Blog posts

That is, when you analyze a group, the findings often suggest that learning styles are relative unimportant, however, when you look at an individual, then the learning style often distinguishes itself as a key component of being able to learn or not.

Thus the main take-away that I get from the paper if that if you are an instructor, manager, etc. who has to help the individual learners, then learning styles make sense. On the other hand, if you are an instructional designer or someone who directs her or his efforts at the group, then learning styles are probably not that important.

<p><b>Questions:</b></p> <ol> <li>What do you expect learners to be able to DO after completing the course that they can’t do now?</li> <li>What are the consequences TO THE LEARNER if the learner fails to master the intended outcomes?</li> <li>Can you show me an active demonstration, a detailed simulation, or provide an opportunity to directly observe the desired performance?</li> <li>What specific performance mistakes do new learners regularly make?</li> <li>What tools, resources, job aids, or help do successful performers (or even experts) use to do these tasks?</li></ol>

The Four-Component Instructional Design model or 4C/ID-model working assumption is that complex learning platforms can be described by four basic components (van Merriënboer, Clark, et al., 2002), which in turn creates a blueprint for the design of the learning platform:

<b>Learning Tasks</b> — concrete, authentic, whole task experiences that are provided to learners in order to promote schema construction for non-recurrent aspects and, to a certain degree, rule automation by compilation for recurrent aspects.

<b>Supportive Information</b> — information that is supportive to the learning and performance of non-recurrent aspects of learning tasks

<b>JIT Information</b> — information that is prerequisite to the learning and performance of recurrent aspects of learning tasks

<b>Part-task Practice</b> — practice items that are provided to learners in order to promote rule automation for selected recurrent aspects of the whole complex skill

Tinkering with the spreadsheets seems to be a reasonable approach to working with a new problem, in line with generating and testing alternative strategies to find a solution. In other words, learning.&nbsp; Women who tinkered with the spreadsheets seemed to be doing just that, and, for them, tinkering predicted more effective problem solving. &nbsp;Counter-intuitively, though, when men tinkered with the spreadsheet, they were <i>less</i> effective in correcting the errors.&nbsp; The opposite results seem attributable to the fact that women paused before trying something else, long enough to process the information.

In the final experiment, researchers provided a different kind of tutorial — one that emphasized a strategic, rather than a feature-by-feature approach to the problem.

Women who participated in this condition were almost as likely to use the new features as the men in the same study, and were able to solve more problems more quickly than women who didn’t use the new features.&nbsp; Men in this condition were not significantly helped or hindered, which means that it’s possible to prevent a bias against women without introducing a bias against men.

Tinkering with the spreadsheets seems to be a reasonable approach to working with a new problem, in line with generating and testing alternative strategies to find a solution. In other words, learning.&nbsp; Women who tinkered with the spreadsheets seemed to be doing just that, and, for them, tinkering predicted more effective problem solving. &nbsp;Counter-intuitively, though, when men tinkered with the spreadsheet, they were <i>less</i> effective in correcting the errors.&nbsp; The opposite results seem attributable to the fact that women paused before trying something else, long enough to process the information.

In the final experiment, researchers provided a different kind of tutorial — one that emphasized a strategic, rather than a feature-by-feature approach to the problem.

Women who participated in this condition were almost as likely to use the new features as the men in the same study, and were able to solve more problems more quickly than women who didn’t use the new features.&nbsp; Men in this condition were not significantly helped or hindered, which means that it’s possible to prevent a bias against women without introducing a bias against men.

Those teachers who keep a list of question prompts relating to the various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy undoubtedly do a better job of encouraging higher-order thinking in their students than those who have no such tool. On the other hand, as anyone who has worked with a group of educators to classify a group of questions and learning activities according to the Taxonomy can attest, there is little consensus about what seemingly self-evident terms like “analysis,” or “evaluation” mean. In addition, so many worthwhile activities, such as authentic problems and projects, cannot be mapped to the Taxonomy, and trying to do that would diminish their potential as learning opportunities.

The categories or “levels” of Bloom’s taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) are not supported by any research on learning. The only distinction that is supported by research is the distinction between declarative/conceptual knowledge (which enables recall, comprehension, or understanding) and procedural knowledge (which enables application or task performance).