Week 2:Content Proposal

Content Proposal
Multimedia for Brain Based E-Learning

EMD-613 Media Asset Creation
Education Media Design & Technology MS Program
Full Sail University

Prepared by:
Ellen Doyle
January 11, 2010

I. Thesis Abstract

In the United States and beyond, online learning is an option for most middle and high school students; however, many of the e-courses that are available are not designed to incorporate current knowledge about how the brain learns and best practices of brain-based teaching. Many e-courses consist of multiple linked text files and have heavy reading loads; they lack novelty and variety, do not use multiple pathways for teaching content, and do not engage the different learning systems. This structure can impede student success and discourage students from taking advantage of the e-learning option. Course developers can use multimedia to create e-courses that incorporate brain-based practices, which address the needs of diverse student populations with different learning preferences, strengths, and intelligences.

II. Introduction

Problem Addressed

E-Learning, or web-based learning is rapidly becoming a popular alternative to traditional classroom learning for many of today’s students. The growth is fueled by increased access and increasing demand for individualized instruction, as well as the need for flexibility in the educational environment. The U.S Department of Education reported a 65 % growth rate for e-learning from 2003-2005 (U. S. Department of Education, 2008). In the 2007-2008 school year, more than a million K-12 students took online classes (U. S. Department of Education, 2008). Unfortunately, many of the courses available do not take advantage of multimedia tools to create courses that incorporate brain based principles and practices.
Many current courses consist of a series of linked text files and rely on multiple-choice assessments to assess student success. This places students who are auditory or kinesthetic learners at a disadvantage. Relying on mostly text and a few images can fatigue all students, including visual learners, and places high stakes on the student’s ability to stay focused on reading the text.
Course authors, reviewers, and designers need to be aware of brain-based learning theories and brain-based teaching practices. They also need to understand how to use multimedia to incorporate these practices into current and new courses to ensure that all students gain the most from each class they take.
Target Audience

The thesis and media project can be used to train course writers, reviewers, and instructional designers. Course writers and reviewers, or subject matter experts, are often in the position to best identify which portions of the content could be best taught with the use of a interactives, video, or simulation. Experienced subject matter experts know where students have difficulty with specific content and recognize when students would benefit from visuals or audio explanations. However, most subject matter experts do not understand the capabilities of multimedia designers and are unfamiliar with multimedia uses. Multimedia designers would benefit from specific example of how to use multimedia transform traditional text based e-lessons lessons into brain-compatible lessons.
The media project will be a web-based module that discusses key elements of brain compatible lessons and will demonstrate how multimedia can be used to incorporate brain-based practices. Specific examples will be given and example text based lessons will be transformed into media rich brain-compatible lessons.
Sharing the project

The project will be hosted on the web. It will be created using audio, video, and Flash interactives. It will model a brain-compatible learning module. Specific examples will be given on how to engage the different learning systems, address different learning styles, and compliment different intelligences.
III. Goals and Objectives
Instructional Goal

After working through the module, students will be able to discuss brain-compatible learning, identify different types of multimedia, and identify appropriate uses of multimedia to create brain-compatible e-lessons. They will see examples of different types of applications and be able to link them to specific brain-based theories and practices. They can take this new knowledge and apply it to further course design.

Learning Domain

This project fits into the cognitive and affective learning domains. Course participants will grow in the affective domain because they will see how to engage and motivate students using effective brain-based course design. The project will activate their different learning systems. Participants will gain knowledge of brain-based learning theories and practices, and also of how to use multimedia to create brain-compatible lessons. This project does not attempt to teach the skills of multimedia development; therefore, it does not address the psychomotor domain.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of the learning module, students will be able to:

• Discuss brain-based learning theory
• Describe brain-based teaching practices
• Describe different types of multimedia and how multimedia can be used in e-course development
• Apply the concepts of brain based teaching and use multimedia to create brain-compatible lessons

IV. Presentation

Instructional Approach

Advances in medicine during the 1970s brought new ways to image the brain. With these techniques came an intense interest in how the brain works and the brain’s ability to learn (Jensen, 2008). In time, a new educational movement emerged. One of the pioneers of this movement was Howard Gardener. In 1983, he introduced his theory of multiple intelligences. This theory proposed that there is not one central intelligence instead that there are seven different intelligences (eventually to become eight different intelligences with the addition of Naturalistic). These intelligences included Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal Intelligences. This idea was quite different than the current model of intelligence and held great potential for education. Gardner describes his model as “an outgrowth of accumulating knowledge about the human brain and about human cultures, not the result of prior definitions” (p. 202). His theory had major implications for assessment and laid the groundwork for differentiated instruction.
Another important outcome of brain imaging and research was the understanding of neuroplacisity and the recognition that the brain never loses its ability to change based on experiences. These changes or transformations can occur over relatively short intervals (Restak, 2003). The theory of neurocognitive plasticity proposes that the brain’s ability to learn is not determined at birth; instead, the brain has the ability to change and create new channels and pathways for learning. It proposes that as we learn, our brains change (Conyers & Wilson, 2003). In order to facilitate these changes, it is necessary to provide the brain with richly varied experiences (Restak, 2001). This stimulation changes the brain’s structure.
These major events, along with years of research, lead to the beginning of a movement toward brain-based teaching. Jensen (2008) describes brain-based education as “the engagement of strategies based on principles derived from an understanding of the brain” (Jensen, p. 4). These strategies require that teachers consider how the brain learns best and adapt this to pedagogical practices. Based on research in brain function and ability, Given (2002) identified five important learning systems in the brain: The Emotional Learning System, The Social Learning System, The Cognitive Learning System, The Physical Learning System, and The Reflective Learning System. Each of these systems plays an important part in learning.
In order to utilize the different learning systems, e-courses must provide rich and varied learning environments for students. This provides a unique challenge in the e-learning environment because course developers have a limited number of tools and teachers have limited control over the student’s environment. Therefore, e-courses must use multimedia to create rich and varied experiences. Care must be taken to use specific teaching tools mindfully so as not to create confusion, conflict, or overstimulation in the e-lessons. Students must be given opportunities to use their strengths to convey what they have learned.
Lesson Structure
The module will begin with a video to introduce the topic, provide an opportunity to activate background knowledge, and convey objectives. The students will then be guided through a written overview of the course organization, content, and navigation. They will review a written version of the course objectives and participate in a reflective activity before they begin the course.
The lessons will use a mix of text and multimedia to teach the content and model effective use of multimedia in e-lessons. The first lesson will review brain-based educational theory. Students will have the opportunity to assess their understanding and comprehension before they move from each lesson to the next. The next lessons will cover the topics of what is multimedia, how can multimedia be used to teach content, and what pitfalls to avoid using multimedia.
The last lesson will provide an example of an e-lesson that was converted from text only format to a rich and varied multimedia lesson that engages the different learning systems. Finally, students will have the opportunity to participate in reflective activities, self-check activities, an interactive quiz, and plan their own e-lesson.
V. Evaluation

The project can be used as a training module for new and current course developers. Students who complete the module will have worked through a number of interactive quizzes. They will report their success on these quizzes to help determine the effectiveness of the module lessons. They will also complete some reflective exercises during the course and a final reflective assessment. They will have freedom to decide how they would like to document and submit these exercises. After completing the module, students will compose a plan to revise a lesson of their choice. If they do not have access to a lesson, some choices will be provided for them.
The use of these different methods of assessment can give us different feedback about the structure and content of the lessons. The reflective component will indicate if we are meeting the student’s needs and determine if they identify any areas of weakness or concern. This type of assessment will be used to determine if student meet the “discuss and describe” objectives. The interactive quizzes can help us determine the low-level understanding of specific concepts and term. The final project can help students reflect, and apply what they have learned to a real world situation and assess the “apply” objectives. If multiple students are using the training module at one time, they can share these projects with outers to collaborate and facilitate a deeper level of understanding and application. If they are not working in a training group, students can meet with a mentor to discuss their projects. These discussions and collaborations can help to assess if the overall objectives of the course were met.
In order to assess the long-term usefulness and effectiveness of the module, course developers should follow-up with individuals who participated in the course at regular intervals during their first development project. At this time, developers can identify any areas needing more attention or any additions that need to be made to the module. After completing their first development project, individuals who participated in the training should fill out a comprehensive survey about the module and their experience in course development.

VI. References

Andone, D., Dron, J., & Pemberton L. (2009). Developing a Desirable Learning Environment for Digital Students. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 6, 253-271.
Barab, S., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your veggies and do your homework: a design based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1) 15-21.
Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Coffman, T. & Klinger, M. B. (2008). Utilizing virtual worlds in education: the implications for practice. Internationals Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1) 29-33).
Conyers, M., & Wilson, D. (2005). 60 strategies for boosting test scores. Delray Beach, FL: Nova Southeastern University/BrainSMART Inc.
Dede C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCASE Quarterly, 28(1) 7-12. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMaga zineVolum/PlanningforNeomillennialLearni/157325
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: myths and messages. The Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3) 200-209.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Given, B. (2002). Teaching to the brain’s natural learning systems. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Huffaker, D., Calvert, S. (2003). The new science of learning: active learning, metacognition, and transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 325-334.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain based learning the new paradigm of teaching (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kapitzke, C., & Pendergast, D. (2005). Virtual schooling service: productive pedagogies or pedagogical possibilities? Teachers College Record, 107, 1627- 1650.
Keller, J. & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3) 1-12.
Keller, J. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e-learning. Distance Education, 29(2) 175-185. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://robertoigarza.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/art-first- principles-of-motivation-to-learn-and-e-learning-keller-2008.pdf
Levitin, D. (2006). This is your brain on music. New York: Penguin Publishing.
Magoulas, G., Papanikolaou, K., & Grigoriadous, M. (2003). Adaptive we-based learning: accommodating individual difference through system’s adaptation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4) 511-527.
McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107, 1583-1600.
Muirhead, B. (2004a). Contemporary online education challenges. The International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(10) 65-69.
Muirhead, B. (2004b). Research insights into interactivity. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(3) 65-70.
Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: a recent review of literature. Educational Technology and Society, 7(1) 11-15.
National Council on Online Learning (2007). National standards of quality of online courses. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Qual ity%20 Online%20Teaching.pdf
Oblinger, D. (2005). Education the net generation [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetge.
Restak, R. (2001). Mozart’s brain and the fighter pilot unleashing your brain’s potential. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Restak, R. (2003). The new brain: how the modern age is rewiring your mind. City, ST: Rodale Publishing.
Song, L. Singelton, E., Hill, J., & Hwa, M. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1) 59-70.
Stodel, E., Thomposn, T., & MacDonald, C. (2006). Learners’ perspectives on what is missing from online learning: interpretations through the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7, 1492-1498.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom responded to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U. S. Department of Education. (2008). Evaluation of evidence-based best practices in online learning. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Tear down those walls the revolution is underway. Retrieved month day, year, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan.pdf
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2000) courageous learners: unleashing the brain power of students from at risk situations. Delray Beach, FL: Nova Southeastern University/BrainSMART Inc.
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2003). Thinking for results: safer schools and higher
achievement. Delray Beach, FL: Nova Southeastern University/BrainSMART Inc.