ETEC 561 Section 5: Trends & Issues

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

Business & Industry Trends & Issues

It seems that the trends and issues pertaining to instructional design and training focus on two main factors in Business & Industry. Those factors are culture and cost.

Culture

As corporation become larger or more global there is a greater demand on the instructional designer to be able to design for cross cultural use. Societal cultural factors are important to a diverse organization as there are different norms when it comes to instruction and learning. There is also a need to understand symbols, colors, etc. of the target culture.  For training a cross-cultural group one should focus on the cultural similarities and stay away from the culturally sensitive content.  The designer should also focus on the learners and in an ideal situation should get to know the target leaners. Relying on a subject matter expert (SME) is also an important part of understanding and designing for a culture. Ultimately, understanding the target culture of the leaners will serve the designer best. It is important to have a broad accepting worldview.

As our schools and classrooms become more culturally diverse these same aspects come into play for instructional designers in the educational setting. I have students from many cultures and with many different worldviews, the challenge I have is teaching them a subject that is based around one culture. That culture is the American Culture. In eight grade American History we discuss many topics and events where we as Americans look at it in a favorable light. However, as our classrooms become more diverse I find myself having to consider how my Hispanic students see certain parts of American History and how to engage students that don’t see value in understand parts of how the United States Government works. This I have students from England and Ireland and as we get into the American Revolution I look forward to them being able to contribute their worldview on the part of our history. Unlike the corporate setting where designers are told to stay away from culturally insensitive topics we as American History teachers have to discuss them, but walk the line of using them for educational and instructional purposes.   

Cost

Cost in corporate instructional design can be summed up in the idea “Better, Faster, Cheaper”. This can be achieved in a few different ways. The first is rapid prototyping, here making a working model in essential to the process of cutting down on time used to achieve results. Web-based or technology-based training is a major trend in the corporate world. This kind of training can take many forms in today’s world, but makes for quicker training. Impact evaluation is very important. It is not good enough to just evaluate to see if knowledge has been gained, but that the knowledge in being translated into impact on the organization. Training must achieve results. The designer can also save time by being a researcher for the organization. The research done by the instructional designer should focus on improving performance.

With my other role as an educator being a middle school robotics coach, I relate with the cost aspects of corporate instructional design. I often think how we can build better robots cheaper and faster. We use YouTube videos from other teams and prototypes and examples from the past years to speed up the design process. YouTube videos and other online resources are used to train the students when they are away from the classroom thus reducing the need for in class instruction for certain areas of the robot building process. As the teacher/leader of the robotics program impact evaluation is incredibly important for me to gage the value of the instruction I am providing to my students. If what I am trying to teach them is not being applied then I need to reflect on the overall design and delivery of the instruction. As we try new ideas with in the robotics department for the district, I find that I am often the researcher and SME for the middle school years. I am constantly looking for ways to improve our product and the results it achieves. 

Military Trends & Issues

It is important to understand that the modern militaries of the world today and not simple, but very involved multifaceted organizations that have reasonability to train their soldiers both at home and abroad.

Trends

There are two major trend challenges that face the instructional designer for the military. Those trend challenges are:

·         international responsibilities of national or multinational military force

·         new technologies

Like corporate setting military settings can be culturally diverse. Much of the training and training material handled by America, when designing for the military client the end user has to be taken into account. Technology is another area that is shared with the corporate world, as well as education. No matter where you are at in the world and what you are doing you are being affected by emerging technologies. With the military being on the cutting edge of technology I would assume that this would always be an issue as well as a trend.

Issues

Budgetary issues are concern when providing effective impactful trainings in a military setting. The military is always looking to get the maximum bag for the buck. Another issue is the range of the technology needed for the military and for its training. From paper products to flight simulators or live action trainings could be part of the instructional environment of the military. Environment for the delivery of instruction can be a challenge. Training and knowledge gain is central to the success of the military and is an ongoing process where in the corporate world it tends to be a when needed process. Both corporations and the military can be very complex. Unlike the corporate world though, the military does not always have a single goal for instruction. Often, the military will have many needs to be addressed by one training. Then that information might need to be applied in countless ways. The final major issue is people and finding the best way to address all of their learning needs.

I have a much harder time comparing the military with my world. However, I do see the common theme of technology and budget concerns.

Health Care Trends & Issues

Instructional design has been a part of the Healthcare world for a very long time. It has gone through many trends and has been faced with many issues. The history of medical training is comprised of three distinct eras:

•    Prescientific Phase
•    Scientific Phase
•   Post-Flexner Phase

Trends

As with other heavily science based fields’ problem-based learning and evidence-based practice are central to medical field.  Factors to be considered in the medical field are risk, science, innovation, altruism, professionalism, and sensory perception. A medical student or practitioner has to take all of these factors into account. Again we find that innovation/technology is a key component.

Issues

 Knowledge and research are major factors in medical education because; knowledge is always advancing much like technology in advancing for the military or corporate worlds. Convergence of technologies, as in other settings, is a factor in medical training. Cost is another shared issue. One that is seems to be unique to the medical profession in regulations, standards, and licensure. I would lean that way if we were only looking at the corporate and military environment, however, education has a healthy dose of all three; standards, regulation, and licensure.

Compared to Education

All three of these fields compare to the Educational field. Budget concerns, changes in technologies, diversity of learners, standards, regulation, and licensure are all issues that we deal with on a daily basis. It was nice to read this section and realize what we are doing in the educational setting can translate to other professions so well.

ETEC 561 Section 4: Human Performance Technology

Not all problems in learning and/or performance require an instructional solution. Many times a non-instructional approach is a more appropriate solution. This week's reading and reflection focuses on human performance, performance support systems, knowledge management systems, and the concept of informal learning.

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

Motivation towards the TAKS/STAAR Test and the rankings coming from the success or lack of success has been an issue in my area of work. The last few years TAKS and now STAAR were tuff on my district. We were slapped with an unacceptable rating the final year of the TAKS test and this put our school into a funk and things seemed bleak. However, since then we have worked hard to correct this. We were led by our principal who put together a vision for success. To do this he had the department heads look into the areas of deficiencies within their own departments. He also motivated staff through vision and feedback in meetings with the departments and the staff as a whole. As a former coach he is a natural at motivating through words. He also started sending key members of the staff to trainings,^th grade writing.  We were ultimately successful because we wanted to get that monkey (STAAR) off our backs.
so they could gain knowledge to be used in the classroom. I am happy to report that our campus met standards this year and even earned an academic distinction for 7

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

We had a performance support system implemented in the hopes that it would lead to better performance when it came to STAAR scores. We had several supports put into place. We started using Eduphoria to track student performance on tests. I also gave the ability to look at a student over time. We also analyzed previous TAKS/STAAR scores and how our students performed towards specific TEKS. Another way we were helped was that our district hired aides to help in lesson preparation when it came to preparing for our unit tests and ultimately the STAAR test. We also got new technologies in the classroom like Promethean Boards and other resources like support texts. The last key support was additional training that would increase student performance by increasing our knowledge of designing lessons towards our student’s success.

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

I explained towards this some before, but the things we looked at in becoming more successful on the STARR test were many. We looked at students previous scores on other tests. We also tracked their performance through the year when it came to Unit Tests. We also looked at released STAAR questions and previous TAKS test questions. In doing this we looked for areas that the students as a whole needed extra support. This allowed us to be able to come up with focused instruction to help improve the understanding of difficult areas.                                                         Our department became very focused on improving student success.

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

The thing, I think, that improved our specific departments STAAR scores more than anything were our department meetings. Now in saying this, what comes to mind might be a very formal meeting between members of our department, but what these meetings became was an opportunity for us to share with each other our knowledge, success, and failures. These were very informal meetings and what was truly nice is that we for the most part were able to just be left to ourselves to come up with our plan to conquer the STAAR Test. These meetings could have been managed by a principal or some other person from central office, but I think if it had been the outcome would not have been as good as it was. We needed to be informal and left to ourselves so that we had creative freedom.

ETEC 561 Section 3: Evaluating, Implementing and Managing Instructional Programs and Projects

All too often instruction is developed with little thought as to how evaluation of learning or the effectiveness of the instruction will take place. When evaluation is considered on the front end of the instructional design process, it is often limited to evaluating whether the instructional design is more effective than traditional methods.

For this week's reflection activities, I would like for you to concentrate on the following:

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

Standards Based and Responsive Evaluation Models

(Robert E. Stake)

After reading many different sources online I found a presentation that Stake gave at the IPIEN conference on Development and Evaluation in 2006. In his presentation he discusses two different model for evaluating a group or organization.  These two models are the Standards based and the Responsive Evaluation Models.

To summarize the Standards Based Model, Stake says it is “comparing measurements”. This model is more formal and has set variables and limits. This model leans itself more to a formative assessment. Being standards based it is looking for tested results to show for growth. Often the model will evaluate one or a limited set of standards and look to these to gage a measurement of performance. This has become big in modern education with the standardized test being the chief form of data gaining tool. This makes for what I think is a very narrow and in some ways faulty evaluation model. I don’t think one can gage overall performance based on a limited sample. I use Standards Based Evaluation several times a year usually at the end of a unit, to gage the knowledge mastery of the learner over particular information. I believe this model is also used evaluate classes, the instructor, or segments of instruction. In theory the better the instruction or the more engaging the lesson the better the standards should be met by the leaner.

I have also summarized Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. This model is designed so that the evaluator can be responsive to the learner’s needs and concerns. This model more leans itself to formative assessments. The stakeholder is at the center of this model and allows the evaluator to be flexible. Responsive Evaluations have to lean on the evaluators experience and judgments based on their personal experience to evaluate. Stake calls the Responsive Evaluation an “experiential understanding. This differs from the more traditional models in that it is a much more informal model. This model also can take into account the experiences of other experts. I think we as teachers probably use this methods often. I also believe this model has short comings as it relies too heavily on others experience in order to make a judgment. I use this model often in my instruction and the evaluation of my learners. I make judgments everyday about whether my class is “getting it” or not. I think that this model allows for quick informal evaluation to gage success of instruction. I have experienced and relied on this model, by having other experts observe my instruction and supply me with feedback just like I do for my leaners. Further information on these models can be found HERE.

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

When looking at different options for evaluation an instructional designer should ask themselves a few questions before deciding on one or more evaluation models. The following are a few examples I came up with that might be useful to know:

a.    What is the “value” (Scriven) to the learner?

b.    What type of data is being gathered?

c.    How will the data gathered be used?

d.    What type of environment will the evaluation by done in?

e.    What type of organization will be evaluated?

f.     What is the focus of the evaluation?

g.   How long will the evaluation last?

h.    Who is being evaluated?

i.     What are the desired results of the evaluation?

Brinkerhoff and Patton also had lists associated with their models of evaluation.

All of these questions have the commonality of a focus of determining how an evaluation will be given and used and what the “picture of success” looks like. I think that we must think about these things before we develop instruction. If we design with the end in mind then we should be more successful in the long term with our results and the performance of our learners.

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

If I consider this from the perspective of my district, I would consider any project like this to be done with scarce resources. Now, I what is scarce here is the question. Is it time to get the sessions ready, lack of personnel to prepare and present this training, or it is it that more funding is needed to make this happen. Again I will use what I know of my own district again. Time would probably not be an issue in preparing the sessions. However, the time to deliver it effectively to all staff might be an issue. There are ways this could be accomplished. It could be done in inservice training. It could also be down after school for factuality meetings. Another option would be to have teachers come to training during the instructional day. The final way could be to develop this as an online course that teachers could do as they have time with in a given week. These all have strengths and weaknesses. The best solution might be to do a mixture of these. Now when doing them during the instructional day cost must be considered. Cost must also be considered in the development and implementation of the training if done online. Inservice would be a time that would not cost the district extra money, but it might rob teachers of valuable time that is needed for other activities. After school meetings are never the best time to do train at least as far as most teachers are concerned. What I would suggest to the district would be to do a day face to face. Then do a couple of online sessions with assessments and end it with an after school question and answer session. There might also be a project or demonstration that could be produced like a portfolio for the teachers to show they understand the concepts.

As far a developing these lessons there are always limited personal at my district. In most cases one person would be responsible for most of the aspects of design and another would be responsible to put together the class and register participants. Either of these people might instruct the sessions. If I was the director of Instructional Technology and was tasked with this project, I would first discuss the focus and expected outcomes with the Superintendent and the head of Academics. After understanding the expectations, I would get my best instructional planner, or in the case of my district and its technology department it’s only planner. After discussing with instructional planner the limitation and expectations I would work with that person to start the process of designing the sessions. As I felt the planner was getting the focus of these sessions I would start to step back, but still check in often the help with questions and redirect misunderstandings. When the questions and misunderstands have been resolved I would step back from the development of the informational or instructional side to focus on the end product being ready to present and making schedules and online notices for teachers of the upcoming face to face session. This would mean working with campus administrators heavily. I would while focusing on this still check in with the planner and thank and reward when possible and/or necessary. At the stage where my focus must switch to finalizing the details of presenting the first session I would be letting the planner finish almost totally on their own. I would still review the session presentation before it is deemed finished. I would repeat this process for the first online session also. The second one might not need much involvement from me until it was finished. However, that does not mean I would not be involved with stating focus and expected outcomes and then checking in from time to time. I would handle the question and answer session, but it would be nice to have planner there to see how their work was received and understood. To me this scenario is probably more the norm at most districts instead of the exception.

ETEC 561 Reflection Two

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

As I understand it, epistemology a philosophy of knowledge acquisition. This gaining of knowledge could be through natural progression of knowledge or it could be through instruction and training. Just because we know or can do something we did not before does not mean that we learned it formally. The acquisition of some new knowledge might have merely come from human development or maturation. Both human development and maturation will occur naturally and are not dependent on formal learning. However, you can classify both as ways we come to know so they fall under epistemology. However, instructional methods, models,  or theories, on the other hand, are ways to formally learn or ways to enhance a person’s knowledge or abilities. For example everyone learns to run. However, not everyone learns to run at the level of an athlete. To become an athlete one must train. Training is a process that has been designed using an instructional method, model, or theory.  Therefore, methods, models, and theories are used or will be used to enhance human performance. Where epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing are just that simply that the philosophy of what and how we come to know.
 

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

The contextualist epistemology would suggest that the leaner needs to have a more able other to achieve a greater potential. I believe that the contextualists are a mix of the positivists and constructivists. Constructivists suggest that the leaner should not go it alone, but should have a teacher as guide to steer them. However, I do not think the contextualists would have agreed that students should be a responsible for their own learning as constructivists do. Behaviorists are not totally in line with the contextualists either. Behaviorists would think that the teacher should steer the students more heavily than contextualists. A positivist would agree with a contextualists that you have to use your context or “the world around you” as basis for knowledge gain and understanding, however a positivist would say we should have a full understand of the universe and “the world around us”. A relativist would, I think agree with the idea that part of your context is your personal and cultural beliefs. However, I think a contextualist would not say that the there is no more truth then personal or cultural schema. This being said a contextualist epistemology would use cultural artifacts or tools to help the learner, but would also take into account the past experiences of the learner. When harnessed by a more able other this can allow the learner to achieve their full potential.
 

3. Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving. Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives. How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process? Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?

Behaviorists problem solving comes from the “Sage on the Stage” or teacher. This theory would say that a learner would anticipate the evaluation and then corrective feedback instantaneously. This leads to instruction that is given in small doses and then checked for understanding. This allows the learner to become lazy and expect the correction no matter the output of the learner. The constructivists would have a very different approach to problem solving and this would consists of the “guide on the side” where the learner is responsible for their on gain of knowledge and the teacher is there to steer them and assist when needed. The Behaviorist approach has its place especially early on in the learning process. This approach can quickly give students information that is needed and can check for understanding of the information. However, this method can be boring and I feel that it does not often lead to authentic learning. This also does not allow the leaner to think for themselves or prepare them for “the real world”. The constructivist approach is much more authentic and student driven. Humans learn by doing and producing. So this approach I believe leads to more engagement. I have seen this first hand in my robotics classes. Earlier in the year I have to quickly supply them with knowledge that they will need for the rest of the year. To do this we take a “Sage on the Stage” approach. It is much more difficult to keep them engaged during this time then once they start to design and build their robots. At this time I have given them the information they need to have a basic understanding and then it is my time to be the “guide on the side” and be there when they need me. I move around the room to make sure they are understanding, but only stepping in if they get too far off course or are stuck. Even then, I ask question that will steer then not tell them this is what you should do. During this time engagement is high as it would be in any class that allows the student to be the acquirer and producer of their own knowledge gain.