Instructional design annotated bibliography & Metareflection

SECOND OF TWO SUBMISSIONS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Meta reflection: An Interdisciplinary Project group: Development of an E Learning Resource

Date: 20.12.15 FINAL

Submitted by: Claire Killian First Year

Course: MSc in Applied e Learning DIT

This assignment sets out to provide a metareflection on the process of developing an e learning resource as part of a blended MSc programme in E learning The process involved the initial psychological contracting among members of a pre-formed team of four students from a variety of disciplines, through early stage design and then development of an e learning resource.

According to Lizzio & Wilson(2005)

“In higher education settings, self-management contracts are commonly of a semi-autonomous nature, with the task/content outcomes for the group (the ‘what’) specified by staff and the process management of collectively achieving that task (the ‘how’) delegated to group members. (p,,,,)”

This task, which involved the above contract and on reading the literature could best be described as providing a hybrid problem based learning process( Hung 2100) for our group and for me personally.

Group Issues

In the case of our group issues of trust, of some people contributing more than others were features of behaviour throughout the process. Such problems have been found in similar settings(Hung 2011). In our case they may have been associated with personality, have been a symptom of ineffective learning design or of the stages of group development.

For me it was it was more interesting to see issues that arose and changes in the patterns of the process and features of what occurred from the perspective of problem based learning(PBL) and activity systems(AT). These frameworks provided a rich source for the analysis and personal learning throughout the process.

Problem Based Learning

The process this group was involved in could best be described as hybrid problem based learning( Hung 2011). While this hybrid problem based learning was good for allowing the group to self manage it required that members have the capacity to work collaboratively to define their process and objectives , to engage in inquiry – reading and bringing knowledge to the discussions online or in the class. The group also needed to ask and answer questions, bring knowledge and skills of all aspects of the problem based learning process, of the frameworks for design and development of elearning and the knowledge of the subject ( APA referencing) to the table. Naturally this workload was overwhelming for a newly established group with little experience working with this method.

A pure PBL approach and the hybrid from would generally be found in self managed teams associated with high levels of competence where a full range of knowledge and skills required is available. While engineers, health care professionals and professional design teams have been exposed to this approach in their training and work life many students even those studying at a high level may not have worked with this process in the past.

Limitations in Our Experience

It’s likely that our tutors used the PBL process intentionally to provide a catalyst for transformational learning, however effective scientific enquiry and problem solving skills are not instinctive.(Hung 2011) They require initiation that involves asking the right questions, scientific causal reasoning and the ability to evaluate solutions. Hung(2011) recommends scaffolding by reducing the task to the level deemed achievable by the students. The lack of scientific reasoning evidenced in a lack of online ( and in our case offline) discussion that involved creating and evaluating knowledge within our group was a concern but is not unusual among students according to Darabi & Jin(2013).

An activity systems (AT) framework was also used to reflect and learn during the development of this e learning resource. While a case study on the theory was presented in a lecture by Claire McAvinia in November, this was not applied by the group to discussion at any stage.

According to AT cultural, historical and technological influences affect human activity and can be considered when designing and analysing a learning event.( Donnelly 2008) During the early stages of the group there was an attempt to work with the ADDIE process and some discussion was attempted in class and online around Universal Design. In AT tools have a particular impact on learning. A learner interacts through tools and the tools the learner uses depend on his or her object. A relationship is established between the object of the activity system and how the tools are used. A tool can be a concept, a framework, a software program, our WordPress blog and so on.

Our group drew on tools we were familiar with.

We adopted a traditional approach to the instructional design using a systematic framework to training, behaviourist principles and Articulate Storyline software( which fits neatly with more traditional instructional methods of demonstrate, explain, practice and test/check). By choosing to develop an e learning resource on APA referencing our object limited us to using specific tools such as the one we chose.

Conflict but no productive Contradiction

It was unfortunate that we didn’t experience more productive contradictions in the system of human activity as we moved through the process. The stability offered by the easily refined objective, the homogenous history of using a systematic approach and its associated software and the lack of collaborative online discussion and scientific query may have prevented the emergence of expanded learning in the system. Any of my early efforts to prevent the application of a ‘project management formula’ and traditional tools to the process were lost. There was certainly no reframing, no transforming process during the project. During the early stages of there was a sense that the process involved a network of individuals who occasionally and briefly moved into pairs to form brief activity systems rather than ever working as a system through shared tools to achieve the object.

Given that it took several weeks to experience synchronous social constructivist learning it is worth considering what was different when this finally occurred. Toward the latter end of the project I engaged in editing and improving the course product. This involved working with one team member making changes to the course using synchronous collaboration via ‘Team Viewer’. What a fantastic experience. The experience resulted in significant learning for both parties involved and production of a much improved product. Having a tool that provided for synchronous online collaboration was critical to the success of this exercise.

It’s been interesting to explore the process of developing the e learning resource from a PBL and AT perspective. I am disappointed that I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss the experience of PBL and AT with other group members. I am also disappointed that I did not get a chance to discuss, explore and practice using more on line tools synchronously.

Thankfully the group presentations have led me to explore Mooodle using the following sources

How to Use Moodle Russell

slideshare.net/sirpabs/managing -courses-online

Gamify Your Moodle Course in under 20 minutes

I am happy that this tool may meet some of my long term objectives.

References

Darabia, A., & Jinb L.,.(2013) Improving the quality of online discussion: the effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles
Distance Education,
Vol. 34, No. 1, 21–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770429

Donnelly, R. (2008). Activity Systems within Blended Problem-Based Learning in Academic Professional Development. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 3, 1, pp.38-59. URL: http://arrow.dit.ie/ltcart/22/

Hung, W.(2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529-552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in higher education: Students’ perceptions of process and outcomes. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 373-390. doi:10.1348/000709905X25355

END OF SUBMISSION

FIRST OF TWO SUBMISSIONS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

FINAL COPY OF MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN & E LEARNING

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Student : Claire Killian

Date of this submission: 2.12.15

Donnelly, R. (2008). Activity Systems within Blended Problem-Based Learning in Academic Professional Development. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 3, 1, pp.38-59. URL: http://arrow.dit.ie/ltcart/22/

This article provides an opportunity to consider both PBL and activity theory as they apply to the analysis of collaborative learning in producing an e Learning resource. Comparisons can be drawn between the process applied in this case described and the process followed by this author’s class.

The case study provides a description of the process used to facilitate the learning within the activity systems involved. Donnelly provides a description of the context for the learning and the process the students were taken through to support them in undertaking their task. Donnelly describes some key events that occurred and some patterns that emerge in the way learning occurs in an activity system. The role of contradictions expressed in conflicts that arose in individual feedback and in changing roles, outputs and rules was valuable to consider and compare with what was occurring in our group.

The framework for Donnelly’s analysis is largely activity theory. This is useful as it provides a roadmap for carrying out a similar analysis elsewhere. Donnelly provides a useful description of both problem based learning and activity theory. Along the way some key principles about learning are inferred in her text. The following principles of learning emerged.

Whole system approach

The fact that all learning occurs in an open dynamic system means that all aspects of the system must be considered when undertaking the design and analysis of an event.

Learning can’t be constrained to an e Learning Resource

While the explicit object of learning may be the production of an e learning resource, other implicit objects can be designed in or may emerge in the process. Unexpected learning may occur in unexpected parts of the system.

Learning can occur at different parts of the activity system. Tutors, visiting presenters, students, on-line artefacts can change during the process of collaboration. Different learning can emerge within each system. Learning may occur simultaneously and it may occur where two activity systems meet.

Cultural, historical and technological influences affect human activity and can be considered when designing and analysing a learning event.

Reciprocity is a key feature in human activity systems

Tools have a particular impact on learning. A learner interacts through tools and the tools the learner uses depend on his or her object. A relationship is established between the object of the activity system and how the tools are used.

Learning involves an evolving process in which new objects, rules, tools and activity systems can emerge.

Learning occurs where contradictions occur in the activity system and between the system and another.

In human activity systems learning is continuous.

While Donnelly’s paper is useful her definition of problem based learning may need to be viewed with caution. This student is given to understand (based on Hung 2011 cited below) that the features of Donnelly’s process do not fit with descriptions of pure PBL.

Hung, W.(2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529-552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

This article opens with a description of Problem Based Learning (PBL) and its foundations and history. This provides a useful overview of the state of play for the approach. Hung goes on to offer a table that distinguishes PBL from other approaches to learning in groups. This is again useful in providing an overview allowing the reader to compare their reality with what Hung describes.

Hung is concerned with how PBL is implemented motivating the reader to consider problems that arise in carrying out group based learning- student behaviours, facilitator behaviours, problems with resources and workload, group level problems . Hung offers possible solutions to several problems.

Overall this is a comprehensive text useful to considering group functioning at the design and reflective stage of a problem based learning process.

For this author a review of the features of different types of learning groups and of the problems experienced provided a rich source of material to compare with the personal experience of participating in a problem based learning scenario.

The author concluded that our group undertook a hybrid PBL pocess. Unfortunately the efficiency of our content knowledge acquisition was low as was our knowledge application at the early stage of the project. Within our group our ability to deal with uncertainty may have varied along with our self directed learning skill.

The following table was adapted from reading and reflection on the article.

Table 1 Model of Problem Based Learning

Model

Format

PBL Process

Problem characteristic

Impact on learning outcomes( reality)

Problem

Reasoning

led by

Content

Knowledge

acquisition

Timing of

knowledge acquisition

and application

Problem solving

process is a

Content

contextualis

ation

structuredness

Efficiency of content

Knowledge acquisition

Knowledge application

transfer

Problem reasoning skills

Self directed learning skill

Ability to cope with uncertainty

Hybrid PBL

Need to solve a real problem

Few lectures

Ill structured problem

learner

Self acquired with minimal assistance from instructor

simultaneous

Inquiry process

Very

high

Highly ill structured

Low??

Low to medium

Varied?

varied

Adapted from: Hung, W.(2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529-552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

This article is relevant to considerations of task and group process in developing a training course in a higher education setting.

The article provides an overview of the variety of factors identified by individual higher education psychology students as affecting group functioning.

The factors emerging included task process, staff support, process learning, environmental fit, managing differences, equity and responsibility, and collaboration and cooperation

Aspects such as students perception of collaboration and personal responsibility were linked to self reported satisfaction and productivity. These two factors were most closely associated by students with effective functioning.

While two factors associated with within group functioning were perceived as important a further two factors associated with context were perceived to affect outcomes- perceptions of the level of staff support and the perceptions of the fit between the overall design of the course and what they were doing.

The article is useful in providing a framework for considering the functioning of similar groups. This could be useful to the design of interviews, questionnaires or checklist a group could use during projects to check in with each other in the contracting stage of a project, during difficult stages and in the post task evaluation stage.

Such a check-list would provide for additional learning for a group as it becomes self managing or when it needs to resolve issues by objectifying the management of potential conflicts. The very process of assessment of the group by group members can change the group dynamic at both a process and task level.

The article also points to the potential problems that arise within self managed groups of applying procedures ground rules and structure Lizzio & Wilson state’….attempts to use formal structures (e.g. lock-step discussion management procedures, prescriptive ground rules) may be antithetical to the development of higher order skills and reduce the potential learning available from the experience’. (p 377)

While a group may believe that a lack of collaboration is good it is at the point that argument and difference occurs that most learning can take place. This is acknowledged by Lizzio & Wilson and must be seen as a key limitation of the study. Exploring students perception of what makes for effective functioning serves to show the limits of an approach that builds learning events solely to satisfy student’s perceptions of positive process and outcomes.

Persico, D., Pozzi, F., Anastopoulou, S., Conole, G., Craft, B., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernández-Leo, D., Kali, Y., Mor, Y., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Walmsley, H. (2013). Learning design Rashomon I – supporting the design of one lesson through different approaches. Research In Learning Technology, 21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20224

This ‘one in a series’ of two articles applied five frameworks for learning design to a lesson and then compared the focus and purpose of each. The authors stated purpose was to contribute to the development in the field of learning design by showing several aspects of design. The authors intention was to provide for reflection on approaches as a means to develop an integrated framework for the design of instruction from analysis through design and development.

The paper requires some meta reflection in order to extrapolate its value. It resonates with this author’s experience in searching for the Holy Grail that is a framework that offers an analysis to assist approaching e learning design. Persico, Pozzi Anastopolou & al( 2013) acknowledge that a framework has yet to emerge and they promote the approach that involves consideration of the five concepts presented.

The limitations of their approach are manifold. For one thing while acknowledging that a plethora of approaches to design exist the authors do little to offer clarification or direction. By comparing just five approaches the writers all highly regarded, offer still more information in an area in which there are many frameworks, thoughts and approaches. Despite the fact that they acknowledge this is an issue the reader is left dissatisfied. Somewhere in all this one gets the impression that the point is being missed. For the instructional designer who is seeking to work with current technological, organisational and pedagogical tools to produce an effective learning event there is no clear direction here.

It may have been better if the article set out a critical review of the approaches. It would have been valuable to read about limitations where technology had been integrated in the design. This would provide this student with a review of a range of tools – blogs, twitter, MOOCS and so on that are relevant to consider in the design of learning events.

White, L. Burger, K. Yearworth, M.(2015 Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory, Euro pean Journal of Operational Research , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.044

This is an article that provides exciting possibilities for the analysis of problem based learning using activity theory. While it focuses on a method for analysing operational problem analysis it is nevertheless relevant to analysing the process for designing of learning events.

The authors take an example of a multi-activity system that involves collaboration among a set of managers from a variety of organisations in a city area project. A live collaboration process was studied during the event and afterwards using video and different aspects were coded. The coding system used was comprehensive and incorporated elements of activity theory and discourse analysis. The analysis yielded information that displayed the process through which a We- intention developed from the group.

This article is particularly useful when considering methods for teaching students to understand problem based learning using an experiential approach. For students who are undertaking collaborative design the use of video analysis incorporating the described coding of participant behaviour could be useful to understanding, systems thinking and activity theory while developing skills in observation of group and task processes.

The article also provides possibilities for designing online activities that address learning about activity theory, learning about group and participant behaviour and problem based learning . While the authors acknowledge that a limitation of their approach was not including an analysis of the use of technology they seem to ignore that much of their work involved video analysis. It would be fascinating to apply an analysis of both the live and online interactions that occurred in our group using the coding system described by White et al. This would involve considerable use of technology. In the process the group would learn to use technology and learn through the technology, producing joint artefacts along the way.

References

Hung, W.(2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529-552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

END OF SUBMISSION

SECOND OF TWO SUBMISSIONS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

FIRST OF TWO SUBMISSIONS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Share this: