This section is designed for links to projects, tools or applications that are based on EQuiv ideas.
Self-paced instruction in which the student-student interaction is eliminated and student-instructor interactions largely replaced by study guides written by instructors, is the most common application of the EQuiv theory. Self-Paced instruction originated with its generation of distance education based on correspondence study. Self-paced instruction continues today with use of simulations, web resources, email and other enhancements. Self-paced study is the primary mode of a minority of open education institutions including Athabasca University, Norwegian Knowledge Institute and the Open University of the Netherlands
Self-Paced study has been documented discussed and critiqued for over 35 years. See example articles below:
- Allison, E. (1975) Self-Paced Instruction: A Review. Journal of Economic Education 7, (1) Abstract: Within the last five years, self-paced instruction (SPI) has been “discovered” by economists. Five years ago there were no self-paced introductory courses; today SPI is the new wave at over 80 colleges and universities. SPI represents a sharp turn in educational technology. In contrast with the capital-intensive darlings of the 60′s–teaching machines and educational television–a self-paced course is simplicity itself. A self-paced course has three components: first, a set of objectives for each unit of the course which define mastery (e.g., specify in operational terms what students are expected to be able to perform at the end of that unit); second, a set of exams (SPE’s) for each objective which the student is invited to try…
- Sexton, Julie S.; Schilling, Jennifer K.; Taylor, Jan C. (2009). A Comparison of Traditional and Self-Paced Instruction: Knowledge Gained in a Food Safety Certification Course. Journal of Agricultural Education, v50 n3 p81-8 Abstract: The prevention of foodborne illness in childcare centers is a major public health concern. One prevention mechanism is the education of childcare providers. Because of the very diverse population in the childcare profession, the constant turnover rate and the need for high-quality, accessible training, providing this training proves to be an ongoing challenge for many state Extension programs. TummySafe[C] met this challenge by offering food safety training via two methods. Participants either attended a traditional Extension workshop or experienced the curriculum on a computer of their choosing via CD-ROM. The Mississippi State University Extension Service’s 82 county offices coordinated training for childcare providers from April 2005 to June 2006. Traditional participants (n = 829) had higher posttest score means, after adjusting for pretest knowledge, than participants in the self paced group (n = 796). An ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference (F = 268.00, p less than 0.05) favoring the traditional delivery method. Nonetheless, the participants of the self-paced group were highly satisfied with the training and the convenience it offered. (Contains 1 table and 4 figures.)
These are some ideas how to apply the Theorem consideration into our teaching and designing. These can be used without permission with appropriate citation .
- EQuiv: two theses
- EQuiv: thesis 1 minimum/elimination
- EQuiv: thesis 2 interaction combination
- EQuiv: thesis 2 cost and time
- EQuiv: 6 interaction patterns
- EQuiv: 64 interaction designs
The EQuiv 6 priority orders for interaction was conceived, based on the following logic: The ranking question format was adopted because it covers both EQuiv Theses 1 and 2. It provides information on the most important interaction type (Thesis 1) and what interaction type can be added to the most important one if more cost and time can be spent (Thesis 2). Therefore, if the budget and time are highly limited, we rely on Thesis 1 and provide the most important interaction type (Rank 1) with a high intensity. If we have more budget and time, we rely on Thesis 2 and provide the most important interaction type with a high intensity and the second most important one with a low intensity (Ranks 1 and 2). If we can spend even more budget and time, then we provide Rank 1 with the highest intensity, Rank 2 with a lower intensity, and Rank 3 with the lowest intensity. This way, hypothetically, we can most effectively (learning and satisfaction) and efficiently (cost and time) design interaction.
Miyazoe & Anderson (2010) research considers learning modes and disciplinary knowledge as critical parameters in deciding on a specific interaction design in a specific teaching and learning context. However, additional studies are needed to determine other important parameters.