Wk 4: Trends & Issues in IDT

1.  Select at least 3 contexts (business & industry, military, health care education, P-12 education, and post secondary education)  and compare/contrast the IDT trends and issues.  Then explain how they are similar or different from the IDT trends and issues in the context in which you work.

I thought I would find many more differences between military IDT than similarities with P-12 education, but was really surprised to see how many similarities there actually were.  Their approach to IDT is collaborative...they work with teams to come up with design for learning and with solutions.  They, too, have to figure out how to make use of new and changing technology, and part of this is making choices in what technology they need to make use of...and a lot of these choices are being made with funding restrictions in the forefront of the mix, and so they both have to be aware of how technology might change by the time implementation is underway.  Because of the rapidly changing technology and the costs involved, both P-12 education and the military must be careful not to always jump on the latest in technology for training.  It must be balanced with the actual costs involved.  Like many school districts that have multiple schools, the military has problems with the set-up across all it's branches.   Each branch/school has it's own way of doing things, it's own interests and needs, so coming up with a configuration that will work perfectly for all is difficult.   Compromises must be made through collaboration with leaders or subject matter experts from all divisions in the military and from campuses in a district.  The biggest and probably one of the most important similarities that jumped out at me was that both the military and P-12 education IDTs focus on developing life-long learners.  They don't want to just present the materials, but they are trying to create learning experiences for the students/trainees through collaboration with peers and often with varying types of simulations--a kind of problem based learning approach.  Surprisingly, the health industry IDT had many of the same similarities--problem based learning with simulations, encourage life-long learning, require learner active participation, collaboration amongst all divisions, subject matter experts.  The health industry and P-12 education IDT's both are turning to social networking tools allowing students to collaborate outside of class.  For instance, many P-12 classrooms are turning to the use of Edmodo for safe student collaboration outside of the classroom.  However, the health industry has so many different fields that often times they have many different donors and corporations funding different aspects due in large part to more educational research enabling them incorporate more of the newer technologies than the military and P-12 education might be able to.  Also, the military and health industries are more focused in their  usage of technology as a tool in training, whereas that focus is not set in education.  There are so many mixed approaches across educational campuses and districts so the effectiveness of this implementation is not being shown.  Maybe the military and health industries are more focused because of the life-and-death attributes to their fields.  A big point in the health industry IDT approach that could be very beneficial in P-12 IDT is the training in intrapersonal skills.  This is a very big part of any job in education, yet there is very little formal training on intrapersonal skills. 

I am pretty lucky to be working in my district...Allen ISD...as they are pretty dedicated to IDT and the training of professionals.  They try to keep all the schools in our district focused on the same learning goals and are encouraging teachers to collaborate not only in their own schools, but across the district and across the country as well.  We have instructional specialists for each subject matter who go to trainings across the nation and who visit schools across the nation to help find new ways to improve learning in our district.  They come back and hold district trainings to share new information and then come to each school weekly or bi-weekly to help train smaller teams of teachers more personally with new ideas.  They always welcome ideas and input from each teacher and are always willing to problem-solve with us.  They even will come and help present in the classroom.  Allen is trying to move to building learning experiences for the students, drifting away from a more behaviorist approach to teaching.  They are meeting with some resistance from some "old-school" teachers, but for the most part, teachers are willing to try new ways to make students life-long learners. 



2.  How and can we prepare our youth to address the problems of living in a world with 9 billion people when the earth's resources cannot sustain that many?  Does our current education system, curriculum, and instructional practices help learners foster the complex problem-solving skills necessary to tackle thee issues?  Are there methods and practices used in European and Asian countries that we should use here in the US?  Why or why not?

I think we have to focus on the fact that we have to figure out a way to prepare our youth to address the problems of the strain of overcrowding on our earth's resources.  We really have no choice.  To do this, we must focus on developing life-long learners who are adept problem solvers by focusing on developing the intrapersonal skills needed to work with all the differing cultures.  The more that technology is becoming prevalent in our schools and in our job force, the more teachers are going to have to work with people of differing cultures.  Understanding the differences helps to avoid accidental affronts to the traditions and beliefs of multicultural peers.  To help students become these adept collaborators and problem solvers, we need to create learning experiences such as problem based learning scenarios so students have practice collaborating with others, making on the spot decisions, and adjusting beliefs and practices based on new information.  We need to teach them how to use technology as a tool to discover new ideas and new information needed for these scenarios.  Our current public education system, curriculum, and instructional practices is currently lacking in these areas but gaining ground.  A big reason we are lacking in curriculum and practices is the reliance on standardized testing to assess whether or not learning has taken place.   With school and teacher accountability tied directly to the results of these tests, especially here in Texas, teachers do not feel able to create the learning experience scenarios necessary to create effective problem-solvers.  I think P-12 education is heading that way--many districts are supporting and even encouraging this shift in instructional approaches, but it is not as of yet widespread...partly because many teachers are not sure how to make the shift themselves.  I think that the fact that Japan feels their teachers are experts...that they require all teachers to have IDT training is a great thing.  I know some education course in the US have students take IDT classes, not all do.  And then you add in the fact that many educators of today have gone through alternative certification, then you have that many more without the knowledge of these instructional theories, which might very well negatively affect the type of learning going on in those classrooms.  Japan also allows their teachers license to creatively approach the type of learning going on in their classrooms, probably because they are considered experts and are highly revered.  I think if the US educational system would take a cue from the business industry and would encourage collaboration with other countries about IDT, that all of our educational systems would become that much stronger and would be able to better solve the problems our future holds.

Wk 3: Evaluating Programs & Human Performance Technology

1.  Search for at least two other models used for evaluation and summarize these models.  Describe how you would use them to evaluate your instruction.

An additional evaluation model I studied was the Stenhouse Research Model.  Now, I must admit, I chose to look into this model because of the word research...not that I'm really into research (I find it tedious and overwhelming at times), but because it is a big part of my job as a library media specialist.  I have to teach students how to research, showing students how to narrow the focus of their search, how to identify reliable sources, how to formulate questions they need answered in their search.  I also have to help teachers find reliable sources and to find new materials to use in their classrooms.  Much to my surprise, the Stenhouse model matched my contextualist bent as a teacher and even these jobs I have as an LMS as Stenhouse believed .  Stenhouse believed that instructional research should serve teachers so it could be used to improve educational practices, and this could only be done if teachers were the active researchers looking at individual cases to find better ways of instructing students.  This method is more about self-study and improvement than about objectives and data gathering.  Because teachers are researching how to create better curriculum and how to better use this curriculum in the classroom, and they realize how experience and values affect how learning occurs, they are empowered to vary their approaches to curriculum to meet the needs of their students and are free to make changes in presentation as they see fit. So curriculum is not just a written guide to follow, but an interaction among teachers, students, and knowledge...kind of like problem based instruction.  Evaluation is a key in this process and should be formative and ongoing to maintain the focus on improvement. The teacher is considered the developer who studies others and their testing ideas and offers solutions to any problems that may arise while an evaluator  serves as the voice of practicality who keeps the enthusiasm of the teacher focused on the objectives and learning goals of the school.  I could see myself using this method to help me evaluate how the implementation of technology into teaching units.  By studying other teachers and librarians, collaborating with them on utilizing our new iPads, per se, I could constantly be reworking how we can make these iPads tools students can use regularly to enhance their learning of any subject through collaboration with peers and experts, searching for branches of the subject relevant to them and their interests, and creating presentations that show their understanding of learning. 

Another evaluation model I studied was Tyler's Objectives Model.  I initially was drawn to this model because it seemed to be in direct contrast of the Stenhouse Model, seeming to be more in line with the positivist stance.  And, after last week's blogs, I could see that I utilized some positivist-type instruction in my classroom as well.  What I found is that this is only somewhat true.  Yes, it is based on specific objectives and specific goals with data gathering to prove the effectiveness of the program, but it is also focused on improving learning.  Tyler's model is based on 4 questions: 1)  What educational purposes should the institution seek to attain?  2)What educational experiences are likely to attain these objectives?  3)  How can these educational experiences be organized effectively?  4)  How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?  These are the evaluative questions to be asked all throughout the learning process.  It is imperative that strong goals and objectives are set at the beginning to provide a guideline all the way through. At the end, data will be collected to compare actual production with the goals to determine what improvements in curriculum should be made.  Since this method more closely matches the state issued TEKS and how we assess those, I could see me using this evaluation method for just that purpose...to assess how well our learning units are meeting the needs of our students in meeting the expectations of the state.  This method allows us to follow the objectives and gather hard data evidence into whether or not our instruction is meeting the demands.

                                                http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinhutton/8301964632

2.  Reflect on what other questions that instructional design evaluation should address besides whether the instructional design leads to comparable amounts of learning and learner satisfaction as traditional methods.  Should return on investment and management of resources also be considered in evaluations of instructional programs?  What other measure should/could be considered?

Instructional design evaluation ultimately, in the state of Texas, addresses learning in the traditional method of summative assessments in the form of EOCs and STAAR tests.  What we as educators and even parents are finding is that this is not the best method in evaluating students or programs.  We are not assessing the application of learning or the continuing learning that results from instruction.  We are not assessing how productive students will be at adapting this knowledge to the real world in their high-level education and in their jobs of the future.  Instead, we should also be asking:  Are students engaged in learning?  Is the learning relative to their own interests?  Are they manipulating the information gained in order to solve real-world type problems?  Are they collaborating with others in their questioning of the information and how it applies outside the classroom?  Have they utilized technological tools in such a manner that they know how to question and search for information they do not know?  And yes, Return on Investment definitely should be considered and has to be considered in this new age of technology usage, especially considering the rate of change in the technologies used, and considering the expectation that students do need to go on to pursue higher education and be successful in those institutions.  Parents and schools are spending more and more money on these technological tools to be utilized for deeper learning, so they are expecting this return on their investment.  Too often, this technology is utilized only superficially in the classroom, and so students go on to higher learning institutions and even into the job market not fully understanding how to use these tools to help them solve problems.  Looking at retention levels in colleges of students from these high schools could be another measure looked at, or even looking at employment percentages might be considered.  Surveys could also be given in the short-term to parents to evaluate how they felt about the quality of education their student received, and in the long-term to the student themselves...after they have finished college and have had some time in their career of choice.  I was already thinking along these lines of ROI, when I happened upon a blog on facebook this week about a father's feelings about the ROI of having his daughter in dance at the age of 7.  It was funny reading all the terms related to Return on Investment in relation to dance, and it actually made these terms more understandable to me because they were used in a topic that I could relate to personally as my daughter is in competitive cheer.  In fact, earlier that same day (that I read the blog) another mom and I were talking about how all the ridiculous amounts of money we spent on the cheer was actually well worth it because of what our daughter's were gaining---self-confidence, leadership, self-discipline.  It really made me think of instructional design and the importance of evaluation in a different way.  It really made me think about the needs and expectations of our students and especially their parents.

http://dancedadgourmet.com/?p=671

3.  Section IV focuses on human performance, performance support systems, knowledge management systems, and the concept of informal learning.  Not all problems in learning and/or performance require an instructional one.  Many times a non-instructional approach is a more appropriate solution.  Identify a performance problem in your area of work and identify non-instructional solutions that may help solve the problem.  Would better performance support systems, knowledge management systems, or opportunities for informal learning solve the problem?

I would say a performance problem in my area of work, being a library media specialist, would be getting teachers to effectively utilize technology in the classroom...especially since my school district readily spends money on upgrading technology in our schools and parents support the higher taxes to do so.  For instance, all of our schools in our district (16 elementaries, 3 middle schools, a freshman center, and a high school) just received carts of iPads, this just a year after all classrooms got SmartBoards and new document cameras.  Anyway, while the excitement always has teachers "playing" with the new technology with their students at first---looking up information, playing games, showing pictures and videos---soon the new technology gets left on the wayside in many classrooms.  Teachers state they don't understand how to use the technology and have no time to learn.  Several state they don't even know where to start to try and figure it out.  Yes, our district offers initial classes to show us how the technology can be integrated in the classroom, very seldom is this training hands-on with practice time built it in or even ongoing throughout the year.  Teachers get overwhelmed and frustrated and so very resistant to using the technology.  My school is trying to address this problem in a couple of different formats to try to make the integration of these technologies less intimidating.  One thing we have done is set up a campus tech team.  Teachers and administrators alike are on this team to study different ways these technologies could be implemented in the classroom.  Then every other week, we present findings to the staff in a faculty meeting.  The next weeks, we hold a Technology Tuesday after school where teachers can come and practice with the technology while members of the Tech team are there to help get started and to answer any questions that may arise.  These tech team members also serve as tech mentors and are available for questioning about the technology at all times.  Our district has also set up a Technology Tool Box on Google+ that contains click sheets for different technologies, idea websites, app lists, and such.  Any computer tech, library media specialist, or administrator may add to this.  All teachers may give information to any of these individuals to add to the Tool Box.  This just started this past spring and is proving to be very beneficial to all.

Sources:
Evolution of the Model. (n.d.). Tyler Objective Curriculum Evaluation Model - HOME. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http://tylerobjectivemodel.weebly.com/index.html       

Hendricks, C. C. (2002). A Review of the Work of Lawrence Stenhouse: Questions, Ambiguities, and Possibilities. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 117-121. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://www.eeraonline.org/journal/files/2002/JRE_2002_15_Hendricks.pdf

 

Shepherd, J. (n.d.). Models of Curriculum Evaluation. .docstoc. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from www.docstoc.com/docs/2279101/MODELS-OF-CURRICULUM-EVALUATION-1-What-is-evaluation

Theories & Models of Learning and Instruction

1.        Epistemology (the study of what and how we come to know) is discussed in multiple chapters in this section.  Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories.  What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

2.        While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and methods.  Reflect on whether your stance is primarily positivist, relativist, or contextualist.  Then, identify an instance when your perspective or stance as a learner conflicted with that of your instructor.  Describe the conflict that you experienced and analyze whether opposing epistemic stances may have been at the heart of the conflict.

3.       Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving.  Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives.  How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process?  Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?

Epistemology deals with learning sciences or the study of how people learn or the research of how students learn—in essence the study of how the brain works to process new information; psychological concepts.  Instructional theories or models deal with the practices applied to helping students do this learning—how schools and teachers can enhance student learning.  The instructional theories are produced as a result of the epistemologies. 

I guess my stance would float somewhere between Relativist and Contextualist, leaning more toward contextualist; I try to use the constructivist approach to learning—student centered, cooperative discussing and solving of problems.  I do believe in objective truth in that it is a base platform to build experience and knowledge off of.  There are some things we just need to be told is true, even as students, before just jumping in and trying out.  Consider if a science instructor never explained to students never how to properly mix acid and water—acid would pop into their faces.  However, I absolutely don’t believe you can teach students objective truths and leave it at that believing that they now understand the information and can use it in life.  They need to work with this knowledge, twisting it, observing it, testing it to be able to remember the concepts and utilize them later in life.  Students, just like all individuals, also bring their beliefs and experiences to the table to make discussions and learning much richer and deeper.  They compare and contrast and add to the beliefs and experiences of their peers to come to new understandings and thus new learning.  These discussions and blending of opinions and experiences and ideas enables students to build stronger decision making skills to be utilized in future job/life experiences in both spontaneous and long term problem solving situations. This conversing and questioning is a normal life function and is how we make sense of concepts from the beginning.   I also agree that knowledge is relative to context…that we learn and retain more information that relates to what our needs and interests are…for instance science, math, writing, singing, sports…but I also can see how some knowledge could start as individual, subjective understanding…as a platform to base this new discovery and learning  upon. 

     Allen High School's Culinary Arts Classes run Blu Cafe for the public.(Constructivist Learning)

A couple of my college classes have caused conflict, or dislike, of learning and the classes in particular.  Sad to say, these were 2 of my library science classes. I disliked the classes.  Disliked the exercises.  Don’t ever want to revisit them again.  And at the time, they made me question whether or not I was making the right decision in leaving teaching to become a librarian.  After all, I loved teaching. But I wanted to do more and wanted to help students and teachers alike.  And, I was a determined student, so I persevered through these classes with no peer and very little instructor-student interaction.  Both classes had me reading a textbook and completing cataloging assignments or writing essays with little guidance and little feedback other than an assigned grade.  In one class, even the grade assignments were posted weeks after the due date.  Was this a case of differences in epistemic stances?  Most likely, yes.  These were more experienced teachers…had been in the game for a while, and were pretty much teaching by the industrial-age/behaviorist rulebook.  Each week, we would get written lecture notes (online learning) and then several assignments to complete.  If we had questions, we could post them in the virtual office or email the professor.  There were no class discussions.  We were simply flipping through the books regurgitating information in the assignments.  Even with the cataloging, we would get a book title and verso page and then be asked to complete a catalog for that page.  Did I learn how to catalog?  Somewhat.  I remembered where to find the information needed for completing the request…on the title and verso page, but most of my working knowledge of cataloging came from actually having to catalog new books in my school library…the actual practice and searching for examples and information online.  I loved hands-on.  I remembered better by actually diving in and working with the information…searching online for the exact information I needed, asking others for input.  I learned better because the information became relevant to me.  I like discussing with others the different library set up theories, copyright laws and cases, and books needed in my school’s library.  Reading about it in a book and writing an essay (behaviorist) only made me aware that this information and these debates existed and gave me enough basic information to take part in discussions with other librarians in my district to base my decisions for my library upon. (constructivist)

Behaviorist	Constructivist
Teacher centered	Student Centered
Teacher tells	Teacher guides
One solution	Solutions vary based on circumstances
Individualized	Team-based
Rote memorization	Cognitive thinking
Learn and forget	Life-long problem solving skills
Summative assessment	Formative and Summative Assessment
Extrinsic motivation	Intrinsic motivation

Wk 1 Defining the Field

1.  How do the definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of instructional or educational technology? What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition? How has your definition changed from examining the definitions in chapter 1?

While reading through the chapter, I could identify with something in each definition listed, and as I read on, I agreed with many of the changes made with each additional definition.  I think seeing how the definitions changed as society beliefs and practices and the media themselves changed helped to bring into focus what I have been coming to understand about educational technology--that technology is a powerful learning tool that should be utilized in all stages of the learning process, not just as a product in the assessment stage--and should be a recursive process in that instructors and learners move into and out of the different stages repeatedly as new needs arise.  Educational technology incorporates the media itself, as well as the instructional design process as a whole; therefore, it should be in intergral part of the process from step one.

Before starting my master's work, I had not even thought much about the definition of educational technology nor the different instructional design theories.  My EDTC classes have been instrumental in making me think about instructional design and the implementation of technology throughout.  I've had to look at different theories and see how my beliefs and teaching styles fit within these.  And then, working as a first time librarian this year with the expectation that I would work with grade-level teaching teams to help them implement technology in their classrooms helped my further understand the importance of technology as a tool throughout lessons and how it must be part of the planning from the very beginning and be utilized all throughout the different stages of a lesson, not just for the product.  I've also seen first-hand how teacher resistance/lack of understanding/buy-in can negatively impact the design process and the implementation of curriculum involving different media/technology.  It has been one of my biggest battles this year and will probably continue to be, but having the new understanding I've gained throughout these classes has enabled me to meet this resistance head-on and help those teachers work through their own fears.

My definition hasn't changed a lot from reading this chapter other than helping me realize that educational technology also is part of a process and must be a focal point from the beginning of design.

2.  Next, think of a lesson or unit of instruction that you have developed.  How does that lesson adhere or fail to adhere to the six characteristics of instructional design?  How would you redesign it to better adhere to the six characteristics?

One lesson I helped develop was a poetry unit.  We watched some poetry slams on YouTube to lead us into a discussion on poetry--why they think people write poetry, how many feel about writing poetry, and then the different types of poety and the different elements of poetry.  We developed a pathfinder for students to follow in small groups showing examples of how poetry and its elements are part of students' everyday lives...songs, conversations, etc.  As students were perusing the sites on the pathfinder, they were asked to save a copy of their favorite piece from each section.  Later, we let them switch groups and share their poems, writing reactions in their journals.  We then took a sensory walk outside with students noticing sounds, sights, feelings, smells, etc.  They carried their journals or smart devices to jot down reactions and had access to cameras to take snapshots of things that evoked strong or specific reactions from them or their peers.  Then they went back to the classroom, we put pictures on a slideshow on the SmartBoard, and students worked on creating 3 of their own poems, choosing from any poetry form we discussed through the pathfinder.  Students got to choose their final product format, whether written or produced on the computer.

The project was student-centered in that the students worked in groups to go through the pathfinder to discover different types of poetry they use in their lives everyday.  Many were excited and astonished to find that their favorite songs were all types of poetry and were amazed to discover the poetry elements really utilized in these songs.  Also, students got to look for inspiration for poetry in their everyday world, discuss their ideas with peers, and choose what product they wanted to create.  The project was goal oriented in that students would use elements of poetry (figurative language, meter, imagery, etc) in the development of their own work of poetry.  By focusing on student interests in explanation of types of poetry and the different elements included in examples studied and in their own final products made their performance more meaningful.  By having students actually create poetry incorporating some poetry elements, outcome measurement was valid to the students.  By letting students discuss their ideas and drafts with peers throughout the process, the measurement becomes more valid and measureable by allowing them a chance to understand their weaknesses, revise their thinking, and create a stronger product...which also helps make the process self-correcting. And finally, the instructional design was a team effort...all gave ideas and found information pertinent to explaining certain concepts/poetry elements to the students.  A weakness would be  on data collection.  We failed to assess what students had studied about poetry before; what they already knew so that we could work on objectives students needed rather than what they already had mastered; we concentrated more on making poetry fun and interesting rather than remembering it needed to be about their academic needs also.  So some type of formative assessment would have been beneficial to helping us meet the learner needs.  If we kept adjusting our assessment questions and formats and implemented them all throughout the unit, we could make more specific adjustments to the unit so that learning continued to delve deeper.

3.  In the 3rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media.  Why?  Would you consider teachers, chalboards, and textbooks instructional media?  Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction?

Teachers, chalkboard, and textbooks was excluded from the definition of instructional media in order to show how society reacted to developments in actual media or technology by implementing the new media into the educational realm.  Since teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks were not new developments, they were left out.  I'm not sure I would include them as part of instructional media.  Yes, they are "physical means via which instruction is presented," but the chalkboards and textbooks are static and not as conducive to multi-sensory interaction, which deepens learning.  The teacher should not be included in the definition because he/she can make adjustments to lessons and learning based on how students are reacting to the lesson..he/she can make choices, can interact, can give opinions...all of which influence how and what the student learns.  This interaction will be different with each teacher and his/her experiences, inflections, personalities, etc. 

I think part of the purpose of instructional design today is to incorporate media into instruction, but that is not the whole purpose.  The purpose is to design lessons/units that promote deeper student learning, meaningful learning, by whatever appropriate means necessary.  It is to involve the student in making decisions that enhance their own learning so that they are invested in their learning...they have choices, they have responsibility, they have input.