Attempting to Avoid the Problem of the Student who Holds the Mouse Dominating the Activity.

Miguel and Gabriela discussed the type of borders they would erect in their panda habitat and then Miguel entered their selection into the Activity Object. They both were pleased with how their selection protected this endangered species. As they continued their explorations they deepened their understanding of ecosystems, communities, populations, species, and concepts to consider in designing protected habitats for endangered or threatened species.                                                                                                               

In the spring semester of 2008, I was part of a team evaluating the use of Adaptive Curriculum by middle school students in a low-SES school (89.2% free or reduced lunch) in Phoenix, AZ. The school had one laptop cart with 14 computers, so teachers had students doubled up, two to a laptop.

The two-students-to-a-computer environment worked for this particular school year. Ironically, last year it wouldn’t have worked. Class sizes were pushing 35 students, so it would have required some triples for the laptop cart. I was told the population of the school dramatically fell as a result of a new Arizona law requiring more stringent proof of immigration status to obtain employment.

Students seemed to work quite well in pairs using Adaptive Curriculum. As with Miguel and Gabriella, there were many good discussions observed between partners. But the lack of discussion is not as obvious, and there were situations where the old maxim of “he/she who controls the mouse tends to dominate the activity” probably applied.

Some simple things can be done to alleviate the one-student-dominating problem in the use of shared computers at school. For example, if one person controls the mouse, the other could control the keyboard. This presents a more cooperative situation, where hopefully sharing of control will lead to sharing of ideas and plans. If the computer activity is one where there is a greater use of the mouse than the keyboard, instructing students to switch roles after certain periods or segments could be helpful.

But why not have computers with two mice? Wouldn’t it be great if both partners had equal access? Sure they might try to get to things quicker than the other person, but it would make for lively interactions. Two-mice computers might even have specific activities designed for them, from cooperative tasks to competitive events. The two-mouse computer is not so useful in the business world, so that is why we don’t see them, but computers in schools should have hardware and accompanying software optimized for student learning. Two-mice computers should be an option. Just as surely as Miguel and Gabriella designed an effective habitat for the pandas, we should optimally design the learning environment and not just take what is given to us.

 References/Resources

Habitat Designer: Panda. Adaptive Curriculum.  http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM190101

Adaptive Curriculum, describes its core learning segments as “Activity Objects.” This is, as far as I know, a new term that has evolved from other terms including “Learning Objects.” In case you are not familiar with the term Learning Object, I will describe this, touching briefly on its origins, and then explain why I think Activity Objects is a well-chosen term.

What is a Learning Object?

The term Learning Object grew from computer object-oriented programming, a paradigm of creating reusable and cooperating “objects.” As with programming objects, the generally accepted criteria for Learning Objects are that they are digital, cooperating, and reusable. Unfortunately, as so often happens in education, terms are used in so many different ways, they start being less useful.

From a broad perspective, a Learning Object is any instructional resource that can be combined with other resources. This is formally presented as “independent pieces of instruction that may be reused in multiple learning contexts” (Fernandez-Manjon & Sancho, 2002). To many of us, that is too wide a definition as almost anything can be considered a learning object.

Wiley’s (2000) definition—more useful because it is narrower—is as follows: “Any digital resource that can be reused to facilitate learning.” According to Wiley, “Learning objects are generally understood to be digital entities deliverable over the Internet, meaning that any number of people can access and use them simultaneously (as opposed to traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or video tape, which can only exist in one place at a time). Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions.”

Friesen (2003) describes problems with terminology involving Learning Objects and makes a call for clarity: “Using a term that make sense only in abstruse technical discussions, and that is opaque and confusing to practitioners does not make its potential benefits clear to teachers…. It is simply that innovations must be presented in terms that are meaningful for teaching practice.”

I think teachers need to be able to easily differentiate between online resources that are relatively passive (such as text based web pages) and those that have strong elements of student interactions. I believe that the term Activity Object is a term that will make sense to practitioners and will help differentiate online resources with strong elements of interactivity. There is a big difference between some current science articles versus cool science experiments online.

What is an Activity Object?

An Activity Object, as the name describes, is a learning module that puts the emphasis on active learning rather than just passively reading text or viewing images or movies. It is designed to compliment other instructional approaches.

I propose the following definition of an Activity Object: An Activity Object is an online digital learning module featuring high-quality student interactions that help to achieve narrow learner outcomes.

To be sure, the Activity Objects of Adaptive Curriculum feature engagements, animations, closures, activity sheets, and assessments, but these are supportive of the high-quality interactions. Of course, some may take the definition I propose and say that many online materials are Activity Objects. To me the question resides in whether or not it is a high-quality interaction. If students mainly read text or watch movies, even if they are answering some questions as they go, this just doesn’t rise to the level of being a high-quality interaction and should not be considered an Activity Object. I propose that we use the term Learning Object for those online materials that support learning but that don’t have high-quality interactions, and that the term Activity Object be judiciously used for learning experiences with high-quality interactions. Therefore, the resource with current events in Earth science can be considered to be a Learning Object but the science project, science activity, and interactions would be considered Activity Objects.

References

Fernandez-Manjon, B. and Sancho, P. (2002) Creating Cost-effective Adaptative Educational Hypermedia Based on Markup Technologies and E-Learning Standards. Interactive Educational Multimedia, No. 4, April, 1-11 

Friesen, N. (2003). Three objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards

Wiley, D.(2000). The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Agency for Instructional Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Available at Reusability.