LearningForward

Kent Chesnut's technology in education blog.

Several events over the last few weeks have got me thinking about authenticity in eLearning.  The ODLA Conference for one; and I’ve started re-reading Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning (highly recommended).  Both have me thinking about the effectiveness of eLearning.  Is authenticity an important factor in eLearning effectiveness?  I think so!

I decided to try to put together a list of types of eLearning in order from least authentic to most authentic (IMHO).

1. Page turner application with quiz when complete.
   I consider this about the least authentic form of eLearning available.  Content is generated (possibly that old PowerPoint that was used in class) in the form of a linear application.  The user reads the information (analyzes the graphs, …) on the page and then advances to the next page.  When all of the material has been read, the student takes a quiz.  A variety of media (pictures, videos) can be added to this format - without really affecting the authenticity of the student’s experience.
   I would consider this type of eLearning pretty ineffective, in general.  I suspect it is usually boring.  However, I think it could be effective for highly motivated students.
2. Page turner application with embedded questions.
   Again, the learner proceeds through the content in a linear fashion.  Occasionally, the learner is provided a question to ensure that they are, indeed, attending to the content.  Such questions could be included rarely or on each page of information.  As before, a variety of media can be added to this format.  An example of instruction at this level would be my older Diabetes @ School (here) program.  Note that this module requires a one-time download of the Authorware player.
   I do believe this form of instruction would be more engaging to the students than the first level, but I don’t think it will be as effective as the forms described below.
3. Demonstration application.
   The learner watches a model perform some sort of procedure.  This could be video based or possibly a series of images.  The model should be elaborating on his thoughts as he performs the activity.  The learner may be required to answer questions embedded in the instruction or with a quiz when the instruction is complete.  An example of this level would be the use of Captivate (or similar program) to capture computer interactions to demonstrate for users.
   This is the first level to include any context for the activity to be learned.
   It is quite possible that this level is out of place!

4. Programmed Instruction.
   Programmed instruction is much like the page turner with embedded questions but with an important and powerful improvement.  The instruction can branch based on the student’s answers to the questions.  A struggling student can be provided extra instruction and practice.  A student who has mastered a concept already can be allowed to skip redundant instruction.  Still, the instruction is basically decontextualized and the student activity is not authentic to very many tasks.

5. Scenario based eLearning with authentic context and learner control.
   At this level, the instruction attempts to provide an authentic context for the activity to take place within.  A problem for the learner is posed within the context.  The user must perform an activity to resolve the problem.  The activity itself may still be rather contrived, but the more realistic the better.  Various supports (resources) for the learner are provided.  Usually, the learner determines which resources are to be accessed and in which order they should be accessed to try to solve the problem.  The newer version of the Diabetes @ School 2008, A (school) year in the life of a student with type 1 diabetes, program would be (I think) an example of instruction at this level (see link here). 
   I think this level of instruction can begin to reach into the area of constuctivism (but not necessarily so). 

6. Partial simulation of the task to be completed in somewhat realistic context (instructional interactivity).
   A simulation of the task environment complete enough to allow the student to do the task to be learned.  The task itself is similar to the task the learner would complete in the real world. 
   An example would be the use of branching capability built into Captivate to create eLearning where the learner is led through the procedure to be learned - having to press the correct buttons in the correct order to move through the proper screens to complete the procedure to be learned, for example. 
   This instruction could be constructivistic (inquiry or discovery based) or more instructivistic (didactic or instruction controlled).  

7. Full simulation of task to be complete in realistic context.
   The task environment is fully (or pretty fully) simulated.  Both the task and the context are very authentic.  The learner performs a very realistic representation of the task in a virtual environment very similar to the real environment.  Again, this could be constructivistic or didactic.
   An example would be a user interface of a fully simulated device.  The user could be asked to configure the device for a specific application - the program could evaluate if the configuration is correct.

8. Student generated simulations.
   Ouch!  The only constructionist option of the bunch.  The student could create simulations in Scratch or Netlogo to demonstrate their understanding of a concept or procedure.  This type of project would be very hard to evaluate automatically, likely requiring a person to evaluate the student simulations.

Ok, so aspects of these levels could be combined to form a bunch of different levels.  But I wanted to put something down to consider and reflect upon. 

So what’s the purpose of these levels?  What can I do with them?  As I consider any eLearning, I plan to

• Evaluate any strategy I’m considering to see which of these levels it fits into.
• Consider the costs and benefits to moving the instructional strategy to a higher level. 

Any comments?  Have I omitted levels?  Are my levels out of order (in terms of authenticity)?  I’m always happy to hear what any reader may think.

My youngest son’s 7th grade Science class just finished a chapter on cell division and DNA.  DNA Replication is a key concept in cell division.  Each strand of DNA divides into 2 half-strands (which are not identical).  Then each half reconnects with free bases within the cell to for 2 new strands of DNA which are identical to the original strand.

Key Concepts:

• There are 4 bases the are used to make the rung of the DNA double helix “ladder”.
• 2 bases combine to form each rung.
• The 4 bases are Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C).
• Adenine binds only with Thymine (A-T or T-A) to form a rung.
• Guanine binds only with Cytosine (G-C or C-G) to form a rung in the DNA ladder.

 My goal with this project was to consider what type of a constructivist / constructionist project a 7th grade student could generate to help them understand the concept of DNA replication.  I utterly failed at this - instead ended up investigating the capabilities of Scratch to build a game like activity to illustrate DNA replication.

A screenshot of the project is shown at the right.  Run the project by clicking here.  Download the project file here.

OK, so the project does make an activity that students could use to practice DNA replication and, hopefully, understand how the DNA strand can replicate itself.  But why was the project a failure?  Because it’s way too difficult for a 7th grader!

I believe the following parts of the program to be much too difficult for a typical 7th grader:

• Checking to see if the strand is reconstructed correctly.  Have a look at the “when I receive Checkit” block in each of the Rightx sprites.
• The concept of constructing the bases as generic left and right, each one having a state (essentially the base type T,A,C,G) controlled by a variable.
• Randomizing the DNA strand each time the program is run requires the state concept above and is beyond the reach of most 7th graders.

Suppose a 7th grader actually wanted to create a project like this?  What could (s)he make?  I’m speculating here - but I suggest that such a project created by a 7th grade Science student in a reasonable time (say 2 hours) could have the following attributes:

• Starts with a full DNA strand that looks something like the one in my project.
• Rips the DNA strand apart leaving the right side as 9 separate sprites that retain their type (T,A,C,G).
• Allow the user to drag the right sprites onto the left strand.
• Provide instructions for the user to follow to check to see if the DNA strand has be replicated properly.

I want to consider here the great constructivist / instructivist debate.  Which is more valuable for the student when trying to learn the basics of DNA replication?

A. Practice DNA replication a few times by running a more automated activity like I created  (Instructivist approach).

• Very efficient in terms of time… student can practice the process many times in the 2 hours that it would take build the simpler project himself.
• The puzzle nature of the activity will be engaging to some students.
• There’s no guarantee that running the program even a large number of times will result in the student attaching biological meaning to what he is doing.
• Probably the better approach if the instructional objective is for the student to be able to fill in a DNA chain on a test.

B. Create the less capable project… essentially having to learn the DNA replication process to be able to build the project (Constructivist approach) and having the project available as an artifact to discuss / explain DNA replication (Constructionist approach).

• Students may get too bound up in the Scratch implementation to really think about what is happening biologically.
• Will take longer than simply running the activity.
• Students who complete the project will probably have a better understanding of DNA replication than those who ran the program.  I believe this is true and that the main cause of the better understanding would be the thinking and planning that go into building an interaction to illustrate DNA replication.
• Probably the better approach if the instructional objective is for the student to be able to describe to others how DNA replication works.

I’d be really interested in any reader response to this analysis.  What do you think?  And if you’re a teacher, which would you rather have (the instructivist activity or the constructivist project) and why.

Oops!  I apologize for the misspellings in the project file… I think I fixed them in the post.