Topic Three Readings

I have not employed any formal instructional design in anything that I have ever attempted to teach, except for ideas that I read/heard about. I am familiar with the concept of SMART goals and learning objectives and I think having the terms from Bloom’s Taxonomy to wrap around objectives would be useful for creating a good instructional plan.

I can see that if I had a sense of instructional design, I could have developed more thematic activities and then even figured out a way to assess my learners in the few times that I have taught. I would get anecdotal evidence, but not always and never from everyone. I think the strength of what I created came from knowing my learners’ needs very well rather than creating an actionable plan.

I’ve been enjoying all of the readings/videos in this topic and having most of it in an alternate format was an interesting break for me since I am almost always drawn to text-based resources. I spent a fair amount of time looking at the No Significant Difference Phenomenon Web Site and it linked to an interesting article at Inside Higher Ed.

The article reported on a meta-analysis of 1,000 empirical studies published between 1996-2008 that compared the academic success rates of online learners vs. F2F ones. The findings concluded that online students had a slightly higher success rate and blended instruction (online & F2F) students did the best overall.

The study also found that while online quizzes do not appear to enhance learning:

“Studies indicate that manipulations that trigger learner activity or learner reflection and self-monitoring of understanding are effective when students pursue online learning as individuals,” the report says.”

So, it would seem that while there is a space for interactive features, they serve a more intangible need.

Something else from the article that anyone in an online program can relate to and is time. One of the factors for success in online learning is that students tend to spend more time exploring the topic on their own, referred to in the article as “the expansion of learning time.” This was certainly true of this post, because, by the time I reached the end, I had actually gone all the way to the primary source.

References

Jaschik, S. (2009, June 29) The Evidence on Online Education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/online

No Significant Difference Phenomenon. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. (ED-04-CO-0040 Task 0006). Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Learning Styles

I took the Multiple Intelligences Self-Assessment from Edutopia and the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire from NC State University. My results are below:

Edutopia:

Linguistic 92%

Logical-Mathematical: 56%

Visual-Spatial 83%

Intrapersonal 88%

Interpersonal 81%

Musical 0

Bodily-Kinesthetic 0%

Naturalistic 75%

I’m not sure how well this quiz really reflects my learning style and I think it has some inherent bias in it or some of the wording was strange. For example, I got a 0% on Bodily-Kinesthetic, because I don’t really dance and don’t play sports, but I do bike ride a lot, so I’m actually in really good shape. Maybe the problem is that I don’t really consider biking to be a sport.

On the other scale that I took, the NC State University one, I scored right down the middle. Again, I thought I had some problems with the way that the test was worded, I think my approach to a task depends on the nature of the task itself, but my scores show I am well balanced in my learning style.

I think the most striking thing from the reading this topic has been the combination of two discrete learning styles first identified by Kolb, (Grassian & Kaplowitz, 2009, p. 42). I think that I had always viewed reflective learners and experiential learners as being from very different camps, but I immediately recognized in myself the need to reflect on concrete, direct experiences. I felt that Henry & Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire, to be refinement of Kolb’s earlier ideas but run the risk of being overly reductionist, (Grassian & Kaplowitz, p. 43).

Evidence in the literature points shows us that well designed instruction will have something for everyone. This is more than just common sense or an economy of scale approach, Rogowsky, Calhoun and Tallal (2015) showed no correlation between learning style preferences, aptitude and achievement.

I find myself wondering how learning styles are impacted by learning disabilities. Do deficits dictate learning styles, are they remediated by them, or are they hindered? This is probably beyond the scope of this class, but it’s what I’ve been thinking about nevertheless.

Grassian, E. & Kaplowitz, J.R. (2009). Information literacy instruction: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Multiple Intelligences Self-Assessment from Edutopia. (2015). Retrieved September 10, 2016 from http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-assessment

Rogowsky, B.A, Calhoun, B.M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension, Journal of Education Psychology

Solomon, R.M. & Fedler, B.A. (2016). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire. Retrieved Retrieved September 10, 2016 from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html