Mr B’s Masterful Space

Lucky this course is all about flexible learning, because lately it has needed to be about as flexible as a very flexible thing!

There are sayings that have been popping into my head lately in relation to my Masters coursework, like the-world-has-conspired-against-me type sayings. Like what-did-I-do-to-deserve-this type sayings. Like “there is a light at the end of the tunnel (but no-one has turned it on)” type sayings.

But to succumb to these would be melodramatic, so plough on I have, into the spine tingling realisation that I have 10 days!

But it is not the ten days on which I would like to focus, rather the struggles I am having with another USQ subject I am studying at the same time as FET5601. And flexible it is not – like Nelson’s Column – not flexible. MGT8038! The Nelson’s Column of USQ!

My working and personal life over the past month has been unlike any of the 36 months preceding it, and as such, time for being Masterful has been very, very limited and as a result I submitted my first MGT8038 assignment late – I worked hard to get it finished, learnt quite a bit in the process but submitted it late. My bad. I’ll live with the consequences. I went searching for them.

I found them… in the Assessment section of the course notes…

“Any assignment work received after the due date without prior approval (yep, that’s me) in accordance with the above may be penalised by deducting 20% of the total marks available for the assignment for each working day late. If an assignment is more than one week (5 days) late (yep, that’s me) without having made appropriate arrangements as spelled out above, the grade of F (i.e. fail) will hence generally be recorded for that assignment.

To be fair to all students, this policy will be consistently applied in this course.”

So, I get “fero” (that’s Zero spelt with an F). I can live with that. I can hear the lecturers… and I know (I’m a teacher for goodness sake!) I should have read all the assessment details! I should have been more organised! I should have planned! I should have this, that, and the other, etc, etc, etc. Oops, was that life interrupting? I should have ignored life! Nelso… (enough!)

So I read on, through the rest of the assessment guff to determine if I still had a chance to pass the course with 40% of my marks down the tube due to fairness (and my lack of organisation and dogged reluctance to ignore life!), and there it was… POW! A word that stumped me.

Andragogy!

[Context]… “This course (MGT8038) as you know is built around the principles of andragogy rather than pedagogy.” (again, from the MGT8038 Assessment notes).

No, I didn’t know this! How was I supposed to know this? Was I supposed to have picked it up during my reading of the first module? “Ah-ha, I am sensing some andragogy in the principles surrounding the construction of this course!” I did not know. This required some research.

Was this some instructional design homage to David Bowie? Was this a course churned out by robots? Was this a cop-out to excuse the fact that there was very little structure to the course? What was this ‘Andragogy’?

So I sat researching andragogy for one of my precious Masters hours. What a revelation. It suddenly put into perspective the niggling doubts I had about the way MGT8038 was designed, or rather wasn’t designed. This next copy and paste follows directly from the “As you know…” reference above.

“You are adult learners. You are studying a course that is aimed at equipping you with a better ability to face ‘real-world’ challenges of business and organisational life. In that world there are no such luxuries as having detailed guidelines and criteria for exactly how to approach and what to do in respect of all the challenges out there. That world can be very complex, uncertain, confusing, ‘messy’ and some even refer to ‘chaos’.

As we have said at the outset of this course – it is your responsibility to do good work and to submit a good assignment.

We assess whether work is good and you’ll get the feedback as we go.”

I don’t know about you, but this, as a rationale for the design of a course, does not inspire confidence. Reading, “you are adult learners… no luxuries…chaos” is not inspiring much confidence in this too-oft-life-interrupted-Masters-masochist! I read wider.

From my very surface reading of articles related to Andragogy I have gathered it is a theory of adult education and learning made popular by Malcolm Knowles, that has gathered its share of supporters and detractors in recent years. It distinguishes itself from ‘Pedagogy’ on a number of levels.

I won’t go into it here (check out this link and this link for more info), but it has certainly made me think very seriously about the instructional design of MGT8038 and FET5601 and the impact that the underlying theoretical precepts can have on the design of, and subsequent participant satisfaction levels within a course. I am also starting to wonder what effect these theoretical foundations have on learning, assessment and results.

As I am learning, I am an adult learner. Fairness equals consistency in the application of the rule. Late is spelt with an F, in block capitals! There are no luxuries.

So as I sip the last mouthful of my ‘97 Coonawarra Shiraz and stub out my Montecristo (made in Tabacalera, Spain!) cigar to the strains of Suffragette City, I can’t help thinking something is amiss.

I think it is very important for the instructional designer to be aware that learners have preferred ways of learning that are possibly different from one another. This awareness should lead to considerations during the design phase of a variety of delivery methods, range of activities, alternate assessment options, etc.

One of the challenges for the designer is deciding whether to structure the program with the entire program offered in a variety of manners (to be truly flexible) or to offer a variety of structures across the duration of the course.

One of the questions I would pose is related to offering the learning in a variety of manners but then forcing all learners to communicate their learning in one format only. In my experience, it is in the communication of the learning that the most flexibility should be offered. Rather than force everyone to submit a written assignment (which automatically disadvantages those students with English as an acquired language), offer a choice of a written assignment, video presentation, recorded discussion on the topic, annotated flow chart, etc, etc. This allows students to reflect their learning in their preferred learning style.

This creates some interesting questions for the designer of a program that is being delivered online, and even some questions for this course.

Instructional Design for Flexible Learning

Major Project Proposal

Coaching Program for the Junior Boys Basketball Team

At the start of each school year, training begins for the basketball season at Vientiane International School. At the start of each season, the junior boys team forms and competes from September through to December, with an interschool competition early in the new year.

The coaching program will be implemented with the junior boys team to prepare them for and during the 08-09 basketball season.

Institution

Vientiane International School (VIS) is a school offering instruction in English to approximately 270 students from more than 33 different countries from around the world. The average time spent at VIS by a student presently stands at just under 3 years.

This average time, small number and many nationalities of VIS students will play an important part in the designing of my program.

Nature of the Program

In some ways the nature of such a program is unique. Success can be based on so many different criteria, and the criteria finally chosen will be directly related to one thing and one thing only – the learners within the program.

Within the program there can be individual measures of success and a collective measure of success, but again, these can be influenced by many different factors.

The Analysis stage of designing this program therefore takes on enormous importance as the results of the analysis have a major impact on each subsequent stage of the design model

The Learners

The junior boys basketball team is comprised of boys from grades 6-8 at VIS. This means choosing a squad of 8-12 players from a possible pool of 30 boys. This is difficult for a number of reasons as outlined below:

•    Soccer is the dominant sport amongst this age group.
•    Many of the boys have never played basketball in an organised fashion before.
•    Many come from backgrounds/cultures where basketball is not a popular sport and have therefore had little exposure to the sport.
•    A number of the boys are not physically active or do not enjoy playing sport.
•    Some families perceive the extra time devoted to sports training as time away from study and therefore place little importance in it.

While these difficulties exist for attracting new players, a number of the older boys have played in the team for at least one season already. Unfortunately with the high turnover of students at VIS, the team will lose some of these boys at the end of this school year as their families move on to other postings.

These factors have a big impact on how the training program is to be developed. In the areas of basketball knowledge, basketball skills and general fitness there are enormous differences amongst the learners.

At this early stage it is possible to imagine the learners divided into three groups:

1.    Beginners
2.    Basic skills players
3.    Competent players

Closer analysis of the learners will determine exact numbers within these groups or if further grouping is required.

Program Aims

The program will be strongly developed around the constructivist theory, using existing skills and abilities as the starting point and a major factor in the development of program aims. With the development of such a program there are many different aims possible, most of which are dependent on a single factor – the skills and abilities that the learners (players) bring to the program at its outset. This places great importance on the Analysis stage of the program design, specifically in relation to the group of learners participating. Depending on the results of that analysis, the aims could be to:

•    Develop an understanding of the game of basketball
•    Maintain a fun atmosphere and develop a sense of “team”
•    Develop skills and knowledge to allow participation in a competitive game of basketball
•    Improve skills and knowledge to become a competitive team
•    Maintain a positive win-loss record over the course of the season
•    Win the season competition

Program Content

The basic content of any basketball training program must include:

1.    Fitness development
2.    Skills development
3.    Understanding of the rules of the game
4.    Team strategies

Within each of these four sections there is a whole subset of content to choose from, for the absolute beginner to the professional player. During the Analysis stage of the program design it will become clear, based on the existing skills and knowledge of the learners, where the emphasis will need to be placed in the selection of content within these four main categories.

Program Delivery

In the past, this type of training program has been delivered using only one method – direct instruction on the basketball court. As the students at VIS become more and more involved in the extra-curricular activities at the school, time is increasingly becoming a large factor in the scheduling of activities.

As a consequence, during the Design stage of the program design it will be important to identify content that can be delivered using alternate methods, and what those methods might be. Not only will this allow for a better use of the time available, but it will also expose the learners to a variety of instructional methods throughout the program. The Development stage of the program design may see, amongst other things, the identification of websites to visit, DVD’s to watch and instructional material to read.

Assessment

The nature of the program being designed creates continuous opportunity for immediate formative assessment of the learners. As the bulk of the skills are demonstrated physically, it is possible for immediate directed feedback for each learner. In the past, this feedback has been communicated to the learner via one mode only – verbal, on the spot.

During the Design and Development stage of the program design it will be important to carefully consider current research into effective assessment and feedback in order to determine the best methods for providing feedback to the learners during the program. During the Analysis stage of the program design, as the course content is being considered, it will also be important to consider the related assessment and how results can be communicated most effectively.

Program Evaluation

The success of the program will be directly related to the overall aims set during the analysis of the learners entering the program. It will also be directly related to the results of the assessment of the individual learners. Did the program have a positive or negative effect on individual learner achievements?

The Design stage of the program design will need to consider how the final program evaluation will be monitored, recorded and communicated while the program is running and at its conclusion.

I spent last night reading through all the suggested and optional readings for Module 2 of the course and found myself underlining, highlighting and doing a lot of general nodding. Analyse the ‘who’ – absolutely. Examine the ‘what’ – yep, no news there! Consider the ‘when’ – of course. Analyse the ‘where’ – for sure. Determine the ‘performance gap’ – most definitely.

So I started to think in a bit more detail about the learner and was given plenty of food for thought by Donald Clark (1995) and Regina Daigre (n.d.) and her contributors. Design around the participant – which I took as meaning with the participant as the focus rather than avoiding the participant in the design! Consider the ’stable same things’, ’stable different things’, ’samey changing things’, and ‘different changey things’ – all excellent stuff (even though I had never considered them in such a same, different, stable, changing sort of context). There was so much about discovering the interests, motivational level, attitudes, perceptions, self-concept, anxieties, beliefs and attributions of the learner. And there was this one sentence.

“Learner styles are key in developing effective instructional design materials.” Ah ha! (I thought to myself) Finally! Learner Styles! … but then there was … or Characteristics! So, I thought to myself, does she mean learner styles or learner characteristics? Because these are different are they not?

Different?

Not!

Aaah… (as opposed to an Ah ha!), I thought to myself. I’ve muddled things up. She is talking about learn-er styles, not learn-ing styles. So I continued looking for the ‘ing’ in amongst all the ‘ers’ and found… noth-ing! Now at this stage, please forgive me if I overlooked something, missed a page, fell asleep at the wheel or just plain ignored someone else’s post or the most important reading of the whole module, but I did not find anything relating to analysing the learn-ING styles of the learn-ERs.

Dr. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory suggests that;

“…suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, he proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults…One of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it provides eight different potential pathways to learning. If a teacher is having difficulty reaching a student in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the theory of multiple intelligences suggests several other ways in which the material might be presented to facilitate effective learning.” (Armstrong, 2000)

So at the risk of err-ing, I would propose that there is much to be gained by carefully analysing the learn-ing styles of the participants in any course one is designing.

References:

Armstrong, T. (2000). “Multiple Intelligences.” Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm.

Clark, D. (1995, January 20, 2008). “Big Dog ISD Page.” Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat2.html.

Daigre, R. M. (n.d). “Chapter 4 – Instructional Analysis: Analysing the Learners.” Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.angelfire.com/la2/learners/learners.html.

I know very little about the history of boats, but will presume the first were made of wood, and I will also presume that the boat builder had already worked out that wood floats. Had this analysis not taken place before the boat building began, the consequences of the granite boat would have been rather dire for Mr. Boat Builder. So as I contemplate my boat, a basketball training program for grade 6-8 boys, it seems there is a lot more to consider than just wood or granite.

The course notes and suggested readings all confirm that the analysis stage must examine the learner, learning context, learner needs, instructional goals and learning outcomes. According to Clark (1995), it is the building block of a training program and provides the basis for the who, what, where and when of the training.

In my context, careful analysis of these factors is vital as the entire program will be based on what skills and abilities the learners bring to the program. Hopkins (in Daigre, n.d.) reinforces that the key to instructional design is to work around the participants rather than the content and this is especially true in my context.

I do not have a supervisor insisting on specific outcomes. Clark (1995) suggests the purpose of an analysis is determining the performance gap, the difference between the way things are and the way they should be. In my context, the “way things should be” is not a predetermined point. The way things “should be” will be determined by carefully evaluating the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the learners at the start of the program, what time is available, and other external factors such as the nature of the competition they play in and the climate. This analysis stage will also need to identify exactly what the ‘other external factors’ are.

As mentioned previously, the analysis will need to take into account the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the learners. What do they know about the game of basketball? The rules? Team strategies? What skills do they have in actually playing the game? Can they complete a lay-up? Do they know how to complete a lay-up? And why have they joined the team? What do they wish to achieve during the season? By asking these questions of the learners, they have an opportunity to be involved in the design of the program, which Clark (1995) universally advises all clients of a proposed program should be.

In the process of this analysis I will be using a range of collection instruments as the realm of analysis encompasses physical abilities, knowledge and attitudes; areas that need to be evaluated through demonstration, discussion and questioning.

In the design of this basketball training program the analysis stage is of the utmost importance as it provides the foundation for the entire program. Every subsequent decision will be based on what is learned during this stage of the design process.

With careful consideration of all factors, I will be building my boat with wood.

References:

Clark, D. (1995, January 20, 2008). “Big Dog ISD Page.” Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat2.html.

Daigre, R. M. et al (n.d). “Chapter 4 – Instructional Analysis: Analysing the Learners.” Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.angelfire.com/la2/learners/learners.html.

It is week 4 and I have been enjoying (!) the readings so far – cause for pausing and chewing over what I am teaching at the moment and how much thought that has gone into the how and the why of the how. I am arriving at the same point in my chewing – choking on the lump of not-much-thought!

But then I swallow the lump down and tell myself that I do the things I do because of my years of experience telling me that they are effective ways to do things. But then the lump comes back up and I have to acknowledge that a re-evaluation, a closer look is due, which leads me to the major project and the three days between me and the due date for the proposal.

Will a coaching plan for a junior boys basketball team fit? I will have to carefully analyse the players to see what skills are needed, I will need to carefully structure that skill development to allow for improvements in fitness and ability and I will need to choose carefully how best to introduce the new skill. The win/loss record at the end of the season might even figure in my evaluation.

In terms of the ibstpi ID Competencies I can see elements of my program design fitting into the four sections. As for the ADDIE model, I definitely have analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation needs as a part of the coaching plan.

There, enough chewing! Only three days…

Having been a teacher for more than 15 years I am comfortable ascribing to the theory of Constructivism. In my teaching I structure my curriculum to build upon the past experiences and current knowledge of the learner in order to further develop understanding and new knowledge. At the same time I also find myself on the Objectivist side of the fence in the development of some learning activities.

But what is it that guides me in my choice of approach?

It is not my deep understanding of the many theories of learning as that is not something I can claim to have. But I can claim to have a significant understanding of my students, what makes them tick, what they respond to, what motivates them. This knowledge is primarily what guides my approach. This knowledge, combined with an understanding of relevant learning theories, curriculum requirements and best teaching practice allows me to create optimal learning episodes.

Knowing how a group of learners approach their learning is integral in the design of an instructional program. If, as the ADDIE model suggests, the Design stage of the model is the process of specifying how (the content) is to be learned, knowing how the learners best learn in the first place becomes paramount if the final program is to be successful.

In my context, an international school with students of more than 30 different nationalities, an awareness of cultural background is imperative as it often relates directly to thinking and learning styles. It helps me to understand why some approaches to learning are more effective with some students than with others. It forces me to deliver content in a variety of ways, to take different approaches.

In this sense, the perspectives of the positivist and the relativist can both be ‘right’ when approaching instructional design.

What is ‘right’ in instructional design should never be determined by the rules of the theory or model. The theory or model is there to offer guidance for the teacher, to propose an approach or method that has been shown through research to be effective. Understanding who the learner is, where they are coming from, where they wish to proceed to and how they prefer to proceed should be the guiding light in the design of a course or programme.

This is why instructional designers must understand how people think.

I have been teaching for 15 years and have taught students ranging in ages from 5 – 50, in primary, secondary and tertiary institutions in three countries. I love teaching but sometimes vehemently dislike being a teacher. As I read more and more about Instructional Design, I find myself thinking quite critically about the courses I am teaching at the moment, about the students I am teaching, about where they are from, what they already know, what they need to know, what they respond to best as they take that journey and how this all falls back to me.

The models of Instructional Design describe for me these areas that I have begun to critically consider and fill me with inspiration and desperation at the same time. The perfectionist in me acknowledges that in my teaching there is enough improvement room to moor the titanic. The realist in me knows that there just isn’t enough time to follow a comprehensive ID model to develop all my classes. The pragmatist in me is asking for the ‘cheat’ – what is the shortcut? What is the ‘easy’ way to incorporate and develop?

Maybe it is a matter of prioritising one of the letters in the ADDIE model. In this course the model I will observe is ‘adDie’, or ‘aDdie’ or ‘addIe’.

Maybe just the process of deciding which letter to capitalise, to focus on, is enough.

Amidst my uncertainty, I do know that with an awareness comes a responsibility and that come Monday, as I step in front of 24 hormone-riddled-ninth-graders to continue their stop-motion animation unit I will be reconsidering what comes next.

In fact, as I click ’save’ on this blog post, I have already begun.

The most relevant competencies relating to my role as an IT coordinator and IT teacher in an international school are those within the design and development grouping.

One of the competencies is a description of what is known within the teaching circles as “differentiation” – the modification of instructional practices to reflect an understanding and accommodation of the diversity of learners and learner groups.

After reading the Siemens article I now have a name to put to the ID of the TAFE course I took and taught all those years ago – minimalism. A little too minimal for this animal!

But coming from the article, the sentence from Chizmar and Walbert that “pedagogy must drive the choice of instructional technology, not the other way around” really struck a chord.

Too often I hear comments like, “now that we have these (new tech thingies) we’ll be able to do so much more with our students.” I won’t argue. Yes, you will be able to do more, but is the “more” that the technology lets you do actually of any benefit? Does it improve the learning for the students? Does it make the content more accessible? Does it actually detract from the real learning needs?

These are the questions to be asked first – before going near any technology.

As the article also so nicely remarks, “Technology, no matter how advanced, cannot compensate for its misapplication.”

Reference:

Siemens, G (2002). Instructional Design in Elearning. elearnspace: everything elearning., Retrieved march 18, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm