Because I hope to develop a learning software platform for ASD learners, this course has helped me to find out what is the best way to create it. By writing the standard of evaluation to the highest level of specificity, I have the bar set as to what I must reach to be successful. But there is so much more that I have learned.
First, if the majority of a class is of one professional background, don’t let the ones from outside this group form their own team. They will go off in some eclectic tangent. Place an outsider within each team of same profession people. This will benefit each group by bringing in an outside perspective.
Second, when a group is formed, certain guidelines of “group collaboration” protocol needs to be followed such as who is the group leader, who is the secretary (in charge of the document process), and so forth.
Third, when you commit to a group, a certain level of communication is needed such as instant messaging, chat-rooms, or good old face-to-face at a scheduled time and on a regular basis.
Fourth, there is a “social” aspect to this “hybrid” type of class that is much different than a physical classroom. There is a routine to attending a physical class. The “virtual” classroom is missing this basic level of structure that helps those who tend to be distractible, focused and attentive.
Fifth and final, online classes do not provide the entertainment value of watching your professor perform. As I have learned from my other class this semester, only 10% of a subject’s information is to be found in literature. 90% of the knowledge is in the heads of those in the field. “Online only” classes offer the student only 10% of knowledge in the field if they are left without the professor’s “performance.”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Analysis of Competing Instruments
I am comparing the Media Evaluation (ME) Traditional Media evaluation form and the Techie Tigers (TT) evaluation form. To compare the two is limited to the Rating Areas chosen. The ME and TT evaluations both rely on the use of a rubric. They are both three tier rubrics.
I come from a science/research background. I look at data. Data is objective. Data must be clearly defined. When comparing the ME evaluation form to the TT evaluation form, what stands out the most is difference in subjectivity vs. objectivity. Entering into this project, I have had a problem with the objectivity of each rubric. It relies on the evaluator to be an expert in all these different fields that the rubric is drawn from. My problem is that if two people use the same rubric, will they be able to give an identical evaluation. If the answer is yes, then it is a viable scientific assessment. If the answer is no, then the assessment is invalid. For example, when it is asked “Is this media age appropriate?”, could two people give what age the material is for accurately?
While the ME evaluation is cumbersome, the Narrative Criteria to each rating area gives a specific way of addressing the questions. It is intended as an explanation to orient the evaluator’s thoughts towards specific features or consistency of perception. The information given here is based on published research and offers the evaluator a snapshot of what is considered important in the specific area of learning.
There is an appropriate use of subjective reflection when evaluating any media. It is this “gut feeling” that is difficult to quantify but still has merit to offer. The ME evaluation form needs to have a place for the evaluator to comment within the context of the rating area being focused on.
For the Web 2.0 evaluation, I looked at Shamelle Nash’s evaluation. When comparing the two, I see objective statements in her rubric. Both hers and the ME evaluation give specific outlines to the rating area.
What contrasts our work is she chose a more balanced, three format review. While she starts with a meta-analysis of her questions, she continues to offer objective responses in her narrative and her use of a three tier rubric. In the end, Ms. Nash’s evaluation helps to compensate for different evaluator’s personal approach to learning material.
I can see that the ME approach of just a three tier rubric can be limiting in its adaptation to different evaluation styles. Of course, being in a research field, personal differences are a feature that a researcher wants to filter out.
I come from a science/research background. I look at data. Data is objective. Data must be clearly defined. When comparing the ME evaluation form to the TT evaluation form, what stands out the most is difference in subjectivity vs. objectivity. Entering into this project, I have had a problem with the objectivity of each rubric. It relies on the evaluator to be an expert in all these different fields that the rubric is drawn from. My problem is that if two people use the same rubric, will they be able to give an identical evaluation. If the answer is yes, then it is a viable scientific assessment. If the answer is no, then the assessment is invalid. For example, when it is asked “Is this media age appropriate?”, could two people give what age the material is for accurately?
While the ME evaluation is cumbersome, the Narrative Criteria to each rating area gives a specific way of addressing the questions. It is intended as an explanation to orient the evaluator’s thoughts towards specific features or consistency of perception. The information given here is based on published research and offers the evaluator a snapshot of what is considered important in the specific area of learning.
There is an appropriate use of subjective reflection when evaluating any media. It is this “gut feeling” that is difficult to quantify but still has merit to offer. The ME evaluation form needs to have a place for the evaluator to comment within the context of the rating area being focused on.
For the Web 2.0 evaluation, I looked at Shamelle Nash’s evaluation. When comparing the two, I see objective statements in her rubric. Both hers and the ME evaluation give specific outlines to the rating area.
What contrasts our work is she chose a more balanced, three format review. While she starts with a meta-analysis of her questions, she continues to offer objective responses in her narrative and her use of a three tier rubric. In the end, Ms. Nash’s evaluation helps to compensate for different evaluator’s personal approach to learning material.
I can see that the ME approach of just a three tier rubric can be limiting in its adaptation to different evaluation styles. Of course, being in a research field, personal differences are a feature that a researcher wants to filter out.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
'Instrumentation Process Reflection.'
1) Describe how your thoughts/ideas/understandings related to evaluating educational media evolved during the process of building the Evaluation Instruments. What were the epiphanies and "a-ha" moments you encountered while working to construct these instruments?
After reading the rubrics that were handed out the first night, I questioned the assignment thinking “how could anyone come up with something different?” I know that I want to create a learning system that will have to measure up to someone’s rubric. So, my task was to develop areas of a rubric that would one day possibly rate my material. Setting out to find material about software and ASD was tough. There is not any software really focused on ASD to evaluate. Most is tailored for primary school learners and are very rudimentary. What I did find, interestingly enough, was research done in other countries. I found work dealing with cognitive abilities in learning and what to look for in rating a learning system. What makes an interface with a game work effectively with a player and how the motivation to interact with the game gets transferred into a learning environment.
The Nintendo study of the late ‘90s done with school children in Chile was a big “ah-ha” moment. There is always this question on competition between students causing conflict within the learning environment. While competition in the sporting field is acceptable, academic competition is different.(heavy sarcasm) What the study found in this group of learners is that rather than alienating students from each other, they shared skill and strategy tips with each other to help build up everyone’s scores. Even the less academically gifted were drawn into the activity by their gaming skills and helped them feel important to the group with their skill input. Maybe this group is not less academically gifted but rather they have not been educated in a way they can connect with.
I have also taken classes on learning and cognition but never had a teaching method held up to the principals of learning. The way we question our world is established in the way we are taught to question the world. If we are taught to basic rote memorization, we never learn the skills to apply what is taught.
When I reviewed the original rubric hand-out, I had the feeling that they were too subjective to what the reviewer’s personal feelings were. I wanted to find something a little more concrete that “Material shall represent…blah, blah, blah.” I wanted to find more quantitative ways to evaluate a material. Having it fit cognitive abilities, and also adapting for changing cognitive skills as the learner ages, seems a way to ensure the material works with a specific demographic and that it can be internalized by the same demographic.
2) Describe the conceptual/intellectual and procedural/logistical that you dealt with while working to construct these instruments. How did working in a team setting influence these challenges?
The big problem with this project wasn’t gathering the information. It was how to “reinvent the mousetrap” and not having a clear framework to proceed. Jeanne and I met to discuss this but not having the whole group together at one time, if not multiple times, never helped the project to jell. There was never a “meeting of the minds” as far as I could tell. We were four individuals that worked from our own perspective. I realize that time and distance can be an issue but from what I have learned, there are functions of blackboard that allow for online meetings and whiteboard collaboration through the web. This project, that was to be created on a “team” approach, never had the full guidance of the meaning of a team approach.
This response was asked for too early. How were we to understand the struggles until after the event is finished? Being so lost on a starting point and the lack of congruity in the group, it would have been unimaginable to write this and have it truly reflect the entire process of this project.
The final nail in this coffin is my own ASD issues. Because my thinking is different than most our expectations may have been off. It is difficult to infer what has to be done without specific guidelines. When one picks up on the task and expect others to be on the same page without qualifying, has led to the greatest challenge within this group.
After reading the rubrics that were handed out the first night, I questioned the assignment thinking “how could anyone come up with something different?” I know that I want to create a learning system that will have to measure up to someone’s rubric. So, my task was to develop areas of a rubric that would one day possibly rate my material. Setting out to find material about software and ASD was tough. There is not any software really focused on ASD to evaluate. Most is tailored for primary school learners and are very rudimentary. What I did find, interestingly enough, was research done in other countries. I found work dealing with cognitive abilities in learning and what to look for in rating a learning system. What makes an interface with a game work effectively with a player and how the motivation to interact with the game gets transferred into a learning environment.
The Nintendo study of the late ‘90s done with school children in Chile was a big “ah-ha” moment. There is always this question on competition between students causing conflict within the learning environment. While competition in the sporting field is acceptable, academic competition is different.(heavy sarcasm) What the study found in this group of learners is that rather than alienating students from each other, they shared skill and strategy tips with each other to help build up everyone’s scores. Even the less academically gifted were drawn into the activity by their gaming skills and helped them feel important to the group with their skill input. Maybe this group is not less academically gifted but rather they have not been educated in a way they can connect with.
I have also taken classes on learning and cognition but never had a teaching method held up to the principals of learning. The way we question our world is established in the way we are taught to question the world. If we are taught to basic rote memorization, we never learn the skills to apply what is taught.
When I reviewed the original rubric hand-out, I had the feeling that they were too subjective to what the reviewer’s personal feelings were. I wanted to find something a little more concrete that “Material shall represent…blah, blah, blah.” I wanted to find more quantitative ways to evaluate a material. Having it fit cognitive abilities, and also adapting for changing cognitive skills as the learner ages, seems a way to ensure the material works with a specific demographic and that it can be internalized by the same demographic.
2) Describe the conceptual/intellectual and procedural/logistical that you dealt with while working to construct these instruments. How did working in a team setting influence these challenges?
The big problem with this project wasn’t gathering the information. It was how to “reinvent the mousetrap” and not having a clear framework to proceed. Jeanne and I met to discuss this but not having the whole group together at one time, if not multiple times, never helped the project to jell. There was never a “meeting of the minds” as far as I could tell. We were four individuals that worked from our own perspective. I realize that time and distance can be an issue but from what I have learned, there are functions of blackboard that allow for online meetings and whiteboard collaboration through the web. This project, that was to be created on a “team” approach, never had the full guidance of the meaning of a team approach.
This response was asked for too early. How were we to understand the struggles until after the event is finished? Being so lost on a starting point and the lack of congruity in the group, it would have been unimaginable to write this and have it truly reflect the entire process of this project.
The final nail in this coffin is my own ASD issues. Because my thinking is different than most our expectations may have been off. It is difficult to infer what has to be done without specific guidelines. When one picks up on the task and expect others to be on the same page without qualifying, has led to the greatest challenge within this group.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Comparison of Bibliographies
1. While reading the different bibliographies, I was concerned that I would not fine one similar to mine as most reviewed online resources or similar items. As I am more driven to the development of resources, I was looking more at the interface and what made for a great learning experience.
When I read Joseph Roper’s work, I found parallels to the material I had found.
Joe’s choice of “The effects of instructional media on learner motivation” parallels the work I cited with “Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students” as both works delve into the parallels of using interactive, instant feedback, electronic media and the students motivation to learn.
Joe’s choice of “Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning” looks at the proper use of visuals to augment text based learning. This fits in that now we have teaching for both left AND right brained learners. This fits in with the paper “Towards a Methodology for Educating Students with Special Needs” where content is assessed to ensure that it fits with the learner’s needs.
The paper “Design Factors for Educationally Effective Animations and Simulations” ties into the work done in paper “The Future of Computer-based Interactive technology for Teaching Individuals With Moderate to Severe Disabilities: Issues Relating to Research and Practice” where both are looking to design interactive educational material that fits the cognitive abilities of the learner.
Joe’s third source dealt with authentic assessment As none of my resources dealt with testing other than the transference of learned skills to a general setting, I don’t have a close comparison here.
2. Joe and I did not share any resources but his seems to come from an end-user perspective. The angle I come from is more doing the right thing when developing the program. Basically, designing a rubric to build a software/hardware package to. His work does seem more grounded in the connection of the multimedia to the learner’s willingness to participate in the learning process. I think that is why his resources came as close to the perspective my resources had.
3. Joe’s reply to the questions were as follows: I found my sources using the GVSU database and tried many different search options with little success. I resorted to taking articles I already had and looking in their bibliographies for useful sounding articles. I think I found 2 of my sources from bibliographies. The database I use the most is ERIC, although a general summons is my first search. To be honest I had a difficult time finding sources I actually valued. There was a lot of stuff out there, but much of it didn't seem useful to me.
My son had shown me Google Scholar and I sent a reply to Joe asking if he had ever used it. I remember years ago using PsychoLit search engine in the library to find research articles. Google Scholar uses Google’s great search algorithm to pull up research articles and may times gives a link to a .pdf of the paper. While I feel Joe’s pain in reference to his difficulty finding relevant sources, I did like his idea of searching out bibliographies of papers he already finds relevant.
When I read Joseph Roper’s work, I found parallels to the material I had found.
Joe’s choice of “The effects of instructional media on learner motivation” parallels the work I cited with “Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students” as both works delve into the parallels of using interactive, instant feedback, electronic media and the students motivation to learn.
Joe’s choice of “Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning” looks at the proper use of visuals to augment text based learning. This fits in that now we have teaching for both left AND right brained learners. This fits in with the paper “Towards a Methodology for Educating Students with Special Needs” where content is assessed to ensure that it fits with the learner’s needs.
The paper “Design Factors for Educationally Effective Animations and Simulations” ties into the work done in paper “The Future of Computer-based Interactive technology for Teaching Individuals With Moderate to Severe Disabilities: Issues Relating to Research and Practice” where both are looking to design interactive educational material that fits the cognitive abilities of the learner.
Joe’s third source dealt with authentic assessment As none of my resources dealt with testing other than the transference of learned skills to a general setting, I don’t have a close comparison here.
2. Joe and I did not share any resources but his seems to come from an end-user perspective. The angle I come from is more doing the right thing when developing the program. Basically, designing a rubric to build a software/hardware package to. His work does seem more grounded in the connection of the multimedia to the learner’s willingness to participate in the learning process. I think that is why his resources came as close to the perspective my resources had.
3. Joe’s reply to the questions were as follows: I found my sources using the GVSU database and tried many different search options with little success. I resorted to taking articles I already had and looking in their bibliographies for useful sounding articles. I think I found 2 of my sources from bibliographies. The database I use the most is ERIC, although a general summons is my first search. To be honest I had a difficult time finding sources I actually valued. There was a lot of stuff out there, but much of it didn't seem useful to me.
My son had shown me Google Scholar and I sent a reply to Joe asking if he had ever used it. I remember years ago using PsychoLit search engine in the library to find research articles. Google Scholar uses Google’s great search algorithm to pull up research articles and may times gives a link to a .pdf of the paper. While I feel Joe’s pain in reference to his difficulty finding relevant sources, I did like his idea of searching out bibliographies of papers he already finds relevant.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Annotated Bibliograpgy
Whitehead, D. (2006). Justifying what we do; Criteria for the selection of literacy and thinking tools. English in Aotearoa, 60, 27-40.
“Teachers of English, along with teachers from across the curriculum, have a moral and professional responsibility to nurture literate thinkers.” This paper tries to define “Why teach literacy and thinking tools?” by presenting five arguments in favor. The paper continues with nine criteria for thinking and learning tools as: 1. Teaching and learning focused, 2. Smart, 3. Subject specific, 4. Text-linked, 5. Thought-linked, 6. Brain-friendly, 7. Developmentally-appropriate, 8. Assessment-linked, and 9. Culturally-responsive. Each tool is defined and presented in a way to show its overall validity. The final part of the paper used the criteria presented in the paper to judge/review a New Zealand school guide “Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9-13: A guide for teachers.
I have had concerns as to the objectivity/subjectivity of some rubrics and the impact there could be on rating material, this paper defines the different processes that can make a rubric more objective. One of the areas of learning, the paper touched on was adapting the teaching style to match the brain’s learning style. “The neural fabric of the brain is developed or destroyed during every lesson we teach, and when our teaching is driven by assessment protocols then those protocols also determine what is developed and what is destroyed.” It is also refreshing to read of education in different cultural arenas and perspectives.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V.,et.al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education,40, 71-94
This is a major study done in Chile using a modified “Game Boy” hand held I/O device. The beginning statements of the paper start with classic quotes from Piaget and Vigotsky arguing the importance of play and learning. It debates the most common myths against using games to teach. The areas studied were: 1. School achievement, 2. Cognitive abilities, 3. Motivation toward learning, 4. Attention and concentration. In the study, the students who did use the hand-helds for a total of 30 hours over three weeks showed just as much improvements academically as the ones using standard teaching methods. What was drastically different between the groups was the students with the hand-helds were more motivated and preferred learning with them. Many times they would rather continue learning than going outside for recess. Attendance problems were reduced when the time to use them were first hour in the morning. When the time was moved to the end of the day, the students stayed focused and motivated through the day to get to the use of the hand-helds. There was no major conflict among students and in fact, there was social support among all the students and because some of the learning was more skill level than information level, even the less educated were able to share their skills with the group.
This paper does the best to define what it takes to get a child engaged when it comes to developing educational software. It starts out at the beginning by defining what it takes to keep a child connected to a good video game. What it needs to be is: 1. Have a clear goal, 2. An adequate level of complexity, 3. High speed, 4. Incorporated instructions, 5. Independence from physical laws, and 6. Holding power. It then sets out to define how an educational (edutainment) software should be successfully developed. For a software program to be useful, it must be enjoyable to play. To be such, it must: 1. Present a challenge, 2. Have a fantasy element involved, and 3. It must arouse two types of curiosity; Sensory curiosity (audio and visual effects) and cognitive curiosity (surprises and constructive feedback).
As my goal is to develop learning software for ASD learners, this article is gold. This paper being written from a perspective of another country (Chile) again gives a unique window into another cultural idea of proper education. I am not sure at what level Game-Boy games were in the Chilean culture. If the hand-held was not associated as a game platform first among the population, there would not be the distraction of previous gaming experience. If the gaming device was known about but not accessible to the population, the connection to the device could be presented as a window into another culture.
Langone, J., Clees, T., Rieber, L., Matzko, M. (2003). The Future of Computer-based Interactive technology for Teaching Individuals With Moderate to Severe Disabilities: Issues Relating to Research and Practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 5-16.
“Learning occurs when the student interact with the environment under the guidance of teachers who facilitate learning. Such learning relies heavily on the use of more experienced individuals who help students in gaining meaning about what they learn; as opposed to learning information in a non-contextual vacuum.”
This paper looks at the use of video training along with a CD-ROM based education pack that teaches disabled learners to navigate a grocery store to find a specific product. It then looked at educationally using this learned information in a more generalized way i.e. find the same product in a different store.
Instructional design should include: 1. Situational cognition where students are instructed via problem solving experiences in realistic contexts, 2. Use common stimuli which closely resembles stimuli found in natural settings, 3. The use of Anchored instruction which is an “application of situated learning theory in which a learning environment or curriculum is created via video materials and taught by structuring the materials in such a way that knowledge is applied to solve problems”, 4. The use of a “microworld” which is “an environment that allows learners to participate in a domain to the point that they experience the information within meaningful contexts”
“Learning may be hampered by the use of inefficient strategies” This paper offers assessment in how software is used with the developmentally disabled. It points out the areas where a disability can have an impact on the learning strategies that must be used to effectively transmit the knowledge to the learner. It also points out the cost effectiveness of using software as simulated learning experience. My thoughts go to a “SecondLife” type of virtual classroom. Something that doesn’t cost anything to replicate the environmental learning experience for each new learner. Plus, social mis-fits that the ASD learner is, the vrtual classroom offers sensory adjustment for each learner and the option to hide any social ticks. If only we could develop a holo-deck.
Canton, P., Gonzalez, A. L., Mariscal, G., Ruiz, C. (2007).Towards a Methodology for Educating Students with Special Needs. Assistive Technology for All Ages, CVHI, 1-7.
This paper, authored in Spain, looks at the problems with educating those with Special Educational Needs (SEN). It points out the different resources, such as Albor and Proaci, that are used to modify a curriculum to make it more accessible to learners with SEN. The paper sets up a framework for a method to asses a curriculum and its accessibility. The paper defines the SEN learner, defines what methods are best used to transfer knowledge. It looks at teaching and learning objectives. It breaks down the information and communications technology (ICT) by 1. Defining assisted technologies. 2. Applications or system to be used for learning is defined. 3. The platform that will be used i.e. a simple PC-platform with a mouse or an interactive 3-D interface is?
This paper offers a way to judge the accessibility of a curriculum to those with sensory or cognitive handicaps. Working with ASD lends to these considerations when language use as a form of communication can be limited. The model presented in the paper offers a great outline to ensure a curriculum can be fully accessed by all SEN learners. The one point they make that I see as important is that while there are many excellent approaches to solving different parts of the teaching process. They all work independently and do not lead with information into each other to work as a whole. For example, one works with science while another works with math but while each share a connection in the real world, they are taught totally separate in the traditional educational system.
“Teachers of English, along with teachers from across the curriculum, have a moral and professional responsibility to nurture literate thinkers.” This paper tries to define “Why teach literacy and thinking tools?” by presenting five arguments in favor. The paper continues with nine criteria for thinking and learning tools as: 1. Teaching and learning focused, 2. Smart, 3. Subject specific, 4. Text-linked, 5. Thought-linked, 6. Brain-friendly, 7. Developmentally-appropriate, 8. Assessment-linked, and 9. Culturally-responsive. Each tool is defined and presented in a way to show its overall validity. The final part of the paper used the criteria presented in the paper to judge/review a New Zealand school guide “Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9-13: A guide for teachers.
I have had concerns as to the objectivity/subjectivity of some rubrics and the impact there could be on rating material, this paper defines the different processes that can make a rubric more objective. One of the areas of learning, the paper touched on was adapting the teaching style to match the brain’s learning style. “The neural fabric of the brain is developed or destroyed during every lesson we teach, and when our teaching is driven by assessment protocols then those protocols also determine what is developed and what is destroyed.” It is also refreshing to read of education in different cultural arenas and perspectives.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V.,et.al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education,40, 71-94
This is a major study done in Chile using a modified “Game Boy” hand held I/O device. The beginning statements of the paper start with classic quotes from Piaget and Vigotsky arguing the importance of play and learning. It debates the most common myths against using games to teach. The areas studied were: 1. School achievement, 2. Cognitive abilities, 3. Motivation toward learning, 4. Attention and concentration. In the study, the students who did use the hand-helds for a total of 30 hours over three weeks showed just as much improvements academically as the ones using standard teaching methods. What was drastically different between the groups was the students with the hand-helds were more motivated and preferred learning with them. Many times they would rather continue learning than going outside for recess. Attendance problems were reduced when the time to use them were first hour in the morning. When the time was moved to the end of the day, the students stayed focused and motivated through the day to get to the use of the hand-helds. There was no major conflict among students and in fact, there was social support among all the students and because some of the learning was more skill level than information level, even the less educated were able to share their skills with the group.
This paper does the best to define what it takes to get a child engaged when it comes to developing educational software. It starts out at the beginning by defining what it takes to keep a child connected to a good video game. What it needs to be is: 1. Have a clear goal, 2. An adequate level of complexity, 3. High speed, 4. Incorporated instructions, 5. Independence from physical laws, and 6. Holding power. It then sets out to define how an educational (edutainment) software should be successfully developed. For a software program to be useful, it must be enjoyable to play. To be such, it must: 1. Present a challenge, 2. Have a fantasy element involved, and 3. It must arouse two types of curiosity; Sensory curiosity (audio and visual effects) and cognitive curiosity (surprises and constructive feedback).
As my goal is to develop learning software for ASD learners, this article is gold. This paper being written from a perspective of another country (Chile) again gives a unique window into another cultural idea of proper education. I am not sure at what level Game-Boy games were in the Chilean culture. If the hand-held was not associated as a game platform first among the population, there would not be the distraction of previous gaming experience. If the gaming device was known about but not accessible to the population, the connection to the device could be presented as a window into another culture.
Langone, J., Clees, T., Rieber, L., Matzko, M. (2003). The Future of Computer-based Interactive technology for Teaching Individuals With Moderate to Severe Disabilities: Issues Relating to Research and Practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 5-16.
“Learning occurs when the student interact with the environment under the guidance of teachers who facilitate learning. Such learning relies heavily on the use of more experienced individuals who help students in gaining meaning about what they learn; as opposed to learning information in a non-contextual vacuum.”
This paper looks at the use of video training along with a CD-ROM based education pack that teaches disabled learners to navigate a grocery store to find a specific product. It then looked at educationally using this learned information in a more generalized way i.e. find the same product in a different store.
Instructional design should include: 1. Situational cognition where students are instructed via problem solving experiences in realistic contexts, 2. Use common stimuli which closely resembles stimuli found in natural settings, 3. The use of Anchored instruction which is an “application of situated learning theory in which a learning environment or curriculum is created via video materials and taught by structuring the materials in such a way that knowledge is applied to solve problems”, 4. The use of a “microworld” which is “an environment that allows learners to participate in a domain to the point that they experience the information within meaningful contexts”
“Learning may be hampered by the use of inefficient strategies” This paper offers assessment in how software is used with the developmentally disabled. It points out the areas where a disability can have an impact on the learning strategies that must be used to effectively transmit the knowledge to the learner. It also points out the cost effectiveness of using software as simulated learning experience. My thoughts go to a “SecondLife” type of virtual classroom. Something that doesn’t cost anything to replicate the environmental learning experience for each new learner. Plus, social mis-fits that the ASD learner is, the vrtual classroom offers sensory adjustment for each learner and the option to hide any social ticks. If only we could develop a holo-deck.
Canton, P., Gonzalez, A. L., Mariscal, G., Ruiz, C. (2007).Towards a Methodology for Educating Students with Special Needs. Assistive Technology for All Ages, CVHI, 1-7.
This paper, authored in Spain, looks at the problems with educating those with Special Educational Needs (SEN). It points out the different resources, such as Albor and Proaci, that are used to modify a curriculum to make it more accessible to learners with SEN. The paper sets up a framework for a method to asses a curriculum and its accessibility. The paper defines the SEN learner, defines what methods are best used to transfer knowledge. It looks at teaching and learning objectives. It breaks down the information and communications technology (ICT) by 1. Defining assisted technologies. 2. Applications or system to be used for learning is defined. 3. The platform that will be used i.e. a simple PC-platform with a mouse or an interactive 3-D interface is?
This paper offers a way to judge the accessibility of a curriculum to those with sensory or cognitive handicaps. Working with ASD lends to these considerations when language use as a form of communication can be limited. The model presented in the paper offers a great outline to ensure a curriculum can be fully accessed by all SEN learners. The one point they make that I see as important is that while there are many excellent approaches to solving different parts of the teaching process. They all work independently and do not lead with information into each other to work as a whole. For example, one works with science while another works with math but while each share a connection in the real world, they are taught totally separate in the traditional educational system.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Incoming Reflection
Six years ago, I worked as a corporate “B2B” trainer. I trained our sales staff in better ways to reach their clients. I also was to develop training materials for our retail sales staff to better serve the public. I was given certain tools to use. WebEx and PowerPoint presentations were the two models I could use. WebEx offered online collaboration and also the ability to give tests online. PowerPoint presentations were posted online for access 24/7.
This is where I first realized that the majority of our employees were not good at learning with “words.” This made sense since if someone was proficient learning with the traditional “verbal” teaching, they would probably had excelled in their education and would not be working at an automotive parts store. These were visual learners. They needed to be shown what needed to be learned. I tried to explain this to my “superiors” but since these forms of training worked for them (they were highly paid executives who probably did well in their own education) they could not understand the problem. I tried to create training videos and when put up against the PowerPoint training, the test scores rose dramatically. With this data in hand, I tried again to present my findings and request a change in the training materials. Because the cost of producing videos over creating PowerPoint presentations was considerable and not what the owner of the company felt was necessary (it would cut into the profits of the company) the whole training project was cancelled.
That is the extent of my exposure to media choices.
This is where I first realized that the majority of our employees were not good at learning with “words.” This made sense since if someone was proficient learning with the traditional “verbal” teaching, they would probably had excelled in their education and would not be working at an automotive parts store. These were visual learners. They needed to be shown what needed to be learned. I tried to explain this to my “superiors” but since these forms of training worked for them (they were highly paid executives who probably did well in their own education) they could not understand the problem. I tried to create training videos and when put up against the PowerPoint training, the test scores rose dramatically. With this data in hand, I tried again to present my findings and request a change in the training materials. Because the cost of producing videos over creating PowerPoint presentations was considerable and not what the owner of the company felt was necessary (it would cut into the profits of the company) the whole training project was cancelled.
That is the extent of my exposure to media choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)