Integration
of Instructional Design and Information Technology - Educ 5103
Adam Young - 20120811
Spring 2012 Semester
Cape
Breton University
Introduction
The
last seven weeks of this course have opened my eyes to many different concepts
and issues surrounding instructional design and information technology. The course
focused on the importance of planning, incorporating IT into the delivery of
the curriculum and the use of ID models in order to facilitate the most
effective platform for learning. I did not know what to expect when I first
signed up for this course, knowing little about what instructional design
entailed. My expertise in technology is somewhat average when compared with
other professionals, yet I am considered the expert at the school I work in.
This is not saying much when you consider how little technology is being used
in my school at the present moment. This lack of resources was one of the main
driving forces for my decision to further my professional development in the
area of IT. Now, at the end of the course I reflect back on the readings,
discussion and collaborative group work to see how all the pieces fit together.
In this paper I will touch on the key points raised regarding learning theories
and connecting them with technology, as well as demonstrate how I plan on using
this information as an administrator and in my teaching. I will also illustrate
how I plan on implementing effective ways to use ID and IT at my school.
Learning with and of
technology
This being my second course in through CBU I was already familiar
with moodle and the distance education platform. I enjoy the constructive
comments given by fellow classmates and the natural way learning seems to
happen. I feel that distance learning has blurred the lines of what a classroom
should look like and has created a self-driven ID model that nurtures the
learning process. The article, The
medium is not the message (Ely, 1999) was a perfect introduction read for
this course, highlighting on the misconceptions of distance education; “Distance learning is an approach to
teaching in which teacher and learner are physically separated.” (Ely,
1999) What the author is pointing out is that the purpose in distance education
is to bridge the gap between teacher and student, technology becoming the
“delivery” system and not the main focal point of the learning. I can relate to this “message” immediately
because I live in a rural setting and distance education is allowing me to
further my own professional development without the displacement. I see this
positive IT impact again for students at my school taking courses through CDLI,
ones they could not have had access to without technology. IT is not taking the
place of the “warm bodied” teacher, merely acting as a tool to help deliver the
most effective form of knowledge acquisition. Other items to take into consideration
when thinking about ID and IT are your own personal teaching philosophies. My
first love (subject wise) in school was Art. I could not wait to see what Mr.
Brooks, my high school art teacher, had planned for us each day. Art class was
different from other classes because it allowed me to explore and learn without
the anxiety I felt in other subject areas. In school I usually had a difficult
time focusing on teacher-directed learning (Behaviourism, Cognitivism) and
flourished in student-directed learning (Constructivism). This is still the
case for me as an adult learner. Today’s learners are exposed to the benefits
of a constructivist learning environment in all subject areas as well as having
the ability to utilize engaging technology. “Mindtools”
(Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998) introduce the
concept of computer technologies being used as platforms for learning were the
learner has the ability to participate in meaningful constructivist learning.
Jonassen also highlights how software can compartmentalize data delivered from
the student using dynamic tools and semantic organizing tools (Jonassen,
Carr, & Yueh, 1998). I have had experiences with students who were
not self-motivated and required a direct-instructional style of teaching, while
other students worked best individually or in groups. In my opinion, an
effective teacher will use all the tools he/she has in their itinerary as well
as plan for all situations that may arise. Rapid prototyping accounts for this
type of reflective theory and I will discuss that model later in the paper.
Learning with technology and
learning of technology are important aspects in ID and IT fields. “Technologies as conveyors of information
have been used for centuries to “teach” students, whereas interactive
technologies began to be introduced early in the 20th century to
“engage” students in the learning process.” (Cuban, 1986) Week 3 brought light
to two different types of software that lends themselves to the educational
spectrum, instructional and application based software. When
using instructional software the computer becomes the teacher whereas application software the computer acts as a
platform for learning and the teacher remains the primary director. When
considering the use of learning theories, application software fits within the
realm of constructivism. There are many application forms available with
the most common being office suite applications, word processors, spreadsheets,
databases, multimedia, etc... This type of software provides a platform for
learning providing the user with the tools to manipulate knowledge.
Instructional software falls predominantly within the behaviourist and cognitivist
realm of learning theory. This type of software contains the knowledge and
directs the learning. Although instructional software could be categories as
mostly drill-and-practice, there are certainly programs out there possessing
constructivist elements. Microworlds, edutainment and simulations are great programs
that provide an arena for learning. Reflecting on these two types of technology
I can see appropriate times to use both instructional and application software.
As Morrison (1999) illustrates in his article “Teacher as Designer”, instructional
software should not be used to replace a teacher, but as a tool to help foster
learning and knowledge acquisition (p.59). I have used instructional software
in my teaching and found it to be more valuable to use as a method of repeating
concepts and reinforcing prior learning. I have used instructional software to
help students witness scientific experiments, such as the growth of organisms,
in the span of a couple seconds rather than days or weeks without needing any
specialized equipment. On the opposite side of the coin, sometimes the software
was too advanced or too simple for students. In these cases student interest
waned very quickly and teaching time was lost. I come to the realization that I
need to have an understanding of the technological level of understanding that
each student in my class possess, along with a solid knowledge of the software
being utilized.
New Ideas developed as they apply
to my work.
Instructional
design and information technology was investigated for the remaining four
weeks. Silvern (1965) describes the role that models take in Instructional design as“… to provide conceptual and Communication tools that can be used to
visualize, direct, and manage processes for generating episodes of guided learning.”
My knowledge of instructional design, as I mentioned earlier, was somewhat
limited to the basic lesson plan templates I had used over my years of
teaching. Throughout the following weeks I came to realize that there are many
different instructional design models in circulation that are constantly
evolving. The ADDIE model consisting of Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement and
Evaluate seems to be the most widely used of the I.D models. What I.D does is
it gives the designer a “God’s Eye View” of what the entire process of knowledge
delivery looks like. Behaviourism was the main learning style when I.D came to
fruition but just like anything that evolves I.D began to incorporate cognitivist
and constructivist theories. I.D which began as a linear, teacher-directed
concept has begun to change into more student-directed types of design. Rapid Prototyping is another evolved form of
Instructional design that takes into account the need for fast and constant
revisions to a model in order to heighten the models effectiveness. Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990) define Rapid
Prototyping as, “… a system development methodology
based on building and using a model for the system for designing, implementing,
testing and installing the system” (p.5). This type of model is very
effective for instructional technology because it keeps pace with changes in
technology. RP focuses on the immediate problems and creates alternate designs,
if needed, which may require many changes in the initial design. Users of the
design have input as they discover problems and give immediate feedback to the
designer. It is much more cost effective and cuts down on the time it takes to
create a model from start to finish. I
feel that RP is especially useful when considering IT in instructional design,
seeing the connection between technology (fast and evolving) and RP (fast and
evolving).
After
being exposed to the different ID models such as ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Rapid
Prototyping and The Kemp model, along with others, I began to see that even
though the models were constructed by different people most of the criteria
remained the same. I feel, in its most basic form, a model requires an
objective, plan of action, delivery, evaluation and reflection.
It was during this time
in the course that our group began to formulate concepts and discuss what
elements we required for our I.D model. I was extremely happy with the way our
group formulated a concept, organized roles between members and communicated on
a daily basis. We all agreed that we
wanted the model to be non-linear with a clear student-centered constructivist
feel. We settled on a model that took all of those characteristics into account
and named it the “Helix Model”. Our group also felt the need to delve deeper
into the model’s detail. We decided to incorporate a flowchart illustrating its
natural progression. I must admit that the thought of online group work gave me
anxiety. I have had a couple experiences with online group work and most have
been very rewarding. I feel the conversation is focused and the content is of
higher quality when compared to when the group works in the same physical environment.
My group members have taught me as much about ID and IT as all other elements
of the course.
Taking
IT into consideration was the focus for week 6. This week we learned about the
NTeQ model designed by Gary Morrison and Deborah Lowther (1999). This model
shows how to integrate computer lessons where the computer is used as a tool
for students to “organize and manipulate
data or information to solve problems while learning new content and skills”
(p.37). The NTeQ model consists of; Specify Objectives, Computer Functions,
Specify problems, Data manipulation, Results Presentation, Activities while at
computer, Activities prior to computer, After using computer, Supporting
activities and Assessment. This model demonstrates how I.T can be implemented
in a constructivist manner. NTeQ takes technology into account and uses
technology as a tool to organize the delivery of knowledge without over using
it. The things I like about this model are it gives teachers a clear and direct
way to implement technology into any lesson. It also takes into account all
learning theories giving priority to constructivism and gives direction as to
when technology is needed during every process of the design.
During the final week we discussed the importance of
technology in ID and how the move towards constructivism is creating a paradigm
shift in assessment. Coming from a visual arts background I was always tuned
into a constructivism approach to learning. Using presentations and portfolios
to assess and evaluate my students was the only thing that made sense to me. Standardized
tests were something I did not have to deal with because the province was not
interested in measuring my art marks against other schools or districts. Love,
Russo and Tinto (1993) explain the importance of multi-methods of assessment
stating, “There are considerably greater insight into program functioning and a
degree of “cross-triangulation” that enhances the validity of the assessment”.
When I look at any particular classroom in my school I see varying levels of
ability among students, as well as unique differences within each learner. It
only makes sense to differentiate the assessments and evaluations in order to acquire
the most accurate measurement of understanding among all students. Reeves &
Jonassen (1996) touch on this issue:
“… from a constructivist
perspective, it is always necessary to assess the learner’s unique perspective
in addition to making any external comparisons. Understanding the sense that
learners make from studying any content domain may be far more informative than
comparing the student’s knowledge to that of the teacher or expert. With this
in mind, it is often useful and illuminating to allow learners to create
multiple products (perhaps using different tools) with reference to the same
content or problem. Some learners may be better able to express themselves
through multimedia, other through more abstract tools, such as spreadsheets or
databases.” (p 715)
Ideas for helping others learn
with/about technology
Now,
as I look toward the future I can see how this information connects directly
with my school and our need to implement technology in a more meaningful way.
My school has just recently designed a new development plan with an improvement
in our technology (ie, teachers professional development and upgrade in school technologies)
being one of the most important objectives. This along with an upgrade in our
current technology, positions my school in an ideal environment to foster
meaningful technological learning and effective design use. I can see how ID
and IT can be used throughout the school, in each grade and subject area, and
how teachers can begin to implement technology in their lesson plans. I am
taking the lead on our technology objective in our SD plan and will use a full
day in September to assess teacher’s current understanding with regards to
technology, specifically in instructional and application software. I will also
give an overview of the different ID models we have learned in this course,
focusing on the NTeQ model and how it incorporates the use of technology within
the lesson plan allowing for, in my opinion, the most effective use of
technology. Student ownership is an issue we presently face at my school and
Morrison (1999) points this out in the NTeQ model, “Student ownership is easier to achieve in a student-centered learning
environment rather than in a traditional setting” (pg45). As well, Morrison
goes on to mention how important it is to have the students involved in every
aspect of the lesson, generating their own data as well as researching multiple
sources and having the students involved in the design of the initial problem.
All of this allows students to “…have
more ownership and more involvement in reaching a solution” (p.45).
I also plan on communicating
the concepts of “cognitive tools” (Reeves & Jonassen, 1996), and “Mindtools”(Jonassen,
Carr & Yueh,1998) to my staff as alternate platform for knowledge
collection and delivery. I feel we should consider using technology in every
aspect of the lesson, and not only for the delivery of information but as well
as the accumulation of information. Teachers at my school need to make
technology an important objective in their professional growth. Morrison (1999)
raises some key issues speaking about computer-based instruction (CBI) software
and how teachers may rely too heavily on this. I have come to realize that this
type of software is a great tool but should be investigated and possibly customized
to fit the uniqueness of each class. This allows teachers to make the lesson
more relevant to the students and in turn allow students to take a greater
ownership on the knowledge, in turn creating a more constructivist learning
environment.
My reaction and learning with and
about technology as a result of this course
This course has given
me many tools to use as an administrator and a teacher in my school. Have I
gained new knowledge in the areas of ID and IT? Most definitely! As a result of
this course I have a reconnection to the importance of constructivism and student-directed
learning. The entire process of distance education shows me how powerful technology
can be in every aspect of the education world. Having the ability to gather
knowledge, communicate, collaborate and receive feedback almost instantaneously
gives educators unlimited resources and has drastically changed the traditional
view of the classroom. Even in a rural setting students and teachers have the
same capabilities and opportunities to learn as anywhere in the world. Ely (1999)
makes reference to this when he writes, “It appears distance learning is one
development of the information age that will become a vital part of the
education landscape in the future. It will take its place along with traditional
patterns of professional preparation.”
Reflecting on my learning during this course I find myself refocused on
the “how” and “why” of teaching and learning. A good teacher is someone who is adaptable and
understands the importance of ID and IT as well as teaching theories and the
appropriate times to use those theories. I also see the importance in
connecting with other professionals in the field and maintaining current in
these areas. The great thing about distance education and collaborative group
discussion is that it creates a functional professional learning community that
extends past the course end date. Professional students giving feedback to each
other and expanding upon the initial question is exactly what a collaborative
learning environment should do.
References
Cuban, L.
(1986). Teachers and machines: The
classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: teachers college press.
Ely, D.P. (1999). The Medium is not the message. Founding Director, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fmedium.html
Gustafson, K. & Branch R. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development. Educational technology research and development. 45(3), 73-89.
Jonassen, D.H.,
Carr, C., & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Techtrends,
43 (2), 24-32.
Love, A.G.,
Russo, P., Tinto, V. (1993). Assessment of collaborative learning programs: The promise of collaborative research. Retrieved from http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/acl/iid.html
Morrison, G.R.
et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating computer technology into theclassroom, pp. 37-60. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall. (Chapter 3) In the book Integrating Computer Technology into
the Classroom
Reeves, T. C.
& Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Learning
with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693-719). New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster Macmillan.
Tripp, S. D.
& Bichelmeyer, B. (1990) Rapid Prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Retrieved from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edpy597mappin /readings/m11_Tripp.htm
