Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in Undergraduate Education
description
Transcript of Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in Undergraduate Education
Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in
Undergraduate Education
Professor Thomas C. ReevesThe University of Georgia
Marie Jasinski
Topics• The conative
domain
• Authentic learning design and assessment
• The role of technology
We don’t know enough about the outcomes of teaching and learning in higher education.
It is convenient for everyone involved to pretend that high quality, relevant teaching and learning are occurring.
Film Clip from “Declining by Degrees” by John Merrow and Learning Matters
“Quality” ratings of universities & colleges by commercial entities have enormous impact in the USA today.
The criteria used for these rankings are surprisingly dubious.
Film Clip from “Declining by Degrees” by John Merrow and Learning Matters
What should we expect our students to learn in higher education?
Traditional Learning Domains
• Cognitive
• Affective
• Psychomotor
Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
Cognitive Cognitive Domain Domain What
we say we value
What we teach and test
Characterization by Value Set
Organization
Valuing
Responding
Receiving
Affective Affective Domain Domain
Non-discursive Communication
Skilled Movements
Physical Activities
Perceptual Skills
Basic Fundamental Movement
Reflex Movement
Psychomotor Psychomotor Domain Domain
Unfortunately, we have neglected the conative domain.
Conative Domain
• Will
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
• Mental energy
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
• Mental energy
• Self-determination
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
• Mental energy
• Self-determination
• Intention
Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
• Mental energy
• Self-determination
• Intention
History of the Conative Domain
Orexis: (Greek) Striving; desire; the conative aspect of mind
Aristotle
cognitive affective
conative
Thought Feelings Behavior
CognitionAffectionConation
History of the Conative Domain
• The conative domain as well as the affective were eliminated by the behaviorist movement and “rat psychology.”
• “What good is it to add invisible states such as motivation and emotion to explain behavior?”
History of the Conative Domain• Skinner maintained
that humans lack will or intentionality.
• Thinking we have a will is a product of our past conditioning and current environmental influences.
History of the Conative Domain
In the 1950’s, Harry Harlow restored the affective domain to respectability.
History of the Conative Domain
Studies of affection with baby monkeys and wire, cloth, and real mothers began to undermine the behavioral dominance of the times.
History of the Conative Domain
Amazon search yields only one contemporary book about the conative domain.
Cognitive – Affective – Conative
• To know
• Thinking
• Thought
• Epistemology
• Knowing
• To feel
• Feeling
• Emotion
• Esthetics
• Caring
• To act
• Willing
• Volition
• Ethics
• Doing
Can we restore the conative domain to its proper place in higher education?
“…today's teens are recasting the image of youth from downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged.”
Generational Differences• Boomers, Gen Xers, and the Net Gen
• Most of research done with elites using poor sampling
• Generalizations are extremely under-supported by data
• Caution is advised
Proper Caution
Having grown up with widespread access to technology, the New Gen is able to intuitively use a variety of IT devices and navigate the Internet. Although they are comfortable using technology without an instruction manual, their understanding of the technology or source quality may be shallow.
“Today's young people have been raised to aim for the stars at a time when it is more difficult than ever to get into college, find a good job, and afford a house. Their expectations are very high just as the world is becoming more competitive, so there's a huge clash between their expectations and reality.”
• depression,
• crushing disappointment,
• credit card debt,
• student loans,
• divorce-like breakups,
• health-insurance,
• real estate prices,
• recession
Narcissism abounds!
• express grandiose fantasies
• make demands on others out of sense of entitlement
• devalue others who threaten self-esteem
• anger if their expectations are not met
Narcissist*
*and
proud of it
Jean Twenge
In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted to cheating whereas in 1969 only 34% admitted such a failing.
In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen reported earning an A average in high school whereas in 1968 only 18% of freshmen reported being an A student in high school.
An A or else….
In the 1950s, only 12% of young teens agreed with the statement “I am an important person” whereas by the late 1980s, 80% claimed they were important.
It’s all about me.
In the 1960s, 42% of high school students expected to work in professional jobs whereas in the late 1990s, 70% of high schools expected to work as a professional.
• 60% could not name a single supreme court judge
• 48% did not know what Roe vs. Wade was
• 62% could not name a country in Bush’s Axis of Evil
21st Century Outcomes– Accessing and using information– Communication skills– Demonstrating understanding– Applying rules and procedures– Being creative– Thinking critically – Making sound judgments– Problem-solving– Life-long learning– Exhibiting intellectual curiosity
Let’s face it. Assessment drives learning.
If it hasn’t been assessed, it hasn’t been learned.
We must strive to assess the full range of learning outcomes.
The most “shocking” discovery is the “non-aggression pact” between professors and students.
OK, we need to focus on higher order outcomes, but do our students really want to learn?
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
• Focus on undergraduate education
• 2006: 557 colleges and universities
• 2005: 529 colleges and universities
• 2004: 473 colleges and universities
• 2003: 437 colleges and universities
• 2002: 367 colleges and universities
• 2001: 321 colleges and universities
• 2000: 276 colleges and universities
NSSE results
• Work expectations for students:–10-15 hrs
in class –25-30 hrs
studying
Average faculty hours in USA
• 53 hours per week: ranging from 47 in community colleges to 57 in research universities
• 11 hours per week teaching: ranging from 16 hours in community colleges to 7 in research universities
NSSE results
• Work Reality:–20% study 5 hrs
per week or less
–25% 6-10 hrs
–48% 11-30 hrs
–7% > 30 hrs
NSSE
Active, collaborative
learning
Studentfaculty
Interaction
HighAcademic Challenge
Continuous
Timely
Feedback
Time On
Task
The best teachers focus on “critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, curiosity, concern for ethical issues” as well as “breadth and depth of specific knowledge” and the “methodologies and standards of evidence used to create that knowledge.”
Knowledge is constructed, not received.
Mental models change slowly.
Teaching is about asking the right questions.
Learners must care.
Technology in higher education is necessary, but not sufficient.
Teaching with technology works when learning tasks are authentic!
Alignment is critical!–goals & objectives
–content
–instructional design
–learner tasks
–instructor roles
–technological features
–assessment strategies
Nature of Objectives
The best teachers focus on teaching higher order, general skills such as problem solving, creativity, and intellectual curiosity as well as facts and skills.
Lower order, discrete Higher order, general
Nature of Content
The best teachers encourage learners to construct multiple interpretations of real world data.
One Right Answer Multiple Perspectives
Pedagogical Dimensions
The best teachers use innovative alternative pedagogies such as problem based learning or authentic tasks.
Direct Instruction Problem-Based
Learner Tasks
• textbook problems• abstract context• easily solvable• one right answer
• ill-structured problems• meaningful context• time required• multiple solutions
Academic Authentic
Instructor Roles
The best teachers focus less on what they will do and more on what their students will do as learners.
Focus of teaching Focus on learning
Technology Role
The best teachers use technology to engage students in the active construction of original knowledge representations using real world data.
Prepackaged data Real world data
Focus of Assessment
The best teachers focus assessment on robust mental models and higher order thinking skills, not just memorized concepts.
Discrete Knowledge Mental Models
Alignment is essential!goals/objectives
content
instructional design
technology role
assessment
learner tasks
instructor roles
Keeping pedagogy ahead of technology is an ongoing struggle.
I went to Wikipedia to find out about the Marshall Plan…3 hours of clicking later I’m on wet tee-shirts.com
Wikipedia• Summation
is not enough
• We need critical analysis
Wikipedia….the sum of all
human knowledge?
Did you know that 63.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
MISSION: “Encourage and sustain continual improvements in the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for all students, and to serve as a resource for lifelong learning.”
We already know that learning with technology works as well as face-to-face instruction.
Premier Educational Research Journal in the USA
Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006 - “Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research
Major conclusion: “… overwhelming evidence has shown that learning in an online environment can be as effective as that in traditional classrooms.”
Is “just as good” good enough?
Enhanced Learning at USAFA
Enhanced Learning in Engineering• Problem: Cadets not achieving
higher order outcomes• Critical Outcomes for 21st Century
Graduates of the US Air Force Academy– Frame and resolve ill-defined
problems– Exhibit intellectual curiosity– Communicate with multiple
media– Enrich mental model of
engineering
• New ENGR 110 “Introduction to Engineering” course designed
• Course intended to be a showcase for alternative pedagogical dimensions
• Course designed to take maximum advantage of the technological infrastructure available at USAFA
• Pedagogical DimensionsTask-Oriented - cadets were given three tasks during the semester
Get to Mars
Build a research site on Mars
Develop a power source on Mars
Constructionist - cadets created knowledge representations of solutions
Conversational - cadets joined listservs and other forums to discuss tasks
Collaborative - cadets worked in teams throughout the course
• Pedagogical DimensionsChallenging - there were no “correct” solutions to tasks, but lots of wrong ones
Responsive - faculty and external experts provided multiple levels of guidance and feedback
Reflective - cadets kept electronic journals and participated in focus groups
Formative - cadets developed prototypes and refined them over time
• Web provided rich resources about Mars, space travel, engineering, Air Force, etc.
• Web tools enabled cadets to collaborate.
• E-mail supported consultation with experts.
• PowerPoint used to construct knowledge representations.
• Excel, Stella, and other tools afforded problem-solving and modeling.
• Decisions had to be made:– After a three year beta test, should the new
course become part of the “core.”
– How could this type of course be supported after faculty who created it were gone?
• Evaluation questions:– Did students achieve higher-order outcomes?
– What were the logistical requirements for implementation?
– How could the course be improved?
• A comparative evaluation was conducted using two experimental classes and two control classes with a range of measures:– Standardized problem-solving
instrument– Concept maps– Questionnaires
• Interviews and focus groups employed.
• Intensive observations.
Task-Oriented
Challenging
Collaborative
Constructionist
Conversational
Responsive
Reflective
Formative
Engr Mech Engr 110Engr 110
• Educationally significant differences were found on a standardized measure of problem-solving.
• Concepts maps revealed little.• Observations indicated that course was
very demanding on both cadets and faculty.
• Other benefits found included:– richer mental models – improved communication skills– enhanced research skills– better team skills
Pre- and Post- Course Results• No pre-course differences between cadets in new
course and those in control course• Significant post-course differences between
cadets in new course and those in control course• Cadets in new course improved by a whole
standard deviation (1 Sigma difference)
D D+ S- S S+ E- E
Pre =
Post =
• Recommendations:–Continue to support the
course for two more years
–Explore extensions of blended design into other courses
–Provide more faculty release time
So what should we do to engage Generation Me?
We must end the cult of self-esteem.
Stop telling young people they can be anything they want.
Stop telling young people they can be anything they want.
McDonald's to offer burger bar 'A-Levels' Monday, 28 January 2008
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said it had approved the company to develop courses up to the equivalent of A-level standard.
i’m learning it
Make grades meaningful again.
Thanks, but you still got a C.
Assessment
Reward achievement, not participation.
By 10 PMBy 10 PM
Voter participation among those aged 20-24 dropped from 51% in 1972 to 35% in 2000.
Where there’s will, you’re away!
Thank You!Professor Tom Reeves
The University of Georgia
Instructional Technology
604 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA
30602-7144 USA
http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves