As Reiser, (2012) states, “technology as a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome” (p. 233). The implementation challenge is to design a survey that gives me a clear, quick, collection and analyzation of data so that my lesson remains outcome-oriented not device-driven. As an instructional designer the devil is in the details, instructional design begins at the smallest common denominator. Analyzing the learners to identify their learning characteristics, their knowledge base, whether formal or informal learning, as well as their individual learning styles and shifting my course design to reflect those learning needs. However, since competence based assessments do not provide the necessary tools for the lifelong learner, the survey questions must lead to a deeper understanding of the technical difficulties the learners may encounter.
Collaborative or cooperative learning has great potential in synchronous as well as asynchronous environments, as long as it is done right. Clark and Mayer (2011) list three criteria collaborative activities must meet to be effective, Social Interdependence, outcome goals, and dialog quality (p. 281). Each of these three criteria are essential if the collaborative/cooperative activities are to “result in higher achievement, greater long-term retention of what is learned, more frequent use of higher-level reasoning and meta-cognitive thought, more accurate and creative problem solving, more willingness to take on difficult tasks and persist in working toward a goal” (Clark, Mayer, 2011 p.281). However, in my career field collaboration and cooperation are not new learning methods, if fact these are the foundational methods used to teach auto mechanics. What is new is the incorporation of these methods into a computer-supported model for learning/training. As a normal course of business, I would use the technology provided by my school’s Learning Management System (LMS) to facilitate the creation of an effective assessment and evaluation, further, this technology allows for the quick collection and analyzation of data.
Utilize technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings.
In both synchronous and asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) the chief difference between what we (trade school instructors) have done in the past can be found in the quality of collaborative dialog. Learning in groups has a rich history in automotive field, however, when you add an e-learning component the dynamic changes, “Merely asking pairs or small teams to work together, or to discuss the project may not generate the rich collaborative exchanges that lead to deeper learning. Shallow or non-participation is common in collaborative assignments” (Clark, Mayer, 2011 p.283). In the structured shop environment, promoting discussion is not difficult and creating an environment that promotes effective dialog among students becomes an extension of the lesson.
The tabulations of end-of-course student evaluations are far more than just popularity contests. Research studies have shown that student ratings are remarkably consistent with retrospective senior and alumni ratings, peer ratings, and every other form of teaching evaluation used in higher education. Therefore, the results of the survey are not used to “water down” the course, only to provide a base line for the student perception of engagement, and to identify areas that courses presentation may require additional modification.
Reference
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction (3rd ed). San Francisco. Pfeiffer.
Reiser, R. & Dempsey, J. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
The Road to Riches: Does a University Degree Guarantee a Well-Paid Job (web pic) retrieved from www.makemoneyinlife.com (n.d.)
Collaborative or cooperative learning has great potential in synchronous as well as asynchronous environments, as long as it is done right. Clark and Mayer (2011) list three criteria collaborative activities must meet to be effective, Social Interdependence, outcome goals, and dialog quality (p. 281). Each of these three criteria are essential if the collaborative/cooperative activities are to “result in higher achievement, greater long-term retention of what is learned, more frequent use of higher-level reasoning and meta-cognitive thought, more accurate and creative problem solving, more willingness to take on difficult tasks and persist in working toward a goal” (Clark, Mayer, 2011 p.281). However, in my career field collaboration and cooperation are not new learning methods, if fact these are the foundational methods used to teach auto mechanics. What is new is the incorporation of these methods into a computer-supported model for learning/training. As a normal course of business, I would use the technology provided by my school’s Learning Management System (LMS) to facilitate the creation of an effective assessment and evaluation, further, this technology allows for the quick collection and analyzation of data.
Utilize technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings.
In both synchronous and asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) the chief difference between what we (trade school instructors) have done in the past can be found in the quality of collaborative dialog. Learning in groups has a rich history in automotive field, however, when you add an e-learning component the dynamic changes, “Merely asking pairs or small teams to work together, or to discuss the project may not generate the rich collaborative exchanges that lead to deeper learning. Shallow or non-participation is common in collaborative assignments” (Clark, Mayer, 2011 p.283). In the structured shop environment, promoting discussion is not difficult and creating an environment that promotes effective dialog among students becomes an extension of the lesson.
The tabulations of end-of-course student evaluations are far more than just popularity contests. Research studies have shown that student ratings are remarkably consistent with retrospective senior and alumni ratings, peer ratings, and every other form of teaching evaluation used in higher education. Therefore, the results of the survey are not used to “water down” the course, only to provide a base line for the student perception of engagement, and to identify areas that courses presentation may require additional modification.
Student Satifaction
Reference
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction (3rd ed). San Francisco. Pfeiffer.
Reiser, R. & Dempsey, J. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
The Road to Riches: Does a University Degree Guarantee a Well-Paid Job (web pic) retrieved from www.makemoneyinlife.com (n.d.)