1) being task centered to engage the learner.
2) use prior knolwedge to help process new information.
3) Have demonstrations available to show the learner what is expected
4) Allow the learner to show what they have learned and provide feedback.
5) Use the newly aquired information to create a new task that uses the information
These definitely aren't new concepts since the majority of public education has been designed the same way since the inception of a school house.
Some other pearls of wisdom from the article include how the learning should take place--using more tehnology and interaction will result in higher cognition of the material than just text alone.
For some, designing task centered instructions seems like it would be difficult. There are many older teachers, even some younger ones in my building that teach the way they way have always taught, or the way their mentor teacher taught instead of providing new and authentic tasks that hte learners can follow, or new and exciting ways to learn the material since technology has come a long way. They would really benefit from these principles.
I can definately think of teachers who get stuck in an instructional rut. I agree that the principles would be a wonderful tool for these teachers to use while creating curiculum.
ReplyDeleteHi Kristin,
ReplyDeleteYour point about the principles not being especially new is important. When I first studied Merrill’s First Principles, and again with this ‘revisiting’, I noted in the margins that a significant portion of it seems to put the learner in a passive role most of the time – one of the problematic features of a lot of public education (at least in my experience). For example, Merrill et al. write that with problem centered instruction (a key element of the first principles the student “is shown a problem, then taught the components, and then shown how the components are used to solve the problem or do the whole task (p. 176, 2008). Of course, I recognize that we can’t just throw most learners in at the deep end and expect that they’ll be motivated and skillful enough to survive and thrive. But I’d like to see more discovery learning and a greater emphasis on active exploring on the learner’s part. It’s important that learners make hypothesis and find that they’re mistaken – that’s central to the learning. There’s a great TED talk by a high school teacher, Diana Laufenberg, that expresses this far better than I can. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/diana_laufenberg_3_ways_to_teach.html
I’m curious about your perspective on the role of the learner. Do you prefer to ‘be shown’ or would you rather ‘discover’ and what do you think is most effective for ‘deeper’ learning?
Yes, I can think of some teachers, too. I like Authentic tasks because it has a real-world application and it can relate to non-academic environment, such as the home, a student after-school activity and so on, which require students to apply a broad range of knowledge and skills. Sometimes if the instructor decides not to give specific guidelines learners can also choose a point they prefer to start. (I personally prefer to give guidance though, and I have to be careful with my rubrics, too.) Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteHi Kristin, (2nd attempt to post this - tried 4 days ago, but it doesn't seem to have worked... ). Excellent summary/critique!
ReplyDeleteYour point about the principles not being especially new is important. When I first studied Merrill’s First Principles, and again with this ‘revisiting’, I noted in the margins that a significant portion of it seems to put the learner in a passive role most of the time – one of the problematic features of a lot of public education (at least in my experience). For example, Merrill et al. write that with problem centered instruction (a key element of the first principles the student “is shown a problem, then taught the components, and then shown how the components are used to solve the problem or do the whole task (p. 176, 2008). Of course, I recognize that we can’t just throw most learners in at the deep end and expect that they’ll be motivated and skillful enough to survive and thrive. But I’d like to see more discovery learning and a greater emphasis on active exploring on the learner’s part. It’s important that learners make hypothesis and find that they’re mistaken – that’s central to the learning. There’s a great TED talk by a high school teacher, Diana Laufenberg, that expresses this far better than I can. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/diana_laufenberg_3_ways_to_teach.html
I’m curious about your perspective on the role of the learner. Do you prefer to ‘be shown’ or would you rather ‘discover’ and what do you think is most effective for ‘deeper’ learning?