Lynette Johnson IT500 Final Project · ! 3!...

Manners and Etiquette For Children

Lynette Johnson IT500 [email protected] Revisions: Significantly different

2

Introduction

The topic of this paper is Manners & Etiquette for Children. This paper will illustrate the initial plan, changes due to learning new theories, the revised plan, and illustrations of new ideas as I designed this project.

Part one of this paper will demonstrate my initial plan for my project. Part two will show my changes and new plan as I garnered new knowledge as a result of the literature readings. Part three of this paper will give my metaphorical representation of design, and in part four, I will give an overall discussion of what I’ve learned throughout the design process.

Part 1 – Initial Design Plans

This part of the paper will illustrate my initial design plan. This plan was created prior to any literature readings for this class, and you can find my original plan in its entirety in Appendix A.

At the beginning of the semester, my goal was to teach children ranging in age from 5-‐13 proper manners and etiquette. We live in a technology age where many children don’t know how to interact with real people anymore and thus, we have a generation of young people lacking in manners and etiquette. Originally, I had planned to use instructional content from IT510 to complete this project. I had planned to do a needs analysis, problem identification, goals, learner characteristics, task analysis, objectives, instructional strategies, role-‐playing exercises as generative strategies, test items and a summative evaluation.

The influence that shaped my design plan was my IT510, Instructional Systems Design class in which I learned to use the Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp’s [referred to as MRKK throughout the remainder of this paper] model of Instructional Design (Morrison, et al., 2011). In using the MRKK model, I was introduced to a model that taught me to design effective instruction, and as a result, that was the model that I planned to use.

The strengths of this design plan were that it would be interactive, would

involve real-‐world situations, and was going present the learner with information and strategies to ensure goals and objectives were met. A weakness of this plan was that it included young children and the instruction may have been too advanced for my younger learners.

Part One of this paper represents my initial plan. Part Two will demonstrate the theories that I incorporated into my Final Course Design Project.

Part 2 – Using Learning Theories to Develop my Design

In this section of the paper, I will talk about changing the format of my project as I perused through new literature readings. In the previous section of this paper, I

3

outlined my original plan as shown in Appendix A. As you can see, I was going to use the MRKK model (Morrison, et al., 2011) to teach my learners information and then to ensure that learning had occurred, I was going to introduce instructional and generative strategies using role-‐plays. After devising my original plan, I had to rethink some of my decisions.

Media vs. Methods Debate

The first thing I had to do was determine if I wanted to keep my current mode of delivery for my project. I was going to guide my learners through my instructional document using traditional instruction. After each objective, my plan was to have the learners break up into groups to complete the generative strategies/role-‐plays. Afterwards, I would give them a short test. But then, I began to wonder if it wouldn’t be better to change my mode of delivery. Should I present the information using PowerPoint slides, the Internet, or some other fancy form of media? After navigating through a few of the literature, I decided I would not focus on some form of fancy media, but rather focus on my methods. I made this decision in part after reading about the History of Instructional Technology when Reiser quoted Clark and Schramm as saying, “…media comparison studies, have usually revealed that students learned equally well regardless of the means of presentation” (Reiser, 1986, p. 57). Reiser went on to quote Clark as saying, “focus should be on instructional methods, rather than on the media that deliver those methods” (Reiser, 1986, p. 57). Nonetheless, there are some disagreements on this issue, such as Kozma, who believes that media directly impacts learning (Kozma, 2001). However, after reading both arguments, I decided that I aligned more with Clark’s argument. I would focus on my methods and look at which media would best compliment my methods later.

Learning Theories

After I decided to focus on my instructional methods, I next focused on the

learning theories of cognitivism, behaviorism, and constructivism. I found that the behaviorist learning theory said that the student could be conditioned to change behaviors by positive or negative reinforcements (Knowlton, Fall 2010). Maybe I could teach the information to my learners and then provide rewards for those exhibiting good manners and etiquette and withhold rewards for those lacking in manners and etiquette.

Next, I reviewed the theory of cognitivism. I found that the characteristics of this learning theory were that information would start in the sensory register, travel to short term memory, and then move to long-‐term memory through rehearsal and elaboration (Knowlton, Fall 2010). Maybe I could present the lesson to my learners and through the use of generative strategies encourage my learners to rehearse and elaborate on the concepts.

Lastly, I went over the theory of constructivism. I found that this learning theory would help the learners to construct or create unique understanding (Knowlton, Fall 2010). I also found that constructivism assisted the student in learning through social

4

interaction and authentic learning tasks using real-‐world situations (Knowlton, Fall 2010). I then found a few more characteristics of this theory. I discovered that I could structure the lessons to account for all of the characteristics of constructivism and also identify problems for the learners to solve as I determined ways to assess student learning (Knowlton, Fall 2010).

As I mulled over the three theories, I decided to go with the learning theory of

constructivism. I knew that behaviorism was not a good ingredient for my dish, because this theory would only deal with the problem of rudeness and lack of etiquette on a surface level. I want to get to the root of the problem. I did not want my learners to behave correctly because they wanted a reward; I want them to think about their actions. Behaviorism does not encourage thinking (Driscoll, 2005), so that theory was tossed out. I could use cognitivism and simply keep my original design plan with a few tweaks here and there. Nonetheless, cognitivism does not utilize real-‐world situations and authentic learning tasks. As a result, I decided against cognitivism. I was left with constructivism and decided it would be a perfect fit. I want my learners to assist in their own learning activities, and I want my learners to experience real-‐world situations and authentic learning tasks. I had constructivism for my learning theory as my first layer, so now I could choose my next component by choosing a micro-‐theory. Micro-‐Theories

I chose constructivism as the first layer of my dish. As I searched, I found micro-‐

theories called Problem-‐Based Learning, Adult Learning Theory, Cognitive Apprenticeships (also called Situated Learning), Cognitive Flexibility Theory, and Anchored Instruction. As I read the characteristics of these ingredients, two of them immediately caught my eye as possible layers for my dish. Those were Anchored Instruction and Cognitive Apprenticeships (called Situated Learning throughout the rest of this paper).

According to Bransford, et al. when using anchored instruction, instructors present the learners with a problem situation using an anchor, (usually video-‐based) to help them comprehend and understand the problem (Bransford, et al. 1990). Learners will work together to observe the characteristics of the problem situations presented to them. Learners will also become aware of changes in their comprehension and understanding of the anchor as they view the problem from different points of view. This micro-‐theory sounds perfect. I am using constructivism, which encourages learners to construct or create unique understanding, requires social interaction, and includes real-‐world situations (Knowlton, Fall 2010). At this point, I decided that I would use Anchored Instruction as one of my micro-‐theories, with my anchor being video-‐based materials.

Why video-‐based materials? Bransford et al. believe that there is an advantage to using video-‐based anchors over using books as the learner can experience gestures, affective states, scenes music, etc., to accompany the dialogue (Bransford, et al. 1990). This increase in opportunities for noticing is especially important for increasing the

5

possibility of finding relevant issues that are embedded in the movie-‐ it provides an opportunity to encourage problem finding and problem representation rather than to always provide preset problems to students (Bransford & Stein, 1984). The writers further state that, "at the heart of the model is an emphasis on the importance of creating an anchor or focus that generates interest and enables students to identify and define problems and to pay attention to their own perception and comprehension of these problems. They can then be introduced to information that is relevant to their anchored perceptions" (Bransford, et al., 1990, p. 123). Anchored instruction using video-‐based anchors will mesh very well into my dish. I then turned my attention to the other micro-‐theory called Situated Learning.

According to Lave, a major component of situated learning is social interaction, collaboration, and real-‐world authentic context (Lave, 1988). Situated Learning appeared to be a good fit as I am using constructivism, which lists social interaction, collaboration, and authentic tasks as critical components. After looking at Bransford’s description of Anchored Instruction and Lave’s description of Situated Learning, I found that they meshed well with constructivism. These micro-‐theories will work well with my learners and I now have a new plan in mind and I have three layers in my dish.

Originally, as stated earlier, I was planning to use traditional instruction to go

through my instruction with my learners. Under each goal was a list of objectives. I planned for my learners to meet these objectives by completing instructional and generative strategies. My generative strategies were going to be in the form of role-‐playing exercises. After each role-‐playing exercise, I was going to give the learners a short test to ensure they learned what was expected of them. After each of these events was completed, I was going to administer summative evaluations to see if changes were needed in the instruction.

Now that I had my theories, I took my original dish apart and began to layer it in

a different way. First, I discarded my goals, then objectives, next, my instructional strategies, then my test items, and finally my summative evaluation. I want to start completely over, however, I still want to use role-‐plays as generative strategies.

I have in my dish of theories: role-‐plays, constructivism, anchored instruction,

and situated learning. I began my plan to layer it all together as I focus on meshing each of my theories into my new plan. Putting the Ingredients Together

I decided to start working on my dish. I don’t want to focus on the symptoms

of rudeness and lack of etiquette; I want to get to the root of the problem. As stated earlier, anchored instruction, constructivism and situated learning all include social interaction and real-‐world tasks. As I began planning my generative strategies, I turned my attention to anchored instruction. I mentioned earlier that according to Bransford et al., with video-‐based anchors the learner can experience gestures, affective states, scenes music, etc., to accompany the dialogue. I decided to get a few videos on

6

manners and etiquette. I would first show the learners a video on table manners and etiquette. In this video, they would learn the proper way to behave at a table, paying close attention to gestures and dialogue. Afterwards, I will separate them into groups to have them create role-‐plays showing unsatisfactory manners and etiquette at the table. After completing the role-‐plays, the learners will have group discussions about each role-‐play, what was done to exhibit poor manners/etiquette, and ways that behavior could have been improved. In creating my first generative strategy, the learners will experience social interaction, collaboration, and problem-‐identification from different points of view as they participate in a real-‐world learning task. This strategy not only covers constructivism, anchored instruction and situated learning, but it also allows the learners to enter the reason brainset by allowing the learners to manipulate information to solve a problem (Carson, 2010).

What is a reason brainset? According to Dr. Shelly Carson (2010), there are

seven brainsets, called the CREATES brainsets. The seven brainsets include: Connect, Reason, Envision, Absorb, Transform, Evaluate and Stream. Carson states, “The CREATES brainsets model is a set of seven brain activation states (or “brainsets”) that have relevance to the creative process…. Each brain state has the potential to influence how you think, approach problems, and perceive the world..” (Carson, 2010). As stated above, I used one of the brainsets, which was reason. I will not utilize all of Carson’s brainsets for this paper, but I will include a few of them into this project.

My next generative strategy will include a movie on being polite. After viewing

this movie, my learners will form different groups. In these groups they will design their own role-‐plays on real-‐world situations in which politeness may or may not occur. The learners will focus on being polite in social situations such as: school, restaurants, church, home, and/or a shopping mall. After each group presents their role-‐play, the other groups will enter connect and reason brainsets by writing lists of other ways situations could have been handled. In the connect brainset, learners generate multiple solutions to a given problem instead of focusing on one solution (Carson, 2010). In the reason brainset, learners manipulate information in their memory to solve a problem (Carson, 2010). As the learners listen to and discuss each group’s lists, they will experience the absorb brainset by opening their minds to new experiences and ideas (Carson, 2010). Both of my generative strategies incorporate Anchored Instruction by utilizing video-‐based anchors, situated learning, and constructivism and mixes some of the CREATES brainsets into the ingredients. With this approach, I have not simply given my learners a quick fix to address symptoms of rudeness and lack of etiquette, but I have attempted to address the root of the problem, and now my dish is almost complete. I’m missing one more ingredient, and that is learner assessments. I want to determine that my learners have absorbed what I want them to learn and I need to administer a plan for completing this goal. The next section will describe my assessments plan.

7

Authentic Assessments

The previous section of this paper detailed my plan for administering information to my learners with anchored instruction using video-‐based anchors, situated learning, and constructivism. My learners will work together in groups after viewing videos to 1) help them to articulate their ideas, attitudes and emotions, 2) perform authentic tasks, and 3) construct their own understanding via social interaction (Knowlton, Fall 2010). As I reached for my next ingredient, I picked up Authentic Assessments.

What is Authentic Assessment? According to Jon Mueller, Authentic Assessment is a form of assessment in which students perform real-‐world tasks that indicate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills (Mueller, 2005).

Gulikers, et al. further mentions that with an authentic assessment, students must integrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes as if they are professionals (Gulikers, 2004). Originally, I had planned to do test questions to assess my learners. Upon completing Knowlton’s PowerPoint slideshow (2009), I saw that authentic assessments offer a stronger connection between the classroom and real world, as “authentic activities” are very indicative of things that are done in the real world. Since I am using constructivism, anchored instruction, and situated learning; authentic assessments will mesh perfectly into my dish as each of these topics focus on “real-‐world” activities and social interaction.

As I read the characteristics of Authentic Assessments, I found five parts. They included: Authentic Task, Physical/Virtual Context, Social Context, Assessment Result or Form, and Criteria/Standards. In Authentic Assessment, the authentic assessment task is not much different from the authentic learning task; learners simply experience a new situation (Gulikers, 2004). In this task, I will have learners watch a new video where poor manners are exhibited in a subtle way. Afterwards, I will have the learners point out and discuss each act of poor manners that is exhibited in the video, and different ways the action can be corrected. Students will present their work and will evaluate each other.

The next assessment will be physical/virtual context. The physical/virtual context assessment resembles realistic context (Gulikers, 2004). In my physical/virtual assessment, the learners will sit in a virtual restaurant. In this restaurant setting, the learners will share a small meal. Afterwards, learners will assess one another on good (and if applicable), bad table manners that were exhibited.

The next assessment is the social context assessment. The social context assessment evaluates the learners’ social processes that are presented in real life outside of the learning environment (Gulikers, 2004). In my social context assessment, I will take my learners on a field trip and I will watch how my learners interact with each other, and how they exhibit manners based on all of the exercises they have completed and watched on the videos. Knowlton stated that, “learning is better

8

measured through performances or simulated (or real) tasks… as giving answers to tests do not tell what a student can or cannot do or do or don’t know” (Knowlton, PowerPoint, 2009). As a result, I will administer these assessments to my learners that will focus on social interaction, different levels of evaluation and opportunities to improve based on feedback.

Part three of this paper will give my metaphorical representation for the nature of my design.

Part 3 – The Layers of my Design Process

In this part of the paper, I will describe design using a metaphorical representation. Why? The point is to show the layers of the design process as my design project has evolved and developed. Upon completion of this section of the paper, you will see that I equate design to cooking a delicious, gourmet lasagna.

In Reiser’s article (1987), he talks about the field of Instructional Technology and lists the following categories of activities: (a) design, (b) development, (c) utilization or implementation, (d) management, (e) evaluation, and (f) analysis. In my dish both in this class and in my life experience, I incorporated each of these layers of ingredients to include in my lasagna.

When I created my design, it was like making lasagna. Lasagna can have many different ingredients. Just as you have choices of learning theories, you have choices on the type of lasagna. You can choose from vegetarian lasagna, beef, Italian sausage, etc. When you cook your meat, you season it with such ingredients as: onion, garlic, sugar, basil leaves, fennel seeds, Italian seasonings, salt, pepper, tomato sauce and paste, and whatever else you choose. Just as in choosing your learning theories, you may find that you don’t like some of the ingredients and decide to toss some out. After you finish your sauce and cook your lasagna noodles, you prepare to bake the lasagna. In preparation, you place your sauce and noodles on the bottom of an aluminum pan. Next, you coat the lasagna with ricotta cheese, mozzarella cheese, and Parmesan cheese. Just as in choosing micro-‐theories, you can pick and choose your cheeses. You may use the three listed or you might use a different combination. You might want sharp cheddar instead of Parmesan. In my learning plan, I chose Anchored Instruction and Situated Learning. However, I could have also chosen from Problem-‐Based Learning, Adult Learning Theory, and Cognitive Flexibility Theory. Just as each ingredient in the lasagna serves a specific function, so also does each theory in Instructional Design. In the lasagna layers, if you only layered noodles without the meat sauce, you would have some very dry lasagna. In Instructional Design, if you try to create instructional content without adding in learning theories, micro theories, and assessments, you may wind up with some very “dry” instructions that might not benefit the learner or hold their attention. Just as you can be creative in choosing spices and seasonings for your lasagna, you can be creative in designing instructional content by

9

incorporating such things as the CREATES brainset.

Before you start layering the lasagna, you should taste your sauce. How will you know if your lasagna will taste right if you don’t taste the sauce? It might be too salty, not enough salt, too thick, too thin, etc… The same is true with assessments. How will you know if the student has learned what you expected if you don’t do any evaluations or assessments? Evaluations and assessments allow you to “taste” your instructions through the mouths of the students.

This section of the paper gave my metaphorical representation of design. The next section will illustrate the reflective process that I experienced.

Part 4 – My Reflection

In this section of the paper, first, I will describe what I have learned through the design process. Second, I will give a more personal reflection regarding how this course has impacted me and how it represents me. Third, I will make connections between what Edelson (2002) says we should learn through design and what I’ve learned. Fourth, I will expound on what I did well in this project and some weaknesses that I need to consider for future projects. Fifth, I will talk about the most important thing I will take away from this design experience. Lastly, I will give my personal reflection on this course.

What I Have Learned Throughout the Design Process

As stated above, I will first talk about what I’ve learned through the design process. In reading, Design research: What we learn when we engage in design, (Edelson, 2002). Edelson said, “Opportunities to learn arise in the course of any design process. These opportunities for learning are the direct result of the specific decisions that must be made in the course of a design” (Edelson, 2002, p. 108). Through each reading, checkpoint and/or brainstorming, the opportunity to learn something new has been presented in this class. Prior to the required readings, I knew nothing about the history of Instructional Technology, CREATES brainsets, anchored instruction, the five dimensional framework for authentic assessment, situated learning, Clark, Kozma, Edelson, etc. As a result of the readings that were required, specific decisions had to be made during each checkpoint, such as: Which learning theory will be most beneficial for my project? Which micro-‐theory or theories will work best with my learning theory? How do I design meaningful authentic assessments, and finally, how do I put it all together?

Edelson also said, “…design provides an opportunity to learn unique lessons…” (Edelson, 2002, p. 107). I had the opportunity throughout this design process to learn some unique lessons. I learned that design is not linear and it’s not boring. Creativity is encouraged and designers are urged to stretch their own thinking. Originally, when working on this project, I thought I had a pretty solid plan. Granted, the plan may have been solid, but as I continued to learn, I learned that it’s okay to change my mind,

10

revisit, revise, rewrite and be creative. I also learned that teamwork (discussion boards, peer reviews, etc.) is essential for the design process.

My Personal Reflection Regarding How IT500 Impacted Me

The IT500 course has impacted me in a few ways. As I stated above, I learned information through each checkpoint and reading. However, the greatest impact occurred as I listened to the mp3 recording that critiqued my rough draft of this paper. As I listened to this recording, I was forced to look at myself through different eyes. One of the comments was that I come across as guarded, not showing my authentic self. I went to bed asking myself, “Who is my authentic self?” I have always considered myself to be a creative person. In this paper, however, my creative self was not shining through and I struggled to find her. As I continued to reflect, I found that as a result of the career path that I had taken, I had lost the authentic me. I was “programmed” to be professional, get the job done, and there was no room for creativity. In previous schooling, everything that I wrote, I was writing to learn.

In IT500, I was no longer writing to learn, I was writing to inform. I don’t want my readers or learners confused about what I’m trying to convey. I also don’t want to be someone else when I’m writing. So, among all of the knowledge that I have garnered in this class, I can also say that I learned that it’s okay to be the objectivist me. I’ve learned that it’s okay to be vulnerable, and to relax.

In this paper, the reader can see my authentic self in parts two and three of this paper. The paper shows my view of human relations in that I think that children are lacking in consideration one for the other. Children that are taught to be well mannered as children should grow up to be well-‐mannered adults, thus improving human relations. In presenting my metaphorical representation, one can see that ISD is not linear. Throughout this design process, I think that we can all agree that there is flexibility. My goal is to have my learners go through Bloom’s six levels of learning (Bloom, 1956) through the use of the CREATES brainsets as generative strategies to ensure that there are prescriptions for deeper levels of learning and not just superficial (memorizing) learning. The authentic me is willing to search for ways to increase the levels of learning for my learners. I am willing to put “me” aside for the good of my learners, meaning I am willing to show my fears, values, hopes and vulnerabilities if it will be beneficial.

This class has helped to me step back and look at who I am. As a life-‐long learner, I’ve learned that it’s okay to rethink what I thought I was firm on, revisit what I thought I was clear on, revise what I thought I was concrete on, and rewrite, rewrite, rewrite what I thought I was finished writing. I’ve learned that there’s no one right way to help learners learn.

11

Connecting Edelson to my Project

Edelson talks about three types of theories in his article. Those theories are, domain theories, design frameworks, and design methodologies (Edelson, 2002). Edelson described domain theories as being about “learners and how they learn, teachers and how they teach, or learning environments and how they influence teaching and learning” (p. 113). In describing design frameworks, he says they are, “…a generalized design solution…collection of coherent design guidelines for a particular class of design challenge” (p. 114). Edelson describes design methodologies in the following way: “provides guidelines for the process rather than the product” (p. 115).

I have developed a design framework for my project. Edelson says, “Some prominent examples of design frameworks include: anchored instruction for creating meaningful problem contexts for extended problem solving; and goal-‐based scenarios for creating learning-‐by-‐doing … and in-‐person learning environments” (Edelson, 2002, p. 114). In my project, I have utilized anchored instruction using video-‐based anchors so that I can, as the article states; create significant problem contexts for extended problem solving. My learners will learn by doing real-‐world role-‐plays in a simulated learning environment.

Strengths and Weaknesses of My Project

My project was strong in connecting the learning theory, micro-‐theories, authentic assessment, and design framework to each other. I believe that my project got stronger when I changed my metaphorical representation. Could my metaphorical representation of design have been stronger and “stretched” me more? Possibly. However, choosing a topic that I know very little about would have been poignant for me. For future projects, I do know that I have to be careful in connecting my flow of ideas.

What I Took Away From this Design Experience

The SIUE Jury Guide lists five objectives that I should take away from the IT program. I will address each one as it relates to me during my time in IT500. The first objective is:

-‐ Demonstrates understanding of various theories and concepts that inform the practice of instructional technology (IT).

I believe that I can say with confidence that I demonstrated an understanding of various theories and concepts that inform the practice of instructional technology. My project originally used the Morrison, et al. model (Morrison Ross, Kalman, Kamp, 2011). In using the MRKK model, I demonstrated an understanding of their circular instructional design process. As I continued in this class, my project shows my understanding of the various learning theories, micro-‐theories, authentic assessments, and Edelson’s design theories. I have also shown an understanding of the history of

12

Instructional Technology as demonstrated in the learning logs and online discussions.

The second objective is: -‐ Employs appropriate approaches for envisioning, designing, producing, and

evaluating a variety of design projects.

Parts 1 and 2 of this project illustrate the processes I followed to envision, design, and produce the instruction, and how I planned to evaluate my learners. The third objective is:

-‐ Demonstrates critical, reflective, and metacognitive thinking.

As I was completing my project, I changed as a result of this class. One way that I changed was my views toward constructivism. With regard to constructivism, last semester, I learned through one of Dave’s slide shows (2011) that constructivists had some pretty strong criticisms in regard to Instructional Technology. According to the slide show, constructivists said that Instructional Design:

• Is linear and does not allow the designer any flexibility • Emphasizes superficial learning • Does not encourage or have prescriptions for deep levels of learning

As a result, I considered myself anti-‐constructivist. However, in doing this project, I was surprised to realize that constructivism was the best learning theory for my learners. So, I learned that my personal opinion should have no bearing on my learners. In the “real-‐world”, I may have to design instruction for projects or companies of which I don’t agree with the philosophy. Should my learners suffer as a result of my opinion, or should I step away from my personal self and do what’s best for my learners? I know that I have to do the latter.

As I stated earlier, my a-‐ha moment occurred after the mp3 recording. While I understand that I have to separate my personal opinions from the needs of a project, I still have to allow my authentic self to flow through my projects. Dave would always say that if anyone else could have written a piece, then we didn’t do our jobs.

The fourth objective is: -‐ Contributes productively to group-‐based design projects by showing a

willingness to other’s ideas… Although this project was not a group project, I still had a willingness to listen to other’s ideas. I listened both as peers commented via online discussions and also in rewriting my project. For instance, I was originally going to design my project using cognitivism. However, on February 18, Michael Alexander showed me one way that my project could be done using constructivism. While other classmates, showed ways it could be done using cognitivism or behaviorism, Michael’s struck me most as it made the most sense as I was planning to use role-‐plays as my generative strategies. As a result, I began looking further into constructivism as my learning theory and eventually decided to use constructivism.

13

The fifth objective is:

-‐ Demonstrates a plan for continued professional development.

As a result of doing this project, my research efforts will continue. The mp3 so struck me, as I said earlier, I went on a new journey to rediscover my creative self. As I said, I started reading the book, Creative Thinkering by Michael Michalko (2011). One of the things that Michalko talks about is how many people lose their creativity as a result of schooling. He says, “We were all amazingly creative and always filled with the joy of exploring different ways of thinking. And then something happened to us: we went to school. We were not taught how to think; we were taught to reproduce what past thinkers thought (Michalko, 2011, Kindle Locations 302-‐304). I found this to be very true for me. I was once a very creative thinker and writer. As a matter of fact, at the age of seven, I decided I wanted to be an author when I grew up. This program has helped me to not only rediscover my love for learning, but to relearn learning. I love this journey, and I plan to join professional organizations, subscribe to professional journals and keep on learning.

14

References

Bloom, Benjamin, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: McKay, 1956.

Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology

can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Bransford, J. D. & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problem solver. New York: Freeman. Carson, Shelley. (2010). Your Creative Brain: Seven Steps to Maximize Imagination,

Productivity, and Innovation in Your Life. Harvard Health Publications. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 42(2), 21-‐29.

Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning From Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-‐459.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and

situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33, 52-‐70. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.

New York: Teachers College Press. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-‐121. Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, Theo J.; Kirschner, Paul A. (2004). A five-‐dimensional

framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-‐86.

Knowlton, D. (Fall 2008). Behaviorism. [PowerPoint slides]. Knowlton, D. (2009). Authentic Assessments. [PowerPoint slides]. Knowlton, D. (Fall 2010). Cognitivism. [PowerPoint slides]. Knowlton, D. (Fall 2010). Constructivism. [PowerPoint slides]. Knowlton, D. (Revised 2011). Instructional Theory. [PowerPoint slides].

Kozma, R. B.(2001). Kozma reframes and extends his counter argument. In R.E. Clark

(Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 179-‐198). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

15

Michalko, M. (2011). Creative Thinkering. Novato, CA: New World Library. Kindle

edition. Morrison, G.R. (2001). An analysis of Kozma and Clark's arguments. In R.E. Clark (Ed.),

Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 179-‐198). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective

instruction (6th Ed.), New York, NY: John Wiley. Mueller, J. (2005) Authentic assessment in the classroom... and the library media

center. Library Media Connection, 23(7), 14-‐18. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-‐based

scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 305–346. Schon, D. A. (1990). The design process. In V. A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center (pp. 111–141). New York: Routledge & Kegan.

Schram W. (1977). Big media, little media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,

constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-‐structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

16

Appendix A

Manners/Etiquette for Children Instructional Design Document

Problem Identification

We live in a society of young people, who spend hours and hours on technology. Many of these young people do not know how to communicate with people and therefore, don’t know how to exhibit good manners or etiquette. It is important in life, in school, and in personal relationships to have good manners and etiquette. Poor manners can result in loss of friendships, relationships, jobs, etc. Learners need to be taught the importance of good manners and etiquette and this design document will address the issue of poor manners and non-‐existing etiquette.

Goals:

1. Learners will exhibit polite communication

2. Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly

3. Learners will exhibit respect for themselves and others

4. Learners will exhibit gratitude

Specific Characteristics

Children ages 5-‐13

Task Analysis

Task analysis would be here.

Objectives:

Goal 1. Learners will exhibit polite communication

Objective 1.1 Learners will exhibit polite communication by using the words may I, and please

Objective 1.2 Learners will exhibit polite communication in situations such as when they need to get by a person, need to say something to someone that is already talking, or accidentally bumps someone by using the words, excuse me

Objective 1.3 Learners will exhibit polite communication by refraining from nodding or shaking their heads and instead using the words, yes and no

Initial presentations, generative strategies and test items would occur after each

17

objective

Goal 2. Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly

Objective 2.1 Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly by offering them their seat if their elder is standing, and/or offering them help if it looks like they are in need

Objective 2.2 Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly by opening and/or holding the door when the elderly are entering or exiting a building

Initial presentations, generative strategies and test items would occur after each objective

Goal 3. Learners will exhibit respect for themselves and others

Objective 3.1 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by refraining from making fun of others

Objective 3.2 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by learning about and respecting differences (such as cultural, handicapped, etc.)

Objective 3.3 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by learning the dangers of spreading rumors and taking steps to refrain from spreading rumors

Objective 3.4 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by keeping their hands to themselves

Objective 3.5 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by using the correct tone of voice


Goal 4. Learners will exhibit gratitude

Objective 4.1 Learners will exhibit gratitude by saying thank you when something nice is done/said for or to them

Objective 4.2 Learners will exhibit gratitude by writing and sending a thank you note when they receive a gift


Formative & Summative Evaluation

Lynette Johnson IT500 Final Project · ! 3!...

Documents

Transcript of Lynette Johnson IT500 Final Project · ! 3!...