I did not realize that this was an acronym at first. MOST: Multimedia environments that organize and support text. MOST is something that I strive to include in every objective that I teach. If you can engage the students from the very beginning you have a better chance of keeping them engaged for the remainder of the objective. This method was designed to support broadly defined "literacy,"
or the abilities to read, write, speak, listen, compute, think critically, and learn on one's own. I really like that this was designed for the at-risk learners. I teach a lot of students who are considered at-risk. This method also avoids the approach that students must master the subskills before building to higher-level thinking. This method also allows struggling learners the opportunity to work in a motivating context.
When using the method it would be important to make sure that the multimedia supports your learning goals. One barrier I see would be taking the time to make sure that you have correctly selected the appropriate multimedia. Another barrier I see to using this method is when you have a class with mixed levels: at risk, AIG and so forth. I would think that it would be difficult to select multimedia to accommodate all levels.
There are all types of web tools that can be used; Moviemaker, Photostory, any program that uses a microphone and a storyboard type format. I am really not very familiar with a lot of these.
MOST seems as if it's an opportunity for at-risk learners to level the educational field in class. Meaning, MOST caters to certain learning styles and I don't see an entire class full of students with different learning levels to retain as much information as they would using another context-based model.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't know MOST was an acronym to start with! :)
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought up that this method doesn't require students to master all beginning skills before moving on to higher level skills. Students who are already behind can be really discouraged by having to stick with just basic skills.
Very interesting post. Both you and Rachel have now highlighted the phrase, "This method also avoids the approach that students must master the subskills before building to higher-level thinking." Having studied Piaget longer ago than I'd like to admit, I was under the impression that a young person had to pass through certain stages (I remember "formal operations") before being able to achieve higher-level thinking. I understand the redundancy of retarding intellectual growth by adhering to basics when higher level thinking would clearly be more motivational to the students. What I do not understand, however, is why student motivation apparently depends upon giving a cursory acknowledgement of the basics prior to embarking upon a mad dash into the aformentioned higher-level thinking skills. Perhaps you or someone else could elucidate a bit on this topic...apparently I'm confused!
ReplyDeleteAl