Infographics
#1 - Theory Overview
|
#2 - Instructional Design
|
Links To Instructional Theory Examples:
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) - Play and Learning
Gagné's 9 Events of Instruction - As Applied in eLearning
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) - Play and Learning
Gagné's 9 Events of Instruction - As Applied in eLearning
Learning Situation:
Cognitivsm
Khan Academy: Physics (Online Learning)
Before starting each unit within the Physics course, the student takes a Unit Test to unlock a “personalized study plan.” This 30-minute test requires the student to answer questions from each topic within the unit, recording their accuracy and providing hints and links to helpful videos when students get stuck. Once the student has completed the test, the website provides a list of lessons recommended for the student’s study (and highlights the videos and articles within those lessons that are most-closely tied to the problems they missed). The website then lists the student’s Unit Test score (listed as a Mastery out of 100%) at the bottom of the lesson plan, challenging the student to earn complete mastery by re-taking the test and earning a 100% score.
When studying within a unit, content presentation takes on a somewhat standard formula. First, the student watches a video in which the fundamental terms and concepts are defined and demonstrated by an instructor using a digital blackboard. Second, the student reads one or two articles which provide further explanation while offering links to external sites for students to dig deeper and learn about particular elements. Third, the student watches a video in which an instructor explains conceptually how a particular topic is applied to solve a particular problem. Fourth, the student views one or many videos of the instructor completing sample problems of varying difficulty or circumstances. Fifth, the student is given seven (7) practice questions to apply the concept, with each question providing hints and links to relevant videos to help students achieve a 7/7 Practice Score.
On every page of every lesson (one for each video, article, and problem section), the student can scroll down and view two tabs of comments left on that page. Most of these comments are in the “Questions” tab, which sorts questions based on their “upvote” count from the community of other students. Anyone can respond to these questions (with the most helpful responses being shown first), but answers from website moderators are displayed first by default. As a special feature, any comment can include a timestamp (like 2:13) to point to a specific section of the video on that page.
Each time a student gets a question correct in a practice section or a Unit Test, a happy sound effect and star symbol congratulate the student, and the website adds points to their “Energy Score.” This score also accumulates as the result of watching the entirety of instructional videos, clicking on special links, and making helpful contributions in the comments section of any lesson page. As students earn points in particular courses or during particular challenge periods, they can earn “Badges” which mark their achievements and mastery of certain subjects.
Before starting each unit within the Physics course, the student takes a Unit Test to unlock a “personalized study plan.” This 30-minute test requires the student to answer questions from each topic within the unit, recording their accuracy and providing hints and links to helpful videos when students get stuck. Once the student has completed the test, the website provides a list of lessons recommended for the student’s study (and highlights the videos and articles within those lessons that are most-closely tied to the problems they missed). The website then lists the student’s Unit Test score (listed as a Mastery out of 100%) at the bottom of the lesson plan, challenging the student to earn complete mastery by re-taking the test and earning a 100% score.
When studying within a unit, content presentation takes on a somewhat standard formula. First, the student watches a video in which the fundamental terms and concepts are defined and demonstrated by an instructor using a digital blackboard. Second, the student reads one or two articles which provide further explanation while offering links to external sites for students to dig deeper and learn about particular elements. Third, the student watches a video in which an instructor explains conceptually how a particular topic is applied to solve a particular problem. Fourth, the student views one or many videos of the instructor completing sample problems of varying difficulty or circumstances. Fifth, the student is given seven (7) practice questions to apply the concept, with each question providing hints and links to relevant videos to help students achieve a 7/7 Practice Score.
On every page of every lesson (one for each video, article, and problem section), the student can scroll down and view two tabs of comments left on that page. Most of these comments are in the “Questions” tab, which sorts questions based on their “upvote” count from the community of other students. Anyone can respond to these questions (with the most helpful responses being shown first), but answers from website moderators are displayed first by default. As a special feature, any comment can include a timestamp (like 2:13) to point to a specific section of the video on that page.
Each time a student gets a question correct in a practice section or a Unit Test, a happy sound effect and star symbol congratulate the student, and the website adds points to their “Energy Score.” This score also accumulates as the result of watching the entirety of instructional videos, clicking on special links, and making helpful contributions in the comments section of any lesson page. As students earn points in particular courses or during particular challenge periods, they can earn “Badges” which mark their achievements and mastery of certain subjects.
Learning Situation:
Behaviorist Analysis
Reflection:
Cognitivism
I've spent a great deal of time in the last four years interpreting concepts within instructional design almost exclusively within the framework of Bloom's Taxonomy (and I still do, it would seem). Perhaps this is just another sign that students love to restructure new information and assimilate it into a scheme that makes sense to them. Either way, I've enjoyed conceptualizing student learning within the hierarchy that cognitivism seemingly favors.
What makes me so passionate about the cognitivist approach to describing learning is that it likely serves as the most clear indictment of the current schooling system. With the role played by standardized testing, credits-based degree programs, and an industrially-inspired instructional philosophy, many criticize modern schooling systems for limiting students to, in Bloom's perception, a kind of learning that is almost entirely located at the lowest levels of Remember and Understand. Very little traditional schooling seems to reach above that, as students are incentivized to use rote memorization to pass their classes. Worse still, they seem to be deceived into thinking that this will make them successful in the real world when this could not be further from the truth.
A few of cognitivism's basic assumptions seem to be foolproof and fundamental to sound instruction. The idea of activating prior learning along with scaffolding instruction with auxiliary resources seem almost undeniable in their application and usefulness. From a student's perspective, the Law of Prágnanz, memory traces, and distributed practice are helpful tips for boosting their retention and study efficacy.
It is argued by many that behaviorism and cognitivism mutually reject one another. While this makes sense from a philosophical perspective, what confuses me about this argument is that several concepts in my beloved field of gamification seem to rely on assumptions from both. Intrinsically motivating practices in game design seem to be strongly affirmed by behaviorist practices, but the goals and methodologies in which they are applied seem to follow a cognitivist approach to instruction. I can't say I can keenly distinguish differences between the two when it comes to student engagement in these areas, but upon closer comparison I suppose I would reluctantly side with cognitivists due to their instructional goals and philosophical assumptions.
Seeing the second iteration of my learning situation with a new perspective, I am drawn to the degree to which focus is shifted from feedback to planning and resources when one moves from behaviorism to cognitivism. Cognitivists seem to more-quickly acknowledge the differences in learning styes among students, and so their encouragement to provide scaffolding, inquiry-based learning, and learning guidance seem much-better suited to developing dynamic education than the more scientific processes of behaviorists. I am interested in seeing the disconnect between cognitivism and social learning theory as we progress, because it's hard for me to predict the differences in their respective approaches to collaborative learning.
What makes me so passionate about the cognitivist approach to describing learning is that it likely serves as the most clear indictment of the current schooling system. With the role played by standardized testing, credits-based degree programs, and an industrially-inspired instructional philosophy, many criticize modern schooling systems for limiting students to, in Bloom's perception, a kind of learning that is almost entirely located at the lowest levels of Remember and Understand. Very little traditional schooling seems to reach above that, as students are incentivized to use rote memorization to pass their classes. Worse still, they seem to be deceived into thinking that this will make them successful in the real world when this could not be further from the truth.
A few of cognitivism's basic assumptions seem to be foolproof and fundamental to sound instruction. The idea of activating prior learning along with scaffolding instruction with auxiliary resources seem almost undeniable in their application and usefulness. From a student's perspective, the Law of Prágnanz, memory traces, and distributed practice are helpful tips for boosting their retention and study efficacy.
It is argued by many that behaviorism and cognitivism mutually reject one another. While this makes sense from a philosophical perspective, what confuses me about this argument is that several concepts in my beloved field of gamification seem to rely on assumptions from both. Intrinsically motivating practices in game design seem to be strongly affirmed by behaviorist practices, but the goals and methodologies in which they are applied seem to follow a cognitivist approach to instruction. I can't say I can keenly distinguish differences between the two when it comes to student engagement in these areas, but upon closer comparison I suppose I would reluctantly side with cognitivists due to their instructional goals and philosophical assumptions.
Seeing the second iteration of my learning situation with a new perspective, I am drawn to the degree to which focus is shifted from feedback to planning and resources when one moves from behaviorism to cognitivism. Cognitivists seem to more-quickly acknowledge the differences in learning styes among students, and so their encouragement to provide scaffolding, inquiry-based learning, and learning guidance seem much-better suited to developing dynamic education than the more scientific processes of behaviorists. I am interested in seeing the disconnect between cognitivism and social learning theory as we progress, because it's hard for me to predict the differences in their respective approaches to collaborative learning.
