Informal Learning

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 to include others?

My campus has our Learning Community meetings every two weeks where all of the teachers and administrators come together to share best practices.  Our administration does a great job of scripting these and having training information ready to present, but the best learning opportunities come during the last part of the meeting where they open the floor to questions.  For instance, our district is focused on implementing multiple response strategies.  One teacher asked the group for ideas.  By the time we left, we all had a list of responses that fit her situation as well as mine.  We could share those learning moments if we took the time to record and catalog the responses.  I feel like codifying and managing these moments would remove the authenticity of the learning.  As close as we could get to replicating is possibly creating a list of discussion stems, talks that the faculty might encounter during new units, etc.  Additionally, after my experience with this class, I'm thinking about creating a blog for our teachers to facilitate online conversations like those we have during our meetings.

Data to Support the Need for Intervention

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?

The on-site stress management experts could gather tacit information through brief behavioral assessments designed to find identify cues pointing towards stress.  Assessments can be given at specific increments throughout the school year with designated scores receiving designated intervention plans.  Due to the sensitive nature of the information, the data would have to be collected covertly and shared only as needed and with the teacher’s permission.

On-Site Stress Support Groups

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.
 

Performance support systems are practical, individualized, ever-available helps for a person to do their job effectively and add the most value to their system.  A performance support system could possibly help improve teacher motivation, especially if it helps with stress management.  Also, teachers will need stress-management support at the campus level so that they are able to feel as if someone can identify with their struggles and offer practical, tried-and-true solutions. According to our text, providing help “at the point of need” is a crucial component of effective performance support.  On-site stress management experts would be able to intervene before stress levels became excessive.

Teachers Need Incentives, Too!

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.

As the school year progresses, teacher motivation is waning (mine included).  This prompt motivated me to revisit incentive pay for teachers and how it could positively impact teacher performance.  On page 137 of our text, it states that “a system that rewards people for their behavior without accounting for accomplishment encourages incompetence” (Gilbert 2007).  At my campus, we are occasionally verbally rewarded for completing tasks, like getting grades turned in on time, perfect attendance, etc., but our administration is limited in the fiscal incentives they can offer us and still comply with district and state policies.  Although “new incentive systems” are listed on page 140 as one of the interventions at the disposal of human resource development professionals, for some reason, it almost seems that society expects teachers to be “above” requiring incentives to encourage performance and that our reward should come from shaping lives.  However, both Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model and the HPT model of the International Society for Performance Improvement list “adequate financial incentives contingent upon performance” and “compensation” respectively as intervention and incentives.  In his article “Most Likely to Succeed” (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1) , published in The New Yorker in December 2008, Malcolm Gladwell argues that incentive pay for highly effective teachers would benefit the education system just as it does the world of investment bankers.

Team Dynamics: Situational Leadership

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?

 

I would approach the task by breaking it into small, doable segments by planning the first training in the series as a group, then letting my team plan the other trainings with my supervision.  I would follow the four phases of situational leadership as outlined by Hersey in 2001.  During phase 1, I would convene the team to establish my authority and experience developing teacher training and assess their strengths/weaknesses.  I would present my ideas for how to divide the workload.  I would give specific deadlines for their drafts of their trainings, etc.  Then, we would reconvene for a follow up on tasks assigned during our initial training.  As we enter phase 2, I would meet individually with each team member to applaud their hardwork and help them to narrow down the best of their ideas.  Then, each team member would present their best training topic ideas for critique to the large group.  Next, we would actually deliver the training as we designed and enter into phase 3.  During our debriefing meeting after the training, we would go over the aggregate results of the participant evaluations and celebrate our successes as well as plan to combat our weaknesses.  Phase 4 would consist of my team developing their ideas and going straight to the large/group critique meeting.  Each team member would then develop their own timeline for implementation.  Phases 3 and 4 would remain the same until all trainings have been developed.

Evaluating Evaluation Models

 

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?

 

I would like to see an evaluation model that also addresses retention of learning and long-term achievements of participants.  I also prefer the models that are broken into logical chunks because those models can help answer the questions regarding which parts of the instruction were effective and which were ineffective so that the designer does not always have to evaluate the intervention or program as a whole but can figure out which parts work and which do not. 

Instructional Design Evaluation Models

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.

 

Evaluation of innovative instructional practices began using methodology familiar to scientists—experimental groups versus control groups.  In the midst of a revolution in education that spanned the 1960’s, Michael Scriven coined and defined formative evaluation (designed to improve a product or work) and summative evaluation (designed to derive any other information about a product or work, including its overall value).  He believed it necessary to take the intent of evaluation into consideration before analyzing its effectiveness.

 

Chapter 10 highlights the CIPP model of evaluation by Stufflebeam which is comprised of four individual evaluations—context evaluation (assessment of the environment in which the intervention would take place), input evaluation (assesses the resources used), process evaluation (assesses how the program is implemented) and product evaluation (assesses the results and outcomes).  In this model, the evaluator is an essential part of the evaluation process and is involved from the beginning. 

 

Additionally, this chapter discusses the Kirkpatrick model for evaluating training, first proposed in 1959.  As I read the paragraph introducing the model on page 99 (in the 3^rd addition of our text), I realized that the Kirkpatrick model is a perfect example of a “schema” or “mental structure” as Wikipedia defines it.  There are four levels of evaluation that can be utilized alone or together, but that build on each other. 

·         Level 1:  Reaction

·         Level 2:  Learning

·         Level 3:  Behavior

·         Level 4:  Results

 

http://www.ftknowledge.com/ftk/how/evaluating.html

 

Search for at least two other models used for evaluation and summarize these models.

The Kemp model is comprised of nine different steps represented visually by nested ovals.  According to this site from the University of Alberta,http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edit573/modules/module4.htm, the nine steps can be defined as follows: 

1.      Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.

2.      Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.

3.      Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.

4.      State instructional objectives for the learner.

5.      Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning.

6.      Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.

7.      Plan the instructional message and delivery.

8.      Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.

9.      Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

The outer two circles are there to remind the implementer that planning, revision, formative assessment, summative assessment, project management and supporting the program occur at each of the nine steps and repeat throughout. 

 

 http://tomdorgan.com/mit/def/defDesign.html

 

Like the Kirkpatrick model, the TVS or Training Validation System model (Fitz-Enz, 1994) was designed to evaluate training utilizing these four evaluation steps:

1.      Evaluate the situation through pre-assessments

2.      Determine the needed intervention according to the data from step one

3.      Assess the impact by comparing pre- and post-test data.

4.      Derive the value of the training using concrete methods like Return on Investment calculations

Source:  http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_2/eseryel.html

 

 

Describe how you would use them to evaluate your instruction.

Honestly, I most likely would not use the Kemp model to evaluate my instruction because of its specificity and because it has about twice as many aspect to consider.  However, for some, the detail of the model would be its strength, especially when beginning to understand the basic concepts of instructional design.  Other strengths are that it addresses sequencing the content in a logical manner rather than a blanket prescription for implementation in step five and that it addresses differentiating learning for the individual student in step six.  If I were using this model, I would focus on steps five and six to help strengthen my instruction.  In my opinion, the other steps are already inherent in the traditional teaching cycle.

 

Conversely, the TVS model seems a little too succinct and may or may not be the best model for me to use to evaluate my instruction.  I appreciate its emphasis on pre-and post-testing.  I rarely formally pre-asses my students, but I believe that they could benefit greatly from it.  However, the TVS model does not seem to clearly explain what should happen in the classroom during the time between those two assessments.



Question 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?

Behaviorist’s approach to problem solving:

Behaviorist would make sure they fully understand the problem or objective, assess what they know and don’t know about the given problem, break the problem into small pieces,  find ways to practice the skills needed to solve the problem,  implement these new skills,  evaluate all feedback they are given during their attempt.  Then, repeat the implementing and evaluating feedback loop until they worked through all segments of the problem.

Constructivist’s approach to problem solving:

Constructivists would present the problem, then surround the learner with authentic materials to help them solve the problem,  put them in teams so that they have collaborators and possibly connect them to other distant teams with the same goal, allow the teams to set their own pace and goals through the problem-solving process, then allow reflection of the problem-solving process. The teacher would act as facilitator.  Unbeknownst to me, I have been instructing using this method for the last year with my robotics teams.  For both FIRST Robotics Competition and BEST Robotics, my students are given a problem, a set of standard parts and six weeks to solve the problem.  Industry volunteers help lend expertise and support to the process.  We opened each session by reviewing the questions or problems from the last meeting and we closed each session with the students listing their ideas for what each sub-team should do for our next meeting, what materials we needed and what research they would need to do to fulfill their tasks.  I realized at the end of the first competition that although I was the proverbial "guide on the side," my expertise was more crucial to their success than is implied in our text.  I have since done some research and training and plan to compile a list of websites for them to go to for particular problems until they build their knowledge base enough to be able to apply what they have learned to a variety of situations. 

Behaviorist’s approach to problem-solving and its effect on learner motivation:

Because of the analytical approach to problem solving and the vital role of prior knowledge, the behaviorist’s approach should theoretically motivate the learner to research the problem more thoroughly in order to solve it.  The behaviorist approach should also motivate the learner to value feedback since it is crucial for the implementation of their problem-solving strategy.

Constructivist’s approach to problem-solving and its effect on learner motivation:

Since constructivist hugely emphasize the design of the environment and the authenticity of the experiences to the real world, learner motivation would depend mostly on learner interest.  One of the teacher's primary functions has to be to stoke the interest of the students in the midst of the problem-solving experience, thus igniting their passion to take their learning in varied and deeper directions. 

Postivists vs. Relativists vs. Contextualists

Question 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 either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?

 

As stated with the root of the question, posivists subscribe to behaviorist principles, meaning they approach learning more scientifically than experientially.  Behaviorialists believe that learning can be explained and enhanced based on observations, modifications and feedback in a continuous loop. The sign of success for a behaviorialist is positive change in behavior.

 

Conversely, relativists apply radical constructivist theories where the learner acquires knowledge form their environment and then construct their own new knowledge based on authentic experiences. Radical constructivists believe that learning comes from their environment.

 

In the middle of these two perspectives stands the contextualist.  Given the information presented about positivists and relativists, I believe contextualists blend the tenets of the two epistemologies together to formulate, where the learner acquires knowledge using the scientific observation/feedback loop of behaviorialists, but the instructional designer also uses purposeful contexts to guide the learners through the process in a series of small learning experiences. 

 

 

Epistemology apparently has nothing to do with plants

Question 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?"

Epistemology is basically the study of how we learn, with learning loosely defined as the purposeful acquisition of knowledge.  Instructional methods and theories result from researchers' observations of learners and their categorization of common patterns in learning.  Methods and theories operate on the "assumption that instruction will bring about learning"  (page 35, Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology, 3rd Edition, Reiser and Dempsey). 

 

It took me until page 46, when the textbook offered “historical perspectives” on constructivism with instructional models for me to deduce that theories, methods and models typically are the application of the underlying beliefs or epistemologies that the researchers developed.  Both should be mixed with specific knowledge of the particular content and audience to develop a specific approach for particular learners.

What is the role of the teacher and the purpose of instructional design?

In the 3^rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media. Why?
Reiser states that teachers, chalkboards and textbooks were the primary means of students getting information prior to the 20th century and that instructional media initially related to supplemental materials, not primary delivery modes.

Would you consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media?  Chalkboards and textbooks are instructional media—ways to convey information to students.  Teachers, however, are more than media because they can evaluate the needs of the students not only empirically but subjectively.  Chalkboards and textbooks cannot tell if a student is misunderstanding a concept because the student skipped breakfast or is going through a traumatic time at home.  Teachers are uniquely positioned to evaluate the teaching and learning process with more clarity and precision using the many intellectual, social and emotional cues learners offer.

Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction?  I believe the purpose of instructional media is to most effectively convey information to students in a way in which they can understand and apply it.  We may or may not accomplish that purpose using media.  The beauty of instructional design is that it asks the teacher to analyze and evaluate the learner objectives and convey those objectives by the most expedient medium, whether that is by teaching the students a rhyming song or by using iPads.

My Lesson Versus the Six Characteristics of Instructional Design

Reflection Question:  Next, think of a lesson or unit of instruction that you have developed. Or if you haven’t ever taught or developed instruction, think of one that you have received. How does that lesson adhere or fail to adhere to the six characteristics of instructional design?

One of my early lessons this school year in my Concepts of Engineering class (9^th grade level class) was to challenge the students to create the fastest car they could using Lego pieces and a rubber band.  The goal was to teach the students the concept of rate, the importance of the engineering design notebook and highlight the characteristics of a good team.   Below is my evaluation of the lesson using the six characteristics of instructional design:

Six Characteristics of Instructional Design

1.  Student centered:  The lesson was active and hands-on from the start, which hooked the student’s interest.  They often did not want to leave the class when it was time for dismissal.

2.  Goal oriented:  They had a week to go through the engineering design process.  The goal was for their car to be the fastest car in the class.  The learning objectives were woven throughout their process of attempting to meet the challenge. 

3.  Focuses on meaningful performance:  Instead of just memorizing the formula for rate, the students had to use the formula to tabulate the speed of their car and use their calculations to compare their speed with others. 

4.  Assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way:  When I do this lesson over again with my Concepts of Engineering students next year, this is the characteristic that I will work to adhere closer to.  I taught the students the formula for rate through racing cars.  I assessed the students’ learning of the formula using written questions.  I should have assessed them the way I taught them or incorporated practice word problems into the lessons to give them practice.

5.  Empirical, iterative, and self-correcting:  The students automatically evaluated their cars against other cars.  If theirs was not the fastest, then they independently went back through the engineering design process to find their flaws. 

6.  A team effort:  The lesson I used was a modified version of the one created by Dr. Ken Barry from the University of Texas at Dallas.  He is an engineering expert and has tested this lesson with hundreds of students.  I was able to glean from his experiences, then modify the instruction to fit my audience.

Reflecting on the Definition of Instructional Technology

How do the definitions in the first chapter of Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology by Reiser and Dempsey compare to your own definition of instructional or educational technology?

 

The definitions broaden over time from highlighting the method of delivery to encompassing the process of the learner.  My definition has evolved over that same path.  Early in my teaching career, the focus was on the method of delivery and making sure that I included the mandatory “use of technology” in each of my lessons.  Now that I better understand the art of teaching and the process of learning, excitement over the method of delivery comes second to the ability of the medium to effectively teach the stated objective.  Instead of using technology for technology’s sake, I now strive to only use technology when the medium can add depth to my lessons.  I agree with the second definition given by the 1970 Commission on Instructional Technology—teachers utilizing instructional technology should “employ a combination of human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction.”


What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition?

The change that has most shaped the broadening of my definition of instructional technology most is my recent ability to easily access so many different technologies.  When I started teaching in 2000, overhead projectors were still the main electronic equipment in classrooms, with a few very fortunate teachers having access to old Macs loaded with Oregon Trail.  At my last campus, we were excited just to have a 15-computer lab.  Now that I teach at a brand new magnet school in Dallas ISD, I have been inundated with equipment, apps and training.  We have Kindles, iPads, DLP projectors, interactive whiteboards, document cameras, microphones, self-paced computer-based engineering curriculum, Youtube.com access, and the list gets longer by the day.   Having all types of instructional media has made me hone my knowledge of each and more specifically examine how to best utilize the different types.  

How has your definition changed from examining the definitions in the first chapter of this book?

The AECT defines the adjective “technological” to describe both processes and resources—“technological processes are those that involve ‘the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to accomplish practical tasks.”  As I was reading the chapter and the various definitions, I kept wondering how in some sections, the authors were talking about instructional technology, but no electronic devices were mentioned.  Technological processes describe how you use and apply information, versus technological resources which are the means by which you apply the information (i.e., videos, MP3s, apps, etc.).