Wait! The last two years of education relate to my career?!
I have always been interested in organizing, improving and understanding how things work. From finding better and faster ways to get my chores done as a child to taking different routes to my job to find a more efficient way to commute, I have always looked for ways to get better results. In teaching I’m continually revaluating my instruction to find ways to improve my performance. This evaluation takes the following form:
- What theories and guiding principles act as a driving force for how I approach various instructional design opportunities? Do I always fall back on “old reliable” methods or do I try new things?
- How do I use various models or frameworks to analyze and develop lessons and learning designs? Once again, I also do the same thing with checking for the effectiveness of the lessons.
- What tools and presentation methods are the most effective for the class and the materials that I teach? Can I use alternative techniques and tools to achieve better results?
As a student and teacher I also seek relevance, far transfer and flexibility in everything that I learn and teach. For me, the greatest strength of the educational technology masters program at San Diego State is how it provided me with all three elements. After looking at how I evaluate my own instruction I made the connection to the big ideas that I’ve loved from the masters program: ID Theories, ID models and the technological tools.
First, the various theories and principles (from the earliest 540 class taken two years ago to the latest 795b taken this semester) provided me with a theoretical background from which to approach instructional design. Second, the models set up a development framework that I could build upon using the theories I learned. Finally, the classes provided an opportunity to use technology tools to develop the instructional design project.
For this comprehensive essay I've chosen to focus on more of the general things I’ve learned and how my love for these ideas comes mostly from their flexibility and adaptability for future designs. While I will give specific examples, I see the ideas that I love from this program as a collection of tools in a increasing large toolbox from which I can continually use and revisit to solve problems from a variety of perspectives and situations.
What is better, dogmatic dining or buffet sampling? -ID Theories
With so much research and intelligent debate over the value of each Instructional Design Theory how does a novice designer determine who is right and who is wrong? In the beginning of the program it seemed like I should pick a side in this debate. If I don’t pick a side then how will I know what ideas are right and which are wrong?Well, I decided not to pick sides. Instead I chose to determine what the needs were of my learners and what the environmental constraints were when designing instructional material for my classroom. I believe this approach is practical and allows me to pick the best of all worlds.
Let’s look at some of the key elements of these theories and how I’ve used each one in my classroom setting with positive results.
Behaviorism - In many of the class discussions I’ve had the impression that only “bad” designers are still behaviorists. This opinion has been reinforced at my workplace where my high school colleagues and administrators seem to look down upon so called “drill and kill” methods. It seems these methods are almost politically incorrect in an environment where “higher order thinking” and “project based learning” are the buzz words of choice. When confronted with issues of time, significant differences between the prior knowledge of the learner and highly technical information I believe that some tasks are better served when using behavioristic approaches. There are some tasks which require pure response to stimulus. I’ve found these techniques to be effective when teaching the early stages of some computer applications. When introducing applications such as Photoshop, the mere complexity of the program is often frightening to students. By going through a series of structured step by step lessons the students gain the confidence and fundamental skills needed to move on to more processing intensive tasks and projects. Mager’s Criterion Referenced Instruction is a fundamental idea that I use for much of the design work I do. From looking at a goal and the tasks necessary to complete it, to developing a performance based criterion referenced test, these steps makes sense to me. These self-paced methods focus on mastery learning that is performance based which most entry level computer skills require. Although the learning should stop at this level, I’m not prepared to throw out the entire theory just because it doesn’t attempt to fulfill the ultimate self actualization goal of the other theories.
Cognitivism and Constructivism- To get beyond the simple level of the rote memorization style of instruction one has to venture beyond the behavioristic approach. In cognitivism the instructional designer needs to get into the mind of the learner when developing instructional design and recognize that effective instruction needs to access prior knowledge (e.g. schema). Constructivism is a bit more extreme where the learner is responsible creating their own meaning, determining for themselves what is important to know and the instructor does not create any objectives. These shifts in ideologies are a significant move forward towards customizing instruction depending on the learner. I like this shift. I agree that having students take responsibility for processing the information they receive into more meaning chunks of knowledge requires a higher level of self confidence but it can also require a bit more scaffolding. It makes sense that as student confidence and knowledge increases, the instructional rigor and depth of learning increases. In my web design class I have the students work on step by step tutorials to learn the basics of Dreamweaver. Once they have the basics down I set them loose on creating an entire website on their own. I give them basic guidelines for the minimum requirements but the planning and development is something they do completely on their own. Although I could drop the students directly into the project without the tutorials it would require more time to be allocated to the project for the learners without prior experience or intrinsic motivation. The closest I get to pure constructivism is my final project in the class where I make the entire class a single group and task them with developing a web magazine that would appeal to the students, staff and parents of the school. Questions such as how to start, what to include, how to divide the work between the class members and other questions are left for the students to figure out.
Reaching this level of instruction requires a significant level of intrinsic motivation and scaffolding. I have also found that the level of the learner is important when developing instruction of this nature. Maturity, prior knowledge, confidence and comfort level play heavily into the effectiveness these cognitivist and constructivist designs. Given time I would like to develop more instruction at this level but for now I am utilizing what I consider to be the best aspects of each instructional design theory for the learners I work with.
The simplest things are often the most valuable. -ID Models
No single model will ever be able to account for every variable in the classroom or instructional design field (i.e. learner differences, instructor differences, prior knowledge, environmental barriers, etc.). But in connection with instructional design theories they can provide a framework that can be adapted to fits the needs of the learner. The three models that I most closely identified with are ADDIE, Gagne’s nine events and Keller’s ARCS model. These heuristic models provide a great starting point for developing instructional material. The underlying theme that I most closely relate with from each of these models is the fact that they focuses on the needs of the learner. This learner centered approach is not only logical but is a powerful way to adapt the various learning needs. These models also avoid specific technological references and instead focus on the core material of the instruction.The ADDIE model provides a high level framework to systematically approach instructional design. The model is often considered too linear and inflexible to accommodate the needs of today’s learners. If followed slavishly, I would tend to agree. However, I believe the five step comprehensive framework for design still has value.
Gagne’s 9 Events is not only learner centered but the concept of having levels of learning (scaffolding) is a foundational belief I already had. The beauty of this model is that it is not a rigid behaviorist method but a significantly adaptable way to address instructional design regardless of the level of the learner or what outcomes are intended. The power of this model is in its generality and logical sequencing of instruction based on accessing prior knowledge and increasing the rigor as the lesson goes on. The evaluation component is important for reflecting on the effectiveness of the instructional design. I have created several lessons using the 9 events model and then apply Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation to gauge its effectiveness.
Keller’s ARCS model is all about motivation! While I was familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs from my undergrad work (e.g. the need for air/food/water, then self esteem and external recognition and finally to self actualization), I hadn’t made the connection with instructional design until I was introduced to John Keller’s model. Finding ways to grab the attention of the learner and making the material relevant is a goal all designers should strive for. In working with high school students I’ve found that integrating relevance and confidence in the lessons is pivotal if I want them to actively engage in learning new things. Most high school students need each component of the ARCS model since the love of learning has been beaten out of them by the time they reach me.
You mean I get to play with computers? -Technology Applications and Tools
Over the last two years in the program I have been able to use and learn about a myriad of technological tools, applications and ideas. Projects in all of my classes provided me with the opportunity to practice and explore technological applications for educational purposes. Down the line in each of my classes, I used technology beyond the simple use of Word and PowerPoint. I’ve used Dreamweaver to create web pages, Photoshop to develop interface designs and manipulate images, Flash for creating animations, iMovie for producing videos, GarageBand for recording podcasts, InDesign for job aid creation and game board development, php and css for forum development, Breeze for video conferencing and much more. From wiki’s to podcasts, animation to video production, the techno-geek in me has been well fed.I realize the program is not designed to teach the deepest levels of every technological application that an instructional design may need to use. Although it is a “masters” program, it is obvious that mastery of the tools was not the intention of the classes. This makes sense on several levels. First, effective instruction can be developed regardless of the media or technology involved. Technology is a tool for an instructional designer not a means in and of itself. Second, the time necessary to master the various computer and technology components would far exceed the two years of the masters program. Finally, technology changes at a rapid pace and the technology skills learned in the first class can likely be outdated by the last class in the program.
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
Prior to this program, my learning and teaching philosophies were not based on research and established theories. I based my pedagogy on what I found through experience resulted in more learner understanding and instinctual decisions. Establishing motivation, beginning with a clear objective and addressing the various needs of the learners all seemed self evident to me.
When I started my first class in educational technology at SDSU I was worried that the heavy exposure to various theories was not something I would like. I questioned how realistic it would be to apply the rigid ADDIE model to the design of instructional material for my classroom. The 9 Events seems too vague to be of any real value and the concept of the ARCS model seemed so simple that it didn’t even require model status. I began to wonder if I had chosen the right masters programs for my career interests.
How closed minded was I? Thankfully I stuck with the program and completely changed my tune.
The flexibility within many of the classes allowed me to customize projects to be useful for my class and other areas of interest. By applying the academic frameworks and principles to real world projects I began to see the value of these seemingly simple definitions and classifications. I’ve become quite attracted to the sheer variety of theories and models. It’s like having a “31 Flavors” of methods, frameworks and rationales for instructional design.
To follow only one school of thought and ignore any other way is not only limiting your options but in my opinion, wrong. I continually look for different ways to solve problems. Just because I’ve done something one way in the past does not mean it is the only path towards success. The mere fact that there is significant debate over the qualities and applicability of each school of thought proves that there is no single point of correctness. I absolutely love the option of having multiple theories, models and tools to solve problems. With the variety of instructional design approaches I can select which method will work best for individual situations.
My career as a high school teacher is about helping others- it’s certainly not for the paycheck! I love any tool, method or theory that can help me reach a wider audience at a deeper and more effective level. The frameworks of the ADDIE model, Gagne’s nine events and Keller’s ARCS model fit this bill while the guiding theories of the different schools of thought and the exposure to technological tools worked together to achieve my goals of teaching more effectively. What’s not to love!!
I’m not changing, I’m adapting.
My entire educational career has been based on change (some would say indecisiveness). I have an associate degree in Business and Art (with only three classes from an accounting degree as well). For my undergrad work I earned a business degree in systems analysis and design. After I graduated I started teaching business and computer application classes at a high school. Two years ago I decided to get a Masters Degrees in Educational technology. This degree seems to be the perfect blend between my business degree in analysis, my art degree and my computer experience. While I have frequently changed the direction of my education but what has stayed consistent is my logical and creative nature, my love for learning and technology and a constant search for more effective solutions. Educational technology has allowed me the opportunity to combine my love for learning and teaching with my passion for technical toys. These all feed into my future as an instructional designer and teacher.
There are significant changes ahead in my future as a teacher. From distance education, charter schools and other educational reform efforts to the changing needs of students and the exponential increase of computer technology the road ahead is challenging. Luckily, I have the models and theories I’ve learned in this program to help guide me through these changes.
It is important to have some guiding principles to hold onto. At an abstract level, pure constructivism appears to be the ultimate level of achievement which all designers should strive to reach. It is hard to argue against the idea that teaching a student how to learn is more important and valuable than teaching them a specific nugget of information. I’m not sure that all students or educational institutions are ready to make this significant paradigm shift.
The systematic approach can be adaptable enough at a high level to accommodate the customization that is going to be needed in the future. Having witnessed the tactical errors of the dot.com era, I am painfully aware of the dangers of using technology for technologies sake but I still continue to keep my finger of the pulse of emerging tech. I don’t view this caching of technical knowledge and concepts as a solution looking for a problem but as a tool that I may someday need to access and apply.
I believe it is imperative that an educational designer continually soak in the rapidly changing technological landscape if they hope to remain competitive in the today’s economy. While I recognize that these technology tools by themselves are no replacement for solid instructional design they do change the ways and places where people will learn. The rapid evolution of technology and increased global competition forces today’s instructor to teach students skills for careers that do not yet exist.
This is why I feel it is important to focus on the needs of the learner regardless of what model, theory or tool you use. Whether it’s blended learning, or rapid prototyping or revised ADDIE models, the continual evolution of theory, models and tools in the educational technology field require designers to take a critical look at the past present and future of the field.
Towards this end I believe one of the greatest assets to the program is the 700 level classes. These classes introduce students to the bleeding edge of educational technology and theory. These “just in time” classes are a fantastic way to stay in touch with these emerging concepts while exploring how they can fit into the educational technology field. I plan to revisit these classes throughout my career to stay current with these trends. I also subscribe to several educational technology blogs and plan to join several instructional design associations.
Although the road ahead is not clear, I am confident that I have a solid foundation and a critical set of tools to guide me as I adapt to the changes in front of me.