A team of graduate students, enrolled in EME 7634, developed two instructional units on Standard 16 of the National Geography Standards (Geography Education Standards Project, 1994); these units are based on Jonassen's theory of Constructive Learner Environments (CLEs) and Nelson's theory of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). This narrative describes how each instructional unit represents its corresponding treatment plan, reflections of development experiences, and a comparison of the two units that results in a selection of which unit offers the most effective instruction.
Treatment Plan and Instructional Units
Each team member participated in selection of which two treatment plans are most appropriate for development, based on our selected objective. Although the Gardner treatment plan offered a great deal of flexibility, the team ultimately decided to produce the Jonassen (1999) and Nelson (1999) plans; one benefit of this decision is that both selected plans focus on team problem solving, thus providing a rich point of comparison for the completed instructional units. What initially motivated the team to select Jonassen (1999) and Nelson (1999) was the nature of the selected instructional objective; active learning, collaboration, and utilization of the internet to select and analyze information supported Standard 16. Finally, these two theories supported acquisition of 21st century skills , with its strong emphasis on critical thinking, learning independence, and problem solving (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004).
Jonassen
Developing the instructional unit for the Jonassen treatment plan was a powerful follow-up to the in-class review of each team's plans; the team recognized that a revision of the treatment plan was necessary before developing the unit. This revision was necessary in light of the inadequate explanation and identification of the problem learners are to solve within the unit. A challenge to revising the problem arose from linking the level of challenge contain in the problem with the target learners (middle school), a problem eventually resolved by providing a challenging problem that can be introduced and explained adequately by the instructor. Another issue that arose, as a result of revision of the selected problem, was a reconsideration of the planned instructional activities. Indeed, a focused, solvable problem lead to a decision to eliminate many of these activities, resulting in a greater emphasis on constructivist-oriented problem solving in which learners develop their own approaches to researching and solving the problem. Naturally, this revised approach to implementing Jonassen's (1999) theory required revision of the grading rubric for the problem solving assignment.
Nelson
It is challenging to develop the instructional unit with Nelson's (1999) collaborative problem solving (CPS) theory after the team realized the CPS treatment plan needs to be revised and tailored for meeting the needs of k-12 education. The original treatment plan didn't address enough details of the instructional events and the problem was not defined concretely for k-8 students. In the development of the instructional unit, we made some necessary changes including adding additional learning resources, diversifying instructional materials, deleting redundant instructional events, and adapting CPS theory more properly to k-8 learners. In addition, we have redefined the problem as a concrete, focused, and solvable one which will allow learners to focus on and practice in a collaborative learning process. Furthermore, the teamwork has been emphasized and the relevant skills will be fostered through the collaborative process based on our instructional unit.
Reflections on ExperiencesJonassen
xxxxChallenges
As stated above, one of the major challenges to developing the Jonassen instructional unit was the creation of an xxxx appropriate, solvable problem; this hurdle arose not from the instructional objective itself (Geography Standard 16 ), but from the need to match the complexity required of the problem with the target learner (in this case, middle school). Although the selected instructional objective was chosen in order to utilize course assignments to support the development of a book chapter on e-learning, ultimately developing instruction for a K-12 environment benefitted the group by forcing participants to meet the challenge of developing instruction for an unfamiliar group. Indeed, all the participants in the group are either specializing in adult or higher education and training or are not familiar with K-12 instruction in the United States. Another challenge involved balancing providing enough direction and support for the instructor, who will deliver the instructional unit without burdening him/her with redundant or unnecessary information. In terms of developing the actual instruction, this was probably a little less challenging than predicted due to the level of detail provided in the related treatment plan; as indicated in the context of class discussion, the more detailed the treatment plan, the easier the development. Certainly, with the Jonassen instructional unit, this proved to be accurate.
xxxxKey Decisions
A key decision of the development process, because of this unit was developed in the context of a class, was how to implement the suggestions contained in the course instructor's feedback; this decision lead to the most challenging component of the treatment plan development. Another key decision involved utilizing a wiki to develop the unit, a decision driven by the experience of team members' previous use of wikis and the collaborative power of wikis.
xxxxThe Good and Bad
The good and the bad of developing this instructional unit, again, lies in developing the selected problem. On the good side, as Jonassen (1999) points out, ill-defined problems facilitate learner engagement and investment; this is true for young learners as well as adult learners. The opportunity to create instruction that genuinely engages learners was exciting and there was enormous satisfaction in developing instruction that facilitates truly active learning. On the bad side, the development of an appropriate, solvable problem presented a substantial challenge that likely can still be improved. Another good aspect of developing this unit was the experience of seeing a treatment plan actually developed and gaining a deeper understanding of what instructional design really is. Unless an instructional designer develops all of his/her own instruction, then it's vital to understand how a developer analyzes and develops instruction and how important it is to be clear in one's vision and plan.
xxxxNotes for Future Learning
Not surprisingly, notes for future learning include the need for additional practice in developing instruction. In addition, although this unit was designed for mixed-mode delivery, the group understands that there are distinct challenges to developing instruction for completely online delivery. Some of these challenges include facilitating team work and providing opportunities and support for higher-order critical thinking skills. Areas for additional learning include deeper understanding of instructional theories and how to apply instructional theories to develop effective instruction.
Nelson xxxxChallenges
Admittedly, it is a tough process to develop an appropriate instructional unit based on Nelson's CPS theory. As mentioned before, several challenges appeared at the creation of a treatment plan even before the development. At first, the instructional events needed to be concretized with enough details and to be adapted to meet needs of specific learners. It's not straightforward to find out how to collect the easily understandable learning resources, how to tailor the activities suitable for the k-8 students, and how to construct a engaging learning environment. Another big challenge is the design of the learner's problem for this unit. We need to make sure the problem can match both the learning objectives and the complexity required by k-8 learners, at the same time. Also, the solving process of this problem can demonstrate and reflect the nature of collaborative working. Moreover, it is kind of challenging to get the balance between the facilitations from the instructor and the work of the students. TheCollaboration process emphasizes the learner's groupwork more than instructor's direct guidance, but it also requires the effective support from the instructor. Finally in terms of developing the unit, we tried to resolve all problems that appeared in the treatment plan. However, due to the limitation of time and experience, the unit still has some parts needing to be improved and polished. xxxxKey Decisions
The key decision of the development was how to combine the k-12 learning requirements and collaborative learning process. K-12 level students need clearer and more straightforward guidance than adults, but the CPS theory emphasizes a problem with appropriate complexity and teamwork skills. Therefore, the decision of selecting the current centered problem is very important to our unit. Additionally, the employment of kiwi serves as another important decision. The Internet search and web discussion become popular and beneficial for k-12 classes. xxxxThe Good and Bad
Honestly, the good and the bad of a CPS-based instructional unit are interacted sometimes. The CPS framework aims to assist students in engaging in efficient, effective, collaborative problem-solving process and help them with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. It is good to adopt CPS theory to increase the interactions among learners and groups and to foster the cooperation and collaboration skills of learners. It is also necessary to allow learners to explore their own answers and construct their understanding through being assigned a complicated problem. However, on the other side, the appropriateness of the problem could highly impact the whole learning process. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the learners' collaborative process is too sensitive to the design of instructional events that determines the degree of the instructor's intervention. xxxxNotes for Future Learning
It is necessary and crucial for the team to practice more in designing and developing instruction in the future. The application of a theory or the integration of several theories into one instruction could be an important issue for future learning. The challenges of handling the particular target learners' demands and properly combining it with a specific instructional theory would be another issue moving forward. Moreover, it is worthwhile to explore more about the design and development of mix-mode or fully online instructional unit modalities in future learning Comparison of Jonassen and Nelson Instructional UnitsGoals
The goals of the two instructional units are similar in that both theories emphasize the team problem-solving process.
Where these two units diverge is in the emphasis on the process itself; the Nelson unit more strongly stresses the collaborative process, including in its list of events a distinct step that explains the process. In addition, the Nelson unit encourages learners to create team protocols and to assign roles. This robust explanation of the team problem-solving process is missing in the Jonassen unit . Both units, however, identify "problem solving and conceptual development" (Jonassen, 1999, p. 216) and "problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration skills" (Nelson, 1999, p. 242).
Audience
Both units appear to be designed for primarily adolescent and adult learners; Nelson's emphasis on the team building and team processes may be more appropriate for adult learners. The issue of audience arose in the development of both units, as middle school learners may have experience working in teams but may not have advanced teamwork skills. As a result of Nelson's advanced collaboration processes, the audience for this learning objective may be better met by the Jonassen unit . The corresponding emphasis on problem-solving was appropriate for the selected audience (middle school) because of its facilitation of higher-order critical thinking skills.
Teamwork/Collaboration
As indicated above, both units emphasize teamwork and collaboration, with Nelson's unit emphasis on more advanced teamwork processes.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of both units emerge from their emphasis on higher-order critical thinking skills. As already indicated, the Nelson unit seemed to emphasize team processes more heavily and thus may have been less appropriate for middle school learners. A strength that the Nelson unit has is greater specificity in terms of instructional steps while a strength of the Jonassen unit springs from its utilization of case examples to demonstrate how problems might be solved.
Best Choice
The best choice for this instructional objective and target learner audience is the Jonassen unit . Reasons for this selection include:
Utilization of case examples
Greater emphasis on problem solving rather than team processes
Constructivist approach supported by strong emphasis on resources and tools
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Treatment Plan xxxxxxxxxx Reflections xxxxxxxxxx Comparison
A team of graduate students, enrolled in EME 7634, developed two instructional units on Standard 16 of the National Geography Standards (Geography Education Standards Project, 1994); these units are based on Jonassen's theory of Constructive Learner Environments (CLEs) and Nelson's theory of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). This narrative describes how each instructional unit represents its corresponding treatment plan, reflections of development experiences, and a comparison of the two units that results in a selection of which unit offers the most effective instruction.
Treatment Plan and Instructional Units
Each team member participated in selection of which two treatment plans are most appropriate for development, based on our selected objective. Although the Gardner treatment plan offered a great deal of flexibility, the team ultimately decided to produce the Jonassen (1999) and Nelson (1999) plans; one benefit of this decision is that both selected plans focus on team problem solving, thus providing a rich point of comparison for the completed instructional units. What initially motivated the team to select Jonassen (1999) and Nelson (1999) was the nature of the selected instructional objective; active learning, collaboration, and utilization of the internet to select and analyze information supported Standard 16. Finally, these two theories supported acquisition of 21st century skills , with its strong emphasis on critical thinking, learning independence, and problem solving (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004).
Jonassen
Developing the instructional unit for the Jonassen treatment plan was a powerful follow-up to the in-class review of each team's plans; the team recognized that a revision of the treatment plan was necessary before developing the unit. This revision was necessary in light of the inadequate explanation and identification of the problem learners are to solve within the unit. A challenge to revising the problem arose from linking the level of challenge contain in the problem with the target learners (middle school), a problem eventually resolved by providing a challenging problem that can be introduced and explained adequately by the instructor. Another issue that arose, as a result of revision of the selected problem, was a reconsideration of the planned instructional activities. Indeed, a focused, solvable problem lead to a decision to eliminate many of these activities, resulting in a greater emphasis on constructivist-oriented problem solving in which learners develop their own approaches to researching and solving the problem. Naturally, this revised approach to implementing Jonassen's (1999) theory required revision of the grading rubric for the problem solving assignment.
Nelson
It is challenging to develop the instructional unit with Nelson's (1999) collaborative problem solving (CPS) theory after the team realized the CPS treatment plan needs to be revised and tailored for meeting the needs of k-12 education. The original treatment plan didn't address enough details of the instructional events and the problem was not defined concretely for k-8 students. In the development of the instructional unit, we made some necessary changes including adding additional learning resources, diversifying instructional materials, deleting redundant instructional events, and adapting CPS theory more properly to k-8 learners. In addition, we have redefined the problem as a concrete, focused, and solvable one which will allow learners to focus on and practice in a collaborative learning process. Furthermore, the teamwork has been emphasized and the relevant skills will be fostered through the collaborative process based on our instructional unit.
Reflections on Experiences Jonassen
xxxx Challenges
As stated above, one of the major challenges to developing the Jonassen instructional unit was the creation of an xxxx appropriate, solvable problem; this hurdle arose not from the instructional objective itself (Geography Standard 16 ), but from the need to match the complexity required of the problem with the target learner (in this case, middle school). Although the selected instructional objective was chosen in order to utilize course assignments to support the development of a book chapter on e-learning, ultimately developing instruction for a K-12 environment benefitted the group by forcing participants to meet the challenge of developing instruction for an unfamiliar group. Indeed, all the participants in the group are either specializing in adult or higher education and training or are not familiar with K-12 instruction in the United States. Another challenge involved balancing providing enough direction and support for the instructor, who will deliver the instructional unit without burdening him/her with redundant or unnecessary information. In terms of developing the actual instruction, this was probably a little less challenging than predicted due to the level of detail provided in the related treatment plan; as indicated in the context of class discussion, the more detailed the treatment plan, the easier the development. Certainly, with the Jonassen instructional unit, this proved to be accurate.
xxxx Key Decisions
A key decision of the development process, because of this unit was developed in the context of a class, was how to implement the suggestions contained in the course instructor's feedback; this decision lead to the most challenging component of the treatment plan development. Another key decision involved utilizing a wiki to develop the unit, a decision driven by the experience of team members' previous use of wikis and the collaborative power of wikis.
xxxx The Good and Bad
The good and the bad of developing this instructional unit, again, lies in developing the selected problem. On the good side, as Jonassen (1999) points out, ill-defined problems facilitate learner engagement and investment; this is true for young learners as well as adult learners. The opportunity to create instruction that genuinely engages learners was exciting and there was enormous satisfaction in developing instruction that facilitates truly active learning. On the bad side, the development of an appropriate, solvable problem presented a substantial challenge that likely can still be improved. Another good aspect of developing this unit was the experience of seeing a treatment plan actually developed and gaining a deeper understanding of what instructional design really is. Unless an instructional designer develops all of his/her own instruction, then it's vital to understand how a developer analyzes and develops instruction and how important it is to be clear in one's vision and plan.
xxxx Notes for Future Learning
Not surprisingly, notes for future learning include the need for additional practice in developing instruction. In addition, although this unit was designed for mixed-mode delivery, the group understands that there are distinct challenges to developing instruction for completely online delivery. Some of these challenges include facilitating team work and providing opportunities and support for higher-order critical thinking skills. Areas for additional learning include deeper understanding of instructional theories and how to apply instructional theories to develop effective instruction.
Nelson
xxxx Challenges
Admittedly, it is a tough process to develop an appropriate instructional unit based on Nelson's CPS theory. As mentioned before, several challenges appeared at the creation of a treatment plan even before the development. At first, the instructional events needed to be concretized with enough details and to be adapted to meet needs of specific learners. It's not straightforward to find out how to collect the easily understandable learning resources, how to tailor the activities suitable for the k-8 students, and how to construct a engaging learning environment. Another big challenge is the design of the learner's problem for this unit. We need to make sure the problem can match both the learning objectives and the complexity required by k-8 learners, at the same time. Also, the solving process of this problem can demonstrate and reflect the nature of collaborative working. Moreover, it is kind of challenging to get the balance between the facilitations from the instructor and the work of the students. TheCollaboration process emphasizes the learner's groupwork more than instructor's direct guidance, but it also requires the effective support from the instructor. Finally in terms of developing the unit, we tried to resolve all problems that appeared in the treatment plan. However, due to the limitation of time and experience, the unit still has some parts needing to be improved and polished.
xxxx Key Decisions
The key decision of the development was how to combine the k-12 learning requirements and collaborative learning process. K-12 level students need clearer and more straightforward guidance than adults, but the CPS theory emphasizes a problem with appropriate complexity and teamwork skills. Therefore, the decision of selecting the current centered problem is very important to our unit. Additionally, the employment of kiwi serves as another important decision. The Internet search and web discussion become popular and beneficial for k-12 classes.
xxxx The Good and Bad
Honestly, the good and the bad of a CPS-based instructional unit are interacted sometimes. The CPS framework aims to assist students in engaging in efficient, effective, collaborative problem-solving process and help them with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. It is good to adopt CPS theory to increase the interactions among learners and groups and to foster the cooperation and collaboration skills of learners. It is also necessary to allow learners to explore their own answers and construct their understanding through being assigned a complicated problem. However, on the other side, the appropriateness of the problem could highly impact the whole learning process. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the learners' collaborative process is too sensitive to the design of instructional events that determines the degree of the instructor's intervention.
xxxx Notes for Future Learning
It is necessary and crucial for the team to practice more in designing and developing instruction in the future. The application of a theory or the integration of several theories into one instruction could be an important issue for future learning. The challenges of handling the particular target learners' demands and properly combining it with a specific instructional theory would be another issue moving forward. Moreover, it is worthwhile to explore more about the design and development of mix-mode or fully online instructional unit modalities in future learning
Comparison of Jonassen and Nelson Instructional Units Goals
The goals of the two instructional units are similar in that both theories emphasize the team problem-solving process.
Where these two units diverge is in the emphasis on the process itself; the Nelson unit more strongly stresses the collaborative process, including in its list of events a distinct step that explains the process. In addition, the Nelson unit encourages learners to create team protocols and to assign roles. This robust explanation of the team problem-solving process is missing in the Jonassen unit . Both units, however, identify "problem solving and conceptual development" (Jonassen, 1999, p. 216) and "problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration skills" (Nelson, 1999, p. 242).
Audience
Both units appear to be designed for primarily adolescent and adult learners; Nelson's emphasis on the team building and team processes may be more appropriate for adult learners. The issue of audience arose in the development of both units, as middle school learners may have experience working in teams but may not have advanced teamwork skills. As a result of Nelson's advanced collaboration processes, the audience for this learning objective may be better met by the Jonassen unit . The corresponding emphasis on problem-solving was appropriate for the selected audience (middle school) because of its facilitation of higher-order critical thinking skills.
Teamwork/Collaboration
As indicated above, both units emphasize teamwork and collaboration, with Nelson's unit emphasis on more advanced teamwork processes.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of both units emerge from their emphasis on higher-order critical thinking skills. As already indicated, the Nelson unit seemed to emphasize team processes more heavily and thus may have been less appropriate for middle school learners. A strength that the Nelson unit has is greater specificity in terms of instructional steps while a strength of the Jonassen unit springs from its utilization of case examples to demonstrate how problems might be solved.
Best Choice
The best choice for this instructional objective and target learner audience is the Jonassen unit . Reasons for this selection include: