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.