S., Sahin (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in web-based courses in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, v 9, n1.


Many research show web-based course tend to favors learners with certain preferences or certain type of learning style; and this paper appear to be one of them. Based on Kolb’s learning style preferences, this research show evidence of learners who prefer AC (abstract conceptualization) positively correlated with the perception of authentic learning and active learning. CE (concrete experience) learners negatively correlated with active learning. Author suggested the reason of such negative correlation is due to CE learners tend to be people-oriented which does not online courses with mostly individual learning activities rather than collaborative activities. Hence for designers, more collaborative and real world activities should be provided to accommodate CE learners.

To accommodate CE learners, more collaborative learning activities should be added. However, we can have interaction going on without learning occurs. Other research (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005) shows that simply increasing interaction, in particularly learner-learner interaction, does not necessarily result learners to take deep and meaningful approach to learning. Many undergraduate courses provided collaboration tools, such as chatroom and discussion forum, but due to poor activity design, students seldom engaged in learning. Hence, structure and leadership in interaction are also important factors to learning. We shall not only provide various learning experiences including both individual and group learning activities in online courses to accommodate students with various learning styles and preferences, but also offering structure and leadership in interaction to help students engaging in such learning activities to make learning happen more efficiently.


References:
Garrison, D. R & Cleveland-Innes, M (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (3), 133-148. Retrieved June 29, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2

Issue of creating authentic learning activities.

J., F., Cronin. (1993). Four Misconceptions about Authentic Learning. Educational Leadership, v50 n7 p78-80 Apr 1993.

I just came across the term “authentic learning” in another paper so I looked for the meaning of it. Authentic learning is to “encounter and mater situations that resemble real life” (Ceonin, 1993). In other words, think like an expert while learning. This concept is familiar since as a student and a tutor I have experienced such learning activities; and personally I found it is extremely useful to motivate my learning and help me to construct my understanding to the topic. .

In this article, Cronin’s is sending the message that authentic learning activities does not have to be 100 percent authentic to qualified; teachers can provide and work on authentic learning without going via proper training; authentic learning activities may not be fun; and finally, authentic learning activities do not have to be real complex as real life scenarios. Hence, authentic learning is not as difficult as what teachers think.

However, I find that creating a good authentic learning activity is not an easy task. When I worked as a tutor, I have experienced difficulties of assisting students to go via authentic learning activities. Many students’ aim of working on a learning task is to simply complete it. Such learning experience may result students knowing how to press a button but still have little understanding of knowing when and why to press the button. The issue is how we make real authentic learning happens. In authentic learning tasks, learning process is not just to complete the tasks; more importantly, it is to find ways to complete the task. The ability to know the process of finding a solution classifies an expert and an executor. For instance, the difference between analytic programmer and computer programmer is that analytic programmer has ability to see from a global perspective of an entire project and provide one of the best solutions. Hence the issue is how we design an authentic learning task to encourage students working on the process of finding a solution in an analytical way rather than simply complete a task.

Calcaterra, A., Antonietti, A., & Underwood, J. (2005) Cognitive style, hypermedia navigation and learning. Computers & Education archive. V44 (4), 441-457.

The paper examined the influence of cognitive style, spatial orientation and computer skills on hypermedia navigation and learning outcome.

Not surprisingly, the research shows that learning outcome has no relationship with either cognitive style or computer skills. Hence, hypermedia does not favor learners with a specific cognitive style. Secondly, result shows that computer expertise is positively related with orientation ability; high computer skill was associated with holistic style of thinking. This finding may suggest that people who are familiar with operating computers has less extraneous cognitive load than those who have to pay extra effort on navigating in an unfamiliar learning environment.

Since online learning is heavily based on the use of computers, learners with adequate level of computer skills may benefit from the flexibility of navigation in hypermedia system. On the other hand, learners with little computer skills may be disadvantaged by this form of learning. Based on Moore’s (1989) three type of interaction model of distance education, Hillman (1994) extended it to four types of interaction model with the newly introduced learner-interface interaction. Different from conventional education and other forms of distance education, online education has issue of effective learner and interface communication. Design of hypermedia user interface should consider learners with different computer skills and it should take usability into account. Inappropriate design of interface may cause extra cognitive load to learners which brings unpleasant learning experience and decreases learning efficiency.

References:

Hillman, C., A. (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, v8 n2 p30-42.

Moore, M., G. (1989).Three types of interaction. American journal of distance education v3, n2.

Chen, S. Y. Fan, J and Macredie, R. D. (2006) Navigation in Hypermedia Learning Systems: Experts vs. Novices. Computers in Human Behavior. 22(2), 251-266.

This paper presented an issue, learners’ prior knowledge, in developing adaptive learning system. Online learner is a diverse group with various level of prior knowledge.

Prior domain knowledge is one the important factors affecting learning in hypermedia learning environment. Learner with different prior knowledge, for example experts and novices, tend to have very different learning patterns and behavior. Chen, fan and Macredie looked into disorientation, content structure, navigation tools and additional support issues in hypermedia system design. Trying to benefit both experts and novices, Chen, fan and Macredie developed a framework for hypermedia learning and provided implication for system design.

In the user interface design, implications fall into the three following areas: where are they, where have they been and where can users go. In the third area, author suggested hat “user interface has to help user decide which path can best satisfy their needs”. An example of such user interface is to keep novices on the correct path by hiding links to pages with advanced content. The first issue here is that how we can determine if leaner is a novice. In general, learner can not and should not be categorized as either novice or expert, for instance, a learner with some prior knowledge but not enough to be qualified as an expert. Second issue is how we can decide appropriate content path for learners. In other words, what content should we hide from a learner based on his prior knowledge.

All in all, it is important to acknowledge the prior knowledge factor in developing adaptive learning system, the challenge here is how we determine learners’ prior knowledge level and how we design appropriate learning path for each learner based on one’s prior knowledge.

Zull, James E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, Va.: Stylus Pub.

Self-reflection on the Chapter 6 and Chapter 7

In Chapter 6 and 7, Zull discussed how new knowledge can be constructed in a neurological perspective. Most importantly, based on the existing neuronal networks (which holds the prior knowledge), teachers should help learners to change their neuronal network via new neurons connections. The prior knowledge is essential for the new connections to be built up since the existing network is the start point of the new connections.

Existing network may not hold correct connection, what teachers should do is not to correct the wrong connection but to reinforce the correct connection; the wrong connection will be weaken by ignoring them.

There are few points made by Zull in these 2 chapters. Firstly of all, prior knowledge is important to learners as well as teachers. Secondly, prior knowledge is personal and complex and teachers can use them as the starting point to construct new knowledge.

Thinking back to the article: A learner-centered framework for e-learning, the principle 12 13 and 14 have addressed the importance of learners’ priori knowledge. In particular in the principle 14, setting up diagnostic assessment is to determine learners’ prior knowledge. This strategy has been employed by many fields in education. For instance, adaptive learning system provides an example of determine and use learners’ priori knowledge even though it might not be an appropriate way.

Personally, I think it is difficult to know what learners have already known, especially in online learning environment. Adaptive learning systems has its flexibility as a content provider and content management system, but still it leaves the challenge for teachers to figure out learners’ prior knowledge and make use of them to alter learners existing neuronal connection.

ShinYi Lin, S,. Y., & Overbaugh , R., O. (2007). The Effect of Student Choice of Online Discussion Format on Tiered Achievement and Student Satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 399-415

The study is trying to investigate if a media choice (chat and discussion forum) in the instructional design has effect on student’s course satisfaction as well as students’ cognitive achievement.

Some issues about the research method:

1 Learning Style Measurement: Introversion-Extroversion Index

Due to the synchronized nature, discussion forum provides students opportunities to think deeply before participate into the discussion. This tool seems to be beneficial for students who are real-thinkers. On the other hand, chat is a synchronized tool which may disadvantage such students. It make sense that this research picked Introversion-Extroversion Index to determine students learning style and try to find some relations with the media choice that students prefer. However, there are some issues. First of all, can we classify people as either academic introvert or academic extrovert? From the questionnaire, each question has two choices which are related to introvert and extrovert. But in reality, people are not extreme, very often, when answer such question, people may argue “it depends”.

2 Media Choice: Chat VS Discussion Forum

In the research paper, it has been stated that “all sections (F2F and Online) are essentially identical because the instructors use the same syllabus, identical readings, assignments and calendar”. What kind of role do instructors play in the online discussion and chat? There is no such description in the paper but it is important to know because instructors’ approaches may have impact on students ‘satisfaction as well as achievement.

Things I gain from this research paper:

1 This research found that when giving choice, students are more satisfied, however, there is no significant difference in overall course satisfaction between 2 groups (using chat and using discussion forum). This shows that in our teaching and instructional design, certain degree of flexibility is necessary in order to meet students’ individual need.

2 Student achieved similar level in both synchronous and asynchronous online discussion. This finding is consistent with other research which indicates that it is the teaching not the teaching tool that makes the difference.

3 Another finding from this research is that students do not always make their choice based on the way they learnt the best. For instance, some students chose the online discussion forum simply because they can not meet the time requirement for the chat room. This may be true for learning style as well since students, especially children and adolescents may not really know their own learning style and they chose the way that is the most convents for them. So this topic is back to the learning style and teaching style debate: should we teach the way that students think they learn the best. From this finding, it does not show positive result.

Zull, James E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, Va.: Stylus Pub.

Self-reflection on the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3

In chapter 2 of this book, based on David Kolb’s learning cycle (concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract hypothesis and active testing), Zull argued that the learning cycle involves using different parts of the brain, namely sensory cortex, integrative cortex, frontal integrative cortex and the motor brain. Hence a learning cycle can be reflected by a brain cycle.

Further on, Zull divided the brain structure into back cortex and front cortex. Two parts are connected to be able to communicate with each other; and the connection is crucial to learning which is defined by the author as Transformation Line. Learning is about the balance of using back cortex and front cortex.

This is linked back to my first article on the reading log (and the course discussion in weeek1), personal philosophy of teaching and learning. Teaching and learning can not be separated and a teacher’s teaching philosophy more or less reflects his perspective on learning and teaching. Even though all the teaching and learning philosophies are not equally good, from my point of view, a teacher should have multiple perspectives on teaching and to be open minded.

In this way, Zull’s argument provides a new perspective on learning philosophy from a biological point of view – learning and teaching is about changing the brain. A learning process is to use different parts of the brain to receive and process the information, then create new ideas and apply it. To be an effective learner, one should use his brain in a balanced way and here is where a teacher’s role involves in. We are not doing brain control, but to help learners to exercise his brain in a balanced way.

Zull’s book is written in an easy to read manner and it particular interested me since it opens a new perspective for me to look at how people learn and how we might be able to help people to learn.

Personal Philosophies of Teaching: A False Promise? By: Pratt, Daniel D., Academe, 20050101, Vol. 91, Issue 1

Database: ERIC

In colleges and universities, a teacher will be asked about his teaching philosophy during evaluation process of teaching. More or less, it is related to his reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The author raised four issues behind a personal philosophy of teaching that may affect the reviewer's judgment of "good teaching philosophy".

● Does everyone agreed on the acceptable statement of teaching philosophy?

Is teaching philosophy a description of aims and means or it is a deeper reflection of the values and beliefs. What should be suitable for the substance of teaching philosophy?

● Should acceptable philosophies of teaching only be "learner centered"?

There has been shift from teacher-centered teaching philosophy towards learner-centered philosophy. However, is learner-centered philosophy the only acceptable philosophies of teaching? Author has given an example of teaching philosophy in different culture, China, in this case. The Chinese version of "learner-centered" teaching may seem to be teacher-centered teaching in western view.

● Do Reviewers' own philosophies of teaching have influence on their judgment?

If a reviewer is holding different teaching philosophy, the evaluation may be biased.

● Is students’ evaluation of teaching fair?

In student assessment of teaching, nearly all the questionnaires are similar regardless of teachers' different teaching philosophy.

In conclusion, the author's argument is that the view of effective teaching should not be narrowed. The perspective on good teaching is various and differing views of teaching should be recognized and respected.