connecting instructional design to the development & application of reusable learning objects to...
TRANSCRIPT
Connecting Instructional Design to the Development & Application of Reusable Learning Objects to Support Information Literacy Skills in Higher Education
Dr. John D. Solis, Assistant Professor
Lisa Baures, Public Services Librarian
Minnesota State University, Mankato
AECT Standards
Standard 1: Design1.1 Instructional Systems Design
1.1.1 Analyzing: triangulation of standards
1.1.2 Designing: no seat time, available 24/7
1.1.3 Developing: collaboration
1.1.4 Implementing: learning objects
1.1.5 Evaluating: rubrics
AECT StandardsStandard 1: Design
1.2 Message Design
Learning
Objects
Instructional Development
Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)
Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)
Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)
Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies
Learning Theories
Development of LO
Theory
Application
AECT Standards
Standard 1: Design1.3 Instructional Strategies
Sequencing of learning objects to create Web-based module
AECT Standards
Standard 1: Design1.4 Learner Characteristics
1st year freshman English composition course
Learning stylesVisualAuditoryHands-on
Access to technology
Assumed no mastery of information literacy skills
AECT Standards
Standard 2: Development2.1 Print Technologies: required reading
2.2 Audiovisual Technologies: streaming media
2.3 Computer-based Technologies: Video capturing/editing software, word processing, audio recording equipment, and computer system
2.4 Integrated Technologies: Word Wide Web, hypertext linking, and Desire 2 Learn
AECT Standards
Standard 3: Utilization3.1 Media Utilization: matching appropriate
multimedia application to specific student learning outcome
3.2 Diffusion of Innovations: grant project
3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization: demonstrate creative use of multimedia technology to provide instruction for a multi-section general education course
3.4 Policies and Regulation: copyright, ownership of instruction
AECT StandardsStandard 4: Management
4.1 Project Management: grant administrator duties
4.2 Resource Management: stipulations of grant
4.3 Delivery System Management: Desire 2 Learn
4.4 Information Management: information technology infrastructure
AECT Standards
Standard 5: Evaluation5.1 Problem Analysis: need for
information literacy instruction5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement:
ACRL information literacy standards, WPA, and general education learning outcomes
5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation: development of rubrics
5.4 Long-Rang Planning: revision of writing program curriculum
TermsLearning Object
The main idea of ‘learning objects’ is to break educational content down into small chunks that can be reused in various learning environments. (David Wiley)
Learning Objects are small or large resources that can be used to provide a learning experience. These assets can be lessons, video clips, images, or even people. The Learning Objects can represent tiny ‘chunks’ of knowledge, or they can be the whole courses. (Claude Ostyn)
Instructional DesignThe systematic and
reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation. This process usually results in some type of end-product. (Smith & Ragan)
Introduction & Purpose of Grant
Triangulation of standards based on confluence
Identification of instructional paradigm shift through technological innovationInternetEnhancing learning environmentInstructional design practices
Implementation of instructional systems design
Utilization of technology
Learning Objects = paradigm shift + technology + ID
Implementation Context
Impetus Situation
Acknowledge information literacy skills as core subject content in the writing curriculum
Curriculum redesign
Innovative use of technology
Alternative medium for delivering instruction outside of classroom
Mid-western comprehensive 1 university
Freshman English composition student
Approximately 80 sections a year
Approximately 15 face-to-face sections
Teaching assistants taught all sections
NeedsExamine current curriculum
Course student learning outcomes
General education goals and objectives
Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA)
Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) information literacy standards
Needs
Triangulation of standards
General education goals and objectives
WPA writing standards
ACRL information literacy standards
Needs
Course Redesign
Information literacy as core content
Achievement of course competencies
Refocus on expertise of instructor
Efficient use of in-class time
Implementation of Triangulation of ACRL/WPA/MSU
Preliminary Research: Module 1Sequencing overview
https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/students/module_1.html
https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/instructors/instructors.html
Original student and instructor version used for English Composition.
Development of LO
Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)
Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)
Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies
Learning Theories
Conceptual Framework for Learning Object Development (Koohang & Harman, 2007)
Learning Objects
Instructional Development
Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)
Learning
Objects
Instructional Development
Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)
Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)
Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)
Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)
Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies
Learning Theories
Develop-ment of
LO
Theory
Application
Triangulation of MSU, WPA, and ACRLInformation Literacy Learning OutcomesExample
Learning Object: Identify What Is Known—Student Learning Outcomes
MSU General Education CompetencyCategory 1: Communication, Part A: English CompositionTo develop writers who use the English language effectively and who read and write
critically.Goal a. Students will be able to demonstrate and practice strategies for idea
generation, audience analysis, organization of texts, drafting, evaluation of drafts, revision, and editing. (For this exercise, students will be able to demonstrate and practice strategies for idea generation.)
WPA OutcomesCritical Thinking, Reading, and WritingUse writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating
ACRL Performance Indicators1.1. The information literate student defines and articulates the need for
information. a. Confers with instructors and participates in class discussions, peer workgroups,
and electronic discussions to identify a research topic, or other information.3.1. The information literate student summarizes the main ideas to be extracted
from the information gathered. a. Reads the text and selects main ideas. b. Restates textual concepts in his/her own words and selects data accurately.
Instructional Development
Dick, Carey, and Carey I.D. Model (2005)
Instructional Module with Learning Objects
Preliminary Research: Module 1Example of a learning object
https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/students/module_1.html
What is Known (student version)
Assessment: Instructor Feedback
Unsure how to implement the module
Infringement of academic freedomProgram agenda vs. instructor agenda
Overload of course content
Appreciated timely feedback
Example of completed exercise helpful when providing feedback
If skill were not mastered, they were able to refer back to previous feedback to help complete next assignment
Extra class work
Assessment: Student Feedback
Grant Team FeedbackLack of common core curriculum
T.A. limited knowledge of information literacy as core course content
Disconnect between the triangulation of standards and development of core course content student learning outcomes
Lack of students assuming responsibility for their own learning
ConclusionsRevise module
Identify prerequisite skills
Fewer student learning outcomes per learning object
Identify time commitment
Reexamine visual design of module
Need to measure for interactivity
Need for common core course curriculum and assessment
Recognition of limitations to using learning objects
Need for effective and efficient coordination
RecommendationsImplement
revisions
Expand sample size (course sections)
Commitment to developing and implementing core course student learning outcomes
Recognize the importance of implementing professional standards
ReferencesDick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The
systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hudak, C. A. (2007). Linking instructional theories and instructional design to learning objects: A proposed conceptual framework. In A. Koohang K. Harman (Eds.), Learning Objects and Instructional Design. (pp. 1-38). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.