[From Chris Cherpas (970130.1820 PT)]
[re Bill Powers (9701030.1130 MST)]
BP, in responded to Bruce Gregory's statement:
>The hardest part is identifying the goal (reference level) in a
>way that is compatible with the reference levels of each
>student.
BP:
So, ask.
cc:
OK, Bill. Now let's try that method with kindergartners...
Guys, if you can't teach them in grade school, you're not
really testing a theory of instructional design crucially.
Regards,
cc
[From Chris Cherpas (970130.1801 PT)]
[re Richard Thurman (970130.0816)]
I don't know what happened to the post I sent prior to this, but
let's continue from here anyway...
RT:
Here's a project that might help. Charles Reigeluth edited a compilation
of instructional design theories and models into a book in the early 80's
(Reigeluth 1983).
cc:
Yeah, I've read 'em. Thanks for that reminder though. I worked with
George Gropper (one of the book's contributors) for a while when I was
developing materials at DEC to teach engineers about AI and Gropper was
the quasi-reigning instructional design quasi-guru there.
RT:
Why not write up a PCT-based model (or theory) of instruction as if you
had been asked to contribute to the Reigeluth (1983) book and then build a
PCT-based course on adjusting a microscope to be incorporated into the
1987 book.
cc:
Neat idea, really. Problem is I think somebody has to develop one
clear case of actually doing a PCT-based design. If they could do
that, then I might believe someone could have something to say about
the PCT theory of instruction. I shutter to think of how long it
would take to go the other way around, although I get your point.
RT:
I would guess that such a project would help you greatly as you "start
from scratch." (It would certainly help me greatly to see someone else's
take on PCT-based instructional design.)
cc:
I don't have a big stake in going from application to theory over theory
to application (although I think the arrows go both ways), but I don't
have the time to do the theory first; I'm in the trenches. The "up" side
is that I have ready access to potentially huge amounts of data (literally
hundreds of thousands of students running the computer-based instruction
programs I design), so with even an approximation to what a PCT-based
design would be I could find out what works and what doesn't in a big way.
RT:
Also, if you haven't already, you may want to take a look at some classic
papers on PCT and the educational process that Hugh Petrie (Dean of the
Graduate School of Education, SUNY) put together.
Yep. Did that. In fact, I got cranked up for my original post after
a few volleys with Hugh.
RT:
Finally, I think Dag Forssel has a tape of the PCT symposium that was held
at the 1995 annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. You may want to take a look at a copy of the tape. It may
help with some ideas on how PCT fits into designing educational
interventions.
cc:
I haven't seen that. Sorry, Dag, I keep forgetting to send you that check
for your book. I really need that "responsible thinking" course...
Best regards,
cc
References:
Reigeluth C. M. (1983). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An
Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA
Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Instructional Theories In Action : Lessons
Illustrating Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA
[From Bill Powers (970130.2000 MST)]
Chris Cherpas (970130.1820 PT) --
BP:
So, ask.
cc:
OK, Bill. Now let's try that method with kindergartners...
Guys, if you can't teach them in grade school, you're not
really testing a theory of instructional design crucially.
Fine good idea. What would you ask them?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Hugh Petrie]
[re Chris Cherpas (970130.1820 PT)]
[re Bill Powers (9701030.1130 MST)]BP, in responded to Bruce Gregory's statement:
>The hardest part is identifying the goal (reference level) in a
>way that is compatible with the reference levels of each
>student.BP:
So, ask.
cc:
OK, Bill. Now let's try that method with kindergartners...
Guys, if you can't teach them in grade school, you're not
really testing a theory of instructional design crucially.
I have been lurking on CSGnet again for about six months now. I will be
returning to the professoriate next fall and will be trying to teach both
about PCT and using PCT as the organizing principle for the other courses I
teach. That's why I'm trying to get back up to speed by lurking. However,
I am still also Dean of the Graduate School of Education at Buffalo. The
Governor of the great state of New York appears clearly, through repeated
applications of the Test, to have very different reference signals for the
state of SUNY than do we who have to deal with the consequences of his
actions in our environment. Consequently my time is limited.
However, I can't pass up a quick comment on this part of the instructional
design thread.
There is a whole literature, not PCT-inspired to be sure, about the use of
questioning in educational design. The parts I have sampled have always
seemed to me to be quite compatible with PCT in that they usually assume
that questioning is important because it helps the teacher know what is
going on in the student's mind so that instruction can be modified
accordingly. Remember Dewey was, in many respects, a forerunner of PCT.
Anyway, Chris and others, how about looking at the questioning literature
for a couple of hints about how to start doing PCT designed instruction.
In about six months I will join you whole-heartedly.
===========+++++++++++===========***********===========+++++++++++===========
Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-2491
367 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2479
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260
USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
[From Bill Poers (970131.0800 MST)]
Hugh Petrie (970131)--
In about six months I will join you whole-heartedly.
That's good news for all of us.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Chris Cherpas (970131.0922 PT)]
[re Bill Powers (970130.2000 MST)]
cc:
OK, Bill. Now let's try that method with kindergartners...
BP:
Fine good idea. What would you ask them?
cc:
The point is that you can't ask them what they want to
learn and then proceed efficiently, let alone effectively.
You present them with tasks that represent important
variables to control and see how they perform.
[From Chris Cherpas (970131.0928 PT)]
[re Bill Powers (970130.2010 MST)]
BP:
Sounds like you're pretty pissed off at me for not having a program I can
pick off the shelf and hand to you. The service is pretty lousy at this
store, isn't it?
cc:
I'm pissed off that claims have been made in the PCT literature
with nothing concrete to back it up. I'm _frustrated_ that there's
not a single PCT instructional design on the shelf to use as a prototype,
as something to build on.
BP:
What's needed, of course, are people who DO have laboratories, or
institutional support, and the means of conducting research into the
application of PCT to real-world problems like education.
BP:
Are you going to use it to do research in applying PCT to education? Or just
to get an edge in a commercial venture? (Sorry, I don't really mean that).
cc:
I'm going to use it to do research on how to educate, whether PCT is
involved or not. I now have some background in PCT, but don't feel
my PCT repertoire is sufficient yet to apply in a very direct/pure way
to computer-based instruction.
cc:
Fuck the classroom, man. The PCT demos didn't require a room.
Just a _computer_. That's exactly where educational research is
happening. Forget the classroom!
BP:
Well, one needs a few bodies, at least, doesn't one? I didn't work out the
PCT demos with nothing but a computer. I had real people running those
experiments for several years before I tumbled to the simple model that we
now use for tracking experiments. That stuff didn't come out of pure reason.
cc:
Obviously the point is not having a few bodies, it's the focus on
the group-oriented classroom situation that's the problem. You're
just not going to get individualized instruction in a herd setting.
A PCT approach to education would aim to be individualized, would it not?
BP:
I could probably do pretty good job of educational research if I came to
your place and were given a free hand...
cc:
...My guess is that you could too; I'd hire you...
BP:
...(including NOT having to assume as a condition of employment that computers
were the way to go).
cc:
You're fired!-)
BP:
The future of PCT is no longer in my hands. It's in yours.
cc:
We create the future of PCT daily and you've done a pretty good job of it today!
I believe you'll do a job of it tomarrow too. Meanwhile, I'll do what I can.
Regards,
cc