Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Testing and Teaching Alignment
This will be a short post as my point is going to be a simple one. For the most part I am in complete agreement with Scott Howell. However there is something I want to add to the discussion.
For sure, assessment should be a priority, and ought to be correctly designed before instruction is designed. There is one major step missing (which may have been assumed by Scott, but I still think it should be clear).
Before even thinking about assessment, learning objectives should be clearly understood and articulated. These should clearly show what learners should be able to do or be able to show by the end of the learning experience. Objectives should have real life meaning to the learners and it should be simple to show how the objectives are linked to their current life or immediate future.
Assessments/measurements should be designed and aligned based on the clear learning objectives.
Instruction should be aligned with the assessments/measurements which are aligned with the objectives.
In effect, this means that we would be "teaching to the test". I feel that teaching to the test is perfectly reasonable as long as the test and the objectives are correctly developed, aligned, and meaningful.
It my view, which is similar to Scott's, instruction should be subservient to assessment/measurement which should be subservient to learning objectives, which should be subservient to real life requirements.
For sure, assessment should be a priority, and ought to be correctly designed before instruction is designed. There is one major step missing (which may have been assumed by Scott, but I still think it should be clear).
Before even thinking about assessment, learning objectives should be clearly understood and articulated. These should clearly show what learners should be able to do or be able to show by the end of the learning experience. Objectives should have real life meaning to the learners and it should be simple to show how the objectives are linked to their current life or immediate future.
Assessments/measurements should be designed and aligned based on the clear learning objectives.
Instruction should be aligned with the assessments/measurements which are aligned with the objectives.
In effect, this means that we would be "teaching to the test". I feel that teaching to the test is perfectly reasonable as long as the test and the objectives are correctly developed, aligned, and meaningful.
It my view, which is similar to Scott's, instruction should be subservient to assessment/measurement which should be subservient to learning objectives, which should be subservient to real life requirements.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
COI Framework
I have spent the last year studying this framework as a central part of my dissertation direction. Therefore I am not sure how I can give any fresh approach that will be an interesting post! My point of view is that the COI is an interesting framework but I do not think that it is by any means a complete view of learning or a complete view of what is needed to create a perfect learning environment. However, that does not mean that it is not a useful framework. There are without questions elements of truth, and it provides some constructs that are useful for some measurement and discussion of learning experiences and environments.
For my research, the framework, and accompanying measurement instrument is helpful in defining constructs that help me to identify strengths and weaknesses in the model of learning that I am developing. The framework gives me a common language that I can use to discuss elements and principles of my model. In this instance I am using the COI framework to help me analyze the benefits and issues of my model, and to hence improve the model.
The COI could also be used as a framework for designing instruction. However, I would recommend that if it is to be used as a model for design, that a designer first establish that the assumptions within the framework match their own assumptions about learning. For example, the framework is named "Community of Inquiry" which gives me the immediate impression that the framework assumes that learning is a thing to do with inquiry. It is not named the community of instruction for a reason. I am personally a little shy of claiming that learning is one thing or another in its essence, or even that it should be one thing or another. I would rather concentrate on given objectives, and student context, motivations, demographics and so forth to determine design constraints. In my mind learning can be different things in different situations and I do not like making categorizations that force design and research down one particular road.
Anyway, after using the framework as part of my research, what I think I have discovered is that there is something major missing from its underlying principles. I feel that the framework omits the principle of humanness. COI mentions community and presence, but seems to do so in a mostly functional manner. What I am trying to say is that the framework seems to suggest that if students do certain things, or converse in certain ways, or if teachers structure their course in certain ways then all is well. There does not seem to be any room for what students are "like" or what instructors are "like" and the nature of communication between real people. The care and concern of a teacher, or the natural empathy and care from one student to another are not process, function, or structural constructs. They are mostly about ways of "being". My particular bias is that good human qualities, or ways of being, are incredibly powerful and necessary to create a great learning environment that has the power to create longer term learning and appreciation for learning and the people involved in the learning environment. I believe that human to human mentoring and empathetic motivational power is perhaps the most powerful element of useful learning experiences especially when one of the learning objectives is to affect change and personal human nature progression. Skills can be learned without the humanness I am describing, that is true, but there seems to be something valuable missing from the world when people are not picking up and assimilating the traits of other (hopefully better) people.
All this being said, I would probably not use the COI as a framework for the design of instruction as it does not account from the kind of human connections and ways of being that I think are important, but I would certainly use elements of the framework that I do think for the most part provide a useful template.
For my research, the framework, and accompanying measurement instrument is helpful in defining constructs that help me to identify strengths and weaknesses in the model of learning that I am developing. The framework gives me a common language that I can use to discuss elements and principles of my model. In this instance I am using the COI framework to help me analyze the benefits and issues of my model, and to hence improve the model.
The COI could also be used as a framework for designing instruction. However, I would recommend that if it is to be used as a model for design, that a designer first establish that the assumptions within the framework match their own assumptions about learning. For example, the framework is named "Community of Inquiry" which gives me the immediate impression that the framework assumes that learning is a thing to do with inquiry. It is not named the community of instruction for a reason. I am personally a little shy of claiming that learning is one thing or another in its essence, or even that it should be one thing or another. I would rather concentrate on given objectives, and student context, motivations, demographics and so forth to determine design constraints. In my mind learning can be different things in different situations and I do not like making categorizations that force design and research down one particular road.
Anyway, after using the framework as part of my research, what I think I have discovered is that there is something major missing from its underlying principles. I feel that the framework omits the principle of humanness. COI mentions community and presence, but seems to do so in a mostly functional manner. What I am trying to say is that the framework seems to suggest that if students do certain things, or converse in certain ways, or if teachers structure their course in certain ways then all is well. There does not seem to be any room for what students are "like" or what instructors are "like" and the nature of communication between real people. The care and concern of a teacher, or the natural empathy and care from one student to another are not process, function, or structural constructs. They are mostly about ways of "being". My particular bias is that good human qualities, or ways of being, are incredibly powerful and necessary to create a great learning environment that has the power to create longer term learning and appreciation for learning and the people involved in the learning environment. I believe that human to human mentoring and empathetic motivational power is perhaps the most powerful element of useful learning experiences especially when one of the learning objectives is to affect change and personal human nature progression. Skills can be learned without the humanness I am describing, that is true, but there seems to be something valuable missing from the world when people are not picking up and assimilating the traits of other (hopefully better) people.
All this being said, I would probably not use the COI as a framework for the design of instruction as it does not account from the kind of human connections and ways of being that I think are important, but I would certainly use elements of the framework that I do think for the most part provide a useful template.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Blended Learning
The readings on blended learning are really interesting. The papers show that researchers are attempting to set down guidelines and rationales for practices in blended learning as a fairly new and emerging field. There are a fair amount of publications promoting various ideals for education in general which are used to try and define the rules for blended learning. There is something revealed in this literature that is troubling to me. While there are various models of what "good" education should look like, it seems that there is very little research to show why that education should be done in a face to face environment. If this is the case, then what is the foundation for the argument that education should be blended? Where is the basis for stating that some of the educational process should be face to face? I can imagine that researchers who are fully committed to the distance learning as a solution may question the value of blended learning. They may well say that all educational design principles can be acheived in a fully online environment, and there would be little in the way of research showing the distinct value of close priximity face to face education to stand in the way of that argument. Do we just have a universal agreement that face to face education is a good thing? Where is the data to show that it is? If blended learning really is a good thing, do we not need to produce better data that shows why the face to face part of it is of absolute necessity? If we can't do that, then why have blended at all? Just go for fully online.
I am not sure if I have explained my thoughts very well, but I would appreciate some discussion.
I am not sure if I have explained my thoughts very well, but I would appreciate some discussion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
