An Introduction to My Blog

Integration of Instructional Design and Information Technology
Education 5103
Cape Breton University
Personal Reflection Paper
Leslee Muise-LeBlanc
Spring, 2013


Throughout this course, I have examined various learning theories and considered how they apply to instructional technology (IT). This course has enabled me to investigate concepts related to instructional design, along with a variety of instructional design models. Upon developing my understanding of these concepts and enhancing my knowledge of effective use of software for teaching and learning, I worked with my group to develop our instructional model, "The Flipped Model".


Education 5103 is my fourth course in Cape Breton University’s Graduate Diploma in Educational Technology program.  Before I entered the program, I knew little about technology and its uses in education.  I did, however, recognized the disconnect between my knowledge of technology and the need for technology in my classroom. I believe that students’ interests in technology should be satisfied, allowing them to engage in their learning and empowering them to become creative and innovative individuals.  While I am still learning how technology can benefit my students and myself as a teacher, I am encouraged by what I am learning in this course and throughout this program with Cape Breton University. 

Education 5013 has been organized into seven modules over a seven week period. During these seven weeks, my views related to instructional design and integration of technology have been challenged through course readings, discussions with colleagues, group work, and related research. The weekly modules are briefly summarized below:

Module 1: Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information Technology
In this module, we reviewed learning theories and how they apply to instructional technology (IT). 

Module 2: Learning Theories Continued
In this module, we continued our review of learning theories. 

Module 3: How Learning Theory Affects Software
In this module, we considered Software Classification and considered how these software "fit" into specific learning theories. 

Module 4: Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts
In this module, we developed an understanding of instructional design and considered how it can enhance learning. We considered the history and components of some popular instructional design models, and looked at how IT is integrated into specific models. 

Module 5: Instructional Design Components
In this module, we continued to develop our understanding of instructional design and specific instructional design models. 

Module 6: Inspection and Critique of an IT-ID Model
In this module, we investigated the NTeQ model, and considered how it may benefit our group model.

Module 7: The Future of Instructional Design in Instructional Technology
In this module, we investigated the issue of effectiveness and instructional design models. We consider the terms assessment and evaluation, and discuss issues with evaluation constructivist outcomes.

My Personal Reflections

The final assignment in Education 5103 is a reflection paper that asks us to review our learning and the ideas and issues related to the course.  In my personal reflections, I will reflect on my experience in this course and consider the four guiding questions provided to us for this reflective paper:

1. What have I done in this course?

2. What have I learned in this course?

3. What changes in perspectives have I experienced as a result of this course?

4. What does it all mean to me now?

Weeks 1 and 2 – Learning Theories in the Context of Software Integration/Information                      Technology

The course began with us reviewing learning theories.  While I have learned about behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism in past Psychology and Education courses many years ago, it was still necessary for me to take a close look at each theory.  I found a good website: Learning-Theories.com, which provided me quick references to each of these learning theories, along with some other learning theories. As I read through the required readings and thought about my past experiences as a student and now as a teacher, I recognized that I understood much more about these learning theories than I had several years ago.  Through my experiences as a teacher, I have been able to utilize different approaches from these learning theories. I can't say that I favour or follow any one learning theory. Rather, in my classes I try to incorporate components from various theories and provide scaffolding to ensure activities and lessons allow students to reach instructional targets.   

As a student in the education system in the late 80s and the 90s, I remember most of my education following a direct instruction approach. Direct instruction is linked to behaviourism and the work of Thorndike and Skinner. Black (1995) indicates "human behaviour is a product of the Stimulus-Response interaction and that behavior is modifiable." While this approach seemed to work well for me, as I enjoyed school and excelled, as a teacher, I recognize now that this approach does not always work for every student and for every concept.  I think that it is important that I consider all learning theories depending on the learning objective I am addressing in my classes.  I don't believe that one learning theory is superior over another because each are appropriate in education for various situations.  As a math teacher, I often find direct instruction is an easy approach to implement, as it follows the approach of our education system – chronological curriculum, reporting systems, and standardized assessments.  This was a discussion brought up in our Week 1 forum. 

Constructivism sees the teacher serve as a facilitator, with students at the centre of their learning.  This approach provides students the opportunity to construct their understanding, with the teacher providing appropriate scaffolding in advance based on the cognitive stage and prior knowledge of each student. Nagowah & Nagowah (2009) state: "This method of learning involves cooperative learning, experimentation, open-ended problems and real life scenarios in which the learners discover learning on their own through active involvement with concepts and principles" (p. 278). A constructivist approach is practical, and one which can easily be supported by the many technologies that are available to us in our classrooms.  As suggested in our reading, "The Medium Is Not the Message" by Donald Ely, these tools for learning should be integrated into classrooms to present course curriculum. Not only do they support learning , they serve to engage and motivate students.  Rogers and Withrow-Thorton (2005) suggest that "Motivation is an important element required for learning. Education must have a variety of instructional media and teaching formats available to present information. Selecting a medium that motivates learners is an important consideration" (p. 333).

Week 3: How Learning Theory Affects Software

In this week’s assignment, we had the option of researching and discussing questions related to either instructional software or application software.  Since I knew very little about either of these types of software, I randomly selected instructional software. I began my research using the provided resources before realizing that I needed to back up, because my understanding of the term “software” needed some assistance. When I think of the term software, I think of computer programs that you purchase to use for various reasons. I envision a fancy box that you might purchase from a computer store. I was thinking Geometer’s Sketchpad, Microsoft Word, Sunburst’s Virtual Labs software.  After speaking with a colleague at work, I came to realize that software has changed its form over the years and can be found outside of a box and even within most websites.

Not only did I learn about instructional software through my assignment, I learned about application software by reading through my group forum. I realized that I am using many forms of software in my classroom for teaching and learning without even giving it much thought.  This is something that I must begin to give more consideration.  With a new understanding of software and a better appreciation of learning theories, I will now give more thought to the appropriateness of software for lesson activities.  Through this assignment, I also gathered a lot of great websites from teachers who are have found drill and practice software, instructional games, and problem solving software within these websites.  I appreciate teachers sharing their resources and I am always willing to share mine as well.

This week was an important week for our group, “The Noble Nobels”, as we started throwing out ideas for our instructional design model on the group collaboration forum. After doing some brainstorming, we agreed on constructing a model that followed a flipped classroom approach.  We liked the idea because we wanted a topic that was unique, current, and it integrated technology. We began researching the flipped classroom, posting resources, and having discussions to prepare for our online weekend meeting.  By using WebEx, we were able to chat, webcam, and physically draw our graphical representation all together.  I was VERY surprised at the progress we made.  We were able to develop the rough draft of our model together, and determined that Brian and I would develop and infographic to display the information of our “Flipped Model” graphical representation.  

Weeks 4 and 5: Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts and Components

During weeks 4 and 5 we focused on instructional design concepts and components.  Prior to this course, I did not know what an instructional design model was, nor was I aware of the many existing models. I had, however, started researching concepts early for our group project, and began considering how these models might aid in developing our model, “The Flipped Model”. Another thing that I considered as I read about various ID models was that I am implementing components of these models everyday in my teaching, without even having a knowledge of these models. For example, in many of the models, components included identifying lesson objectives, assessing students, determining what forms of media will be utilized to deliver lesson content, gathering student feedback, and evaluating students and the success of the lesson.  These are steps that I regularly take as I carry out my everyday lesson plans. As I read more about instructional design models, I came to prefer certain models over others. I found the ADDIE and ASSURE models were practical and could easily incorporate technology. 

In module 5, we were asked to discuss what we thought were essential components of instructional design.  I stated that I felt the components of ADDIE: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation are essential to instructional design. I also stated that I felt a revision component should be added. The ASSURE model includes an evaluate and revise phase, which sees teachers reflect upon the stated objectives, content, strategies, activities, and assessment, determining if they were effective and revising them until students become successful learners.  Another ID model we discussed and that interested me was Rapid Prototyping.  Gustafson & Branch (2007) explain that Rapid Prototyping was initially used to create new products and interfaces in the software development field.  Rapid Prototyping is useful in education because it reduces the amount of front-end work and increases the number of tryouts and revisions.  I see the usefulness of Rapid Prototyping, as it deals with the major issue of time constraints.  I also see its importance in education as teachers rely on students for feedback to gauge the success of a lesson or activity, and to make appropriate revisions. I looked at a number of other ID models, including Dick and Carey, Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, and the ICARE model. I felt it was important for me to review various models to gain a solid understanding of instructional design models and to contribute to my groups' development of our ID model.

We submitted the draft of our instructional design model this week.  We worked VERY hard as a team to develop our model, the Flipped Model. Our model was developed to support teachers interested in using a "flipped classroom" approach. As stated by Doucette, Muise-LeBlanc, Radkey & Thorton (2013):

                 The flipped classroom (also known as reverse instruction) refers

                 to a course in which the instructor delivers a percentage of the
                 content online outside of the physical classroom by exploring
                 ways technology integration can be used to provide instructors
                 with more flexibility and time in their classrooms. The purpose
                 of flipping instruction is to free up class time so that it can be
                 used more effectively to group learners together to practice,
                 collaborate and problem solve, thereby maximizing their learning.
                 In other words, that which is traditionally done in class is now
                 done at home, and that which is traditionally done as homework
                 is now completed in class, with instructor support.

Creating our own instructional design model allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of ID models. It forced me to determine the details of each component in our model and allowed me to consider how IT could be integrated into instructional design.  What I gained from this experience, collaborating with my group, was far more than what I could have ever gained from working on my own. My group was very supportive and together we had many strengths that complemented one another and aided in the development of our model. This experience was a prime example of how a constructive approach supports learning.

https://sites.google.com/site/noblenobels/

Week 6: Inspection and Critique of an IT-ID Model

Week six was a busy week! During this week we were responsible for providing feedback to our classmates regarding their instructional design models. This feedback was very important because it will be helpful in assisting everyone in the next task of assessing the effectiveness of our models and making revisions to our models. It was very interesting to see all of the different ID models that my classmates had created.  While each model had its own unique features, each model also (not surprisingly) had many similarities.  Most of the models seemed to encompass many of the components of ADDIE, and each model considered the importance of the integration of technology, although varying degrees.  Some of the groups chose to follow a more linear approach in their model, such as Group LEFT's "LEFT Model", while other groups created a model which followed a more cyclical approach, such as The Wolfpack Crew's "IDDIA Model".  Throughout the week I provided feedback and read through posts that classmates were providing.   I thought that everyone was very supportive and offered great constructive criticism.

In general, our classmates provided us great reviews on our Flipped Model.  They commented that we had chosen a "unique" and "interesting" concept,  and they suggested their interest in implementing this approach. A couple of individuals expressed their concern for the appropriateness of the flipped classroom for certain grade levels.  We had questions about whether we had personally used a flipped classroom approach.  These were all great questions; however, we did not get any feedback from classmates as to how we may be able to make any revisions to our model.  This meant we really had to think hard to come up with our revision.  We decided that we may have worked too hard and perfected our draft. However, after a couple hours of collaborating over another WebEx meeting, we decided that it was important that we explicitly link the Flipped Model to the principle of 21st century learning.

The weekly discussion related to the NTeQ model is important to mention in my reflection because of its main focus on the integration of computer technology in the classroom (Morrison, et. al, 1999). As I reviewed each group's model and I considered the varying degrees of technology integration, I began to feel that the NTeQ may have been helpful earlier on in our readings. I actually came across this model during my early research and I began to think of the importance of IT not in just one or two phases of a model, but in every phase of an ID model.  In our Flipped Model, the Media phases specifically requires IT; however, IT may also be used in any of the other phases as outlined in our infographic. 

Week 7: The Future of ID in Instructional Technology

The focus of our final week was on assessment and evaluation.  What I gained from this week was more than an understanding of concepts, but a reminder of how I should be conducting myself as a teacher. It is interesting that assessment and evaluation have very different meanings, but are still used interchangeably. While assessment is more likely ongoing and process-oriented, evaluation is more summative and product-oriented.  This week was a reminder to me not to get too comfortable with a specific measurement because it is easy, but to remember the importance of the triangulation of assessment.  While our education system may not always support a constructive approach to educating our students, it is important that teachers implement this approach.  And if we are going to use various approaches in educating students, we must use various forms of measuring our students' understanding. 

When I mentioned in a discussion that I wanted to focus on implementing more observation and conversation assessments in my classes, my classmates were very supportive by giving suggestions and resources.  They suggested sites for checklists, rubrics, and online portfolios.  Some classmates also mentioned that they, too, felt that they had developed a strong amount of product assessments, and were needing to enhance their observation and conversation assessments.  I believe that a focus on product is mainly a result of our very data-driven education system that is looking for results (as we most often follow our linear curriculum guides). I believe that we too often focus on the end product, and not on what is achieved in getting there. These issues were a focus of mine when I discussed the pressures of teaching to the test and the pressures of provincial assessments and provincial examinations.

After seven weeks in this course, my main thought regarding ID with respect to information technology is that the two should be integrated for the benefit of both the student and the teacher.  As we expressed in our revised Flipped Model, we truly believe 21st century students must be active participants in their learning, and provided opportunities to develop critical-thinking skills, problem-solving skills and high-level thinking.  Today's students will enter a rapidly changing world that will require them to think fast and use all of the resources that are available to them. Like no other generation, our students have instant access to almost any information, and we as teachers need to educate them on how to use this information to educate themselves. As teachers, we are responsible for guiding our students and providing them with real life situations and challenges through a constructive environment.

Reflecting on my experiences throughout this course I can say I have learned a lot through my discussions in my group forum and within my group, the Noble Nobels. I have been reminded of various learning theories and how my understanding of learning theories has developed with my experience as a teacher.  I have learned about instructional design and various models and worked hard within my group to develop our own Flipped Model.  Through this new formed understanding of ID models, I am more aware of the phases that should be employed in order for a lesson or unit to be successful.  I have a better appreciation for IT in each phase of the teaching-learning process, and I have gained resources and ideas through the support of my classmates.  I have been reminded of the value in providing my students the opportunity for constructive learning and in developing 21st century learning principles.  Most importantly, I have been reminded to continually reflect on the teaching and learning that is occurring within my classroom.  As John Dewey once stated, "We don't learn from experience. We learn from reflecting on experience." 

References

Black, E. (1995). Behaviorism as a learning theory. Retrieved June 14, 2013 from    
          http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fbehaviorism.html
Doucette, B. Muise-LeBlanc, L., Radkey, L. & Thorton, R. (2013). The flipped model. 
         Retrieved June 22, 2013 from https://sites.google.com/site/noblenobels/
Ely, D. (1999). The medium is not the message. Library and Information Science and
         Educational Technology, 20(2).
Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development. 
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in
          critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2) 24-32.          
Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating Computer Technolgoy into 
          the Classroom, pp. 37-60. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. (Chapter 3)
Nagowah, L., & Nagowah, S., (2009). A reflection on the dominant learning theories:
          Behaviourism, cognitivisim, and constructivism. International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 
          279-285. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Rogers, D. & Withrow-Thorton, B (2005). The effects of instructional media on learner
          motivation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 333-342.
Vincent, T. (2012). Education and technology quotes. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from  
          http://slideshare.net/tonyvincent/education-technology-quotes

Week 7 Response

1. Is there a difference between the terms assessment and evaluation for you? Some authors define a difference.

Assessment and evaluation differ in various ways but are both essential to teaching and learning. Without effective assessment and evaluation it is impossible to know what students have learned, whether learning activities have been effective, or how to best address student learning needs. Assessment is formative and process-oriented. It is ongoing for the purpose of improving teaching and learning. Baehr (2005) defines assessment as looking at how the quality of a performance or outcome could be improved in the future; this includes strengths that should be sustained as well as areas for improvement. Evaluation is summative and product-oriented. It is a final judgment to gauge what has been learned in order to arrive at an overall grade or score.

http://duke.edu/arc/documents/The%20difference%20between%20assessment%20and%20evaluation.pdf

2. Do you feel the push toward teaching to the test and the pull of the less measurable, constructivist outcomes? Do you feel torn between the two?

As a grade 9 math and science teacher I do feel the push of teaching to the test and the pull of less measurable outcomes. While students write their standardized math assessment in grade 8, I still feel the effects of these assessments as I review the results and prepare Supporting Ongoing Mathematics Development documents (SOMDs) for each student who did not meet expectations of these assessments. As their grade 9 teacher, I am responsible developing their skills and understanding based on these results. While I do incorporate a constructivist approach within my courses, I find that our education system is very standards-driven, and has been developed around a linear curriculum. While most teachers are supporting constructive learning in their classrooms, it is probably difficult to escape the pressures of teaching to the test if you teach a course that requires students to write provincial assessments or provincial exams.

3. Is there a difference between the measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes?

Based on their characteristics, the measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes will be different. Constructive learning is an active and ongoing process in which experience is converted into knowledge and skills. Measurement of constructivist outcomes should take place throughout the learning process and not just for the purpose of assigning a grade. Non-constructivist outcomes are more likely to measure comprehension and knowledge of a concept using product-based assessments, such as quizzes or tests.

This year I have put more consideration into triangulation of assessment; specifically incorporating new forms of observation and conversation assessments into my math classes. While I have always done quite well on assessing products my students create (projects, presentations,tests, quizzes), I needed to incorporate more methods for observing and discussing what students are learning. My goal was to support more constructive learning in my math classes, and I have found checklists and rubrics for measuring observation and conversation components very helpful.

Week 6 Response

1. What learning theories are intended by the author's of this "Instructional Design for IT Model".

While I believe that when the NTeQ model was developed the intended learning theories were behavioral and cognitive, the model is supportive of the constructive approach.  In chapter three, the authors discuss the behavioral approach in three parts: the action verb and related content, the criteria, and related content. The authors also discuss the cognitive approach in two parts: general instruction and statements describing specific performances that indicate mastery of the objectives.  The NTeQ model supports student-centered learning through the integration of computers and other technology as tools for discovery and problem solving. For example, during the Specifying the Problem phase, the authors discuss the opportunity for students to generate their own data through observations, experiments, and internet searches. 

2. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see are the most valuable to Instructional Design for Information Technology?

I believe that each of the ten components of the NTeQ model are important in the design of the model and for incorporating information technology in the classroom.  There are specific components of the model that relate directly to integration of IT, which support the intent of the NTeQ model. I see value in matching learning objectives to computer functions, as conducted in the Computer Functions phase. During the Data Manipulation phase, teachers will determine how students will use the identified computer functions to manipulate data and help solve related problems. Each of the phases: Activities While at the Computer, Activities Prior to Computer, and After Using Computer are important, as they determine how students will use the computer as a tool to meet lesson objectives, and interpret and explore the results of the computer activity.

3. Of the ten components of the NTeQ Model, which do you see as unnecessary or redundant?

As mentioned in my response to question 2, I believe that each of the ten components of the NTeQ model are important for the design of the model.  While I don’t see any of the components as unnecessary, I can see that some of the components may be possible to combine.  I think that the components of Specify Objectives, Specifying a Problem, and Results Presentation may all be combined together as their own phase.  These components all focus on specific problems and objectives that will be focused on within the lesson or unit, and how the students will present their results or solutions to the problem.  I also believe that the components of Activities While at the Computer, Activities Prior to Computer, and After Using Computer may be combined, as they all relate to how students will use the computer to meet lesson objectives, and interpret and explore the results of the computer activity.

4. Which new ideas from this model may be beneficial for the construction of your own group project ID model for IT? (It is not necessarily to consult with your partner for this question.)

I am very happy with the model that our group created, “The Flipped Model”.  Because the integration of technology is vital to our model, our Media phase specifically addresses the issue of organizing, developing, creating, and presenting various technology related media to students. Our model also has a Learning Activities phase, which involves having students discuss and further develop their understanding of the media in which they access, similar to the NTeQ model’s After Using Computer and Supporting Activities. One feature of the NTeQ model that our model does not have is the specificity within the model’s graphical representation.  By having ten very basic components, the progression of the NTeQ model is quite apparent.  At first glance, our model is very basic.  While each phase contains a lot of detail and action, this may not be evident by looking at our graphical representation. 

Week 5 Response

1. What are the essential components of Instructional Design?

Instructional design has been defined by Smith and Ragan (2005) as a process that includes analysis of learning needs and goals, development of instructional materials and activities, and instruction of the learners’ understanding. Spector and Muraida (1997) refer to instructional design as a structuring of the learning environment for the purpose of facilitating learning or improving learning effectiveness. Jonassen (2001) suggests that instructional design is the application of theory to create effective instruction. While there is no one definition for instruction design, it is clear that instructional design is a process that establishes appropriate phases in a systematic manner for students to achieve desired learning outcomes.

 

I think that essential components of instructional design include analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. These five steps form the acronym ADDIE, a model developed by Royce (1970). During the analysis phase, the teacher must consider the learning environment and learners. Factors to consider include resources, students’ ages prior knowledge, and abilities. In the design phase, teachers will consider the learning objectives, and determine which approach is most suitable for the circumstances. The teacher will gather and/or develop materials and resources for implementation. An evaluation of the product and process determine if students met learning objectives and if students’ needs were met.

 

While I think that the five components of the ADDIE model serve as a general guideline for developing a lesson or a unit, I think that revision is an important part of the instructional design process that is missing in the original version of the model. The ASSURE model includes an evaluate and revise phase, which sees teachers reflect upon the stated objectives, content, strategies, activities, and assessment, determining if they were effective and revising them until students become successful learners.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120509190427/http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/OnLine/ADDIE.html http://crl.acrl.org/content/64/6/494.full.pdf
http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html

2. Which of the essential components from question number 1 need to address issues concerning Information Technology?

 

Each of the components from question number one need to address information technology. In the analysis phase, the teacher must determine what forms of information technology is available and necessary for learners. Or, a teacher may decide to use such technology to gather information on students prior knowledge of a concept. Teachers must decide what forms of information technology are appropriate for the design. Working with students who students who are interested and motivated by technology, I think that it is important to develop materials and resources with technology as much as possible. Information technology should enhance implementation. Teachers should be able to utilize IT to develop all learners’ understanding of concepts. During the evaluation phase, information technology would be used for summative evaluations, and should be used properly to provide accurate evaluations. For revision, information technology may need to be adjusted, based on feedback, reflection, and evaluations.

3. From the models that you have read, which one(s) take IT into consideration? Discuss how the model(s) may be doing this.

 

While many of the instructional design models that were developed before information technology was as valueable as it is today, I think that most models can accomodate IT. Technology is a tool that can be applied throughout the phases of most models. One obvious model that we have already considered in an earlier module is Rapid Prototyping. Another model that considers IT is the NTeQ model. NTeQ represents the Integrating Technology for Inquiry, an approach to integrating computers to guide students’ learning. The NTeQ model views the teacher as a facilitator and encourages students to collaborate and become engaged in their learning through various forms of technologies. Teachers are expected to develop a classroom environment that embraces technology and encourages such learning opportunities. The computer is viewed as a learning tool, with the student at the centre of learning. As you can see from these two graphical representations, technology is involved throughout the NTeQ model.

Week 4 Response

1. Briefly summarize the taxonomy found in Table 1 of the first article.

 

As Gustafson and Branch suggest in their article, “Revisioning Models of Instructional Development”, there have been more instructional development models published than there are unique learning environments.  With each model comes diversity, and so, there is value in creating a taxonomy for classification of them.  As suggested by Gustafson and Branch, “A taxonomy of ID models can help clarify the underlying assumptions of each model, and help identify the conditions under which each might be most appropriately applied” (p. 27). In Table 1, the authors present their approach to classifying ID models using three categories: classroom oriented, product oriented, and system oriented. Placement of a model into one of these categories is based on characteristics outlined in this taxonomy. The 9 characteristics used to classify a model, which are based on the its creator’s assumptions, include: typical output-amount, resources committed to development, effort (team or individual), ID skill and experience, source for most instructional materials, amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment, amount of technical complexity in delivering media, amount of tryout and revision, and amount of distribution/dissemination.  Based on the Table 1, and using ID models I have encountered in my readings, several generalizations about the three types of ID models can be made. Classroom focused models are developed for classroom teachers who usually work alone, doing the designing and delivering of instruction.  Often, in product focused models, a team of professionals develop multi-media based instructional products for wide distribution. System focused models are intended for a variety of organizational settings.  Models in this category are often developed for an entire course or curriculum.  

   

2. ID has its basis in behaviorism. After reading both articles, how can the seemingly conflicting learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism co-exist in Instructional Design?

 

 Although learning theories vary and may seem to conflict one another, it is important that they co-exist in Instructional Design because learners and learning situations also vary.  It is not appropriate to always follow the same method or strategy in teaching students because it may not always be appropriate or accommodating to the circumstances.  As stated by Schweir (1995), we must allow circumstances surrounding the learning situation to help us decide which approach to learning is most appropriate. In some cases, a behavioural approach may be appropriate.  For example, when learners have very little transferrable, prior knowledge about a skill or content area, teachers may decide it is appropriate to use instructional design.  Ertmer and Newby (1993) suggest that cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations.  Constructive strategies for learning are appropriate when teachers want to encourage critical thinking and inquiry. Teachers will do so by asking them thoughtful, open-ended questions, and encourage them to ask questions to each other.

3. Briefly explain Rapid Prototyping (found in Gustafson and Branch). Is Rapid Prototyping used in the classroom?

 

 Rapid prototyping is defined by Gustafson and Branch in this article as a process commonly used in the software application field to create new products and interfaces.  Rapid prototyping has been transferred to ID processes as an alternative approach to instructional design, in response to criticism of the high costs and the extensive amount of time that is involved.  By omitting lengthy planning and revising phases, “rapid prototyping typically will involve much less time and effort directed to goal specification, detailed analysis of the content, and creation of detailed design specifications than will traditional ID” (p. 14).

I believe that rapid prototyping is being used in the classroom.  Teachers may be using rapid prototyping as they gather and share their ideas and activities with other teachers, or as they alter and improve their own lessons each time that they teach it.  Teachers may also be forced to use rapid prototyping, as limited preparation time forces them to prepare lessons and activities quickly.  

 

4. Is Information Technology changing ID? Explain your answer with respect to learning theory.
 

Instructional technology is changing the classroom. The classroom that I teach in, in 2013, looks much different than the classroom that I was taught in, in 2000. Chalk boards have been replaced with white boards, and white boards often with smart boards.  VHS have been replaced with DVDs, which often have been replaced with videos on the internet.  Computer technology and the internet has provided so many opportunities for resources, activities, and collaboration with students within and outside of the classroom, that traditional methods of teaching have often been enhanced or replaced by newer strategies that may interest our students who have grown up with technology.

Week 3 Response

1. Compare and contrast types of instructional software with respect to constructivist and directed instruction theories (or other general learning theories).

Instructional software is software specifically designed to deliver or assist with student instruction.  While application software such as word processing and spreadsheets can enhance instructional activities, instructional software is developed for the sole purpose of supporting instruction and/or learning. The various types of instructional software that I will compare and contrast include Drill and Practice, Tutorials, Simulations, Instructional Games, Problem Solving, and Integrated Learning Systems (ILS). To compare and contrast types of instructional software with respect to constructivist and directed instruction theories, I will use the generalized description of each form of software, as each individual software is characterized by its own features and functions. 

• Drill and Practice – This type of software provides exercises where students work on examples, usually one at a time, and receive feedback on their correctness. Programs will vary in the kind of feedback they provide, ranging from “Correct” or “Try again” to elaborate responses or animated diplays. Since Drill and Practice Software uses repetition and aids students in memorizing, it supports Direct Learning. Students do not construct their knowledge.
• Tutorials – Tutorial software provides an entire instructional sequence on a topic, similar to a teacher’s classroom instruction.  Students using a tutorial should be able to learn the topic without any other help or materials. Tutorials may be confused for drills because they often provide practice sequence for student conprehension. Since students have little to no input, these types of software also follow direct learning and do not follow a constructivist approach.

• Simulations – These computerized models are designed to teach students how a real or imagined system works.  Unlike the drill and practice and tutorial software that has the teaching built into it, simulations have learners choose tasks to do and the order in which to do them. Whether simulation software follows direct instruction theories or constructivist learning theories will depend on the software itself. Those programs which teach “how to” or that demonstrate something, are more closesly related to direct learning. Those which allow the learner to seek answers and explore, follow a more constructivist approach.
• Instructional Games – Instructional games may follow direct learning or contrustivist theories, depending on the design of the game. Many instructional games use drill and practice, repetition, and memorization for reward. These games follow directed instruction theory.  Instructional games which allow students to use their current knowledge to build and extend their knowledge, supports a constructivist approach.
• Problem Solving – While simulation and instructional games often help with problem solving skills, problem solving software is developed especially for this purpose. Problem solving software could encourage basic problem solving skills or approaches, or they may offer opportunities for solving various specific content-related problems.  Programs which deliver information related to problem solving and do not require students to utilize any prior knowledge, are those which follow a more direct learning approach. Those programs which allow students to explore, promote reflective learning, and offer opportunities for collaborative work, follow a more constructivist approach.
• Integrated Learning Systems (ILS)– ILSs offer computer based learning to support instruction, along with reports of student progress. Since Integrated Learning Systems can include all forms of instructional software listed above, it may serve to support both directed instruction or a constructivist learning approach.  

2. Under what context would you use the various types of instructional software (i.e. what subject, grade level, setting, student-ability level, etc.)

I currently teach grade 9 math and science. I do not have a lot of experience with using instructional software, but will consider how each type would enhance my classroom activities.

• Drill and Practice -  I see the benefit of drill and practice for helping any grade level student in any subject, who is needing to transfer information to their long-term memory.  Drill and practice software is also an alternative for teachers considering giving worksheet exercises that serve to achieve the same goal. I personally can see myself using it for level 1 and 2 math related questions, perhaps in preparation for a quiz or test, but I can also see the benefit for memorizing other topics such as provinces and their capitals, typing skills, musical keys, and rules for English grammar. For drill and practice to be used effectively, I think teachers must use it as practice and reinforcement of obtained skills and knowledge, not for introducing new skills or concepts. Also, students must be able to focus on the task at hand in order to benefit from the software.
• Tutorials – I see tutorials being helpful for students who are able to grasp concepts independently, without the aid of an instructor.  I see the benefits of a station for a self-contained, self-paced learning structure with the subjects and grade level that I teach. I can see branching tutorials being more benefical than linear tutorials, in order to meet the needs of the varying level of abilities within the classroom.
• Simulations – I think simulation software could be useful for any subject or grade level. I have some experience with simulation software in my science classes. I have made use of Sunburst’s Virtual Labs software for simulating various optics and electricity experiments, and recognize the time and resources it has saved. I also recognize the repetition that is provided (without a cost).  Simulations are also beneficial when experiments may be dangerous or expensive. When I was teaching grade 11 Biology, we did a virtual fetal pig dissection, which would not have been possible to do in “real life” due to expenses.  Simulations may be useful for slowing down processes that occur quickly, for example, if a Physical Education teacher was showing a the movement of muscles as a ball is thrown.
• Instructional Games – I can see the benefit of instructional games for students for all subjects and grade levels. Depending on the software, a game may be presented to individuals, students in groups, or to a whole class. For me, instructional games in the classroom provide opportunities for learning, while providing a challenge.  I like that games serve to motivate students and entertain them while they learn.  While I have not used instructional game software,  I have created my own “Jeopardy” games for teams to compete.  I see how instructional games could supplement worksheets or other exercises, and serve to engaging students who may be uninterested in traditional forms of learning. I think instructional games might be used well as a reward for deserving students. 
• Problem – Solving – Problem solving software promote thinking skills, critical thinking, higher level thinking, reasoning, use of logic, and decision making. Teachers should be sure that the software is appropriate for the students’ level and ability, otherwise confusion and frustration may occur.  I have used Geometer’s Sketchpad software, which is designed to scaffold students as they practice solving complex problems. 
• Integrated Learning System – It appears to me that Integrated Learning Systems could benefit most learners, as long as they are geared appropriately.  This “one-stop shop” approach runs the gamete of instructional software, and would be beneficial for the ability to maintain records of student progress, provide printouts, allow collaboration amoung students, and provide online networking. While I have seen many acronyms used for Moodle (CMS – Course Management System, LMS – Learning Management System, VLE – Virtual Learning Environment) Moodle has features of an ILS, which I been receiving inservicing and preparing to incorporate in my classes in the near future.

3. What learning theory(ies) are at play for the software applications that have been mentioned during your discussion?

Having little experience with instructional software in my classroom, I will need to make a few assumptions based on what I have learned about these software to link learning theories to these software applications. 

As already mentioned in my discussions, instructional software such as drill and practice and tutorials mainly follow the behaviourist theory, more specifically, a directed instructional approach, as information is divulged, or repetition is used, in order to achieve a specific objective. This form of software does not allow for students to construct their knowledge.

Although I did not discuss the cognitive theory of learning in my discussions, various types of instructional software would follow with these theories.  Considering students as active participants in their learning (rather than respondants to stimuli), instructional software that are developed for students to use their knowledge and skills for learning experiences support the cognitive theory. 

As already mentioned, instructional software, especially simulations, instructional games, problem solving, and ILS, can be developed to support the constructivist learning theory. 

Week 2 Response

1. Using your experiences with one or more software applications, support or refute the statement: "...when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning" (p.31). 

         
The article, “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking” discusses various categories of “Mindtools” that can be used by learners to construct and enhance their own personal knowledge.  The authors describe that Mindtools are not tools to simply provide instruction, but programs that require input and manipulation of data by the user.  In this article, the authors argue that technology should not support learning by providing instruction for students to learn from, but by presenting supporting tools for students to learn with. The authors state“…when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning” (Jonassen, Carr, and Yueh, 1998, p. 31).  While I do not have a lot of experience with use of software applications for supporting student learning in the classroom, I have some experience that supports this statement.

The software that I use most frequently in my classroom with students are Microsoft PowerPoint and Audacity. I find that many students enjoy these programs because they give students freedom to construct their projects and allow them to express creativity in doing so.  Students enjoy using Microsoft Powerpoint because most of them are familiar with the software and they are able to easily research a topic and create their presentation.  By using the computer to research information and develop their project, students can make great use of the technology that is available to them.  When I introduce students to Audacity for assignments, many are shy to record their voices and have their projects and opinions heard. However, I have found students are often more comfortable recording their projects than presenting to their classmates. When giving assignments that require research on topics, I often provide students with options on how they will construct their knowledge and present their understanding.  

I have made use of other software, such as Sunburst’s Virtual Labs for light and electricity related outcomes, and Geometer’s Sketchpad for comparing graphs and equations of linear and non-linear equations.  The Sunburst software allows you to simulate virtual optics and electricity labs that would otherwise be near impossible to conduct.  While the software may be somewhat unappealing for students who are used to the interface of Facebook, Pinterest, and Instagram, it is an alternative method for engaging them in curriculum and making connections with concepts in a format other than traditional methods.  I have found that students are usually open and excited to try new things that involve technology.  My experience has taught me that it is often helpful to guide students through the software in a “trial run” by use of the LCD projector, to avoid mass confusion and having students “controlled by computer technologies”. 

Several years ago, I made use of Data Studio software for covering Science 10 motion concepts.  Students completed activities in groups with software that involved using science probes to investigate and illustrate their understanding of displacement.  Using this software, students collected and graphed data, as well as, attempted to physically match a graph of motion by walking away, stopping, and walking towards sensors.  The use of this software was helpful for many students, but I found it especially helpful for students who need that “real world” connection. While this software was helpful, I must say the preparation time was substantial.  The materials are expensive and the hardware is often updated.  Also, with this activity, I found that students could easily become lost and frustrated.  Again, it was important that students were given a baseline of information for using the technology to aid in successful use. 

   

2. These authors discuss constructivism here. Is there a place for direct instruction in these software applications? 

           
As mentioned in question 1, I agree that there is a place for direct instruction in using many software applications.  Many of these applications will require students be provided with step-by-step instructions and modeling of their use.  While many of the software programs are excellent tools for constructive learning, it is easy to become frustrated and controlled by them.  The students that we work with are a generation of “I want it now”. They expect immediate results and when things don’t go as planned, they often want to give up.  I will use my example of science students using Data Studio for the displacement lab: when a teacher is responsible for conducting several groups of students with several software programs running, it is critical that students understand how the program functions.  I believe that direct instruction is an easy and effective method for introducing an entire class to the software in preparation for its use.  Other software may allow for “tinkering” to “learn as you go” but when your results rely on your knowledge of the program, I feel that it is appropriate that students are given straight forward, direct instructions.  

3. Briefly summarize the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility" and describe how, if it does, relate to Jonassen's "Mindtools".

              
Cognitive Flexibility Theory is a constructivist theory of learning and instruction that suggests that, through the use of scaffolding and multiple representations, previous knowledge can be restructured and adapted for new learning to occur.  The authors of this article suggest that for learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills, they must be provided with “flexible learning environments which permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes” (Spiro, et al, 1995, p. 26). The authors of this article suggest that the computer is ideal for fostering cognitive flexibility, specifically through the use of hypertext computer programs, which promote the transfer of problem-solving skills to other applications.  The theory of Cognitive Flexibility relates to Jonassen’s “Mindtools” because it requires learners to engage in their learning and construct their understanding in various ways. In both articles, the authors stress the importance of constructed knowledge, and discuss the use of computers to develop problem solving skills and a higher level of thinking.