yeah us!

Today we – USU OCW – got permission to release the Power of Positive Parenting on our site. It’s not fully open – its under a no-derivatives, share-alike, license, but I got permission to use it for my localization work. We walked into the meeting not sure if we’d end up with this result. Whoo hoo! Go us (us being COSL / USU OCW).

i keep getting hit with it

it seems as though every where i look these days i see something that my pertain to this thing called localizing open educational resources. that it struck me a few weeks ago that keller’s arcs model fits into it was an exciting moment for me, and since that moment it feels as though my eyes have opened to the vast readings that are actually out there on localization, or at least how i’m approaching it.. i just didn’t realize it.

i’m supposed to be doing homework for my research methods class, so, of course, i decided to, before i started, go surf the web. for some reason last week, when i did my weekly read of the eugene (ore.) weekly i didn’t see this article on teaching teachers about cultural competence. its an article about an oregon state professor understanding the need for elementary school teachers – who are predominantly white – to understand the intricacies of different cultures within the american one. i may go buy that book, because although their lessons have to do with teaching teachers who will be standing in front of a classroom of young people, i’m sure the content is applicable oer’s. very exciting.

when i started looking at this field of localization of oer’s within cultures i thought there was nothing out there on the topic.  all these new doors of understanding that keep opening up are quite exciting (though admitedly a bit overwhelming, cause when am i going to get the time to read everything?!).

localization, context, relevance, and motivation

i posted this over at my other blog as well, but it really is appropriate for this space.  i wrote this for a paper for pro sem, a seminar class we have to take here at USU as a part of our phd program requirements.  this paper was written around the context of problem based learning, but being that i’m more interested, and a bit more well read, in localization, i thought i’d write a paper on localization and add something in there about pbl to meet the requirements of the assignment.  the following is just 1/2 of the paper, but its the important half.  Of note, I’m just starting to think about these things.  Nothing is very well hashed out.  Afterall, I am only in my 1st semester.

Future research possiblities for Localization, Context, Relevance, Motivation (and Problem Based Learning)

Localization is a process I have only begun to research, and I am currently in the process of preparing for a study to be conducted in the spring.  As I have been doing my literature review I have discovered that haven’t been many empirical studies about how I will be looking at localization, but there have been quite a few studies looking at personalization, a type of localization.  The purpose of all these studies is to look at the effectiveness of personalizing math content for a user – essentially using knowledge of personal events in math word problems to increase learning.  Each of these studies also had an attitude component, one that was linked to motivation.  In reading study after study, and also looking at other literature, I began to understand that localization is not just about making something sensitive culturally, but it is also about making a piece of content relevant to a user.  So, I started to ask questions, and have begun to understand that as we localize we change things in content to make it more motivating.    By looking localization through the lens of relevance related to motivation I have started to create a theoretical understanding of why localization is important not just for cultural sensitivity, but also an important tool for good instructional design.   In the brief look I have made at the problem based learning literature, I have also found connections to motivation and content relevance.

In thinking about the concept of relevance and the field of instructional design the first place I went was to Keller’s ARCS model.  Keller defines relevance as “perceived likelihood of a task to satisfy a basic need, motive, or value.” (Wiley, 1998)   He divides relevance into 5 categories – experience, present worth, future usefulness, need matching, modeling and choice.    Applying the concept of localization to Keller’s model, it is the first category – experience – that is of most interest to me.   Means, Jonassen, and Dwyer researched specifically the relevance piece of Keller’s model.  They used a variety of strategies to enhance relevance of content about the heart, including the use of concrete language, portraying familiar types of situations, use of imagery and analogies, and use of concrete examples (Means, Jonassen, Dwyer 1986).   The strategies used are the same strategies I plan to use in my research study in the spring.  In my view, Means, et. al localized the content to the users, and found that the enhanced content was more motivating than the unenhanced content.

Wiley added on to  ARCS in his Getting Students Interested Model.  His model consists of necessary learning activities, and facilitating activities.   Under strategies for his facilitating activity of preparing students, he discusses the need for relevance, and  gives discrete examples of ways to make content more relevant (Wiley, 1998).  Wiley’s concept of relevance is the same as Keller’s and his last strategy falls into the same use of relevance as I am using in localization — connect the content to the student personally.

In Barrow’s taxonomy of problem based learning methods, he discussed the four main educational objectives that should come out of problem based learning.  His fourth objective is “increased motivation for learning.”  In his description he specifically talks about relevance saying “the perceived relevance of work with medical problems provides strong motivation for learning.” (Barrows, 1986)   In his 1986 article did not discuss specific strategies, though, but he did set the stage for discussions of motivation and problem based learning.

Marjorie MacKinnon in looking at problem based learning instruction, developed a model of motivational strategies called CORE – Community, Ownership, Relevance and Empowerment.    She conducted a research study within a problem based learning course and examined how these four themes played out in journal entries written by students in the course discussing the question “What stands out?”  She found  that while the theme of relevance was only written about in 48 percent of journal entries (as compared with 81 and 82 percent discussing community and ownership), it was still an important aspect of motivation in problem based learning (MacKinnon, 1999).     Unfortunately, unlike Keller and Wiley, MacKinnon does not break down the strategies of how to make the content relevant.  Maybe this is a piece I could have gotten out of the problem based learning literature, or, in my view, it is a piece should be added.  Knowing how the how the different elements of the model work specifically within the context of the content is helpful.  She does make a good point at the end of her article, though.  She says “If any element is missing, it is likely that the motivational aspects of the remaining elements will somehow be diminished.” (MacKinnon, 1999)    In the other models of motivation discussed, this was apparent as well.

So, based on what I’ve written, what is my recommendation for a future research possibilities?  It’s quite obvious – looking further at how relevance, specifically, content relevance, plays into motivation in problem based learning.  Questions such as – what does it mean to make content relevant in problem based learning; if localizing a piece of problem based learning how does content relevance play into to making it as motivating as it was in its original form?    Another possible research area could be into to the models I presented.  In my opinion, many more replications of MacKinnon’s study needs to happen to make it valid.  Keller’s model, while widely disseminated, doesn’t have as many research studies backing it up as it could have.  I think it would be interesting to use Keller’s model in a problem based learning situation, and connecting it to my own research, looking at how content relevance plays a part in localizing problem based learning courses.   Wiley’s model has had no research done on it.   I would recommend using Wiley’s strategies in a problem based learning course, specifically looking at the piece on relevance.  Wiley’s model could also be used to look at how content relevance effects motivation in localizing problem based learning courses.

References

Barrows, H.S.  (1986). A Taxonomy of Problem-Based Learning Methods. Medical Education,  20, 481-486.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design.  Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

MacKinnon, M. (1999). CORE Elements of Student Motivation in Problem-Based Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999 (78), 49 – 58.

Means, T., Jonassen, D., Dwyer, F. (1997). Enhancing Relevance: Embedded ARCS strategies vs. Purpose. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 5-17.

Wiley, D. A. (1998). Getting Students Interested.  Unpublished Manuscript.

first post.

i’m creating this blog tonight so i can find an excuse to not study research methods.  a very good reason. why?  so that i can capture what i’ve been doing with this process, because maybe one day i’ll figure out how to build a localization tool.

what have i been doing? thinking a lot of pointy headed thoughts.

and the process. i should write this down.

i’m currently looking at localizing parenting content for teens. i’m new to the whole world of localization, and i don’t know specifics of what i’ve been looking at, but in looking at the content i’ve thought a few things to consider:

a) 2 parent families to single parent teen families.

b) reading level – what was it buit for, what is the average age of the new learners?

c) culture? here in cache valley lds vs non lds may matter. hispanic vs white. college educated vs not. different ses statuses. adults vs teens. what does it all mean? how does language differ between different groups of the same culture? sub groups that is.

d) i need to be reading sociolinguistics stuff. yes.

e) i did a brief look at various types of content last night, there’s a grade level analyses tool in word — i doubt its validity or reliability, but it was interesting. the parenting content? average grade level grade 9.8. compared with content up at usu ocw written by my professor – 7.3, and another piece of content also at usu ocw — 7.3. okay. so the parenting content isn’t accessible. lets make it.

how?

all good questions. i hope i have the energy and motivation* to find the answers.

*its the end of the semester, i’m fried, and i have too much work to do.