The purpose of this blog entry is to discuss some of the key concepts found in chapter 14 of the book, E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, by Clark & Mayer (2008).
Can creativity be trained? This is one of the poignant questions concerning creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Clark & Mayer (2008) believe that success in solving problems relies on both cognitive and metacognitive skills. Most people are familiar with cognitive skills. But what are metacognitive skills? A person who is high in metacognitive ability not only focuses on completing a given task, he or she is consistently analyzing the process and the steps involved in fulfilling that task while also making adjustments along the way. The employee who can take her daily responsibilities and basically streamline herself out of a job is most likely high in metacognition.
Clark & Mayer (2008) outlined three types of thinking skills training programs and discussed which of the three is most effective. The three types include: 1) non-verbal (e.g. puzzle problems, “right-brain” thinking), 2) general cognitive and metacognitive skills (i.e. cognitive conditioning without a specific domain or job), and 3) specific cognitive and metacognitive skills (i.e. job-specific training and specific domain focus). Of the three, thinking skills training programs that focus on specific cognitive and metacognitive skill development achieved the highest return on the investment. Applying cognitive and metacognitive training that is directly related to one’s field of practice or job tasks provides the most benefit to learners. For me personally, and for many others, one of the hardest tasks when learning new material at a conference, for example, is identifying those skills that can be applied to my current job needs and then actually applying that new knowledge in a productive manner. While non-verbal and general cognitive training are certainly beneficial, specific training is most easily applied to real-world job-related tasks.
I believe that creativity and critical thinking skills can be learned. Some people have these skills naturally, and others have to work twice as hard to learn and apply them, but I believe that anyone can benefit. One idea I want to apply in the future from the Clark and Mayer chapter is to define job-specific problem-solving processes by interviewing/analyzing an expert in any given field to develop case-based learning material. For example, perhaps you have an expert that is really great at copywriting for businesses. He may be able to tell you what he is doing when he write copy, but it is much harder to capture what he is thinking during the process. To develop solid training for other copywriters, I can share a case study client with the expert and have him share the actions he would take to research and write great copy for the client. As he explains the actions, I would ask for his reasoning behind each action decision. This gets into the tacit knowledge that is so often missed in learning valuable skills. From this type of interview, start to finish, one can really glean valuable information that can be categorized and developed into solid learning lessons.
What do you think about creativity and critical thinking skills? Do you think they can be trained? Is it possible to learn and do consciously what others can do subconsciously? I welcome your thoughts.
References
Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd.ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
The purpose of this blog entry is to discuss some of the key concepts found in chapter 13 of the book, E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, by Clark & Mayer (2008).
When designing elearning courses or lessons, is it better to allow learners to have control over their progression through the lesson or should learners be more directly guided through the lesson ensuring information is not missed or skipped? Clark & Mayer (2008) refer to two types of control: learner control and program control. Learner control is common to the online asynchronous environment. Most people that use the Internet are accustomed to learner control models. There are menus and links on nearly every Web page that allow you choose your own path through the content. Likewise, course management systems such as Blackboard and Moodle often have courses that allow for non-linear progression through the material.
Program control is commonly seen in classroom and synchronous e-learning. There is generally an established, linear progression that is often led by an instructor. Clark & Mayer (2008) found that learner control can have negative effects for learners with low prior knowledge in the material they are studying and with low metacognitive skill. For these novice learners, a program control model in elearning is preferred – at least at the beginning of lessons in any given course.
This chapter challenged me to consider the importance of learner control in online learning. As a Web designer, I generally like to give as many navigation options and controls as possible to give users freedom. I know that I personally get annoyed when I find myself in the middle of a video or website with no controls. In elearning, the truth is, however, that there are times when users should be limited to a linear progression. Learners that have options to skip information or jump ahead to other sections are often not qualified to know the progression that is most conducive to their learning. Those with low metacognition are the biggest offenders. Meaningful examples and case studies are commonly skipped, which has been shown to have a negative effect on overall learning (Clark & Mayer, 2008).
In a course I am currently developing, I am applying the principles found in this chapter. The course follows a linear progression because most of the concepts are new to learners and they will need the content in a linear fashion. The menu leads to key sections in the course, but it is not fragmented so much that learners would miss key concepts. I have learned that even in courses that allow for high learner control, it is best to make case studies and examples a default option whenever possible. Make it necessary for learners to choose not to read or participate in an example as opposed to leaving examples as options that are easily avoided. This will help increase the chance that learners will, indeed, complete examples and, in turn, better maximize learning.
Reference
Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd.ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
From social networking with Facebook and Twitter for class, to collaborative student publishing through wikis, to biotechnology for student assessment verification, the face of education is not just evolving but, in many instances, going through revolution. There is a clear need for educators and educational administrators to continually and purposefully seek learning for themselves in online education (Lyons, 2004) -- online education both on a standard computer or laptop as well as online education through mobile devices such as smart phones – to truly be effective in the online educational environment as educators and as course designers (Davison, 2005). One major area of consideration for online effectiveness is assessment.
Online course assessment has been commonly accomplished through means such as discussion boards, multiple-choice questions, and essays. But how do educators know who is really completing such assignments? Cheating in the classroom has always been a problem over the centuries of education. Now, with online education, an increasing number of students never even see their teachers making it a potential breeding ground for academic corruption. The most common authentication for students has been usernames and passwords (Tsiantis, Stergiou, & Margariti, 2007), but new security protocols could become a normal part of online assessment. Biometrics is a technology that could allow for the users to be measured by the computer for authentication (Tsiantis, Stergiou, & Margariti, 2007). This could be an added step to help ensure individual students are doing their own work and provide added protection to students from predators who seek to hijack account information. What does this mean for administrators and educators? Technology can provide added protection for them too. This is also a reminder that administrators and educators need to stay informed of trends in the online environment in development and delivery and in security (EI-Khatib, Korba, Xu, and Yee, 2003). New technologies such as biometrics, though they may seem unrealistic or even a bit crazy, are often the innovations that make the greatest impact. Biometric technology could even be considered a competitive advantage for universities in the future in terms of security and degree authentication for potential employers.
Biometrics is still relatively in its infancy, so research is somewhat limited in this area. Regardless, this is definitely a potential growth area in authentication, security, and online and mobile education assessment.
What do you think about the use of biometrics in education? Does this take authentication too far? Would you agree to these measures as a student or do you think this is a possible violation of privacy?
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.
References
Davison, M. M. (2005). Distance education in high schools: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Clearing House, 78, 105-108.
EI-Khatib, K., Korba, L., Xu, Y., & Yee, G. (2003). Privacy and security in e-learning. Journal of Distance Education Technologies. 1(4), 1-19.
Lyons, J. F. (2004). Teaching U.S. history online: Problems and prospects. The History Teacher, 37, 447-456.
Tsiantis, L. E., Stergiou, E. & Margariti, S. V. (2007). Security issues in e-learning systems. AIP Conference Proceedings, 963(2), 959-964. doi:10.1063/1.2836251
