors). Coming from the education sector, I was biased against training, but I've subsequently come to appreciate both requirements. That said, I'll argue (and it has been demonstrated, I believe) that most 'education' leads to performance on the test and very quick atrophy subsequent to that. Part of my underlying premise is that, in addition to this object framework, that systems will embed a new instructional design. And I don't think that education is necessarily antithetical to learning objects; self-motivated learners do very well in online learning. The real question is: how do we make online learning more effective for all learners. I think that's an independent but related question to the question: how do we successfully integrate communication into online learning.
> > 2. A second area of controversy is the COHERENT linking of LOs:
> > Lian sees the development of coherence between LOs in a 'course' as being a
> > 'core issue' and raises the question of what creates coherence as a research
> > issue. Others propose that the educator is responsible for providing the
> > necessary cohesion (type 2) between LOs when they combine them to form a
> > 'course'
>
>* The problem (in many cases) is that every "educator" sees him/herself as
>an instructional designer, but very few know enough pedagogy to avoid the
>"catch-22" of teaching/curriculum-cobbling in the same way they were
>taught themselves. Foreign language departments are infamous for having
>course design decisions made by specialists in literature who have never
>studied (and sneer at) language pedagogy concerns.
First, this is true for university educators, but K-12 instructors are supposed to have had pedagogical training, as should training developers.
The sad thing is that in general, university educators have had no training for designing learning, and get no rewards for investing in it. That's changing, but I characterize it as at the 'lip service' stage so far, and still a long way to go till it's institutionalized.
> > 3. A third issue is the role of INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN or PEDAGOGY and
> > ADAPTATION in this process.
> >
> > Pincas raised the issue of starting point suggesting that many developers
> > begin with the LOs and only look at the instructional design later
> > preferring herself to work the other way round. Ip suggests a cyclical
> > approach oscillating between the materials and the pedagogy in response to
> > these concerns.
>
>* Formative evaluation is basic and essential. Any instructional delivery
>design that omits that cycle is flawed to the level of criminal neglect.
No argument, when education is your goal (retention and transfer). However, I believe an LO approach can also deliver systems that serve as EPSS, where someone can use the objects just to solve an immediate problem. That won't come unless objects are stored according to their instructional role as well as to the skill taught.
> > Quinn suggests two approaches to combining LOs, 'adaptation' in which the
> > system leads and 'adaptability' where students set their own parameters.
>
>* OK as far as it goes. Are we going to let them also grade themselves?
>If not, then someone other than the student has to set standards and
>criteria and do the summative evaluation (unless the learning is
>non-academic). Subject matter criticality cannot be ignored. A 95%
>success rate is not acceptable for pilots or surgeons, etc. To what level
>are we holding the teacher/instructors that mold our children's minds?
>Our police force or elected official morality? Where does "training" and
>"education" merge/separate? And what are the consequences?
It's very much an issue with the educational objective, and it was someone cleverer than me who said that you should start with the performance objectives and work backward. Design your assessment to match what you need as an outcome, and then your learning to achieve that assessment. SO, if your learning need is greater than 95% performance at a specific task under high stress and time pressure, than make sure you design to achieve that. Similarly, if instead your objective is to be able to place an artwork in it's historical and stylistic context, and critically evaluate it's use of media, technique, composition, and symbolism, then you should make sure your assessment evaluates that.
I think what we want to achieve is a mechanism where content can meet widely varying performance objectives, in flexible ways. -- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com--------------------------------------------------------- Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/ Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html ---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 23:52:21 MET