Note: The contents of this page, and all future postings for ECI 517 have been moved to:
http://ems33elearn.wordpress.com/
Keller’s Model: Reflections on the Davis article
This model is clearly based on behavioral principles (as the article mentions, Keller was influenced by Skinner) with its emphasis on achievement and positive reinforcement. The authors describe some limitations to using this method in a classroom. However, it does seem highly adaptable to the online environment. (Note: this article was somewhat frustrating because it really does not give much detail about the Keller method and spends more time setting the stage for online instruction. Which is probably a function of when it was written.)
The biggest barrier to using this method, it seems to me, would be its rigidity, the strict rules that control progress through the course modules. At its worst, this might be very heavy-handed and perhaps students would even start to feel like rats in a maze, needing to press the right button…: ) While it is important in many cases for a learner to master specific content before advancing, I can’t see today’s learners tolerating this level of control. I would suggest relaxing the stringency of mastery requirements somewhat–so that a learner does not need “near-perfect” scores to advance. Another feature of this system is its linearity. This approach can be appropriate and valuable for certain types of content, but might actually be counter-productive in other contexts because it doesn’t let learners explore, get an overview, take ownership, integrate, or move back and forth between modules to review or make new connections between content in different modules.
I think that this model, in a somewhat modified format, could be useful in teaching basic content and fundamental, but relatively simple, skills. It could be used as a way to make sure that all learners are at a certain level of knowledge, prior to presenting more complex learning activities. This kind of approach–getting all learners to a specified level of knowledge– is especially important and valuable in library instruction. Frequently, as a librarian, I come in to teach one or two sessions to a class of students who have widely disparate levels of knowledge and experience searching for information. It’ challenging to teach to such varying levels, especially in an extremely time-limited situation.
As I mentioned earlier, I think this model lends itself well to online or web-based instruction. Some of these features include its modularity and the ability to be self-paced. These are common in web-based instruction. This model seems to focus on the delivery and mastery of content, and the web certainly provides many ways to deliver content in all types of media. Using multimedia well could enhance these modules by making the delivery of content more interesting and engaging, e.g., videos, animation vs. reading text or listening to a lecture. Another way that online tools could be used to really enhance this method is in making it possible to provide real-time, interactive assessment and feedback. At its most simple and flexible this might involve chat or email. Other technologies could be take the form of interactive reviews or quizzes that give a learner immediate feedback, make context-relevant comments, and maybe even auto-adjust based on performance.
Posted by Jennifer Knott on January 26, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“While it is important in many cases for a learner to master specific content before advancing, I can’t see today’s learners tolerating this level of control.”
I appreciate your view of PSI, specifically if the system is pretty restrictive. Interesting to note that you wouldn’t see PSI fitting into traditional classroom setting. Again, not being a teacher, I don’t have your perspective. However, i feel that PSI is a good foot hold for transitioning traditional classroom settings into more media-based classrooms. In addition, you could still track a student’s progress.
Posted by kevinncsu on January 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Nice analysis of limitations and why the model might be appropriate for Web-based instruction.
Posted by Mike Swinson on January 25, 2010 at 4:17 am
Hi Eleanor,
Right off the bat I agreed with your assessment of the constraints of completion before moving into the next module of section. Students learn when the intrinsic need to learn the material presents itself and this seems to do nothing more than constrain this.
Posted by mewsblog on January 24, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Hi Eleanor,
I totally agree that this model is appropriate for certain content and counter-productive in others. I also think it is appropriate for some learners and not so much for others. You mentioned this model is useful for teaching basic and simple skills, and I agree, but I also think that it can be useful for more complex skills as well. I say this because of the “chunking” factor. Since the model calls for breaking instruction into small pieces or “chunks” that build on each other, this can be very useful for teaching complex skills. Thankfully, with the tools available today, we can use the fundamentals of this model and modify everything else to fit the content area.
Mary Ellen
Posted by Rachel Palmer on January 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Eleanor,
Your comment on the ” linearity” of the PSI was great! I agree that this is a limitation. At least for myself, learning can take any number of paths. Also how do access something link a PSI? If a student master 5 modules, but “fails” the most important component are they successful???
Posted by morganalexandra on January 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Great job! I really enjoyed reading your reflection. I agree that learners often get caught up in clicking the “right’ button or getting lost in the course….we get that a lot at my organization. We developed an online course on how to use the online courses, explaining navigation and question types and feedback — but of course no one wants to take it…they prefer to click around and get stuck and call us – which is fine except they get really frustrated and upset and it could be avoided if they would use the provided resources. Oh well.
Posted by ems33 on January 24, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Yes, it seems to be a perennial problem—no one wants to read the instructions!
Posted by sipejillo on January 24, 2010 at 7:15 am
Eleanor,
The self-paced piece I think is the most compelling reason to use the PSI approach. Today’s students hopefully will learn to be disciplined enough to pace themselves reasonably and will be able to complete their work within a reasonable time frame. I experienced such self paced instruction when I did my teacher certification work. The only external time frame was that the university charged tuition for access to their classes in 6 month increments. I had a hard time organizing and sticking to a schedule without the deadlines I was used to. We will certainly have to teach time management and organizational skills to our students if we hope that they will be successful in this type of learning environment.