Some instructional strategies are teacher centered, like presentations, demonstrations, tutorials, and drill-and-practice. (This last one is often administered by computer programs.) Others are student-centered, like discussion, cooperative learning, games, simulations, discovery, and problem solving.
Any of these methods can become boring if it’s overused, and each one could be used effectively (or ineffectively) based on the preparation of the learners and instructor and the learning situation.
What is the best way to keep students engaged?
More effective are things like learners teaching their peers, mall-group discussions, and simulations. Less effective would be presentation and instructor lectures. If you’re using something on the “less effective” end, you should pair it with something on the “more effective” end.
Presentation/Lecture
Pro: easy to prepare and execute, easy to repeat, good intro/overview for a topic, ok for older learners, good for large groups
Con: limited prior knowledge, no learner participation, learners may not remember or gain much, very boring for younger learners and others with short attention spans
Drill-and-Practice
Pro: good for students who are motivated by competition and improvement, can be very effective for memorizing facts, good for establishing routine/habits, easy to grade/evaluate
Con: can cause anxiety for students, can cause frustration, can become boring quickly
Demonstration
Pro: good for visual learners, can be engaging, good use of limited resources
Con: may be too hard for all learners to observe, demonstrator has to be engaging or learners lose interest
Tutorials
Pro: good for independent learners, easy to assign, can be easy to evaluate, motivation may be based on the subject rather than the
Con: can’t always ask questions or get feedback immediately, may be heavily text-based
Cooperative Learning
Pro: learners can get perspective from peers with different backgrounds, good for sharing learning with students of different levels, very popular
Con: not good for the youngest learners, adequate previous learning is required, may cause learners to rely too much on others
Simulation
Pro: good for practicing skills that may be unsafe or impractical to practice in real life (chemistry, medicine, space travel, etc.), can be interesting
Con: simulation may be boring or inaccurate, lack of complexity, isn’t good for tasks and topics that are very simple
Discussion
Pro: good for older advanced learners, makes students feel engaged and motivated to learn the content when they are involved in the discussion
Con: bad for younger learners, one person may take control of the discussion
Games
Pro: good for young learners, good for lower-level content, works well as an extrinsic reward
Con: not generally engaging for adult learners, must be leveled appropriately or will be ineffective and/or unengaging
Problem Solving
Pro: great for learning and applying abstract concepts
Con: not good for young or inexperienced learners, ineffective if the objective is poorly defined
All methods have different appropriate (and inappropriate) applications. No ONE method is ALWAYS best. Consider the learning environment:
- What are the requirements mandated by the environment?
- What methods lend themselves best to the content?
- Can you use different strategies to keep things engaging and interesting for learners?
- What does your learner analysis show about the intended audience?
The tree values of educational technology are effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. The goal of any instructional strategy should be to maximize all three.
- Try different things until you find one that is most effective for your group of learners.
- Use your time most efficiently with face-to-face time for interaction and questions and other things (reading, memorization, fact learning) are done in individual time.
- Appeal to learners by using the most attractive, best available techniques, technologies, content delivery systems, etc.
Interesting info about Students and Technology: http://www.educause.edu/studentsAndTechnologyInfographic
What makes for “good design?” What about “bad design”?
Well-designed products are intuitive and easy to use. They are well planned and thought out before they are actually created. They are beta tested and modified to incorporate user feedback. Design is a science and an art – it should support the overall theme that is being communicated. Everything should have a purpose, and should consider how the learner will use it.
Seth Godin talks about bad design and why bad design is sometimes a good thing:
Why might things be “broken”?
- It’s not my job!
Someone had the job of X, but for whatever reason that person decided not to solve the problem. Other people ignored the problem because fixing it wasn’t their purview. Or maybe no one had that job to begin with. - Selfish jerks made it.
The salespeople or managers or whoever is in such a hurry to make a buck or “improve” something that they didn’t consider what the consumer really wanted or needed. The product or advertisement isn’t appealing to the true customer - The world changed since it was first made.
- I’m not a fish.
The person who designed it doesn’t use the end product and doesn’t care about how it will be used. - I didn’t know.
The designer didn’t realize how the end product would be used. - Broken on purpose
The designer wanted to draw attention to the product, but not because it’s truly useful or effective. Maybe it’s funny or interesting, but more likely, it’s just a pain. But sometimes it’s ok if it works for the user you really want to reach. - It’s just plain broken.
Fun with IDET 