I love the premise behind Goal Based Scenarios -- especially the part where Kevin says we need to "trick" the students by creating "a goal that encompasses or packages a specific set of skills that one wishes to teach" into the model.
Natural learning goals disappear as students adapt to school culture. Schank, Berman and Macpherson make strong arguments that children (and all people) learn best by actually doing the skill we want them to master. So why are schools not doing what is best for children?
One clear reason is time. After reading about Goal-based Learning and the seven (at least) steps involved to create an interactive lesson like this, I can see why schools don't push this kind of learning model on teachers very often. If someone else wrote the curriculum and planned a lesson for me to implement, I would gladly use this model. Consider the seven steps for this model:
Step 1 - choose the learning goals
Step 2 - embed the goals in a motivating mission - purpose for completing the mission
Step 3 - cover story - embed the goals and mission into a longer story - setting up purpose
Step 4 - define roles in operation
Step 5 - activities students will complete as relevant to the task - branch off with decision points (right and wrong)
Step 6 - resources for students to solve tasks -- can be videos, embedded in web pages, etc -- try to promote deeper thinking
Step 7 - feedback -- when student makes a mistake, you have to give them feedback as to why they chose wrong -- also give positive feedback when students make the correct choice
Another point I'd like to make is this: you can certainly bet I'd be embedding quite a few of the learning skills (or objectives) I need to teach into any one given module. Most teachers can't spend this kind of time planning, implementing, assessing, and reteaching; but if we packed it full of skills and objectives, then we would not be as pressured to finish or 'get through' the teaching model.
I do like it though! It is a great model for developing skills whereby students are actively engaged and whereby they choose what and how they learn. Most people learn best from mistakes -- and this model allows for that! That may even be the most intriguing part to write (in my opinion) -- the part where the mission fails -- just like Star Trek -- only no beaming the students up to save them.
I like the opportunities for thematic learning this model offers. This is a great way for students to draw in background knowledge and make individual - but real - world connections. This also makes kids feel important. They get to draw on personal knowledge to solve problems. This is far deeper learning than memorizing flashcards. This is preparing students for life, using 21st Century skills, and problem solving on their own, using their own developing critical thinking skills.
I love the failure portion of this module. We are creating safe places for students to fail. There are no permanent consequences to failing in GBS designs!
Websites would work great for this model. One could create a website, linking pages together. Then when a student takes a 'wrong turn' so to speak, you could have them go back to the beginning of that section to rethink their plan. This reminds me of those young readers where you get to pick your endings. I think Goosebumps made some of them -- my kids are too old for them now :(
Other technology -- you could embed video on your webpages to help provide clues and hints. I also think of this learning model like a game of Clue - so you could practice embedding foreshadowing throughout your module -- and that would be a great way to integrate English/Language Arts into what you are teaching!
Natural learning goals disappear as students adapt to school culture. Schank, Berman and Macpherson make strong arguments that children (and all people) learn best by actually doing the skill we want them to master. So why are schools not doing what is best for children?
One clear reason is time. After reading about Goal-based Learning and the seven (at least) steps involved to create an interactive lesson like this, I can see why schools don't push this kind of learning model on teachers very often. If someone else wrote the curriculum and planned a lesson for me to implement, I would gladly use this model. Consider the seven steps for this model:
Step 1 - choose the learning goals
Step 2 - embed the goals in a motivating mission - purpose for completing the mission
Step 3 - cover story - embed the goals and mission into a longer story - setting up purpose
Step 4 - define roles in operation
Step 5 - activities students will complete as relevant to the task - branch off with decision points (right and wrong)
Step 6 - resources for students to solve tasks -- can be videos, embedded in web pages, etc -- try to promote deeper thinking
Step 7 - feedback -- when student makes a mistake, you have to give them feedback as to why they chose wrong -- also give positive feedback when students make the correct choice
Another point I'd like to make is this: you can certainly bet I'd be embedding quite a few of the learning skills (or objectives) I need to teach into any one given module. Most teachers can't spend this kind of time planning, implementing, assessing, and reteaching; but if we packed it full of skills and objectives, then we would not be as pressured to finish or 'get through' the teaching model.
I do like it though! It is a great model for developing skills whereby students are actively engaged and whereby they choose what and how they learn. Most people learn best from mistakes -- and this model allows for that! That may even be the most intriguing part to write (in my opinion) -- the part where the mission fails -- just like Star Trek -- only no beaming the students up to save them.
I like the opportunities for thematic learning this model offers. This is a great way for students to draw in background knowledge and make individual - but real - world connections. This also makes kids feel important. They get to draw on personal knowledge to solve problems. This is far deeper learning than memorizing flashcards. This is preparing students for life, using 21st Century skills, and problem solving on their own, using their own developing critical thinking skills.
I love the failure portion of this module. We are creating safe places for students to fail. There are no permanent consequences to failing in GBS designs!
Websites would work great for this model. One could create a website, linking pages together. Then when a student takes a 'wrong turn' so to speak, you could have them go back to the beginning of that section to rethink their plan. This reminds me of those young readers where you get to pick your endings. I think Goosebumps made some of them -- my kids are too old for them now :(
Other technology -- you could embed video on your webpages to help provide clues and hints. I also think of this learning model like a game of Clue - so you could practice embedding foreshadowing throughout your module -- and that would be a great way to integrate English/Language Arts into what you are teaching!
Very thoughtful post. I think the question you posed in the beginning, "Why are schools not doing what is best for children?" is answered in the middle of your post. We all know that these models would benefit our kids, but realistically we do not have the time allowed to plan for these engaging, theory based activities. I also liked that you made mention of failure. It is sort of like the push for more formative assessment and steer away from summative assessment. As Schank referenced in his article, students do not like to feel ridiculed.
ReplyDeleteKristy,
ReplyDeleteI was great seeing you on Friday as well!
You always have dynamic blog posts. The seven steps that you mentioned would take considerable time for instructors to design and implement. I believe that this is one reason that goal based scenarios are not used often. However, this model could be beneficial for all students.
Interesting to hear that you like the 'trick the students' part - I had mixed feelings about that - maybe because if the trick is unsuccessful and seen as a trick, it can back-fire. But then I was reminded of Randy Pausch's Last Lecture where he talks about 'Head fakes' - where in life you often think you're learning one thing but are really learning something else, often more valuable - one example he uses is an educational tool called 'Alice' that helps children learn computer programing while to the children using it, it is a game for storytelling and making videos.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps it is a useful strategy, but I guess instructors need to remind themselves to 'check their design' to make sure the trick is not seen for what it is until the stage where it doesn't matter any more.