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.