I've created an entirely different site for my blog and pathfinder. Here it is:

www.jayloftus.com

This literature review will examine the current uses of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) in designing online learning materials and environments in a post secondary education setting.

More specifically, this review will highlight and emphasize the empirical data obtained from investigations that examine CLT from a neuroscience perspective. The goal is to summarize strategies and best practices presented in academic literature to derive at a potential model, or devise a framework of a model for the effective design of online learning materials and resources.

I have mixed reactions to today's discussion about inquiry based learning. I do see the merit in Problem Based Learning (PBL), and even more in Case Based Learning (CBL). Inquiry Based Learning, or Project Based Learning are offshoots of PBL.

My bone of contention with Problem Based Learning is that we train people to be problem solvers. That is it! Give a student who came up through a PBL system and they can solve any problem, or at least take a good stab at it. The system breaks down when we ask these students to explain the factual side of things, or the background side of what they are investigating. In a world where we have adopted mixed methods research designs with open arms, we have a large number of people who view the world in a dichotomy of PBL or 'traditional' instructional strategies. For this reason, I tend to lean more towards the use or implementation of Case Based Learning. The foundations or 'basics' are taught or introduced. Beyond this students are presented with case studies to solve and examine. 

My further contention with PBL is that adherents to this methodology insist that assessments, and evaluation procedures must be changed to meet the different types of knowledge that are being acquired. Doesn't that set a red flag up?

I am an odd one who thinks that standardized tests are a good thing. I think that students, for their own sake, need to demonstrate a level of achievement to progress to the next stage. If we don't take these measures, we are setting our students up to fail. Too often students get in over their heads because we have not ensured that they have a minimum level of proficiency to move forward. This is a debate that could take us well into next year, so I will stop my rant here.

In conclusion, I think technology in a setting of CBL would be most beneficial. Students should use technology to aid in their learning. They should not depend on technology as a means of acquiring knowledge. There is something to be said for not letting students use calculators before they master basic numeracy. There is also something to be said for teaching grammar in schools, not simply how to use spell check. What happens when the sun isn't shining and the power goes out? Are we all doomed?

Again we had another great presenter. The overall scope of the paper that was presented is a little challenging. Any time philosophy enters a discussion on education it can become a 'taboo' topic. Kind of like discussing religion and politics at a family function.

I find systems theory very difficult to grasp. Enactivism seems to be very similar in that it does not just simply take to learner into consideration. There is also the context and environment which the learner finds themself. I would consider myself to be more of a constructivist. However, in reading chapters in Driscoll's (2004) book I can see connections between enactivism and social cognition as well.

Selection of a theory is clearly determined by our world view. I can agree with this statement. But aren't some areas inherently suited for specific theories, and philosophical tennents from which we will design our study? Mixed methods approaches seem to be most widely 'promoted' since we do not necessarily want to generalize findings based solely on quantitative results. The qualitative aspect seems to be employed in many cases to 'soften' what might be a harsh reality derived from the quantitative portion of an investigation. It seems to me that we are designing learning theories to support particular research methodologies and research strategies. I am not sure if this is the best approach. I am not one to believe that 'numbers don't lie'. We've seen over and over again examples of where statistics can be manipulated and interrpreted in various ways to support a particular argument.

In the end I think enactivism has an added value from constructivism, and social cognition. It takes into consideration the context and environment in which learning takes place. Some of these variables only make sense as qualitative variables. Measuring the results can still occur with quantitative means and analysis.

One point that stood out for me in today's talk was the part about how students have changed in their reading patterns. As an instructional designer, this finding has very practical implica

I was introduced to Creswell during my Masters research. His book was the 'bible' that my supervisor and committee steered me towards when I was having issues getting started, or organizing my research. The literature review section explicitly stated a directed purpose for conducting a literature review. Prior to this my interpretation of a literature review was to find articles and resources on a topic of interest and essentially create an annotated bibliography of what I was able to find.

Given the nature of my topic of interest I would assume that my design strategy would either be a mixed methods sequential design, or a quasi-experimental design. Therefore, the literature review would have to examine the previous work done from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. I feel that using a sequential design will help to mitigate any errors inherent to exclusively using a qualitative or quantitative approach. However, I anticipate that my investigation will bend towards the quantitative measures of efficacy. As a result, I would heed Creswell's suggestion that, in using a mixed methods approach one should 'use the literature in a way that is consistent with the major strategy and the approach that is most prevalent in the design'. (Creswell, 2003 p. 33)

Reference

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dr. Kopp's presentation on virtual patients was very interesting. My preliminary feeling about virtual patients is that despite all of the best efforts to simulate the real world environment, it is still a simulation. Part of preparing doctors for future practice is to expose them to real world situations. Sure many of those interactions can be simulated, but there is still something to be said for the first time a medical student sees something that is shocking, but perhaps quite common for the experienced pracitioner. This was my only concern. That is, translating and overcoming the fact that virtual patients are just that, virtual. I do not disagree with the effectiveness in teaching clinical abilities, but the lack of human-to-human contact is still abscent.

As an instructional designer I really appreciate the linking of objectives to the creation of a virtual patient. CanMEDS standards are very explicit and it is great to see that someone has used these as a guide to design an effective tool or resource for instructional purposes. Too often standards are used as a checklist to ensure that essential content has been covered.

After listening to the talk today I found myself investigating the use of virtual simulators and games for medicine. I found one (but I am saving it for our Wiki) on a virtual knee replacement. I have seen an actual knee replacement procedure before, so I knew a little about the process. This hands-on tool walked through the process and provided an explanation along the way for each step.

In the end, I might have been swayed to the use of virtual patients. I think they can be quite effective, and as Doug pointed out... we often times do not have real opportunities for medical students to practice. Therefore, for ethical considerations, and necessity virtual patients are required.

Topic: Preliminary Research Interests

At the onset of the doctoral program I promised myself I would reduce the number of mistakes I made in my Masters. The first and most significant mistake, or shortcoming was not having a direction of interest at the onset. In fairness to myself, I really did not know what to expect in my Masters program. It was all online, and it was on distance education. I had taken some distance education courses, and I had always had a class website when I taught. Therefore, I was already an 'expert'. What more could I learn?

Upon completion of my Masters I realized that the areas of interest to me had already been explored in great depth, and that my 'contribution' to the field was quite insignificant. I learned from my Masters that I should not expect to make some earth shattering discovery, and that the contributions that I would make are a very small piece in a very large puzzle.  I have learned not to over think the relevance of my research topic, but to research my area of interest with due diligence, realizing that it is fitting into a larger puzzle.

My current role as an Instructional Designer has enabled me to understand and realize some deficiencies in the area of Educational Technology. I primarily work with undergraduate medical students and undergraduate medical faculty. I am amazed at the overwhelming expectations that we place on our future physicians. Think of anatomy alone. Imagine how difficult that topic is to master. Now add in the other areas of medicine and take into consideration the backgrounds of the students you are dealing with. There is a tremendous amount of content that we expect these individuals to master. In conjunction with that we add the element of educational technology. We assume that technology will offer advantages for learning. However, there are a considerable amount of questions we are afraid to ask (since we are dealing with future physicians). The basic question would be to ask how much can one person handle?

There has been a lot of work done in the area of cognitive load and instructional design (Sweller, 1994). However, to the extent of my preliminary investigation there has been little in the the area of using direct neuroscience, linking it to the use of technology and design models for effective and efficient learning.

We know that certain areas of the brain process and function for certain types of information. Can we use the powers within functional MRI to investigate the effectiveness of using technology for learning? Are we expecting too much from our students by incorporating technology that might be superfluous to the goal of acquiring and using knowledge?

The forgoing questions are where I would like to start my doctoral program. A further analysis of these points. Not only because it has implications on my career, goals, and interests. But, because I think these answers will result in a bigger piece of the puzzle.

Reference

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty and Instructional Design. Learning and Instruction, 4. 295 - 312.