Annotated Bibliography-
Adult and Organization Learning – HAT Project Purpose: To hone your ability to synthesize the literature on one specific learning theory, to derive implications for practice, and to write a literature review. Assignments: For this project, you’ll select one specific learning theory (options will be posted in Blackboard), and conduct and report on a thorough review of the literature on that theory (both research literature and practice literature). This assignment is in three parts, and the Field Demonstration assignment leverages this material as well. Theory Author Brief Description
Conditions of Learning (Cognitivist)
(Gange & Medsker, 1996)
Learning occurs through nine different processes: (1) Gaining attention, (2) Informing learners of the objective, (3) Simulate recall of prior knowledge, (4) Present a stimulus, (5) Provide learning guidance, (6) Elicit performance, (7) Provide feedback, (8) Assess performance, (9) Enhance retention and transfer
1- Annotated bibliography or matrix of literature on your selected theory. Due 1/26 For this part of the assignment, you are documenting at least 15 articles that will serve as the basis for your literature review. You are looking for articles (or book chapters) on your selected theory and research related to it, or on design and teaching practices based on the theory. At least 5 of the articles need to be academic (research studies or peer- reviewed papers), and 5 need to be from practitioner literature. This document simply serves as a check-in to be sure you are on track. In either an annotated bibliography or a matrix (spreadsheet), document the following for each of your articles: •APA-formatted citation •Type of article (if research study, document context, method, and size of group studied) •2-4 sentences (<100 words) of highlights from the article (how it will inform your literature review) Criteria for Evaluation: Contains at least 15 articles related to one learning theory, at least 5 of which are empirical (research studies), and 5 are from the practice literature; names type of article for each entry and succinctly summarizes article. 2- Virtual poster or infographic that describes the theory and summarizes implications 3- Comprehensive literature review with implications for practice Due 2/20 This assignment accomplishes two goals: it provides an opportunity for you to get feedback on your summary and interpretation of your theory, and it educates your peers about what you have learned.
Create a one-page document (Word or PowerPoint) that summarizes the key points you will be including in your final paper. Your “virtual poster” or infographic should include a brief summary of the theory (illustrations help if appropriate) AND bullet points or short paragraphs about the theory’s implications for the practice of L&D (e.g. specific teaching techniques, key principles). You’ll post your virtual poster or infographic in a discussion forum for feedback and open discussion. In our conversation, your peers may give you additional ideas or ask questions that will further inform your paper. Criteria for Evaluation: Concisely describes theory and provides substantial implications for practice. 3. Literature Review – Due 3/3 Based on your research and analysis above, write a comprehensive literature review that summarizes the theory and describes implications for practice. Your literature review should include the following: •An abstract or executive summary •A brief introduction, including commentary on why the theory is of interest to you •Background on the context of the theory’s development (who authored the theory, why it was proposed) •An overview of the theory, with descriptions of its key components (illustrations as well if possible) •Summary/synthesis of research on the theory, including where and how it was studied, and outcomes/conclusions (reference at least three articles) •Summary/synthesis of the practice perspective on the theory including practice recommendations and challenges or limitations (reference at least three articles) •Implications for practice that are clearly derived from the literature – these may include specific instructional or developmental recommendations, core principles, activities, and the like – and also include recommendations related to the most appropriate setting for implementation •Conclusion that reiterates main points and provides solid wrap-up for the paper A review of this scope should run 5000-8000 words (not including cover or references). Format your paper in APA style. Depth of Analysis – Learning theory is plainly described in own words; literature on the identified learning theory is clearly and accurately synthesized or summarized (vs. only reporting each article separately); clear and concise implications are demonstrably derived from literature review Completeness – Review contains all elements, and it references six or more papers (at least three academic studies, at least three pieces from practice literature) Writing Clarity and APA Formatting – Good flow, subtitling, transition sentences, and overall grammar; correct APA formatting (e.g. heading styles, citations, reference list) 4. Field Demonstration of Learning Theory – Due 4/7 Purpose: To demonstrate your deep understanding of the learning theory you explored in your literature review through applying it to the design and implementation of a learning module.
Assignment. For this project, you will design and implement a learning module that is reflective of the theory you studied in your literature review. This field demonstration may be in any format that is appropriate for application of the theory. The final project is a written report described below. Process. The Hallmark Assignment Task asks you to utilize your Literature Review in a practical setting. Here are some of the steps you can take to conduct the field demonstration. Preparation •Identify a key contact person in an organizational setting. The setting may be the student’s employed organization or an organization in the community. •Discuss the scope of the project with the key contact person and identify a mutually beneficial training/presentation topic that would span at least 60 minutes and allow the application of the best practices developed in your literature review. Alternately, your field demonstration could be some kind of developmental activity that is not classroom-based. •Develop a training/presentation outline sufficiently describing the content and best practices utilized during the presentation, as they relate to the instructional methods. •Review the outline with the key contact person. •Coordinate the training/presentation time by securing a location, employees/participants, and confirming all logistical arrangements. Presentation •Facilitate the presentation by following the developed presentation outline. •Carefully observe participant reactions and comments during the presentation, including non - verbal communication. •Evaluate effectiveness through a written (Level 1) course evaluation and/or informal focus group. ‒ Describe the purpose of the evaluation and seek the participant’s direct feedback concerning your overall performance as a facilitator and the specific instructional methods employed during the presentation. ‒ Identify specific instructional method changes, if any, to improve the effectiveness of the methods or best practices. ‒ Identify at least three themes discussed or frequently mentioned by the participants. Critical Reflection •Drawing upon your observations and the feedback from the participants, identify recommended changes to the best practices and/or instructional methods. These changes should be clearly supported by observations or participant comments/themes. •Articulate why these changes would result in overall improved facilitation performance. •Make comparisons and critically analyze the alignment between literature, best practices, and application. •Provide supported argument(s) in an articulated discussion concerning the comparison and provide a rationale for misalignment. •Outline specific recommendations to other facilitators in and outside of the application organization. The deliverable for the HAT is a written report that encompasses the following (I recommend you use the indicated section headings in writing your report):
•Organizational Context. Summarize the learning theory you are applying, and describe the context of your field demonstration (purpose of the presentation, participants learning background and history, and the facilitator’s association with the organization). •Field Demonstration Presentation Overview. Describe the design of your learning module in detail; include an outline of the module and point out the connection/alignment between your design and facilitation decisions and the principles and practices derived from your study of the theory. Describe how the design was implemented and the degree to which the field demonstration unfolded as planned (explain last - minute changes). •Participant Perceptions and Feedback. Summarize your evaluation of the success of the module, including participant feedback (from survey, focus group, or interviews), client (management) or peer review . and reflection on own performance as compared to intentions and the recommendations you derived from the theory. Describe at least three themes derived from this analysis. •Literature, Best Practices, and Application Comparison. Compare your experiences to your summary of the literature. Comment on the similarities and differences between your articles and your experience. Referenceatleasthalfofthearticlesdocumentedinyourliteraturereview. Describe implications for other practitioners and provide your recommendations and advice. If appropriate, recommend further study of specific areas. Discuss what, if anything, you would change concerning your techniques if the learning module was repeated. •Conclusion. Summarize your key learning outcomes from the literature review and field demonstration. Critically analyze and summarize your own ability to review and interpret learning theory and research from the literature.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1995). The architecture of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1985). Social foundations of thought and actions: A cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bransford, J. D. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wile. Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Cross, P. K. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. New York: Pearson.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher educationmodel. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gange, R. M., & Medsker, K. L. (1996). The conditions of learning: Training applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Hall, D. T., & Kahn, W. A. (2002). Developmental relationships at work: A learning perspective. In C. L. Cooper & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The new world of work: Challenges and opportunities. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Holton, E., Bates, R., Noe, R., & Ruona, W. (2000). Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory. [and] Invited Reaction: Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360,361–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200024)11:43.0.CO;2-P
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN:
Interaction. Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and technology for educational
reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and
instruction: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-429). Hillsdale, JN: Lawrence Erlbaum. Keller, J. M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 26(9), 1-9.
Kenyon, C. & Hase, S. (2013). Heutagogy fundamentals. In S., Hase and C. Kenyon (Eds.) Self- determined learning: Heutagogy in action. London: Bloomsbury.
Knowles, M., S., Holton III, E., F., & Swanson, R., A. (2005). The adult learner. New York: Elsevier. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kozulin, A., & Falik, L. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127.
Lave, J. (1982). A comparative approach to educational forms and learning processes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8, 181-187.
Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Building the learning organization. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Page 4 of 5
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Pratt, D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 80-86.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.
Spear, G. (1988). Beyond the organizing circumstance: A search for methodology for the study of self-directed learning. In H. B. Long (Ed.), Self-driected learning: Application and theory (pp. 199-221): University of Georgia.Sticht, T. (2000). Functional context education: Making learning relevant. Retrieved from Eric database. (ED480397).
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
HAT Grading Rubric
Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Needs Improvement
Part 1: Organizational Context
10 Points
The organizational context in which the presentation was facilitated is described in great detail, including the purpose of the presentation, participants learning background and history, and the facilitator’s association with the organization is described.
6-9 Points
The organization is briefly described and the participants attending the presentation are mentioned. The presentation purpose is limited.
< 6 Points
The organization, participants, and purpose of the presentation are not well described and are lacking key information.
Part 2: Presentation Overview
20 Points
The best practices outlined in other projects are summarized and are directly connected to the specific instructional methods employed during the presentation. The best practices are fully utilized and are appropriate to the organizational context/topic
16-19 Points
The best practices are described and are connected to the different instructional methods. The best practices are partially implemented and are appropriate to the organizational context/topic
< 16 Points
The best practices are not well described and the connection to the instructional methods is not clear. The best practices are partially implemented and the appropriateness to the organizational context/topic is limited.
Part 3: Participant Perceptions and Feedback
20 Points
The perceptions of the participants are thoroughly described through data collection (course evaluations) or focus group discussions. The perceptions are critically
16-19 Points
The perceptions of the participants are described as collected through course evaluations or focus groups. A low-level analysis is completed and themes are discussed as
< 16 Points
The perceptions of the participants are briefly described. Data collection through course evaluations or focus groups is limited and main themes hold
analyzed and at least three main themes are discussed in terms of facilitation improvement and/or best practices related to the organizational context/topic
related to the organizational context/topic
limited value to the organizational context/topic
Part 4: Literature, Best Practices, and Application Comparison
50 Points
Each best practice is evaluated against direct observations and participant feedback. Critical analysis was completed to draw supported conclusions between prior literature, best practices, application experiences, as well as recommendations for other facilitators in a variety of organizational contexts
45-50 Points
The best practices are evaluated and compared against direct observations and participant feedback. A high-level analysis was completed to draw conclusions between prior literature, best practices and application experiences. Recommendations were provided.
< 45 Points
The best practices are compared against observations or participant feedback. Analysis was lacking to draw conclusions between prior literature, best practices and application experiences. Recommendations were limited.