The goal of the Jasper series was to set up a shared context learning environment where students would experience a “realistic problem-rich setting,” understanding procedures, skills and concepts (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992a). Students were to develop independent critical thinking skills. This TELE was an avenue for exploring STEM, facilitating a shared understanding between educators and learners, developing authentic problem-solving skills.
Though 1992 was a long time ago, the issue of developing real problem solving skills in students is as applicable today as it was then. When we look at the new BC curriculum and understand that as educators we are preparing students for jobs that don’t even exist right now it is incredibly important that we consider our duty to develop and foster critical thinking skills. These skills will be invaluable to whatever career path they choose as it will allow them to adapt.
In Taiwan, a video based series, Encore’s Vacation, was implemented in multiple grade 5 classes. It resulted in increased motivation and academic achievement (Shyu, H., 2000). It was quite similar as it offered visual and audio presentation of authentic problems, with a storyline and the ability to control the speed of the video. This afforded the opportunity of differentiation through extension or simplification if needed. As such, one could definitely consider this anchored instruction.
One big takeaway I got from the readings was the emphasis on engaging in the challenging of information and the need to reflect as they learn. All this must be done while accessing and applying their pre-existing knowledge when confronted with alternate points of view (1992a). The Jasper series of videos can be considered anchored instruction because it is situated learning, emphasizing learning within context and giving students the opportunity to engage in the same types of content and knowledge that the experts in the video did.
When comparing to what may be considered contemporary versions of the Jasper series ( ex. Khan Academy, Academic Earth, BBC Learn etc.) it should be pointed out that the absence of cooperative learning in these programs distinguishes them. Active engagement is missing somewhat from these online platforms, while groups of students collaborated in the Jasper videos.
Though the Jasper series is anchored instruction the reality is that technology has advanced a great deal since this study. Certainly when bringing this into the context of today the basic quality of the platform (video and audio) need to be addressed. Furthermore, if I were to update video instruction to make it more relevant for today it seems logical to add updated forms of online communication such as backchannel programs or social media.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.
Hi Ryan,
Collaborative learning seems to be one of those strategies that we all implement but cannot get perfectly right. For years now, my school has implemented a Dragon’s Den type project where groups of students, determined by the teachers, work together to solve a problem of local or global significance. Each year, we have the same issue with group dynamics; this ranges from students being over-bearing, disruptive, uninterested, or worse case, crying. We have contemplated allowing students to choose their own groups but that has some inherent problems as well. I wonder if the students back in 1992 had the same problems or is it just characteristic of this day and age.
Cheers,
Gordon
Hi Gordan,
I agree, it is a never ending pursuit when it comes to collaborative learning. In 1992 I was a student and I can’t remember any group work I engaged in that was completely collaborative. I imagine the problems teachers faced were similar, if not the same.
I do think however, that the quality of the task and level of engagement has a great deal to do with the success a teacher will have.
I’m curious what types of tasks teachers in your school encourage group work on?
Well the problems are determined entirely by the groups, with some guidance from the teachers if they get off track. As a result, not every student is invested in the problem. There was a thought for each student to come up with an idea independently, and then groups would be formed with those students with similar ideas.
Hi Ryan & Gordon,
Ryan — I loved your suggestion of adding backchannel communication to an updated version of video-based anchored instruction! Something like Today’s Meet https://todaysmeet.com would be ideal to have available while students are viewing the video, particularly if they know in advance that the numbers that come up casually as part of the story will probably be useful later…
Gordon — As for the success of collaborative learning, I think a lot of it rides on the front-loading and scaffolding that focuses on HOW to be a functioning group member and handle conflict etc. which is done prior to beginning any collaborative or cooperative task. Collaborative work is generally easier with more mature students who have already developed the social skills required for coping well in a group. I also think that sometimes teachers use cooperative or collaborative learning models without being fully aware of the nature of group development from a pedagogical standpoint. I suppose that would imply an underdeveloped PK in this arena.
For example, in etec532 I was introduced, via Palloff & Pratt (2013) to McClure’s (1998) Model of Group Instruction (see it here as I no longer have access to the etec532 readings https://www.ccconline.org/mcclure-model/) which outlines seven stages of group development where three of the four stages could be considered negative, including “disunity”, “confrontation”, and “disharmony”. This model helps us as educators to come to terms with how things actually work in a group whether with small children or adult learners, so we avoid the trap of setting unrealistic expectations and thinking the group has “failed” when really they’re just doing what groups do and with some proper guidance and self-directed time they may proceed to the more productive and harmonious stages. In addition to the cognitive or performance task that groups are asked to accomplish, McClure suggests that every group must also overcome something personal and social in order to begin achieving at a higher level of performance within and as a group.
Whether in situations using cooperative (more teacher-centered) or collaborative (more student-centered) (see Panitz, 1999 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443) strategies for learning, McClure’s model has relevance. Particularly if a teacher has a strong, teacher-centered style or a lack of comfort with diverse technologies (ie. for collaboration between groups) it’s easy to see how they might inadvertently hinder their students from reaching the higher levels of Independence and Performing that McClure suggests are only met when the group is self-directed without unnecessary input from the instructor. This makes successful group work with children a particular challenge, as self-direction is not a highly developed skill, hence the need for front-loading prior to implementation mentioned above.
The more theoretical paper required for our essential Jasper readings (see course readings CTGV, 1992a) introduced three possible teaching models for presenting this information so it’s entirely likely that students had the same struggles in group dynamics back then as we do now and even great constructivist pedagogy will only take us so far as groups organically move through McClure’s stages. Framing group work in this way helps us notice that there’s a sense of Vygotsky’s ZPD in the social functioning required for effective group interactions, and this too can aid teachers in developing appropriate scaffolds to make these endeavours more successful for everyone involved.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, gentlemen!
Thank you Jan,
You make a great point when you discuss the various teaching models. No one method works 100% of the time and who you are working with makes a world of difference.
I like that you fit Vygotsky into the discussion. Certainly, while anchored instruction has great potential it is important that we apply the tried and true methods to make the models work.