SWTng 7: Ill-Structured Problem Solving

The next article is by Choi and Lee (2009) titled “Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers,” published in Educational Technology, Research and Development. It has 67 references, and the author-supplied keywords include case-based learning, constructivist learning environment design, design-based research, ill-structured problem solving, teacher education, and classroom management. This is the abstract:

“This design-based research study is aimed at two goals: (1) developing a feasible case-based instructional model that could enhance college students’ ill-structured problem solving abilities, while (2) implementing the model to improve teacher education students’ real-world problem solving abilities todeal with dilemmas faced by practicing teachers in elementary classrooms. To achievethese goals, an online case-based learning environment for classroom management problem solving (CBL-CMPS) was developed based on Jonassen’s (in: Reigeluth (ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 1999) constructivist learning environment model and the general process of ill-structured problem solving (1997). Two successive studies, in which the effectiveness of the CBL-CMPS was tested while the CBL-CMPS was revised, showed that the individual components of the CBL-CMPS promoted ill-structured problem solving abilities respectively, and that the CBL-CMPS as a whole learning environment was effective to a degree for the transfer of learning in ill-structured problem solving. The potential, challenge, and implications of the CBL-CMPS are discussed.”

[My rambling comments will appear thus, in brackets hereafter in this review.]

[Teachers, as a whole, are used to using well-structured problems in their classrooms. Simply put, they make it easier to grade. After all, no one likes it when a student points out there is more than one answer to the test question. However, life is not so simple. Life’s problems are generally ill-structured, and that’s part of the point of this article and part of why it is apropos to my topic, teaching adult domain specialists to use an authoring system to build instructional software. The problems they will face generally will be ill-structured. Though they may run into the same problem more than once, and some problems many times over, there may be more than one way to solve a problem, given the capabilities of the software. Thus, this research meets a need in my research. Though the foci of the article are higher education and teacher training, application to corporate training and adult learning should not be a stretch, and in fact should inform the structure and theoretical foundation of the online tutorial I intend to test. Thus, I need to include that in my problem statement as part of the theoretical foundation of my research. Constructivism! Gotta love it!]

The authors’ purpose is two-fold: (1) to fill the gap between classroom learning and real-world problem solving, and (2) to create “feasible design and implementation models for improving college students’ real-world problem solving abilities” (p. 100). To do that, the authors’ goals were first “to develop and refine a feasible case-based instructional model that could enhance college students’ ill-structured problem solving abilities,” (p. 100) and second to apply the model to the development of training for prospective teachers to prepare them for the real world of teaching. They incorporate two concepts: case-based learning (CBL) as an environment for the tool which is classroom management problem solving (CMPS). Together, they form a case-based learning environment for classroom management problem solving (CBL-CMPS). [So much gibberish.]

The characteristics of ill-structured problems include the following: complexity of the context; multiple, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives among the stakeholders; diverse or even no solution(s); and multiple criteria for evaluation of the solution. Domain knowledge is the first tool and key to solving not only well-structured problems but ill-structured problems as well. How the problem-solver believes humans process information and their own interpersonal communication skills may not affect how they solve well-structured problems but will serve a role in how they solve ill-structured ones. Four critical skills or factors figure heavily in ill-structured problem solving:The characteristics of ill-structured problems include the following: complexity of the context; multiple, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives among the stakeholders; diverse or even no solution(s); and multiple criteria for evaluation of the solution. Domain knowledge is the first tool and key to solving not only well-structured problems but ill-structured problems as well. How the problem-solver believes humans process information and their own interpersonal communication skills may not affect how they solve well-structured problems but will serve a role in how they solve ill-structured ones. Four critical skills or factors figure heavily in ill-structured problem solving:

• Respect for and incorporation of multiple perspectives on human information processing while questioning one’s own beliefs and knowledge (epistemological beliefs) [at face value, this seems contradictory; however, I think this may be an attempt at objectivity]
• Planning and monitoring of solutions and the cognitive processes by which they were obtained (metacognition)
• Thereconciling of conflicting interpretations and solutions with sound arguments (justification/argumentation skills)
• Domain knowledge

In Figure 1 below, the top half of the figure illustrates four ill-structured problem solving process models from the literature while the bottom half shows the Case-Based Learning for Classroom Management Problem Solving (CBL-CMPS) model by comparison.

Figure 1. Ill-structured problem solving models and the CBL-CMPS model (p. 102)

The researchers then applied this concept and their model to classroom management.

[While this is certainly not within the scope of my topic (in my case, if the students misbehave, they get fired!), I will attempt to pull some principles out of their research and see how they fit.]

First, they point out that traditional philosophy portrays teaching as a linear process preceded by classroom management and as discrete acts separated from each other.

[This relates to my topic in that instructional software development includes using the authoring software, which requires certain knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSAs); however, from a constructivist viewpoint, the KSAs need to be blended with the process in the training rather than separating them in pure cognitive blocks without integrating them into training the learner to do their job. Theoretically, the latter approach should be both more effective and more efficient. Perhaps this is the nature of the peer coaching model that is currently used. However, the KSAs don’t seem to be emphasized to a level that would help the learner to develop a greater proficiency. Instead, the domain specialists must often consult the instructional designers or the authoring software “experts” to find out how to accomplish a certain task. Repeatedly. This slows the development process for everyone. Yet, there is another element that must be recognized: the emotional state of the domain specialist being called upon to use their expertise in ways many of them have never experienced. The training must take this into account and attempt to alleviate some of it in order to increase its effectiveness and efficiency. Dumping a whole bunch of knowledge on the student at once will not suffice. The training must be structured carefully with a balance of raw information, application, and reinforcement through both drill and practice and appropriate feedback. In fact, in this case it is the learner who will be developing the ill-structured problem solving skills.]

This must be accomplished by making the instructional software development a “’contextual, local, and situated’ act that demands ‘subtle judgments and agonizing decisions’ (Shulman, 1992, p. 28)” (Choi and Lee, 2009, p. 103).

[Fortunately, the situation presents copious amounts of opportunity for contextualized domain knowledge integrated with authentic situations to facilitate the formation of ill-structured problem solving skills.]

These will include the ability to identify and interpret important situational cues as well as the ability to apply (or modify) appropriate principles to a particular situation (Choi and Lee, 2009, p. 104). The authors affirm that “ill-structured problem solving often relies on case-based reasoning by applying one’s prior experience (Hernandez-Serrano and Jonassen, 2003; Schank, 1999) because ill-structured problems are often context dependent (Voss, 1987)” (Choi and Lee, 2009, p. 104).

[While the domain specialist developers may not have sufficient experience in instructional software development, they do have experience in the domain in which they specialize. This then can be the key by using information with which they are already familiar, specifically correlated to their specialization which will also carry over to their actual job. While they may not be required to do actual production that will go to the customer, they may be presented with scenarios for practice that are drawn from past production.]

“To this end, case-based instruction seems to be one of the most effective pedagogical approaches to ill-structured problem solving skills because it provides richer contexts for framing problems and facilitates experience-based knowledge construction (Williams, 1992)” (Choi and Lee, 2009, 104).

The authors then delve deeply into classroom management issues and how they approached their topic using the CBL-CMPS model, “based on the adapted model of Jonassen’s (1997) ill-structured problem solving process…and a modified model of Jonassen’s (1999) constructive learning environment design. The former guided us to identify what kinds of problem solving activities need to be facilitated, whereas the latter identified what kinds of learning resources need to be arranged and in which ways” (Choi and Lee, 2009, p. 105).

[Clearly these two resources by Jonassen are seminal and will be reviewed separately]

REFERENCES

Choi, I., and Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(1), pp. 99-129. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2

Hernandez-Serrano, J., and Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), pp. 103-114.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 45(1), pp. 65-94.

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215-239). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. New Your: Cambridge University Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Voss, J. F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem-solving model. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), pp. 607-622.

Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2(4), pp. 367-427.

SWTng 6: Tools or Instructional Design

Article #6 is by Bradley (2009) in International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning titled "Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations - Which comes first - The tools or instructional design?" The author includes 22 references and the following keywords: collaboration, constructivist learning environments, facilitator, instructional design, interaction, and teacher presence. The abstract is as follows:

"There are elements of instructional design which are fundamental to a higher education constructivist learning environment. These elements, embedded in a well-designed learning environment are necessary to promote academic discourse. The presence of communication tools alone in an online environment does not assure collaboration and construction of new knowledge. The skill of the facilitator is integral to achieving successful outcomes. This paper describes instructional design strategies which play a key role in promoting and supporting conversation which results in higher order thinking in the context of a pedagogical event conducted as a requirement of a Masters course."

In contrast to behaviorist theory, which focuses on sequence of instruction to achieve a predetermined outcome, constructivist theory focuses more on the design of the learning environment. The author states that this perspective makes the ADDIE model ill-suited for designing a constructivist online learning environment because it does not readily lend itself to a student-centered approach. It does not usually involve the students determining their own learning needs, setting their own goals, monitoring their own progress, or determining "how to reach the desired learning outcomes in a collaborative learning environment (Neo, Neo, and Xiao-Lan, 2007)" (p. 20, ). Instructional designers need new tools and models to meet the challenge. The focus must be less on teaching and more on learning, especially collaboratively.

Instead of "clearly defined concepts and skills together with a prescribed method for approaching problems" (p. 21), the learner engages in learning customized to "develop their own unique potentials and creativity so as to promote initiative, diversity and flexibility" (p.22). Thus, the design process must also be flexible and adaptable to the learning process as it progresses. The focus must therefore be on the learning environment. The author refers to a statement by Jonassen in 1991 for the following design goals for constructivist learning environments (p. 22):

• the negotiation, rather than imposition, of goals and objectives;
• task analysis consideration be given to appropriate interpretations and provision of the intellectual tools that are necessary when learners are constructing knowledge;
• the promotion of multiple perspectives of reality through these tools and within the environment;
• the provision of generative, mental construction 'tool kits' embedded in relevant learning;
• environments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners; and
• evaluation should become more goal-free and reflective (Lefoe, 1998)

Again citing Lefoe (1998), the author lists four common threads that are fundamental in creating a constructivist learning environment: context, collaboration, conversation, and construction.

The main problem with this article is the abundance of secondary sources. Repeatedly, the author uses "cited in" to give a citation. Perhaps that's part of the reason there are only 22 references.

REFERENCES

Bradley, J. (2009). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations - Which comes first - The tools or instructional design? International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(3), pp. 20-31.

Lefoe, G. (1998). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education. Retrieved May1, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sollongong98/asc98-pdf/lefoe00162.pdf

Neo, M., Neo, T.K. and Xiao-Lian, G.T. (2007). A constructivist approach to learning an interactive multimedia course: Malaysian students' perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), pp. 470-489. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/neo.html

SWTng 5: 3 Types of Interaction Treatments

Article #5 is by Bernard et al (2009) titled "A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education," published in the Review of Educational Research with 135 references, 72 of which are identified specifically as studies in the meta-analysis. Author-supplied keywords include distance education, meta-analysis, student interaction, and interaction treatment. Following is the abstract:

"This meta-analysis of the experimental literature of distance education (DE) compares different types of interaction treatments (ITs) with other DE instructional treatments. ITs are the instructional and/or media conditions designed into DE courses, which are intended to facilitate student-student (SS), student-teacher (ST), or student-content (SC) interactions. Seventy-four DE versus DE studies that contained at least one IT are included in the meta-analysis, which yield 74 achievement effects. The effect size valences are structured so that the IT or the stronger IT (i.e., in the case of two ITs) serve as the experimental condition and the other treatment, the control condition. Effects are categorized as SS, ST, or SC. After adjustment for methodological quality, the overall weighted average effect size for achievement is 0.38 and is heterogeneous. Overall, the results support the importance of the three types of ITs and strength of ITs is found to be associated with increasing achievement outcomes. A strong association is found between strength and achievement for asynchronous DE courses compared to courses containing mediated synchronous or face-to-face interaction. The results are interpreted in terms of increased cognitive engagement that is presumed to be promoted by strengthening ITs in DE courses."

Many reports of research regarding distance education (DE) (focusing on online or technology-based learning) compare it to classroom instruction (CI). This review focuses on reports of DE compared to other types of DE. The authors first cite results of DE versus CI comparisons:

1. Because of a wide variability in effect sizes, DE can be both better and worse than CI, "based on measured educational outcomes and that some pedagogical features of DE design are related to increased student achievement." (p. 1245)
2. The "research methodologies typically used to assess the phenomenon are woefully inadequate and poorly reported." (p. 1245) Comparison of "apples and oranges" led to casual inferences that lack any degree of certainty.
3. Because the focus has been on comparing DE to CI, discerning the true nature and value of DE has been almost impossible, e.g. what makes good DE versus what is bad DE.

Obviously, the DE versus CI controversy relates to the early days of online learning. An earlier version of DE (correspondence courses) were not as much a threat to the brick-and-mortar establishment as they were not so prevalent. However, with the advent of the Internet and exploding access to technology, these same institutions began to sense their livelihood was threatened and that they no longer held a monopoly on higher education. Indeed, many institutions have adopted a "get on board or get left behind" attitude in building their own divisions of online learning. Thus, the authors felt it best, therefore, to compare "different but compatible types of DE technologies" (Clark, 2000, p. 4).

The meta-analysis begins with the assignment of a valence of the effect size, whether positive (+), i.e. the treatment performs better than the control, negative (-), i.e. the control performs better than the treatment, or no difference (0). However, this becomes more difficult when the control condition is not obvious. Therefore, the first task of the researchers was to "establish a rational and revealing way of determining the +/0/- valence of each calculated effect size" (p. 1246). They applied this methodology only to empirical studies that compared and contrasted different instructional treatments.

The researchers settled on three perspectives that "emerged as potentially useful dimensions for enabling comparisons between treatment conditions" (p. 1246). They include student interaction, student autonomy, and technological functionality. Student interaction became "the basis for effect size coding" and "the structure within which analyses would be conducted and results interpreted" (p. 1246). Interaction relates not just person-to-person but also between the learner and the content, such that "the goal of interaction is to increase understanding of the course content or mastery of the defined goals" (Thurmond and Wombach, 2004, p. 4). Some interaction is social in nature (e.g. student-student (SS) and student teacher (ST)), though its impact is probably felt more in attitude and course satisfaction than measures of achievement. There is also a distinction between asynchronous DE, mediated synchronous DE, and mixed, or blended, DE, as well as a distinction between asymmetrical and symmetrical DE. Asymmetrical DE refers to one-way communication, such as reading a book or watching a video. Symmetrical, on the other hand, refers to two-way communication that is equally balanced, such as a phone conversation or video chat.

The distinction in this report is that they are not measuring the actual interactions by the students but rather the way in which those interactions are designed into the instruction; thus, they are given the term "interaction treatments" or ITs. In this report, ITs represent the levels of the independent variable. The researchers focused on six research questions (p. 1249):

1. What are the effects of the three kinds of interaction (SS, ST, and SC) on achievement?
2. Does more overall IT strength promote better achievement?
3. Do increases in treatment strength of any of the three different forms of interaction result in better levels of achievement?
4. Which combinations of SS, ST,and SC interaction most affect achievement?
5. Are there differences among synchronous, asynchronous, and mixed forms of DE in terms of achievement?
6. What is the relationship between treatment strength and effect size for achievement outcomes in asynchronous only DE studies?

For the meta-analysis itself, there were 11 different criteria used to define the set of studies to be included (pp. 1250-1251):

1. A comparison between two DE conditions, either on the basis of pedagogical differences or technological differences, was required.
2. DE applications with some face-to-face meetings were included.
3. A reported measure of achievement outcomes was required in the experimental and the control condition.
4. Sufficient data for effect size calculation or estimation, the reporting of sample sizes so that a standard error of effect size could be calculated, and the explicit direction of the effect was required.
5. Only whole courses were included.
6. A report of the same or closely equivalent achievement measures for each condition was required.
7. An identifiable grade or age level of learner was required.
8. The studies could come from publicly  available scholarly articles, book chapters, technical reports, dissertations, or presentations at scholarly meetings.
9. The inclusive dates of the studies were from January 1985 to December 2006.
10. Courses that were not institutionally based were excluded.
11. Only interventions that lasted 15 or more hours were included.

"The major conclusion from this review is that designing ITs into DE courses, whether to increase interaction with the material to be learned, with the course instructor, or with peers, positively affects student learning" (p. 1264). Though they could not specify the mental processes being fostered by the ITs, the results indicated a moderate and significant increase in cognitive engagement and meaningfulness which they attributed to the different types and amounts of interactivity produced by the presence of ITs.

REFERENCES

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., and Bethel, E.C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), pp. 1248-1289. DOI: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Clark, R.E. (2000). Evaluating distance education: Strategies and cautions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1, pp. 3-16.

Thurmond, V.A., and Wombach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm

SWTng 4: Interactive Workplace Learning Article

This next article (number 4) by Armson and Whitely (2010) reports grounded theory research on "complex integrative learning", titled "Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning" and published in the Journal of Workplace Learning. The author-supplied keywords are workplace learning, learning methods, employees, and managers. It includes 73 references and 4 appendices. Here's the abstract:

"Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate employees' and managers' accounts of interactive learning and what might encourage or inhibit emergent learning.  
Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken was a constructivist/social constructivist ontology, interpretive epistemology and qualitative methodology, using grounded theory method. Data collection included semi-structured interview, "complete this sentence" and "scenarios" from 51 respondents: 22 managers and 29 employees in four private sector organisations. As respondents' theories emerged, these informed the next round of data collection, this process named "theoretical sampling". Managers and employees were asked about perceptions of their own role and the others' roles in learning.  
Findings - Reciprocity and participative learning involving managers and employees emerged. There was dynamism to the data and evidence of both Billett's notion of affordances and Stacey's patterns of local interactions. Employees encouraged learning through peer discussions, and motivation/personal initiative. Managers encouraged learning through have a go coaching, formal training opportunities and working with company structure and resources. The data support the idea of complex and integrated learning.
Practical implications - The data informed both managers and employees in such a way as to highlight the dynamic and complex interactions around learning processes. One practical implication is employee and manager training in emergence and complexity as learning environments. Ideas of complex responses and patterns of local interaction resonated with the data more than particular typologies of learning.
Originality/value - This paper captures insights, especially from employees, into the dialogue and dynamism of their learning opportunities, whilst supporting existing theories. The need for managers to "learn" employees' local interaction patterns emerged as a future research agenda, alongside the need to penetrate the social space of employee learning more deeply."

 Let's define some terms first, starting with emergent learning. The authors state, "We conceptualized the idea of emergent learning as the capacity to act such that emergence, spontaneity and serendipity might occur." I'm still not sure what emergent learning is, but perhaps a definition from evolution will shed some light: "the appearance of new properties or species in the course of development or evolution." (retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emergence). Thus, if the connection holds, this is merely the appearance of new ideas or concepts in the course of development or use. Spontaneity, of course, means it happens on the spur of the moment. Serendipity is more than just good fortune or luck; it is also "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident." (retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serendipity) To me, it appears this means that the learning objective is simply to learn; there is no concrete criterion that is being measured, just an increase in knowledge (perhaps) as well as comprehension. This seems to focus more on the upper levels of Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning and probably on the upper levels of the psychomotor and affective domains as well. Learning becomes the means to its own end. The authors contrast it with "outcomes-based learning" which they say "may result in 'routine-oriented' learning where learning is repetitive and habituated and not amenable to organisational unlearning." (p. 411) Looking at the constructivist/social constructivist ontology, this means they see the learner as an agent of their own learning (self-motivated) and learning as a process and product of social interaction (peer-motivated).

The authors refer to evidence of two theories: Billet's (2004) notion of affordances and Stacey's (2005) patterns of local interactions. Affordances are defined by Billet as the "kinds of activities and interactions workplaces afford learners, on one hand, and how individuals elect to participate in workplace interactions and activities on the other." (Billett, 2004, p. 312) In Stacey's (2005) concept of local, self-organizing patterns of interactions as well as the notion of complex responses, formal and informal, predictable and unpredictable patterns of interaction may emerge at the same time, forming a paradox.

 Communication and management coaching were identified as positive contributors to emergent learning while company structure and lack of resources were identified as constraints. Peer discussions and individual motivation and initiatives were identified by employees as encouragers. Employees also identified management style and not being informed of objectives, including the "big picture," as inhibitors. Managers saw coaching, working with company structure and resources, and offering training programs as encouragers to emergent learning. Both employees and managers saw resistance to change and certain organizational elements of company structure and resources and especially managers' time (hoarding?) as inhibitors to emergent learning.

The employees saw themselves as active agents in the learning process and reflected this in their spoken desire for more interaction with their peers (and with management). While there was no report of overt conflict between the two groups, the general feeling one gets from reading the report reflects some of Seddon's (2000) position against a "command and control" view of management as opposed to a systems' view. However, if the managers can't manage because the employees are in charge, then what? How does learning occur in that scenario? Not very well, I think. The report indicates the managers in this case allowed the employees to experiment, within reason and after approval. Finally, the authors conclude that "the workplace is rich in learning activities and, within the limits of the research design, we could detect self-organising patterns of local interaction and the data strongly supported the notion of complex responses." (Armson and Whitely, 2010, p. 422)

REFERENCES

Armson, G. and Whiteley, A. (2010). Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning.  Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(7), pp. 409-427. DOI: 10.1108/13665621011071091

Billet, S. (2004). Workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), pp. 312-324.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1, Cognitive domain. New Yourk: Longman.

Seddon, J. (2000). The case against ISO 9000. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Stacey, R. (Ed.) (2005). Experiencing emergence in organizations. London: Routledge.

Ein, zwei, drei...spiel!

Time to rock 'n' roll, fans; we're short on time and long on articles--which has its advantages: at least there's some literature to review. This is article number 3 related to software training methodology by Alonso, et al (2008) in the journal Innovations in Education and Teaching International, titled "Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. The keywords include learning objects, learning objectives, instructional model, and blended learning. With 41 references, this is the abstract:

"Educational research and development into e-learning mainly focuses on the inclusion of new technological features without taking into account psycho-pedagogical concerns that are likely to improve a learner's cognitive process in this new educational category. This paper presents an instructional model that combines objectivist and constructivist learning theories. The model is based on the concept of a learning objective which is composed of a set of learning objects. A software tool, called the Instruction Aid System (IAS), has been developed to guide instructors through the development of learning objectives and the execution of the analysis and design phases of the proposed instructional model. Additionally, a blended approach to the learning process in Web-based distance education is also presented. This approach combines various event-based activities: self-paced learning, live e-learning and the use of face-to-face contact in classrooms."

The researchers begin by setting the stage for modern e-learning by reciting some of the developments that have led to where we are, such as e-learning systems (technologically supported by learning objects) and e-content re-usability. They assert the technology helps improve the quality of learning but "is useless if it is not based on psycho-pedagogical prescriptions (Alonso, Lopez, Manrique, and Vines, 2005)." (pp. 389-390) They further maintain that this is exactly what has happened, creating "a serious dysfunction between the profusion of technological features that are put forward and the shortage of pedagogical manners and teaching principles for e-learning (Tallent-Runnels et al., 2005)." (p. 390) Using objectivist theory combined with constructivist theory, which builds on both behaviorism and cognitivism by accepting multiple perspectives and building on the learner's prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs, the authors present an e-learning instructional model that is supported by constructivist theory and is based on the concepts of learning objectives and learning objects.

They first identify learning objects and learning objectives. "A learning object deals with a very specific item of knowledge: educational content, a 'good problem' to be solved through group work or evaluation exercises, etc. Learning objects should be self-contained and can be combined to support individual instructional objectives for use in different contexts." (p. 391) "A learning objective is the specific knowledge that a learner has to acquire about a concept or skill and the tasks to be performed. A learning objective includes several learning objects." (p. 392).

Starting with the knowledge level of Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning, they divide this level into three sub-levels: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. They identify the pragmatic level as where the learner is "able to apply the knowledge acquired to solve particular problems" (p. 393). They then introduce Schulman's (2002) six-stage learning process: (1) engagement and motivation, (2) knowledge and understanding, (3) performance and action, (4) reflection and critique, (5) judgment and design, and (6) commitment and identity.

Next, they state "The proposed e-learning instructional model is based on the fact that training should enable learners to apply the concepts learned at their workplace and evaluate the results." (p. 393) They then switch to the method by which they intend to construct this instructional model. In essence, it is the ADDIE principle, though they exchange "implementation" for "development" and "execution" for "implementation" in the traditional rendering. Following, they go through the steps of construction. In the design step, they reveal that the proposed instruction will involve a blended learning approach that has three elements: it is self-paced and combines live (synchronous) e-learning and the use of face-to-face contact in the classroom. However, it appears that three different teaching approaches were ultimately used and compared. (The report was somewhat confusing, perhaps due to translation; the authors teach at the University of Madrid.) The approaches included face-to-face classroom, distance learning that streamed all of the classroom material, and distance learning constructed using the SCORM-compliant IAS authoring tool with a blended learning process. The face-to-face showed the best results (n = 79) with a mean of 6.9 out of 10 on the final exam (SD = 1.98). The blended distance learning came in second (n = 78) with a mean of 6.6 (SD = 2.01). The virtualized classroom material in distance learning was third (n = 78) with a mean of 5.65 (SD = 2.39). The authors felt this substantiated their hypotheses in that while the blended distance learning mean was not as high as the face-to-face, it was satisfactory and cheaper.

REFERENCES

Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., and Vines, J.M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), pp. 389-400. DOI: 10.1080/14703290802377265

Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., and Vines, J.M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education wit ha blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1, pp. 217-235.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1, Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Schulman, L.S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34, pp. 36-44.

Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Lan, W.Y., Fryer, W., Thomas, J.A., Cooper, S., and Wang, K. (2005). The relationship between problems with technology and graduate students' evaluations of online teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 8, pp. 167-174.