Unit 2 - Collaborative & Group Models

First impressions…

      I was impressed by the research substantiating improvements in learning when the various cooperative and group models are employed (Johnson et al. 1998; Haller et al. 2000; Hung et al. 2003).  Plus, learning clearly goes well beyond content, with documented improvements in critical thinking, problem-solving skills, communication, teamwork, attitudes toward learning, etc. 

      While the outcomes research is very supportive of cooperative and group instructional models, I also got the impression that success requires a very skilled instructor willing to expend significant effort, due to many difficult-to-control factors (e.g., student reluctance, personality issues, group dynamics, etc.)  The instructor’s job is more challenging because in addition to content expertise, there is a need to take on a facilitator role, teach skills for group interactions, etc.

      Finally, I was struck by how aptly Johnson et al. (1998) tied the individualistic focus of our American culture to the observation that cooperative approaches have taken a backseat to individualist/competitive approaches to learning in the US.

Similarities & Differences…

      The theories covered in Unit II have many commonalities, including group interactions, active learning, a student-directed component, and the ability to engage higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills.  Guided design and PBL share the common approach of using a problem that forms the basis for learning.  All of the methods seem particularly well suited for preparing students for future success in the workplace.  The cognitive apprenticeship seems least similar to the other models in that group interactions are not an integral part and learning occurs along side a teacher. 

Use in Practice…

      In my teaching, I do try to make use of these theories.  In general, the cooperative/group theories are great, but my impression is that they work best with mature learners, possibly because of their prior experience with group interactions.  In the community college setting, we have a heterogeneous mix of students.  The less experienced, and usually younger students can be quite negative about engaging in group work, which can be a barrier.  But, this is not to say that they will not benefit from the experience.

      I use a modified jigsaw (cooperative) approach (where the students teach each other) for anti-depressant drugs.  In my experience with jigsaw, I have noticed the potential for “less than adequate instruction” noted by Blocher (1980).  To hopefully counteract this negative, I post content outlines at the conclusion of the session. 

      While teaching pharmacy calculations, I use a cognitive apprenticeship approach. Nearly all of the content is presented in terms of “real-life” pharmacy math.  I often see the problem described by Collins et al. (1989) where students struggle because they rely on recognition of standard patterns of problems, rather than problem-solving skills.  Interestingly, this “mindset” is a major stumbling block and the course has a relatively high failure rate.  The readings made me think about using more modeling and scaffolding to foster development of necessary cognitive skills.

      The PBL approach, using case studies, is a great approach for learning topics such as ethics, disease treatment, drug interactions, etc.  Guided design is a great method too, however, it seems better suited for particular fields such as business and engineering, with complex problems having multiple potential solutions. 

Web adaptations…

      Tools that can assist in adaptation of these models to online environments include group workspaces (e.g., Google groups, etc.) and communication tools (e.g., chat, e-mail, Elluminate, discussion forums, etc.).  Koschmann (1995) described specific tools for PBL in medical education, such as video for case presentation, data banks for information queries and data sharing groupware.  Recently, at Clemson Univ, I saw a demonstration of a computer-simulated patient that can be verbally interviewed by nursing students.  The “patient” responds verbally with appropriate answers.  Development of this technology could significantly enhance web-based PBL for medical education. 

ECI 517: Unit 1 Blog

My initial reaction to the PSI and A-T models is that while they are relatively older instructional models (vintage 1960s), both have experienced continual interest and implementation, albeit with some modifications.  For a theory or model to persist in the field for nearly 50 years suggests that it has validity and usefulness.  Another initial reaction I had, particularly after reading Kulik et al. (1979) and Kozma et al. (1978), is how difficult it is to compare and assess the effectiveness of various instructional models (e.g., A-T vs. lecture-based instruction).  The Kulik et al. (1979) article points out how numerous studies comparing the same two instructional methods can have vastly different results, emphasizing the need to critically evaluate the literature before jumping to any conclusions about a particular theory or model.  This is striking because my experience is mostly in the biological/physical sciences where studies have a limited number of variables and can be very tightly controlled and hence such high variability is not as common.  Comparing two models of instruction is apparently very challenging due to the number of variables, etc.

The PSI and A-T models share many common characteristics including an individualized approach, self-paced instruction, clear learning objectives, breakdown of content into smaller units and upfront time and financial investments to develop materials.  Both models tend to be effective at conveying material but are not particularly suited for developing higher order analytical or critical thinking skills.  Both models seem very adaptable to a web-based system of instruction, particularly since instruction is divided into small units.

A significant barrier for both of these models would be student populations with lack of maturity, motivation and persistence.  For example, students who procrastinate may not be successful with an individualized / self-paced model of instruction.  Obviously, since the A-T model focuses on the audio modality for delivery of material, this model would not be suitable for hearing impaired students or students who have a strong preference for non-auditory styles of learning.

As for my own teaching, I do like the PSI model.  This model seems well suited for health science content such as pharmacology, because there is usually a large volume of material that can be readily divided into small segments.  The practice of breaking content into small chunks tends to improve comprehension and gives the perception that the subject is manageable as opposed to completely overwhelming.  Often pharmacology content requires solid comprehension of introductory concepts, and so the PSI principle of regular assessment to demonstrate mastery before progressing is particularly desirable.

I would not choose to use the A-T method, mainly because of my own personal bias (probably not a good reason).  Generally, I prefer non-auditory styles of learning.  Plus, my introductory biology course at Ohio State in the 1970s was taught by the A-T method (it was interesting to learn that the A-T method was initially developed for college biology instruction at neighbor Purdue Univ).  Although the course was very well done, my impression was that it was sort of a “discount” brand, providing a cheaper and more efficient way to teach the thousands of students needing Bio 101!  However, I do believe that elements of the A-T approach can be successfully incorporated into modern web-based instructional approaches.