JURY 2

Program Goals

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4
Course Design Projects

Program Goal 2

In this goal, I will discuss the theory of Flexible Attention, the concept of the Instructional Methods/Media Debate, and Cognitive Load Theory. 


Lehrer – Flexible Attention

In design studio, Itzhak Feygelman (one of my classmates) is reading and reporting on a book by Lehrer called Imagine.  One of the concepts he discusses is “flexible attention,” which is a term used within the 3M company. I was able to relate to this theory.  Lehrer’s theory supports the notion that remote associations are valuable.  We should not just concentrate on the details of the immediate problem.  We have to think more broadly.  Itzhak quoted Lehrer, who states, “when our minds are at ease…we’re more likely to direct the spotlight of attention inward, toward that stream of remote associations emanating from the right hemisphere.”  Lehrer recommends that we zone out and come back to our task later.  Itzhak suggests that “when we are diligently focused, our attention tends to be directed outward, towards the details of the problems we’re trying to solve.”  This outward focus can cause us to miss important connections. 

I feel that with most of my projects in the IT program, I have had to take breaks from my work.  I know that flexible attention is more than just taking breaks.  Flexible attention includes making connections when you step away from your work.  Thinking too much about an aspect or section on a project has caused for me to become mentally drained.  Needing to place my work to the side at times has helped me come up with new ideas, and the direction of my projects.  Lehrer claims that “trying to force an insight can actually prevent the insight” (page 33).  This is a claim I whole heartedly agree with.  For instance, within all of my projects containing a documentation section, I found it to be a good practice to write my goals, and come back to them later.  This not only helped me eliminate similar or irrelevant goals, but it also helped me write goals to connections I had not previously considered.  

Take my IT 540 project for example.  When creating my goals, I knew that I was going to ensure my learners learned my content; however, I did not know what other goals I needed for the course.  Therefore, I had to take a break and come back to the question later.  After the break, I was able to come up with 4 additional goals—goal #3, #4, #5, and #6.  As you can see, these goals are more about retention levels which is more of a remote association than content.  The idea of taking into account the perspective of the learner, allowed for me to counter learning problems.  I wanted to provide my learners with a certain level of comfort.  This was important to me; because, students who become frustrated too early within a course will more so than likely withdraw from the course.  The problems in which I tried to counter can be seen within the 4 additional goals link.

But how did this influence my project?  Let me try and paint the picture of what my IT 540 project would have looked like without my 4 other goals.  My four additional goals were:

Ÿ  Produce a course that is challenging but comprehensive

Ÿ  Generate multiple strategies for learning

Ÿ  Ensure feedback occurs amongst students

Ÿ  Relieve student’s tension about the course

With my initial two goals, I was aware that I needed to

Ÿ  Teach the learner how to troubleshoot software issues   

Ÿ  Explain the features within Chief Architect. 

I would have only used two strategies (reading and watching tutorials) if I had not included the goal pertaining to multiple strategies.  The goal ensuring that feedback would occur, opened the door for written responses to readings and other activities assigned for Chief Architect. Without this goal, I would have merely free-styled an additional learning strategy.  Also, my first two goals would not have aided in the relieving of stress or fears about taking the course.  Instead, I might have not considered the learners cognitive abilities, possibly ending in them being overloaded.

Another course I can remember using flexible attention was in Studio Design II (IT 597).  The concept was used throughout me drafting my Project Scope.    Discussed within program goal 1, my project’s scope consisted of two parts, envisioning and designing.  The envision section of my scope document was easy to write.   All I needed to do was discover how difficult navigating through the software would be, without proper instruction.  So I jotted down my reactions after installing the software and what types of challenges I faced trying to build a house without proper instruction.  It was entering the design section that left me stumped. 

Reviewing the problems that I had uncovered in my attempt to build a house without instructions, I now had to come up with a solution in solving those problems.  My initial problems were:

Ÿ  Instruction must be given to the learner before beginning a New Plan in Chief Architect.

Ÿ  Users must know how to use purpose of each tool.

Ÿ  Do I instruct users to read a word document first?  Or do I inform them on which tools to use throughout the tutorial?

Ÿ  Should I zoom in on certain tools that I am discussing?

I had considered the problems that arose from my envision section.  I knew my design had to be simple and easy to follow.  I realized that flexible attention could help me solve the problem.  So, I stepped away from my desk.  A break was in order.  When I returned back to my desk, I still did not have a solution in mind; however, I felt that I should learn how to use the software from tutorials created by other users.  I started viewing a variety of tutorials.  This is when I began to make connections to my project.  For the first couple of videos I had seen, I diligently focused on the details.   However, after a while, I felt that watching so many videos was becoming cumbersome.  I felt as if I wasn’t really getting anywhere.  So, I had to take another break.  That’s when it hit me, the reason why I was watching so many videos is because they took too long to get to the point.  By the time I got to the end of the video I had forgotten what was told.  So, the solution to my problems were simple, make multiple videos (none going over two features per video), keep each video short yet long enough to comprehend/follow, and make sure my viewers remember the steps. 

The connection/idea that I had unveiled when watching the numerous tutorials was retention.  I needed my viewers to retain the information they were going to see.  Having to stay organized in my delivery of each tutorial, I felt a script (listing my steps) would be a good aid for keeping me on task.  Also, to increase the learner’s retention, steps could be provided before and after the video.  Without the connection of retention, I fear my tutorials would have been like those I had viewed, detailed but not memorable. 

 

Instructional Method/Media Debate

 Throughout the past few semesters, my thinking towards how I perceive instructional methods and implementation of media has matured.  My understanding of technology and media has been molded from a variety of discussions and readings.  I now realize that instructional technology and instructional media are on two separate spectrums, but both contribute to learning and are complementary.  For Technology leans more towards instructional methods, whereas Media is a medium that presents instruction. 

The selection of a medium can enhance a learner’s ability to learn and attain information (Examples of mediums that might enhance one’s learning are PowerPoint, Articulate, Twitter, and Prezi).  Agreeing with Kozma and Reiser a medium is meaningful on the premise that the selection of a media can enhance a learner’s ability to learn and attain information in an appealing form.  Theoretically media offers a learner another strategy or intervention, possibly enhancing the learner’s likelihood of learning a subject being taught. 

Nevertheless, the method and media debate came to a consensus, conceptualizing that a wise-selected or utilized media cannot facilitate learning without the construction of good instructional methods.  Therefore, media can enhance learning, but learning through a media tool is not possible without feasible instructional methods (this is a point made by Clark that I wholeheartedly support).   Clark (1994) claims that media not only fails to influence learning, but they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning.  Not fully supporting the claim that  a medium fails to influence learning, I do recognize if my instruction is not 1) well-organized, 2) containing adequate and accurate content, or 3) containing multiple strategies to foster learning, then my project will be stagnate. 

The idea of strong instructional methods was supported within IT 540.  Being almost an exact replica of IT 510, my IT 540 project had a thorough documentation.  A variety of strategies were used, as well as Morrison‘s ISD model.  Differing from IT 510 though, my instruction and materials were distributed into an online course.  I was encouraged to use the medium Demo Dokeos.  The free online course creator seemed like it would be easy enough to use.  However, like Clark suggested, media is not directly responsible for motivating learning (Clark, 1994).  However, the medium allowed for the content to be delivered to learners through multiple methods.  This supported Kozma’s claim that media can enhance learning. 

I had come across technical issues when navigating through the features in Demo Dokeos.  As discussed in program goal 1, I realized that I was unable to change folder names.  For instance, I could not change the folder named “documents.”  I wanted to change this to “content.”  It was the little things like not being able to edit folder names that made me first dislike the medium.  However, the medium is still a good delivery tool, as long as you don’t mind not being able to name your primary folders.   I would have preferred using the medium known as Blackboard over Demo Dokeos.  However, this goes back to Clark’s idea that mediums can be expendable, but instruction is long lasting.    

Another example of the three elements I stated in paragraph three of this section, can be found in my IT510 project.  This project was built on strong methods, not on strong media.  Therefore, when I designed my IT510 project, I was demonstrating Clark’s beliefs.  Strongly supporting the incorporation of various strategies (initial presentations and generative strategies), I placed my efforts in arranging and organizing my info (establishing goals, contextual analysis, task analysis, and objectives).  Clark would most likely suggest that if ample instruction or motivation is established, then regardless of the media tool implemented, the media tool could be expendable.  Agreed upon within IT 510, it is easier to create instruction when you have a thorough documentation, like a home builder having a detailed blueprint of the home being built; rather than a free-hand sketch of a house (missing details of room dimensions, floor-by-floor schematics, and plumbing, etc.).  Overall, initial presentations and generative strategies provide a focus on methods, not media.  If you will click here, you will see that I used initial presentations and generative strategies in my IT510 project.  These instructional strategies can also be seen within program goal 1 under the heading “Phase 5: Instructional Strategies.”

Branching off the example of a home builder having a blueprint, my IT 597 project was built on strong methods, and not on strong media.  Before attempting to record my tutorials, I first created my documentation.  Discussed within program goal 1, under IT 597’s headings “envision” and  “design“  you can see the effort placed into designing the project.  Refer back to the projects Project Scope and documentation/script.  There you will find my instructional methods for the project.  My instructional methods consisted of the learner observing and interacting with the video by reflecting on questions before I revealed the answer.  I wanted to make sure my instruction was good, covering the aspects in creating a home.  Aware of the steps needing to be taken in each tutorial (Seen in documentation), I followed a script for each recorded video.  I made sure to speak at a pace suitable for my audience, allowing them to comprehend and follow my instructions without feeling the need to stop the video.  Unfortunately, when I had finished producing my videos, the tutorials visibility was not as clear as I wanted.  I became frustrated with my videos visibility.  Even though my instruction was good (suggested by my peers and Dave), my presentation of the instruction was not as good.  The media that I had used did not help enhance my instruction; however, because of the instruction, my audience was not heavily effected (funny story – I had a couple of people outside of my class subscribe to my videos.  I guess they enjoyed my instruction as well. Lol).  Therefore, the methods/instruction are what created the learning.  

 

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load is defined as the strain put on “working memory by the processing requirements of a learning task” (Driscoll, 2005, p.136).  When dealing with cognitive load theory, it appears that applying an adequate schema is key.  Driscoll (2005) states that it is “easier to remember an inclusive concept or anchoring idea than to remember all of the details associated with it” (Driscoll, 2005, p.136).  Driscoll believes that “the desired learning goal is for learners to construct and automate the appropriate schema or mental model that pertains to the particular class or problem to be solved” (Driscoll, 2005, p.137).  Our short term memory is limited, we need to make sure that we are focusing on the main topic or concept, rather than all of the elements or characteristics involved with the task or feature.  A learner’s level of stress and anxiety can be reduced, and stronger/meaningful connections can be made by grasping the concept of cognitive load. 

One question I asked myself when envisioning my online course project in IT 540 was, what type of structure or layout should I have?  Will all of the semester’s assignments be posted the first week of class or will I assign tasks a week or two in advance prior to the due date?  Surely, a syllabus needed to be constructed, informing the students on what assignments the course is comprised of.  To shield students from having an issue with cognitive overload, when first peeking at their calendar of assignments, I decided it would be better to have weekly folders. Next, I had to determine if I wanted all of the assignment folders to appear the first week of class, or if I wanted to add a folder every week.  For students who do not plan far in advance, this would be ideal; however, the students that plan ahead might have had an issue with not knowing their assignments in advance.  Therefore, I decided all of the class assignments would be placed in designated folders (assignments for week 1, assignments for week 2, etc.) at the beginning of the semester.  All of these questions I asked myself, about how to present the content, are questions that were used to control for cognitive load. 

Cognitive Load Theory was also considered in my IT 530 course project.  For this project, I wanted to control the reader’s cognitive load.  When looking at my project plan, it was important that my readers comprehended the materials with minimal difficulty.  For instance, in the project plan, section 3 – Products, I had to inform my readers of what products would be used during the span of the project.  I needed to consider how I would 1) structure my sentences, 2) what all about the product needed to be stated, and 3) how should this section appear.  I believed a table could help organize my information.  A table allowed me to use short sentences, segment aspects about products, and made it easy to pinpoint information.  This was a great approach to reducing cognitive load.  As can be seen in my products, there is a table that incorporated the three considerations stated above.  If I would not have presented my information in tables, the information would have either been presented in paragraphs, or by bullets.  Implementing more paragraphs might have fatigued the reader, perhaps causing them to skip certain products.  Using bullets might not have been too bad if the sentences were kept short and concise; however, a table still showed a clear separation of products. 

Another course where I considered Cognitive Load Theory was in IT 597.  I had to reduce cognitive load within live/recorded instruction, opposed to written instruction/documentation.   In efforts to show people how to construct a home in the software Chief Architect, I needed a plan.  I had to decide how many videos I would need to create for my audience.  So, I figured the best way to determine how many videos I would need to create was by finding out how many features were involved in constructing a house.   I wanted my audience to be able to create aspects of their home with only having to watch my videos once.  So, I decided multiple short videos would be best.  Not wanting to lose my audience’s attention, I tried to keep my videos under 8 minutes.  I also tried to keep the videos simple, talking about one or two features per video (walls, or doors and windows).

Another way that I tried to control cognitive load is through the structure of the videos.  As you should recall from reading about the life-cycle of my project, I added written steps in later prototypes of the instruction.  This controls for cognitive load because the repetition of announcing the steps will help with the users short term memory.  Throughout the video itself, each step was talked about (some in more detail than others).  I had my steps appear prior to and after my instruction.  This strategy was used so the learner could focus on the steps, and not all of the details included in the tutorial.  This allowed the user to focus on the main topic, the task of constructing a feature within a home. 

Within IT 510, cognitive load was taken into consideration.  Several things were considered to reduce cognitive load.  The following aspects were acknowledged in reducing overload:

Ÿ  Using self-paced learning

Ÿ  Using headings within my instruction

Ÿ  Making clear transitions into other parts

Mentioning that I used self-paced learning within program goal 1, this type of paced learning does more than meets the eye.  Self-paced learning allows you to “work harder, learn more, and retain more of what is learned” (Morrison et al., 2011, 227).  Because my instruction was about a technical exercise, it only made sense to allow the learner to go at their own pace.  This way, the learner could refer back to various parts in a section if they forgot something.  Being able to look back within a short section could help a learner’s retention.  This conceptually would allow for my learners (slow or advanced learners) to complete the instruction according to their abilities.

To gravitate my learner’s eye to the appropriate section(s) of interest, I made sure to emphasize the beginning of different sections with headings.  The reasoning was to reduce strain on my learners fishing for a concept/aspect within my instruction.  The headings were used as anchors, directing my learners to a specific concept.  If you look within my instruction, you will notice bolded blue headings.  Drawing your attention to the bolded word(s) you might generate the idea that in Part 1-Getting Materials on page 3, I will be talking about materials required for this exercise.

Another variable that was considered in the IT 510 project was making clear transitions from one part to the next.  If you recall, there were four parts in my instruction.  The beginning of each part though, had a leading sentence/paragraph, preparing the learner for the next part.  If you look at the first paragraph within Part Two, on page 11, you will see that the goal covered within the previous part is stated.  This is to assure the learner that they are in the right part, and that the learner has learned the previous material.  Next, a brief explanation stating the importance of the part in which the learner is in, is stated.  This strategy allows the learner to comprehend the concept going to be discussed.  I wrote the information in each transition section in efforts to ensure the main topic/concept was addressed.  All of the elements and characteristics involved, in each part, were discussed after the introduction to the concept. 

 

 

 

References

Clark, R.E. (1994) Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development. 42(2), 21-29.

Collins, J. (2004). Education techniques for lifelong learning: Principles of adult learning. RadioGraphics, 24(5), 1483-1489.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). pp.136-137. Florida State University: Allyn and Bacon.  

Gao, T., & Lehman, J. D. (2003). The effects of different levels of interaction on the achievement and motivational perceptions of college students in a Web-based environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 14, 367-386.

Mahle, M. (2011). Effects of interactivity on student achievement and motivation in distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 12(3), 207-215.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance Education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). CA: Belmont; Wadsworth.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ren, Y., Harper, F., Drenner, S., Terven, L., Kissler, S., Riedl, J., Kraut, R. L. (2012). Building Member Attachment in Online Communities: Applying Theories of Group Identity and Interpersonal Bonds. MIS Quarterly. 36(3), 841-864.