Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in Undergraduate Education

Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in

Undergraduate Education

Professor Thomas C. ReevesThe University of Georgia

Marie Jasinski

Topics• The conative

domain

• Authentic learning design and assessment

• The role of technology

We don’t know enough about the outcomes of teaching and learning in higher education.

It is convenient for everyone involved to pretend that high quality, relevant teaching and learning are occurring.

Film Clip from “Declining by Degrees” by John Merrow and Learning Matters

“Quality” ratings of universities & colleges by commercial entities have enormous impact in the USA today.

The criteria used for these rankings are surprisingly dubious.

Film Clip from “Declining by Degrees” by John Merrow and Learning Matters

What should we expect our students to learn in higher education?

Traditional Learning Domains

• Cognitive

• Affective

• Psychomotor

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Cognitive Cognitive Domain Domain What

we say we value

What we teach and test

Characterization by Value Set

Organization

Valuing

Responding

Receiving

Affective Affective Domain Domain

Non-discursive Communication

Skilled Movements

Physical Activities

Perceptual Skills

Basic Fundamental Movement

Reflex Movement

Psychomotor Psychomotor Domain Domain

Unfortunately, we have neglected the conative domain.

Conative Domain

• Will

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

• Striving

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

• Striving

• Mental energy

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

• Striving

• Mental energy

• Self-determination

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

• Striving

• Mental energy


• Intention

Conative Domain

• Will

• Desire

• Level of effort

• Drive

• Striving

• Mental energy


• Intention

History of the Conative Domain

Orexis: (Greek) Striving; desire; the conative aspect of mind

Aristotle

cognitive affective

conative

Thought Feelings Behavior

CognitionAffectionConation


• The conative domain as well as the affective were eliminated by the behaviorist movement and “rat psychology.”

• “What good is it to add invisible states such as motivation and emotion to explain behavior?”

History of the Conative Domain• Skinner maintained

that humans lack will or intentionality.

• Thinking we have a will is a product of our past conditioning and current environmental influences.


In the 1950’s, Harry Harlow restored the affective domain to respectability.


Studies of affection with baby monkeys and wire, cloth, and real mothers began to undermine the behavioral dominance of the times.


Amazon search yields only one contemporary book about the conative domain.

Cognitive – Affective – Conative

• To know

• Thinking

• Thought

• Epistemology

• Knowing

• To feel

• Feeling

• Emotion

• Esthetics

• Caring

• To act

• Willing

• Volition

• Ethics

• Doing

Can we restore the conative domain to its proper place in higher education?

“…today's teens are recasting the image of youth from downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged.”

Generational Differences• Boomers, Gen Xers, and the Net Gen

• Most of research done with elites using poor sampling

• Generalizations are extremely under-supported by data

• Caution is advised

Proper Caution

Having grown up with widespread access to technology, the New Gen is able to intuitively use a variety of IT devices and navigate the Internet. Although they are comfortable using technology without an instruction manual, their understanding of the technology or source quality may be shallow.

“Today's young people have been raised to aim for the stars at a time when it is more difficult than ever to get into college, find a good job, and afford a house. Their expectations are very high just as the world is becoming more competitive, so there's a huge clash between their expectations and reality.”

• depression,

• crushing disappointment,

• credit card debt,

• student loans,

• divorce-like breakups,

• health-insurance,

• real estate prices,

• recession

Narcissism abounds!

• express grandiose fantasies

• make demands on others out of sense of entitlement

• devalue others who threaten self-esteem

• anger if their expectations are not met

Narcissist*

*and

proud of it

Jean Twenge

In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted to cheating whereas in 1969 only 34% admitted such a failing.

In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen reported earning an A average in high school whereas in 1968 only 18% of freshmen reported being an A student in high school.

An A or else….

In the 1950s, only 12% of young teens agreed with the statement “I am an important person” whereas by the late 1980s, 80% claimed they were important.

It’s all about me.

In the 1960s, 42% of high school students expected to work in professional jobs whereas in the late 1990s, 70% of high schools expected to work as a professional.

• 60% could not name a single supreme court judge

• 48% did not know what Roe vs. Wade was

• 62% could not name a country in Bush’s Axis of Evil

21st Century Outcomes– Accessing and using information– Communication skills– Demonstrating understanding– Applying rules and procedures– Being creative– Thinking critically – Making sound judgments– Problem-solving– Life-long learning– Exhibiting intellectual curiosity

Let’s face it. Assessment drives learning.

If it hasn’t been assessed, it hasn’t been learned.

We must strive to assess the full range of learning outcomes.

The most “shocking” discovery is the “non-aggression pact” between professors and students.

OK, we need to focus on higher order outcomes, but do our students really want to learn?

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

• Focus on undergraduate education

• 2006: 557 colleges and universities







NSSE results

• Work expectations for students:–10-15 hrs

in class –25-30 hrs

studying

Average faculty hours in USA

• 53 hours per week: ranging from 47 in community colleges to 57 in research universities

• 11 hours per week teaching: ranging from 16 hours in community colleges to 7 in research universities

NSSE results

• Work Reality:–20% study 5 hrs

per week or less

–25% 6-10 hrs

–48% 11-30 hrs

–7% > 30 hrs

NSSE

Active, collaborative

learning

Studentfaculty

Interaction

HighAcademic Challenge

Continuous

Timely

Feedback

Time On

Task

The best teachers focus on “critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, curiosity, concern for ethical issues” as well as “breadth and depth of specific knowledge” and the “methodologies and standards of evidence used to create that knowledge.”

Knowledge is constructed, not received.

Mental models change slowly.

Teaching is about asking the right questions.

Learners must care.

Technology in higher education is necessary, but not sufficient.

Teaching with technology works when learning tasks are authentic!

Alignment is critical!–goals & objectives

–content

–instructional design

–learner tasks

–instructor roles

–technological features

–assessment strategies

Nature of Objectives

The best teachers focus on teaching higher order, general skills such as problem solving, creativity, and intellectual curiosity as well as facts and skills.

Lower order, discrete Higher order, general

Nature of Content

The best teachers encourage learners to construct multiple interpretations of real world data.

One Right Answer Multiple Perspectives

Pedagogical Dimensions

The best teachers use innovative alternative pedagogies such as problem based learning or authentic tasks.

Direct Instruction Problem-Based

Learner Tasks

• textbook problems• abstract context• easily solvable• one right answer

• ill-structured problems• meaningful context• time required• multiple solutions

Academic Authentic

Instructor Roles

The best teachers focus less on what they will do and more on what their students will do as learners.

Focus of teaching Focus on learning

Technology Role

The best teachers use technology to engage students in the active construction of original knowledge representations using real world data.

Prepackaged data Real world data

Focus of Assessment

The best teachers focus assessment on robust mental models and higher order thinking skills, not just memorized concepts.

Discrete Knowledge Mental Models

Alignment is essential!goals/objectives

content

instructional design

technology role

assessment

learner tasks

instructor roles

Keeping pedagogy ahead of technology is an ongoing struggle.

I went to Wikipedia to find out about the Marshall Plan…3 hours of clicking later I’m on wet tee-shirts.com

Wikipedia• Summation

is not enough

• We need critical analysis

Wikipedia….the sum of all

human knowledge?

Did you know that 63.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

MISSION: “Encourage and sustain continual improvements in the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for all students, and to serve as a resource for lifelong learning.”

We already know that learning with technology works as well as face-to-face instruction.

Premier Educational Research Journal in the USA

Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006 - “Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research

Major conclusion: “… overwhelming evidence has shown that learning in an online environment can be as effective as that in traditional classrooms.”

Is “just as good” good enough?

Enhanced Learning at USAFA

Enhanced Learning in Engineering• Problem: Cadets not achieving

higher order outcomes• Critical Outcomes for 21st Century

Graduates of the US Air Force Academy– Frame and resolve ill-defined

problems– Exhibit intellectual curiosity– Communicate with multiple

media– Enrich mental model of

engineering

• New ENGR 110 “Introduction to Engineering” course designed

• Course intended to be a showcase for alternative pedagogical dimensions

• Course designed to take maximum advantage of the technological infrastructure available at USAFA

• Pedagogical DimensionsTask-Oriented - cadets were given three tasks during the semester

Get to Mars

Build a research site on Mars

Develop a power source on Mars

Constructionist - cadets created knowledge representations of solutions

Conversational - cadets joined listservs and other forums to discuss tasks

Collaborative - cadets worked in teams throughout the course

• Pedagogical DimensionsChallenging - there were no “correct” solutions to tasks, but lots of wrong ones

Responsive - faculty and external experts provided multiple levels of guidance and feedback

Reflective - cadets kept electronic journals and participated in focus groups

Formative - cadets developed prototypes and refined them over time

• Web provided rich resources about Mars, space travel, engineering, Air Force, etc.

• Web tools enabled cadets to collaborate.

• E-mail supported consultation with experts.

• PowerPoint used to construct knowledge representations.

• Excel, Stella, and other tools afforded problem-solving and modeling.

• Decisions had to be made:– After a three year beta test, should the new

course become part of the “core.”

– How could this type of course be supported after faculty who created it were gone?

• Evaluation questions:– Did students achieve higher-order outcomes?

– What were the logistical requirements for implementation?

– How could the course be improved?

• A comparative evaluation was conducted using two experimental classes and two control classes with a range of measures:– Standardized problem-solving

instrument– Concept maps– Questionnaires

• Interviews and focus groups employed.

• Intensive observations.

Task-Oriented

Challenging

Collaborative

Constructionist

Conversational

Responsive

Reflective

Formative

Engr Mech Engr 110Engr 110

• Educationally significant differences were found on a standardized measure of problem-solving.

• Concepts maps revealed little.• Observations indicated that course was

very demanding on both cadets and faculty.

• Other benefits found included:– richer mental models – improved communication skills– enhanced research skills– better team skills

Pre- and Post- Course Results• No pre-course differences between cadets in new

course and those in control course• Significant post-course differences between

cadets in new course and those in control course• Cadets in new course improved by a whole

standard deviation (1 Sigma difference)

D D+ S- S S+ E- E

Pre =

Post =

• Recommendations:–Continue to support the

course for two more years

–Explore extensions of blended design into other courses

–Provide more faculty release time

Authentic Learning Team

Reeves, Herrington, Oliver

http://www.authentictasks.uow.edu.au/

So what should we do to engage Generation Me?

We must end the cult of self-esteem.

Stop telling young people they can be anything they want.

Stop telling young people they can be anything they want.

McDonald's to offer burger bar 'A-Levels' Monday, 28 January 2008

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said it had approved the company to develop courses up to the equivalent of A-level standard.

i’m learning it

Make grades meaningful again.

Thanks, but you still got a C.

Assessment

Reward achievement, not participation.

By 10 PMBy 10 PM

Voter participation among those aged 20-24 dropped from 51% in 1972 to 35% in 2000.

Where there’s will, you’re away!

Thank You!Professor Tom Reeves

The University of Georgia

Instructional Technology

604 Aderhold Hall

Athens, GA

30602-7144 USA

[email protected]

http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves

Documents

Technology and the Conative Learning Domain in Undergraduate Education