Videos of Syncronous meetings
Archive for the ‘test’ Category
Synchonous Meetings
Monday, August 31st, 2026Validity and Reliabilty Review
Saturday, July 18th, 2026If you did an informal survey asking the difference between the terms “assessment” and “evaluation”, there’s a good chance you would not get consensus. We have done it and have found that some call evaluation what others would label assessment. The only consistency we found was that most instructional designers refer to evaluation as what teachers in K12 think of as assessment. This anomaly creates the need for us to define for purposes of this module what the differences are. Please understand that we are doing so only to keep things straight, not to take sides in the issue.
Click the term to reveal our definition for each term:
Click to see a comparison chart
First of all, it is probably a safe assumption that evaluation will not be a part of most informal/free choice/museum designs
Having said that, there is a possibility that your clients will be interested in summative grading/scoring (especially if you are being asked to retrofit the informal experience inside a Pk-12 school setting). The point is that some decisions will have to be made regarding this and it is probably best to actually start at the end and work backward.. to wit:
Things an Instructional Designer needs to Consider as a part of designing learning experiences (regardless of format)
- What are the expected outcomes?
- Which of the two (assessment or evaluation) are the driving force behind the ability to decide whether those goals being met?
- Does it have to be an “either-or” question? Is there room for both?
- Which Theoretical Premise(s) is/are going to be the basis for the design (i.e., which end of the Learning Theory Continuum)?
- What is the validity/reliability of that premise to aid in the process of those decisions?
- How do you assess the activity in informal situations when there may not be one correct answer?
These are only some of the questions that need to be asked. In fact, one of your assignments will be to come up with one or two more….
In this course, the central focus has been informal experiences, specifically museums. That is not because we have any sort of anti-Pk-12 bias.. it is only that it is not often we get to spend some time looking at this meaningful and significant instructional format. As you may have heard.. perhaps as much as 80% of what a child learns over his or her life actually takes place outside of the classroom. Given that much of that does not even involve any formalized approach (even museums, World’s/County Fairs etc.) all of us over our lifetimes learn and probably associates some type of self-assessed judgment with the activity. So, looking at these principles is meaningful for everyone, including PK-12 teachers.
Having said all of that, the issue at hand is.. how DO we assess whether learning is taking place?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that we have decided (or your client/subject matter expert (SME) has decided) that assessment plays a major role in the design and that we are dealing with less than precise metrics to measure so-called “success”.
What can be done?
As you have already been shown, it is not easy. But you have also been shown many different ways over the semester that, when cobbled together, will help us be able to make some predictions/assumptions, even though they are less than precise/finite… Their power to do so draws from their combination (the outcome is greater than the sum of their individual parts).
| Throughout the semester, we have been setting the table for you, as an instructional designer, to be able to draw some inferences as to whether learning is taking place in the informal environments we have been describing. Not to offend anyone but you may have noticed that even though school districts and state departments of education want to believe it, all the standardized testing in the world may not yield the level of precision as their proponents/advocates say or believe. There are simply too many variables… and, as you may have gleaned from any educational stats courses you have taken, the error term/significance level (.05) is rather large, and would not work if we were dealing with a cancer medicine, or building structure in civil engineering, etc. and we aren’t even talking about research design issues!
As an example, in both the Program Evaluation (EDF 6461) or Analysis & Evaluation of Instructional Technology (EME 6607) courses you are introduced to a white paper describing how that once S.E.S. Providers’ supplemental programs (those after school interventions that companies sell to districts to ‘supplement’ the after school programs to assist them with drop out prevention and remediation) are approved, they are almost never disapproved because in a court of law it is almost impossible to “prove’ that the do not work! Those who have been in education for a while realize that what is being done is about as best as can be because there are simply too many confounds that make any analyses less than precise. Having said all the above, we have plenty of tools at our disposal to make some well-thought-out and informed decisions, including statistics and probability to help us make some fairly accurate predictions. An integral part of our ‘science’ of learning is of course, our two instructional cornerstones: ASSURE and ADDIE models, both of which were borrowed from software engineering and other applied sciences. |
Dr. Jordan Ellenberg, in His Book “How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking”, he introduces the reader to several examples of utilizing statistical probability and sampling to allow one to make informed choices regarding various topics, including how many affinity groups became savvy enough to beat the odds in several state’s Powerball Lotteries. (Some of you may have also seen the movie “21” with Kevin Spacey (based on the book “Bringing Down the House)) where a group of MIGHT students used statistics and card counting in Las Vegas. NO, we are not endorsing card counting, but simply helping you understand that these statistical measurements (such as the KR-20 model) can be our friend here, especially if we have enough data at our disposal… We could now diverge and discuss/debate the pros and cons of big data in education, but no time here… safe to say, however, that the more data you have the more power it brings to the table, and better predictions can be made…
Back to the situation at hand…. current In case you are unfamiliar with the concepts of probability and sampling, we can offer you two videos from the Annenberg Foundation:
Here’s an overview of probability and how it works.
Proper sampling allows us to measure only a part of the population to be able to make some inferences about the whole.
To fully understand sampling, we also need to understand distributions.
The key to making all of this work is what is referred to as internal validity… the better you design your model the more accurate your inferences will be… all of this is the subject of the Program and Evaluation and Analysis courses mentioned above.
The Significance of Significance (Re-Visited)
We discussed in a previous lesson that finding significance in the educational environment may not be as “significant'” as it is cracked up to be. What we were saying is that because there are so many variables and because the statistics behind educational research allow up to a 5% error term, we are really not “proving’ anything. There are those (i.e. Ellenberg, 2014) who suggest that what we most often are looking for, especially in non-precise instances, simply to be playing the percentage game and not always trying to be right but, conversely it might be enough to say we are not wrong. In this case, probability and predictability are our friends. In other words, we want to view assessment in terms of how far removed we are from a simple coin toss.
Estimating outcome assessment is not very precise (nor does it need to be) and can be viewed as a continuum:
| At zero, virtually no learning is taking place | < — 10% – 25% – 50% – 75% – 100% –> | At 100, we have “proof” that learning goals are met |
| Fifty percent represents a virtual “coin toss” |
These models the same valuation that we assign to the concept of reliability… i.e., anything over 50% is considered approaching reliability. We almost never reach 100% but are relatively satisfied. In imprecise learning situations (those in which we do not or do not wish to administer testing), we always want to be better than a coin toss and are also relatively satisfied when we can demonstrate it.
Granted, this view is an overly simplified version and a lot more statistics are involved but that is the subject of our evaluation and analysis courses. What we are demonstrating here is a simplified estimate of internal validity.
How do we approach internal consistency/validity without testing?
One effective way to approach internal validity is to base your design on as many complementary instructional design principles/premises as possible and essentially ‘cobbling’ them together … the newly formed composite is what provides the ability/power to make some predictions… (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts)
Following is a list of design processes/premises that we have already introduced in this course that will assist in the development of an assessment plan. The more that are utilized the better. It is not a complete list but is a starting point.
This view of learning is called “official” because it has evolved over a century of thinking about how schools should operate.
The following chart demonstrates the ways in which both views differ:
| In the classic view, learning is: | In the ‘official’ view, learning is: |
| continual and effortless | occasional (based on effort and hard work) |
| inconspicuous | obvious (via testing) |
| unpremeditated | intentional |
| internally motivated | externally motivated |
| less apt to be forgotten | more easily forgotten |
| actually inhibited by testing | assured only through testing |
| a social activity | an intellectual activity |
EME 6646 – Final Project Viewing Page
Tuesday, April 30th, 2024The assessment checklists can be found at the bottom of this page
The name you enter is the name of the classmate’s project you are reviewing.
Please Vote!
Click the spoiler when you are ready to begin your assessments. Find the name of the individuals to review on the Assigned Peer Reviews Page. The name you enter on each form is the name of the classmate's project you are viewing. The forms will not process unless you make an entry in all the required fields. Ten points total if all elements are checked. For elements 2 and 3, please briefly (25 words or less) describe the moment that the element occurs or note the page number in the case of a pdf or the time stamp if a video.
Don't forget to submit the confirmation survey to receive your points for this assignment.
Change Theory & Design Research
Monday, April 15th, 2024| ……………………… | ![]() |
………………….. |
In the business world, when we think about the future, we hope for the future of problem solving .. meaning the changes/solutions being envisioned are transformative in nature and have the best chance of succeeding. The types of changes take on two forms. Horizontal changes (extending/improving what is already there) means adapting things that may not work or only partially work demonstrated as going from 1-n (on the horizontal line in the above diagram. Horizontal change is less ‘wicked’ is relatively easier to implement because we already know what the current situation it looks like.
On the other hand, vertical (intensive) changes means creating something new and the solutions might not be binary in nature.. meaning that there are confounds and no one consideration or proposed solutions might be correct or ‘best’ — going from 0 to 1 on the vertical axis. Vertical change/solution finding is harder to imagine (and harder to implement and gain acceptance) because it requires doing something that perhaps nobody else has ever done (i.e., asking those questions that no one is asking in design thinking).
According to Thiel (2014), if you invent a new version of an existing product you can replicate 100s of times. A vertical type change might not be replicable based on the circumstance.
For example, if you make a better mousetrap, you are making horizontal progress. If you invent a word processor that replaces the typewriter, you are making vertical progress. In macro economics, horizontal progress equates to the concept of globalization… taking something that already works and then making it work anywhere and everywhere.
| ……………………… | ![]() |
………………….. |
Thiel (2014) takes the horizontal versus vertical progress to another level. He equates horizontal progress to globalization/generalizability (i.e., extending what is already there to a larger population) and refers to vertical progress as ‘technology’ (i.e., inventing new tools to ‘extend man’s capabilities). Taken at this level, the concept of technology takes on an extended meaning. Remember this new, expanded connotation of technology as it will serve you well and we will be using it quite often in our discussions.
Sidebar #1 If you would like to dig deeper into this conceptualization of progress please refer to Marshall McLuhan’s work on media and technology being an extension of man. |
These views about technology’s and its capabilities to extend man’s existential ‘being’ did not happen overnight. For about 10,000 years (since the invention of the wheel) it was mostly horizontal… a zero sum gain. Then came the mid to late 1900s and technology seemed to move more rapidly. But to some it was still not enough. For example, we still do not vacation on the moon, the four day work week is still a fringe idea. We have not changed our environment, which still grows in linear fashion.
Surely, computers and communications technologies have expanded but our common everyday experience remain (and in some cases have made it worse). Our challenge is to both imagine and create the new technologies to change our existence for the better.
In summary, a horizontal genius is one who invents new technology but does not invent a new industry.
Sidebar #2 As we begin our process of deciding what problem to solve in this course, do not go crazy or over-obsess about whether we can find vertical progress. We present these theories here in order to ‘ground’ or experiences and help you differentiate. Your decision as a leader or visionary is to decide which side of the coin you fall on. There is nothing wrong with horizontal change. |
Recall our your final project case.
- Is/are The suggested solution(s) horizontal or vertical on nature?
- think sustainability and resiliency.
- How do you make incremental changes using formative assessment techniques?
- Stay lean and flexible .. over-planning is overrated … try things out, iterate and treat design research as what Thiel refers to as ‘agnostic experimentation”
- Improve on your desired solutions – start with first principles thinking and think about other solutions that have been tried.
- Focus on solving the problem as well as diffusion. technology is not only about solving the problem but also about implementation…. think also ‘true cost economics’ in our sustainability model. what unintended negative consequences may arise.
- think appropriate technology both if a digital solution but also if you are using the concept of ‘technology’ in the connotation we present here.
- what data are you going to use and how are you going to store it, report on it and transform it into something useful.
- Explain your answer to the question and explain what you perceive to be lessons learned in this follow-up lesson on change.
- Post your response in the text area of the Drop Box provided in Canvas
Thiel, P. & Masters, B. (2014). Zero to one: Notes on startups, or how to build the future. New York: Crown Business.
Protected: EME 6646 – Final Project #2 – Submission Uploader
Monday, March 18th, 2024EDG 4930 Learning Theories: Putting Theory into Practice
Tuesday, June 20th, 2023- understand the role of referencing select learning theories will inform our efforts to properly assess/evaluate learning gains
- having made that determination, be able to select the appropriate theories to help validate the assessments/evaluations that are implemented.
The question is rhetorical because we assume that most of you understand that learning theories are, indeed, important to our discussions. But perhaps you have never really taken the time to understand 1- what the concept of a theory is and perhaps 2- why/how they are relevant to what we do as instructional designers. Of course, you have heard of the term “theory into practice”. But we have to go into this a little deeper in order to understand the full impact of how we are going to attack the challenge of evaluating our experiences as noted in the next module on assessment and evaluation.
Lucky for us, we have access to the introduction to a textbook dedicated to do just that. This book is a collection of chapters dedicated to understanding theory but also how it relates to assessment and evaluation. (especially informal learning).
Pay particular attention to the areas that discuss theory into practice and how it influences our ability to evaluate, especially in informal settings…
Putting Theory into Practice offers a toolkit of theoretically-grounded methodologies, methods and imaginaries showcasing ways of pursuing research of learning for life in a vast array of settings. The book makes the case for theoretically well-grounded methods that can help us understand learning as it unfolds over time and across space, attesting fully to its messiness and complexity.
In other words, theories offer us the opportunity to ground the instruction into research-based methodologies.. meaning it is hard to abstract methods from theories. That may be why we generally seem to refer to theories as ‘isms’…i.e., constructivism, behaviorism, etc… while there may be technical differences among them, you are on safe ground when looking at these to validate the methods that are employed. One of the significant theoretical frameworks we will review in this module is Kolb’s ideas on experiential learning. While it is rarely referred to as an ‘ism’, it is safe to assume that Kolb bases his thoughts on research and takes stride s to ensure that experiential learning leans heavily towards the applied end of the spectrum.
To continue, take a look at Roth and Verschaffel’s comments about grounding instruction in socio-cultural theory:
Received models of teaching, curriculum, and researching in the two fields are adopting and developing new ways of thinking about how people of all ages know, learn, and develop. The recent literature in both fields includes contributions focusing on issues and using theoretical frames that were unthinkable a decade ago. For example, we see an
increase in the use of conceptual and methodological tools from anthropology and semiotics to understand how different forms of knowledge are interconnected, how students learn, how textbooks are written, etc. Science and mathematics educators also have turned to issues such as identity and emotion as salient to the way in which people of all ages display and develop knowledge and skills.
And they use dialectical or phenomenological approaches to answer ever arising questions about learning and development in science and mathematics.The chapters in this book make the case for grounding the study of learning for life in socio-cultural theory, asking what museum going, museum teaching, engagement in an after school, university outreach or gardening program entails; how engagement is socially organized; and how engagement can be understood in light of the activity system or systems in which it is embedded, and therefore explored at many levels simultaneously within and across practices, and in light of the social relations in which the individual is embedded
Pay attention to one word in particular that the authors refer to in this passage:
…While this book offers tools for the study of learning in out-of-school settings, and is essentially about methods, the chapters also allude to the methodologies or broader frameworks tied to epistemological commitments that guide the ways of seeing and pursuing research.
The tie-back from theory to practice (i.e., methodology), then, is the concepts of epistemology and ‘frameworks’ … or how things are learned … the theory of knowledge itself and its ties to using it as a framework for implementing a methodology…
Now that we have that settled, the trick is to find out which ones are appropriate. In EDF 6284 we review the TIP Learning Theories Database, in which you will discover over four dozen theories. While we do not have the time to look into all of them, we offer you a few exemplary handful. Your module ending activity will be to select a few more and to rationalize their inclusion into our exemplary set.
From the TIP Learning Theories Website:
The Theory Into Practice (TIP) database contains descriptions of over 50 theories relevant to human learning and instruction. Theories were selected for inclusion in the database based upon their relevance to some aspect of human learning and instruction. All theories come from published literature (English language only). The database does not include theories of learning that have limited scientific support or are primarily philosophical in nature. [i.e., have been shown to be at least somewhat valid and reliable]
In cases where there are a number of researchers associated with a theoretical framework, the version associated with the originator or most prominent researcher is presented. The descriptions of theories provided in each article, including the examples and principles, were developed from the analysis of secondary sources as well as the primary works of the theorists.
One important consideration to keep in mind when reading the articles is that theories evolve over time. The descriptions herein present theories at a particular stage of development (usually their most well-known form). Furthermore, almost all of the theories discussed are substantial; the brief summaries provided only outline the basic ideas and implications. TIP is intended to be a guide that identifies theory relevant to particular instructional settings. Further examination of primary or secondary sources will be necessary to understand a given theory in detail.
One could argue for or against adopting any one on this list to be utilized in our discussions. One of the over-arching principles for us to include any of these ideas is to help us determine whether they can be used as a basis for making informed decisions as to their efforts to support us as instructional designers to assess/evaluate the educational efficacy of the informal learning activities that we create. . As you will see in the subsequent module on assessment and evaluation (and as we have been referring to since the beginning of this course), attempting to analyze whether actual academic learning takes place in the informal environment is not as precise as with that which is attainable in the formal situations where testing is an integral part of the design components. (We admit that one could also argue that even with formal testing that there are no guarantees that learning has been adequately assessed).
We will try to distill the theories down to a manageable list but we first need to tell you that we do not claim that our views are complete and final. In fact, the activity at the end of this module will be for you to sort through the TIP Database and see if you can find a couple more that you would like to add with the assumption that they can be validated. The idea is for you to defend your choices in anticipation of some interesting conversations to occur next cycle.
The theories below represent a continuum of learning visualized as such:
| Learning is incremental, adding bit by bit to a reactive (i.e., passive) mind |
Learning Theory ——> | Learning is active, leading to a restructuring of the mind |
| (Stimulus-Response/Didactic) | (Discovery Learning/Constructivism) |
Please note that we make no judgment as to which side of the continuum is best… we are simply making observations and allowing you to decide the best way forward….
Starting on the left side of the continuum, we begin with stimulus-response and its corollary methodology – didactic/expository – direct teaching. Leading theorists included Robert Gagne in which he suggested the steps necessary to develop individual concepts (Nine Stages of Instruction). He was considered an anti-Piaget and schema theory:
The cumulative learning theory proposes a conception of ‘what is learned” .. which differs from Piaget’s theory… a specific intellectual skill of ‘identifying equal volumes given compensatory changes in length and width , height remaining constant” is acquired through learning .. if the necessary specific capabilities are learned, perhaps by being taught in some systematic fashion… the child will be able to perform the conversion task…”
Museums organized on didactic, expository lines will have:
- exhibits that are sequential, with a clear beginning and end, and an intended order
- didactic components (labels and panels) that describe what is to be learned
- a hierarchical arrangement of subject from simple to complex
- school programs that follow curriculum with a hierarchical arrangement of simple to complex
- educational programs with specified learning objectives determined by the content to be learned
In addition to telling a story with a beginning and an end, didactic exhibits generally make some claim that the story they are reporting is true… and it is the way things really are…
Stimulus – response formulations of learning are at the heart of early behaviorist psychology
The shift from the left side of the continuum above to the right side represents a dramatic change in orientation. It emphasizes that attention is now being focused on the learner, as well as (or even rather than) the subject. Shulman and Keisler cautioned in 1966: “just because teaching is inductive (and engaging) it does not always follow that the learner is discovering. The converse is also true. This relates back to the discussion in the RETAIN model where someone can be immersed in an activity but it does not necessarily follow that the learner is being engaged in the correct academic area (I can be immersed in traffic but not necessarily engaged in my driving due to distractions etc.). Active learning is often translated into the necessity for a physical activity that is associated with the learning… commonly referred to as ‘hands-on learning’.
It is also linked to lifelong learning: “give me a fish and I will eat for a day… teach me to fish and I will eat forever”.
While this type of learning is attractive at the outset, problems exist (as noted below). Perhaps linking the two sides together into one framework will provide a more certain result? This may be more appealing arrangement because the learner will end up discovering ‘truths’ as a result of his or her ‘learning through doing’.. the question is, can this be guaranteed to happen?
Once one abandons the idea that there is only one way to systematically present information to the learner and that the logical structure of the subject should guide our teaching, we are left with the suggestion that learners can learn by actively constructing. But are the conclusions learners come to determined by others? The further delve into this line of thinking the less we find ourselves expecting learners to reach predetermined outcomes. Further, we are faced with the prospect that those outcomes can rarely be associated with any formal criterion (i.e. standards).
Can an experiment be called an experiment of there is little or no chance of getting the so-called ‘correct’ results?
Another significant consideration is the level to which the ‘exhibitioner’ needs to know about the visitor/learner… his or her prior knowledge, stage of intellectual physical and emotional development, culture and history, interests and expectations… all yielding to the proper level and relevant form of motivation.
As a side note: several researchers have postulated that knowing a potential visitor’s cultural affinity can play a significant role in what he or she learns… to summarize:
Factors that contribute significantly to changes in visitor understanding have been found to include:
- interest
- motivation
- choice and control
- within (and between) group social interaction
- orientation
- advance organizers
- architecture (setting)
- the quality and quantity of exhibits
among other things.
We are able to observe that museums that are based on discovery learning will have:
- exhibits that allow exploration , probably back and forth among exhibit components
- a wide range of active learning modules
- didactic components (acting as prompts)
- some means for visitors to assess their own interpretation against the ‘correct’ interpretation of the exhibit
- school programs that engage students in activities intended to lead them to accepted conclusions
- workshops for adults that offer expert testimony and other forms of evidence to help with understanding
These exhibits may or may not be organized linearly
Kolb’s ideas are a way to bridge the chasm created by the continuum outlined above. His system of learning has become adopted by many current thinkers in museum learning. That is because one can easily draw links to experiential learning and the test/retest concepts taught in many of the STEM disciplines. One cannot divorce experience from pure concrete experience (that which is based on prior experience and knowledge.. which eventually led Kolb to think a lot about learning styles). His framework incorporates many of the learning theories we review in this module
A common usage of the term defines it as a particular form of learning from life experiences. It is often contrasted with lecture and classroom learning (while it is hoped that that does not preclude us from using it in a classroom but simply differentiating it from traditional lecture approaches). It is also often described as learning in which the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied.. (i.e., contrasted with abstract thought). The emphasis is on direct sense experience and in context action as the primary source of learning. Many institutions offer internships, service-learning action/problem-based learning and/or team learning. This makes experiential learning more than a ‘theory (i.e., ism) in that it is based on the direct experiences and is ubiquitous in nature and relevance (hardly anyone should argue with its premise… even in a philosophy course one could argue that ‘ethics’ is experiential learning). Kolb’s ideas move the idea of ‘learning’ from a thing to a process. (Remember this when we move on to the next module.. it is an important distinction). When you finish this set of readings you will see that Kolb is a great synthesizer of ideas and theories that, when combined, offer a rather complete and complete framework for learning…
Here are some important ideas to consider when one looks at Kolb’s experiential framework. In summary:
- In Kolb’s world, one cannot separate education, from personal development from work… making it an ideal framework to discover the concept of ‘lifelong learning’.
- Experiential learning is especially relevant to late bloomers and career changers, who, in higher education at least, demand relevance and application to real-world
- There is a marked trend towards vocationalism (ok, not a theory!)
- For some, experiential learning is not a set of educational methods, it is a statement of fact… people learn from their experiences.. meaning if you are a ‘kolbite’.. to say that experiential learning is a theory demeans its status and importance)
- Some (such as Kurt Lewin) tie experiential learning to organizational behavior (not to be confused with behaviorism)which gave rise to the concept of action research and planned change interventions in small groups who are a part of large organizations… “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (if you dig into this link you will note strong ties to informal learning)
- Lewin also noted that learning is best facilitated in an environment where there is tension and conflict between immediate, concrete experience and analytical ‘detachment’ (which harkens back to Piaget’s ideas on disequilibration)
- Further ties to Piaget’s ideas on intelligence that arises as a product of the interaction between the person and his environment (nature vs nurture?)
- Ties to Bruner’s ideas on cognitive development theory.. (Bruner was the father of constructivism)
- Lewin later focused on action research… in which learning, methods, change, and growth are all seen to be facilitated best by an integrated process that begins with here-and-now experience followed by as collection of data and observations… when humans share an experience, they share it both on the concrete and abstract levels
- Ties to Dewey… Lewin and Dewey’s ideas converge on a great scale.. but Dewey adds the concept of feedback and iterative learning…
- this brings us to the importance of the concept of reflective practice… (Mezirow; Brookfield & Shon) … reflection is the primary source of the transformation that leads to learning and development.. in experiential learning… reflection is not the sole determinant (as what was proposed by these three theorists) but one facet of a holistic process of learning that includes experiencing, reflecting thinking and acting… (remember these when we get to assessing and evaluating as all four are necessary for learning to take place, according to Kolb)
- the learning cycle: reflection (spontaneous observations) —> reframing (examination and critique) —-> reform (produce a process by which action is reformed) (which brings up the ghosts of Bloom and hierarchical learning
- If you have taken the course on digital narrative and cognition, one cannot cease to wonder whether these are direct ties to the concept of ‘judgment’ as proposed by Branigan)
- There are plenty of ties into learning styles .. but we will leave this up to you, the student, to make these connections. see Kolb’s ideas on these. This relates to the learning theories continuum above.. if learning is an active process determined by the individual, then what are the characteristics of those learners?
In short, learning is a process and not an outcome. Experiential learning theory proceeds from the assumption that ideas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought but are formed and reformed ( this is where Freire’s ideas on experiential learning come into play) through experience … the old realism vs idealism conflict (an idealist believes truths are set and learning takes place when you discover these truths).
Now that you have had the chance to review our list of theories, it is time for you to make some decisions (it will be good practice for you before you and your teammates finalize your final project for which we are asking you to specify which theories you base your instructional design decisions).
The over-arching principle in this lesson is that design decisions need to be based on appropriate theor(ies) in order to support and inform the intended outcomes, as they relate to your particular audience/participants, their relevance, and ability allow some form of predictability about them being realized.
For this assignment:
Select from the TIP Database at least two learning theories and provide a rationale for their inclusion into a learning module that your team has been asked to design. In order for it to make sense, you need to first describe the learning scenario in terms of its context, location, and learner attributes. Using the information provided in this module that explains the ties between theory and practice, make your case in the absence of any formalized testing instrument as to how the selected theories will help you make some assessment predictions as to whether learning is actually taking place. Only one entry needs to be posted into Canvas drop box for the entire group.
Ash, D., Rahm, J., & Melber, L. (2012). Putting theory into practice: Tools for research in informal settings. Boston: Sense Publishers.
Falk, J. H., Dieking, L. D., & Foutz, S. (2007). In principle, in practice.: Museums as learning institutions. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Hein, G.E. (2000). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.
Kearsley, G. (2015). The Theory Into Practice Database. Retrieved on July 25, 2015, from http://InstructionalDesign.org.
Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning: Experiences as a source of learning and development (2nd ed). New York: Pearson.
EME 7465L Ubiquitous Learning & IOT
Thursday, November 17th, 2022Introduction
Some of you may not have already taken EME 5053 or EME 6465. It is in those courses that we introduced the concept of ubiquitous learning. Some of you may or may not have had the opportunity to be introduced to this concept, as we only recently added this module to those courses. Others of you may have taken the courses when it did include that module but may need a refresher. To that end and to level the playing field, take a moment to first revisit and review this lesson on ubiquitous learning.
Our purpose here is to help you become more knowledgeable about what uLearning is, how it has evolved and its impact on designing highly interactive learning environments.
If you feel you need a review, go ahead and click on the Review Spoiler below:
(to open click the plus sign.. to close, the minus sign)
To restate, in this course our goal is to extend our understanding of uLearning, to brainstorm about its impact on designing interactive learning environments, and to explore some additional issues surrounding the impact it has on knowledge acquisition.
Now that you have either gotten the basics, or have reminded yourself about what uLearning is, here are some concrete examples of ubiquitous classrooms and tools to help get our creative thoughts moving:
Digging Deeper
First, there are plenty of resources, here are two:
- https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9343496
- This Article concerning Employing ULearning in Higher Ed
and
This is a video of a panel of educational leaders who discuss the design of a ubiquitous classroom:
Lastly, take a look at this video that won the 2014 White House Competition on Technology in the Future Classroom
So far, we have been focusing on the hardware/device aspects of u-Learning. Know that there are also software/content issues associated with the notion of pervasive computing. One such idea is the concept of (socially) distributed cognition. From Wikipedia, we offer the following introduction:
Distributed cognition is a psychological theory developed in the mid 1980s by Edwin Hutchins. Using insights from sociology, cognitive science, and the psychology of Vygotsky (cf. cultural-historical psychology) it emphasizes the social aspects of cognition. It is a framework (not a method) that involves the coordination between individuals, artifacts and the environment. It has several key components:
- Embodiment of information that is embedded in representations of interaction
- Coordination of interaction among embodied agents
- Ecological contributions to a cognitive ecosystem
There is much more to this, as you can see on Wikipedia. But for now we need to understand the impact u-learning has on knowledge acquisition…. (more from Wikipedia) on the application of the concept:
Distributed cognition as a theory of learning, i.e. one in which the development of knowledge is attributed to the system of thinking agents interacting dynamically with artifacts, has been widely applied in the field of distance learning, especially in relation to Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and other computer-supported learning tools. Distributed cognition illustrates the process of interaction between people and technologies in order to determine how to best represent, store and provide access to digital resources and other artifacts.
Collaborative tagging on the World Wide Web is one of the most recent developments in technological support for distributed cognition. Beginning in 2004 and quickly becoming a standard on websites, collaborative tagging allows users to upload or select materials (e.g. pictures, music files, texts, websites) and associate tags with these materials. Tags can be chosen freely, and are similar to keywords. Other users can then browse through tags; a click on a tag connects a user to similarly tagged materials. Tags furthermore enable tag clouds, which graphically represent the popularity of tags, demonstrating co-occurrence relations between tags and thus jump from one tag to another.
Distributed cognition can also be seen through cultures and communities. Learning certain habits or following certain traditions is seen as cognition distributed over a group of people. Exploring distributed cognition through community and culture is one way to understand how it may work.
With the new research that is emerging in this field, the overarching concept of distributed cognition enhances the understanding of interactions between humans, machines and environments.
Further, we also need to identify its ties to copyrights, and crowd-sourcing. Take a look at these three articles:
Wikipedia is now being maintained essentially by humans.. in the not-so-distant future, computers will be creating entries and adding to knowledge base WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION…so, the next generation Wikipedia will become an automated ‘aggregator’ of information based on algorithms similar to those used today by Amazon.. (‘folks who like this product also like/bought that one’ etc…) or Google Search engines… instead of people clicking on links offered up by Google… its response to an inquiry will be an aggregation of all the links into a single ‘grid-like’ place that will be dynamically added to as you click on like links… so this time when you search the response will be unlike the last time, based on what you were looking for the last time, and time before that, etc..
The possibilities of all of this are endless. So, taking this out there into ‘Geekdom’, here are a couple links that explain the concept of semantic associations. The idea that computers can create these is based on the fact that there is a finite list that can be built in an auto generative way.
Lastly, here is a link to University of Illinois Website, dedicated to the ubiquitous learning initiative:
The Evolution of Learning Resources in Ubiquitous Learning Environments
For our final pass at this, I want you to read through the following article submission. It is one I reviewed as a reviewer for Educational Technology Research and Development (ETRD) –the official journal of the Association of Educational Communications and technology (AECT). While all three reviewers ended up rejecting the article, it was not because it brings little new to the table… it was more because the topic and writing style was beyond the scope of what the journal is all about.
What is does, however, is bring out some really interesting ideas about distributed cognition and perhaps something about the future of tings like Wikipedia that are ‘bot-fed’ (i.e, constructed without the help of humans)… in an ecosystem where computers will react to other computers in order to develop a knowledge stream… don’t worry if it seems over your head.. it actually took me three readings to actually ‘get it’… but once I did it was an eye-opener….so, i offer it to you to see if it brings a new perspective to you also…
(As a sidebar.. think about what impact all of this will have on copyrights and fair use??? .. ok no time to go there right now… too much content and so little time)
From Wikipedia:
The Internet of Things (or IoT for short) refers to uniquely identifiable objects and their virtual representations in an Internet-like structure. The term Internet of Things was proposed by Kevin Ashton in 2009. The concept of the Internet of Things first became popular through the Auto-ID Center at MIT and related market analysis publications.[2] Radio-frequency identification (RFID) was seen as a prerequisite for the Internet of Things in the early days. If all objects and people in daily life were equipped with identifiers, they could be managed and inventoried by computers. Besides using RFID, the tagging of things may be achieved through such technologies as near field communication, bar codes, QR codes and digital watermarking.
Equipping all objects in the world with minuscule identifying devices or machine-readable identifiers could transform daily life. For instance, business may no longer run out of stock or generate waste products, as involved parties would know which products are required and consumed. A person’s ability to interact with objects could be altered remotely based on immediate or present needs, in accordance with existing end-user agreements.
According to Gartner there will be nearly 26 billion devices on the Internet of Things by 2020. According to ABI Research more than 30 billion devices will be wirelessly connected to the Internet of Things (Internet of Everything) by 2020. Cisco created a dynamic “connections counter” to track the estimated number of connected things from July 2013 until July 2020 (methodology included). This concept, where devices connect to the internet/web via low power radio is the most active research area in IoT.
Recently, the concept has expanded in that RFID clinking is no longer the sole means to interconnect objects. The Web (both cell connectivity and the Internet via WiFi have also emerged as a powerful way to connect objects. Your task is to look at these videos and readings and determine what effect this evolving technology will have on the learning environments teachers and instructors will be facing in the very near future.
View this video on the Internet of Things (IoT)
- A couple more readings:
This is probably the best short reading you will find on the Internet of Things:
So…. in short, our extended definition of u-Learning has become
knowledge that is acquired by the process of gathering/acquiring information (either formally in a classroom or informally)as a result of each interaction you have with the world around you… either person to person (F-2-F), person to computer (H-C-I) or person to person as negotiated by computers (H-C-H)…
LDI Standards
Thursday, January 27th, 2022
test-lightbox
Friday, July 16th, 2021EME 6696 – Visual Intelligence Video
Wednesday, December 9th, 2020This is a short presentation on visual intelligence that should help you decide on what to put into your profiles:




