Learners as "PROSUMER"

When I read the article a few days ago, it said that the users in game industry tend to be "prosumers" which mean they not only consume and but also product (contribute) the game in a new way. Compared to traditional approach that one knowledgable person feeds many ignorant people in one-way approach, new technology such as interactive web sites or games can provide learners with the opportunity of participation. Therefore, web-designer should provide more chances of interaction so that learners can have wisdom beyond data, information, and knowledge.

Third translation assignment

This is the third translation assignment.
Compared to previous sites, it is simple.

Click here

My storyboard

This is my storyboard for final project.
Here
Give me comments about my storyboard. Thank you!

Cognitive Load Theory and Implications

Cognitive Load theory is one of my favorite theories in an instructional design area. But, I’m still wondering how to measure human cognitive load. In daily life, many people often say that they are overloaded. But, how do they know overloaded? Sweller et al (1998) introduce subjective, physiological, and task- and performance-based measurement to figure out cognitive load. And, they conclude subjective measurement is the most reliable technique to measure cognitive load. However, many psychological studies tell us the limitation of self-rating scale. Subjective measurements need to prove their reliability and there should be more research for measuring invisible cognitive load.
I agree that instructional designers should make an effort to reduce unnecessary extraneous cognitive load when they design and develop instruction. Especially, considering that multimedia-based learning imposes more redundancy or split-attention to learners compared to traditional learning, instructional designers should keep in mind the implications of cognitive load theory. That is, technique itself cannot guarantee effective and efficient learning.

Second translation

This is the second translation assingment.
I work with NYU Steinhardt school's homepage.

Click here

Bransford's design of learning environments

I agree that perspectives such as learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered (I like a “culture-centered” term better) should be considered importantly on the design of learning environments. As an instructional designer, she/he should think what the best learning environment is for learners. Based on Bransford’s thought, “research on learning does not provide a recipe for designing effective environment, but it does support the value of asking certain kinds of questions about the design of learning environments,” (p.141) I can have some insight. I think the research on instructional technology should be not descriptive studies but prescriptive studies because it must directly provide appropriate learning environment to learners. Based on various educational research (educational philosophy, psychology, and sociology), instructional technologist as a practitioner should give concrete solution to learners.
In Korea and some Asian countries, students spend on most times of nonsleeping time in school unlike western countries. From this fact, classroom and school community should be considered more seriously. That is, the relationship (social dynamics) between a teacher and a student, and students can be considered on the design of learning environments.

As Mayer (2000) mentioned as well, technology itself doesn’t guarantee effective learning. To have an effective learning environment, a software developer should consider the characteristics of learning. For example, if game developers make games without educational perspective, it is hard to see educational effects in games although a game itself has lots of educational potential. Many parents worry the violent characteristics of games rather than expect such effects.

Translation_NYUKGSA

The below link is my first translation assignment.
Although the translated webpage should be opened with following images, I couldn't make the completed webpage including images. FYI- I post an original site as well.

Translated page - http://homepages.nyu.edu/~hss258/nyukgsa.html
Original page - http://www.nyukgsa.com/index.htm(NYU Korean Graduate Students Association Website)

Design outline

Title: Instructional Website for Advanced Korean Learners

1. Analysis
1) Background and problem description
- Lack of learning material and environment for advanced Korean learners as second language learners, especially in web-based learning
- Most Korean websites are developed for beginners
- Existing Korean learning websites are also used as a supplementary resource having limited functions such as announcement, assignment, or discussion board function
- In addition, the websites are designed based on traditional behaviorism (stimuli by a teacher → students’ response)

2) Target audience and learner characteristics
- Advanced Korean learners in college level having basic 4 skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing) in Korean
- Korean speakers as second language

2. Design Description
1) Content analysis
- Korean listening, speaking, reading, writing, idiom, and business language in advanced level
- In this project, “idiom” part and “business language” part will be developed

2) Functionality analysis (Goal, objectives)
- Through simulation, students can learn Korean in safety learning environments
- Websites consist of scenario (theme)-based instruction for authentic learning
- By dual coding (animation and narration), a learner’s cognitive load can be reduced

3. Project description
1) Narrative of project design and activities
- Virtual world about Korean idiom and business language
- Some spots have a particular theme
- Third-person perspective using avatar
- Avatar visits spots
- Through animation and narration in a spot, students learn Korean idiom or business language
2) Page design

4. Prototype
1) Storyboards
2) Flow charts

Living-systems design model & Design issues for learning environments

Compared to traditional “Instructional Systems Design” (ISD) that follows linear approach (analysis, design, implementation, testing, and delivery), Plass and Salisbury’s “Living-systems Design Model” focuses on an iterative-prototyping approach in developing knowledge-management systems. That is, the living-systems design model executes ongoing assessment and adjustment of system to reflect growing and changing needs from people and organization, whereas traditional ISD does not consider additional needs any more after initial analysis. To be evolutionary system, the living-systems design model follows some phases: Analysis of end-user requirements, design of instructional information architecture, development of instructional interaction design, development of instructional information design, implementation of system design, and developmental evaluation. Even though some phases look similar to the phases of traditional model, they function differently. For example, the living-systems design model does not necessary determine specific learning outcomes unlike traditional design model. Instead, it just describes system features and functionality. Based on these characteristics, the living-systems design model can be called constructivist models of knowledge management.
In addition, in Collins’s “Design Issues for Learning Environments,” he mentioned some important design issues (Learning goals, learning style, sequence, and teaching methods) using cost-benefit approach to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits of design decisions. In learning goals, he talked benefits and costs about memorization vs. thoughtfulness, whole tasks vs. component skills tasks, breadth vs. depth of knowledge, diverse vs. uniform expertise, access vs. understanding, and cognitive vs. physical fidelity. In learning style, he said interactive vs. active vs. passive learning, incidental vs. direct learning, fun vs. serious learning, natural vs. efficient learning, and learner control vs. computer or teacher control. In sequence, grounded vs. abstract learning, structured vs. exploratory learning, systematic vs. diverse problems, and simple vs. complex tasks were explained. Finally, in teaching methods, the elements of cognitive apprenticeship such as modeling, scaffolding, coaching, articulation, and reflection were described.
Although he simply compares costs and benefits of two (or three) approaches, it gives very important implications to instructional designers in that they should review these sorts of issues to avoid disadvantages of choosing extreme approach in designing learning. That is, based on the purposes and characteristic of instruction, a designer should consider best approach, and mix both approaches if necessary.