Section 5 

Chapters in Section V identify trends and issues in IDT in various contexts: business & industry; military; health care education; P-12 education; and post-secondary education. Select at least 3 of these 5 contexts and compare/contrast the IDT trends and issues. Then explain how they are similar or different from the IDT trends and issues in the context in which you work.

While health care industry was not one I was going to initially pick for trends and issues, I find myself still needing to comment. The trends for this area are Web 2.0 social tools, online searching free to everyone, up-to-date info with greater student access, etc. This is NOT specific to health care only. In all of the five areas, these are trends or issues depending on which weight you give them.

In business & industry, there are some trends worth noting. Social media continues to be an area that is explored and either embraced or continued to be researched. It is hard for some places to fully embrace social media: what is the purpose? how do we get employees to use it? how do we make it a safe, yet honest, forum? who participates? what about negative posts that may reflect negatively on our company? are all questions that companies ask. Another trend is conducting research. The issue is whether this is a benefit or a barrier. As mentioned in the text, a company will probably only have one instructional designer. Larger scale projects are not possible unless time is built in to hire/interview/vet contractors. Budget cuts continually affect what can be accomplished.

In P-12, the Common Core State Standards make it very clear that we are dedicating more time to core subjects. The tests students' have to take all reflect the core subjects of English, math, history, and science. As we move more into technology and interactive learning, we decrease textbooks (some schools refuse to buy them due to budget issues), increase psycho motor activities, and slowly incorporate technology into learning. 

In the military, trends involve technology. Unfortunately, due to funding, they sometimes have to go with low tech training for high tech items.

When comparing all of them, I feel that they have very similar issues. First, funding is always one that is across the board for all. There is not enough funds for training or for increased integration of bigger and better technology. All areas require training and skills in order to implement the trends in their industry. This is frequently lacking. 

In my industry (business & industry), we fall into some of the same issues. We want the trend of Web 2.0 social media tools, but we aren't really sure how to implement it and "control" it. We want larger scale projects, but we only have one instructional designer (me) who also oversees all trainings and eLearnings. It's great that we all have up-to-date information for research. Overall, it seems like funding and budget cuts are a consistent trend in all areas, including my own job.

Section 4: Human Performance Technology

Chapter 14 discusses the concept and evolution of human performance improvement. Several sections of Chapter 14 present a variety of non-instructional solutions to performance problems. Identify a performance problem in your area of work and identify non-instructional solutions that may help solve the problem.

Many mission statements for schools or organizations state that we are educating for a "global society" or to help promote "global citizens." To help achieve this goal, we do many things related to technology education, being good and aware citizens, teaching about racism/bias/stereotyping, forming partnerships with other schools around the world, and attempt to educate our students in global issues. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)  are designed to help students gain an edge to compete in a global market. However, I'm not sure I consider this possible if we don't first educate our teachers in the standards and in the technology that goes along with it.

This chapter and question really caused me to go back to my years of teaching grades 6-12, rather than my current adult training and eLearning development position. I should say up front that I love the English CCSS, but I'm not fond of the math ones. Do I think we need a change to the systematic way we have been teaching both of these subject areas? Yes. Do we need it to compete in a global market? Yes. The issue is that the "powers that be" implement, but the "frontline" individuals receive no training on it. By 2014, the CCSS are to be fully implemented. I know many districts of teachers that are still struggling with what this means to them and how they are supposed to accomplish this task. The technology they need may be available, but the training and time to learn are absent.

Chapter 15 presents performance support systems. Define performance support systems and explain how a performance support system might (or might not) help solve the problem you identified above.

Rather than ignore the issue, school districts need to be proactive in assisting teachers in the implementation of CCSS. Some districts provide excellent examples of this. They have informative websites with a multitude of resources. They have been educating their entire staff on what the CCSS means to them and to their teaching. They continue to provide a support system as the Standards are being implemented. They provide year round training for teachers to learn the technology that is required for teaching. They believe in integration and collaboration. The teachers who work for these states/districts are very blessed. I don't believe it is the norm. All of the things I mentioned need to be in place for teacher and student success. In Oklahoma, we have the "talk" of this support system, but it has not been the reality. Large districts have CCSS coaches, but the jobs are very difficult, the school districts are too large, implementation at the elementary level eats up most of the time, and turn over of these positions is very high. Individual schools are coming up with their own performance support teams through collaborative teaming, extra planning time, technology inservices, and sending teachers for training as much as budgets allow. The teachers return and share the knowledge with others through establishing written instruction manuals (if applicable), developing and conducting professional development sessions, and conducting individual or team training when needed.

Chapter 16 explains knowledge management: the way we manage information, share information, and use it to solve organization problems. Organizations, such as schools, accumulate a great deal of information/data, which must be organized in a way that we can make sense of it in order to use it for making decisions. What knowledge would help solve the problem you identified above and how would that knowledge need to be collected and managed to help facilitate problem solving?

I believe my issue with the CCSS fits perfectly into this question. Large amounts of data/information are collected throughout the year from the school and then once to twice a year through standardized testing. While I don't necessarily support this practice, it is being used to make decisions on what areas need more emphasis within the school, who is at risk, and helps identify other measure that may need to be implemented to help a student be successful. It also raises "red flags" to help students not fall through the cracks. With the resources available, the teachers can feel prepared to adapt and teach to the CCSS. Through collaboration with the teachers who are receiving the extra training and sharing the knowledge, they are able to codify the instructions and take advantage of their tactic knowledge to share ideas, make improvements, and base decisions on data.

Chapter 17 describes types of informal learning. What informal learning experiences have you participated in at your organization? Could those informal learning experiences be shared with others? Could the knowledge gained in those settings be codified and managed? And should it be managed or should the informal experiences be replicated or broadened for others?

To me, informal learning experiences can not be codified and managed. I participate in informal learning experiences all the time at my job, but they are usually part of an informal discussion that involves talking to others and enhancing or understanding differences in our own knowledge base. While I value formal learning and my team works to provide that, we often share during our development, bounce ideas off each other, apply something else we know, give an example from one of our classes (each of us is in a master's program), etc. I learn so much from these informal conversations and always take away something that makes me think, even if I don't apply it directly to what I'm working on. It might send me down another avenue as I work. Just as I learn so much from my co-workers, students in the classroom learn from each other. The more discussion, collaborative activities, and experiments a teacher can provide, the more opportunity for informal learning. Informal learning is different for each person and attempting to replicate it alters it more into formal learning, in my opinion.

Section 3: Evaluating, Implementing, and Managing Instructional Programs and Projects

#1: Chapter 10 discusses evaluation in instructional design and provides you with two evaluation models, the CIPP and Kirkpatrick models for evaluation. Search for at least two other models used and summarize these models. Describe how you would use them to evaluate your instruction.

This was a challenge for me this week, because I use the Kirkpatrick in everything we do at work. It is applicable to our trainings as well as our eLearnings. I am blessed to have a trainer that is certified in all levels of Kirkpatrick. That said, I found it interesting that our chapter did not favor this common system and was especially interested in the rationalization of its deficiencies. It caused me to have discussion with my trainer to get her opinions and start some research on whether we should change or not. I doubt that we do in the long run, but it was good to have it brought to my attention. 

As far as some other options, we use ADDIE and SAM which both include a time frame for evaluation of your product/instruction. ADDIE has been our standard, but we are slowly switching to SAM for our eLearnings. SAM is a Successive Approximation Model. It includes less steps than ADDIE and produces work much faster. 

I also skimmed through Phillip's Five-Level Training Evaluation Framework found at this link. 

Reflect on what other questions that instructional design evaluation should address besides whether the instruction design leads to comparable amounts of learning and learner satisfaction as traditional methods. What else would be useful to know?

I will fall back to the SAM model on this one, since I feel that it addresses questions that are often overlooked. It began with with developers questioning what defines good learning events. From an eLearning perspective, they felt the fundamental characteristics should be meaningful, memorable, motivational, and measurable. They followed the CCAF: Context, Challenge, Activity, and Feedback model to develop courses because these four areas were useful. 

Chapter's 12 & 13 focus on project management and how to manage projects when resources are scarce. You have been assigned to develop a series of professional development sessions focusing on technology use in the classroom for teachers during a time of economic decline. How will you use Situational Leadership to facilitate this project and manage scarce resources?

It would be nice to always be able to spend as much time as we wanted on developing courses. As a project manager, it is impossible to do so in the current economic times. We must do more with less. In this scenario, I would first pool my resources and find SMEs to be part of a mini-team in helping to develop the sessions. Since no one leadership style is used in Situational Leadership, a combination will have to suffice to get the job accomplished. Many hats will be worn by the project manager, since he/she will have to serve in more than one roll due to the economic conditions. I would use technology as the method of deliver for the teachers. A course of several modules developed over a short time span, with the help of the SMEs, would reach more people and be more cost effective. 

Section 2: Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

1. Epistemology (the study of what and how we come to know) is discussed in multiple chapters in this section. Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories. What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

It has been a number of years since I’ve heard the term epistemology. When I began this section, the questions were overwhelming until I read the chapters. While the concepts are very complex, it boils down to how knowledge is perceived and acquired. We have common knowledge which we don’t think about as we quickly come up with solutions, but we usually acquired the skills earlier in life that are the foundations we use for our common knowledge. We use common knowledge and direct experience to form the basis of our understanding and belief system.

Our textbook emphasized that learning is an active process, evolves out of cognitive conflicts, is a social activity, and is self-regulated.

2. Chapters in this section present two contrasting epistemic stances: positivist and relativist. However, a third stance, the contextualist or hermeneutical, is also widely recognized. This stance falls somewhere between the strictly objectivist/positivist beliefs about knowing and the purely subjectivist/relatavist stance. While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and models. Based on what you’ve read about positivist and relatavist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches, try to more fully describe a contextualist epistemology. How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?

• Contextualist epistemology implies that one’s knowledge is shaped by interactions and society. It is real life that shapes knowledge.
• Relativism recognizes multiple truths. Learning is active, and learners may experience different outcomes.
• Positivism believe there is only one truth.
• Social constructivists believe in collaboration. Learning only comes from others. Radical constructivists believe one is responsible for his/her own learning.
• Behaviorism can be measured and follows that learners are only motivated by end results.

3. 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?

There are several factors that influence learning, instruction, and problem-solving. One of these would be motivation. Constructivism allows the learner to use knowledge and previous experience and then apply it to future events. Behaviorism encourages learners to only perform for something which may harm the motivation factor if the incentive isn’t enough or isn’t achieved. It is not intrinsic motivation. Constructivism would allow the learner to construct their own knowledge as they discuss and collaborate with each other. Besides motivation, the people involved in the learning event make a difference. Factors such as the learner, environment, previous experiences, and teacher can all influence behaviorism or constructivism.

Section 1: Defining the Field

Question #1: How do the definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of instruction 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?

In January 2013, I had my first interview for an Instructional Design and Training manager position with the State of Oklahoma; I am currently in this position. While I’d worked in the education arena for twenty years both in the classroom as well as online, I’d never really had to define Instructional Design for the lay person. Going into the interviews, I researched and compiled a response that would be understood by all: Following the ADDIE design model, an instructional designer manages projects, works with Subject Matter Experts, creates a product within specific time limits, assesses information in a variety of ways, incorporates multimedia, and works with a team to achieve objectives. Now that I’ve read the first couple of chapters in our book, I realize I was fairly on target, but I have more areas that need to be added or redefined.

The 1970s definitions certainly show the foundations of ADDIE, especially in the second definition by the Commission on Instructional Technology. As the field evolves, the definitions the author and AECT provides, fall more along the lines of what I have been taught over the years as an online curriculum developer. However, the whole task approach is where the future is going. I just finished reading a book from ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) titled “Leaving ADDIE for SAM” by Michael Allen. The Successive Approximation Model incorporates some of both the whole tasks components discussed in Chapter 2 of our book: Pebble-in-the-Pond model and Ten Steps to Complex Learning Approach.

My definition has expanded throughout the last six months after reading the ADDIE to SAM book and now the first several chapters of our textbook. Instead of being so systematic oriented, I’m moving more towards a whole approach that still incorporates a team, but it simplifies the process and looks at tasks first rather than objectives first. It is much more flexible and produces a useable product early in order for stakeholders to reflect, revise, and refine.

Question #2: Next, think of a lesson or unit of instruction that you have developed. Or if you haven’t ever taught or developed instruction, think of one that you have received. How does that 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.

For the past couple of years, I have been developing online curriculum for a K-12 company working with a team of Instructional Designers, Subject Matter Experts, Editors, Multimedia Designers, and a Project Manager. We developed numerous units/courses. For each one of them, we followed the ADDIE model. Since it was primarily 6-12 instruction, we always had to make it student centered. Much discussion went into this including navigation, interface, accessibility and instruction. We mapped out the goals of the courses and then the units from the beginning. All team members participated in this process. At times, I feel we were lacking on the meaningful performance, but we improved over the years. In the last year, for a large Common Core project, we were able to move from simple to complex tasks that were authentic. This was a major shift for us and one that could be refined even more. Being an online, asynchronous learning environment, we had to focus on measuring the outcomes in a reliable and valid way. We worked with school systems and this was always a top priority and constantly discussed by the team members and IT staff. We used data to show what needed to be created, why it needed to be created, and how it needed to be refined or revised. Last, it was always a team effort, as I do not believe a project can be successful without a team. That said, many of the team members wore different hats to help make it successful (which I'd change in the future to be one person per task).

Question #3: In the 3^rd 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? The first three chapters of your book define the IDT field and provide a history of how it has evolved over time. In your blog post for this week, reflect on the following: ADDIE.

When Reiser mentioned on page 18 of Chapter 3 that the hindering factors of implementing media in the early days were related to resistance from teachers to the change, lack of training in media equipment, poor instructional quality of relevant media, and costs associated with incorporation, I realized we have the exact same issues in the 21^st century only with more sophisticated media.

Having started my teaching career in 1994, we were just beginning to use computers for gradebook purposes and the Internet was emerging as accessible and innovative to education. VHS tapes provided poor quality and often the equipment did not function correctly. Throughout the years, the evolution to DVD, HD, and ability to play things on multiple media devices has made things easier, but they all require training and expense. Yes, I do believe that media should be incorporated into instruction. It provides variety, increases interest, and provides another means of instruction to help meet the needs of all learners. I believe instructional designers need to take into account the teachers, but textbooks and chalkboards do not have a place in ID. These three items are constants throughout the creation of education, and instructional technology are added factors that have been major influences on education. That said, with the goal to be creating the best system for the learner, all factors combine to accommodate different learning styles and meet the objectives.

Allen, M. & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences. United States:  

       ASTD Press.

Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology ( 3^rd ed.). United States: Pearson.