Section 1:
Definitions
I hadn't thought much about how to define "Educational Technology." I've taken a course and I've made my own assumptions, but I haven't actually read a definition until now.If I had to choose, I would have to say that the latest AECT definition fits most closely what I think of when I consider instructional technology. I probably should say instructional design and technology, but I don’t think of the design as something that has to be mentioned separately (thought I guess in certain circles that is the case).
If I had to change the definition or expand the definition to fit my own thinking, I would use this as my base: “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological process and resources.”
I'd make a change or two to make it sound more like me and end up with something more like this:
Educational technology combines teaching techniques with tools and resources to design technological opportunities to improve learning.
It includes most of the same information, but it adds in the fact that the educational technology happens by design.
The Dick, Carey and Carey model for instructional design seems sound, and I don’t know that there are any changes I would make. I started by analyzing what I thought each step would have to entail and once I have all the pieces taken apart, I’ll see if I can put it back together in a way I see as better.
“Assess needs to identify goals” ⇒ This seems to set the stage for learning by figuring out set and defined goals to meet the training needs. You also would have to assess real needs versus perceived needs, so this would include some analysis of the learners
“Analyze learners and context”⇒ I think this requires examining the capabilities of learners and understanding their resources as well as the resources available for the instructor/s. It keeps the design learner-centered.
“Conduct instructional analysis”⇒ This is a clear and important step in the process, to analyze ways and means of instruction. This step is best aligned with ensuring a meaningful performance for the design.
“Write Performance Objectives”⇒ This would seem to be a natural extension of assessing needs and setting goals, and can help ensure that the program is both goal oriented to meet client expectations. It also can go with finding those meaningful performance
“Develop assessment instruments”⇒ I’m not sure in reading this if it refers to the measures that will be used to assess the instruction and instruments, or if this refers directly to the tools for assessment. If it is the tools, it is natural that you would spend some time to put together the instructional tools. I might rename this as “develop instructional instruments” though. I think all the instructional technology should be seen as one piece and that there should not be any difference between the instruments for assessment and the instruments for instruction. That comes later in the project, but I don’t think they should be two separate pieces. This step also comes to bare strongly on whether or not the outcomes can be reliably measured.
“Develop instructional strategy” and “Create and develop instructional instruments”⇒ Each of these steps are essential to make sure the program stays centered on the learners while meeting specific goals. Without a strategy and the tools to put that strategy in place, there’s no instruction that can happen.
“Design and conduct formative evaluation of instruction”⇒ To ensure that meaningful learning is happening, this step is a must. Feedback from the students through assessment and evaluations will be key in changing the program to meet changing needs and to ensure that it is meeting the widest breadth of student needs.
“Design and conduct sumative evaluation”⇒ Without an evaluation, there’s no way to be sure the program stayed centered on the learners or met the goals set forth in the beginning.
Each of the steps in the Dick, Carey and Carey evaluative process are important, so I don’t see where any could be removed. I can’t think of anything to add (if I am interpreting each of them correctly). I am far from an expert at this point, so I also hesitate to think about making changes. Throughout the course of this book and this class, though I may have to re-address this since I am not familiar at all with designing a learning program from the ground up. In my teaching so far, I’ve been given a fair amount of material, background, resources and even lesson plans and have only begun to alter and change these to fit my own style. I have not been, and don’t expect to be for some years, part of building instructional technology from the beginning. Having said, that of course, I have made a few changes to fit with what I perceive to be an effective model.
Changes
Assess needs to identify goals becomes Assess instruction and learner needs to identify goals
I think this step needs to focus on identifying the instructional needs at the same time the learner’s needs are addressed. If the goal of any EdTech design is to remain learner-centered, assessing the needs of the learner should be part of the instructional needs analysis. I know that this addressed in a relative step in the process in analyzing learners and context, but I see that as a slightly different assessment. The analysis of resources, abilities and skills possessed by the learners is not the same as looking at their needs.
Revise instruction to Revise instruction and re-analyze learner needs/goals
I also expanded this step. While it is important to review the instruction keeping in mind that changes will likely need to be made, you also have to keep consideration focused on the learners. What they originally believed their needs and goals to be may not be what they actually are. I wanted to clarify that reviewing learner goals and needs at this stage was important to understanding whether or not the training was able to meet these goals.
3. Using Technology
In addition to this course, I am taking and English class that is focused on reading theory. This week we have been reading a book called “A New Literacies Sampler” and my two worlds couldn’t have collided any better.
I don’t believe that to date many of these technologies discussed have had a major impact on education. They have been useful at times for training, which I see as different than education as it is usually skill or task specific and not as holistic as education. Most new technologies haven’t been used to create innovation in teaching, but has instead been used in innovative ways to teach. I’m not sure that this is very clear, but my meaning is that the same teaching practices have very often been used with these tools and that’s not innovation. Math flashcards on the iPad are just in a different format than the paper ones, but there’s no change in how they teach children to do basic math functions.
What the “new literacies” investigates is what new kind of mindset and real practices are emerging from people’s interactions online. This is what the internet can and is doing that other new technologies have not been able to capture. To encapsulate the concept of “new litearcies” I’ve included a quote: “That is to say, the more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship, dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over “normalization,” innovation and evolution over stability and fixity, creative-innovative rule breaking over generic purity and policing, relationship over broadcast, and so on, the more we regard it as a “new literacy.””
There are several people who have taught for a number of years, who were having difficulty with the difference. They are having difficulty understanding how to think of the technology as something other than just another classroom tool. It can be used this way, but if the practices do not change, then the tool will simply be replaced with whatever is the next big thing. If it is only used to apply the same kind of practices that have always been applied then it will not be useful in any real way.
Innovation is happening though. In my English class there are teachers who are using Facebook to interact with students to share articles and ideas with students. I think that in K-3rd grade computers can be used to effectively build comfort with the machine and it’s uses, but there is less opportunity for innovation. In reality, there are no more limits to the possible directions that the internet will lead instruction than there are limits to imagination. As the internet becomes a more collaborative place, the best ideas for instruction will spread and these will cause the fundamental change in practice that other media has not.
