I have four readings for this week.
The first is the second chapter of an unknown book. The chapter is titled "What is Instructional Design?" and is by Kent L. Gustafson and Robert M. Branch. It is one of the readings that we had for last week as well. This is a good reminder of what the general view of ID is before we look at more abstract ones.
The second is an article from Educational Technology titled "A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory" by Jerry Willis. It talks about different views on instructional design and how that shapes other systems. It really all comes down to your educational viewpoint and how you apply that to the tools that you have available.
The third was another article from Educational Technology titled "The Maturing of Constructivist Instructional Design: Some Basic Principles That Can Guide Practice." It was written by Jerry Willis as well. It expands upon the model introduced in the second reading as well as introduces some other constructivist models. It is an interest idea and seems like another flexible model. It all kind of depends on what is most suitable to your style.
The fourth is an report from Educational Technology & Society titled "Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations". It was written by Yiasemina Karagiorgi and Loizos Symeou. It talks more about the same topics, dealing with a model not previously discussed.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Introduction to Instructional Design (Readings)
I have six readings associated with this topic.
The first reading is a chapter entitled "What is Instructional Design". I do not know what book it is from, but it appears to be the second chapter. The chapter was written by Kent L. Gustafson and Robert M. Branch. This reading essentially gave a definition for and outlined characteristics of instructional design. Since I am also enrolled in an instructional design class, this was more of a review of some of the things that we talked about on the first day of class.
The second reading is an article entitled "A Hard Look at ISD" from a magazine called Trainer. The article was written by Ron Zemke and Allison Rossett. This article addressed the complaints and possible shortcomings of the instructional design process. I was a little surprised at this view as I am generally new to instructional design. I had no idea it was so hotly contested. At this point, I agree with the view that it is more a framework than a process. It seems to be the best way to use it.
The third reading is "ADDIE Model" from raleighway.com. The site showed a representation of the ADDIE model of instructional design. It also described in more detail what could be viewed as part of each of the different pieces. This is, again, sort of a review of things that I have already learned in my instructional design class.
The fourth reading is from a list called "Instructional Design Models" from www.instructionaldesign.org. It lists many different kinds of instructional design models in addition to the ADDIE model. I looked at three models from this list: Dick & Carey, Kemp Model, and Iterative Design. The examples still really remind me of the ADDIE model. The same general needs are met with minor differences in approach.
The fifth reading is an article from a journal called Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. The article is titled "A Review of What Instructional Designers Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked". It was written by Richard F. Kenny, Zuochen Zhang, Richard A. Schwier, and Katy Campbell. It looked at research directed at what instructional designers do. It really showed that ID models are just frameworks and that it's really all about finding what is the best match for the task at hand.
The sixth reading is the fifteenth chapter of a book called Handbook of Human Performance Technology. The chapter is titled "Instruction as an Intervention" and was written by Michael Molenda and James D. Russell. This chapter basically outlined educational ideas from a business perspective. It was an interesting look and a good review of some key concepts.
The first reading is a chapter entitled "What is Instructional Design". I do not know what book it is from, but it appears to be the second chapter. The chapter was written by Kent L. Gustafson and Robert M. Branch. This reading essentially gave a definition for and outlined characteristics of instructional design. Since I am also enrolled in an instructional design class, this was more of a review of some of the things that we talked about on the first day of class.
The second reading is an article entitled "A Hard Look at ISD" from a magazine called Trainer. The article was written by Ron Zemke and Allison Rossett. This article addressed the complaints and possible shortcomings of the instructional design process. I was a little surprised at this view as I am generally new to instructional design. I had no idea it was so hotly contested. At this point, I agree with the view that it is more a framework than a process. It seems to be the best way to use it.
The third reading is "ADDIE Model" from raleighway.com. The site showed a representation of the ADDIE model of instructional design. It also described in more detail what could be viewed as part of each of the different pieces. This is, again, sort of a review of things that I have already learned in my instructional design class.
The fourth reading is from a list called "Instructional Design Models" from www.instructionaldesign.org. It lists many different kinds of instructional design models in addition to the ADDIE model. I looked at three models from this list: Dick & Carey, Kemp Model, and Iterative Design. The examples still really remind me of the ADDIE model. The same general needs are met with minor differences in approach.
The fifth reading is an article from a journal called Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. The article is titled "A Review of What Instructional Designers Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked". It was written by Richard F. Kenny, Zuochen Zhang, Richard A. Schwier, and Katy Campbell. It looked at research directed at what instructional designers do. It really showed that ID models are just frameworks and that it's really all about finding what is the best match for the task at hand.
The sixth reading is the fifteenth chapter of a book called Handbook of Human Performance Technology. The chapter is titled "Instruction as an Intervention" and was written by Michael Molenda and James D. Russell. This chapter basically outlined educational ideas from a business perspective. It was an interesting look and a good review of some key concepts.
Visual Literacy, Media Literacy, and New Media Literacies (Reflection)
Q1: How does efficiency influence your values of what is good, effective, and worthwhile?
I feel like, based on cultural cues, we are really taught to uphold efficiency as an indicator of quality. I get teased for having outdated products and it's generally seen as very backwards not to have the latest stuff. I never really thought about it before, but I tend to judge almost all of things I look at in terms of efficiency. I feel like I was brought up to equate it with success the way that many were taught to view it as success similar to the way it was viewed in the industrial age.
Q2: What does Scientific Management tell us about how we should use technology in teaching and learning as well as when and how we know it is good?
It's all based on efficiency. Technology should be used when it makes teaching and learning more efficient. If a technology is efficient in a given situation, it is good. If a technology is efficient in general, it is good. If it helps the 'factory' produce better, it has high value.
Q3: What are three things wrong with Laggards in Our Schools?
There are a number of things that are wrong with the book Laggards in Our Schools. The very first thing of course is the idea that children are "retards" for simply not being on par with standards of other children in a given grade. A second thing that is wrong with it is a failure to consider and acknowledge very important factors to "lagging" in the school system, such as economic factors and ability to speak English. The third thing that I have found to be wrong with the book is the endorsement and recommendation of treating schools as factories in order to get desired results. It is terrifying enough to see the results of the 'study' and even worse to turn around and say that they should be treated like machines being built to become unthinking machines when they are adults in the workplace. It is not helpful to anyway, especially in today's circumstances.
Q4: Why was it referred to as the "cult" of efficiency?
Cult is a word normally associated with a near religious devotion and worship of something. I can definitely see how that term can be applied to this country's relationship with efficiency. In the Industrial Age, efficiency was equated with the achievement of success so everyone wanted it. It became the answer to any and every question and was applied to all aspects of life. That certainly sounds like a near religious devotion to me. Even today, there are still a lot of places where efficiency is the application model and it is still tied to success, worth, and status.
I feel like, based on cultural cues, we are really taught to uphold efficiency as an indicator of quality. I get teased for having outdated products and it's generally seen as very backwards not to have the latest stuff. I never really thought about it before, but I tend to judge almost all of things I look at in terms of efficiency. I feel like I was brought up to equate it with success the way that many were taught to view it as success similar to the way it was viewed in the industrial age.
Q2: What does Scientific Management tell us about how we should use technology in teaching and learning as well as when and how we know it is good?
It's all based on efficiency. Technology should be used when it makes teaching and learning more efficient. If a technology is efficient in a given situation, it is good. If a technology is efficient in general, it is good. If it helps the 'factory' produce better, it has high value.
Q3: What are three things wrong with Laggards in Our Schools?
There are a number of things that are wrong with the book Laggards in Our Schools. The very first thing of course is the idea that children are "retards" for simply not being on par with standards of other children in a given grade. A second thing that is wrong with it is a failure to consider and acknowledge very important factors to "lagging" in the school system, such as economic factors and ability to speak English. The third thing that I have found to be wrong with the book is the endorsement and recommendation of treating schools as factories in order to get desired results. It is terrifying enough to see the results of the 'study' and even worse to turn around and say that they should be treated like machines being built to become unthinking machines when they are adults in the workplace. It is not helpful to anyway, especially in today's circumstances.
Q4: Why was it referred to as the "cult" of efficiency?
Cult is a word normally associated with a near religious devotion and worship of something. I can definitely see how that term can be applied to this country's relationship with efficiency. In the Industrial Age, efficiency was equated with the achievement of success so everyone wanted it. It became the answer to any and every question and was applied to all aspects of life. That certainly sounds like a near religious devotion to me. Even today, there are still a lot of places where efficiency is the application model and it is still tied to success, worth, and status.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Visual Literacy, Media Literacy, and New Media Literacies (Readings)
I have two readings this week to talk about.
The first reading is titled "Media Literacy - A National Priority for a Changing World". It is by Elizabeth Thoman and Tessa Jolls. It appears to be an article from a journal called American Behavioral Scientist. The article dealt with how important media messages have become in the world. It also talked about the need to develop media literacy in order to properly interact with this new world. This is a very important and often discussed issue anymore. It is thinking along this line, in fact, that lead to me pursuing my master's in this field. Kids need to be trained to survive in today's culture, not yesterday's. It marks a break in thinking about education, but it is a very important break.
The second reading is titled "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century". It is by Henry Jenkins with assistance from Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, Margaret Weigel. The paper was published by the MacArthur Foundation. The paper addressed the addition of technology as a component of culture and the skills that children are going to need in order to be a part of the new technological culture. This is all very important and true information. I pursued technology knowledge in order to provide answers to some of these needs. It is a huge part of today's world and anyone who is missing out is facing huge challenges in being a part of culture.
The first reading is titled "Media Literacy - A National Priority for a Changing World". It is by Elizabeth Thoman and Tessa Jolls. It appears to be an article from a journal called American Behavioral Scientist. The article dealt with how important media messages have become in the world. It also talked about the need to develop media literacy in order to properly interact with this new world. This is a very important and often discussed issue anymore. It is thinking along this line, in fact, that lead to me pursuing my master's in this field. Kids need to be trained to survive in today's culture, not yesterday's. It marks a break in thinking about education, but it is a very important break.
The second reading is titled "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century". It is by Henry Jenkins with assistance from Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, Margaret Weigel. The paper was published by the MacArthur Foundation. The paper addressed the addition of technology as a component of culture and the skills that children are going to need in order to be a part of the new technological culture. This is all very important and true information. I pursued technology knowledge in order to provide answers to some of these needs. It is a huge part of today's world and anyone who is missing out is facing huge challenges in being a part of culture.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Technology in Education: The Efficiency Factor (Reflections)
This week, we spent a lot of time thinking about theories of Instructional Technology and we talked quite a bit about theories of education two weeks ago. The challenge for reflection is to relate them to each other, to try to find theories of IT that fit with theories of education. This is a little difficult because they can be so distinct from each other.
To begin with, I'm going to talk briefly about my perspectives on each of them, starting with the theories of education. Perennialism is considered the most conservative of the viewpoints that we were presented with. It deals with the belief in teaching things that can proven as well as focusing on 'truths' present in great works of civilization and developing intellect. Essentialism is about civilizing through education with a focus on basic skill development and discipline. Progressivism is about teachers as guides, learning through children's interests, and using direct and authentic experiences for learning. Reconstructionism is about facilitating social change, developing internationalism, and questioning the status quo.
Next, I'm going to talk a little about the theories of IT. The Systems Theory deals with looking at natural systems to apply to man-made ones, rational procedures, and logical problem-solving. Communication Theory is focused on the components of communication. Behaviorism is about the production of observable outcomes. Constructivism is about building knowledge and the process of organizing information.
Now comes the part where they can be related. The first connection that I can see right off the bat is between Constructivism and Progressivism. Both have a focus on authentic activities and teachers as a guiding force as opposed to an authoritarian figure. The next connection that I can see is between Perennialism and Systems Theory because both are about using a greater model of comparison and focusing on logical processes. I can also associate Behaviorism with Essentialism because of the focus on standards, objectives, and behaviors. That may be a connection that isn't necessarily there, but it's what I am seeing at the moment. That leaves Reconstructionism and Communication Theory. The 'field of experience' concept has a connection to the idea of a more international types of education. Beyond that, I'm having a little trouble seeing the connection.
To begin with, I'm going to talk briefly about my perspectives on each of them, starting with the theories of education. Perennialism is considered the most conservative of the viewpoints that we were presented with. It deals with the belief in teaching things that can proven as well as focusing on 'truths' present in great works of civilization and developing intellect. Essentialism is about civilizing through education with a focus on basic skill development and discipline. Progressivism is about teachers as guides, learning through children's interests, and using direct and authentic experiences for learning. Reconstructionism is about facilitating social change, developing internationalism, and questioning the status quo.
Next, I'm going to talk a little about the theories of IT. The Systems Theory deals with looking at natural systems to apply to man-made ones, rational procedures, and logical problem-solving. Communication Theory is focused on the components of communication. Behaviorism is about the production of observable outcomes. Constructivism is about building knowledge and the process of organizing information.
Now comes the part where they can be related. The first connection that I can see right off the bat is between Constructivism and Progressivism. Both have a focus on authentic activities and teachers as a guiding force as opposed to an authoritarian figure. The next connection that I can see is between Perennialism and Systems Theory because both are about using a greater model of comparison and focusing on logical processes. I can also associate Behaviorism with Essentialism because of the focus on standards, objectives, and behaviors. That may be a connection that isn't necessarily there, but it's what I am seeing at the moment. That leaves Reconstructionism and Communication Theory. The 'field of experience' concept has a connection to the idea of a more international types of education. Beyond that, I'm having a little trouble seeing the connection.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Technology in Education: The Efficiency Factor (Readings)
I have two readings this week so I am going to do the same thing that I did earlier and take some notes on what I read. Mostly this is to help me review and reflect, so the Reading posts can be viewed as separate from the actual Reflection posts.
The first reading is titled Frederick Taylor in the Classroom: Standardized Testing and Scientific Management. It was written by Johnathan Rees and appears to be an article from a journal entitled Radical Pedagogy. The article began by talking about a man named Frederick Taylor at the turn of the century. He developed a model of efficiency to boost the production of factories. It involved a structuring of very simple tasks that factory workers were to do, decreasing skill requirements and time involved. Those ideologies have become a part of the education system in the form of high stakes testing, which lessons the meaningful learning of children and the ability of teachers to teach. No one benefits from the system. There is no mistake that high stakes testing is bad. I have seen that for awhile now, but this really shows how it affects everyone, with little to no good coming out of it. I remember hearing the truth about high stakes testing my freshman year of college and being so mad that I was put through that. In this case, "Taylorism" was a technology for efficiency that made everything worse and probably needs to change.
The second reading is titled Education and the Cult of Efficiency, though it really seems to be the first two chapters of a book by that name. It was written by Raymond E. Callahan. The first chapter details the history of American mindsets during the early 20th Century. Focus was on business models for everything, which included schools. The education system was being turned on and viewed as "inefficient" when compared to business models. They were searching for change and a way to make education fit the "American way" when Frederick Taylor came on the scene. The second chapter detailed more of his model itself and how America embraced it, as well as many other places around the world. It was a business model, but it was touted as being applicable to everything in life. Education became one of those things. America was ready for a model such as this and it fit as well as exemplified everything that America stood for. It has become outdated in the last hundred years, but it is still clung to. It is easier to understand that now, given how important the mindsets of business are to American identity. Still, it's a new world and we need to, as a country, move on.
The first reading is titled Frederick Taylor in the Classroom: Standardized Testing and Scientific Management. It was written by Johnathan Rees and appears to be an article from a journal entitled Radical Pedagogy. The article began by talking about a man named Frederick Taylor at the turn of the century. He developed a model of efficiency to boost the production of factories. It involved a structuring of very simple tasks that factory workers were to do, decreasing skill requirements and time involved. Those ideologies have become a part of the education system in the form of high stakes testing, which lessons the meaningful learning of children and the ability of teachers to teach. No one benefits from the system. There is no mistake that high stakes testing is bad. I have seen that for awhile now, but this really shows how it affects everyone, with little to no good coming out of it. I remember hearing the truth about high stakes testing my freshman year of college and being so mad that I was put through that. In this case, "Taylorism" was a technology for efficiency that made everything worse and probably needs to change.
The second reading is titled Education and the Cult of Efficiency, though it really seems to be the first two chapters of a book by that name. It was written by Raymond E. Callahan. The first chapter details the history of American mindsets during the early 20th Century. Focus was on business models for everything, which included schools. The education system was being turned on and viewed as "inefficient" when compared to business models. They were searching for change and a way to make education fit the "American way" when Frederick Taylor came on the scene. The second chapter detailed more of his model itself and how America embraced it, as well as many other places around the world. It was a business model, but it was touted as being applicable to everything in life. Education became one of those things. America was ready for a model such as this and it fit as well as exemplified everything that America stood for. It has become outdated in the last hundred years, but it is still clung to. It is easier to understand that now, given how important the mindsets of business are to American identity. Still, it's a new world and we need to, as a country, move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)