Mood:  a-ok

Well, during the CALRG conference I was trying to put together the theories I'm using and how they relate to my research. So, just going to type up my ramblings on this.

First thing is that although I'm looking at individual learning there is no negation of the fact that social learning does help students to learn as well, however, initially particularly in a distance and e-learning context, a student will initially interact with materials/computers and this is the individual learning. Further in a information transmission mode of most lecture halls of universities the same may also occur.

Question: Which theories help to measure/ describe individual learning?

Well ... not certain about but got some stuff here that students who do individual particularly in an e-learning context will tend to interrogate their material (perhaps!) and have some sort of interaction. I have a note here saying that is perhaps co-construction - but for the life of me I can't think why? Could be that I think through the interaction of the software and they self-explain to themselves can start make meaning of what they're doing and whilst this is not collaborative with a person it is collaborative with the computer.

So, I've been looking up individual learning theories on the internet as well and I came across these two websites: Theories of learning and Individual theories. I think those two web-sites might be useful.

Looking through the first website, the Sensory Stimulation Theory (Laird, 1985) seems to be linked to the computer-interaction learning and I'm guessing one of the basis for multimedia learning theory as effective learning occurs when the senses are stimulated. I can't think of the boxes doing any effective sensory stimulation as there is mostly text and this is mostly visual. There is no hearing stimulation unless wants to count me prompting the student to do something. But I think whilst in the visual there is text, there can also be animation. Whilst the boxes don't have high levels of animation or not one might consider animation, there is a sort of interactivity animation. I can see the glass-box being a full animation, the open-box a mixture of animation and interactivity and the the black-box with no animation or interactivity.

The second theory that strikes me is the adult learning (andragogy) (Knowles, 1990) in that adult learners need to see applications to new learning - I'm not quite sure if I'm interpreting this right but I'm thinking that adult learners need to make connections to real world applications. As I'm using undergraduate students is this something will be likely to exist - are they really adult learners? But I did notice in my pilot studies the more mature students liked to connect stuff to real world. But perhaps this comes from the social-constructivist theories that each learner is unique and has unique backgrounds and probably more likely to connect to things that are specifically related to them and this shapes what they find important or what knowledge they connect.

There is also the cognitive gestalt which I'm more keen in exploring and I quote from the first website:

"The emphasis here is on the importance of experience, meaning, problem-solving and the development of insights (Burns 1995, p.112). Burns notes that this theory has developed the concept that individuals have different needs and concerns at different times, and that they have subjective interpretations in different contexts"

This seem to incorporate my feelings on adult-learning and social-constructivism as this recognises that individuals have different needs and have different subjective interpretations and it is not beyond belief that everyone will have this based on their social culture.  Also, that the development of insights or problem-solving and finding of meaning can also be influenced in the way that the information is produced to the student - hence the reason for multimedia learning theory perhaps using cognitive load theory.

So, for me definitely cognitive theory is the way to go now don't know how to make the jump to cognitive load theory but structured problems such as maths have been explained using cognitive load theory ... so just going to skip to that and find out the connection later.

Well, there are several parts of CLT that may apply to my work and I think the two parts (which Sweller(2005) refers to as instructional consequences) that has the most influence are:

1. Self-explanation - unfortunately don't know which loads it affect - I think when a student self-explain the germane load perhaps increases? Got to check this
2. Reversal-expertise effect - can't remember which load this affects either but I think students using the open-box are more likely to experience this if they were able to figure out early what was going on - but not likely to happen if they still haven't found out the rule for application - i think in this case initially the germane load increases but as their expertises increase their extraneous load increase and thereby decreasing germane load.

Right ... so, I think those are the two things most likely to influence my research why I am not dealing with the rest don't know ... hmm ... let's list the rest based on Sweller (2005) paper from the Multimedia Learning Handbook:

1. Worked example effect: students do better if there is a worked example provided. Works by reducing extraneous load
2. Split-attention effect: attention split between multiple visual sources. Increases extraneous load
3. Modality effect: similar to split-attention except this is reduced by incorporating verbal (said aloud) rather than as text. Decreases extraneous load
4. Redundancy effect: Having several sources of the same information e.g. diagram with text rather than having to integrate mentally the diagram and then a textual explanation. Reduces extraneous load by removing the redundancy
5. Expertise reversal effect: multiple/ dual sources of information lose their advantage as the learner because more of an expert. Guessing it increases extraneous load but not explicitly stated.

Alright, so that somewhat covers my cognitive load theory ... how do I incorporate the multimedia learning theory? Sure we know that animation and text affects the way that students learn ... that comes from the modality effect in cognitive load theory but what about interactivity. Can't recall if Mayer did any work in that. I think that is perhaps where self-explanations come into it - with prompts? Is interactivity a prompt perhaps? Hmm ... too lazy to look ... was looking through the multimedia learning handbook and didn't find anything so not going to go hunting at the moment.

We also have the problem-solving phenomenon of backward fading and forward-fading by Renkl and Atkinson but this is obviously linked to the worked example effect. There is no fading as far as I can see in the boxes ... perhaps although in some way one can in a stretch propose that the open-box is acting as a forward fading problem - nah perhaps, if we were going from the black-box, glass-box to the open-box then one might claim that is a sort of backward fading but don't think it would fit as well in this context.

Posted by prejudice at 12:01 PM BST

Updated: Thursday, 28 June 2007 3:29 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well ... Gill has said that Esther will do my study next week ... so, I think that is great news!!

Only thing is that Esther doesn't know that as yet. I've talked to Anne F. and she has said I can use Amazon vouchers to pay people. So, I have that outlet.

And if all fails I can still use UWI students hopefully :D.

Posted by prejudice at 3:08 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well, I've tried the remote observation again behind the firewall (on the LAN) and it seems to be working there ... interesting ... tried it there yesterday and today - and I don't know why - but it is working - hoping it is not a server glitch and it comes all crashing down :).

However, it works on Windows Live Messenger - I think! Well, I can get webcam in - but can't get webcam out ... well that was yesterday - not sure about today.

But everything works perfectly on Skype!! So, that's great I can use that but it is not so ubiquitous as Messenger ... so got to test back messenger to see what happens. Although, I kind of like Skype's application sharing thing a lot more ....

Posted by prejudice at 4:55 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

So, went to the OpenLearn reading group session on action research and whilst I was there whatever they were saying got me thinking about the writing of my literature review. So, I think these are some of the theories I'll have to think off when I'm writing up as alternative theories that could have been used.

First, the first thing that struck me is that when the students are learning an activity is in the method I'm doing (single user in one episode of learning), learning may not be limited to that time or episode but instead continues (the concept of action research research - I think), and this learning here can be connected to future episodes of learning, although practically thinking this will be difficult to follow - but this is the way conceptual knowledge - linking up bits of knowledge - but isn't this therefore a constructivist approach - although not necessarily a linear way as is suggested I think in earlier theories (as well as in cognitive load theory).

Also, in such an activity (as in my method) - students do not have time for reflection, they're tested then and immediately - which I can live with - but why academically I can live with it ... not sure. Is there truly any period of physical time that can be allocated for reflection. In a sense I'm hoping they would have more reflection occurring during the use of the software - perhaps an acceleration to the reflection they would normally have ... ok, probably not an acceleration - but another medium for causing reflection. I'm thinking this reflection is the self-explanations that the students come up with.

Further, there are the social learning theories that I've ignored in this study, as students do discuss and share ideas and are then able to improve their concepts or develop a 'community of learning' - this doesn't happen here as I'm looking at individual learning in a specific episode or moment. Whilst there is an agreement that there is merit in social learning or discursive types, perhaps what I'm trying to see is how a student learning in the first instance by themselves such as in distance learning or e-learning might be influenced or even in classrooms where discussion is not encouraged or where there is mostly a transmission mode. Whilst one do not want these modes of teaching (or may want it - if they're a strategic/surface learner) it occurs quite regularly and hence nothing to ignore and this may more than likely be the way things are transmitted in undergraduate classes - as innovative learning methods are not often used at this level (well I think so!).

Anyway, what I'm saying is that although social learning may have its merits there are often cases where students do learn as an individual first and it is this is which we want to measure - the first instant of their learning what is occurring and if we can perhaps improve their first instant of learning perhaps their social learning might be more meritorious? Besides, I don't think maths/ linear programming lends itself easily as a subject for discussion or to look at collaborative learning ... well, perhaps it does - but perhaps I can look at that in my future research - does collaborative learning improve the conceptual knowledge which is elicited by these boxes?

Posted by prejudice at 4:52 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  irritated

So, on Thursday and Friday decided to test out the remote observation outside of the OU's firewall with Ritchie ... that is when large amount of problems occurred!!!

First of all, MSN can't work on the wireless - i.e. the voice/video conversation and application sharing... Skype could work ...  with application sharing. However, although I can send video ... I can't receive any ... which makes it really frustrating.

Not the mention the frustration of not getting any students to participate. I've decided to see whether I can use some of Amalia's students. Haven't asked her as yet though.

I'm still deciding on how to choose students ... I mean there should be some criteria in making sure that students can be compared sufficiently across, shouldn't I?

Well, if things fail ... I just might have to take the RAM I have in this computer and install in in my laptop and then use it from home - well it will definitely work from home.

I also ran the trial with Ritch ... unfortunately it seems as if the video didn't record!! I got his voice conversation though - which is good. He was doing some interesting stuff with the glass-box as he did a lot of exploration and it was interested that although he seemed to be getting towards the answer in some cases, he then turn tail and came to a completely different decision ... don't quite know why. Obviously is the understanding and was wondering what the strategies involved in the learning - I mean I've got to think about the qualitative data analysis - is there particular strategies that students use when using different software and whether this can be profiled - or is this the nature of the student?

How can you profile the nature of the student? I don't want to ask them to fill in an ASI ... but that might be interesting won't it? Probably if I can find 10 question ASI. I think there is a 20 question ASI I used. Hmmm ... gonna look that up ... would that be too much for the student to do? I think I got a 20 question Biggs approach to mathematics questionnaire. Or will that be alright if I'm paying them??

Posted by prejudice at 3:29 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well, went to the Kaleidoscope conference in Cambridge with Gill on Friday. It was quite good, although I think the attendance was less this year. I was mainly in the maths/technology stream - well I didn't go anywhere else because the rest of the papers didn't interest me in the slightest.

But the papers were pretty good and interested ... and Patricia George was there, and it was good listening to what she has found and done, as I listened to her the first time when I was in Lancaster, and it is good to see how her research has progressed and how her ideas has been firmed up. So, that was encouraging.

There were still a couple of papers on teaching maths to trainee teachers, which I've always found a bit boring - not that the papers are boring but the topic doesn't interest me as much.

I think in all, whilst it wasn't a terribly important academic conference, I think in terms of meeting people and interacting it has been good. I met Zsolt again and yet again we've promised to write something together!!

Also, Gill and I were able to boast about our great postgraduate conditions at the OU :D. Also, how our supervisors support us as well ...

Posted by prejudice at 10:38 AM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

So, had a meeting with Doug and James yesterday where we discussed theoretical frameworks - that's still take sometime to get my head around it. Anyway, we were talking about constructivists theory which I barely have any clue of ... but they seem to think by the time I finish my literature review, I should know all the constructivist theories and be able to mention Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner and Ausubel with some authority ... I've only got so far as learning their names!!!

Anyway, Doug was telling me that some researchers believe that construtivist theories cannot be applied to higher-learning as the information process is more complex ... also, I have to say why I'm not looking at socio-constructivist theories and I think my argument might be there is that the person is engaging with the software and also as this is sort of a e-learning model which is what the world is evolving to more and more (such as OpenLearn), students are more likely to on their first reading of my materials be on their own and cannot be extended into a social place until later and is that this understanding which is being measured, as it is likely that this (i.e. initial perception) would shape their attitudes towards the topic. Ok ... that's the best argument I can come up with so far.

 James and Doug want me to start writing my literature section soon and thought I should start with the cognitive load theory and point them in some direction of the important papers for them that they should read to get their heads around it. And possibly once the literature section is looking good, we can then pass it onto John to comment.

Posted by prejudice at 3:50 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well, I'm still waiting on some RAM, so I can pilot the last box ... the glass box ... but still waiting for IET to get me the RAM and also need more storage on my computer ... I lost the whole webcam video when I did the open-box as I didn't have enough space to render it ... oh well, still had the audio recordings and the video of the software ... but I'm thinking if I'm doing it on one screen now rather than two, if I have a problem with the rendering ... then I'm going to lose that whole set of data ... so, hopefully that doesn't happen! I think that'll make me go stark-raving mad.

Anyway, I've transcribed the relevant quotes (well what I thought I was relevant) for the black-box and open-box studies, but still have to analyse them in NVivo, I'm not certain what tact I'm going to be taking for them. I should have a theoretical framework (or at least some coding framework) but I have no idea ... I could start with open-coding and see where that takes me for developing a coding framework. I wanted to code somewhere along the line of cognitive load, self-explanations and perhaps some kind of interaction with technology? I think the important thing to ask myself, is what I'm looking for ... and I think one of the basis for my studies has been to see whether these boxes help learn more ... so think I'll be looking at self-explanations, but think I need to define what kind of self-explanations they're doing.

Posted by prejudice at 10:29 AM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lazy

Well ... this morning I decided to tackle the mountain of papers I had (at least a foot high!) and file them away. And I've done it ... completely filed away, my desk looks surprisingly clear.

On another note, I've gotten my external HDD, my large screen monitor and my USB wireless card. Yesterday, I was having problems as there were conflicting drivers with the wireless card and the webcam - probably should have just restarted and might've fixed but decided to undecided to uninstall and install back, the only problem the computer was not recognising the drivers, it is only today when I clearing up that I realised I was using the wrong CD (ver 6 rather than ver 8!). Anyway, did it today and it is working fine.

I tested the recording of the excel file and the webcam at the same time the day before, and that works, the only problem is that Camtasia records it a very poor resolution quality, but I used Bulent Screen Recorder and it is doing it a good quality, only problem I think that takes a lot of memory, I tried using CamStudio but something is just not working with that programme - got to play around with it again. I can't seem to get it to work. Anyway, I really do need a larger RAM as I was running Camtasia and the application sharing software and the computer was really slow and I hadn't even started Vemotion - so need that urgently. And also a slave HDD, because my hard-drive is completely filled!

I've got to test my last box (the grey-box or glass-box) as yet, but want to test it with all the new equipment I have - but think I need the new RAM otherwise it is going to be really slow. Anyway, some good news is that I've gotten permission from 3 groups to post up my request for my students (I've only asked three) - so, decided to wait a bit before I go asking the rest - want to make sure things are set up properly. Hopefully, I can get my participants! I need to tweak the instructional materials a bit I think, as the interpretive questions are not highly interpretive as I originally thought they were! Well, at least spotted that problem before the real thing went underway.

Beside James and Doug have suggested that I analyse my two recordings so far, but haven't started as yet-  was supposed to start this morning - but then went on with the clearing of the desk instead :D.

Posted by prejudice at 2:31 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well, yesterday I had supervision which was surprisingly quick (finishing in about 10-15 mins) - guess there wasn't a lot going on at the moment since I just came back from vacation and spent all of last week writing the CAL paper (which wasn't so good - but got sent off anyhow!).

Anyway, James said the dreaded phrase yesterday "theoretical frameworks"! He wants me to get one ... to return to the literature ... to start thinking about how I'm going to write the literature .... updating the literature etc. and not to mention weaving a story of theories to develop this mythical theoretical framework ... wonder if I can get some leprechaun to grant me three wishes, one being to get a theoretical framework! (ok - never mind that who wants to waste their wishes on theoretical frameworks!)

Anyway, he suggested I read a paper by Yvonne Rogers, which whilst interesting to some degree I couldn't for the life of me see how it could help me develop a theoretical framework. I couldn't even see a theory in there that could help me understand what I'm doing better ... perhaps he was alluding to external cognition, perhaps I should look that up some more later, sounds like a nice catch phrase. Probably can dazzle people with that term.

Anyway, we are meeting on the 23rd to discuss my progress on a theoretical framework and I have no idea what they actually expect from me at that point? Am I suppose to submit a paper on some thoughts? Or just a discussion? Being me - who tends to get quite tongue-tied when a discussion starts up and I have to defend my view - I think I'm going to go with giving them a paper (as short as possible!).

Posted by prejudice at 4:16 PM BST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink