Social Collectivism

So I was pondering about learning and teaching and had an insight about what I am calling Social Collectivism.

Constructivism consists in individuals constructing knowledge for themselves. Social constructivism entails the social aspect of individual constructivism. With constructivism, individual volition, motivation, engagement, purpose, etc. is a core element.

In the past, I have felt that constructivist positions have treated individual volition in a cursory way, acknowledging that it influences learning, but avoiding any kind of explanation or description of how it influences learning.

If volition is a major influence on individual construction of knowledge, then it is also a major influence on the social influence on individual construction of knowledge.

Individual and social construction of knowledge are different processes. Social construction consists of individuals constructing knowledge under the influence of others. In other words, the social experience actually alters the way an individual constructs knowledge. Individual construction of knowledge in isolation is a different experience than individual construction of knowledge in a social context.

This brings me to the idea of social collectivism. Social collectivism is a description of how the individual volition of a group of people interact with one another, influence one another, and manifests itself as a collective volition. This collective volition is representative of the individual volition of each person in the group, without being identical to it. This is an extremely important distinction. When talking about motivation, I often see the tacit assumption being made that the manifest volition in a group represents identically the volition of each of the group members. Practical experience indicates that this position is counterintuitive. Each individual has, in fact, his or her own volition, motivation, etc. that comes to bear on the manifest volition of the group. Therefore, the manifest volition of the group is a collection and amalgamation of the individuals' volition present in the group. I am calling this idea social collectivism or collectivist volition.

Social collectivism has important implications for learning and instruction. From a learning perspective, individuals are influenced by peers within a social context and the collective volition is perceived by each person differently. The perception of the collective volition can influence the individuals' volition, which in turn affects the collective volition. In this cyclical manner, a balance is struck between the volition of the individual and the collective volition. The balance is never perfect. More often than not, individuals make trade-offs between their individual volition and the collective volition. There is a zone of tolerance which represents an acceptable degree of difference between the individual volition and the collective volition. If the difference becomes too great, then the individual will disengage from the group in an effort to pursue his or her own volition pathway. Oftentimes individuals whose zone of difference is exceeded will seek a different group or operate in isolation within the group.

It is important to note that collective volition refers to a manifestation of collective intrinsic motivation. Other extrinsic motivating factors may entice an individual to remain with a group whose collective volition would otherwise be undesirably different from his or her own. This is an important point here because it indicates that the collective volition can be influenced and/or managed extrinsically. Much research has been done on the relationship of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators to one another. In this research, however, no mention is made of how extrinsic and intrinsic motivators can be used to appropriately manage the individual and collective volition. This leads to important implications for instruction.

Many instructional theories pay homage to the importance of motivation, but fail to give a full accounting of it in their theoretical descriptions of learning and teaching. Therefore, these theories remain impoverished, to the extent that the success of any instruction designed resides in the learner accepting the invitation to engage in the learning provided. Social collectivism points to the need for instructional theory to not only address, but also to clearly define the role of the collective volition in the learning. This is a powerful source of energy in the learning experience. By energy I am referring to the social, emotional, and sensory forces present in a learning experience. Once it is understood that this energy exists, it is then fundamental to the learning experience that this energy be managed through designed instruction. Social collectivism defines how certain measures of this energy operate upon the individual and the group. Through defining this phenomenon, social collectivism becomes a generative principle, enabling the instructional designer to more efficiently utilize the energy present in a situation to manage volition, and hence, improve the learning experience for the learner.

The question now becomes: How does one manage the collective volition?

Krippendorf makes the point that the instructional designer is really a designer of ideal futures (ideal to the designer, but also ideal to the learner - ideally...). So a first question for the instructional designer is: what is the ideal future for the learners I am designing for?

In order to be complete, part of this ideal future should include what the individual volition of the learner ought to look like. This description of the ideal individual volition will influence what the collective volition will look like as well. However, it is probably futile to try to describe the collective volition in a design because the collective volition is a social phenomenon, only vaguely understood until individuals begin to interact and make their volition manifest through their decisions. But, by identifying what the individual volition should look like, it is then possible to design instruction that reinforces that individual volition through the management of the collective volition and extrinsic motivation.

Practical example:

Joseph is in a college algebra class. He really struggles with math, but the most of the other learners in the class at least seem to enjoy math. He wants to succeed in the class so that he can earn his degree.
- At this point Joseph is still within his zone of difference as far as his motivation and the collective volition of the class is concerned.

In the second week of class, the instructor notices that Joseph is really struggling with the course concepts. The instructor invites Joseph to come in during office hours to discuss his struggles. Joseph accepts the invitation and has a great discussion with the instructor. The instructor relates how she was not particularly gifted in math while beginning her college career, but at one point took a college course from a truly inspiring professor who helped her to see math in a different light. During the conversation, the instructor helps Joseph to begin making connections between the course concepts and his personal interests in history and music. Joseph begins to pursue his studies in the course more avidly and succeeds in learning about college algebra, history, and music in more depth. He also comes to appreciate math in a new way that motivates him to take more advanced courses in mathematics, despite that fact that they are not required for his particular degree.
- I would say that through the instrumentality of the instructor, the difference between Joseph's volition and the collective volition of the learners in the course was reduced, thus enhancing Joseph's engagement with the subject matter. The instructor has been able to simultaneously manage the collective volition of the course and the individual volition of Joseph through extrinsic experiences. This is a powerful instructional concept.

What is a theory? What is an instructional theory?

What is a theory?

A theory is an explanation or set of explanations that define something.

A hypothesis is developed as a tenable explanation for something. The researcher then tests the hypothesis somehow. If the hypothesis is supported, then the hypothesis becomes a theory that continues to undergo additional testing and validation. If the hypothesis is not supported, it is revised based on the experiment and then is tested again.

Thus a theory is a constantly evolving hypothesis that serves to explain something.

An instructional theory is an explanation or set of explanations that define instruction. This is a broad definition and hence there are a multitude of different types of instructional theories. Different people look to define different elements of instruction, thus different theories are developed to define different elements of instruction.

The value of instructional theories is that they draw me to different elements of instruction that I may not have thought of before. Thus, instructional theories help me to flesh out my own explanations and definitions of what instruction is and should be. This is why I can analyze instructional theories and in many cases find elements that seem intuitive to me. This is because those specific elements are intuitive to me. In other words, I have already defined that specific aspect of instruction in the same way that the theorist has presented the element. The real exciting experiences in researching theory is when the theory addresses an aspect of instruction that I have not previously though about. At this point, I have an opportunity to evolve my understanding of instruction. The greater my definition of instruction, the greater number of opportunities for design decisions I have.

As an example, if I define instruction as a function of content and pedagogy, then all of my design decisions are constrained to those two elements. If I then learn about principles of instructional aesthetics,  then I have increased the domains of my designs (as well as the complexity).

Design Theories address the different ways that domains are configured in instruction to work together to achieve some instructional objective. These are the most important types of theories in terms of expanding or constricting my design decisions.

Learning Experience Design vs. Instructional Systems Design

I have concluded that ISD is fundamentally behaviorist in nature. It couches the development of instruction in terms of "what will be done to or for" the learner as opposed to "what the learner will do to learn". Some may argue with this distinction, stating that the purpose of the development of instructional systems is to provide learners with opportunities for experience. I would respond with the fact that ISD does not generally describe what learners "will do" to learn, but only what learners "can do" to learn. In this sense, ISD constrains the learning process to achieve "desirable instructional objectives in the learner".

Because the learner is ontologically dynamic and evolving, the concept of a static instructional system presupposes that the ontological nature of the learner can be circumscribed by a "system of learning". I believe that the development of artificially intelligent "learning systems" is an attempt to address the deficiency of static instructional systems. In other words, the development of a system that can emulate the learner's capacity to adapt and evolve cognitively is an attempt to improve the efficiency of instructional systems that are constantly rendered inadequate and outdated by the evolution of the learner. A good example of this is the evolution of video games in instruction. Originally, the games of edutainment were designed to target a specific skill (Math Blaster, Timez Attack, Reader Rabbit, etc.). But once the skill was achieved by the learner, the game lost its utility as a tool to develop skill (although it may be argued that the games could be used as memory aids and refreshers). As gaming has evolved to MMORPG-type games, there is a richer environment presented and a broader range of skills to be developed (although the argument about utility of cognitive transfer of these skills is still ongoing) but the learner is still being "acted upon by the environment" (because it is an artificially created environment constraining the learner) instead of taking control of learning tools to achieve some personally determined objective (although it may be argued that the learner is using tools within the gaming environment to learn, the objectives of the learner are artificially constrained by the environment itself).

Most of these insights I have come to through an exploration of intrinsic learner motivation (ILM). When a learner is truly motivated, they:

1.Determine their own learning objectives
2. Assess what tools and resources they have available to them
3. Make a plan to achieve their objectives
4. Work to achieve their objectives

It is also important to note the the objectives of the learner, as well as the tools and resources available, change constantly. Experience changes the learner, which can also lead to the learner altering his/her learning goals. Experience can also expand or reduce the tools and resources available to learners.

These are some of my thoughts. Here are some implications for what I want to  call Educational Design (ED):

• ED needs to focus on developing tools and resources for learners to use (we are starting to do this a lot better - moving away from programmed instruction boxes)
• ED needs to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the learner and hence the inefficiency of designing instructional objectives for the learner
• The Learner needs to be empowered to determine his/her own objectives from the domain of the instruction.
• ED needs to avoid coercing the learner through constraining the learning environment
• ED needs to provide tools, resources, opportunities, etc. for Learners to learn as much as they want to learn in the domain of the provided instruction
• ED needs to allow the Learner to choose domains
• ED needs to change the way of assessing the Learner
• Personal progress of the Learner needs to be assessed
• Evaluation by the Learner
• Self-Report
• Extrinsic Evaluation
• Cognitive Assessments
• Performance Assessments

Defining design as a verb

Design is the process of reducing uncertainty and complexity to an internally acceptable level.

I will reduce uncertainty and complexity through design to the degree I understand the uncertainty and complexity.

As uncertainty and complexity are in constant flux in the real world, we need to engage in adaptive design practices.

*** Donald Schon's "reflection-in-action" is a response to dynamic complexity and uncertainty.

Operational principles are like generative metaphors. The principle is the simplest case that allows for the generation of several acceptable configurations that function on the principle.
- The principle of "aeronautical lift" leads to any number of technologies that can create lift, different wing designs, objects to be 'lifted', direction of lift, etc.

The key is to develop the skill of stripping away non-essential components to get at the operational principles inherent in an artifact.

In order to learn about something we need to have experience with the thing in order to have sufficient motivation to learn about the thing.
- If I am learning about World War II, I may not be motivated to learn what is being presented if I am not familiar with the geography, implications, personalities, weapons and warfare, etc. associated with it.

When I am explaining/describing a theory, model, framework, etc., I absolutely need to be explicit about what I understand the operational principles to be.

Design always takes place in a context. Understanding the context will lead to an understanding of the design.

Describing Learning

I have come to understand that the way we describe learning places constraints on learning. Learning is an abstract concept. By making it more concrete, we lose parts of the abstraction and, hence, the ontology contracts around the concrete definition supplied.

What is needed is multiple definitions/characterizations of learning. We need layered understandings of the complexity inherent in learning. One such proposal is provided here:

Potential “Layers of Learning” Theory

“Layers” of Learning	Domain Theories
Changing behaviour	Neuroscience Behavioural science
Enhancing skills	Cognitive development
Storing information	Cognitive sciences
Gaining knowledge	Cognitive sciences Epistemology
Making sense of the world	Social sciences Socio-cultural and activity theory
Interpreting reality in a different way	Phenomenology

(adapted from slideshare presentation) Click here for reference

*** What other layers of learning might exist?

*** Other than layers, how might we characterize the complexities of learning?

Seeing-As and the Generative Metaphor

Seeing-As: Two dissimilar things are juxtaposed that they might be 'seen-as' being similar. This helps to create a transfer of structures between the two dissimilar things until they can both be identified as being related in someway. Some previously unthought-of functionality is transferred to the dissimilar object and a new conception of the things and its function or properties arises. This redefinition of the things generates new avenues for exploration and  understanding. Schon calls this a "generative metaphor". The metaphor for the thing becomes generative it that it generates new ways to think about the thing, its properties, its configurations, etc.

" Not all metaphors are generative" (185). Not all metaphors "generate new features of ..." (185).

What is the value add of explicit design

I have found it interesting today that design seems to be a ubiquitous part of people's lives. I use the word ubiquitous because I believe people take it for granted, or in other words, they have automatized the design processes in their lives. They have developed habits, models, algorithms, etc. all to reduce the decision-making that needs to take place each day. The only time they think about their designing is when their automation breaks down. This idea relates to cognitive dissonance in suggesting natural causes of cognitive dissonance. It's not necessarily just previously unencountered ideas that can create cognitive dissonance, but previously unencountered experiences and situations. Schon talks about this phenomenon in "The Reflective Practitioner" and about how when people are confronted with ideas, experiences, or situations they are not familiar with, they first try to frame or set the problem in terms of what they already know. If that is impossible, then Schon puts forth that individuals engage in dialogue with themselves, the situation, or other individuals to try to understand more about the problem so as to frame it in terms of something previously encountered. The goal is always to get to a well-framed problem, because then the individual can ritualistically apply the previous methods, models, algorithms, etc. to resolve the problem. I have not seen Schon make the explicit statement that this is what people do in the everyday course of their lives, but that is what I believe. Schon illustrates a process that everyone engages in, but they do not necessarily understand what or why they do what they do. Hence Schon's phrase "you know more than you can say". For Schon, everyone is constantly designing and redesigning their life, their paradigms, their environments, etc. through purposeful action.

In working on our design-based research project, it is clear to me that the value-add of the class project is not necessarily the presentation of a finished proposal/project, but the making explicit of certain 'design' decisions and 'designerly thinking' of individuals involved in the project.

This is the value of explicit design: when we know why we are doing something, we can control it, manipulate it, alter it, conform it, etc to produce some 'more desirable future' to quote Klaus Krippendorf ("The Semantic Turn"). That is what we as agentive human beings are doing constantly through design: shaping a 'more-desirable' future based on our personal values. We just don't realize it as design because it has become ubiquitous and as a result has become mysterious.

Change your values, change your design. Change your design, change your life. Change your life, change the world.

Instructional Theory and Development

I realized today that I do not understand or fully appreciate what other theorists are saying about learning and instruction. I have not had the time (or I have not made the time) to seriously consider the implications and the nuances of the instructional theories that have been presented to me over the course of my IP&T program. The details are more important than I have realized. Dr. Gibbon's article in response to the Smith and Boling article give some critical considerations regarding instructional theory. They are like questions to ask myself as I am trying to understand a theory. I have been so focused on trying to develop a personal road map of what the theory lay of the land looks like that I have not taken time to appreciate the beauty of the landscape. I have been a cartographer and am now faced with the need of become a landscape artist. I need to be able to understand the details to really understand the theories and I realized today that I do not understand the details. I feel like I have come to understand myself and my own theoretical foundations better lately, but at the expense of an understanding of others. I need to know what others think and why. I will begin this new journey of discovery at once. I am excited to keep growing in this new way.

I rather like the cartographer vs. landscape artist analogy. I think it richly describes my development and my dillema.

Skill Learning and The Reflective Practitioner

Yesterday I attended an LDS design conference in SLC at the Triad Center. It was incredible. On the way up I read about 100 pages in Donald Schon's book "The Reflective Practitioner". It is changing the way I see teaching. The premise of the book is that we know more than we can say. There is tacit information that is available for use to us in approaching previously unencountered instructional problems. Schon goes through case studies examining different professionals engaging in what he calls "reflection-in-action". Basically, individuals reflect on their previous experience in trying to frame a problem so as to make it more manageable. We reflect either on our own or with someone else. In either case, reflection-in-action is a dialogical process by which we make sense of a situation and then bring our past experience to bear on the problem in order to generate solutions. This is exactly what good teachers are doing. Although I believe that many good teachers are not aware of why they do what they do. Schon has a second book entitled "Educating the Reflective Practitioner". I have it to read next. This second book provides an education program for training people to become reflective practitioners. It appears to require a 'more-knowledgeable other' to facilitate the feedback. His ideas correlate very strongly with the concepts of the 3-person model.

On another note, Dr. Gibbons gave a masterful lecture at the conference yesterday entitled "The Skills of a Saint". It was exceptionally timely. He has essentially redefined what we might consider skill. He has given us examples that serve to highlight the skills involved in cognitive tasks, in spiritual development, in the development of character, etc. I had never thought of these things as skills before. This paradigm is a powerful one because so much more is known about skill instruction that about cognition and learning. If learning can be achieved more fluently through the instruction and adoption of learning skills by the learner (which I believe is the case in any learning situation) then we need to turn our focus to experience  design and skill instruction instead of content dissemination (which is a majority of the instruction being developed these days as I see it). I am excited to pursue this new course.

Dr. Gibbons and President Osguthorpe (who also spoke to us) both cited the need for revelation in creating designs that are in line with the will of the Lord. I believe that the Holy Ghost does lead men and women today and especially when those men and women are engaged in the work of bringing souls to Christ. I want to be more guided. I will clear a space in my life each day for revelation from the Lord. This, I believe, will lead to the improvement of my craft more profitably than any other decision.

Design and Domain Theory

In class today we discussed the relationship of design and domain theory. We were examining Dr. Gibbons' theory of design layers. We simultaneously discussed how Reigeluth makes a distinction between design and domain theories. A design theory is about how something should be designed and a domain theory is about what is being designed, its organization, etc. Between these two concepts we determined the following:

* For each domain, there exist several theories of design that might be profitably applied to generate instruction

* For each design theory, there are several domains that might be profitably used to generate instruction

The constant seems to be that each configuration of instruction draws on both design and domain theory.

For Dr. Gibbons' layer theory, there are individual domain theories that correspond to each layer. One of the design decision to be made is which domain theory to accept when structuring that particular layer of instruction.

We also determined that the most influential design decisions to be made in Gibbons' layer theory relate to strategy and content. Once those two layers are established, most of the composition of the other layers will also be constrained. It was interesting to me that these two layers correspond to the "What" and the "How" of the instruction. This is important because this corresponds to Gospel teaching (see "Teaching the Gospel Handbook"). It also corresponds to the content vs. context debate that has raged on in the field of education psychology.

Dr. Gibbons also made the distinction that the 3-Person Theory is really a domain theory of Instructional Strategy. In other words, it is a theory that provides teachers with a strategy for teaching. I also believe that the 3-Person Theory applies to the domain of learning strategy. In other words, it provides learners with a strategy for learning. This is an extremely important distinction as I believe that learning strategy is an impoverished domain as far as research int he field is concerned. But that is just my opinion...

Complexity and instructional design models

I have been thinking about the adoption or rejection of ID models and what that process entails. I have the following thoughts about it:

* Some ID models increase the number of design decisions to be made (Gibbons' layers, etc.)
* Some ID models seek to reduce the number of design decisions to be made (Gong's 3-person model, etc.)

* What are the reasons for increasing the number of design decisions to be made?

• Because: 
• I need more control over specific aspects of the design
• I need to improve the design but don't know where/what to improve

* What are the reasons for reducing the number of design decisions to be made?

• Because: 
• I need to reduce the complexity of what I am designing (too many design considerations to make progress)
• I need to expedite the design and development process (due to time, budget constraints)
• I need to isolate a part of the design process and improve it

These are just some thoughts that can guide my thinking about why I would consider other ID models over others. I think that selecting a design model is a matter of preference, expediency, and contextual constraints.

Principles of Instructional Design

I have decided to design a course on principles of instructional design for my instructional theories course. I don't feel very settled on this as it seems like a pretty broad topic and I am not sure still what the purpose of the course is. So the course may change between now and Monday.

The most productive process I have come to recognize is the the "needs analysis" in the pre-design phase of instructional design. I am finding that we can make every problem to be solved an ID problem if we want to, but the fact is, most of the problems are people problems more than design problems. Understanding this can help focus the scope of a course design or eliminate the need for the course altogether in some cases.

The other caveat to the needs analysis is that people often can't discern what their own needs are. It is a lot easier for them to have others tell them what their needs are and then agree or disagree with the 3rd party analysis. It is a rather frustrating process. There has to be a better way... perhaps critical thinking and metacognitive skills could help. That is worth researching...

The conditions of intrinsic learner motivation

I have a new question:

What are the conditions that support the development of intrinsic learner motivation?

As I have pondered more about intrinsic learner motivation, I have realized that it evolves. What I mean is that learner motivation can be absent and then it can develop within the learner. I want to understand the conditions and the operational principles associated with the development of intrinsic learner motivation. By understanding the conditions and principles, it will enable designers and teachers to develop more effective instruction aimed at not only content delivery, but also the development of intrinsic motivation to learn beyond the classroom experience.

I feel that motivation to learn is the factor that opens doors to learning that are not yet available to a learner. A learner who is intrinsically motivated to learn opens his or her own doors and creates opportunities independently of learning professionals (ie teachers). I do not mean to say that we should replace teachers, but the implication is that the role of the teacher would need to be fundamentally altered if students came to class motivated to learn the content. For example, instead of being a content expert, the teacher would need to shift into a mentoring role, assisting students to sort through information, make sense of it, evaluate it, and organize it into a coherent framework of knowledge. We would also need to restructure how "learning objectives" (which are really instructional objectives) are determined since students would likely be motivated to pursue a knowledge of the content in different ways and to varying degrees.

These are serious implications and require further study and analysis.

Thinking about learning and teaching

I have been earnestly thinking about a conversation I had with Dr. Gibbons about my Masters Thesis Project. He pushed me to find my question and then pursue it. I have had real difficulty with finding my question, I suppose that everyone does. So I have thought about my interest in learning and teaching. I guess when it all comes down to it, my passion stems from my experiences teaching early morning seminary. It was early in the morning and it was seminary. It was the most frustrating experience of my life, and yet I felt compelled everyday to go back and try something new. I don't know that things ever worked out as well as I had wanted, but something about those experiences have lit an unquenchable flame in my soul to improve the experience of the learner. It may even stem from my experiences as a missionary (which were a lot more successful than my seminary experiences). In coming to BYU and learning about Walter Gong's 3-person model, I found a tool that helped me to make sense of my seminary experiences and interpret them through the lens of the key attributes of learning and teaching. This changed my perspectives and allowed me to learn and grow through the evaluation of my past experiences that I perceived as failures. It has been a year and a half since Susan Gong introduced me to the ideas of the 3-person model. I have reflected much on this model and have come to the conclusion that all such descriptive models really rest upon a set of operational principles of learning which, when identified and understood, can yield powerful learning experiences for all involved. I don't claim to understand all of the operational learning principles inherent in the 3-person model because I believe that there are many that are serendipitously included in the model that have not yet been identified. The 3-person model is also a lens for identifying operational principles of learning because it focuses the individual on keys areas of Roles, Knowledge, and Experience.

I am writing all of this because I want to do more than tell people about the 3-person model. I want to help them understand the principles in which the model is grounded. By understanding the principles, it is possible that instructional designers and teachers can develop better instruction and learning experiences for learners. If learners understand the principles of learning, it is possible that they can become better learners. In order for this to take place, I feel like I need to focus my research on what I feel is the most critical area of the 3-person model, which is Roles. When individuals accept the role to be a learner/teacher (L/T), they open the gateway to growth (exponential growth according to Walter Gong). Role, however, is the one key attribute over which the teacher has the least direct influence. This causes enormous frustration for the teacher that prepares diligently and performs back-handsprings to provide learning experiences for the learner. I want to research what leads people to adopt the L/T role. What are the operational principles of learner motivation?

Motivation is a subset of engagement. By definition, engagement is when two separate entities link together or "engage" one another. In order to engage the teacher, the learner has to be "motivated". I believe that motivation is not a thing, it is a state, an experience, a verb, a dynamic set of conditions, etc. So my question right now is:

What are the principles that fundamentally create learner motivation?

I will begin looking through the literature for possible ideas.

Consequently, the course that I have intended to develop for Selnate International School (SIS) will be heavily influenced as a result of this line of thinking. Teaching a course on the 3-person model will become a course on the fundamental principles of learning inherent in the model, not just an exposition of the parts of the 3-person model. Special emphasis will be given to role development and generative motivation experiences. I am rather excited for this development. We will see what happens...

Reflections on Learning and Teaching

I have really been struggling with the concept of evaluating learning and teaching. I do a lot of it constantly, both formally and informally (and even tacitly). At the heart of this issue lies the idea of learning and what it is. I have really struggled with ontological ideas of learning. I feel like in some ways that the ontology of learning is overlooked as if it is trivial. I feel like the sheer complexity of describing learning has discouraged people from focusing on it. I do not think we adequately understand learning. The evaluation of instruction ought to take into account how well the instruction facilitates learning, but in order to do so, a clear and definitive understanding of learning must be determined. And so I struggle with what has already been proposed in terms of descriptive learning theory. It seems as though it is either a behavior, a cognitive phenomenon, or a reality construction, or some combination of the three (although this last combinatorial option seems rare to me).

Steve Turley made the observation that Richard Feynman decided that he was going to derive all of the mathematical proofs for himself that he would use in his science. In so doing he would come to understand things for himself without having to rely on others. I have somewhat determined to do the same by starting with a more fundamental perspective of theology. And so I reason:

One central purpose of creation was to receive a physical body in order that our existence as a spirit intelligence might be enhanced. This physical body would provide the means whereby a spirit intelligence could grow, develop, progress, etc. This progress would require that the spirit and body experience together different events that would facilitate the growth of one another. From here I venture to say that the growth of the spirit through experience with the physical body and its senses constitutes learning.


There are conditions to learning however. Experience alone is not learning. Experience that leads to the growth of the spirit constitutes learning.

*** It is important to understand how a spirit grows and what factors and forces contribute to that growth. I am still seeking to understand this by study and by faith.

From these premises I make the following assertions:

1. Learning is the acquisition of experience that develops the spirit.
2. As experience is evaluated and expanded it can be shared with others. This constitutes the learning process.
3. The sharing of experience demonstrates that learning has taken place.
4. Sharing experience also leads to learning in others as it constitutes a reciprocating experience with both learner and sharer "learning".

These were just some thoughts I've had. I feel like if I could understand learning better, I could devise better instruction to facilitate learning. That is where I am going with this. What I have written may be all wrong in a few days or as I learn more, but this is where I am at. It is ok to learn more, break down our understanding, and rebuild it again to incorporate new experience.

Reductionist approach to instruction

While most instructional theorist take a prescriptive or descriptive approach to instruction, the 3-Person model offers a reductionist approach.

Take any given instructional situation. Determine (reduce) what the key elements are.
[The 3-person model reduces instruction, and therefore learning, to Roles (people), Knowledge (content and context), and Experiences (interactions)]

Once you have determined what the key elements of instruction are, determine (reduce) the key elements of each of those.
[The 3-person model reduces Roles to the L/T role, Knowledge to Purpose and Values (context) Main Idea and Validations (content), and Experience to capture, expand, teach, and evaluate]

You can further drill down into each of these elements and reduce them further but that may be unnecessary.

Now reduce the complexity of instruction down to 3 people. With 3 people, you have all of the interaction possibilities that you would have with a larger classroom or social environment. Reducing the interaction to 2 people is simply insufficient because interactions in classroom and social environments do not occur in isolated dyad relationships. A simple consideration of these facts will be enough to support the reduction of learning and teaching to 3 people instead of 2 people.

The reduction approach is open to interpretation and flexible because is is not prescriptive. It is also not perfectly descriptive because it does not claim to identify every element of learning and instruction, only the most prominent or important ones.

The power of the reductionist approach is that it minimizes complexity and empowers individuals to channel energy into learning and instruction where that energy efficiency is maximized. That is the goal of the reductionist approach:

Minimize complexity and maximize energy efficiency

This approach will lead to breakthroughs in fields not just related to education. It can change the world as we know it...

The Relationship between Knowledge and Questions

The types of questions that people ask are indicative of their knowledge.

The more someone knows about a subject, the more informed their questions may become.

"God will not answer any questions that we are not prepared to ask".
- Susan Peterson-Gong-

When comparing how much students know about a subject, it is helpful to ask them to list their questions about the subject. I think this will indicate depth of knowledge and depth of engagement with the subject.

The more initiated one is (Legitimate peripheral participation - communities of practice theory), the more "engaged" one is, both with the subject matter and with the members of the community that possess the knowledge of the subject matter. Dialogical knowledge sharing is a communal experience (that means more than 2 people).

This is the crux of assessing depth of knowledge.

Johnny Lee' Wii Remote "Smart Board"

Beth Kanter's use of Social Media presentation

Colorado Project

View more presentations from Beth Kanter.

Hole in the Wall experiments

TED Talks

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html

Aaron Johnson concept map idea

In class today, Aaron Johnson had a great idea:

1. Student develops a concept map journal of topics learned each day. 
2. Topics could be continuously connected throughout the course. 
3. Summative review could allow student to explain the concept map to demonstrate understanding.

Bev from the UGA IT-FORUM had this great slide show presentation on instructional design models. I have included it here:

Theories Of Instructional Design

Source: Link

This presentation goes through some of the major theories and design model foundations. I was surprised to not see any reference to ADDIE. Interesting...

Bev has a great blog: http://bevslidbasecamp.blogspot.com/

Evaluating Instructional Design

Every design has a functionality and purpose.

The purpose of the design is two-fold: The purpose of the author of the design and the purpose of the user of the design

The functionality of a design leads users to select the design based on the criteria of their design project. However, as Krippendorf has stated, the author of the design can only design as far as helping the user not to misunderstand the intended use of the design. The user is free to manipulate any design to meet their need.

Every design is theory-associative. This means that while it may not have been intentionally developed from a theoretical framework, it can be associated with theory based on its purpose and functionality, or even by the way that users use it.

Understanding these principles should enable designers to begin creating new instructional design models based on their particular theories and needs at any given time. Flexibility in thinking and design is necessary due to the incredibly dynamic and complex interactions that must be considered in the development of any kind of instruction.

What is the place of secuar learning in relation to eternal progression?

Secular learning enhances one's capacity to comprehend the things of God. God created the physical world. So, in effect, if one does not come to understand physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, history, language, the arts, and all other branches of knowledge, then there is something of God that cannot be understood.

Some may argue that secular knowledge is relative, imprecise, imperfect, incomplete when compared with the knowledge of God. To this argument I would state that the process of learning these imperfect things is the very process by which our own, individual knowledge is perfected, increases, evolves, and we become as God. As He knows all things, both the perfect and the imperfect, it becomes us also to learn as much as we can, the Holy Spirit guiding us into all truth, that we, in turn, may become as He is.

Joseph Schwab's 4 components

As I was browsing through "Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' views and influences, I came across a passage on p.338 that talked about some ideas by a Joseph Schwab.

There are four commonplaces of a learning experience:

1. Teacher
2. Learner
3. Curriculum
4. Milieu or context

Fascinating! This is what I have found to be true also. The 3-person model is also founded on such ideas. Fascinating. I will have to read more on Joseph Schwab.

Other Joseph Schwab References:
Schwab (GoogleBooks): "Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays"

Counter articles:
A. Clark "The Fifth Commonplace"
T. W. Roby "What to do about Joseph Schwab and the Rabbis"

Design Ideas - IPT 664 4/13/10

There is a priority of ideas. In everything we write, we have to determine what is most important.

We need to cut down text by 50% and then cut down the remaining text by 50%.

Every design I make is a trade-off (Want to do vs. Must do).

What can technology do for us?

Dr. Graham said yesterday something that stuck with me. We were talking about online high schools and how students seem to want to state that they do not learn very much. Dr. Graham made the point that:

Technology has the capacity to represent large amounts of content, which in turn can let people do what they are best at: teaching. Teachers are overburdened with presenting content that they are not able to spend adequate time mentoring, encouraging, inspiring, and motivating students.

A new paradigm needs to be developed. We need to leverage technology more fully to enable teachers to do what they have been called to do: teach.

Blended: Online or F2F

It's not online. It's not face-to-face. It's blended.

What are the strengths that are unique to face-to-face classes?
- Personal interaction
- Instructor immediacy
- Dynamic conversational structure (real-time)

What are the strengths that are unique to online classes?
- Large amounts of content
- Free of time and geographical constraints

How can you leverage these unique strengths to create a powerful blended learning format?

IP&T 664 3-16-10 : Great Class Notes

Before you figure out how to say something (representation layer) you need to decide what to say (message layer). The "what" comes from the content layer. The content needs to be broken down into messages that then need to be packaged into message "structures". It is the message structure that ends up being "represented".

One things an instructor does is draw attention to something. How does an instructor decide what to point to? What is given the attention needs to be important and needs to be a part of something bigger that is trying to be conveyed.

Strategy is necessary to determine how the message is going to represented. Strategy determines what the student is going to do with the messages from the content.

The instructional designer needs to think in terms of manipulating the learning process to achieve some instructional objective.

The message is always conditioned by the strategy. The strategy will constrain the message and focus the student on it.

We should spend some time in the abstract, ambiguous, and messy until the main ideas of the design surface. This is one of the principle playgrounds of inspiration for the designer.

It is imperative to understand the subject matter in a deep, personal way before attempting to teach it to someone else. You cannot teach beyond what you know and have experienced. This is a process and it takes time.

Instruction needs to be adaptive and responsive to the individual.

The strategy is the decision of what to emphasize and what to summarize.

How can I create and use the principle of disequilibrium to create interest and inquiry in students?

If you are going to use a strategy, when are you going to do it and how are you going to do it?

How do I help a student "mine more understanding" from the content?

What is going through a student's mind as he or she receives instruction?

*** It is helpful to write a narrative of what I would like to go through the mind of the people I teach.

*** Instruction is a conversation with students.

Learning Tools

I realized yesterday that there are some fundamental questions that I as a teacher must answer before I teach:

1. What will my students come away with from my class?
2. How will I know what they come away with from my class?

As I thought about these questions, I realized that I also needed to answer a third question:

3. What will my students bring to my class?

As I thought about how to answer these questions, I began to wonder exactly what it was that students would either be bringing or taking away from my class. I then had this idea that
 
knowledge, like language, is a tool.

This idea is really important. If knowledge is a tool, then in order to assess what students are bringing and taking away from my class, I need to understand the way that the students use their tools. I also need to know what tools they already have. Also, in order to teach the use of a tool

I must give students the opportunity to showcase and utilize their 'tools'.

So when I plan any lesson, I should create opportunities for student experience in which they are able to use their 'tools' to do something. In the doing, the students will show me what they have and how they use it. This is quite different from administering static standardized tests. I do not want to test specific tools,

I want to know from the students about as many of their tools as possible.

I want to understand what their favorite tools are and what their favorite uses are. Then I want to understand why.

I believe that understanding the things I have discussed will help me to better understand my students, which will enable me to design my instruction to more effectively meet their needs, capacities, and 'tools'.

Qualatiative to Quantitative

I have been thinking a lot about my IPT 550 assignment to do a quantitative research project. Most of the data I have collected over the last two semesters from my teaching projects has been qualitative in nature. It just hit me now that this is what I should do:

1. Complete my literature review to understand the principles of measurement and correlation of my research questions.
2. Organize my qualitative data.
3. Operationalize the data (translate the data from qual to quant data) using reasons and principles from the literature review to justify the way I operationalize the data.
4. Explain in my methods section the following:
A. Qual data collection instruments and rationale
B. Qual data organization and rationale
C. Operationalization procedure and rationale
D. Quant data organization and rationale

If I can do this effectively, then my quantitative analysis of my data will naturally flow from the organization of my original qualitative data and will be performed based on the principles of operationalization that I have explained in the methods section of my write up.

Even though this sounds plausible, I still believe that there will be something missing from the results of the quantitative analysis that is inherently destroyed in the process of operationalizing the qualitative data. Still, we'll see what I get...Perhaps the findings of this assignment will be more a measure of the influence of operationalization than that of correlation between the variables I am observing. Interesting...

Complexity Theory

I had an interesting conversation with Nicky Burgoyne and she gave me some things to research regarding:

Complexity theory
Idea of emergence
James Gleick – Chaos Theory
Brent Davis – Blog on complexity theory

I think this is going to be good.

Assessing Learning

What do you assess in order to determine whether or not a student is learning?

What do you assess in order to determine if a student's rate of learning is increasing or decreasing (changing)?

The first question is a fundamental question asked by educational evaluators. It leads to simple metrics, generally speaking, that indicate student performance against a standard or group of standards.While this is an important measurement of student comprehension, it does not provide any information about whether or not the student is learning to learn. If students do not learn to learn, then their capacity to progress through higher levels of education and their desire to become life-long learners will be impacted.

The second question is intriguing because it assumes a second order assessment of student performance. In terms of metaphor, the first question is a first-order measure akin to position, and the second question is a second-order measure akin to velocity. What is the rate of change in a student's capacity to learn? How does this "velocity" change in learning capacity manifest itself in class? What can we look at to determine, even intuitively, that there is a change in "learning velocity"? Whatever the answer is, it will be fundamentally different from the considerations in the first question.

I propose that there is a correlation between a student's interest and engagement in course content and his or her "learning velocity". This is my own assumption. Taking this as a true assumption, then one can assess changes in a student's interest and engagement and gain insight into the ways in which a student's learning capacity is evolving. I am not sure what or how strong the correlation between these two concepts are. I only make this assumption based upon informal observations from my own experience and the experience of others. I intend to strengthen the support for this assumption as I conduct a pilot study research project this semester.

In my research project, I am going to video tape and analyze my courses that I teach, looking for indicators of interest and engagement in the course. I will cross reference this data against course grades and informal student ratings of their own performance. I hypothesize that correlations will begin to take shape as more of this data comes available. We will see what happens.