Showing posts with label learning object design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label learning object design. Show all posts
Reviewing Synchronous Learning Objects
In response to Christy's comments regarding the use of LORI in sychronous environments.
The creators of the LORI describe using a convergent participation evaluation model in conjunction with the rating instrument. Please see;
Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent participant model for evaluation of learning ob-jects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28 (3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/nesbit_etal.html
I believe that both could be applicable for digital objects available synchronously as many of the criteria in the LORI would be relevant; feedback adaptation; learning goal alignment, content quality, presentation design.
You might want to adapt the criteria in the LORI to address some of the dynamics that are present during real-time activities, i.e. ability to guage understanding and respond to the needs of learners.
Learner motivations in a business and academic environment may not be the same, but there needs to be a formal reward system in place to recognize those who take part in the review process. Recognition also makes the activity more credible, because in effect the organization/ insitution is reinforcing the idea that this activity is a valuable undertaking. In academia, the idea behind engaging in a rigorous evaluation of the quality of learning materials is to promote it as a scholarly activity similar to articles being peer reviewed for a journal. Having someone use your LO would be equivalent to a citation in an article which may indicate that your resource is of some value in that particular discipline. One way of recognizing people who engage in these activities in a corporate environment would be to provide them with the training and time to develop/ evaluate these materials.
Learning Object Articles
A number of articles relating to Learning Objects have just been published online in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, including:
Interoperability and Learning Objects: An Overview of E-Learning Standardization, by Norm Friesen.
Interactive QuickTime: Developing and Evaluating Multimedia Learning Objects to Enhance Both Face-To-Face and Distance E-Learning Environments, by Thomas Cochrane.
Learning Objects: Using Language Structures to Understand the Transition from Affordance Systems to Intelligent Systems, by Jacques du Plessis.
A Study of the Design and Evaluation of a Learning Object and Implications for Content Development, by Ferdinand Krauss & Mohamed Ally.
Designing Effective Learning Objects
The design process can be easliy transferred to the development of learning objects in other disciplines.
The learning models and instructional strategies used to design the learning object will be examined and the results from the peer review evaluation and learning impact study will also be shared.
This powerpoint presentation which I am delivering to University of Toronto faculty today, is a condensed version of the detailed information that I have posted at my weblog documenting this project. You may not want to view the presentation full screen as there is quite a bit of information in the notes section beneath each slide.
I have also created an Adobe PDF version of the presentation with notes and embedded links and a more browser friendly format.
Inquiry Approach for Learning Object
Inquiry Approach
Using the ‘drug options’ tab the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation.
In order to apply a principle the student engages in the following steps;
1. Determine which concepts or variables are involved. Using trial and error, the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. In figure 5 the drug dosage has been increased from 10 to 20 mg (type 20 in the dose box and click on plot). The area underneath the blue curve and above the red curve represents the magnitude of the change caused by the increase in the dosage.
2. Try to determine the principle that explains the relationship between the concepts which apply to the variables you have chosen. Describe the effects that this might have on the patient.
3. Recall the principle. If it is necessary the learner can return to the “Basic Principles” tab.
4. Determine which concept or variable has changed and the direction or magnitude of its change (i.e. increasing dose by 10 mg). By clicking the coloured numbers which appear next to the charted data the learner can review the patient variables that were selected for that example.
5. Determine which concept or variable has been affected (i.e. protein binding when phenytoin dose is increased).
6. Then determine the magnitude and direction of the effect (AUC) on the affected concept or variable.
7. Confirm that the value is reasonable. Practice determining whether or not the principle has been correctly applied.
The above strategies are based on steps outlined by Smith & Ragan (1999).
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Practice Strategies for Learning Object
Once the learner has completed viewing the demonstrations of each principle they can practice recognizing situations in which the principle is applicable. The practice of retrieving this information will help the learner to retain the information in long term memory.
1. Using the “Drug Options” tab the student can practice replicating the basic principles by selecting a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. The learner begins by stating the principle they want to replicate.
2. As the learners experience the applications of the principles they are encouraged to focus their attention on the direction and magnitude of change which occurs in the ‘blood concentration time curve’ (see green arrow in figure 3) or area under curve (AUC) as a result of a variable being changed. Unless attention is given to this information it will be lost from memory.
3. After sufficient practice the student will be able to identify the features of the situation that suggest a particular principle is being applied and become proficient in correctly explaining, predicting and controlling the effect of these changes on the patient. In order to shift the principle that is being learned from short-term memory to long-term memory the steps which were taken to generate the principle must be rehearsed within 30 seconds.
The memory model for the 3 steps of the practice phase are illustrated in figure 4.
Instructional Strategies for Learning Object
Over the next few days, I will demonstrate the application of the learning theories that were used to design the instructional strategies for the pharmacology learning object. As Bannan-Ritland et. al (2000) state, "learning object systems present yet another technology-based instructional delivery environment with exciting features and attributes that can empower learner-driven experiences and promote cognitive processing if pedagogical considerations are taken into account in their development and evolution" (pg 1).
The following learning objectives were identified for the pharmacology learning object.
i. The learner will be able to list and describe the major therapeutic principles of drug administration.
ii. Given a demonstration of a therapeutic principle the learner will be able to identify and replicate the relationship between the concepts (i.e. absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) that underlie the principle.
iii. The learner will be able to identify the relevant principles which describe the magnitude and direction of change plotted in the blood concentration time curve as well as a visual representation of the area under the curve (AUC).
iv. By manipulating the patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosage the learner will be able to correctly explain, predict and control the effect of these changes on the patient.
Explicitly stating the learning objectives made it easier for the instructional designer to determine the type of learning outcome the goal represented and to prescribe the necessary strategy. The first three learning objectives above corresponded to an expository approach in which the “Basic Principles” tab was designed to demonstrate each principle graphically.
Expository Approach: In this approach the principles were presented and demonstrated, and then learners had an opportunity to practice applying them.
Demonstration Phase (the steps below correspond to figure 2 of the Basic Principles Tab). If you mouse over the image presented in figure 2 you should be presented with a small icon (in the bottom right corner) that will allow you to expand the image to its original size.
1. In the “Basic Principles” tab each principle is stated and then presented visually. At this point it is useful for learners to practice stating the principle. They may want to re-write the principle or attempt to put it into their own words.
2. The demonstrations illustrate how these rules can be used to explain, control and predict the effects of drug administration. The results are plotted in the “Blood Concentration Time Curve”.
3. The description that accompanies the animation explains the ‘whys’ of the principle.
4. The demonstrations refer to concepts (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) and terminology (physiology/ anatomy) that the learner may have previously acquired. During this phase, learners retrieve this prior knowledge in order to understand the principles.
Next's weeks post will explain the steps for the practice phase.
REFERENCES
Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., Murphy, K. (2000). Learning Object Systems as Constructivist Learning Environments: Related Assumptions, Theories and Applications. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Available online http://reusability.org/read/chapters/bannan-ritland.doc
Design Research
In the doctoral seminar I am taking right now we are discussing, 'design research' and "whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research."
Having read both Edelson and Friedman, I believe that what I have been recently engaged in would constitute design research as outlined by Edelson. While I was conducting my study on the design and evaluation of the pharmacology learning object, I was not aware of the term 'design research' or the steps involved. My colleague, Celynn Klemenchuk has kindly agreed to share her mindmap which effectively illustrates the relationships Edelson identifies in his approch to design research (you may have to expand the image to its original size in your browser).
Upon reflection, I think we should "begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms".
As the instructional designer involved in the development of the pharmacology learning object, I became interested in the implications of using a design methodology specifically prescribed for learning objects.
The purpose of my study was to contribute to a better understanding of how instructional designers make decisions about developing learning objects. The examination was expected to reveal issues and challenges that instructional designers face when engaging in this type of activity. The goal was to develop an "outcome theory" in which I would characterize the problems and the results of implementing a specific theory of design.
This is consistent with Edelson's notion of research design which "explicitly exploits the design process as an opportunity to advance the researchers understanding of teaching, learning, and educational systems."
My design research also consisted of the four features identified by Edelson.
Research Driven
My research was informed by existing theories of instructional design and I had identified a specific goal.
I was curious to find out if subsequently applying Wiley's Learning Object Design and Sequencing (LODAS) theory to the development of the pharmacology learning object would reveal different design decisions about the scope and sequence of the learning resources that were created.
Systematic Documentation
The process of applying the prescribed steps of the chosen theory was documented. The steps for the principled skill decomposition and work model synthesis were explicity illustrated and shared for critical reflection and discussion.
Formative Evaluation
A peer review of our learning object was undertaken in order to identify "gaps in understanding of the design context".
Three main strategies were used to assess the quality of the learning object and to collect formative date for improving the resource. Early in the design stage the instructional designer conducted usability testing with a third year pharmacy student to obtain feedback on design and navigation issues. This informal meeting was conducted as a 'think-aloud session' where the instructional designer recorded the reflections of the student as she interacted with the learning object. Secondly, peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the quality of the learning object using an established rating instrument and to provide feedback for improvement using an instructor survey. Thirdly, questionnaires were distributed to students in order to carry out a learning impact study based on their use of the learning object.
Generalization
In my discussion of the research results, I attempted to generalize the implications of applying the theory to the practice of instructional design and the quality of learning resources developed.
As it was an illustrative case study, no statistically significant results were generated. However, it still has potential value to many educational practitioners. To my knowledge, this research was the only example of a practical application of the Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory (LODAS) developed by Wiley (2000) to a medical context. The results from this research could be used to inform educators about some of the serious challenges involved in designing a learning object that can be reused and repurposed. An examination of the process and instruments used for evaluation could provide valuable insights about methods that could be employed for the peer review of learning objects.
Having thought about it some more, the example I provided above, about Edelson's approach to design research, complements what Friedman outlined in his paper on theory construction.
Wiley, the author of the design methodlogy that I was applying had combined a number of existing instructional design theories; Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999), Work Model Synthesis (Gibbons, et al., 1995), Domain Theory (Bunderson, Newby, &Wiley, 2000), and the Four-Component Instructional Design model (van Merriënboer, 1997) in an attempt to extend these theories in order to address two fundamental issues in the design of learning objects: scope and sequencing. The end result was the creation of his own Learning Object Design and Sequencing theory (LODAS).
This is consistent with Simon's quote (as cited in Friedman) "...design as the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones."
The theory developed by Wiley provided me with an opportunity to apply an existing model and derive lessons which I could use to develop theories that are generalizeable in other contexts.
So.... in response to the question, whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design research based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research I would have to say that there appears to be a natural complement between the two.
REFERENCES
Edelson, Daniel C. (2002) Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Friedman, K. (2003) Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies Vol 24 No. 6
Learning Theory Analysis
Below is an examination of the theories of learning and cognition that influenced the design of the learning object.
Smith and Ragan (1999) stated that it is imperative for authors writing about instructional design to acknowledge the beliefs and values represented in their educational philosophy and that they be based upon theories that have been substantiated by empirical research.
For the development of the pharmacology learning object a pragmatic approach was taken and a combination of learning theories were used, including elements of; behaviourism, generative and cognitive theories and constructivism. Smith and Ragan (1999) defined pragmatists in the following manner. "Pragmatists are inclined to believe that although knowledge is acquired through experience [objectivist], it is personally interpreted through reason and is tentative in nature. Knowledge in a particular field is negotiated based upon an agreement of experts as to a common interpretation of experience or "truth for now". Knowledge built by testing truth for now hypothesis and revising truth as common experience and interpretation implies it should be modified [constructivist]."
I agree with a number of other writers (Ally, 2003; Hannafin, et al., 1997; Wilson, 1997; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) that there is limited value in asserting which theory of learning is better. Rather, the adoption of a combination of instructional approaches was based on the belief that different instructional conditions are necessary to effectively promote a given type of learned performance. The role of the instructional designer is to prescribe an appropriate strategy and context for learning based on the learning objectives.
Pharmacokinetics is a very complex subject and as a result is one of the most poorly taught areas of the medical curriculum. A radical constructivist would have suggested that articulating goals for learning this subject was inappropriate because educators do not know what learners' need or want to learn (Smith & Ragan, 1999). However, one can't assume that individuals who are novices in this area would have been able to devise an approach to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Therefore, learning objectives were developed.
The design of the learning object adopted the following behaviourist attributes. Learning goals were explicitly stated in observable terms in order for the learners to establish whether or not they had achieved the desired outcomes. The learning object was sequenced so that students could progress from knowledge acquisition (using basic principles tab to view demonstrations of the principles) to higher order domains (application of principles using the drug options tab). Feedback was presented to students in the form of a graph which plotted the blood concentration time curve and served as feedback to indicate if the student had applied the theory correctly.
Characteristics of generative learning theory were also evident in the design of the learning object. The learner was actively engaged and assumed primary responsibility for processing the information. The pharmacology learning object required the students to interact with the resource to create an outcome (graph on blood concentration time curve). As a result they were more likely to recall the information than if they had merely read it (Houston, 1991). During the process of gathering data using the inquiry approach the learner was required to isolate relevant variables and form a hypothesis about the example. Students reflected on whether or not the instructional content being presented was consistent with previous experiences or prior knowledge (basic physiology and anatomy, pharmacological concepts). 80% of the students that responded to the learning impact study agreed that the learning object encouraged them to reflect on the material.
In order for learners to register information in their sensory systems, strategies consistent with cognitivist and constructivist approaches were applied. Learners were able to control the pace of the information and were directed to attend to specific information. Color was used to highlight the explanations of principles. The plotting of results in the blood time concentration curve was animated. As the curve was being drawn, a green arrow focused the learners attention on the direction and magnitude of change in the graph. A three step memory model was suggested in order for the learners to transfer the information from short-term to long-term memory.
To promote deep processing of the pharmacology principles the information was presented using the spreading activation model in which the students were able to see the relationship between the variables involved in drug administration and the effect this had on the patient. This approach was in direct contrast to the textbook where the principles are treated as individual concepts. Processing the network of related information provided the students with multiple pathways for assimilating or accommodating prior knowledge with new information and therefore makes it personally more meaningful. The opportunity to interpret their knowledge helped them to understand the context in which the different parameters operated.
REFERENCES
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In Elloumi, F. & Anderson. T. (Eds). Online Learning Handbook. Athabasca University
Duffy, T. M., and Cunnigham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K., Land, S.M. & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.
Houston, J.P. (1991). Fundamentals of learning and memory. 4th ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. R. Dills, A.J. (Ed.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Smith and Ragan (1999) stated that it is imperative for authors writing about instructional design to acknowledge the beliefs and values represented in their educational philosophy and that they be based upon theories that have been substantiated by empirical research.
For the development of the pharmacology learning object a pragmatic approach was taken and a combination of learning theories were used, including elements of; behaviourism, generative and cognitive theories and constructivism. Smith and Ragan (1999) defined pragmatists in the following manner. "Pragmatists are inclined to believe that although knowledge is acquired through experience [objectivist], it is personally interpreted through reason and is tentative in nature. Knowledge in a particular field is negotiated based upon an agreement of experts as to a common interpretation of experience or "truth for now". Knowledge built by testing truth for now hypothesis and revising truth as common experience and interpretation implies it should be modified [constructivist]."
I agree with a number of other writers (Ally, 2003; Hannafin, et al., 1997; Wilson, 1997; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) that there is limited value in asserting which theory of learning is better. Rather, the adoption of a combination of instructional approaches was based on the belief that different instructional conditions are necessary to effectively promote a given type of learned performance. The role of the instructional designer is to prescribe an appropriate strategy and context for learning based on the learning objectives.
Pharmacokinetics is a very complex subject and as a result is one of the most poorly taught areas of the medical curriculum. A radical constructivist would have suggested that articulating goals for learning this subject was inappropriate because educators do not know what learners' need or want to learn (Smith & Ragan, 1999). However, one can't assume that individuals who are novices in this area would have been able to devise an approach to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Therefore, learning objectives were developed.
The design of the learning object adopted the following behaviourist attributes. Learning goals were explicitly stated in observable terms in order for the learners to establish whether or not they had achieved the desired outcomes. The learning object was sequenced so that students could progress from knowledge acquisition (using basic principles tab to view demonstrations of the principles) to higher order domains (application of principles using the drug options tab). Feedback was presented to students in the form of a graph which plotted the blood concentration time curve and served as feedback to indicate if the student had applied the theory correctly.
Characteristics of generative learning theory were also evident in the design of the learning object. The learner was actively engaged and assumed primary responsibility for processing the information. The pharmacology learning object required the students to interact with the resource to create an outcome (graph on blood concentration time curve). As a result they were more likely to recall the information than if they had merely read it (Houston, 1991). During the process of gathering data using the inquiry approach the learner was required to isolate relevant variables and form a hypothesis about the example. Students reflected on whether or not the instructional content being presented was consistent with previous experiences or prior knowledge (basic physiology and anatomy, pharmacological concepts). 80% of the students that responded to the learning impact study agreed that the learning object encouraged them to reflect on the material.
In order for learners to register information in their sensory systems, strategies consistent with cognitivist and constructivist approaches were applied. Learners were able to control the pace of the information and were directed to attend to specific information. Color was used to highlight the explanations of principles. The plotting of results in the blood time concentration curve was animated. As the curve was being drawn, a green arrow focused the learners attention on the direction and magnitude of change in the graph. A three step memory model was suggested in order for the learners to transfer the information from short-term to long-term memory.
To promote deep processing of the pharmacology principles the information was presented using the spreading activation model in which the students were able to see the relationship between the variables involved in drug administration and the effect this had on the patient. This approach was in direct contrast to the textbook where the principles are treated as individual concepts. Processing the network of related information provided the students with multiple pathways for assimilating or accommodating prior knowledge with new information and therefore makes it personally more meaningful. The opportunity to interpret their knowledge helped them to understand the context in which the different parameters operated.
REFERENCES
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In Elloumi, F. & Anderson. T. (Eds). Online Learning Handbook. Athabasca University
Duffy, T. M., and Cunnigham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K., Land, S.M. & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.
Houston, J.P. (1991). Fundamentals of learning and memory. 4th ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. R. Dills, A.J. (Ed.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Learning Object Design and Sequencing
The Dick and Carey (1996) model, which uses a systems approach for designing instruction provided the actual framework for the development of the learning object. One of the best known models, its approach to designing instruction is similar to that of software engineering. The design model describes all the phases of an iterative process including; identifying instructional goals, analyzing learners and contexts, developing instructional strategies and assessments, and designing and conducting formative evaluation. However, the model does not provide specific support for decisions about the scope and sequence of learning objects like the Learning Object Design and Sequencing (LODAS) theory developed by Wiley (2000).
I was curious to find out if subsequently applying Wiley's Learning Object Design and Sequencing (LODAS) theory to the development of the pharmacology learning object would reveal different design decisions about the scope and sequence of the learning resources that were created.
The following steps as prescribed in LODAS were applied to the pharmacology learning object using the definitions and interpretations laid out in the theory; principled skill decomposition, work model synthesis, identifying the dimensionality of domain expertise, placing work models on scale of increasing complexity, synthesizing the integrated work models, and classifying the resulting work models and constituent skills (Wiley, 2000). This process was carried out in cooperation with the subject matter expert (Dr. Lawrence Spero, professor of Pharmacology at the University of Toronto) used to design the pharmacology learning object.
Qualification: Below is my first attempt at applying LODAS to a pretty complex subject (pharmacokinetics). As such, I can't profess that I have applied the theory as Wiley had intended or that I have represented the domain of 'therapeutics' correctly.
1. Determine appropriateness. The goals, values and conditions identified in the theory were deemed to be consistent with that of the instructional designer and the instructor. The goal for the learning object focuses on the development of a set of complex cognitive skills as described by Van Merriënboer (1997) cited in Wiley 2000. The desire is for therapeutic students to be able to predict the appropriate (non-toxic) use of a new drug.
-Complex, in the sense that they comprise a set of constituent skills that at some level involve conscious processing
-Cognitive, indicating that the majority of constituent skills are in the cognitive domain as opposed to affective or motor domain
The learning environment fosters a sense of cooperation between instructor and student where assessment serves to promote progress. The students are regarded as willing to monitor and regulate their own learning and have some competence in using the computer. Instructors are willing to empower students to direct their own learning and see the benefit in viewing the environment from the perspective of a student.
Analyze and Synthesize Content
2.Principled skill decomposition. The complex cognitive skill to be taught is broken down into its constituent parts.
•identify physical properties of drug (Pka partition coefficient, solubility, molecular weight)
•identify chemical (molecular composition) properties of drug
•determine where the drug works
•recognize how the drug works
•establish factors relating to the pharmacokinetic processes
- Absorption - route of administration, blood flow, surface area
- Distribution - relative blood flows, protein binding
- Metabolism - depends on chemical nature of drug & route of admin
- Elimination - route and process of excretion
•understand the relationship between the concepts (i.e. absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) that underlie therapeutic principles.
•identify the age, gender, weight, height (sometimes), and disease state of patient
•history taking – involves taking xrays, blood work, etc…
•integrate information - pattern recognition from measurements
•evaluate info - compare experience to clinical practice guidelines
3.Synthesize work models. The constituent skills are recombined into activities that people perform in the real world.
i. Identify factors related to the structure of the drug
ii. Identify factors related to the process of the drug
iii. Recognize situation in which a therapeutic principle applies
iv. Identify interactions between physical & chemical properties with pharmacodynamic processes
v. Determine patient variables that influence biological response to drug.
vi. Measure the parameters of the disease
vii. Diagnose disease
viii. Prescribe drug
4. Identify the dimensionality of the domain. A model in the form of expertise representation is developed to illustrate what a learner can do with their knowledge. The domain of therapeutics involves the ability to predict the appropriate (non-toxic) use of a new drug and has the following domains of expertise.
a. Pharmacodynamics involves knowing where and how a drug works.
b. Pharmacokinetics involves knowing the therapeutic principles of drug administration.
c. Clinical Diagnosis. Involves determining the cause of a disease and prescribing a treatment based on the patient variables and the known effects of the drug.
5. Place work models on scale of increasing complexityA determination is made about which work models belong to each scale and what the relative difficulty of each work model is (see figure 6). The letters beneath each of the scales correspond to the work models identified in step 3.
6. Synthesize Integrated Work Models. The scales of expertise were divided into sections which approximate novice, intermediate, and expert levels of knowledge and were synthesized into work models that integrated skills across the dimensions of expertise (see coloured circles in figure 6).
(The resulting domain map still needs to be subjected to expert review to identify possible revisions.)
The work models, identify factors related to the structure of the drug (i), and determine patient variables that influence biological response to drug (v) were combined to form the integrated work model ‘drug structure and response’, represented by the blue circle (novice). The work models, identify factors related to the process of the drug (ii), identify interactions between physical & chemical properties with pharmacodynamic processes (iv), and measure the parameters of the disease (vi) were combined to form the integrated work model ‘pharmacokinetics’, represented by the green circle (intermediate). The expert-level performance on work models from all scales was combined to represent the complex cognitive skill originally identified in step 1. The work models of recognizing a situation in which a therapeutic principle applies (iii), diagnosing a disease (vii), and prescribing a drug (viii) were combined to form the integrated work model, "therapeutics", represented by the red circle (expert).
Design Practice and Information Presentation
7.Classify the work models and constituent skills. The components of the complete complex cognitive skill were classified into recurrent and nonrecurrent skills. Recurrent skills were those recognized as being executed in a similar manner each time. Nonrecurrent skills were those that differed widely according to the situation in which they were performed.
Work models associated with the pharmacodynamics domain of expertise are invariant. The chemical and physical properties of the drug do not change. The work models associated with pharmacokinetics are also classified as recurrent skills. The skills for recognizing the situation in which a therapeutic principles applies remains the same and is dependent on the patient variables and the interactions of the drug. However, the application of this information to the therapeutic domain of expertise is nonrecurrent as it is largely dependent on the clinical diagnosis.
As a result of this analysis the prerequisite knowledge for the recurrent skills was identified. Some knowledge of basic physiology and anatomy would be required along with a familiarity of the concepts of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs.
Applying this model has given me a real appreciation for the quality of work that Wiley and other's have done in this area.
The Reusability Myth of Learning Object Design
Jan 16. Having thought about it for a few days, I have added some additional comments which are identified with [edit] tags and italicized.
Stephen Downes - Design, Standards and Reusability
Below are some of my reflections on the concept of 'reusability' within the learning object paradigm. The above article is a useful starting point for becoming well-versed in the discussion. It may be-labouring the point, but I have yet to see this issue applied to a real example. I'm sure that I will refine my ideas for the paper I am working on, once I have a chance to dig deeper into the subject matter.
One of the first rules of instructional design is to identify a specific target audience. The better you are able to define this group in terms of their needs, pre-requisite skills and knowledge, the more likely you are to develop instruction that helps them to achieve the desired outcomes. It may be a moot point for those that are experienced in the area of instructional design but one that requires re-stating given all of the discussion around the re-usability of learning objects.
[edit]
To promote the adoption of learning object design based on the value implied by their re-usability is to propagate a myth about the practice of designing effective instruction. Designing learning objects that are at the level of being easily re-purposable are merely 'objects' and runs counter to best practices of instructional design because they are largely devoid of the principles that we know will enhance learning. Merrill (2000) hypothesized that, "when a given instructional program or practice violates or fails to implement one or more of these first principles, there will be a decrement in learning and performance.
[/edit]
The Issue
At the current time the only instructional design theory that I am aware of that addresses the issue of granularity and sequencing in learning objects is David Wiley's LODAS. He combines a number of existing instructional design theories; Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999), Work Model Synthesis (Gibbons, et al., 1995), Domain Theory (Bunderson, Newby, &Wiley, 2000), and the Four-Component Instructional Design model (van Merriënboer, 1997). The important distinction is that he extends these theories by addressing two fundamental issues in the design of learning objects: granularity and sequencing. This is a significant contribution, as it speaks to the very crux of the debate surrounding the use and 'reuse' of learning objects.
The promise of the learning object paradigm is based on the premise that economies of scale can be realized by designing digital learning resources at the level of a "common element" that can be shared with other institutions (Downes, 2000). Lower production costs result by revising or recombining existing resources instead of creating them from scratch. This practice has existed in various forms for a long time (it's one I used to regularly engage in as a secondary school teacher). What is novel about the digital frontier is its' promise of making this process easier by using technology to store information about the learning resource (meta tags) so that it can easily be retrieved and combined with like objects to produce a learning outcome.
While I believe that realizing cost savings is in itself a credible and pragmatic reason for designing learning objects with the above-stated affordances in mind, there comes a point where breaking an object down to its most 'common elements' is not desirable or practical.
I'm not debating the merit of what Downes is advocating but I am suggesting that it is a difficult proposition to implement. I fully believe in the value of sharing (that's why we've made our learning object available under a creative commons license), but not at the cost of compromising the instructional integrity of the LO we developed (elaborated on in the debate section).
The Context
My views on this issue are based on my experiences in developing a pharmacology learning object and as a former member of an educational consortium that designed and shared digital teaching resources. Increasingly we found that in order to make our electronic curriculum more relevant for classroom teachers (and therefore more reusable) we had to divide our material into modules so they could deliver the mini-lessons in their allotted computer lab time. Additional revisions were made by teachers prior to delivery to account for differences in technical setup, class time, learning rates and styles. That is to say our 'common element' still required a number of changes before it was pedagogically useful to instructors. Not to mention our concern that in order to achieve the 'common element' we had to strip way a lot of learning and therefore the inherent value of the resource.
Not only did this affect the way we designed subsequent resources, we ended up having multiple versions of the same material to satisfy different groups. I would argue that this consumed a lot of unnecessary resources and ultimately took us away from our intended audience - online distance education students. At that time (1997) webpages were not dynamically generated and therefore revising the content required considerable work (re-formatting pages, updating links, expertise in Toolbook Authorware, etc….). And then curriculum reform hit!!!!! Needless to say this project is no longer running - it was not a sustainable model. This approach may have provided value to those who used the resources (did not have to start from scratch), but it was a huge burden for those creating them.
Why is this context important? Because, I see the same pattern emerging with learning objects.
The Debate
I think our enthusiasm for the concept of 'reuse' in the learning object paradigm must be tempered with a more realistic appraisal of the environment in which we are currently operating.
Hamel & Ryan-Jones, (2002) and others advocate that, learning objects should be relatively small, citing the following passages.
While there is no optimal size for a learning object, it has been suggested that they be kept relatively small to increase the potential for reuse (Quinn & Hobbs, 2000), and to facilitate an adaptive, competency-based approach to training (Longmire, 2000). If each learning object is based upon a single enabling objective, and the granularity is small enough, then each learning object will be "appropriately" small.
Ideally it would be great if the pharmacology learning object we created turned out to be at a level that was common to other medical schools. However, I suspect this is not the case. Based on feedback of our LO from faculty and students their definition of a 'common element' for studying this subject is a moving target. Some, depending on their area of study, viewed additional information about drug categories as a necessity for studying this topic. Pharmacokinetics is taught in a cross-curricular manner in a number of different health science disciplines. The point being, that there are a number of different ways in which it is taught.
If as an instructional designer, I was to attempt to take into account the multiple contexts in which the topic was being taught in order to design a learning object as a 'common element' and in order to promote its reuse, the process would be halted in its tracks. In LODAS Wiley (2000) discusses using expert reviewers to "identify the dimensionality of domain expertise". This is an excellent idea and one which you would think would facilitate some common understanding. However, even subject matter experts have difficulty agreeing on this area.
My issue with the concept of reusability in learning objects is that it runs counter to instructional design best practices. I agree with Shaw (2002) who stated that in developing learning resources, one should begin with a genuine instructional problem and should strive to achieve outcomes which are not otherwise possible. The instructional challenge at each institution may not be the same and to be frank its not my concern. In order to do my job properly I need to attend to needs of the local students (the ones with which I am most familiar) in order to develop effective learning resources. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To reduce the pharmacology learning object to its most 'common elements' would be to re-create what already exists in the textbook using another media. Is this really what we want? Our reason for developing the LO in the first place was that we felt that the text book did not adequately represent or visualize the relationships which exist between therapeutic principles and the parameters relating to the physical and pharmacological properties of drugs.
Having said this we have attempted to make our learning object 'pedagogically reusable' to a certain extent…. Boskic (2003) made an important distinction in suggesting that there is a difference between pedagogical and technical reusability.
Pedagogical Reusability
I am inclined to agree with Downes that the actual content of the design is not as important as the approach to learning implicit in it.
That's why I included an external link to an instructor and student guide from the learning object. These guides were offered as a complement to the Pharmacology learning object and were intended to provide information that could enhance instruction. The strategies included were not prescriptive and instructors were not required to employ these methods when using the learning object. The guides included a description of the LO, learning objectives, target audience, pre-requisite knowledge and information on how the design of the LO supported the learning of pharmacokinetics. The goals in the guides are stated in observable terms in order to describe what will be accepted as evidence that learners have acquired the cognitive capabilities suggested by the goals. Because this information was not physically embedded within the pages an instructor could choose to use the LO to achieve learning outcomes different than the ones identified by me (i.e. to demonstrate issues of visual design to graphic art students). However, the fact remains that the strategies to reach the outcomes I identified are embedded within the LO as best practice of instructional design would dictate.
(you may want to look at the LO http://icarus.med.utoronto.ca/lo/pharmacology9/index.swf
at this point in order to understand the example below)
Eg. The first 3 learning objectives below correspond to an expository approach in which the “Basic Principles” tab was designed to demonstrate each principle graphically. These demonstrations illustrate how these rules can be used to explain, control and predict the effects of drug administration. The description that accompanies the animation is useful in explaining the ‘whys’ of the principle and makes it meaningful for the students.
1. The learner will be able to list and describe the major therapeutic principles of drug administration.
2. Given a demonstration of a therapeutic principle the learner will be able to identify and replicate the relationship between the concepts (i.e. absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) that underlie the principle
In order to fully acquire a principle, the student must learn to apply that principle in a variety of new situations (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Using the ‘drug options’ tab the student can practice replicating the basic principles by selecting a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages.
3. The learner will be able to identify the relevant principles which describe the magnitude and direction of change plotted in the blood concentration time curve as well as a visual representation of the area under the curve (AUC).
The fourth objective corresponds to an inquiry approach in which the learner uses trial and error to learn about the basic therapeutic principles. Student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation.
4. By manipulating the patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosage the learner will be able to correctly explain, predict and control the effect of these changes on the patient.
As a consequence this LO has limited applicability outside of the context for which it was designed. To strip out these strategies would be to take out most of what is valuable about the learning object leaving us with just an 'object'. It's what Wiley (2002) referred to as the 'reusability paradox' and has serious implications for the concept of reusability in the LO paradigm.
Technical Reusability
Given the technical sophistication of the LO we designed using Flash MX it would be difficult to change it to reuse it in another context or to achieve other learning outcomes. It has about 15 layers with different movie clips, action scripting to generate graphs based on user input and an equation, and a drug database (text file which potentially could be edited). I highly doubt that anyone would be interested in delving into the code to change either the principles we have demonstrated or to alter the images we have used. We also did not meta-tag the various constituent components that combined to make up this object, so that others could retrieve and re-combine the constituent parts into alternate configurations. This would have been an incredibly arduous process. I know Friesen
and company are working hard to streamline the meta-tagging process but as it stands this remains a major hurdle to overcome in the mainstream adoption of the LO paradigm. Others have documented how difficult a task this is including a presentation at last year's CADE conference by Dr. Elizabeth Murphy and Kevin O’Leary who shared their experiences in "Locating, tagging, and transferring learning objects" (online report not available).
As a result of the technical and pedagogical issues outlined above, most users would be stuck with reusing the object "as is". It may not be entirely appropriate for their instruction, but probably better than the alternative. There is the possibility that it could be combined with resources at Martindale’s Health Science Guide, a resource center listing 60,000 teaching files and 129,000 medical cases as described by Downes (2000). Students could use the pharmacology LO to make decisions about the administration of drugs referenced in some of their cases.
[edit]
I think what Downes is talking about is the difference between reusing and re-purposing. Re-purposing implies that some changes would have to be made to the actual content of the learning object not just the strategies used to achieve learning with it. As the above analysis demonstrates our learning object can be reused but not re-purposed without a great deal effort.
[/edit]
Alternatives?
Downes (2003) seems to be advocating an "environment where people decide for themselves what to do and when to do it. It is the difference between requiring a director and requiring a coach." This is consistent with a constructivist view of learning in which the student defines what they will learn and how they will go about learning it. As an educator, I see the value in learner-centred design but not all students prefer to learn this way or have the skills necessary to execute such a plan. For example, a radical constructivist would have suggested that it was inappropriate to propose goals for the pharmacology LO because educators do not know what learners' need or want to learn (Smith & Ragan, 1999). However, with a subject as complex as pharmacokinetics one can't assume that individuals who are novices in this area would be able to devise an approach to acquire the knowledge.
To facilitate the kind of environment Downes is proposing would mean having to design learning objects based on the "common element" approach so that individual objects could be combined rather effortlessly by individual learners in a bid to acquire new knowledge. As I have argued above this is an impractical and undesirable solution.
[edit]
Downes is correct in stating that creating learning objects with that level of re-purposability, "shoots an arrow straight into the heart of the discipline known as instructional design".
[/edit]
Some of the major factors which seem to be overlooked when discussing the design of learning objects is the motivational and social dynamics of engaging in this type of activity.
Previous LO instructional design analogies and metaphors (legos, atoms, music analysis) have focused on the technical aspects of the process. Below is one that builds into account social issues and motivational factors. One that needs to be addressed if the movement is to continue going forward.
Asking an instructional designer to create an LO based on the "common element" is like asking a local politician to develop municipal legislation with a provincial (state) and national level audience in mind. Ideally it would be nice for people to think in terms of the 'bigger picture', but it's not too realistic. The local politician would have no idea about the law's potential application outside the local jurisdiction (or the context in which it would be implemented), and would incur the cost of enacting the legislation, not to mention the amount of work involved in creating it (taking all things into consideration). After all is said and done, the final product would have to be watered down in order to accommodate different perspectives and political motives. The result is something radically different than what was envisioned at the outset.
Furthermore the local politician is accountable to the constituents of the district he/ she represents and therefore meeting their needs is the primary consideration. And this is where my metaphor breaks down… because in the political context a politician who meets the need of local constituents is likely rewarded with re-election. Such is not the case for faculty who for the most part do not receive appropriate recognition for the time invested in learning to use and develop instructional technology (for more on this issue see Culp, G. (2001) Faculty Rewards in Digital Instructional Environments. Syllabus Magazine).
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think we should acknowledge the fact that attempting to realize the full potential of "reusability" with learning objects has potentially undesirable consequences. We really need to ask ourselves whether it is worth the opportunity cost of making our learning resources so reusable as to strip them of their inherent value. Although, it is getting easier to retrieve material (using RSS) and share resources (CAREO, CLOE, MERLOT), teaching will continue to be a time intensive process requiring a great deal of thought and effort if it is to be effective. Designing for a global audience leads to different decisions about granularity and sequencing of learning objects and takes the instructional designer away from their initial goal - meeting the needs of their learners.
More time should be spent on exchanging best practices for designing and applying learning objects to instructional contexts than the content itself.
References
Boskic, N. (2003). Faculty assessment of the quality and reusability of learning objects. Unpublished Master's thesis, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta.
Downes, S. (2000). Learning objects. Retrieved November 2002. Available:
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/downes/naweb/Learning_Objects.doc
Hamel, C.J., & Ryan-Jones D. (2002) Designing Instruction with Learning Objects.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Available: http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3n1/hamel/index.html
Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning objects. ASTD Learning Circuits, March 2000. Online: http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/primer.html
Quinn, C. & Hobbs, S. (2000). Learning objects and instructional components. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2). Online: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/discuss_summary_0200.html
Shaw, S. (2002, February). Designing online facilities that really leverage learning. Paper presented at the Knowledge Media Design Institute, Interactive Webcast, University of Toronto, ON. [online]. Available: http://epresence.kmdi.toronto.edu/archived.asp
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Available: http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf
Wiley, D.A. (2002). The reusability paradox. Available: http://rclt.usu.edu/whitepapers/paradox.html
Co-operative Learning Object Exchange
Our learning object is being submitted to the Co-operative Learning Object Exchange (CLOE), "a collaborative project of seventeen Ontario universities developing an innovative infrastructure for joint development of multimedia-rich learning resources. The key innovation in CLOE is the creation of a virtual market economy for engaging multimedia to support online learning. Each institution will develop multimedia learning resources to address instructional challenges shared by the other partners. Each institution will contribute educational multimedia to the co-operative exchange and use resources developed by the other institutions in return."
As a member of this group we attended an Instructional Design & Learning Technology camp where we developed our skills and knowledge in creating interactive learning-centred objects. Each team was assigned an actual project and together we worked through the different stages of design; needs assessment, protoyping, sequencing/ scoping, usability testing, evaluation, project management and development.
CLOE is funded by eduSourceCanada, which promotes community building while developing learning objects
Hopefully, we will continue to expand the community of practice around learning object design and evaluation to include the sharing of code, instructional strategies, applications of LO's and evaluation methodology.
Instructional Guides - Learning Object
A link to an instructor and student guide are included with the learning object. These guides are offered as a complement to the Pharmacology learning object and are intended to provide information that can enhance instruction. The strategies included are not meant to be prescriptive and instructors are not required to employ these methods when using the learning object.
The decision to create a link to external guides was a conscious one. This makes the learning object more reusable because the strategies described in the guides are not embedded within the learning object itself. Instructors are able download the word attachments, revise them in order to meet their specific learning objectives.
The guides include a description of the LO, learning objectives, target audience, pre-requisite knowledge and information on how the design of the LO supports the learning of pharmacokinetics. Specific strategies for acquiring principles as outlined by Smith & Ragan, (1999) were also provided. In addition, some possible instructional approaches were suggested (ie. Case studies). A case study would require students to integrate learning from other courses such as pharmaceutics, physiology/ pathophysiology, pharmacology/medicinal chemistry and Pharmacotherapy I and II. Students would be engaged in thinking critically about the causes of the problems and could use the learning object to make decisions about the administration of drugs referenced in the case.
The purpose of including learning strategies in the student guide was two-fold. First, a set of effective strategies was provided to help them use the learning object to encode information so that it could be retrieved accurately. Weinstein (1978) found that students who received direct instruction in strategy use outperformed students who were merely informed that the strategies would be helpful. This involves teaching learners the procedures of the strategy and when and where to apply it. The strategies and process outlined in the student guide were designed to help instructors providing this type of training.
Second, by explaining the steps involved in processing the information, the student can be made aware of how this helps improve learning. Nkanginieme (1997) asserts that making a clinical diagnosis is the pivotal cognitive activity of a practicing physician. However, this process tends to remain a sub-conscious activity. By raising this type of activity to the level of consciousness one can be taught how to improve performance as well as acquire new knowledge.
References
Nkanginieme, K.EO. (1997). Clinical diagnosis as a dynamic cognitive process: Application of Bloom’s taxonomy for educational objectives in the cognitive domain. Med Educ Online, 2(1), 1-6.
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Weinstein, C. E. (1978). Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), Learning Strategies (pp. 31-55). New York: Academic Press.
The decision to create a link to external guides was a conscious one. This makes the learning object more reusable because the strategies described in the guides are not embedded within the learning object itself. Instructors are able download the word attachments, revise them in order to meet their specific learning objectives.
The guides include a description of the LO, learning objectives, target audience, pre-requisite knowledge and information on how the design of the LO supports the learning of pharmacokinetics. Specific strategies for acquiring principles as outlined by Smith & Ragan, (1999) were also provided. In addition, some possible instructional approaches were suggested (ie. Case studies). A case study would require students to integrate learning from other courses such as pharmaceutics, physiology/ pathophysiology, pharmacology/medicinal chemistry and Pharmacotherapy I and II. Students would be engaged in thinking critically about the causes of the problems and could use the learning object to make decisions about the administration of drugs referenced in the case.
The purpose of including learning strategies in the student guide was two-fold. First, a set of effective strategies was provided to help them use the learning object to encode information so that it could be retrieved accurately. Weinstein (1978) found that students who received direct instruction in strategy use outperformed students who were merely informed that the strategies would be helpful. This involves teaching learners the procedures of the strategy and when and where to apply it. The strategies and process outlined in the student guide were designed to help instructors providing this type of training.
Second, by explaining the steps involved in processing the information, the student can be made aware of how this helps improve learning. Nkanginieme (1997) asserts that making a clinical diagnosis is the pivotal cognitive activity of a practicing physician. However, this process tends to remain a sub-conscious activity. By raising this type of activity to the level of consciousness one can be taught how to improve performance as well as acquire new knowledge.
References
Nkanginieme, K.EO. (1997). Clinical diagnosis as a dynamic cognitive process: Application of Bloom’s taxonomy for educational objectives in the cognitive domain. Med Educ Online, 2(1), 1-6.
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Weinstein, C. E. (1978). Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), Learning Strategies (pp. 31-55). New York: Academic Press.
Learning Object Design Theory
The design of this learning object is based on Abdelhamid’s (1999) multi-dimensional learning model (MDLM) which depends heavily on illustrations and graphics. It integrates different memory strategies that require the student to think to generate information. His research into the process of learning and memory specify three main principles which enhance the understanding and recall of data.
1) The generation effect. A learner that generates an item is more likely to recall the information than when it is merely read (Houston, 1991). The pharmacology learning object requires the students to interact with the resource to create an outcome.
2) Spreading activation model. Stored information (represented by circles) is more easily retrieved when it is remembered in the context of data which is related and interconnected. Processing of one piece of information leads to the activation of the other related items.
The design of the learning object allows the students to see the relationship between the variables involved in drug administration and the effect this has on the patient.
3) Use of graphics can aid learning better than a verbal description. The animated demonstrations of the therapeutic principles enhances visualization of the affected systems.
source: (Abdelhamid, 1999)
In 1996, the School of Medicine at the University of Auckland conducted a study on the effectiveness of the multi-dimensional learning model. The results indicated that students’ academic performance was significantly increased in the areas covered by the model, while there was no significant improvement in the areas not covered by the model (Abdelhamid, 1997). In addition, the learners stated that they preferred this model for their medical education.
References
Abdelhamid, T. (1999). The multidimensional learning model: A novel cognitive psychology-based model for computer assisted instruction in order to improve learning in medical students. Med Educ Online, 1(1), 1-8.
Abdelhamid, T. (1997). An application of cognitive psychology in medical education using a specific educational program. Tarek's integrated system for learning and memory (TISLM): An evaluation of its effectiveness in improving learning and memory. Master of Literature-education University of Auckland.
Houston, J.P. (1991). Fundamentals of learning and memory. 4th ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
1) The generation effect. A learner that generates an item is more likely to recall the information than when it is merely read (Houston, 1991). The pharmacology learning object requires the students to interact with the resource to create an outcome.
2) Spreading activation model. Stored information (represented by circles) is more easily retrieved when it is remembered in the context of data which is related and interconnected. Processing of one piece of information leads to the activation of the other related items.
The design of the learning object allows the students to see the relationship between the variables involved in drug administration and the effect this has on the patient.
3) Use of graphics can aid learning better than a verbal description. The animated demonstrations of the therapeutic principles enhances visualization of the affected systems.
source: (Abdelhamid, 1999)
In 1996, the School of Medicine at the University of Auckland conducted a study on the effectiveness of the multi-dimensional learning model. The results indicated that students’ academic performance was significantly increased in the areas covered by the model, while there was no significant improvement in the areas not covered by the model (Abdelhamid, 1997). In addition, the learners stated that they preferred this model for their medical education.
References
Abdelhamid, T. (1999). The multidimensional learning model: A novel cognitive psychology-based model for computer assisted instruction in order to improve learning in medical students. Med Educ Online, 1(1), 1-8.
Abdelhamid, T. (1997). An application of cognitive psychology in medical education using a specific educational program. Tarek's integrated system for learning and memory (TISLM): An evaluation of its effectiveness in improving learning and memory. Master of Literature-education University of Auckland.
Houston, J.P. (1991). Fundamentals of learning and memory. 4th ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Learning Object Design Rationale
The design of the Pharmacology learning object uses a combination of expository and inquiry approaches to support the learning of basic therapeutic principles.
Expository Approach
In the “Basic Principles” tab each principle is presented visually. These demonstrations serve to pique the students’ interest and to illustrate how these rules can be used to explain, control and predict the effects of drug administration. The description that accompanies the animation is useful in explaining the ‘whys’ of the principle and makes it meaningful for the students. The explanations also refer to concepts (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) and terminology (physiology/ anatomy) the students have previously acquired. During this phase the learners will be stimulated to retrieve this prior knowledge and the strategies they use to learn it, from long-term memory in order to apply the principles.
In order to fully acquire a principle, the student must learn to apply that principle in a variety of new situations (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Using the ‘drug options’ tab the student can practice replicating the basic principles by selecting a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. As the learners experience the applications of the principles they are encouraged to focus their attention on the direction and magnitude of change which occurs in the ‘blood concentration time curve’ (area under curve) as a result of a variable being changed. After sufficient practice the student will be able to identify the features of the situation that suggest a particular principle is being applied and become proficient in correctly explaining, predicting and controlling the effect of these changes on the patient.
Inquiry Approach
Using the ‘drug options’ tab the learner can use a different approach to learn the basic therapeutic principles. Using trial and error, the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation. This approach is generative, in that the learner assumes primary responsibility for processing the information. In gathering data about the situation the learner is required to isolate relevant variables and form a hypothesis about the example. The experience concludes when the learner formally states the principle being applied. “Many educators feel that learners recall and are able to transfer learning more easily when it is acquired from a discovery-type approach,” (Smith & Ragan, pg 118, 1999).
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc
Expository Approach
In the “Basic Principles” tab each principle is presented visually. These demonstrations serve to pique the students’ interest and to illustrate how these rules can be used to explain, control and predict the effects of drug administration. The description that accompanies the animation is useful in explaining the ‘whys’ of the principle and makes it meaningful for the students. The explanations also refer to concepts (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) and terminology (physiology/ anatomy) the students have previously acquired. During this phase the learners will be stimulated to retrieve this prior knowledge and the strategies they use to learn it, from long-term memory in order to apply the principles.
In order to fully acquire a principle, the student must learn to apply that principle in a variety of new situations (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Using the ‘drug options’ tab the student can practice replicating the basic principles by selecting a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. As the learners experience the applications of the principles they are encouraged to focus their attention on the direction and magnitude of change which occurs in the ‘blood concentration time curve’ (area under curve) as a result of a variable being changed. After sufficient practice the student will be able to identify the features of the situation that suggest a particular principle is being applied and become proficient in correctly explaining, predicting and controlling the effect of these changes on the patient.
Inquiry Approach
Using the ‘drug options’ tab the learner can use a different approach to learn the basic therapeutic principles. Using trial and error, the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation. This approach is generative, in that the learner assumes primary responsibility for processing the information. In gathering data about the situation the learner is required to isolate relevant variables and form a hypothesis about the example. The experience concludes when the learner formally states the principle being applied. “Many educators feel that learners recall and are able to transfer learning more easily when it is acquired from a discovery-type approach,” (Smith & Ragan, pg 118, 1999).
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc
Learning Object Description
Below is a description of the Pharmacology learning object we created.
Using Macromedia’s Flash MX we developed an interactive online module to help students learn about the major therapeutic principles of drug administration.
Using the learning object the student can practice the application of the principles by selecting different drugs from the database along with a variety of patient characteristics and routes of administration. The students can manipulate these variables and see the corresponding results in a blood concentration time curve. The student is able to fully acquire the principle, because they are able to apply it in a number of new situations.
Recognizing the situations in which the principle is applicable will enable the student to predict and explain the effects of changing the variables. Demonstrations of the therapeutic principles are also provided. The learning object contains ten basic therapeutic principles (Melmon & Morrelli) and fifteen drugs.
Using Macromedia’s Flash MX we developed an interactive online module to help students learn about the major therapeutic principles of drug administration.
Using the learning object the student can practice the application of the principles by selecting different drugs from the database along with a variety of patient characteristics and routes of administration. The students can manipulate these variables and see the corresponding results in a blood concentration time curve. The student is able to fully acquire the principle, because they are able to apply it in a number of new situations.
Recognizing the situations in which the principle is applicable will enable the student to predict and explain the effects of changing the variables. Demonstrations of the therapeutic principles are also provided. The learning object contains ten basic therapeutic principles (Melmon & Morrelli) and fifteen drugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)