chapter 3 investigation for determination of instructional...
TRANSCRIPT
34
CHAPTER 3
INVESTIGATION FOR DETERMINATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL COMPONENTS FOR ECONOMIC
REUSABLITY OF OBJECTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Said Hadjerrouit (2006), “Developing Web-based learning
is a complex matter. Web-based learning has a number of components and
subcomponents, which include both technical as well as non-technical aspects.
There are methodologies, but few that provide an overarching framework for
developing Web-based learning”. The author has proposed a framework for
Web-based learning that deals with technical as well as non-technical. One of the
two components out of six external components of the framework suggested by the
author is ‘Pedagogy / Learning Theories’; and ‘Information Technology (IT)’. This
clearly points out that the pedagogy component is complementary and not
supplementary to the technical aspects of Web based learning. In respect of this,
chapter II has pointed out to several literature works, which indicated the importance
of instructional strategies needed for e-content that should enhance technical aspects
also. Chapter 2 has established through a detailed literature support that reusable and
independent instructional modules called ‘objects’ would be tried out as per the
research objectives. In order to arrive at reusable and independent objects, Merrill’s
(2000) cognitive structures have been planned and would be tried out in the
proposed model for Web based instruction on a course entitled ‘Operating Systems
(OS)’. However, the role of these suggested cognitive structures need to be
investigated first, on their presence in existing e-contents of OS of NPTEL, so that
the proposed model could incorporate these cognitive structures on a scientific basis.
35
The effectiveness of e-tutoring can be determined analytically, through quantifying
cognitive structures in the slide presentations of the e-content of NPTEL. This would
be of great help for attempting the study of technical and economical feasibility, of
the intended research. This Chapter elaborates on the results obtained through a
pretest that is conducted for determining the effective components of the chosen a
right instructional model. The subjects were selected based on those subjects
available in the NPTEL environment. According to Lianghuo Fan (2004),
“Instructional objectives should be quantified in every component of the curriculum,
particularly in the instructional materials and researched upon” (Chapter 2). Since
the instructional materials (e-content) of the Web courses of NPTEL have been
taken for the research as a case study, extensive content analyses need to be
performed first, on these materials. The content analytical results would yield
important inferences for the design of e-content. Therefore, the subject content
analysis is termed as component analysis as the findings will suggest components
for the final design (next chapter). This Chapter elaborates the component analysis
carried out on the selected course materials ‘Operating Systems ’NPTEL. The
method of component analysis (procedure) has been already pointed out by certain
literature (Chapter 2).
Section 3.2 outlines the present contents of the chosen subjects and
reason out the rationale behind the content design. Section 3.3 elaborates the
component analytical results of Operating Systems. Section 3.4 elaborates the
summary of the component analysis carried out.
3.2 RATIONALE ON COMPONENT ANALYSIS
3.2.1 Content Analytical Method
David Robertson (1976) created a coding frame for the comparison of
modes of party competition between British and American parties. It was developed
further in 1979 by the Manifesto Research Group aiming at a comparative content-
analytic approach on the policy positions of political parties. This classification
scheme was also used to accomplish a comparative analysis between the 1989 and
1994 Brazilian party broadcasts and manifestos as reported by Carvalho F. (2000). It
36
is also noted that every content analysis should depart from a hypothesis. This is an
important statement as this research work has taken ‘Content Analysis’ as an
experimental method. Ole Holsti (1969) groups 15 uses of content analysis into three
basic categories:
make inferences about the antecedents of a communication
describe and make inferences about characteristics of a communication
make inferences about the effects of a communication.
He also places these uses into the context of the basic communication
paradigm. Content analysis deals with the presence of chosen texts that represent a
variety of different types of occurrences, such as the one provided in Palmquist's
(1990) study of two composition classes, in which he has analyzed student and
teacher interviews, writing journals, classroom discussions and lectures, and out-of-
class interaction sheets, but more importantly texts books. To conduct a content
analysis on any such text, the text is coded or broken down, into manageable
categories on a variety of levels--word, word sense, phrase, sentence, or theme--and
then examined using one of content analysis' basic methods: conceptual analysis or
relational analysis. Questions are generally used for content analysis. Content
analyses have been performed based on action verbs such as Bloom’s taxonomies
for Computer Science disciplines (Senguttuvan A. 2005).
Extensive content analysis on evaluation instruments of IT subject
contents have been reported (Ananthi Parameswaran, 2008). Content analyses, for
quantifying the four phases (cognitive structures) of the First Principles of
Instruction have been directly or indirectly reported from the following literature
studied.
Mc Carthy (1996) has emphasized that all the four cognitive structures of
First Principles of Instruction are equally important in the whole cycle of the
learning activity. She has also argued that they are equally important to learners and
the learners must involve completely in all the four phases. Merrill M. D (2002) has
37
also emphasized that any instruction must engage students in all the four levels of
performance. But coaching should gradually decrease from one problem to the next.
He has clarified on the interpretations of the definitions of the four phases: On
‘Activation’ he stresses: “Many Instructional products jump immediately into the
new material without laying a sufficient foundation for the students. ‘Activation’ is
more than merely testing prerequisite knowledge. It should include themes also. A
simple recall of information is not effective activation”. On ‘Demonstration’ he
stresses: “It should demonstrate ‘what is to be learned’ rather than just ‘informing
what is to be learned’”. He further adds: “For Concepts use Examples/Non-
examples; for Procedures use Demonstration; for Processes use Visualizations; and
for Behaviour use Modelling”. On ‘Application’ he points out to the use of media
while he says “Media should play an important role for ‘Show examples’ rather than
‘Telling generalities’”. On ‘Integration’ he adds: “Learners can create, invent and
explore new ways to use their knowledge. It is a very important component. Media
can be limitedly used for it”. Merrill M. D (2007) has further elaborated these
components into instructional strategies.
On quantification, Lianghuo Fan (2004) has stressed: “Instructional
objectives should be quantified in every component of the curriculum, particularly in
the instructional materials. They lead to the student’s abilities such as thinking
abilities, judging abilities and reasoning abilities. It helps the teachers to keep in
mind how much one topic is more difficult than another. This point is important and
further strengthens the need for content analysis. On the quantification of different
cognitive structures, different opinions are seen from literature. Merrill himself has
suggested having more “Integration” component in e-learning content and less
“Application”. Nelson (1999) stresses more on ‘Application” and less on
“Demonstration” for better critical thinking, which involves social interaction skill.
Jonassen (1999) on Constructivist learning has stressed on all the four cognitive
structures to be of importance. But real world ‘Problem’ is the most important
starting point, he adds. Again the problem should be interesting, relevant and
engaging. This ‘Problem’ may be ill defined or ill structured for better igniting the
motivation of the students. He has also pointed out that – for novice learners,
38
‘Activation’ component should be more, while ‘Demonstration’ should be carefully
designed, ‘Application’ also is important. ‘Integration’ will improve analyzing skill.
Van Merrienboer’s (1997) model has ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’ in its center.
His model treats ‘Demonstration’ as subordinate to the other two. It further suggests
that ‘Activation’ can even be neglected. Schank’s (1999) model on the other hand
provides a clear emphasizes on ‘Application’ limited next only to ‘Activation’ and
‘Demonstration’. ‘Integration’ although important, will direct the Integration per se,
but need not be built-in.
3.2.1.1 David Merrill’s ‘First Principles of Instruction’
Merrill divides the instructional event into four phases, which he calls
‘Activation’, ‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Central to this
instructional model is a real-time problem-solving theme, called ‘Problem’. Merrill
suggests that fundamental principles of instructional design should be relied on and
these apply regardless of any instructional design model used. Violating this would
produce a decrement in learning and performance. His model is shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 David Merrill’s ‘First Principles of Instruction’
INTEGRATION ACTIVATION
PROBLEM
39
The problem-solving theme (Problem) is surrounded by these four phases
viz., ‘Activation’, ‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Each phase is
defined and explained through Figure 3.1. The importance of this model on problem
centric subjects has already been established clearly in Chapter II. Unlike Bloom’s
model which is unidirectional, this model is cyclic as it is evolved from Information
Processing Theory, namely Input - Process – Output -Input.
Each category or phase is elaborated below.
Real World Problem
Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. Problems
mentioned here do not refer to a numerical example. Learners are shown with the
task that they will be able to do or the problem they will be able to solve as a result
of completing a module or a course. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is perceived by
some as one of the most exciting approaches to education and learning that have
been developed in the last thirty years. The term PBL is used to describe a variety of
projects, from research and case studies, to guided design and engineering design
projects. Merrill explores several elements in the process of PBL. This phase
motivates learners to learn concepts relevant to this real world problem.
Activation
This is the first Cognitive Structure in the learning process. New
knowledge builds on the learner’s existing knowledge. Learners recall or apply
knowledge from relevant past experience as a foundation for new knowledge. This
could be from previous courses or job experiences undergone by the learner. For
instance, recall the old relevant information such as dates, events and places. The
importance of activation of existing knowledge has been addressed by a number of
educational psychologists. During Merrill’s Activation phase, prior knowledge (or
experience) is recalled and emotions are triggered. Not only pre-knowledge should
be activated during this phase, but mental models as well. If these mental models
consist of misconceptions, the instructional process could modify them. This phase
40
may be compared with the ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Comprehension’ taxonomies of
Bloom. Apart from Bloom’s ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Comprehension’, this phase
incorporates other skills such as ‘Mental ability’ as well.
Demonstration
New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. Learners learn when the
instructor demonstrates what is to be learnt, rather than merely telling information
about what is to be told. The learner observes while the instructor demonstrates.
The media used in the process is expected to play a relevant instructional role.
Explanations with examples, understand information with meanings, predict
consequences, order, group, and infer causes are some samples for demonstration.
During this phase, the instructor presents new material and demonstrates new skills.
Demonstration focuses the learner’s attention on the relevant information and
promotes the development of appropriate mental models. It shows actions in a
certain sequence, which can simplify complex tasks and facilitate learning. It may be
difficult to find an exact equivalent of taxonomy in the Bloom’s model. But non-
content competencies such as analytical abilities and ‘Communication’ skills along
with body languages may have roles to play in this phase, as learners observe a
demonstration and try to imitate on it.
Application
The learner applies new knowledge to his problem. This is the practice
phase, where learners are required to use their knowledge and skill to solve relevant
problem. Some samples are: use information; solve problems using required skills or
knowledge. The purpose of a practice phase in the instructional events is to provide
an opportunity for learners to develop proficiency and become experts. During this
phase, cognitive processes come into play; and there is a search for meaningful
patterns and mental programmes occur in the learner’s mind. This phase may be
compared with the ‘Application’ taxonomy of Bloom. The instructor directs guided
practices to the learners in this phase. It develops Problem solving abilities among
the learners.
41
Integration
New knowledge is integrated into the learner’s terminal behaviour. This
is the transfer phase where learners apply or transfer their newly found knowledge or
skills into their workday practices. This is realized, if learners can a) demonstrate
their new knowledge or skills, b) reflect-on, discuss their new knowledge and skills
and c) create, invent and explore new ways to use their new knowledge and skills.
Seeing patterns and organizing by recognition of hidden meanings, are some
samples. Use old ideas to create new ones (relate knowledge from several areas).
Assess values of ideas (make choices based on supported arguments). Most of the
instructional events end with an assessment phase. During this phase, learners have
to prove themselves, that they have acquired the new knowledge and skills. Merrill
calls this as the Integration phase, during which the learners get the opportunity to
prove new capabilities and show newly acquired skills. This integration phase uses
the higher order thinking skills of the Bloom’s taxonomies like, Synthesis,
Evaluation and Creativity.
The four cognitive structures explained above, actually trigger the
learners’ inherent or acquired abilities namely: recalling or mental ability,
demonstrating or observing and communicative abilities, applying and problem
solving abilities and integrating or creative abilities. From the above five
components of Merrill’s model, the four portrayals may be taken for any study of
instructional methods or subject content analysis. This has been already established
and presented in Chapter II. Suriyakala M. Malliga P, Sambanthan T G., (2007).
Have already established action verbs for the above cognitive structures for the
purpose of content analysis of computer subject instructional documents.
3.2.2 Content Analysis on NPTEL’s OS
Subject content analysis for the purpose of deciding components for the
model, as specified earlier, is to be performed on OS e-contents of NPTEL. The
objective of this exercise is to determine the context on the effectiveness of
Instructions in selected content (Chapter 1). As the selected subject contents
42
(NPTEL) would not have been designed using Merrill’s ‘First Principles of
Instruction’, quantifying the cognitive structures would certainly help in determining
the extent to which the component could be designed for e-mode using the ‘First
Principles of Instruction’. Besides, quantification would also help in redesigning the
e-content instructions for future. With this argument, the content analysis is justified.
3.2.2.1 Instructional Strategies
The existing Instructional Strategies are mapped in the form of the
distribution of cognitive structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’. The
components of e-learning material of NPTEL (OS) are divided into four types of
Instructional strategies.
Slides that present the materials for direct instruction
Descriptive materials (in textual form) made available for
downloading
Non-Interactive Questions (can be downloaded)
Non-Interactive worked out examples (Textual Form)
Out of the above four components, except for the first one, the remaining
three types, although residing in e-mode form, cannot be directly considered as part
of e-learning (Doyle E. 2001). Hence, this thesis presents a comprehensive analysis
only on slides.
3.3 COMPONENT* ANALYSES ON THE CHOSEN SUBJECT OF
NPTEL
The component analytical results are grouped under four cognitive
structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’ namely ‘Activation’,
‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Even though as per definition, the
cognitive structure ‘Demonstration’ should be demonstrative in nature (Merill
2002), most of the materials are found to be informative in nature and not
43
demonstrative. However, for analytical purposes it is considered to be
demonstrative. Similarly, according to ‘First Principles of Instruction’, ‘Application’
as per its definition is done through guided practice. However, most of the materials
grouped under ‘Application’ are numerical examples. Yet they are grouped under
‘Application’ for the purpose of analysis.
* As the proposed content analysis would yield component for the model for instruction, the words ‘component ‘and ‘content’ are synonymously used.
The analytical results are reported for the subject content in the following
section. As specified in Chapter 3 there are 20 modules available in this subject. The
component analysis was carried out on each slide of each module. The presence of
cognitive structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’ on every slide of every
module is presented below. Only the consolidated report of every module of this
subject is detailed below.
3.3.1 Analytical report on module 1
Module 1: Introduction to ‘Operating System’
Figure 3.2 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 1 of OS
44
Table 3. 1 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 1 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In %
Activation 10 8
Demonstration 81 63
Application 15 12
Integration 22 17
Analytical report
The maximum presence of ‘Demonstration’ cognitive structure (63%)
shows that the instructional strategy adapted for this module is similar to that of a
text book approach. It has been already reported that the substance presented in the
slides more or less satisfies ‘Carroll’s Minimalist theory’. However, the distribution
of this cognitive structure clearly indicates that the instructional strategy is
descriptive and similar to that found in any text book. Even though the cognitive
structure assumed is ‘Demonstration’, the presentation of the materials is mostly
descriptive in nature rather than demonstrative per se. The least present cognitive
structure is ‘Activation’ (8%). It is generally believed that any introductory module
should contain more materials on ‘Activation’. This is not found to be so in this first
module. ‘Integration’ portrayal is predominantly present (17%) in this first module
which is generally expected to be more in later modules. Similarly ‘Application’
(12%) of this extent need not be represented in the very first module.
45
3.3.2 Analytical report on module 2
Module 2: File systems and management
Figure 3.3 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 2 of OS
Table 3.2 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 2 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 12 8
Demonstration 99 62
Application 40 25
Integration 8 5
Analytical report
The presence of the ‘Demonstration’ cognitive structure is once again
found to be the maximum in this module (62%). The second largest cognitive
structure is ‘Application’ (25%) which is generally expected to be so, according to
the nature of this Subject. A lot of numerical samples have been presented at various
places in the instructional episode of this module. The ‘Activation’ (8%) is once
46
again found to be low (similar to module 1). ‘Activation’ is generally expected to be
represented in any first or initial modules. That is not found to be so in this module.
3.3.3 Analytical report on module 3
Module 3: Process and process management
Figure 3.4 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 3 of OS
Table 3.3 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 3 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In %
Activation 11 8
Demonstration 96 68
Application 24 17
Integration 10 7
47
Analytical report
The ‘Demonstration’ portrayal once again dominates with 68% followed
by ‘Application’ (17%). The other two basic and advanced levels of Instructional
cycle namely ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ are insignificantly present (8% and 7%
respectively). This is contradictory to Merill’s - 2002 and Mc Carthy’s - 1996
opinions on e-contents.
3.3.4 Analytical report on module 4
Module 4: Memory management
Figure 3.5 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 4 of OS
Table 3.4 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 4 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 2 1
Demonstration 118 72
Application 37 23
Integration 7 4
48
Analytical report
The contents of ‘Memory Management’ too contain a maximum presence
of ‘Demonstration’ (72%) followed by ‘Application’ (23%). This is very similar to
module 3. As per Carroll’s (1995) Minimalist theory, computer based Instruction
should permit self directed reasoning and improvising. Although the nature of
subject content of memory management is descriptive in nature, there is a large
scope for incorporating ‘Integration’ portrayal which should promote self directed
reasoning. This is not found to be so in this module.
3.3.5 Analytical report on module 5
Module 5: Input and output management
Figure 3.6 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 5 of OS
Table 3.5 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 5 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments In %
Activation 4 2Demonstration 115 78
Application 13 9Integration 16 11
49
Analytical report
A similar result is found in this module too with the maximum presence
of ‘Demonstration’ portrayal (78%). A reasonable presence of ‘Integration’ is also
seen (11%) which is the second largest. There is a lot of scope for ‘Application’ in
subject matter such as Input / Output (I/O) of this module. However, the
‘Application’ portrayal is just a meager 9%. Similarly ‘Activation’ is also important
at this stage, but a very meager amount of 2% is found.
3.3.6 Analytical report on module 6
Module 6: Resource sharing and management
Figure 3.7 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 6 of OS
Table 3.6 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 6 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 5 4Demonstration 88 73
Application 9 7Integration 19 16
50
Analytical report
The subject matter of this module once again is descriptive in nature
which fact is revealed by the maximum presence of ‘Demonstration’ (73%).
Reasonable amount of Integration’ (16%) is also seen. Yet ‘Activation’ which is
important is found to be present only in a very meager amount (4%).
3.3.7 Analytical report on module 7
Module 7: Inter process communication
Figure 3.8 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 7 of OS
Table 3.7 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 7 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 4 5
Demonstration 54 73
Application 7 10
Integration 9 12
51
Analytical report
‘Inter process communication’ by nature provides a lot of scope for
applications. Besides, these applications (computer programs) may also be
elaborated through ‘Demonstration’. This module although contains 10% of
‘Application’ in the form of program coding, no guided practice is noticed. A
reasonable presence of ‘Integration’ (12%) is also found in this module. The
‘Activation’ component continues to be lowly represented (5%) in this module
similar to the previous ones.
3.3.8 Analytical report on module 8
Module 8: RTOS and microkernel
Figure 3.9 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 8 of OS
Table 3.8 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 8 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 5 6Demonstration 52 63
Application 12 14Integration 14 17
52
Analytical report
The topic content of ‘Real Time Operating System (RTOS)’ is an off-
shoot of general Operating Systems. The required topic components for comprehending
RTOS from the principles of Operating Systems have been discussed in the previous
modules. Hence, it is logical and desirable to include ‘Activation’ cognitive structure
to a larger extent in this module. Ironically ‘Activation’ is the lowest (6%).
‘Demonstration’ is once again found to be the maximum (63%). ‘Application’ and
‘Integration’ are reasonability present (14% and 17% respectively).
3.3.9 Analytical report on module 9
Module 9: OS and Security
Figure 3.10 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 9 of OS
Table 3.9 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 9 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 18 8Demonstration 150 67
Application 33 14Integration 24 11
53
Analytical report
As with all the previous modules ‘Demonstration’ continues to be
dominating (67%). The subject content on ‘Security‘is of strategic importance.
Hence, ‘Application’ with case studies (examples) and ‘Integration’ inducing
creative thinking are needed. The presence of ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’ are
however present in a reasonable amount (14% and 11%).
3.3.10 Analytical report on module 10
Module 10: Unix premier
10%
50%
40%
0%
Activation
Demonstration
Application
Integration
Figure 3.11 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 10 of OS
Table 3.10 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 10 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 4 10
Demonstration 20 50
Application 16 40
Integration 0 0
54
Analytical report
This module presents an overview of ‘Unix OS’. Hence recalling of
related OS components already learnt by learners is essentially needed for this
module. This is achieved through ‘Activation’. 10% of ‘Activation’ is however
found. The introductory parts are presented purely through the large presence of
‘Demonstration’ (50%) followed by ‘Application’ (40%). There is no ‘Integration’
at all, although there is a good scope for its presence.
3.3.11 Analytical report on module 11
Module 11: Search and sort tools
Figure 3.12 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 11 of OS
Table 3.11 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 11 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In %
Activation 0 0Demonstration 42 56
Application 30 40Integration 3 4
55
Analytical report
This module deals with application utilities. As expected therefore ‘Application’ is
found to be relatively high with 40%. Some of the worked out examples follow
guided practices as suggested by the ‘First Principles of Instruction’. However,
‘Demonstration’ is still found to be the largest with 56%. Any guided practice or
‘Demonstration’ of application utilities would demand for ‘Activation’ which is not
found to be so in this case. A meager presence of ‘Integration’ is seen (4%).
3.3.12 Analytical report on module 12
Module 12: AWK tool in UNIX
Figure 3.13 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 12 of OS
Table 3.12 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 12 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 3 3Demonstration 58 61
Application 33 35Integration 1 1
56
Analytical report
Similar to the previous module, this module also elaborates on
application tool. As tools differ from utilities, the large presence of ‘Demonstration’
(61%) is justified. The large presence of ‘Application’ (35%) is also justified.
However, ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ are found to be too meager (3% and 1%
respectively).
3.3.13 Analytical report on module 13
Module 13: Shell script in UNIX
Figure 3.14 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 13 of OS
Table 3.13 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 13 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In %
Activation 0 0Demonstration 43 61
Application 27 38Integration 1 1
57
Analytical report
Unlike the previous module, ‘Shell Script’ is purely a tool for coding.
Hence guided practice is essentially required with ‘Application’ although the
‘Application’ is found to be 38%. ‘Demonstration’ occupies a very large quantity
(61%). Practically no ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ is found.
3.3.14 Analytical report on module 14
Module 14: Kernel architecture: UNIX kernel
Figure 3.15 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 14 of OS
Table 3.14 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 14 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 4 4
Demonstration 82 87
Application 4 4
Integration 5 5
58
Analytical report
As the name suggests, the subject content of this module is elaborative
(descriptive) in nature. As found elsewhere in the subject contents, the
‘Demonstration’ is not demonstrative in nature but mostly informative. The entire
module almost occupies with ‘Demonstration’ (87%) while other cognitive
structures are found to be insignificant.
3.3.15 Analytical report on module 15
Module 15: ‘make’ tool in UNIX
Figure 3.16 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 15 of OS
Table 3.15 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 15 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments In %
Activation 1 3
Demonstration 25 78
Application 4 13
Integration 2 6
59
Analytical report
‘Make’ is a tool that requires guided practice rather than elaboration.
However, the presence of ‘Demonstration’ is overwhelmingly large for this module
(78%). The ‘Application’ which is expected to be large, is actually found to be only
13%. The other cognitive structures are insignificant.
3.3.16 Analytical report on module 16
Module 16: Some other tools in UNIX
Figure 3.17 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 16 of OS
Table 3.16 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 16 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In %
Activation 4 9
Demonstration 20 46
Application 16 36
Integration 4 9
60
Analytical report
The presence of Cognitive structures reveals the optimum ally present in
this module. It is also found to be blended with all portrayals. By nature, the subject
content of this module is application oriented, which also requires elaboration. The
same is noted in the distribution that is shown.
3.3.17 Analytical report on module 17
Module 17: Source code control systems in UNIX
0%
82%
18%
0%
Activation
Demonstration
Application
Integration
Figure 3.18 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 17 of OS
Table 3.17 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 17 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 0 0
Demonstration 27 82
Application 6 18
Integration 0 0
61
Analytical report
Similar to the previous module, the subject component demands for more
‘Application’ and ‘Demonstration’ which are found to be present with 18% and 82%
respectively. However, a reasonable amount of ‘Activation’ is also needed. There is
no other cognitive structure found apart from ‘Application’ and ‘Demonstration’.
3.3.18 Analytical report on module 18
Module 18: X-Windows in UNIX
13%
61%
26%
0%
Activation
Demonstration
Application
Integration
Figure 3.19 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 18 of OS
Table 3.18 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 18 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 3 13
Demonstration 14 61
Application 6 26
Integration 0 0
62
Analytical report
X -windows is purely a graphics utility for any application. Hence, a
reasonable amount of ‘Activation’ is needed that is however found to be present
(13%). Since it is an application utility, guided practice is required in large
quantities. However, ‘Demonstration’ (61%) is found to be more than ‘Application’
(26%). There is no ‘Integration’ at all.
3.3.19 Analytical report on module 19
Module 19: System administration in UNIX
Figure 3.20 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 19 of OS
Table 3.19 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 19 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 0 4
Demonstration 37 73
Application 2 7
Integration 1 16
63
Analytical report
Since application through guided practice for quite a number of tools is
needed, the presence of ‘Application’ and ‘Activation’ are expected to be more.
However, only meager presences of these two are seen (7% and 4% respectively).
‘Integration’ is also needed to a great extent, which is found to be so (16%).
However, ‘Demonstration’ is significantly found (73%).
3.3.20 Analytical report on module 20
Module 20: More on Linux
Figure 3.21 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 20 of OS
Table 3.20 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 20 of OS
Cognitivestructures
Instructionalsegments
In%
Activation 21 11
Demonstration 144 76
Application 19 10
Integration 6 3
64
Analytical report
As Linux is an off-shoot of UNIX, a substantial amount of ‘Activation’ isneeded. However, only 11% of ‘Activation’ is found. The major cognitive structurefound once again is ‘Demonstration’ (76%) that is although expected. ‘Application’and ‘Integration’ are found to be small (10% and 3% respectively). There is a largescope for ‘Integration”.
3.4 SUMMARY OF COMPONENT ANALYSIS ON ‘OPERATINGSYSTEMS’
Apart from a few numerical examples, there is no appealing real worldproblem seen in the slides. Even though a few interesting problems are madeavailable in the textual supplementary materials, they cannot represent Real Worldproblems as per the requirement of the Central theme of the ‘First Principles ofInstruction’. As demonstrated clearly in all the modules from the componentanalyses performed, the predominant cognitive structure is ‘Demonstration’throughout the material. Many researchers (Chapter 2) it is reported that onlineinstructional material would facilitate incorporation of ‘Integration’ to a large extent.Although ‘Integration’ is found to be present in few modules, the percentage of‘Integration’ is meager. As pointed out earlier, even the ‘Demonstration’ available ismore informative in nature rather than demonstrative per se. The presence of‘Activation’ is very low which might jeopardize the online learners who do not haveteacher guides. However a large quantity of downloadable printed materials (in thestyle of text books) has been made available along with the main e-resource. It is tobe noted that these downloadable printed materials cannot be treated as e-learninginstructional sources.
The component analysis conducted and reported in this chapter hasnecessitated the investigation on the strategic component in the same chosen subjectfor e-mode of delivery. It has been performed as envisaged and reported above.Feedback analysis would be carried out for a pre-test and the component analyticreports have strongly indicated for the design of an Instructional Model.Accordingly the pretest for suitable components is reported in the next Chapter.