introduction
Learning from Linear Presentations
The development and growth of the Internet has revolutionized not only the way we access information, but the way we present it as well. Prior to the advent of the World Wide Web, most learning presentations were audio, textual, or video publications that were viewed linearly, or planned learning activities that were presented in a linear fashion. The learner may have listened to a lecture, completed a sequence of activities, read a chapter in a textbook, followed along on a tour, or watched a film or video to gain the information needed to learn a new concept – and opportunities to adjust the presentation sequence were limited.
Linear presentations (lectures, expositions, demonstrations, activity sequences, etc.) can be seen as efficient from the perspective of the instructor and the institution. They aim to maximize the overall learning effects for a target audience by identifying the state of understanding and needs of the average learner, and then creating and reusing a fixed presentation to meet those typical needs. These presentations are often well polished and can be effective for large portions of their target audiences.
However, this model seems to be inefficient for many learners and completely unhelpful for others. Because the intended audience is an amalgamation of learners, any given presentation can fail to meet student needs on several fronts: for some, the content presented may be redundant, while for others the examples presented may be insufficient or inscrutable; for some the information may be presented too quickly, while for others the pace may be too slow; for some, the presentation style and language may be easy to take in, while for others, the presentation may require excessive effort to apprehend ideas and remain engaged.
These issues may be somewhat mitigated in a live classroom presentation, where a learner can have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions to address some of their learning needs. Unfortunately, these opportunities are often limited because the teacher feels a pressure to get through the material for the day. Similarly, when students are in a learning setting outside the regular classroom, such as on a tour, questions might be asked
- if the learner has sufficient language skills, background knowledge and confidence to pose a question
- but often the schedule is tight, and the opportunities for questions (and student led learning) are limited. Finally, when viewing a video, there might be an option to pause and review, but social constraints limit interference with the traditional linear presentation – and as a result learners tend to become passive or adopt a “learned helplessness” (Flanagan, 1996).
We expect that this “learned helplessness”, or passivity, occurs to some degree in most linear presentations because learners have experienced the futility associated with trying to synchronously process all of the content, reconcile every contradiction or explore all the perplexities arising from the presentation. If they allow themselves to be distracted by any portion of the content, their inattention to the new content and structures being presented will likely lead to greater confusion overall. To cope with an unregulated onslaught of new information, the learners will be conditioned to become passive receptors of content whenever the pace of information exceeds their ability to cope. This passivity, in turn, may retard the learning process (Schunk, 2000).
That linear presentations are often partially effective for the majority of the target population is a testament to the resiliency and capacity of the human mind. Learners may store up the presented content (information and experiences) for later reflection and learning. Yet, we suggest that this is an inefficient process (when compared to interactive learning opportunities) with uneven results that depend upon the individual learner’s capacity for storing and recalling presented content and their access to additional resources (supplementary experiences, books, experts, tutors, etc).
BACKGROUND
The World Wide Web has provided learners today with a new avenue to address their learning needs. Knowledge is now readily accessible through a myriad of websites that provide not only access to needed content, but also provide learner control in terms of amount of information and order of access. This Just-In-Time model supports collaboration, authentic learning, curiosity, and opportunities to reflect and grow (Jacobsen, Clifford, & Friesen, 2002). However, because of the explosive growth of the Internet, learners often face information overload and information anxiety (Carlson, 2003). Pre-filtering and sorting of perceived information requirements to reduce the amount of information options offered and to enhance the quality of the material acquired can help reduce stress and cognitive overload.
The Enhanced Instructional Presentation (EIP) model is a transformation model that seeks to meld the benefits of learner control and self-directed learning, with the strengths of well-crafted linear presentations. The model guides the transformation of existing (or newly captured) linear content into hypermedia based EIPs that include adjustable learner control with respect to their review or passage through the original presentation, access to refined networks of authentic learner questions and supplementary support material, and access to dynamic and evolving resources, activities and challenges to support learning and problem solving. The resulting EIPs allow the individual learners to view, review and process content at a rate and in an order that meets the learners’ needs (accretion), while providing them with opportunities to “ask questions”, reconcile contradictions (restructure), and reflect and improve upon their understanding (fine-tuning) (Ru-melhart, 1978). The EIP model is an adaptation of van Merrienboer’s 4C/ID model (van Merrienboer, 1997) to support the delinearization of traditional linear presentations.
Questioning, Constructing and Tutoring
Aristotle suggested that our learning is composed of question answer propositions and Dillon claimed: “No event better portends learning than a question arising to the mind” (1986, p. 333). Yet student generated questions are typically scarce in the industrial model of education.
Constructivism is based on the idea that knowledge is accrued through an adaptive function (von Glaserfeld, 1991) and asserts that learning results from actively adapting to the environment rather than through passive reception ofinformation or instruction (Mariotti, 2002). Furthermore, constructivism recognizes that individuals have different backgrounds and understandings, and will have widely varying needs for supplementary explanations and examples (Bruner, 1966). Ultimately, an ideal learning environment supports the asking of questions and the seeking of answers.
While there may be some valid teaching efficiency arguments supporting the more traditional model of presenting synthesized and sequenced content augmented with responses to selected anticipated questions, the efficiencies accrue primarily to the system and teacher. Such a system cannot be expected to be efficient from the perspective of the student.
When a learner is presented with a traditional fixed linear presentation (live or recorded, with or without an in-line or follow-up discussion in class), a loss of learning opportunities or a reduction in learning efficiency may be expected to result. Even when the learners do not slip into a mode of learned helplessness, challenges arise that reduce their engagement with the presentation or lesson and negatively affect the potential for learning. These frustrations include:
1. Presentation rates that are either too fast or too slow for individual learners may cause selective attention or inattention to presentation content.
2. Short term memory overloads or processing delays may cause concepts, context, questions and even answers to be dropped before they can be committed to memory (Miller, 1956) or shared during a delayed discussion.
3. Insufficient conceptual background and/or vocabulary may impede the articulation of meaningful questions that would provide access to the information required to stabilize their understanding or to correct a misunderstanding.
4. Locked sequencing of experiences may force redundant or misordered learning opportunities on the students.
5. Social constraints (e.g. pride, consideration of others) may prevent the learners from expressing the questions they have formulated even when an opportunity to do so is provided.
6. Time constraints may mean that answers to learners’ questions are not available until the context that would have supported the capture and integration of the new information has dissipated.
Even when questions are asked, they may be different from the students’ real questions, or laid aside because the instructor judges the questions as too marginal or too difficult, or they are abandoned by the learner because their moment of curiosity has passed.
The theory of didactical situations recognizes a tension between knowledge constructed through social interaction and students’ own knowledge (Brousseau, 1997). It stresses the role of the teacher in organizing the interaction, and suggests the way for teachers to succeed is to construct a “good situation”(Mariotti, 2002, p. 701) that allows the interaction and emergence of the expected knowledge. Individualized tutoring has been demonstrated to be a near ideal learning situation yielding two standard deviations of improvement over traditional instruction (Bloom, 1984). In tutoring situations, learners lacking sufficient conceptual understanding or verbal confidence to enable them to form or present adequate questions are prompted and led in the direction of the intended learning outcomes. Learners lacking in self-direction, or needing to overcome a learned passive response, are encouraged and prompted with options frequently. Despite the potential advantages, it does not seem feasible to provide every learner with unlimited live tutoring.
Bork (2004) suggests that it is possible to produce computer-based learning material that closely follows the model of tutor and student. In many senses, the EIP model is like a passive version of traditional tutoring, it facilitates the teacher’s construction of a good learning situation and the learners’ use of their own intelligence to choose paths through a synchronized (in time or space or both) network of supplementary content (authentic student questions, answers and resources) in order to meet their individual needs.
Main focus: The EIP Model
If a good educational presentation is like a classic play, then an Enhanced Instructional Presentation is like that classic live play supplemented with the ready availability of “Cole’s Notes”, an online discussion forum, a DVD recording of the play, and a tutor.
The EIP model has four main components:
1. The traditional linear presentation (e.g., video, flash sequence, lecture, tour).
2. The learner control mechanism. This mechanism allows the learner to pause the presentation, instantly skip back and review earlier concepts, skip forward over redundant material and control the presentation or exploration sequence through a table of contents or list of options. This is accomplished by intelligently chunking the presentation into a fine-grained randomly accessible sequence of meaningful content chunks.
3. The supplementary content network. This synchronized (or co-located) web of resources is designed to complement the traditional linear presentation by providing learners with access to a short list of “just-in-time” and “as-needed” material that responds to previously harvested authentic student questions. Each piece of supplementary content may be augmented with a further short list of related supplementary resources thus providing the learners with an opportunity to continue exploring until they have quenched their naturally occurring line of questions. This supplementary content network may include both stable local resources produced during the initial transformation and an evolving set of online resources that accommodate new questions and provide new information as necessary.
4. The feedback and interaction mechanism. This element can be Web based and adjustable to: a) support the asking and answering of student questions during the development of the EIP (see Phase 1 below); b) meet the needs of the learner after the EIP has been published; and c) support research activities. Feedback opportunities may include assessments, surveys, access to the instructor via e-mail, and access to related Web pages and asynchronous discussion forums.
Development and use of an EIP
EIPs are typically created in a two phase process. The Phase I EIP includes an appropriately chunked version of the original presentation (e.g., the contents of an instructional video separated into meaningful chunks of information – typically15-60 seconds, or a collection of activities on a tour along with captured essential resources), a hyperlinked table of contents that specifies the names and descriptions of all of the content chunks, and simple mechanisms to support various communication, feedback and data-logging options. The original presentation may be viewed in its original linear form, or in a learner selected sequence (potentially skipping redundant material). Teachers or researchers may ask learners to provide feedback in the form of questions while they progress through the presentation and then use these questions to support the development of a Phase II EIP.
A Phase II EIP includes the above elements along with the supplementary network of resources to address the authentic student questions collected from a Phase I EIP. These questions and resources are time- or location-linked to the chunked linear presentation and may include text comments, activities, audio files, data collection instruments, flash sequences, video, or other media content that allows students to find their own answers to the distilled authentic student questions. Additional links to some Web-based online material might support an ongoing iterative development process where adjustments and refinements can be made as often as is necessary.
Field-Webs: Applying the EIP model to Transform Field-Trips
In this paper, we extend and adapt the EIP model to develop a new model for problem-based learning (PBL) in concert with field-trips: the field-web. Herrington and Oliver (2000) stated that the instructional technology community is in the midst of a philosophical shift that may begin to address the growing rift between formal school learning and real-life learning. What is needed in education is a shift from artificial tasks, whose main purpose is to cover content, to more authentic tasks, the purpose of which is to engage learners in complex issues that enhance the learning of content and the student’s ability to learn (Marzano, 1992). We believe that field-webs are one way to accomplish this goal.
Field-webs are similar to web-quests (Dodge, 1997; Wood, 2001) in that they present students with problem-based scenarios that they must resolve through a process of searching for relevant information and interacting with relevant resources. In a web-quest, students accomplish the learning objectives and gain practical experience by working with knowledge acquisition and application through a series of web-based activities (Dodge, 1997; Wood, 2001). Field-webs build on this concept but instead of being classroom or lab based and linear, they are field-trip based and incorporate additional constructivist consistent dimensions such as problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) and Just-In-Time-&-Place (JITP) scaffolding designed to meet the authentic needs of learners (i.e., generated to respond to previously observed student needs). PBL involves solving real-world problems, often in collaborative groups, where the problems are ill-defined (i.e., students must make and justify assumptions) and hands on (Papert, 1971). Student groups are encouraged to choose their path through the available options and resources to meet their needs and reflecting their group’s unique collection of practical knowledge and experience (Clandinin, 1985). Throughout a field-web activity, the teacher acts as a facilitator, coach, and tutor, and supports the refinement of the field-web by identifying and reporting deficiencies to the creators of the field-web (or subsequently addressing these needs if they are the creator).
A field-web, like other PBL activities, allows students to take ownership of the problem and allows them to be critical, independent thinkers and learners and supports the development of interpersonal and teamwork skills as they work with others (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Zumbach, Kumpf, & Koch, 2004). Although direct instruction remains part of the process, a substantial degree of flexibility and a focus on self-directed or group-directed learning is provided. Through collaborative investigation and jigsaw learning (Aronson, 2000) students and teachers will, as Wood (2001) suggests, master the prescribed learning outcomes through their different learning styles in a real Gardnerian sense. Moreover, students will be practicing an attitude of responsive academic pursuit to achieve personal and civic goals that are necessary life skills.
Field-webs are also different from web-quests in that a substantial portion of the searching and learning activities are designed to occur in physical spaces. Although students will access some resources and information at their school in preparation for the field experience, once in the field, gaps in their knowledge or challenges to their memory will require access to the supplementary resources, some of which may be located in resources the students carry with them (or later access online) and some of which may be located at identified locations that the group must access. JITP information is used to scaffold learning without requiring the teacher to possess and present all of the expert knowledge about a given topic when the students need it. JITP support comes just when it is needed (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1997; Jacobsen, et al., 2002) and where it is needed (i.e. it relates to the given location).
Transforming traditional field trips into field-webs, produces several positive benefits including:
• An improved learning potential derived from the temporal and physical juxtaposition of instructional content and authentic experience.
• An increased fidelity and strength of internal representations of conceptual and procedural knowledge derived from hands-on explorations and activities in authentic spaces.
• An increased level of physical activity
• An increased likelihood of engagement associated with a purposeful, relevant problem based learning activity.
Prior to the fieldtrip, students are introduced to the field-web challenge, i.e. the context is described, a planning process is undertaken, materials are prepared, and training is provided for any low threshold, low friction tools that will be used to support the activity (e.g. GPS, Handheld computer, compass, clinometers, digital camera, etc.). During the field-web activity, small groups of students (3-4) are provided with an annotated list describing a geographically distributed web of “learning-points” (much like a table of contents in the more generic EIP model) and encouraged to explore the physical site according to their own needs and backgrounds and make notes.
Some field-webs may be designed to allow teams to traverse all learning-points of interest within the allotted time, while others may require inter-group cooperation with each group having a responsibility to communicate their findings from specific points with the other groups in the class after returning to the classroom. Each learning point may have one or more aspects to be explored such as: descriptive, instructional, discovery, data collection, and so forth, and many of these may take the form of mini-challenges to support continued student engagement. Soon after the field trip, students may generate a presentation to share their discoveries and observations with the class. At the conclusion of the field-web unit students may share their “solutions” to the presented problem with the class (e.g., as a PowerPoint) and submit their final proposal/report to the teacher for assessment.
Again the development process is iterative. Prototype field-webs may be distributed via a Web site providing the teacher with access to a teacher resource and student resources to support an extended student led problem based learning activity. The Field-web activity will usually involve a preparation and planning component prior to the field trip; a field trip component in which the students collect knowledge, skills, contextual experiences, and data; a problem-solving component where the students take the knowledge and data and apply it to the problem or challenge; and a presentation component where the students present their solutions or reports and evaluate their learning. As requests for improvements and extensions are addressed and suggestions are received the network of supplementary material presented on the web is increased.
FUTURE TRENDS
An Example
In our first field-web prototype we challenge middle school level students to prepare a proposal for the development of a heronry for their community. An existing Heronry serves as both a holistic exemplar and a location for the field-web field trip. Before the trip, students review the challenge and the provided resources, plan their activities, assign data collection tasks, and prepare and practice using the necessary equipment. During a field trip to the Heronry, students visit the learning points according to their plan, review the related documentation, complete and record the activities presented at the learning points, and collect the data as assigned (e.g., one group may be assigned the task of calculating the height of nests for herons, another group gathers data on the birds’ feeding grounds, another group maps selected features in the area, etc.). Upon return to the classroom, groups review and share their experiences and their initial observations with the other groups in the class. Finally, groups are given some time to complete their proposal and an opportunity to share this as well.
The provided resources include a teacher’s guide (containing rationale, curricular links, supplementary materials, suggestions for modifications, etc.), an annotated list of geographically linked learning points (to be located with a map or a GPS unit), and a collection of supporting materials to be provided to the students (e.g., introductory documentation template files, exemplar proposals, and learning point specific resources). The learning point resources might consist of text documents (txt, pdf), audio podcasts (e.g., mp3 on an audio player), and video podcasts (e.g., mp4 – on a handheld computer) that may highlight a local feature, present additional information, demonstrate a process, and/or present a mini-challenge. For example, one task may require the students to calculate the height of nests for herons. Students who need support to complete this task could use their handheld computers to view a short video clip (mp4) showing someone completing this task or read a short document giving instructions. The equipment used to support this activity might include GPS devices, handheld computers (to review downloaded text/audio/video documents), binoculars, clinometers, digital cameras.
As they participate in the Heronry field Web process, students will engage in activities that address many different learning goals:
• Collaborative learning (team effort)
• Information technology (e.g., media review, presentations)
• Language arts (e.g., notes, presentation)
• Mathematics (e.g., problem solving, nest height calculation)
• Science (e.g., observation, ecology of a bird habitat)
• Social studies (e.g., mapping, bylaws)
• Physical education (hiking, walking, orienteering)
Although technology undergirds many of the activities presented in this prototype field web (i.e. handheld computers and GPS units) it is not intended to be frivolous. We hypothesize that the four-dimensional juxtaposition (i.e., time and space) of the relevant resources with the field trip experience will help students to build more meaningful connections, and more stable and resilient internal representations of the concepts that are being explored.
conclusion
The EIP model is a transformation model to support the enhancement of pre-existing and new linear presentations . By enhancing a traditional linear presentation with an integrated playback control and a web of supplementary resources designed to attend to the authentic needs of the learners, teachers and resource developers can create flexible learning environments that may be more efficient. By combining the strengths of the two instructional media modes (linear presentation and a supplementary web of resources) along with learner control and communication options, EIPs promote engagement and support more efficient learning.
Field-webs are a more specific type of learning activity cast within the EIP model. Students are presented with a problem to solve in a field setting along with a collection of resource materials and access to additional dynamic resources in the classroom. The resource materials which are designed to meet the authentic needs of students (i.e., answering earlier student questions and needs) are created and supplied in the field in a JITP fashion to allow for flexible learning and individual creativity in the completion of the tasks. Here again, it is anticipated that students presented with a learning challenge through a field-web will be more engaged, learn more, and learn more efficiently than students participating in a traditional lock-step field trip with a worksheet.
KEY TERMS
Constructivism: A theory of learning that asserts that learning results from the learner actively interacting with their learning environment rather than passively receiving information.
Didactical Situations: Designates the sets of circumstances of a teaching situation that can be linked in a way that is necessary, coherent, regular, reproducible, and specific to the targeted knowledge. Its theory in not that of learning, but of organization of other people’s learning (i.e. the dissemination and transposition of knowledge.)
Enhanced Instructional Presentation (EIP): A traditional linear presentation (e.g. video) supplemented with hyperlinked material providing answers to authentic student questions and additional information (enrichment, remedial).
Field-Web: An EIP model that supports the augmenting and scaffolding of traditional field trips by linking-in a supplemental Web of resources linked to particular field locations.
Four-Component Instructional Design Model (4C/ID-Model): An instructional design model incorporating teaching of knowledge structures and algorithmic methods in supporting roles to mental models and heuristic problem-solving instruction. Its four components are: compilation (algorithmic learning and instruction), restricted encoding (includes facts, concepts, principles, and plans), elaboration (includes conceptual models, goal plan hierarchies, causal models, mental models), and induction (includes heuristics and systematic approaches to problem-solving).
Just-in-Time and Place Material: Learning resources to supplement a traditional presentation which is available for the learner to access in the field as needed.
Learned Helplessness: A psychological situation resulting from the learner’s inability to control their learning situation. It leads to passivity in the learner.
Learner Control: A learning environment where the learner has control of the pace and direction of the learning situation.
Linear Presentation: A traditional form of instruction where material is presented to a learner in a predetermined sequence.
Passivity: A manifestation of helplessness in which the learner does nothing because they have no control over a situation which is not meeting their learning needs.
