Trends and Issues in IDT

I enjoyed reading about the different industries and the trends and issues in IDT in each of the industries. My favorite part of this week’s assignment was researching the different educational methods and practices in European and Asian countries. It allowed me to reflect on how I view things, and to see how other countries are helping make their students be successful.  

Below are the three contexts that I chose to compare to teaching. I am a first-grade teacher so this is the filter that I used to compare and contrast. 

Business & Industry:  After reading about the trends and issues in IDT in the business industry I felt like the contextual constraints were similar to the constraints I see as a teacher. Time and resources was a big constraint in the business industry. In the business industry, there is a lack of time, support, and money to perform the instructional design activity (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). This is also true for teachers. The time is very limited to teach content. Sometime we do not have support from parents, fellow teachers, administrators, or our district. There is most definitely a lack of funding as a teacher. I can’t tell you how much of my own money I spend every year on my students and classroom. Another constraint in the business industry is locus of control for decision making. In the business industry, many decisions are made before the designers are involved in the design project. I feel that is true in for teachers too. We do not get to help make any decisions in regards to state testing or new programs that will be started in our districts (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).

 Military:  The trends and issues in the military environment were interesting.
 “The military forces of any nation are an integrated, dedicated, and astute group of individuals who share a camaraderie unmatched in the corporate world” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Instructional designers have to create training programs to meet the military requirements and to meet the individual needs of the military personnel. One of the trends in the military environment is that military personnel may have international responsibilities, which means they may have to work closely with other countries. Military personnel must know about the cultural diversities to be able to work well with other countries. I found this to be similar to teachers. We have to be aware of our students’ cultural backgrounds in order to connect with and understand them. Not surprisingly an issue in the military environment is funding. They have to figure out how to best utilize the money available for training. This is true for teachers. If there is an amazing conference, usually only a couple of teachers per campus get selected to go due to budgets. Those teachers then come back and share out what they learned. Another military issue that I found was similar to the teaching context was technological range. In the military environment, instructional products range from paper-based to advanced computer-based simulations and virtual training (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). I think the instructional products in the teaching environment also have a wide range. I think it is only growing as more technology comes available. 

Health Care Education:  Health care education is complex and it is broad. After reading about health care education, I think the way that it is most similar to K-12 teachers is that we both have regulations, standards and have to have a license. In health care “regulations and standards affect education and training because they dictate what has to be learned” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). This is the same for teachers. In Texas the TEKS tell us what we have to teach. There are also requirements regarding the certification and continuing education has to be done in order to keep up your license in the health care field. This rings true for teachers. We have to participate in professional development so many hours and we have to renew our teaching certificate. What I found most interesting is that there is research being done to find better ways to assess clinical problem solving on licensing exams by using PBL (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). In the K-12 education field, there has been a big push for the use of PBL in classrooms.


We can prepare our youth to address the problems of living in an overcrowded world with not enough resources by teaching them the 21^st century skills that are vital for them now and in the future. By providing them with these skills, we are giving them the ability to problem-solve, collaborate, and think creatively on how to handle the challenges that lie ahead for them. 

I do believe, for the most part, that our current education system, curriculum, and instructional practices help prepare our learners for the future because I have seen a big push for STEM and other programs that focus on preparing students for 21^st century skills that they will need for future success. The earlier we expose children to these skills the better they will be able to improve in these areas such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and team collaboration. These are just a few of the 21^st Century Skills. “The rapid changes in our world require students to be flexible, to take initiative and lead when necessary, and to produce something new and useful” (What Are 21^st Century Skills). 


I was not familiar with methods and practices used in European and Asian countries so I had to do some research. After researching a little, I think the United States could definitely use some of the methods used in European and Asian countries. I found information on a great model called Creative Partnership that is used in some European countries. “Creative Partnership is a creative cooperation of schools’, teachers, parents and developers to implement changes in the practices of creative learning and teaching” (Bylaitė- Šalavėjienė, 2014). This model basically creates a project and the project has a name. Each project is geared toward a certain age group, and it has specific real-life goals for students to accomplish. Sometimes real experts are brought in to make the project more authentic. This sounds similar to PBL to me. I’m not familiar with PBL since I don’t use it in my first grade classroom. The focal point of this model is creativity. Allowing students to integrate creativity into the learning process is a key piece. In order for the program to be successful, it is necessary to adopt creative learning principles and for attitudes towards creativity to be positive (Bylaitė- Šalavėjienė, 2014).   

“But the expectation and insistence that all students will meet high standards is the single most important explanation of the success of these Asian countries with students of every description, including disadvantaged students“ (Tucker, 2016) .  We must hold all of our students to high expectations regardless of their challenges. I know that many teachers already hold that belief, but we need to do a better job of all being united in this belief. 

After researching practices in Asian countries, I found that they are very proactive when their students are struggling. In the article, Asian Countries Take the U.S. to School, Mark Tucker reveals that fewer than 5% of 15-year-old students in Asian countries do not meet the basic proficiency level in reading, math, and science, whereas the United States 12 percent to not meet the basic proficiency level in the same subjects. In the United States, when a student begins to fall behind we start with interventions. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. Students begin to fall behind year after year. Teachers may fill in some of the gaps, but we have to teach the material for that grade level. In small group, we can teach the student at their level, but we all know that the time we have for that is just not enough. In Asian countries students take comprehensive assessments to identify weaknesses. They “deal with the downward spiral by stopping it before it gains momentum” (Tucker, 2016). If students are struggling they hire more teachers. Sometimes this means more than one teacher for students. It also might involve teachers coming in earlier, staying later, or even working on Saturday to get the students on grade-level. Whatever is needed they do it so that the learning gaps don’t become bigger. Teacher are paid well in Asian countries, and they are supported by each other and their schools.

References: 

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

What Are 21^st Century Skills?. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://k12.thoughtfullearning.com/FAQ/what-are-21st-century-skills  

Bylaitė- Šalavėjienė, Danguolė. (2014). Creative learning practices in Lithuania and other EU countries. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://leu.lt/download/19146/creative%20learning,%20en..doc

Tucker, Mark. (2016). Asian Countries Take the U.S. to School. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/us-asia-education-differences/471564/

Evaluating Programs & Human Performance

 I enjoyed learning more about assessment and evaluation this week. I actually enjoy assessing my students and seeing their growth daily. It gives me chills sometimes to see how far they soar each year.

After much discussion about the role of evaluation in education, it was decided that there needed to be some sort of evaluation. This is where different evaluation models began to emerge. Most of the models were created in the 1970s and 1980s (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).

CIPP Evaluation Model:  Stufflebeam’s CIPP model was developed by taking into account the four different types of evaluation which are context, input, process, and product. The model can be used as a comprehensive evaluation which includes all or a single type can be done as a stand-alone evaluation. Context evaluation assesses the environment in which the program will be used. Input evaluation is where questions are asked about the resources that will be used to develop the program. Process evaluation is used to look at the ways the program is developed, implemented, initial effectiveness, and effectiveness after changes are made. The final component is product evaluation. This component looks at the success of the program in achieving the desired outcomes. This model included the evaluator as part of the program development process. It also shifted evaluation to be more of a continuous process and no longer something that just happened at the end of a project (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Five-Domain Model:  Peter Rossi developed this useful evaluation model in the late 1970s. This model was developed so that each evaluation is tailored to fit local needs, resources, and program type. Under this model, the evaluation questions are the core. It is important that the evaluation questions be clear and accepted by the key stakeholders. The model is made up of five evaluation domains. An evaluation can be done with any or all of the domains. The five domains include:  needs assessment, theory assessment, implementation assessment, impact assessment, and efficiency assessment (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model:  This model was developed in 1959, and it was created specifically for training evaluation. It is a 4-level evaluation system.
Level 1:  Reaction. Assessment of the learners’ attitudes and reactions of the learning process.
Level 2:  Learning. Evaluate what the learners learned in the training program.
Level 3:  Behavior. Determine if the participants change their on the job behavior as a result of the training program.
Level 4:  Results.  Evaluate if the training leads to “final results” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Chen’s Theory Driven Evaluation: Theory Driven Evaluation is designed to be guided by a set of explicit or implicit assumptions about what action is required to solve a social, educational or health problem and why the problem will respond to the action (Chen). “The purpose of theory-driven evaluation is not only to assess whether an intervention works or does not work, but also how and why it does so” (Chen).


Patton’s Utilization Focused Evaluation:  The UFE Evaluation model has been researched for over 35 years. UFE is “a decision-making framework for enhancing the utility and actual use of evaluations” (Patton, 2010). The model has four evaluation standards that it uses.
Utility – ensures the relevance and use
Feasibility – ensures it is realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal
Propriety – ensures it is ethical, legal, and respectful
Accuracy – ensures it is technically adequate to determine worth

I feel that the models that I could use to evaluate my instruction would be the CIPP Model and the Five-Domain model. I could use them by evaluating my lessons to see if they were successful. I always look at my lessons after my students have participated in them to see what I can do to improve the lesson. I think by using one of these evaluation models it could help guide me to delve deeper into the lesson and to answer more questions.

 I think that the management of resources should be considered in the evaluation of instructional programs. I think this would be another piece that needs attention. If it was part of the evaluation process, then it would be considered more of a priority than if it wasn’t. I think that there are so many resources out there, and by including it one could ensure they are using the available resources to the maximum potential.

A performance problem in the area of teaching is that sometimes a teacher can work so hard and be very good at teaching, but not be valued by the campus administration. I personally have seen this. It makes a teacher feel unappreciated and, in turn just as the book states on page 137, it can result in unworthy performance.  A non-instructional solution that might help solve the problem is improved and more timely feedback for teachers. This would mean that the feedback would need to be more frequent than just once a year.

References:
Chen, Huey. T. Theory-driven evaluation: Conceptual framework, application and advancement. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/deszarate/Downloads/9783531183060-c1.pdf

Patton, Michael. Q. (2010). Utilization Focused Evaluation. Retrieved from http://ccer.org/service/documents/Michael%20Patton/U-FE%20workshop.pdf

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

Week Two Reflections: Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

First, I must say this week was a tough one for me. I had to read and reread, and sometimes I still felt like I didn't fully understand the learning theories and epistemologies. I definitely had to do some extra research to complete my blog post this week. The textbook was not enough! I hope that I understood everything correctly. If not then after I read your blog posts, I'm sure it will help me clear up any misconceptions that I have...that is the good thing!

In my opinion, the difference between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies is that epistemologies are “knowledge that” and and theories, models and methods are mainly “knowledge how”. This means that epistemologies deal with what knowledge you “know” and how it relates to truth, belief, and justification. Whereas theories, models, and methods deal with the learning process and how you got to know the knowledge that you know (The Basics of Philosophy). After further researching epistemologies, I feel that one’s personal epistemology is influenced by your experiences from birth through your lifetime. How you interpret content will depend on how you feel about the information and your personal point of view (Education Theory). Everyone has lived through different events in their lives and this impacts your point of view on everything.

My epistemic stance is primarily relativist. The relativist stance states that there are no absolutes and knowing something is relative. Knowledge will take on many forms and the way of knowing something will depend on one’s culture and perspective (Bourgeois). I feel this is true, and every learner has something different to share and a different perspective because we are all unique and come from different backgrounds. It could be because you are from a different culture so you have been exposed to different types of clothing, traditions, food, or language. Or it could be that you live in a different area such as in a big city or a small town. All of these experiences form your opinions and how you view different aspects of life. I feel that it is important that we value and embrace that we all are different, and we can all learn from one another.

I can remember a couple of times where my stance as a learner conflicted with my instructor. Sometimes it had to do with a math course. I had a couple of instructors who wanted the math problems to be worked a certain way. If you did not solve the problem the certain way they taught you or wanted you to then it was counted wrong. I always felt like this was ridiculous because I could solve it a different way and get the same answer, but the way that I solved it made more sense to me then the way I was shown in class. Other times were in English class. When a question was asked about why a character felt the way they did or how could something be changed. If the answer did not match the thinking of the instructor, you were scored low. Again, this has everything to do with one’s perspective and life experiences. The response will directly have to do with what you have encountered in your life. It is rare that your experiences will be the same as an instructor.

After reading about epistemic stances, I do feel they could have been at the center of why there was a disconnect between me and my instructors. It seems to me that they may have all had the positivist stance.The differences in problem-solving from a behaviorist and a constructivist perspective are that a constructivist perspective will have more project-based learning happening to solve real-world problems. There will be team collaboration, higher-order thinking, and the learning will be authentic. The students are doing most of the work from a constructivist perspective. From a behaviorist perspective, there is a lot of observation going on by the teacher. The teacher is also constantly giving feedback to guide students in the right direction. The problem-solving will be done with a lot of guidance by the teacher, and the students will most likely not engage in higher-order thinking (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).

They differ in the nature of the problem being solved because from a constructivist perspective it will be a real-world problem that requires team collaboration. It will also have a project attached to it to help facilitate the learning and solving of the problem. From a behaviorist perspective, it may just be a broad question where the teacher is constantly facilitating and prompting students by giving feedback based on observations. It also may not be a team effort.

The effect on learner motivation could be that from a behaviorist perspective the problem-solving or lesson could seem boring and predictable to students. They may have a little motivation just because they want to get a good grade and please the instructor, but that may be all. From a constructivist perspective, students could be really motivated to solve the problem especially if it relates to them personally. The team aspect of solving the problem also makes it exciting and enjoyable. Students will also be motivated to perform well so that they will make a good grade.

References:
Education Theory. Retrieved from http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning_TheoriesThe Basics of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.htmlBourgeois, Nichole. An Epistemology of Leadership Perspective. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ974360.pdfReiser, R.A. and Dempsey, J.V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Boston: Pearson. 

Week One Reflections: Defining the IDT Field

Hello everyone! Since this is my first time actually blogging, I hope all goes well. I have read blogs before, and they seem to be easy going and informal. So here it goes!

After reading the first 3 chapters, I learned a lot of information. I had no idea there were so many different definitions for Instructional Technology! After reflecting on my reading, I realize that it is a really broad field and that is why I think there has been so much discussion on one definition. 

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 the first chapter of this book?

My definition of instructional/educational technology is different from the definitions in the first chapter because I always thought that it was the media, apps, or software used in the learning process. My original definition is close to the first definition from the early 1900's where instructional technology was the physical way that instruction is presented which was mainly dealing with media (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). 

My own educational experiences have helped shaped my definition of instructional technology. When technology really started to grow there was a big push for it in schools, and I can remember my teachers trying to get familiar with the technology and as students we were also trying to learn how to use it. It was always how to present information using technology. Since I have become a teacher that has also shaped my definition about instructional technology. The big thing I have been told from the beginning is use technology as much as possible. I felt a little uncomfortable with that because I'm not very tech savvy, but I did have to learn quickly how to use it in my classroom with my students. At first I found myself just using technology to use it, and sometimes there wasn't a clear purpose for it. I didn't like that feeling because the learning was not as deep as I know it could have been for my students. After reading on the different definitions and reflecting on how I viewed technology, I have to agree that my definition has changed. Instructional technology is a complex field that has many components. You could go crazy trying to come up with a short and sweet way to sum it up. For me the overall definition for instructional technology does fit with the book's definition which is 

"The field of instructional design and technology encompasses analysis of learning and performance problems, and the design, development, implementation, evaluation and management of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources intended to improve learning and performance in a variety of settings, particularly educational institutions and the workplace" (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 5).

I think the book's definition is a great one because it includes a lot of the 21st century skills that students need in today's world. I think it is really important to recognize that our world is constantly changing and so is the instructional technology field. 

Next, think of a lesson or unit of instruction that you have developed. How does your 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?

A lesson definitely comes to mind after reading this question. I was teaching my first graders a unit on the four seasons. My students had completed various lessons, and I decided to wrap up the unit with a project so students could demonstrate what they learned about seasons. My students were going to create a diorama of their favorite season. Inside their diorama they were going to find a way to display themselves dressed in that particular season and performing an activity that was appropriate for that season. They were also to include the weather for that season in their diorama. My students thoroughly enjoyed this project, and I felt that it had many of the 6 characteristics of instructional design from the book. It was definitely student centered and goal oriented. It was focused on meaningful performance and I could assess their project using a rubric. The project was also self-correcting because the students had a partner they could go to for assistance if they felt they needed it. The only part that was really missing was the team effort. I had students do this independently. I think about it now and realize that working in a team would have really made this a stronger project for students. The skills they use when working in teams collaborating and problem-solving is huge. 

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, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media? Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction?

 Reiser excluded teachers chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media because he said that in most discussions the 3 have been considered separate from media so he had to separate them to explain the history (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 17). I do consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media because it is the physical way instruction is presented. I think that each of those is an important physical way to present instruction. I do not think the purpose of instructional design is to incorporate media into instruction. I think that since the 1990s technology has proven to be a big aspect in learning and it is being used often in instructional design. In my opinion, media doesn't have to be present, but I think that it will be hard to find instruction without it in today's world. 

Hello!

Hello everyone, this is my first time creating a blog. I wanted to post something to make sure that I am able to post it correctly and that others are able to comment on my blog. I got the idea from our classmate, Stephanie. I hope to learn a lot from everyone in this course!