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.