Adaptive Learning Systems

Zone of Prox

ADAPTIVE LEARNING SYSTEMS: APPLICATIONS FOR LONG-RUNNING WORKSHOPS

Temenoujka Fuller* and Orhidea Georgieva**

* Central Arizona College, USA.

temenoujka.fuller@centralaz.edu

**Department for Language Teaching and International Students, (DLTIS), Sofia University, Bulgaria

deia@abv.bg

Resume

The shift from the old teaching to the new learning paradigm is used in the paper as a guide for evaluation of two workshops designed to train the same skills with different approaches. The first workshop was developed and implemented with research-based support, and the second workshop was designed and developed by the instructor without any support. The need of experimental and theoretical research aimed to support instructors and students in the time of change is measured qualitatively by the differences of the two workshops conducted in a community college in the USA, and in a linguistic department in Sofia University, Bulgaria. Some original results and applications are presented and briefly discussed.

Introduction

Historically, the change of old set of beliefs about education to a more progressive new paradigm resembles a process of phase transition [1] in a thermodynamic system. The analogy with thermodynamics is used in this paper to guide the strategic planning of the study conducted to observe and describe the elements of the workshops that will support the classroom transition to a learning environment with expended location not only in the classroom but also outside of the classroom. With appropriate support, the time-lines for learning the skills and concepts could be adapted to the needs of different learners. The transition from a teacher-centered education to adaptive to different learners approach with orchestration of the harmony of the learning group is a change from one set of beliefs fits all educators and students to a more general belief system that will reveal new learning reserves in the entire learning process. To re-orient the educational system from mass-standardization to adaptive learning mode, computer integration into the classroom and cooperative methods are not enough. The educators in the future will need macro and micromanagement balanced dynamically within the learning process. The time has come to move from industrialized education to education for every one, every where, at any time. How will educators of the future achieve this goal? This paper presents one possible answer. The solution to the general future goal is yet to be considered and research-based solutions will show better ways to address students and educators as individuals. The transition to individualized education will change the social belief about educational system: which is a change of paradigm. Paradigm means shared in the community rules, assumptions, concepts, ways of doing and viewing different tasks [2]. The break of existing paradigm is a difficult intellectual task. The future education will need to break the old teacher-centered paradigm and to move to individualized learning with group orchestration of team projects. One important change will be the movement from disconnected to united inter-disciplinary education. The inter-disciplinary education is one way for increasing the synergy between individuals and the systems. Today, different scientific subject are studied independently by different groups and the groups are absolutely disconnected. Even in the case of paradigm shift, there are two studies, with the same findings, but with a disciplinary-based disconnect.

In the most popular book on paradigm change [2], Thomas Kuhn provides comprehensive analysis on the change of the belief system (paradigm) in the case of scientific revolutions. The change the belief system about schooling will require the same procedures as any other change of paradigm. First, there is a need for a decomposition of the social belief system followed by replacement of all counterproductive beliefs, assumptions, or theories with new, productive, and experimentally proven ones. After some time, the new rules will become broadly accepted by the socio and will dominate the research and solving problems as obvious, unquestionable facts. Soon or later, no one will question the rules, and they will sing down in social consciousness as the so called tacit knowledge. When the society operates in the mode of not-disputability of the "good" rules, the learning is called single loop learning [3]. According to Argyris, in the single loop learning, the disputability of un-disputable rules is also undisputable.

Argyris [3] and Kuhn [2] have conducted research on the same phenomenon (change of paradigm) with similar findings. The reason that they work the same task as two different problems is the disconnection between social and natural sciences. The disconnection between social and natural sciences reflects the educational change from a teaching to a learning paradigm. Paradigm change reflects all components of the system needed to solve the problem. Educational problems are cognitive, psychological and social and only connected change of all these components will work for educational problems. Therefore, any attempt to change the educational paradigm will requires holistic learning approach. According to the learning preferences, students may be categorized as four types of learners: transforming, performing, conforming, and resistant. The difference between learning preferences for these four types of learners are important for understanding the change of educational paradigm, which means that all individuals must agree with the new rules. The problem is not only cognitive; the problem is in the nature of learning and the differences in the scope and depth of learning which different learners would agree to consider. Transforming learners are thinking globally; they have ability for a non-linear, random approach to complex problems. Usually, transforming learners are self-directed and futuristic. In contrast to transforming and resistant learners, performing learners are task-oriented, with pragmatic approach to complexity, and focus on realistic time lines. Performing students will divide the task on smaller parts and will perform all sub-tasks with elegance and clear logic. Therefore, the difference between performing and transforming learners can be generalized as linear (performing) and non-linear (transforming) learners. Conforming learners, according to the same study [4], are perfect followers; they need step-by-step guidance, clear goal with belief that the instructor/manager is responsible for sequencing the complex tasks for them and they have to follow the instructions. Having the variety of learners' behavior with respect to complex difficult to solve tasks, the question for educators is: How will the new paradigm affect different learners and the disconnected manner of teaching different subjects?

 The system of education today is disconnected - different disciplines operate with different terminology. For some type of learners this may be an excellent opportunity to get the fine details properly, but for more global and random learners, the disconnection between disciplines leads to confusion. This may be the reason for sensitive, smart learners to resist the educational system in general. The resistant learners are the least studied group during the Industrial Era. How one can distinguish between resistant and non-resistant learners?  According to a vast study, conducted by Martinez [4], one of the reasons for resistant learners to oppose the system of education, is that they have a notion of deeply seated errors of educational methods.

The change of learning paradigm [2] requires different management of the learning process for different learners, while, at the same time, the group learning is encouraged and well supported. This paper presents one pragmatic approach for a change to a local change of to a new educational paradigm by designing scalable infrastructure supported by action research designed to inform developers how to improve instructional methods to adaptively match the students' needs with appropriate learning environments [5]. A multipurpose, long-running, technology-based workshop guided by the discoveries of modern physics and modern learning is presented in the paper to integrate new learning methods, computers, and new beliefs about education into research-based adaptive learning instrument. The method developed with collaboration between instructors and researchers is compared with a workshop developed without ongoing support.

Technology integration into the learning process is constantly increasing the pressure on the educators and students to perform more sophisticated tasks with new skills and knowledge. Instead of teaching, instructors of 21^st century will navigate into new belief system about learning. Students are becoming more and more computer-savvy, and students' expectations about the school will insert pressure on the system for more individualized approach. The instructors will soon feel the pressure to learn how to work in teams, how to address all students as individuals, and, at the same time. how to conduct cooperative learning for social purposes. According to Buckley [6], "Changing faculty behavior requires transformational faculty-development experiences. Faculty development generally consists of workshops or other evangelistic experiences that do not provide a sufficient opportunity to reflect and experiment, to probe new learning principles deeply." This paper presents two different types of long-running workshops designed to observe and compare the transition from a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm in two different cases: one case of implementation in which a team of learning specialists is providing embedded action research during the long-running workshop. The second workshop is one of those in which the instructor is working alone without scientific support from the educational system.  In this paper, the first type of workshop is called supported, and the second type in which the teacher works alone, is called non-supported.

The model of the change of learning outcomes for supported and non-supported workshops are presented at Fig. 1. In the time of societal change, the learning demand and the tacit knowledge about students’ learning and teachers' methods may balance each other for some interval of time. To increase the learning in the system, the supported workshop of this study uses a specialized learning center to provide a computer-based environment for the students and the instructor.  The class can operate in a pleasant and supportive learning environment, in which the instructor will have time to observe, reflect, and increase the academic achievement through project-based learning. In the case of non-supported workshop, the same task is conducted without any help and support. Skilful instructors can still have the same results as in the case of research-supported classroom; however, the question remains: Will the effort of instructor change the system, or will the effort contribute to more resistance in the system? Fig. 1 illustrates a thermodynamic model of change in the case of supported and non-supported workshops.

    Many instructors worked hard to integrate technologies into the process of education not only as a productivity tools, but also as a new approach to teaching. The paradox was that often they were blamed for all technological problems, for spending too much time with computers rather then working with students. To avoid these negative consciences of instructor's innovative attempts, in one of the workshop described in this study a guest speaker is presenting technology-based learning methods directly into the classroom.  Later on, the guest speaker is taking full responsibility for students' study with technologies. The instructor observes and plans the entire workshop together with the guest speaker; however, the instructor is not overwhelmed and has time for analysis and observations. The team is effective and efficient, with excellent record keeping, innovation, and support.       

     Fig. 1 A thermodynamic model of the change of paradigm

Population: In the supported workshop, low achieving on standardized placement tests students enrolled in developmental literacy classes were conveniently selected for the workshop. In a non-supported workshop, international students with different achievement scores were selected conveniently. Students selected to participate in the non-supported workshop were non-fluent in the language learners. The populations in the two sample groups were with diverse backgrounds and cognitive skills.

Research Method: The workshops were conducted in computer labs or computerized classrooms with students to computers ratio 1:1. Both workshops used technology for learning and curricular objectives; however, the supported workshop provides learning opportunities for instructor to reflect, observe, analyze and gradually become comfortable with the learning paradigm. Although the two workshops address the computer integration into the project-based learning, the support for technology integration is different in each one.

Technology integration into the system of education provides opportunities for action research, which is originally developed by Kurt Lewin [8] and modified for instructional purposes. The goal of action research is to develop controllable and intentional transition from single loop learning to double loop learning in terms of Argyris [3].  In a single loop learning, as it is described by Kuhn [2, p. 35], the research is locked into the old paradigm. When the old paradigm prevents practitioners from finding solutions to the new demands in the system, the need of new paradigm leads to overcoming the old counterproductive tacit beliefs. In general, the tacit knowledge may be productive and counterproductive. The process of change continues with a new planning and different solutions. During the change of paradigm, the individuals or the team have the opportunity “to jump” from the old paradigm to a double loop learning - in which the counterproductive beliefs are questioned and overcame [2]. One example of counterproductive tacit knowledge is that standardized homework is good for all students. All educators know that students learn differently and standardized assignments may be productive or not; however, in the industrial era the established teaching standards were undisputable. The learning in the system with undisputable counterproductive beliefs is called single loop learning. If educators question the rules to find better methods, the learning is called double loop [3].

In this study, the transition to a new paradigm is directed by strategic planning for a change, with loose rules and attention to new opportunities.  The transition is gradual and self-sustained in the process. In the supported workshops, an action research was conducted by the guest speaker throughout the entire learning cycle; some results are available online [7]. In the case of professional development integrated into the classroom or outside of the classroom practices provides unique opportunities for the instructor to analyze, facilitate, and evaluate the learning process without extra time, stress, and work. At the same time, learning specialists develop new skills and knowledge. Professional development for both - the instructor and the learning support specialists were major part of the reasons for conducting an action research for the supported workshop.  

Table 1: The main phases of the supported workshop 

Experiments with the Supported Workshop: The flowchart of the supported workshop is presented in Table 1. The four phases are well designed and flexible with respect of students' needs. Students do not depend on the teacher for help - they have 12 hour help in the learning center. The support for this workshop is provided by a guest speaker who orchestrates the project outside of the classroom. Not all students need help in the learning center; the important point is that students can have help if they need. Many students use PowerPoint for the first time. At the end of the workshop they not only can work fluently with technology, but also feel comfortable to present in front of the class. Students/participants were assisted by the guest speaker through tutoring/mentoring programs outside of the classroom with careful attention to their personal zone of proximal development [9]. Phase I is designed to build a collaboration between the faculty member and the learning center. In Phase II, the presenter uses technologies to present regular content from a learning point of view directly into the classroom. For example, teaching students how to take notes with PowerPoint. Phase III takes at least a month or even longer. In this phase, the guest speaker or tutors from the learning center provide individualized instruction as needed to all students to prepare their project. A learning environment, enriched with specifically developed for the workshop services, provides computers, software, tutors and a place for cooperative learning. In Phase IV of this workshop, students present their artifacts. It is part of our tacit knowledge that good students will do well, the rest of the students will fail. In the supported workshop every student can learn with as much assistance as needed; the workshop is designed to increase the meta-cognitive awareness of personal learning needs.                                                          

Experiments with Non-supported Workshop: Non-supported workshop has the same phases, but without any assistance. An ongoing professional self-development and action research during the implementation phase are conducted by the instructor. Students receive regular tutoring in the classroom and in office hours for the group. This so- called learning boutique [2] has huge local value for the instructor and his or her students; however, it is hard to transfer these unique experiences into the entire educational system. It is hard to convince resistant instructors or educational leaders that these learning experiences are beneficial in a long run. Traditional measurement of students’ achievement has no intent or capacity to measure students’ ability for self-directed learning; therefore, the system often remains blind to accomplishments of these workshops. Data collection is an overwhelming process for one instructor only. The overload for instructor interferes with the quality of the learning experiences.

Observations and results: Both workshops presented in this paper are designed to provide data and observations on educational needs in the time of change from teaching to learning paradigm. The data of each workshop is used immediately for reflections and improvements of the next workshops. With a limited change of the traditional curriculum, the workshop's designer conducts careful observations on students' learning needs and plan for immediate improvements.

The variables, used to compare the workshops, are presented in column one of Table 1.  Column 2 of Table 1 presents the observations for non-supported workshop.  The results from the supported workshop are listed in Column 3.  The change of traditional classroom into a learning environment can happen if the instructor is willing to make changes; however, there are obstacles to be considered in this case. The observations summed in Table 1 show that a change from teaching to learning benefits from outside learning programs and services.

In the supported workshop, learning and faculty departments are united to provide flexible management.  Learning assistance is provided for instructors and for all students in and out of the classroom. The guest speaker collects qualitative and quantitative data and provides management of long-term research on the learning through action research. Also, the guest speaker provides individualized instruction to all students in a timely manner.  After few consecutive workshops, the instructor in the supportive workshop gradually converges to the new learning paradigm. Students learn technologies as a new learning tool and gradually gain learning independence. 

     Table 2 presents only few observable variables for two workshops. The supported workshop is expensive in short run if there is no established department to do the service; however, the advantages of this workshop for all variables, presented in the table, should be considered in future planning.  To provide assistive environment, educators need to trust that the new learning methods are beneficial to them. The results of a survey [10] conducted independently with students in four classrooms during phase II of the supported workshop shows that students’ learning is improved even in phase II. A new subject about holistic understanding of human learning [5] needs to be added to all educational programs. The learning classes will integrate reason, action and reflection by bridging all subjects and individual learning preferences with the real-life.

     Table 2: Summary of observations

Development and Students' Learning Demand

1] Wikepedia, Phase Transition, Retrieved April 27, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_change.

[2] Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

[3] Chris Argyris, Infed, theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm

[4] Jones E., Martinez M., Learning Orientations in Universities Web-based Courses,   http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~ejones/papers/webnet01.pdf

[5]  Papert, Y. (1996). A Word for Learning; In Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital world (pp. 9-24). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

[6]   Buckley, D., (2002). Pursuing of the learning paradigm, EduCase Review 29, Retrieved April 20, 2006 from Internet: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0202.pdf

[7] Fuller T., Learning Demand, Workshop on Learning, Technologies and Modern Physics: Artifacts; from: http://www.learningdemand.com/DANA/DANA/TaskStream/My%20TaskStream%20Work/folios/Results.htm

[8] Lewin K. (1946), Journal of Social Issues, Action Research and Minorities Problems.

[9] Fuller T. (2005), Learning Demand, Students’ Learning Demand and the Zone of Proximal Development; Retrieved April 18, 2006 from http://www.learningdemand.com/final_reflection.htm

[10] Fuller T., Learning Demand, Formative Analysis; from: http://www.learningdemand.com/Analyisis2.htm

                   MY PORTFOLIO

Comments