New Directions and Current Issues

E-Learning

I love how the authors described the field of instructional design as a moving target. That is so true and felt at any level of involvement. The author believes that online learning is just as powerful as traditional learning. “Because technology is so much more powerful, easier to use, and prevalent, we have been able to mix and match content, media, instructional methods, and modalities … and has led to highly effective learning that has proven to be every bit as effective as prior learning modalities and approaches.” One of the reasons for this is an unintended consequence of informal and incidental learning. Designers have realized the benefits of social learning. E-learning actually promotes constructivism due to its social nature. Designers now keep this in mind as they design learning experiences that afford learners to be the architects of their own learning experiences. Many designers have emphasized that product and process is another one of the unintended strengths. Which also turns out to be another one of the moving targets that is constantly changing and difficult to analyze the outcomes.

Because of the interactive and collaborative functional entities of e-learning, I believe that greater engagement also occurs which facilitates attainment of learning goals and objectives. However, I can’t forget the data from Chapter 21 regarding a constructivist approach that states “student gains on high stakes tests were inconsistent” even in “best practices” scenarios. Even still, in our 21st century classrooms, e-learning should be utilized as a component of our instruction. 

All throughout the book, the authors have reiterated the need for social and collaborative learning. While I definitely think there is a place for e-learning, I have missed the interactive part with my classmates in my graduate work. I have greatly enjoyed one of the affordances of e-learning - freedom to work around my schedule.  However, especially with the other class I’m taking, learning to work with new technologies without the support of someone sitting next to me, has been really hard. It has challenged me to think on my own and harder than I would with the support, but there were times that I really need the help of a live human in the same room!

E-learning would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and  greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Students with visual involvement would be able to participate in e-learning with possible accommodations such as screen magnification software and/or reader, and/or refreshable Braille display. Learners with less visual involvement would benefit from high contrast materials, limited use of complicated tables, avoiding backgrounds, and use of bold and plain fonts. 

Web 2.0 and Networking Technologies

The authors really “hit the nail on the head” when they stated in the introduction of the chapter, “These tools, conceived in a networked era often create considerable disruption when inserted into organizations … founded under older conceptions of of work and social organizations … associated with the industrial era.” One of the greatest obstacles is bringing Web 2.0 tools into restricted environments where mental attitudes greatly decrease the power and effectiveness of the tools. New technologies require new pedagogies, learning activities, and roles of the teacher and learner. Designers will now have to create activities and contexts in which learners develop, customize, and effectively use their own personal learning environment. 

Again, the authors make a point of the impact that social learning has on a student. Take for example, blogs. When I first introduced blogs in my classroom, I was too afraid  of privacy issues to let the students have free-reign of their blogs. While they enjoyed them at first, they missed out on a critical component - the feedback of their peers. When blogs are used as they are designed, they become a much more effective tool. Learning becomes self-directed and initiated by what interests the student. Now they care about punctuation, spelling, and content because they have an authentic audience. Whereas before, they were just satisfying an assignment. Now constructivism has met connectivism and it’s a game changer. 

Web 2.0 technologies would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Learners with hearing involvement would benefit from having a transcript. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Students with visual involvement would be able to participate in networking and Web 2.0 technologies with possible accommodations such as screen magnification software and/or reader, and/or refreshable Braille display. Learners with less visual involvement would benefit from high contrast materials, limited use of complicated tables, avoiding backgrounds, and use of bold and plain fonts. Students with visual involvement should not be hindered by their visual limitations, but should have equal opportunity as all other learners.  

Rich Media

I thought the chapter on rich media was very interesting! I was surprised that the general findings were “less is more.” Because visual, auditory, and kinesthetic components affect our working memory, which has a limited capacity, it is important not to over stimulate the brain (causing cognitive overload) for learning to be successful. Another surprising point the author made was that there is no compelling evidence for designing lessons to match learners’ learning styles. As a huge believer in the multiple intelligences, I found this information contrary to what I know as en educator.

I do believe that rich media contributes to better concept attainment for our students due to engagement. However, it is important to remember the findings of this chapter that less is more. For our learners with processing disorders or ADD/ADHD, selecting programs with fewer stimuli will provide opportunities for greater success. 

Rich media would accommodate students with hearing and mobility involvement. Learners with hearing involvement would benefit from having a transcript. Learners with mobility involvement should avoid simulations and games requiring high manual dexterity, avoid timed assessments, and would benefit from incorporating team work and group activities. Students with cognitive involvement would benefit from modifications and greater guidance such as avoiding pop up windows, providing additional support when navigating through web pages, providing audio and visual support, allowing extra time, and highlighting important concepts. Rich media would not be beneficial for learners with visual involvement. 

With all three of the new directions in technologies that I chose, the instructor should 

be sensitive to ethical issues. Teachers should be aware of the privacy agreements of each student. Teachers and students should credit their sources. Teachers should separate their personal and professional gain. And the teacher should be cognizant 

that the different technologies offer a of diversity in stereotypes. 

The level of guidance and support would depend on the learner. Students with a higher aptitude for learning would benefit from less explicit instruction. However, students with various involvements would benefit from an initial full guidance with a gradual release of support as needed on an individual basis. As Hannifin pointed out, “No single design methodology is sufficiently robust to address the diversity and complexity of all learning goals.”

How interesting that a common thread throughout the whole text was about the benefits of a constructivist learning environment. Yet, when we get to the last chapter of the book Hannifin argues against it and favors providing more guidance with a gradual release of support.

Resources

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

Trends and Issues in IDT

Part A

It was very interesting to read the differences and similarities in instructional design among the business, military, medical, and education industries.

While the corporate, health, and educational industries primarily rely on external designers, the military has a need to utilize both external and internal (for security reasons) designers. I thought it was vey interesting that some of the allies use the same training locations and or programs. Adversaries also have access to these technologies, but not always legally. This affects how the instructional designers design and deliver the training products. 

All of the above mentioned industries can benefit from the business mantra:  “better, faster, cheaper.” The military and the medical industries especially benefit from design cycle time reduction and increased effectiveness and efficiency. It was noted that often times in the military, the most current technology used in the design phase is already outdated by the time the product is built. Designers have to take this into consideration and design products whose technologies can easily be adapted with the latest technology designs.

Because business and military industries are both global in nature, cultural sensitivities are key in these industries. Designers must take into consideration communication styles, what interpersonal relationships look like, and other cultural factors for the design implementation to be successful.

The military and medical fields must develop interpersonal relationships and open communication in order to build trust. For both of these industries, ineffective instruction can have life-threatening or catastrophic consequences.

All of the industries use some form of technology training. The military and medical fields both found that on the job training, otherwise know as problem-based learning (PBL), showed evidence “that PBL students tend to integrate, retain, and transfer information better, and that they have superior self-directed learning skills” than those in traditional programs. Reflection is a critical component in the problem-solving process. Reflection gives meaning to practice and encourages a deep approach to learning. The medical field uses technology training to lighten the burden of teaching and free up more time with patients. While educators feel that PBL students are more engaged, the gains on high-stakes tests have been inconsistent. Several different reasons were listed for the possible mixed results.

Budget constraints were mentioned for the corporate and governmental industries, but many teachers also know first-hand that their resources are definitely affected by budget constraints as well. While all of the fields can benefit from technology affordances, the business, military and medical industries have benefitted from the ability to have long-distance video conferencing. This has had a significant positive impact on budget constraints as well. Doctors are able to use video conferencing to introduce patients to their care-givers, have medical students observe surgeries, and provide expertise to rural doctors. (C.T., 2017)

After analyzing all of the industries, it is important to note that developing 21st century learners benefits all. Developing a new educational framework of student outcomes that will equip our learners with a global awareness, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, communication skills, creativity and innovation skills, collaboration skills, contextual learning skills, and information and media literacy skills. Our students need to be able to access information efficiently and effectively, evaluate the information critically and competently, and use the information accurately and creatively. Finally, our classrooms  need to promote the development of life skills such as leadership, accountability, adaptability, personal productively, personal responsibility, people skills, self direction and social responsibility. The military, medical, and educational industries all noted the importance of developing life-long learners.


Part B

While Japan and Europe hold the top two spots with the largest companies in the world, their IDT seems to be lagging. According to Reiser and Dempsey, not until the last 5 years (at the time of publication), have these countries made strides in catching up. In contrast, Koreans saw the value of IDT and sent teachers and scholars overseas to promote IDT in formal education. Now it is an expectation for teachers to upgrade their technical and pedagogical knowledge every three years. However, e-learning has not been as successful due to the fact that Koreans prefer face to face communication with the teacher or content expert. Yet another place where we see that cultural norms place a significant role in successful implementation. I believe that the US could benefit from adopting some of the Korean standards. While we, too, use specific technology performance indicators in teacher evaluations, more specific training is simply offered, not required. The soft roll-out of allowing educators to become comfortable with technology has gone on long enough. I believe it is time for us to step up our game and require more rigorous and creative applications of technology in our classrooms. This does not have to be the job of the teacher alone. If our instructional specialists would put lessons together that use specific technologies to accomplish these means and provide training, our students would be better equipped for our 21st century world.

In trying to address the problems that arise as our population grows exponentially, it will be imperative that our future leaders have been taught how to think critically, problem solve, know how to communicate and collaborate globally taking into consideration cultural differences, use creativity and innovation. Having more authentic STEM opportunities in our K-12 classrooms is one way to facilitate these skills. We have already seen a shift in having more nonfiction reading in the classroom in order to support STEM or problem-based learning. One example of problem-solving and creative innovation is raising bugs as an editable source of protein. Research has shown that insects are sustainable and nutritiously more beneficial than much of the food we normally consume. Bugs require fewer natural resources to thrive, take up less space to raise, and would eliminate 20% of the greenhouse gases that are a result of livestock farming. (Nguyen, 2013) However, in this country, there are definitely some cultural norms that would have to be hurdled. Are YOU insect-erested?

Resources

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

T., C. (2017, June 16). Video Conferencing for Doctors Lets Medical Students Make the Virtual Rounds of Ten Hospitals a Day - VC Daily. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://www.videoconferencingdaily.com/healthcare/video-conferencing-doctors-lets-medical-students-make-virtual-rounds-ten-hospitals-day/

Nguyen, T. C. (2013, December 03). Insect Farming Kit Lets You Raise Edible Bugs. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/insect-farming-kit-lets-you-raise-edible-bugs-180948261/

Evaluating Programs and Human Performance

Thoughts on Section III to evaluate my instruction:

Well, isn’t this a timely assignment with the release of the STAAR scores? It certainly is a time of reflection… what worked, what didn’t. And why for each of those reasons. After many hours of searching for other evaluation models, I decided to reflect on the logic models and outcome based models.

Logic models look at how one component of a program affects another. “Educators can use these representations to plan evaluations, monitor the implementation of program activities, and determine the extent to which programs have their intended effects.” (Lawton, B., Brandon, P.R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. 2014) Logic models help programmers understand the program’s activities and intended outcomes. Because the budget is always a concern, the logic models help educators decide “which program features are most crucial and then develop evaluation questions that address the program features and their interrelationships.” (Lawton, B., Brandon, P.R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. 2014) Sometimes the evaluation questions become a starting point for the logic model. Other times they arise during the process and might need to be clarified into clear, specific, and actionable evaluation questions. These often help to determine what resources are needed as well. The logic model is a series of inputs (program design and goals), outputs (interventions or processes), and outcomes (results or impact.)

The following chart is helpful in understanding the logic model of an elementary science program.

There are four main types of Outcome-Based Evaluations (OBE): program evaluation, effectiveness evaluation, impact evaluation and policy evaluation. I felt that the effectiveness evaluation was a better tool to evaluate my instruction. The effectiveness evaluation asks, “Is my program meeting its goals and objectives?” There are many factors to consider when using an OBE. One is taking into consideration the intended audience and what they already know. OBEs make sure that there is a clear goal or intended outcome of the program. There should be inputs and resources as part of the program. (training, materials, staff, etc) The output of the program should be measurable and directly affect the outcome which looks to see if the target audience was changed or improved as a result of the program.

When I reflect on my own instruction I was well-equipped in terms of training and resources. My principal spent additional funds this year to have all lower elementary trained in guided reading. We attended workshops, had experts brought in to coach us, and professional and student books were purchased to make sure we always had what we needed. When I planned my lessons, I first made sure that I knew what the goal was of the TEK. With certain skills, I gave a pre-test to survey what the students already knew. Then I consulted my resources of some of the experts in the field of reading: Jennifer Serravallo, Franki Sibberson, Stephanie Harvey & Anne Goudvis, Kylene Beers & Robert Probst, etc. I used varied the components of in my lessons from the multiple intelligences to technology. My lessons typically began with a direct-teach mini lesson followed by small group or partner work before independent practice. During the practice phase I used formative assessment to determine which students “got it” and which students needed more practice.  At the end of the unit, I would assess how much the students had learned either through a reading passage, or authentic assessment where I observed if the students were actually using the new knowledge. For those that needed additional support, I provided extra small group practice during class and in addition to the school day. I also had the students track how well they did on each TEK with a chart so that they could take ownership of what they needed to work on and be proud of their progress. I am very passionate about reading. I feel like my students increased their love of reading this year. I know that because I had several parents tell me how much their child loved to read after this year, and I could see the excitement on a child’s face when we talked about the books (s)he was reading. I don’t love teaching to the STAAR test. While I know the students and teachers have to be held accountable for their learning/teaching, I don’t feel that drill and kill of reading passages are the way to teach a child how to read and more importantly, instill a love of reading. Did the output meet the goal? For the most part, yes. My “mastered” scores were 10 points above the district average. Was there room for improvement? Yes. It’s a constant struggle to achieve higher performance outcomes from the kids for whom reading is a challenge. I am constantly seeking what I can do better to work with these students.

I believe there are questions that need to be asked in the evaluation of standardized testing. Do the  high stakes tests promote a healthy learning environment? If not, how can we assess the learning differently in a more authentic yet measurable way? Are our schools producing creative, analytical, problem-solving, collaborative thinkers? If not, what do we need to do to change that? Do ALL of our schools have the resources they need? If not, how can we change that?

Of course return on investment should be a consideration of any program. However, that may look different in the field of education. Value is not only determined financially but also by data points or intangible benefits. Intangible benefits actually show a return on investment by creating happy employees (or students) and should be an important consideration. If the employees are happy, they are more likely to stay and yield higher productivity. Employee benefits at various companies such as Google, Netflix and Microsoft offer benefits such as unlimited vacation time, massage spaces, free commutes, recreational spaces, and bring your pet to work, just to name a few. All of these companies have realized that when they create an environment where their employees are happy, they can do their best work. Companies have then seen an engagement in work which is associated with feeling valued, secure, supported, and respected thus resulting in less employee turnover which equates to less money spent on training, improved teamwork, and fewer complaints. Similarly, when our students and teachers feel valued, secure, supported, and respected, there is better engagement and higher performance outcomes.

Performance Problem

Year after year I struggle with how to help my lowest readers. I read books every summer and search online for best practices. I have conversations with my colleagues. And I feel like I have some good instructional tools in my tool belt. But nothing makes a difference like engagement. And all too often I get away from this important component by focusing on the strategies. After reading Section IV, I was reminded of how critical the social part of informal learning is. The biggest obstacle I see with my lowest readers is that they don't seem to want to learn to read. But I know better - if these students were able to seek out what they are interested in and given time to talk about it with their peers, I would learn what interests them and their interests would propel them into engagement which would further their learning to read. Every year I have wanted my students to blog. However, I have shied away from it for two reasons: afraid that we don’t have enough time and would the parents support a “public” social venue. But now I see how blogging could provide just the motivation that these students need. In order to read and comment on another student’s blog, they must know how to read and spell. In order to read a blog on a topic that interests them, they must know how to read. Providing a social time to talk to classmates about what they are working on generates a shared interest and furthers motivation. Informal learning and on the job training at its best! I can’t wait to implement this next year!

References

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

Lawton, B., Brandon, P.R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic models: A tool for design- ing and monitoring program evaluations. (REL 2014–007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Region- al Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Paci c. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ edlabs.            

Wang, V. C. (2010). Assessing and Evaluating Adult Learning in Career and Technical Education. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://web.utk.edu/~ewbrewer/pdf/books/Evaluations%20Models%20for%20Evaluation.pdf

Voelker-Morris, R. (2004). Outcome-based Evaluation: Practical and Theoretical Applications. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from http://pages.uoregon.edu/culturwk/culturework28.html

Winsor, K. (2008). Top Perks: Working at Google. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from http://saleshq.monster.com/careers/articles/1012-top-perks-working-at-google?page=12

Maher, L., Special to CNBC.com. Updated by Marguerite Ward, & CNBC.com, S. T. (2015, August 20). You won't believe these company perks. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/18/you-wont-believe-the-perks-some-companies-are-offering.html?view=slideshow&%24DEVICE%24=native-android-mobile

Barr, J. J. (2016, October). Developing a Positive Classroom Climate. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/PaperIDEA_61.pdf

Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

Over time many people have studied how we come to know what we know thus, there have been different theories on learning which implies a kind of permanence. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) 

The Behavioral Learning Theory believes that the environment plays an important role in learning. Learning is based on observable behaviors where feedback is essentially reinforcement (either positive or negative). Desired behaviors that are not exhibited can be specified as objectives to be addressed in the instruction that is being designed and developed. Unfortunately, these designs were boring to learners. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012)

The Cognitive Information Processing Theory also believes that the environment plays an important role in learning. Our three memory systems receive information from the environment and transform it for storage and use in memory and performance. Learners must be actively engaged.

Gagne’s Theory of Instruction was primarily concerned with what is known about learning and can be systemically related to the design of instruction. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) He believed that there are three domains in which a student learns: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. His nine events of instruction continue to be the main lesson plan format that we still follow today.

The Schema Theory believes that knowledge must be anchored and is represented in long term memory which leads to automation, freeing up processing capacity. If learners do not have automated schemas to access, there result is a high cognitive load. The Cognitive Load Theory calls for learners to be introduced to a series of tasks on a continuum of simple to complex. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012)

Vygotsky believed that culture plays a central role learning and that a student can learn better from the help of a more able other. Similarly, the Situated Learning Theory believes that knowledge accrues in meaningful actions that are the practices of a community. The strength of the Situated Learning Theory is integrating knowing with doing.

The Constructivist Theory seems to be where we are currently headed in education. Since the late 1990’s research shows that authentic problem solving in a social context with self reflection and feedback produces the strongest learning. (Where long term memory facilitates automatic skills.) If this is the case, why hasn’t this form of learning permeated our modern classrooms? Why hasn’t research that was published in 1999 guided the method of teaching that our future teachers learn to do in our colleges and universities, and thus infiltrated our school systems?

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.

I would consider myself more of a contextualist. While there are definitely times when truth is truth and there’s no getting around it, more often I tend to consider the context of the things when they happen. It’s like the story that Steven Covey tells about the man on the train. He is on there with his children. They are misbehaving and disturbing others around them. While some people on the train are thinking as a positivist, “Why isn’t this guy making his children mind?” A contextualist would realize that there might be a reason that he is not attending to his children. That was the case: they were on the way home from the hospital where his wife had just died. He was lost in his own thoughts and oblivious to what his children were doing.

The only time I have disagreed with my principal was over a discipline issue. I had a 9 year old student that had a history of stealing. It was a problem in all of the previous grade levels. When he began stealing in my classroom, my principal took the approach that he needed more love and hugs instead of discipline. The problem continued until there were finally stricter consequences for his behavior. In my opinion his behavior warranted being sent to the district’s alternative learning center. While I knew there was discord in his home, what I was not made aware of was the details of the severity of the discord in his home. For that reason, I would consider my principal to be responding as a relativist. I was responding with both a positivist approach (stealing is wrong and should have consequences) and as a contextualist in that the consequences for the first couple of offenses could be managed in the classroom.

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?

Teachers today see the value of a constructivist learning environment. Students are more engaged because they feel they are navigating through real, worthwhile problems. In a more traditional classroom setting that Gagne’ s theory recommends, the learning is more passive. Although Gagne’s theory is a great foundation for effective instruction and many of the components are still worth being used in a constructivist classroom, the engagement and depth of knowledge are greater when used in constructivism. With student driven learning, kids are excited to come to school each day to continue to work on solving their problem because it is relevant to them. They are more likely to go home at night and continue to research more ideas and additional information needed to solve their problem. And finally, the idiom of two heads are better than one applies here when students are able to work together and talk through what they are working on. While the problem is a problem with no known outcome at the start, learners believe that they can succeed in mastering the task. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) When the problem is solved, students are more likely to remember what they have learned thus it will become part of their long-term memory schema and students will have experienced satisfying outcomes. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) The teacher as facilitator can be a powerful role - when the teacher acts more like a coach, asking questions that gets students to think. A teacher that merely presents information, the sage on the stage, is not as effective in developing long term knowledge that the student can use in application or creation.

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

Defining the IDT Field

After reading Chapter 1 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design, I noticed that as the definitions evolved, so did the goals of the field. Originally the definition was centered on effective instruction. The next set of definitions looked at a more systematic approach which resulted in a focus on learning. Currently, (as noted in the 3rd edition of Trends and Issues in Instructional Design, 2012) the goal of instructional technology is to facilitate learning and improve performance. I love that the latest definition by AECT has included the learner. I believe that technology in the classroom should facilitate and enhance learning. It should not be incorporated just to satisfy a TEK, but technology should be a tool that students can use to express their ideas, communicate with others, and enhance their creativity. When technology is student driven with an authentic audience, it can be very powerful. 

In Chapter 2, we learned about the different instructional design models. Students in a traditional instructional design model would learn basic skills before adding more difficult skills to their repertoire. In February, I attended an EdCamp where I heard Chris Bigenho speak about the problem of losing students’ engagement with the traditional model. Many students don’t stick with their goals because they lose interest in learning the basics. Bigenho likened it to learning to play the piano. While learning the basic notes is important to being able to play the piano, playing scales over and over again does not generate interest in playing the piano, and many people give up on their goal of learning to play. The same is true with technology. Students do need to know some basic information in order to complete certain tasks. However, a scope and sequence of skills in not absolutely necessary. When student driven learning is in place with an authentic audience, students are more driven to figure out what they need to know in order to accomplish their goal. A knowledgable teacher becomes a very important facilitator in this model. In this model, students have been given the reins and thus have learned much more than they would have in the traditional model.

I agree that the list of the 6 characteristics of instructional design is still pertinent today. Having this list before creating a technology assignment would be beneficial. When I think about a lesson I did this year, I see several places where having this list could have improved my lesson. After reading a book, I put students in small discussion groups in an Edmodo account. I monitored the discussion from my computer. I would post a question and let the students discuss it online in their small group. There were many positives about this lesson: It gave students a chance to formulate their thinking before adding their comment(s). For those that were more insecure, it gave them a chance to see if their thinking was “on-track,” and if not, it gave them a chance to reevaluate their thinking before adding their comment. It gave me a chance to be “a fly on the wall” and be a part of several groups at once. One thing I would change based on the 6 characteristics of instructional design is, I would rethink the assessment part of the assignment. While my goal was to provide a safer environment for discussion, I didn’t really have a tool for assessing that.

In Chapter 3, Reiser and Dempsey look at how technology has evolved and the impact of “modern” technology as it was introduced. Because the teacher, textbook, and the visual  sharing space have remained a constant in the classroom, I feel the authors found it necessary to classify these mediums in a different category. In the history of instructional media, Reiser and Dempsey note that “… there is a great deal of initial interest and much enthusiasm, … but the medium has had a minimal impact.” However, the authors predict that the most recent form of instructional media “… will continue to bring about far greater changes in instructional practices.” Therefore, I believe it is important for teachers to incorporate media into instruction.

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