WritingStylus

To create this microlesson, I taught myself how to use the software by first watching an example of a completed project on our course website, and then I watched the Video Scribe Introduction video, which showed how to use the software briefly. After watching the videos, I drew on my experiences teaching communication to come up with the topic and outlined the lesson. To implement the video animation and utilize the Video Scribe software, I used trial and error. Because the system was designed a lot like I was used to with other editing/presentation tools like Powerpoint, IMovie, and WindowsMovie Maker as well as Instructional Design software like ISpring, I was able to figure out how to create the images I wanted and place them appropriately. The software lets you play the video from the beginning and from the different slides, so I was able to see what the viewer would encounter as I went along. When I added the sound, I ran into a bit of a problem, because I made the voiceover in Garageband, and the timing of the slides to voiceover had to be carefully adjusted for each slide.

For this learning experience, I would say I utilized both social constructivism and andragogy learning theories. With social constructivism, I was relying heavily on my previous experiences with similar products and software; I “construct[ed] [my] own understanding of the world” (Tchoshanov 41). As Lev S. Vygotsky state in “Interaction between Learning and Development”, “any learning a child encounters in school always has a previous history” (38). My zone of proximal development was fairly encompassing, because I was willing and able to experiment with the software freely. The zone of proximal development is “the distance between the actual development level…and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance” (Vygotsky 38). I moved through the zone of proximal development, by scaffolding my learning; I viewed videos of the software in action and then slowly using features of the software which were familiar to me. For example, I started by looking through their catalogue of animations and trying out a few before committing to designing the final product. By taking these smaller steps, I was scaffolding and engaging in social interactions with the software producers (albeit not directly).

In terms of andragogy, I was engaging in the learning process through my own motivations and desire to learn to be a better instructional designer. I also had copious experience with similar software to draw from and had the confidence to experiment with the software (Pappas). I was able to learn on my own terms; “new information has to be integrated with previous knowledge…students must actively participate in the learning experience” (Zemke). The best part is that I never felt stifled or condescended to.

Basically, I was able to add to not just my arsenal of learning theories and their uses, but also added an important contribution to my portfolio.

Pappas, C. (2013). “The Adult Learning Theory- Andragogy- of Malcolm Knowles.” https://elearningindustry.com/the-adult-learning-theory-andragogy-of-malcolm-knowles

Tchoshanov, Mourat. “Engineering of Learning: Conceptualizing e-Didactics.” UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). “Interaction between Learning and Development.” In Gauvain and Cole (Eds.) Readings on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific American Books. 34-40.

Zemke, Ron and Susan. (2007). “30 Things We Know for Sure About Adult Learning.” Innovation Abstracts. XXIX. 4. http://www.muskegoncc.edu/Include/CTL%20DOCS/XXIX_No4.pdf