5: New directions and technologies

In my current field of designing lesson plans and implementing technology, I have come to the realization that to reach the students you are struggling to reach, you must do things you have never done before. For example, in any social studies class, we have to make the material relevant and allow it to come alive. Through reading these chapters, I have found interesting new directions and technologies to IDT that I believe would allow me to reach out to students and make the content and classroom come alive. Some of these intriguing aspects are e-learning environments, the use of rich media and digital games or simulations.

This year, I attempted to facilitate learning by utilizing technology, cooperative learning and other means of acquiring knowledge to fit all learning styles. Without even knowing it, I was facilitating an e-learning environment by using not just technology, but any means necessary for the students to have a better learning environment. I also utilize simulations, such as the Silk Road activity, where students are put in a scenario or “purposeful learning activities” to acquire or work with the knowledge without really understanding they are engaged in a learning activity (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).  I did find commonalities with the trucks analogy of the medium as depending on the learner’s traits, the medium can make all of the difference. I do believe that the use of this environment will facilitate more attainment and mastery of the selected learning goals and objectives better than original teacher-led lecture. With this emerging direction, it does depend on the type of involvement to determine whether or not a student will be successful. I could design differentiated instruction that fits different student’s need creating a better learning environment for all students. Also, due to the diversity of education and students today, it is especially important to design lessons with multiculturalism in mind, especially those that focus on Eastern concepts, such as Islam. This will allow them to interact with different characteristics, and in different environments. With the e-learning environments, it would allow for me as a teacher to exhibit minimal to moderate guidance and not “proceduralize the thinking,” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). I find myself being the one that does proceduralize every aspect of my teaching because of the designed and planned outcome I want my students to reach. Therefore, it is very hard to let go. However, this would allow to me to relinquish a little more control.

The next new direction emerging in education is the use of rich media and animations versus normal and stagnant media forms in fitting the diverse needs of the student. While this will prove to be a little more difficult in social studies than in other subjects, such as science, I do believe the idea of utilizing rich media will only benefit the understanding of the material. Just like the novices became just as knowledgeable as the law students in understanding court and law procedures utilizing rich media, as will my students become experts in the material presented. Because of the media’s interaction with the students, as it would need to be a step further to disable “couch potato” mode, it would allow them to organize and integrate the new material into their long-term memory (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).  This form of IDT does not break ethics and would allow me to use guiding visuals with students that need it to help fit the needs of diverse students. I could easily design a lesson where students get teacher input and then utilize rich media sources to expand on the learning already seen, such as an interactive timeline. With this element of the lesson, it allows me to switch roles from fully guided to more of a facilitator as I tutor those that need extra help and guidance. It can also be an extension activity for the high students that appreciate relevance past the typical lesson.

Lastly, the last emerging direction for education is the idea of “gamifying” education by creating games to provide a challenge or problem to solve. When reading this section of the book, I was reminded of a new program my school’s technology specialist adopted, Breakout EDU. As I know I have discussed it in previous blogs, the essential design is to utilize school curriculum in a problem to solve problems from a zombie apocalypse to the Roanoke, “The Lost Colony.” In this new direction, it creates a goal for the students to obtain. This creates a social and collaborative environment for the students that typically is not seen in education. It also would help the learners understand how to work with others while contextualizing the material (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Again, this new direction has no concerns about ethics, but can be the hardest to accommodate diverse students needs. As all students would be involved in this learning environment, it would be hard to accommodate different learners. However, the teacher can definitely have little to no guidance and really allow the students to be more responsible for their own learning and merely provide instant feedback.

Of these new directions in IDT, I do believe there is a place for all three. With minor tweaks and adjustments, I believe any and all of these new technologies can be implemented into my classroom this next school year. It can only make a typically boring subject fun again.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

4: Global Trends

Instructional Design Technology (IDT) has its focus and merits in educational systems. Yet, it has been able to expand into other fields, such as business, military, health care education, P-12 education and even post-secondary education. While there have been several similarities between IDT surfacing in these industries. However, in the business, military and P-12 education institutions, I have found more differences for how IDT is implemented and utilized.

In the business and industry sector, most of the responsibilities fall under a sole designer that is housed in the company, a team that could be more virtual than physical, or a hiring outside designers and consultants to produce or lead a product. While these three avenues can be taken for the instructional designer, this does not demean or devalue the roles of the other individuals or players in the company and development of IDT. These roles are as follows: client, whether singular or plural, and subject-matter expert. Some of the constraints for this industry falls under lack of time and resources needed to perform instructional design, designer’s control throughout design activity, and the use of tools and techniques designers to perform their tasks.

In the military sector, there is constant changing roles and responsibilities for IDT throughout our ever changing circumstances with various countries and alliances. Though it is constantly growing and changing, the issues still arise. Funding, especially in the recent presidential administrations that have shrunk the size of our military down or decrease in the amount of funding. The lack of technological available to the amount of training developers that has the knowledge to work on these systems. Also, the hostile environments that most of these militaries work in make it hard and training must always be adaptable to the situation.

Lastly, the post-secondary education systems have come a long way as well. It has been understood since early 90’s that “good teaching comes first and technology second,” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). However, technology has changed the conversation as student’s technology is constantly updating. The three types of ID Development follow the systems, or utilizing a system with technology embedded, product or using computer-based instructional (CBI) products such as games, and classroom where teachers utilize technology for several different roles. Though this seems to be straight forward, there are issues that can get in the way of great learning occurring in the classroom. Most of the time, ASSURE model establishes analysis of learners, standards, and strategies, utilizing different forms of media, learning participation and revising through evaluation. While there are several different models and factors that lead to the growth of IDT in schools, there still seems to be “the gap,” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).  In several factors, the U.S. schools are falling behind other industrial and developed countries. These factors, such as access to resources, peer support and teachers’ content knowledge, are leading to the technological gap. I see my work context being most similar to the struggles seen in this industry. As referred to in my previous blog posts, the teachers’ lack of technological and content knowledge is something I find most applicable to my school district’s struggles to really reach the students.

            With over 7 billion people and that number constantly growing every second, our students must understand what is needed in order to survive. For example, classrooms in impoverished countries, such as Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), education and teaching looks completely different. The pedagogy goes back to chalk and chalkboard homework and the decision between school and food. However, in other countries similar to the United States, such as Japan, e-learning was focused more on changing the layout of learning materials, such as appropriate use of fonts, colors and easier navigation techniques (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Also, two credits of “IT basics” is also required for every teacher degree, which is quite different than how teacher education is structured in America. In Korea, it is also expected for every teacher, principal and administrative staff to continue their technological knowledge and skills every year. However, those two countries lie in the Eastern part of the world. Korea and Japan have less population than Europe and America and seem to handle their population growth better than their counterparts. As similar to what I believe we are seeing in America, Europe is also seeing a trend of “dumbing down” education and the need to constantly grow. In a constant growing world, it is imperative for all active members of society to constantly better themselves and become an expert in their craft. I do believe it is imperative to focus on bettering our technological craft to become a teacher as Korea and Japan do. While I believe what these two Eastern countries do will fit what we need, I do believe it is important to differentiate and try things we never have before to get to places we have not been before. Unless we change what we are doing, who knows what America will look like in the next generation.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

3: Learning Systems

In Section III, several instructional design models were discussed, including CIPP, Five-Domain, and Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation model. The CIPP acronym stands for context, input, process and product, which produce a single comprehensive evaluation or a stand-alone evaluation. Context evaluates the environment the technology will be used in to determine needs and objectives. Input evaluation determines the resources that will be used to develop and conduct the technology innovation and process. The process component determines how the technology or innovation is being developed, and very similar to a product evaluation. And the last component is product, meaning how well the technology met the desired outcomes. For the Five-Domain model, Peter Rossi focuses on needs assessment, or addressing what type of program is needed. Second, is program theory assessment that addresses whether or not the technology will work. Third is implementation or how well the technology has been implemented according to the plan. Fourth is impact assessment meaning if the technology address the intended targets. Last is efficiency assessment or if the technology was cost-effective and able to make an impact in the desired targets. Lastly, Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluation focuses on four levels of evaluation. The first level is the reaction of the learners and their attitudes; the second level is the learning to measure what specifically will be covered in a training event. The third level is behavior or if the training changes people’s behavior on the job. And the last level, as most of the training models end, focuses on results or how well it met costs, improved work and increased production. I researched two outside theories of BATES Action Model and EITIMI Model. The BATES Action Model is focused on costs, especially opportunity costs, instructional approaches that will best meet these needs, how interactive and user-friendly the technology is, organizational and how well the technology can provide stability and support. Last components focus on novelty, or how new it is, and speed or how quickly it can be distributed. The last theory I found is the EITIMI Model which focuses on three components: educational issues of what makes quality teaching and learning, management issues or the logistical constraints, and technology issues that could get in the way of learning. All of these models might focus on different aspects of technological innovation, but most of them end on the same focus: results. Did the program being evaluated meet the needs of the workforce and improve productivity?

            While these questions of instructional design address a plethora of questions, I feel that some of these evaluation systems could be expanded to fit different needs. I believe that return on investment should be considered in these parameters. Value has been defined as monetary benefits of the program compared to the costs of the program. However, the new definition of value based on different data points would fit most technological evaluations, such as input, learning and confidence, application, impact and if the technology had a great return on investment. Return on investment basically measures if the benefit is greater than the costs of implementing the program. Some other measures that could be considered are enjoyment while completing the program and if those related to the overall effectiveness of the program.

            In my workplace, I have found that teachers that are struggling with technology seems to be one of the hindrances in our school. While technology is a big push within the district and teachers are aware of this push, the problem lies in that teachers do not know what or how to utilize technology in their classroom. Most teachers have not utilized technology past logging onto email or working their smart phone. For this hindrance in my workplace, I would suggest using non-instructional solutions such as support systems to aid the teachers. Our Instructional Technology Specialists (ITS) does a great job of offering training during and after the schoolwork day. However, due to busy schedules, not all teachers who are struggling attend. I believe the use of support systems would aid in the furthering knowledge and practice of teachers utilizing technology. Because trainings are not reaching all audiences, a simple online system where teachers could post questions and other teachers could log on and answer their specific question would help rather than sitting in technology training. As most teachers are aware they need help, knowledge management systems would not help change their mind. Rather, a simple online database where teachers could help teachers would be beneficial to my workplace dilemma.

2: Theories & Models of Learning

As a teacher, one of my main focuses is to understand how my individual students best learn and understand the material. At the beginning of each school year, I give my students an assessment to determine their preferred learning style and how they learn best. This idea is based on epistemology or what we know and how we know it. Throughout my four years as an educator, I have practiced and applied several different theories of epistemology on how students acquire knowledge, including theories listed in the text. I have used parts of Situated Learning Theory by providing a classroom more based on cooperation than competition so students can acquire meaning based on my “cultural system” I had established in my classroom (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). My students really benefitted from establishing a community together rather than conquering tasks individually. Also, I have utilized Gagne’s Theory of Instruction by gaining my students attention through a “hook” in order to get them engaged in the lesson. I have also organized lessons based on the Project Based Learning (PBL) model by allowing the students to learn by creating authentic problems for my students to solve together. My biggest example of applying this theory would be implementing a Breakout EDU mini-lesson modified to fit the Civil War unit. By giving my advanced Pre-AP class a scenario where they had to solve clues to understand and analyze Lincoln’s assassination. By doing this PBL strategy, I created a buy in and an authentic problem solving experience within a time crunch for my students to become intrigued (www.breakoutedu.com). I see a comparison between all of these theories discussed as they all come down to one audience: our students. In Post-Industrial America, school is seen as “duty” and the excitement has lulled (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). As an educator, we must make learning our content relevant and worthwhile for our students. While I have used aspects of each of these in my classroom on any given basis, I tend to follow the Constructivism collection of views more closely than any of the other theories. As collaborative or cooperative learning stem from ideas on constructivism, I tend to favor more collaboration than competition in classroom activities. This also allows me to not the sole voice in the room, but rather the guide on an activity the students take on together.

Throughout my career and experience inside and outside of a classroom, I have seen a plethora of outlooks on learning and what truth looks like. When determining my stance and outlook of truth and knowledge, even though I do see myself as some of a contextualist, I do believe that I am primarily a positivist. While I cannot say that I am always the most positive person, as a historian, I do believe that knowledge is objective truth with no feelings, biases or opinions (Dictionary.com). In my years as both an educator and a student in school, I have had several conflicts with instructors or coaches. The more prominent conflict is my high school basketball coach’s relativist outlook. As a player and captain for the team, he was very insistent that students learn by their context and relative frame of reference. And if any of the players were not able to understand any aspect of the game or his theories, it was due to their lack of motivation or work ethic, and had nothing to do with any other context. This coach was a very old school soul of education in the belief that education is similar to the “American dream” and that every person is responsible for motivating themselves intrinsically and the teacher serves no role as a motivator. On the contrary, I believe that if teachers can show the students what they are capable of, all students can succeed at whatever they aim to do. In spite of my experience under this high school coach, my constructivist ideals have not changed even while being surrounded by relativist co-workers in almost every setting.

As I have stated earlier, my personal philosophy leans more towards collaboration than competition in my classroom. However, I do see a need for positive reinforcements and instructional feedback in education for students to understand what is expected of them. As a young teacher, classroom management with its base in behaviorism can either make or break a classroom culture. While constructivism and behaviorism both focus on students partaking and engaging in activities while teachers observe as a guide.  Both theories incorporate student-led instruction while still giving the teachers the option to step in with redirections or guidance for students instant feedback. As a problem-solving guide, both behaviorism and constructivism can be easily misconstrued as they both focus on students “actively” responding and engaging (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). However, behaviorism typically ends at students being actively involved in class, while constructivism takes it a step further and creates “authentic” learning through engagement and can be best applied by focusing on relevance of the subject to the learner (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Also, behaviorism can easily be intertwined in any classroom at any given moment, especially important to a new teacher. Constructivism takes a more learner-centered approach and requires more planning by the teacher to create authentic learning experiences for all students, which fits at least a more advanced and experienced educator. This element of more in-depth planning is one of the many limitations and challenges to constructivism as it can be very overwhelming. But, when applied correctly, this element creates life-long learners by allowing students to master concepts more thoroughly and can instill a motivation for both low and high learners to continue learning even after the duty of school has ended. Because constructivism can be applied and manipulated to fit all students’ individual goals in content and experiences, I believe it benefits classrooms more than just utilizing behaviorism. Rather, I would advocate for a mixture of the two theories.

Breakout EDU. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2016, from http://www.breakoutedu.com/

Dictionary.com - The world's favorite online English dictionary! (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2016, from http://www.dictionary.com/

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.