Ed Tech 504 Jigsaw Summary of article

In this week of class, we formed small groups, read an article, and wrote a 500 word summary of the article.  We then commented on each others’ summaries, and answered any questions that came up regarding our summary.  The ensuing discussions on the Moodle board, I thought, really enhanced everyone’s summaries.

Condensing the summary into 500 words was no easy task.   The article discussed the science of learning (the study of how people learn), and the science of instruction (the study of how material is presented including strategies and tools to facilitate learning).  The author argues that the best instructional tools need to founded on the science of learning, and must be tested in order to determine if they are successful.  The author tested several strategies, and developed a list of the ten principles for multimedia learning.  The list is intended to help instructors help their student select important ideas, organize the ideas, and ultimately integrate the ideas into their knowledge.

Here is the link to the article we reviewed. Mayer_2009 (1)

Below is our summary of the article.

Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction

This article shows the reciprocity between the disciplines of the science of learning and the science of instruction working together to determine the best instructional practices based on research from both disciplines.  Mayer uses the science of learning to identify and test instructional strategies to inform the science of instruction.

Science of learning is the process a learner goes through as they create change in their knowledge by selecting what needs to be learned, organizing the information in a way to help make meaning, and integrating the information with prior knowledge to create meaning. Science of instruction is the presentation of material to facilitate learning.  Multimedia learning is any learning that involves both words (spoken or written) and pictures (static or dynamic). Learners have two channels to process verbal and visual information, each channel has a finite capacity at any given moment in time.  The author demonstrates that in order for instruction to be meaningful the strategies must be tested in a controlled experiment to determine if the strategy suggested by the science of learning is effective in increasing learner knowledge.  After testing several strategies, the author developed the ten principles of multimedia learning.

Within these ten principles, Mayer developed five principles specific to reducing extraneous processing.  The first two principles, coherence and signaling, address the need to stay focused on the main goal by reducing or avoiding extraneous information and highlighting the essential information. Redundancy is most easily summarized by, “…people learn better from animation and narration than from animation, narration, and on-screen text.” The spatial contiguity principle states that people learn better when corresponding images and text are in close proximity to each other. The final principle to reduce extraneous processing is the temporal contiguity principle; it states that people learn better when corresponding narration and animation occur simultaneously rather than successively (2008, p. 763).

In addition to the above mentioned principles, Mayer also discusses three principles for managing essential processing.  Segmenting, pretraining, and modality encompass the ideas of breaking the information into small chunks, providing background information before the learning, and presenting information as spoken text instead of printed text (2008, p. 765).

When extraneous processing has been reduced and essential processing has been managed effectively, learners must be enticed to engage in generative processing. Based on cognitive learning theory, Mayer developed and tested the effectiveness of the multimedia principle, which demonstrates that people learn better from words and pictures, than words alone.  Last, the personalization principleindicates that a conversational style of instruction because a sense of partnership has been established  (Mayer, 2008). Throughout the article,  the effectiveness of conducting applied research on cognitive theories of learning is demonstrated to resulted in sound instructional theories. Mayer refers to this as  “conducting basic research on applied issues” (2008, p. 767). These instructional theories can be used to design instruction, which can be used to further test and develop theories of learning, thus defining a reciprocal nature between the science of learning and the science of instruction.

 Mayer, R.E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, (63) 8, 760-769.http://edtech.mrooms.org/pluginfile.php/91214/mod_resource/content/0/Mayer_2009.pdf

 Written by: Cheryl Brown, Caroline Cooney, and Beth Swaby

Some comments from our Instructor include:

“The science of learning is NOT the process…, but rather the study of learning” (the process of).  Also, our instruction thought the summary would have been better if we tied the summary to one of the “big three” learning theories, behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism.”  Lastly, he felt that some of the sentences could have been clearer.

Here is our updated summary (not for a better grade, but for the sake of making the summary clearer.)

Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction

This article shows the reciprocity between the disciplines of the science of learning and the science of instruction working together to determine the best instructional practices based on research from both disciplines.  Mayer uses the science of learning to identify and test instructional strategies to inform the science of instruction.

The science of learning is the study of learning which includes how people learn.  According to Mayer, the process of learning includes selecting what needs to be learned, organizing the information in a way to help make meaning, and integrating the information with prior knowledge to create meaning.  Science of instruction is the presentation of material to facilitate learning.  Multimedia learning is any learning that involves both words (spoken or written) and pictures (static or dynamic).  Learners have two channels to process verbal and visual information, each channel has a finite capacity at any given moment in time.  The author demonstrates that in order for instruction to be meaningful the strategies must be tested in a controlled experiment to determine if the strategy suggested by the science of learning is effective in increasing learner knowledge.  After testing several strategies, the author developed the ten principles of multimedia learning.

Within these ten principles, Mayer developed five principles specific to reducing extraneous processing.  The first two principles, coherence and signaling, address the need to stay focused on the main goal by reducing or avoiding extraneous information and highlighting the essential information. Redundancy is most easily summarized by, “…people learn better from animation and narration than from animation, narration, and on-screen text.” The spatial contiguity principle states that people learn better when corresponding images and text are in close proximity to each other. The final principle to reduce extraneous processing is the temporal contiguity principle; it states that people learn better when corresponding narration and animation occur simultaneously rather than successively (2008, p. 763).

In addition to the above mentioned principles, Mayer also discusses three principles for managing essential processing.  Segmenting, pretraining, and modality encompass the ideas of breaking the information into small chunks, providing background information before the learning, and presenting information as spoken text instead of printed text (2008, p. 765).

When extraneous processing has been reduced and essential processing has been managed effectively, learners must be enticed to engage in generative processing. Based on cognitive learning theory, Mayer developed and tested the effectiveness of the multimedia principle, which demonstrates that people learn better from words and pictures, than words alone.  Last, the personalization principle indicates that a conversational style of instruction is best because a sense of partnership has been established (Mayer, 2008). Throughout the article,  the effectiveness of conducting applied research on cognitive theories of learning is demonstrated to result in sound instructional theories. Mayer refers to this as  “conducting basic research on applied issues” (2008, p. 767). These instructional theories can be used to design instruction, which can be used to further test and develop theories of learning, thus defining a reciprocal nature between the science of learning and the science of instruction.

Ed Tech 503 Final Project :Instructional Design Project

For this final project, which actually was completed through out the course, I created a three hour instructional design project on “introduction to the rock cycle”.  Thinking like an instructional designer is very different than thinking like a teacher.  As a teacher, I create lessons based on state standards, and what students should know, and create assessments (either project based or traditional) to assess if students have mastered the material.

The instructional design process goes far beyond that process utilizing the ADDIE model of instructional design. ADDIE stands for: analyze (learner needs, stakeholder needs), design (instruction and assessment), develop (instruction tools, assessments, evaluations), implement (run the instruction), evaluate (determine if instruction worked, where it needs to improved or changed).  The process is ongoing, and the different components can affect change to other areas.

For me, the initial surveys were quite interesting; I enjoyed learning about what fellow teachers and students thought about instruction and content.  One of the challenges for me was creating a good set of objectives, and then creating a flow chart of tasks from that.  The flow chart was done prior to the objectives, which to me seemed backward.  I couldn’t create a thorough flow chart, until the objectives were done.  I originally created a flow chart for part one, then when I completed my objectives for part tow, the flow chart needed to changed completely.  As I reflect on the project, I plan to update the flow chart one more time.  At this point, the flow chart is a regurgitation of the objectives, but I need to create a task flow chart based on each objective.  I had this epiphany after passing in my final project, so while grading wise, i may lose some points here, I feel like I finally have a good understanding of what it should like!

Creating both the assessments (did students learn the material) and evaluations (was instruction effective) was interesting.  In the past, as a teacher, I would assess students’ learning, and informally evaluate the process.  Using a survey tool for both students and teachers will help me to know if the instruction was successful.

Here is the link to the final project.   IDProjectReportfinal

I chose the following AECT standards: Standard 1: Design: 1.1 Instructional Systems Design, 1.23 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics,

Standard 2: Devlopment: 2.2 AV Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies

Stndard 4: Management: 4.1 Project management, 4.3 Delivery System,

Stndard 5:Evaluation: 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evalutaion

Down to the wire…This week, Voicethread presentation on the ID project.

I realized as I was preparing for the Voicethread that not only did I need to make adjustments to my project based on peer feedback, but also would need to do some updating to the objectives.  The objectives are part of the “part 2”, but for me, my corrections to part 1 (the flow chart) are based on the objectives.  Here is the Voicethread presentation w/ comments by my peers.  Overall, the process was helpful.  My favorite part of the online classes is the interaction w/ peers, and the ability to give & receive feedback.  I find it very helpful in terms of the process.

 

 

Ed Tech 503 “lead discussion”

For our fourth week in Ed Tech 503, our small group was responsible for leading the weekly discussion.  This entails, creating a narrated presentation in Voicethread that  summarizes the readings, and responding to our classmates comments on the discussion board for the two questions.   We also needed to develop four potential discussion board questions, that Dr. Trespalacios then tweaked for the actual discussion board.  The questions that we submitted were:

Discussion #3 Questions by Alissa Blackburn, Caroline Cooney, Kent Ellison, & Erica Fuhry

---

1) How exactly can we create a better connection between performance and learning contexts through our instructional design decisions? Can you offer examples from your own experience? Is it really that important to have a connection between these contexts?

2) Based on learning theories and the Pedagogical approaches (Instructivist, Constructivist, Connectivist), as presented in the book,  which pedagogical approach do you feel most comfortable with as a new Instructional Designer and why?

3) While collecting and reviewing content, why is it important to keep your terminal instructional goal in mind?

4) As an Instructional Designer how do we create material applicable to all audiences? How do we differentiate between age groups and second language learners without adding too much irrelevant content?

The actual questions for the Discussion Board were:

Question 1: Based on learning theories and the pedagogical approaches (Instructivist, Constructivist, and Connectivist), as presented in the book, which pedagogical approach or approaches do you feel would be more appropriate to use in your instructional design project and why? Please, make a short introduction of your project to understand better your instructional decisions.

Question 2: In case study #2, Michael Bishop encountered many different barriers getting his educational games piloted in various school districts. What are some of the barriers that stood out to you, and what do you (as an instructional designer) recommend he could have done to overcome these challenges?

Here is the link to our Voicethread presentation.

I chose the Following AECT standards

1.2 Message Design “Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended to communicate with  the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected and the learning task.  I chose this because question one discusses how the students will apply learning theory to their ID project.

1.2 Message Design “Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended to communicate with the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected and the learning task.  I chose this because question one begins the discussion of how the students will design their message for their ID project, as well as we created a Voicethread presentation which is a specific medium to help students understand the meassage.

2.4 Integrated Technologies “Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 40). Integrated technologies are typically hypermedia environments which allow for: (a) various levels of learner control, (b) high levels of interactivity, and (c) the creation of integrated audio, video, and graphic environments. Examples include hypermedia authoring and telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and the World Wide Web.  I chose this standard because we utilized av, print (various forms of media) that were presented using a computer that allow the end user to interact with the content and each other.