I read Charlie's paper with interest and was pleased with the directions he was taking his thinking. I have not really followed instructional theory for some time, though I sample the papers on this list. Hence, I will not try to relate my comments to other theorists.
My current interests is in how we develop and nurture virtual learning communities--MUDS in particular. I find many of the ideas in Charlie's paper as valuable to me in thinking about this. I would see instructional theory shifting from focus on the individual to a focus on the affordances of a community designed to support learning. This entails such issues as what values and resources a learning community needs to offer to get learners to engage in setting and striving for learning goals that will serve both them and the society in which they live. And, what resources (from people to technology) provide the right mix of scaffolding to enable learner striving to lead to rewarding outcomes.
I am interested in how we create communities of learners that (1) engage students in "participation frameworks" (brainstorming for example) that provide them with tools they need to delve into problems, (2) how we help learner select goals and persist until attaining a high standard, and (3) how we create value for learning the skills and attitudes learners need to participate in our society. I have not grappled with whether or not these skills and attitudes are locally, nationally, or globally determined. I am not yet at that state.
So, I am coming at Charlie's paper looking for anything that might help me formulate my thinking. I am particularly looking for different ways to assess the quality of the learning environment as opposed to the performance of individual students--and I look at this quality as being measured by how successfully students can access and make sense of the scaffolding they receive at any point in the learning process.
This is the context for the comments I make below. And, I might add, I am most reluctant to post given how quickly people are to confront rather than explore ideas. Yet, I think Charlie made some very interesting points worth pursing that I want to comment on.
[quoting Reigeluth's paper] I feel it is important to encourage instructional theories in a wide variety of different areas--not just in the cognitive domain... but also in the affective domain... Instructional theory has been construed much too narrowly in the past.
I very much agree with this "take" at the direction we need to move. For me, this may well include looking at how we build learning communities that nurture the values of initiative, responsibility, teamwork, thinking skills, metacognitive skills, and diversity. I struggle with my ideas here. Ultimately, I think we need to develop a tool set that includes "frameworks" for helping student think about ideas that interest them. I recall somewhere in the past an article in the Educational Researcher about high road/low road transfer. Low road occurs from encountering the same pattern over and over again for a long period of time. So, I think that part of the shift in the paradigm will be from "high road" learning in which we strive to quickly get students to learn pre-defined concepts as efficiently as possible, to low road learning that engages students in using processes that foster learning how to learn independently or as part of a group.
This would include tools for setting goals, exploring those goals, engaging in meaningful conversation about concepts, and a variety of tools for representing individual and group understanding of ideas. However, I am inclined to believe that these frameworks for learning to learn are embedded in a community of learners where cross-generational modeling of the tools occurs regularly thus my interest in virtual learning communities where people come together with a come purpose and engage in life-long learning for themselves as well as making a commitment to support young learners. I guess I believe that learning occurs within a social context where a "real" person cares about the interests and development of another. Somehow I want to use the technology to let us shift to a very different learning paradigm that support the learning goals Charlie lists above.
So, I agree with the direction Charlie is setting though he may not agree with the twist I am giving it.
1. Some of the "key markers" that should distinguish the new (information-age) paradigm of instructional theories from the old (industrial-age) paradigm are:
INDUSTRIAN AGE INFORMATION AGE Standardization .......... Customization Centralized control .......... Autonomy with accountability Adversarial relationships .......... Cooperative relationships Autocratic decision making .......... Shared decision making Compliance .......... Initiative Conformity .......... Diversity One-way communications .......... Networking Compartmentalization .......... Holism Parts-oriented .......... Process-oriented Teacher as "King" .......... Learner (customer) as "King"
I guess these don t offend me because they give me a way to think about this.
I might use competitive in place of adversarial though in many ways adversarial may be more accurate. And, I might choose to use "queen" instead of "king?" I guess I don t see either as "king" maybe from teacher directed to mutually beneficial learning exchanges. I see the new paradigm connecting learners of different levels together in exchanges (such as on this list) where both the teacher" and "learner" exchange perspectives where peer to peer examination of ideas occur.
I would think about adding something that expresses learning as a social versus individual activity. By this I mean I think that what we choose to learn is socially constructed. What we choose to value learning is socially determined (at least partially). And, what we actually learn is socially negotiated. I think of the give and take between teacher and learner (or peer to peer) as a mutually enriching exchange in which each party to the activity changes and "learns." So, for me, there is also a shift away from thinking of learning as being the transferal of an idea FROM one person or object to another TO a social exchange that results in mutual learning. The one-way communication to networking comes close to this idea, but does not quite capture it. However, I think a shift from one-sided learning events to socially-mediated exchanges as an important element in a new paradigm. I suspect I could spend hours thinking through this.
What do you think of these "key markers"? Additions? Deletions? Modifications?
While I find this is going in the right direction, I feel something is missing. What I am grappling with is how to make these guidelines "feel" more holistic rather than compartmentalized. I can t quite separate the initiative from the customization. Hence, I am looking for a shift to principals that cross the markers, though this may not be possible. I am wanting something I can hold on to that connects instructional theory to a larger social world of values and social interactions. This one will leave me thinking for some time.
Do you agree with the existence of basic and variable methods?
What do you think about each of the statements in the previous paragraph?
You have me caught now! I do think that all of the methods you list are tools for learning. But I don t think the categories are mutually exclusive. Of course, you did not say there were. I can see me using a tutorial to learn to use a database in order to complete a project-based learning activity. I would likely stop with your asterisk list and then suggest that the learning strategies are scaffolding for those items. see the strategies as part of the tools set the learners have access to as they engage in projects.
3. Instructional theory should result in designs that allow learners to make more decisions about their instructional methods, by allowing them to choose from among sound alternative approaches.
I am struggling with the concept of "sound" alternative approaches. If one is learning to learn, and that is the intended out come, do they have to choose what an expert would dub a "sound" approach. I would tend to think that the system needs to handle the "unsound" alternative so that the learner develops from making the choice. I guess I envision the paradigm shift as moving away FROM "sound" ways of learning pre-defined curriculum TO providing tools and feedback mechanisms that enable learner to discover how to modify their path to get where they need to go an emerging curriculum. Maybe I am mis-understanding this???
[Winn, quoted by Reigeluth] ...It follows that the only viable way to make decisions about instructional strategies that meshes with cognitive theory is to do so during instruction using a system that is in constant dialogue with the student and is capable of continuously updating information about the student's progress, attitude, expectations, and so on.
I am smiling as I read this and wondering, given the connectivity of the emerging technologies, whether or not this "constant dialogue" might not as well be with another human being one with time on their hands and an interest in engaging in learning and experimentation with a student? I do think that intelligent tutors will have a place, but I am also inclined to think that part of the power of the net is its connectivity which means we can build diverse communities and connect our "disenfranchised" youth with our "disenfranchised" senior population. Just a thought which I think fits with your comments below about design teams that work with teachers. Consider for a moment a virtual community working with teachers and a design team.
[quoting Reigeluth's paper] We propose that in fact we, as a field, have not fully recognized the need to support trainers, and particularly teachers, in designing their own instruction. And this should expand to include learners. Thus, our responsibility as a field is to conceive of and develop a whole new type of instructional design theory--one which assists trainers, teachers, and learners in meeting their own instructional needs.
I like this shift. My current thinking is more along the lines of construction of a learning environment rather than instruction but I may be nit-picking here. The way you have referred to instructional theory bespeaks of an environment more than an event. This I think is a major part of the shift in the paradigm.
Thanks for sharing. Your words have helped me work through my ideas.