Assignment 6 Synthesizing and Developing a Literature Review

Module three dwelled on the aspect of structured and unstructured learning. This assignment uses module three materials as the basis for the analysis of the literature review.

Trends among Authors

The authors have a common similarity in their analysis of structured and unstructured learning. Firstly the authors agree on the analysis of the learning methods. According to these authors, structured learning activities have a definite beginning, middle, and end. They have a typical rule or set of rules that govern them. Each component of learning plays a defined role in the completion of the learning activity. These learning activities involve promoting language acquisition, cognitive, and mental development (Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020). The authors have also agreed on examples of structured activities. According to these authors, examples of structured learning activities for toddlers and infants include ring stacking, shape sorting, and puzzles’ insertion. For kids in preschool, the activities include floor puzzles, lacing cards, and games such as Candyland. Unstructured learning activities, on the other hand, have the aspect of being open-ended. This open-ended nature implies that they do not require predefined rules to carry out. Instead, they rely on applying an individual’s imagination and creativity to interact with various learning materials. The use of unstructured learning activities involves promoting creativity, cognitive, and mental development (Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020). Their use should occur when a kid has acquired essential learning, reading, and reasoning capabilities. When engaging in these activities, kids will usually creatively combine various pieces from different playsets and educational materials to develop new ideas. Examples of unstructured learning activities for toddlers and infants include wooden blocks and baby dolls. For preschoolers, such activities include dressing up pirates or superheroes and making toy trains or trucks.

The second aspect that the authors have shown a similar trend involves designing and developing these learning activities. According to these authors, structured learning activities involve using a predefined rule or set of rules (Miller & Wu, 2018). These rules make the activities to have a predefined starting, middle, and completion section. The rules also define the role of each component of these activities. This design makes these activities appear complicated to others who have not understood the rules and easy for those who understand their rules. These activities thus have a fixed nature governed by specific regulations or instructions. The activities function by following a predefined set of rules or instructions. The designing of unstructured learning activities, on the other hand, involves the participants’ creativity and intentions (Miller & Wu, 2018). Thus, these activities have a dynamic nature capable of changing based on the participants’ creativity and intentions. The activities thus function based on the intention of and creativity of the involved parties.

The third aspect that shows similarity in trend among these authors involves the implementation of these learning activities. According to these authors, the implementation of structured learning activities involves learning the governing rules and teaching them to a beginner (Neuman & Guterman, 2017). This process may, for instance, involve a teacher teaching the governing instructions to the student. A sufficient understanding of rules promotes the smooth playing of these activities. The implementation of unstructured activities, on the other hand, involves the participants unraveling their creativity and cognitive capabilities to define these activities (Neuman & Guterman, 2017). Therefore, the student does not have any significant differences with the teacher as each can use their creativity and mental capabilities to alter and define the learning activities. Cohesion between the teacher and student, however, promotes the effective implementation of these activities.

The fourth element in which the authors have shown similarity in trend entails the evolution of these learning activities. According to these authors, success in structured learning activities entails having a significant understanding and application of governing rules in the structured activities. One achieves this success by learning the governing rules and practicing them in structured activities. Measurement of success involves determining the rate of understanding and applying these rules to play structured activities (Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020). Success in unstructured learning activities, on the other hand, involves effectively formulating the learning activities’ rules and applying them in playing the unstructured activities. Thus, the achievement of success involves having the capabilities to practically formulate the instructions of a game and effectively play the developed activity (Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020). This success measurement involves determining the practical applicability of the defined instructions and the learning activity’s educational intentions.

The authors portray distinct trends in the purpose of their analysis. Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020, for instance, dwells on the effects of structured and unstructured learning activities on English writing skills of second language students. According to this study, communication serves as the primary stage in language development. The success of communication thus determines the success of the subsequent language development activities such as essay writing. However, significant differences exist among the first and second language learners. This study aimed at determining the impact of the two learning activities on the assay writing capabilities of second language learners. According to this study, structured learning activities generate significant learning opportunities among students. These opportunities emerge as students interchange meaning, provide feedback, and suggest enhanced output. The opportunities highlight the dynamic interaction among students with varying capabilities and background comprehension. Such activities impact positive outcomes in the social behavior of learners and their academic achievements. The unstructured activities, on the other hand, promote creativity and critical thinking among the learners. This enhancement, in turn, promotes the excellence of text and students’ inspiration. The activities also improve students’ synthesis of information and strengthen their focus on grammar and vocabulary application. According to this study, structured activities promote individualism, while unstructured activities encourage students’ active interaction. This study’s outcomes indicated that students who engaged in unstructured learning activities produced quality manuscripts compared to those who engaged in structured learning activity. Thus, the primary purpose of this study involved comparing the impacts of structured versus unstructured learning activities in promoting manuscript writing among the second learners of the English language. 

Miller & Wu 2018 dwelled on the impacts of structured versus unstructured learning in promoting the integration of technology-mediated learning model. According to this article, the use of technology in education enables students to learn gradually and assume higher responsibilities. Secondly, the integration of technology with language occurs authentically, allowing purposeful communication. Thirdly, the teacher of language takes the role of a facilitator in the learning process. Fourthly, students’ learning outcomes become shared with the teacher, fellow students, and other interested parties such as parents and guardians. However, the success of this process depends on the students’ capabilities to utilize technological tools. This study determined the impacts of structured and unstructured learning activities in promoting the use of technology-mediated learning. The results of this study indicated that students who had engaged in unstructured learning had improved capabilities in utilizing the essential gadgets applied in learning, such as tablet PCs, than the students involved in structured learning activities. Based on these findings, the study determined that structured learning promotes inferior learning methods, whereby the learners memorize the content without necessarily understanding it. Unstructured learning, on the other hand, fosters content mastery and application in solving problems. This knowledge promotes significant interactions with gadgets such as tablet PCs, whose usage protocols require basic reasoning and creativity.

The study by Neuman & Guterman 2017 dwelled on the impacts of structured versus unstructured learning activities in promoting homeschooling. According to this article, structured learning activities have a definite beginning, middle, and end. The activities have a standard protocol or set of protocols that govern them. Each aspect of structured learning has a unique purpose in promoting the successful completion of learning. This nature enables the activities to enhance language acquisition, mental and cognitive development. Unstructured learning, on the other hand, has an open-ended characteristic. These activities, thus, do not require protocols to carry out. Instead, these learning activities depend on the individual application of imagination and creativity to interact with various learning materials. This nature enables the activities to promote creativity, cognitive or mental development. The study did not determine significant differences in the capabilities of these activities in promoting homeschooling. The authors thus concluded that structured and unstructured learning activities have similar impacts on the learning process.

Authors Diverse Opinion

The authors of these three articles have a divergent view on the impacts of unstructured and structured activities in the learning process. Neuman & Guterman 2017 argued that structured learning activities have a definite starting, middle, and termination point. These activities have a unique predetermined rule or rules that govern them. Thirdly, every component of structured learning activities has a particular role in promoting the learning process. These parameters, according to these authors, enable the activities to promote language acquisition, mental development. Unstructured learning, on the other hand, possesses an open-ended nature. This open-ended parameter enables these learning activities to proceed without significant guiding protocols. In their place, these learning activities rely on the application of individual creativity and imagination capabilities. These characteristics enable the learning activities to promote creativity and cognitive development. According to these authors, the two learning activities have relatively similar impacts on the learning process.

This argument by Neuman & Guterman 2017 contradicts that of the other authors. Miller & Wu 2018 argued that the use of technology in education enables students to learn and assume advanced responsibilities gradually. Language integration with technology occurs authentically, promoting purposeful communication. With the application of technology-mediated learning, the role of the teacher shifts to that of a facilitator. The authors dwelled on the impacts of structured and unstructured learning activities in promoting technology-mediated learning. The authors indicated that students who had engaged in unstructured learning had improved capabilities in utilizing the basic gadgets applied in learning, such as tablet PCs than those involved in structured learning activities. Based on these findings, the authors claimed that structured learning promotes poor learning techniques whereby the learners memorize the content without necessarily understanding it. Unstructured learning, on the other hand, promotes content mastery and application in solving problems. This knowledge promotes significant interactions with gadgets such as tablet PCs, whose usage protocols require basic reasoning and creativity. 

This reasoning agreed with that of Beiki, Gharagozloo & Raissi, 2020. According to these authors, communication serves as the primary stage in language development. The success of communication, in turn, determines the success of the subsequent language development activities such as essay writing. According to these authors, structured learning activities generate significant learning opportunities for students as they interchange meaning, provide feedback, and suggest enhanced output. These activities impact positive outcomes in the social behavior of learners and their academic achievements. The unstructured activities, on the other hand, promote creativity and critical thinking among the learners. This enhancement, in turn, promotes students with inspiration and text writing. The activities further enhance the synthesis of information and grammar or vocabulary application. According to these authors, structured learning activities promote individualism, while unstructured learning activities promote students’ active interaction. These claims emanated from their study results, which indicated that students who engaged in unstructured learning activities produced quality manuscripts compared to those who engaged in structured learning activities.  

Gaps not Covered by the Literature

The three studies have provided important information about structured and unstructured learning. Such information includes analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of the structured and unstructured learning activities. Despite this endeavor, the literature failed to analyze several aspects related to structured and unstructured learning activities. For instance, the cause of differential impacts of structured and unstructured learning activities. Similarly, the articles did not indicate the model in which the structured and unstructured activities cause cognitive development.

References

Beiki, M., Gharagozloo, N., & Raissi, R. (2020). The effect of structured versus unstructured collaborative pre-writing task on writing skills of the Iranian EFL students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1-29.

Miller, L., & Wu, J. (2018). From structured to unstructured learning via a technology-mediated learning framework. EAI Endorsed Transactions on e-Learning, 5(17).

Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2017). Structured and unstructured homeschooling: A proposal for broadening the taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(3), 355-371.