What are your initial reactions to this theory/model?
- I like Keller’s theory of PSI, since it is a self-paced instruction system. Giving student the ability to own and self-pace their learning can be very rewarding and motivating to many students. Since a real classroom has many different student learning needs, the idea of students doing as they learn, is much better than just listening to a lecture style presentation.
- After I read the article, I was unclear if the web modules design could include the ability to offer pause / stop / continue capability for students. With elementary classroom schedules being very fluid, due too many schedule challenges and interruptions, I can see this capability being very useful. This would also be very important for any special needs students that have short attention spans like (ADHD, Autism, etc.). Having the ability to start up again, where they left off, would be very important for special needs students.
What are barriers to its use?
- I can see EC special needs students struggling with self-paced modules. Many I have worked with need constant guidance and encouragement. Many have a very high frustration level for web tools or concepts they do not grasp right away.
- ESL students, who struggle with language-two acquisitions, may not benefit from PSI modules that are heavily language-two (English) based. Interlacing pictures and text would help ESL students understand the web modules, as they are learning English.
- I can see teachers that have been lecturing in the past, may find the idea of creating modules to teach their course materials very overwhelming.
What benefits might be expected for those who overcome the barriers?
- The repeatability of self-paced modules can be very beneficial for EC students, as well as students that may not grasp a concept the first time through.
- Having web based modules that offer audio responses for tests at the end of a module can help those that are grammar challenged. Many ESL students struggle with being able to express their academic understanding of concepts in written text format.
Would you attempt to use this theory/model with the students you are currently teaching or hope to teach in the future? Why or why not? Could elements of the theory/model be modified so that it would work with your current/future students?
- I can see this model being very effective in the higher-grade levels. Having it being effective in lower elementary grade levels can be more challenging to implement. Many younger students need a lot of guidance/feedback and teacher monitoring/supervision. This is not a bad thing, but requires the web module design to take these things into consideration.
- In the real world, the idea of one-size fits all, does not work. I feel the Keller model will work for the majority of students. Those students on the fringe with special needs will require additional support that this model may not be able to provide or is outside of its scope. I can see the web module design being critical in minimizing the size of the fringe.
- In elementary grades, having the ability to highlight new vocabulary words in a module with pop-up definition windows, would be a great way to help students learn and understand new vocabulary that a module may present. Learning vocabulary in context is very important, since learning vocabulary words in isolation is proven not very effective.
Since we're taking learning theories/models that were not necessarily created with the Web in mind and turning them into Web modules, what Web-based tools or resources could be leveraged to carry out this learning theory/model online?
- I like to use the web tool “LetterPop” to create a classroom newsletter. I let the students take on this responsibility. I have them work in small groups to create short summary articles of what they have learned this month and then have them build the newsletter.
- I also like to use the web tool “Blurb” to create books of classroom short stories. It is amazing how excited students get when they see their written stories in printed book form.
You certainly made some important points in your reflection. Prior to implementing web-based instruction as outlined in the Keller Theory, it is important to consider the target audience. You mentioned some great ideas about the integration of tools that can be modified for students with disabilities. We must remember that one size does not always fit all by any means. We can differentiate instruction with on-line resources as well.
ReplyDeleteYou really did a good job explaining about the real-world implantation of this model. I definitely agree with you about younger students needing more guidance/feedback/supervision than is inherently part of this model. It sounds like your students are doing some neat things with their learning with the Web 2.0 tools!
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of EC students in one of the classes that I teach. I agree that this model will be very beneficial for them. It is often difficult to try to accomidate the different levels in my room. With this model everyone can work at the pace needed. I can also add more modules to the ones that are moving at a faster pace and even take away modules for the ones that need less. The audio portion would be great for my students who need read alouds. I see so many benefits for EC students.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you mentioned that using PSI with elementary students. I understand what you are saying about the many interruptions during an instructional day. If the units could be helpful for the students who are pulled out such as EC and ESL students. I agree that the PSI model could be a potential barrier for teachers who are accustomed to traditional lecture classes. The instructors would need to redesign their instruct ion which could be time consuming.
ReplyDeleteNice reflection Mike. Good thinking about age groups and cognitive abilities for which the PSI model might be appropriate.
ReplyDelete