E-tivity 4-2

Why do instructional designers pay more attention to motivational and volitional factors now than in the past?

Separate studies into learning and motivation seem to have been around since Freud’s psychoanalytic theories in the early 20^th Century. There were Skinner’s behaviourism and Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ in the 1950s. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Bandura, Bruner, Piaget, Vygotsky and Gagne were theorising about cognitivism. In 1979 Keller published an article called “Motivation and Instructional Design: A theoretical Perspective” which drew together the theories of instructional design and motivation (Keller & Deimann, 2012, p.84). According to Keller and Deimann (2012, p.84) there “has been a steady growth of interest in this topic”. Keller (2008) also points out that “technology-assisted learning systems are being developed at ever increasing rates”.

Technology has changed in the last 30 years with the introduction of computers in the 1980s, the World Wide Web in the 1990s and the explosion of social media in the early 21^st century. These have all impacted on the methods used in learning. There are more options for learning than the traditional classroom concept. Since learners are increasingly self-directed, instructional designers need to understand motivational and volitional factors so they can incorporate techniques and strategies in the learning packages to keep the students focused and working on their learning. The new technologies also create more opportunities for learning objects to be more inspirational and motivating, which should mean the learners are more likely to work towards their learning goals.

References

Keller, J.M. 2008 First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning Distance Education

Vol. 29, No. 2, 175–185. (Abstract online retrieved 20 July 2013)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587910802154970#.Ueppxo3I27k

Keller, J.M. & Deimann, M. 2012 Motivation, Volition and Performance in R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (eds) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. (3rd ed) New Jersey:Merrill. pp 84-91.

Further reading:

Edgar, Don W. 2012 Learning Theories and Historical Events Affecting Instructional Design in Education: Recitation Literacy Toward Extraction Literacy Practices. Sage (online retrieved 20 July 2013)

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2158244012462707.full

What are some of the points from the reading that have either changed or confirmed your views about motivation in learners?

The categories in the ARCS model provide a good description of why someone may want to learn. Learners certainly begin with a need to know something, (Attention). They must also want to act on that need (Relevance) and believe they will succeed, (Confidence). This belief in success may be internal, but could also be a result of external factors such as encouragement from others. The corollary to this belief in success is that when a student is not confident they will not necessarily put in much effort. I have seen students work extremely hard to master some concepts, whilst saying they didn’t believe they would ever understand. The need to know is more motivating than the belief in success. Satisfaction is also a good motivator. When a student realises they can achieve something, they are willing to put in some effort to continue to succeed.

References

Keller, J. 2008 An Integrative Theory of Motivation, Volition and Performance. Technology, Instruction,Cognition and Learning, Vol 6. 79-104.

What do game designers know about motivation?

In the TED talk, McGonigal (2010) describes the feelings of an “epic win”. This is the feeling of success in achieving something that may have seemed unachievable. She says using games makes people feel better. She also refers to gamers having a desire to immediately tackle an obstacle. In her interview with Zetter (2010) McGonigal describes how game creators use emotional and storytelling strategies to keep the gamers’ interest. McGonigal (Zetter, 2010) claims that 62% of executives play games to feel more productive. Apparently getting instant results in a game creates a sense of “blissful productivity”. According to Conrad and Donaldson (2004, p.94) games are motivating learning methods because participants can get involved and make decisions. They claim “instruction through the act of involvement is the goal of effective simulation”.

I have observed that intense concentration when people play games. I have been there myself, when I think “I’ll just reach this target and then do something else”. However there often appears some other challenge that needs to be achieved before the initial goal can be reached. There seems to be more than just an escape from reality. Problems can always be solved, and characters can have second chances if something doesn’t quite work out. The gamer also has control over a lot more in a fantasy world than the real world. Having control, and a more likely chance of success, seem to me to be the motivation behind people playing games. Game designers know this and employ the tactics of being challenging, letting users make decisions and be part of a big picture.

McGonigal (2010) also refers to the collaboration and social aspects of the success of gaming. These could also be very useful features to incorporate into learning material. Students do not have to feel isolated. This is important, not as a motivating attribute, but what I consider something to stop people from losing motivation.

References

Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J.A. 2004 Engaging the online learner: resources for creative instruction. Jossey-Bass. (online. Retrieved 22 July 2013)

http://eltandtech.pbworks.com/f/engaging+the+online+learner.pdf

McGonigal, J. 2010 Gaming can make a better world. TED talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM#at=33

(transcript) http://dotsub.com/view/87e58675-24ba-408b-abbe-97718a3b17b5/viewTranscript/eng

Zetter, K. (2010) TED 2010: Reality Is Broken. Game Designers Must Fix It. Wired (online retrieved 21 July 2013)

http://www.wired.com/business/2010/02/jane-mcgonigal/

Gaming

This isn't an e-tivity, but I thought this was worth mentioning.
Have you watched Jane McGonigal's video about gaming (E-tivity 4.2)? She makes some great points about how people will aim to achieve so much in a game, but won't try in real life. She has plans to turn games into real life. She speaks so well - it's very exciting. The TED conferences must be amazing to attend.

E-tivity 4.1

I have found 2 motivating videos. The first one is pertinent to this subject, the second I will show my class as I think it will be very meaningful for them.

CEL2012 Andrew Douch – 45 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJiDKSUq2uc

Andrew Douch has given some presentations at our campus, which I found very motivating, so I thought I would see if I could find anything on Youtube.  The above link is to a talk he gave of about 45 minutes. It is directed to high school educators, but much of what he says is relevant to all contemporary instructional design. He’s not as funny as Sir Ken Robinson, but he does refer to one of his books. Douch is very passionate, and his enthusiasm for the way technology can transform learning is inspiring. The slideshow behind him is not often visible, but this doesn’t detract from the message of the presentation. He refers to the theme of swimming against the rip constantly, and intersperses plenty of personal anecdotes to keep the talk interesting – even if you are not fully fascinated by what he has to say.

Information literacy in the digital age – Brian Peters – 6 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjyjxJQ9Ai0&list=PLkmq7tfKXW_gfFqUfqP1rvbsAgngRzp5N

This is a much shorter video which highlights the need for evaluating webpages. It emphasises the importance of the role of the librarian in ensuring students can find appropriate information. This is beneficial to my students who for the moment are students researching, but will one day be the person in the library to help the students from all areas. The narrator isn’t really passionate or inspiring in delivery, but hopefully the students will get the message that information literacy is important and that their work will be valuable.

E-tivity 3-2

Deconstruct Dick and Carey’s systems approach

Define a ‘systems approach’ to instructional design.

A systematic process identifies all the components and their relationships, to produce a particular outcome. Virginia Tech (2003) describes a systematic process as being methodical and step-by-step, as well as “an interdependent group of items that form a unified whole”. In a systematic process of instruction, the components would include learners, material, delivery, instructors and feedback or assessments, all contributing to a specific learning outcome. These are all presented by Dick and Carey in a model which shows the relationship between the components as well as the steps to be followed to achieve the outcomes.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of adopting a systems approach to instructional design?

Having all the components interdependent can be a strength and a weakness. As Siemens (2002) points out, only one component has to change, to change the entire system, so if one element is changed, it will lead to changes in every step. For example, if the learning environment moves from the classroom to the workplace, the strategies and materials will have to be altered.  It may be that some of the work may need slight adaptions, or the entire process may have to be redone.

Dick, Carey and Carey (2005) start their process with objectives. They can then measure in the end if they have met their target(s). Siemens describes the process as translating principles of learning into plans, focusing on the “most effective way to present content”, that learning, not technology, is the focus. Devilee (n.d.) also sees this strength, where the process can help identify the “right technology to support good pedagogy”. Following the process, where all the components are linked should ensure that nothing is missed out when an event is being planned. The focus is on the outcomes. Dick, Carey and Carey (2005) describe their process as flexible,adaptable and can be accessed and updated at any point. They say there is not much research on the success of a systematic process, however since it has been applied since 1975 in variations of the same model (Addie) that would suggest many instructional designers find it satisfactory.

Devilee, A (n.d.) Instructional design Australia. Accessed online 19 June 2013

http://instructionaldesign.com.au

Dick,W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. (2005) The systematic design of instruction, 5^th edn, Harper Collins : New York.

Siemens, G. (2002) Instructional design in Elearning. Elearnspace. Accessed online 8 July 2013

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm

Tsapatsoulis, N. (2004) Analysis and design of distance learning systems: Instructional design models. University of Cyprus accessed online 7 July 2013

http://www2.cs.ucy.ac.cy/~nicolast/courses/cs654/lectures/cs654l09.pdf

Virginia Tech (2003) Lesson 1 – overview of design. Accessed online 8 July 2013.

http://www.itma.vt.edu/modules/spring03/instrdes/lesson1.htm

E-tivity 3.1

https://bubbl.us/

1. Analyse learning needs

Before commencing to design any instructional program or materials, it is best to know some background to what is being desired to be learnt.

2. Identify learning objectives

From an understanding of what learning is needed, the goals should be identified and put into the format of learning objectives

3. Identify learner group

This includes whether the target audience and method of delivery, for example: young people in a face-to-face situation, or university students learning online.

4. Design the learning program

Determine the activities and order of the learning

5. Evaluate

Ensure all the activities and material will meet the learning outcomes and cover a variety of learning styles. If necessary redo the design.

6. Create the learning materials

Create or adapt materials to cover the content in all the activities. Use subject specialist if necessary.

7. Evaluate the materials

Have a trial run with the materials to ensure everything is as it should be. Second opinions are important to check for ambiguities or misunderstandings.

8. Implement

Put the learning program into action.

9. Evaluate

Examine the results to check that the learners have learnt the outcomes they were supposed to. If not, go back to step 4 and redesign the program if necessary.

E-tivity 2.2

The theories discussed in chapters one and two of Anderson and Elloumi (2004) cover Behaviourist Approach, Cognitive Psychology, Kolb’s learning styles, Constructivism and moves towards a theory of online learning.

Behaviourist – learning leads to an observable change in behaviour, it does not discuss what may be happening inside someone’s head.  Ally (2004, p.7) calls it the “what’ in learning, or the facts.

Implications for instructional design:

1. Learners need to know what they are expected to learn.

2. Learners need the learning material presented in logical order.

3. Feedback is required so that learners know if they are on the right track, or need to modify their learning.

Instructional designers need to be aware of including learning outcomes at the beginning of the instruction. They need to ensure the instruction is well organised and they need to include formative assessments or other means of ongoing feedback.

Cognitive psychology – This theory discusses how people learn, by considering the internal processes of learning from obtaining information to storing it in long term memory.

Kolb’s learning styles have developed from the Cognitive school. Learners are categorised as having particular learning styles at various times. These are:

·        Concrete experience – learners need to be involved; work with peers

·        Reflective observation – learners observe before acting

·        Abstract conceptualisation – learners prefer things or symbols to people

·        Active experimentation – learners like to work on practical projects.

Implications for instructional design:

1. “Sensory systems” need to be considered. Information needs to be placed and highlighted where it will be most easily absorbed. It should also be in small chunks, so the senses are not overloaded.

2. Learning transferred to long term memory depends on quality and depth of processing, so strategies which promote higher order thinking need to be employed. Learners should be encouraged to reflect and transfer the learning to real life.

3. Learners are individuals and make meaning differently, and have different needs to learn.

Instructional designers need to ensure information is suitably sized and placed; that learners have means of connecting the material, such as knowledge maps, organisers or models and strategies to ensure the information can be transferred to real life. The quality of the learning depends on the depth of the processing, so information should to be presented in a way that will require the learner work to process it. Paivio (1986, in Ally, 2004, p.16) says that dual coded information is processed better. Using several methods of providing the information also caters to individual learning preferences. Since much learning comes from linking new information to pre-existing knowledge, all learners will process their learning at different levels and paces. Different learning styles and needs should be catered for, including motivating learners, with strategies for attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction.

Constructivism – Learning through action and collaboration

Implications for instructional design:

1. Learning needs to be interactive with meaningful activities.

2. Learners should work with other learners.

3. Content should be arranged in a way that allows learners to move through the learning and own the processes at their own pace.

Instructional designers need to create learning material which encourages higher order thinking. It needs to be ordered so that the learning can be self-directed. There should be some activities which promote group work. Action and interaction are important components of constructivism, so interactions between learner, content and instructor, in various combinations, all need to be considered.

Towards an online learning theory:

Effective learning is

·        learner centred – instructor needs to know something of the students’ needs;

·        knowledge centred – actual learning and the capacity to transfer learning to real life;

·        assessment centred – formative evaluation – so learners know they are on track; and

·        community centred – students work together to create new knowledge.

Implications for instructional design:

1. Relationships and communication between students and instructor and other students

2. The presentation of the content so that it can be associated with real life.

3. Ongoing assessments

Instructional designers for the Web need to consider means of the student introducing themself to the instructor and other students, and ongoing communication which would allow collaborative learning. The content should be presented in a logical manner so that the learning can be transferred to real situations. There are many options on the web which facilitate ongoing assessments, such as quizzes with answers supplied.

Mezirow, (1991, in Ally, 2004, p.18) mentions a transformation theory which combines constructivism with the cognitive theory. There are many overlaps – particularly where higher order thinking is required. The best way to achieve this is by interacting with the learning material. I know I always learn better when I am interacting with the learning material, even if it is only highlighting ideas as I read. I recognise all these theories in my own learning in recent years – particularly where learning outcomes have been provided, texts and online tutorials have quizzes to check your progress, the learning material is structured from simple to more complex and many real life case studies are provided to make the learning relevant.

I have recently completed a course on copyright with the P2P University. This revolved around learning from and with peers. We were assigned weekly readings and given questions to answer as groups. Groups would then read and comment on other groups’ work. The facilitator would then go through and make her comments. This method of learning seemed to be based on the constructivist ideals, as follows, with a particular emphasis on collaboration.

1. Anchor instruction – background and context provided

2. Authentic task - copyright as it was applicable to use in the classroom

3. Present complex problems. – given facts of copyright and asked to apply to different situations

4. Have learners take the lead – learners did the work, then facilitator commented

5. Learner collaboration – the whole course was devised around group work.

6. Encourage learner reflection. – groups commented on each others’ answers.

This was quite effective because everyone was motivated to work well so others in the group weren’t let down. Applying the copyright to real situations put it into perspective and made us really consider the wording and application of the laws. Getting us to review other work also helped to see other perspectives and confirm our own thoughts.

References  

Ally, M. (2004) Foundations for educational theory for online learning in T Anderson and F Elloumi (eds) Theory and practice of online learning.

http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/index.html

Anderson, T and Elloumi, F. (eds) (2004) Theory and practice of online learning.

http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/index.html

E-tivity 2.1

Constructivism

Constructivism is learning by ‘finding out’. Students are not just given facts to memorise, but asked to find the answers, analyse and/or draw conclusions. Wilson (2012, p.45) describes this as people learning by “making sense out of the world”. The learning can be from planned activities, or informally from any situation where a problem needs to be solved.

Clearly solving a problem requires critical thinking and higher-order cognitive outcomes. The learner must engage with the situation and bring together all the facts and issues in order to find a solution. Memorising a list of names and dates may be accepted as a form of learning – but to know how, why and when to use this data requires the higher order skills attained through constructivism. In Reiser’s video (2012), he specifies ‘complex problems’ to be solved. This means more than just answering simple questions.

I’ve always been of the opinion that the students learn more by finding the answers themselves, than just listening to me or ignoring the handouts they are given, I found this came unstuck when they had to apply their findings to other problems. They had just been copying and pasting and not fully comprehending what they had found. This is a small example of evidence for the theories which highlight the importance of informing the students of what they are expected to learn, and how they need to apply the learning to fully understand. This should help limit any confusion about ‘busy work’ versus appropriate learning. Before they embark on the larger problem we have a group discussion to ensure (for those who contribute and listen) that they have obtained the information they needed. This also meets with Reiser’s (2012) view about learner collaboration. Hearing other people’s views and debating understanding helps to clarify meaning to all concerned. Actively engaging with the learning activities usually means better learning results.Problem solving is more than just finding the answer. Future tasks will have to require that the students apply what they find straight away to encourage the higher order critical thinking skills. The scaffolding will have to change shape.

Wiki (2011)

The frontpage of this wiki suggests it is about digital story-telling. Therefore I assume the aim of this wiki was for students to create a digital story around one of many learning theories or situations (to judge from the variety of pages available). Since they probably had to research the theory before putting it on the wiki, there was more than one problem to solve. The students had to learn to make a digital story and contribute to a wiki, in the meantime learning something about whichever theme they were demonstrating. This makes it an effective piece of instructional design.

A wiki can reflect a constructivist approach when it is used to meet the following ideals. Some are automatically part of a wiki, others may need some introduction or scaffolding from an instructor. Reiser (2012) lists six components of what should be included in constructivist teaching methods:

1. Anchor instruction – place the learning in context. A wiki achieves this by providing a ‘tangible’ outcome for the research. The learners know why they are researching.

2. Authentic task – creating something akin to what would be done in the real world. The wiki is certainly authentic for learning about instructional design as it may well be a learning object which could be used.

3. Present complex problems – Combining several problems makes it complex, for example how to create a wiki as well as the topic under research.

4. Have learners take the lead – learners determine what will go into the wiki

5. Learner collaboration – this is the very basis of a wiki – that all the members can have authority to edit each others’ pages.

6. Encourage learner reflection. There is also a section on each wiki page for comments from others, so learners can comment on other pages and respond to comments on their own.

A wiki can be a useful tool for instruction if it is used  in the appropriate context and the learners are given direction and support in what they are learning.

References

Reiser, R. (2012) Ten Trends Affecting the Field of Instructional Design and Technology on Vimeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCmgpfjLFs#at=11

Wiki (2011) Constructivism as a Pedagogical Philosophy (accessed 7 July 2013)

http://ged578.pbworks.com/w/page/39338437/Constructivism%20as%20a%20Pedagogical%20Philosophy

Wilson, B.G. (2012) Constructivism is practical and historical content. In R. Reiser and J Dempsey (eds) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology  3^rd edn. Pearson : Boston pp45-52.