Trends & Issues in IDT

Compare & Contrast

When examining the characteristics of instructional design in business and industry, it’s safe to say most of the designers are employed from outside sources.  Reiser and Dempsey report, “Approximately 40 percent of the $134.39 billion training expenditure was spent on external instructional designers…” (2012, p. 178).  In the corporate setting, the designer can have different roles, depending on the size of the business.  The roles might be the sole designer, team member or leader, or the external designer.  There are three interferences that can cause performance gaps during the design process.  Contextual, designer-related, and project management versus instructional design constraints can all interrupt the quality of the end product if not addressed accordingly by the instructional designer.  Ultimately, Reiser and Dempsey said, “It is the role of the instructional designer and the design team to educate the client(s) on the entire process and the purpose and value of each step the team needs to complete as part of the design process” (2012, p. 180). The design of instruction is most prevalent in the corporate setting (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012, p. 184).

The instructional designer within the military environment is by far, in my opinion, the one with the largest stake because, “...ineffective instruction can have catastrophic consequences,” says Reiser and Dempsey (2012, p. 187). The designers in this field must “know their stuff” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012, p. 188), including when and how to apply theories to achieve the necessary solution. Issues that instructional designers in the military setting face include funding, technological range, delivery environment, design constraints, and people.  Because the military is so vast and dispersed throughout the world, it makes the instructional designer's job much more challenging.  Reiser and Dempsey claim, “Designing for the military differs from designing for the large corporations on a number of fronts: management, configurations, implementation, and expertise of training instructors” (2012, p. 190).  Reiser and Dempsey report, “The most critical challenge to all the services is recruiting good people and retaining highly trained and skilled service members,” (2012, p. 191).  Even as challenging as it would be to have this role in this setting, it could be the most rewarding because it would push you to the extreme in applying all theories and strategies ever learned, “...require skill sets to go beyond the basic information learned in either a formal or an informal study program” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012, p. 194) to force you to be the best designer you could ever imagine.

There’s a broad range of health sciences that instructional design can impact. Some of the sub settings can include the academic side, pharmaceutical, government agencies, professional agencies, and hospitals or clinics. Problem-based learning and evidence-based medicine have been studied and shown to reap the most benefits for learning in this field.  Much like the responsibilities in the military setting, that in the health profession can also have a profound effect on its users.  As Reiser and Dempsey stated, “The health field is one area where errors in learning literally can be a matter of life or death” (2012, p. 201).  Therefore it’s imperative the training received is top notch to ensure the professionals are receiving the utmost education and practice so patients are at ease when receiving care in the field.  It’s not only important that participants are receiving the desired education but even more important is their application of the learned material.  That’s where the transfer of learning is vital!  Knowledge, costs, regulations, and convergence are some of the most known factors that affect the education and performance in health care.       

Similar to My Context

Throughout most contexts studied in instructional design, a few trends were noted to be similar to my own context.  They include the issue of costs, knowledge, and research, and time restraints. Throughout the country, the costs in education are ever rising and budgets continue to be cut.  However, the expectations of producing higher skilled, lifelong learners rise and cause educators to be more creative with their instruction. All while knowing the research that best supports their learners to ensure their skills can be applied and transferred in real world settings.  Time is always our enemy in the classroom.  Every school year, teachers work their magic to teach all state assigned standards to be certain all learners show mastery.      

When studying the different trends and issues in IDT of the many contexts, I found myself mostly related to that of the military field.  The areas that resonated with me most in this field include adapting to the culture which they work, the delivery environment, long-range planning, and lifelong learning.  Reiser and Dempsey stated, “Designers must recognize the cultural diversity of the clients and select training or learning solutions that can accommodate dissimilar audiences,” (2012, p. 189).  To produce and achieve the greatest results in an educator’s environment, they must know how to adapt and learn new things, continually training to show success in all scenarios.  The military’s vision for the future is similar to an educator’s.  When planning instruction, we must “look into the future” in planning for how students may or may not learn and use the research and learning of other strategies and adapt to the needs of your learners.  You also have to accept the changes in teaching, technology, and the evolution of learners. Reiser and Dempsey present the military’s support of lifelong learners and encourages it beyond their own requirements (2012, p.192).  As a teacher, you’re constantly learning and you should share that learning with students. Modeling your lifelong learning shows students that the opportunities for success are endless if you’re willing to accept it.        

Preparing our Youth

To prepare our youth we must consider the delivery of instruction.  Learners must have to become problem-solvers so they’ll know can deal with issues in the future.  They have to start early and learn how to look ahead before they’re faced with the problems head on when it’s too late.  They must receive the instruction that involves working with a wide range of challenges to prepare them for the future.  As noted on page 200 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, “As expertise develops, problem solving becomes automatic and more a matter of pattern recognition that formal deduction (Norman et al., 2007; Norman, 1985; Patel et al. 1989).  The training for these future problems must begin early so they are ready when the time comes.   

Fostering Complex Problem-Solving Skills

Our current education system, curriculum, and instructional practices do foster problem-solving skills to an extent.  The education system and government see the need to “up the ante” in curriculum and instruction, or they wouldn’t be constantly changing the requirements.  However, I don’t think everyone is on the same page as seeing a higher demand for fostering problem solvers.  Where many educators accept change when needed, there are some that reside in old practices instruction, which is not developing those problem-solving skills needed for the changing demands.  I think it boils down to the lack of training as the bar is passed down and the lack of motivation to be a lifelong learner.  We can’t expect educators to teach these skills if they haven’t been trained how to teach them or because they don’t see the need.  

Other Methods to Consider

For learners today to compete in the world tomorrow, it should be highly encouraged for the US to consider methods of those used in other countries.  Comparing the research of tools and practices used will provide insight into the best practices of our students in the US.  Reiser and Dempsey share the government policies in Australia and its embrace, “reflected and increasing emphasis on student centered learning rather than teacher-centered learning.  It is also focused on lifelong learning and work-integrated learning” (2012, p. 221).  When discussing the generator model in Australia as being ideal, it was noted, “... the success of this approach depends on context and personalities, not just on the application of model of practice,” (2012, p. 221).  Our country should consider all models and methods of learning, worldwide, research them, share results, train educators and allow us to choose which method to use with students.  After all, the teachers are the ones that truly know their students and the way they learn best...at least they should.

References

Norman, G. (1985). The role of knowledge in the teaching and assessment of problem-solving.  Journal of Instructional Development, 8(1), 7-10.

Norman, G., Young M., & Brooks, L. (2007). Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: The role of experience. Medical Education, 41, 1140-1145.

Patel, V., Evans, D., & Groen, G.. (1989). Biomedical knowledge and clinical reasoning.  In D. Evans & V. Patel (Eds.), Cognitive science in medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.  

Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.).    Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Evaluating Programs & Human Performance

Evaluation is one of the key components of the design for instruction.  In the evaluation models presented by Reiser and Dempsey, they said, “The major purpose of the evaluation was to determine the value or worth of the innovation that was being developed” (p. 96). The terms of formative and summative evaluation were coined in the 60’s and included in most instructional design models of that time.  There were two key features noted in early instructional design models, objectives and the learners.  Reiser and Dempsey expressed, “Formative evaluation focuses on learners’ ability to learn from the instruction, and to enjoy it” (p. 97).

Other Evaluation Models

The Logic Model

The Logic Model incorporates the theory of working backward, starting with the outcomes desired (Frechtling, 2007).  Frye and Hemmer (2012, p. 294) report, “Some US funding agencies require this model when evaluating a program” (Frechtling, 2007).   The Logic Model is considered to be a linear approach in educational planning evaluation (Frye, Ann W. & Hemmer, Paul A., 2012). This model is similar to that of Stufflebeam’s CIPP evaluation model, “but focuses on the change process and the system within which the educational innovation is embedded” (p. 294). The four essentials elements to this model include inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes.  The inputs are considered the resources available to a program.  The activities could include “strategies, innovations or changes planned for the education program”(Frye, Ann W. & Hemmer, Paul A., 2012). The third component of output is a result of the activity (a “product”).  The demonstration of new knowledge or a learned skill can be included in the final element of the outcome. Again, these outcomes can be specific to an individual or by group(s).  The environment, or the context, also plays a vital role in the evaluation of a program.  The impact of a program is also an extended component to consider during evaluation.  

Outcome-Based Evaluation Model

Outcome-based evaluation (OBE) involves the expression of goals wanting to be achieved by use of the program and services and reflects the effectiveness and efficiency to the referenced outcome.  Wang clarifies that “OBE focuses on the benefits gained by clients from using the program, and look at whether the client’s needs are met by the activities of the organization” (p.134).  Those benefits could include an increase in knowledge, attitude change, a skill learned, and/or a form of change in the condition.  

In the OBE evaluation, there are four types of evaluation used most often.  The evaluations include program, effectiveness, impact, and policy.

The program evaluation involves three steps.  The establishment of a baseline reflecting current outcomes.  The desired outcomes are included in the second step with the organization indicating goals yearned to achieve.  The final step to this evaluation is aligning the services to meet the outcomes of the organization.  Wang says, “In order for a program evaluation to be successful, an organization must be willing to foster a culture of change, be accountable in developing strategic plans and performance goals, and develop a monitoring system (Mika, 1996).  

The effectiveness evaluation is similar to the program evaluation with the exception of its judgment of accountability and outcomes to the comparison. This model is considered more a systematics approach.  The analysis of its five steps includes performance goals, purpose and comparison condition, methodology, data collection and analysis, and person and organization-referenced outcomes (Wang, 2010, p. 145).

The impact evaluation, “focuses on the program’s impacts and determines whether those impacts can be attributed to the intervention being employed or the services being evaluation,” says Wang (2010, p. 146). In this evaluation, a comparison group is used with the evaluator measuring the difference in results, if any noted.

In a policy evaluation, the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness are all evaluated in the outcomes whether employed individually, by the program, or as a whole system.  Five steps are included in this evaluation.  The goals of the policy are identified, as well as the values, expression of intended outcomes are provided, the evaluation of the outcome,  and feedback is provided as the final step.

Many programs are scrutinized for the results and it impacts many organizations.  Wang says, “They are using outcome-based data as a basis for making changes to improve services and increase accountability” (p. 148).     

To Sum Up

Wang said it clearly, “No evaluation model can be all things to all people in all situations,” (p.148).  He proceeded to share the advantages and disadvantages of each model explored this week in our reading  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.  The case of the matter is finding the most trusted model that relates the verifiable results of the learner in measuring the objectives or goals mastered.  In his conclusion regarding program evaluation, Wang remarked, “Evaluation models that provide practical tools and easily understood directions leading to verifiable results in a cost-efficient manner will be of the utmost importance” (p. 149).    

I want to be able to effectively put the model to practice while not interfering with its validity.  Depending on the need for evaluation, whether it be for quantitative measures or for program evaluations and identifying areas for improvement, I would most likely refer to the Kirkpatrick or CIPP Model for future reference.  I’ll use the model that examines the program related to the goals and that of the learners.  Their needs hold the highest stakes!

Other Questions and Measures to Consider

When considering the implementation of an instructional program, one important aspect to be considered is the amount of training provided to the facilitator.  Not only considering the onset of the program but what will continuous support, if any, look like?  What happens when those formative assessments show little to no growth for some learners?  What support will be available in providing intervention?  A few other components to consider during an evaluation include; the training knowledge of that instructor (Is he applying the new knowledge of his learning of this new program(lack of transfer)?), the environment, and the attendance of the students should all be considered.

Performance

A performance problem in my area would be tardiness and absenteeism.  It was a school-wide problem.  From my own experience, there were many students with more than 15 tardiness and 20+ absences.  With gaps in learning, as a result from missing instruction, education growth regressed or didn't advance.  A non-instructional solution put in place by the administration was an incentive program for those classes that reported on time and with no marked absences.  At different levels of meeting goals,  classes earned prizes (i.e.  an extra recess, popcorn celebration, etc.). It was an attempt to encourage attendance while promoting teamwork in the classroom.  I can’t help but wonder about the other uncontrollable factors in this problem of tardiness and absenteeism, that stems from the environment outside the walls of a school.  Is it possible to consider (with educators) the parents and community members as stakeholders in the human performance problem of our students?  The value of knowledge can be underrated in some environments.  When considering this problem, one has to think about tacit and common knowledge, or lack of, as the root of the problem.  Therefore, better support systems related to performance and knowledge would especially be beneficial in this case, where we consider everyone a stakeholder in the performance of our learners.      

References

Frechtling J., (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Frye, Ann W. & Hemmer, Paul A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67.  Medical Teacher 34, e288-e299.  DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637  Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1667/a06366e1f78159fe724c1115963eb5aba1df.pdf

Mika, K.L. (1996). Program outcome evaluation: A step by step handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Families International.

Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.).    Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wang, Victor C.X. (2010). Evaluation Models for Evaluating Educational Programs.  In Assessing and Evaluating Adult Learning in Career and Technical Education (Chapter 7).  Retrieved from http://web.utk.edu/~ewbrewer/pdf/books/Evaluations%20Models%20for%20Evaluation.pdf

Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

Epistemology vs. Instructional Methods or Theories

Reiser and Dempsey (2012) report, “Researchers became more aware of different theories of knowledge (epistemology) and postmodern critiques of theory and practice”  during the 1990s shift to constructivist learning (p. 46).   Upon the first introduction of epistemology, I had no schema with the term.  The footnote on page 46 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology equates it as, “a branch of philosophy addressing knowledge-how we know, what it means to know, etc.  Postmodern critique changes stories and assumptions underlying our theories, ideas, and practices” (Friesen, 2009).  With more research, Jennings, Surgenor, & McMahon (2013) define epistemology as “a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.” This branch of philosophy plays a role in the way we learn and reflects its remarkable influence, too.  Each person’s epistemology is key determinants to their learning theories.  Basically, your theory of learning is based on your knowledge and beliefs.  Therefore, there have been many theories discovered and discussed in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.

The theory advocated by Skinner is the behavioral learning theory.  Skinner believed that “learning can be understood, explained, and predicted entirely on the basis of observable events namely, the behavior of the learner along with its environmental antecedents and consequences. It was noted that this theory “influenced early conceptions of instructional feedback” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012, p. 36). The information processing theory came to light in the 1970s and, like the behavioral theory, remarks that during learning the environment plays an important role but with the internal processing of new information.  Reiser and Dempsey (2012) also report, “it also put increased emphasis on the role of prior knowledge in learning new knowledge and skills” (p. 37).

Schema theory resulted in the automation of previous learned events or topics to aid in the long-term memory, which resulted in lower cognitive load.  The higher the cognitive load was a result of lack of schema in that particular field of study (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).

Situated learning theory is regarded by Kirshner and Whitson (1997) as “a work in progress” (p. 38).   Reiser and Dempsey (2012) claim this theory to be more reliant “on social and cultural determinants of learning than it does on individual psychology" (p. 38).  

  Gagne’s theory of instruction was based on effective teachers he observed, which included a combination of his own reflections and of the cognitive processing theory.  The three domains of his theory included cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.  Gagne reported that verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor skills were the five essential categories of learning.   Reiser and Dempsey (2012) report, “The differences in conditions of learning across categories of learning outcomes provide guidelines for which condition must be included in instruction for specifically defined instructional goals” (p. 40).  Gagne’s theory is viewed to be analytical and can result in losing the overall goal of learning when considering all of the details.
A constructivist view of learning supports active learning through constructive means where the learner is in control and new information is linked to prior knowledge.  It’s viewed more as a collection of views where learners construct knowledge from the surrounding environment.  It encompasses the learner to focus on compound learning goals where authentic activities and collaborative feedback with peers play an important role (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  

My Stance

When comparing the three, contrasting epistemic stances I closely relate myself with contextualism because I believe that truth or knowledge is relative to the context rather than individual, subjective understanding.  Also, because of my epistemological framework, I employ a constructivist theory for learning.  I vividly remember a time in college when my perspective of learning conflicted greatly with that of my professor’s.  The assignment was to write a lesson plan.  Simple enough, right? I thought I had the perfect plan because I followed her detailed instructions explicitly,  However, after receiving negatives responses from her and multiple revisions attending her suggestions, resulting in a lesson that was a less than perfect learning experience.  My grade was a low B.  Our opposing beliefs in epistemology was definitely the root of the conflict. She definitely held a positivist stance.  Her expectations were ambiguous and inconsistent.  She held the views of only black and white, with no gray area to be considered.  Her responses proved that if it couldn’t be observed and measured then it shouldn’t be considered.     

Differences in Problem Solving

The behaviorist approach derives from the operant condition where stimuli and responses are associated with changed or new behavior reflecting the evidence of new learning. Particular consequences cue the learner of desired behavior.  Therefore, problem-solving is a weakness in this approach.  They are not trained to think critically or take initiative because they learn through repetition and automatic response. The constructivist approach is based on an individual's personal experience and their interpretations of external perceptions.  Because we all live differently, each of our learning is unique from the constructivist standpoint.  Individuals use the new experiences and prior knowledge to adjust their understandings of new knowledge.  Every constructivist construct their own knowledge and are not predictable, which make them better problem solvers.  However, one should have a broad foundation of personal experiences to make meaningful interpretations through active engagement.  The attention to motivation in instructional design has changed dramatically during the last fifteen years.  Its importance and crucial role are now understood in the performance of students.  One would less likely be motivated to learn from one that follows the approach of a behaviorist.  There are many variables to examine when studying motivation but one consideration would be the level of engagement in a constructivist learning environment versus that of a behaviorist.  Also, it’s more motivating when the learner is in control of the learning.  The principle of curiosity is related to motivation.  

Geiwitz and Vodanovich (1966, 2003) studied the dynamics of boredom and reported, boredom results from being in an environment that are filled with uniform, unchanging stimuli such as a warm classroom with an instructor lecturing in a soft uninflected voice. It is possible to be curious about the topic but so bored by the delivery method that sleep is inevitable (p.87).

Therefore, the presentation of new knowledge and the environment in which it’s received can greatly affect the motivation of learners.  Hence, a constructivist approach is a more plausible approach.  

References

Frisen, N. (2009). Re-thinking elearning research: Foundations, methods and practices [Chapter 6: Critical theory: ideology critique and the myths of e-learning (pp. 173-199)]. New York: Peter Lang.

Geiwitz, J.P. (1966). Structure of boredom.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 593-600.

Jennings, D., Surgenor, P., & McMahon, T. (2013). Education Theory/Constructivism and Social Constructivism in the Classroom - UCD - CTAG. Ucdoer.ie. Retrieved 12 June 2017, from http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning_Theories

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J.A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives.  Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.).    Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Vodanovich, S.J. (2003). Psychometric measure of boredom: A review of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 569-595.

Defining the IDT Field

The field related to educational technology has varied throughout the years and so has its definition. Educational technology, or “instructional technology” as Reiser and Dempsey refers, has continued to change from the beginning of the twentieth century to the 2008 AECT’s (Association for Educational Communication and Technology) most recent definition.  Examining the first page of the book produced by AECT states:

Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources (p.1).

Through the years of teaching, I’ve witnessed many changes in education.  With those changes, many educators were resistant to change.  Famous philosopher John Dewey once said, “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.”  I’m happy to say, I applaud the change.  I find many similarities when comparing the defining statement above to my own beliefs.   With the evolution of teaching, the teacher is now the facilitator of learning.  I support the constructivist learning theory because I believe children learn best when they work collaboratively with peers, engaging in rich conversation, applying new information, which results in more meaningful, authentic learning.

Technology can be portrayed in many forms and has evolved even more the last decade.  Knowing the times of education are changing and the use of technology is inevitable in the real world, it’s necessary we (the educators) change for students.   It's imperative that we utilize the tool of technology in an ethical and effective manner, for students to reap the most benefits.  Technology is a support tool that will enhance learning when applied correctly with learning. Technology allows for diversification with lessons and encourages students to be risk-takers in their learning.  Technology in the classroom is a vital tool and necessary in taking learners where they can research, explore, become critical thinkers, and be in control of their learning.   It’s important for learners to actively explore, investigate, and collaborate amongst other learners while they work through real-world problems, developing a plan to find solutions.

It was enriching to read indications that the new AECT definition included “a focus on systematic process and the use of technological resources” as integral parts (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  When hearing the words ‘educational technology’ or instructional technology, I’ve never thought of them as a process.  However, my understandings of the field have changed now.   

Examining the instructional design model reminded me a lot of Project Based Learning.  Reflecting on some of my previous lessons taught I can think of many that involved multiple, if not all, of the pieces of the instructional design model.  An example that came to mind involved the concept of teaching how to count money.  A readiness standard for second graders is to determine the value of a collection of coins up to a dollar.    Prior to any introduction to money I first analyze their learning (conduct a needs assessment-pretest).  Depending on the analysis of their current understandings of money, I would revise my lessons based on their needs.  The questions on the pretest are formatted to provide specific information in providing insight of their strengths and weaknesses.  I would form small groups (develop)for instruction so those that already show mastery of counting  5’s aren’t wasting their time and are working on other areas of counting they need to practice.   They will be working on an area they need to improve while I’m working with small groups (implement).  However, if they may need instruction with counting quarters we’ll work together when that time comes.  The objectives are discussed daily with students so they know what they’re expected to learn, including the measurable terms.  The objectives (design) are printed on the board and placed in their buckets when working in small groups practicing specific skills.  At the end of the unit, a summative evaluation will be given to measure the mastery level of learners.  Throughout the entire process of this unit, revision is always occurring to ensure all students reach mastery of this skill.  An area I would improve is collecting data using formative assessments.  I use an informal method of evaluating student growth and feel like I know where they are with learning how to count money, but would like to make it more concrete.  That would be the area I’d like to improve most.       

Reiser and Dempsey state, “instructional media will be defined as the physical means, other than the teacher, chalkboard, and textbook, via which instruction is presented to learners.”   They also say “It may be wise for practitioners in the field to adopt this viewpoint; however, in most discussions of the history of instructional media, the three primary means of instruction prior to the twentieth-century (and still the most common means today)-the teacher, the chalkboard, and the textbook-have been categorized separately from other media.  When I hear the term ‘media’ I don’t think of teachers, chalkboard, and textbooks.  Therefore, I wouldn’t consider them parts of instructional media.  I consider instructional media a form of communicating instructional information via television, magazines, Internet, radio without biased opinions.  The purpose of the instructional design isn’t necessarily used to incorporate media into instruction but promote careful planning of instruction to ensure quality learning by all students.  The integration of media (considering all forms) is an added bonus to improve student learning and promote authentic learning when the correct tools are used.

References

AECT Definition and Terminology Committee (2008).  Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary.  New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.).    Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.