Instructional Design for Undergraduate Courses

0

No comments posted yet

Comments

Slide 1

DESIGN FOR A SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS TO MASTER THE ELEMENTS OF THE VISUAL PATHWAY

Slide 2

General education college level courses should promote four common goals critical thinking, communications skills, issues of value and belief, and lifelong learning _______________________________________________________________________________________ Sudent Guide (2006, p. 1) Context

Slide 3

Indiana State University (ISU) General education courses Biology 112 Lab component Perception of Stimuli and Response to Stimuli (PSRS) Laboratory (page 52 of Laboratory Manual) Bio 112 Laboratory Manual Context _______________________________________________________________________________________ Mulkey, Ghosh, and Brett (2006)

Slide 4

Target Learners Non-biology major Undergraduates Registered for the Perception of Stimuli and Response to Stimuli (PSRS) at ISU Non-homogeneous Academic diversity Academic level Age Minority and international status _______________________________________________________________________________________ SAT scores (2008); NRC (1995); NCES (1999)

Slide 5

Goal of Self-Instructional Module Undergraduate students who are registered in the Biology 112 PSRS laboratory during the fall 2009 semester at Indiana State Univesrity will be able to illustrate, explain, and discuss how the lens of the eye accommodates for differences in the distance of observed objects and the relationship between retinal and brain interpretation of visual images using illustrations and a brain model.

Slide 6

Currently Concepts addressed in the laboratory - are relatively easy to be mastered - produce weak outcomes Revision of labs produced no significant results in outcomes Needs Assessment

Slide 7

1) Learners do not find appealing the instructional methods used 2) Traditional approaches 3) Efficiency, appealing, and overall effectiveness of the laboratory Needs Assessment _______________________________________________________________________________________ Mulkey (2009). Personal Communication, September 14; Garcia and McFeeley ( 1963)

Slide 8

Sample copy from the current PSRS Laboratory (Biology 112 Laboratory Manual) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Mulkey, Ghosh, and Brett (2006)

Slide 9

Needs Assessment A 13 item questionnaire was prepared to identify further parameters that could facilitate the instructional design of the present module Instructors and GA’s teaching the laboratories

Slide 10

Estimated 50% of college students are formal thinkers ! Approximately 25% are concrete operational _______________________________________________________________________________________ Lawson (1993) Cognitive and Social Student Characteristics

Slide 11

Baxter-Magolda’s epistemological model -typical juniors and sophomores are at Stage 2 or Stage 3 (Transitional Knowing, Independent Knowing) -differences between men and women in learning styles and preferences (active interaction, peer interaction, “forced” thinking, debating, challenged, emphasize relationships,... ) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Baxter-Magolda (1992) Cognitive and Social Student Characteristics

Slide 12

Constructivist approach Chickering Kolb Association endorsement (AAAS, NRC, ..) Cognitive and Social Student Characteristics _______________________________________________________________________________________ Baxter-Magolda (1992); Chickering and Gamson (1987); AAAS (2009); NRC (1995); NRC (1995)

Slide 13

Low attitude among non-biology majors “Not interested in the subject” Varying degrees of interests and motivation among students Teaching materials of contemporary social issues coupled with the use of technology to teach biological concepts ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Generosa (1984); Mulkey, (2009) personal communication; Ghosh (1999) ; Chamany, 2006a Affective Student Characteristics

Slide 14

Active learning in an environment which encourages: collaboration gathering ideas/sharing information debating/interacting with peers independent thinking not advanced abstract thinking build on previous individual experiences contemporary social issues use of technology Implications for Design of the Instructional Module

Slide 15

1. Declarative knowledge (DK) 2. Intellectual skills – Principles (IS - Pri) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Smith and Ragan (2005); Gagne (1985) ; Ganges’ Outcomes (n.d) Learning Domains Addressed in the Instruction

Slide 16

Information Processing Analysis (IPA) Prerequisite Analysis (PRA) Goal Analysis __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Smith and Ragan (2005); Jonassen Tessmer, & Hannuum (1999)

Slide 17

IPA

Slide 18

PRA – 1 major event step

Slide 19

PRA – 2 major event step

Slide 20

2 major event steps 4 objectives 1 enabling and 1 terminal objective for each event step Objectives __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dick, Carey, and Carey (2001)

Slide 22

Enabling Objective 1 Given a set of drawings each one depicting objects presented in distal or proximal to the eye positions the learners will be able to identify and explain the relative position of their ray pathways through the eye lens and their focusing on the retina without error (IS-Pri)

Slide 23

Terminal Objective 1 Given a set of drawings each one depicting objects presented in the left or right VF the learners will be able to identify and explain the relative position of their ray pathways through the eye lens and their focusing on the retina without error (IS-Pri)

Slide 24

Enabling Objective 2 Given a brain model or a set of drawings depicting different brain structures and neural pathways within the brain the learners will be able to label or duplicate the ones that depict the visual pathway without any error (DK)

Slide 25

Terminal Objective 2 Given a set of drawings each one depicting the eye, the nasal retina, and the temporal retina the learners will be able to identify and explain the relative position of their projections on the different parts of the visual cortex without any error (IS-Pri)

Slide 26

Macro Strategies: Module and Chunk Organization Plan Micro-Strategy: Expanded Instructional Events Nine events of instruction as proposed (Gagne, 1985) Instructional Strategy Development _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gagne (1985) ; Smith and Ragan (2005); Ganges’ Outcomes (n.d)

Slide 27

Instructional Materials

Slide 29

Formative Evaluation _____ Try-out Learner Try-out Learner Group 1 (2 learners) Group 2 (2 learners) ______________ Nationality U.S./U.S. U.S./U.S. Gender Male/Male Male/Male Age 21/21 20/21 Status Undergraduates Undergraduates Major English/Philosophy Undecided/Communication Test environment Library Library Materials used Paper/pencil/brain model Paper/pencil/brain model ______________________________________________________________ Table 1. Attributes of try-out learners participating and conditions during the evaluation procedure of the instructional module.

Slide 30

Formative Evaluation Pre-test, Instruction, Post-Test Verbal and non-verbal observations Attitude Questionnaire __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Smith and Ragan (2005); Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, (2004).

Slide 31

Evaluation Materials Pre-and post – test assessment booklet Attitude Questionnaire

Slide 32

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mager (1999) Pre- and post–test assessment booklet

Slide 33

Figure 1.Time (min) spent in different phases of the formative evaluation. Estimated time proposed before the beginning of the undertaking of the formative evaluation and actual time spent during the formative evaluation. Formative Evaluation - Results

Slide 34

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Try-out Learner Group 1 Try-out Learner Group 2 ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Points Learner 1 Learner 2 Learner 3 Learner 4 Item Attempted Pre-/Post-test Pre-,/Post-test P re-/Post-test Pre-/Post-test _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 2 4 0 / 2 0 / 4 0 / 3 0 / 4 3 4 0 /4 0 / 4 1 /4 0 / 4 4 4 0 / 3 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 5 6 0 / 3 0 / 6 0 / 4 0 / 3 6 4 0 / 4 0 / 0 0 / 4 0 / 4 7 6 0 / 4 0 / 6 0 / 4 0 / 4 8 4 0 / 0 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 9 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 10 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 11 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 0 12 2 0 / 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 13 6 0 / 4 0 / 5 0 / 3 0 / 4 14 6 0 / 4 0 / 5 0 /5 0 / 5 15 4 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 2 0 / 2 Total 62 0 / 51 2 / 53 1 / 45 1 / 42 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Formative Evaluation - Results Table 2. Performance score achieved by each group and try-out learner in pre- and post tests. The scores are displayed per item of the pre- / post –test

Slide 35

Item on the Corresponding page post-test number on the Instruction Action taken 2 13 No action taken – no problem was identified that needs intervention 4 17 No action taken – no problem was identified that needs intervention 5 21 Rewriting of the whole item – replacement of figure 7 30 No action taken – no problem was identified that needs intervention 8 38 Major revision of the item – rewriting and replacement of the figure, (addition of a practice exercise might be helpful and should be considered) 13 56 No action taken – no problem was identified that needs intervention 14 57 Revision of the item – addition of a practice exercise on page 59 of the revised instruction 15 59 No action taken – the response required on the post-test is not based on a single figure or concept but it is based on the understanding of the principle listed on Session 4. Making corrections to items on page 59 it is assumed that will correct the problem associated with this question on the post-test Table 3. Items on the post-test identified as potentially problematic. Corresponding pages of the instruction that might bear problems and the corrective actions taken Formative Evaluation - Results

Slide 36

A design for a self-instructional module targeting undergraduate students to master the elements of the visual pathway was conducted. The design procedure followed accepted in the literature (Gagne, 1985) steps and included the following: a) learning context analysis, including needs assessment and learning environment analysis; b) learner analysis; c) learning task analysis, including information processing analysis and prerequisite analysis; d) learning objectives; e) instructional strategy development; f) instructional material writing; and g) formative evaluation. Revision of the initial instruction was completed based on formative evaluation. Summary

Slide 37

References AAAS, (2009). Benchmarks On line. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?txtRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eliteracynet%2Eorg%2Fscience%2Fbenchmarks%2Ehtml&txtURIOld=%2Ftools%2Fbenchol%2Fbolframe%2Ehtml Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college. Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cagne, R. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little Brown. Gagne’s Outcomes (n.d.). Gagne’s outcomes of learning. Retrieved October 3, 2008 from http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy3/edpsy3_outcomes.htm Chamany, K. (2006). Cell Biology For Life: A Web Based Collection of interdisciplinary Modules for Active Learning. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 http://www.chautauqua.pitt.edu/coursedescriptions2006.htm Chickering & Gamson’s (1987). Seven principles of good practice for undergraduate education. AHHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2001). Systematic design of instruction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Fast Facts (n.d.). Fast facts. Indiana State University. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://www.indstate.edu/whyisu/fastfacts.htm. Garcia, R. A. and McFeeley, J.C. ( 1963). Attitude modification among biology and non-biology majors. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from ttp://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?nfpb=true& &ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED165697&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED165697 Generosa, P. (1984). Relationship of achievement to attitudes toward subject, school, and academic self among non-biology majors. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from Ghosh, R. (1999). The challenges of teaching large numbers of students in general education classes involving many graduate assistants. Bioscience, 25(1), 7-11. Jonassen, D.J., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A.W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 232-235). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lawson, A.E. (1993). At what levels of education is the teaching of thinking effective? Theory into Practice, 32, 170-17 Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mager, R. F. (1999). Measuring instructional results or got a match? How to find out if your instructional objectives have been achieved. (3rd ed.). Atlanta: GA, The Center for Efffective Performance, Inc. Mulkey, T. (2009). Personal Communication, September 14. Mulkey, T.J., Ghosh, R. & Brett, W.J. (2006). Exploration of Biological Phenomena. (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. NCES (2003). Student use of computers, by level of enrollment, age, and student and school characteristics: 1993, 1997, and 2003. National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_417.asp NRC (1995). National Science Education Standards. National Research Council. Retrieved on October 13, 2009 from http://www.nsta.org/publications/nses.aspx NCES (1999). Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999187 SAT Scores (2008). SAT scores of ISU freshmen by school/college. Indiana State University. Retrieved on October 14, 2009 from http://irt2.indstate.edu/home/fbook/files/pdf/2001/table022001.pdf Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Summary: This power point presentation is presented as a partial completion of the requirements of an instructional design course at Indiana State University. It is intended for educational use ONLY.

Tags: instructional design gagne non biology majors nine events of instruction visual pathway

URL: