Mark's thoughts on Milrad et al. 2002

Milrad et al. clearly lay out their goal in this paper: to show that "...technology can be effectively used in distributed learning environments to support learning in and about complex systems....To achieve this goal, learning theory (socio-
constructivism), methodology (system dynamics) and technology (collaborative tele-learning) should be suitably integrated (Spector & Anderson, 2000). We call this integration Model Facilitated Learning (MFL) (Spector & Davidsen, 2000)." (from pages 2-3). Apparently this has all been published elsewhere (citations above), but this paper just gives a little bit more concrete explanation of MFL with specific example(s).

Milrad et al. talk quite a bit about all the other theories/methods of the past, and how they've integrated them into MFL: situation/problem-based learning, cognitive flexibility theory (CFT), instructional design methods per "elaboration theory" and "cognitive apprenticeships. HUH??!!! Luckily, page 4 and beyond gives some background on these. "Situation based" says that learning "occurs in the context of activities that typically involve a problem, others, and a culture." SO, MFL applies technology to CFT, allowing collaboration in context-dependent situations, where the learning objectives are first concretely shown, then increasing complexity is added and inquiries collected/solved to allow the learner to construct a model of the concept. In other words they do, "coupling of system dynamics with collaborative and distributed technologies."

MFL is further boasted about (p6) because it suggests a sequence of learner challenges from 1) challenging learners to standardize behavior of a complex system to 6) challenging them to diversity and generalize to new problem situations. And, just as Deniz mentioned last week, MFL "advocates learning WITH models...to introduce learners to a new domain...and to promote learning simpler procedures" (using causal loop diagrams, for instance). Then, more advanced learners transition from learning with models to LEARNING BY MODELING (p9-10). To do this (still with MFL), the learners 1) must realize there is a system behavior occuring (underlying connections happening); 2) use graduated complexity (let learners fill in missing info on a partial model, have them construct a simple model, then complex model (or link simple models), then have them reach a goal/conclusion through from-scratch modeling.

It is nice that on p.11 a concrete EXAMPLE of MFL, using problem orientation, inquiry experimentation, and policy development in regard to acid rain/water quality is shown. I wish there was a bit more detail though (especially since it is in my area of "ecology!"). They argue that using MFL (structured, building, collaborative model-based learning), they meet all the "requirements" needed to allow learner growth. BUT, it doesn't appear this was ever tested in this paper (lecture on same stuff, or non-collaborative simulations VS. MFL to compare learner outcomes). Perhaps this next 2008 paper will show some!