Week 4: Trends & Issues in IDT

Part A: Chapters in Section V identify trends and issues in IDT in various contexts:

 

  1). Business & Industry

  2). Military

  3). Health Care Education

  4). Pk-12 Education

  5). 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.

Context	Compare	Contrast
The Military & P-12 Education                   The Military & P-12 Education	Students are given tasks to practice and repeat which are spiraled throughout the curriculum to insure rote memorization and the ability to apply these skills sets on demand, automatically, and with little mental effort. Both use a collaborative approach to IDT, working in teams to come up with designs for learning and solutions. The military as well as P-12 education are both responsible for fashioning successful interactions with individuals from a multitude of diverse backgrounds, nationalities, and cultures; while overcoming different learning styles and language barriers. Both are tasked with deciding how to make use of new and emerging technologies with funding restrictions looming over them. Like most school districts the military is comprised of many branches and logistically, it can be challenging to configure and implement an IDT program which works well for everyone and takes into account all of their varying interests/needs. Compromises must be made in order to insure a successful roll-out. Each has a focus on development of life-long learners by creating cooperative, hands-on learning experiences for their trainees/students. Both are invested in the recruitment and retaining of quality personal, especially those who are highly trained, skilled individuals.	The military context is global in nature whereas P-12 education is, for the most part, locally operated and community based.   Within the military, it is next to impossible to “bend the rules” while much more latitude is given to IDT roles within P-12 education. The military must take into account within their design phase and allow for the fact that by the time many of these technologies are implemented in the field they will already be outdated.  Allowances must be made and in place to easily and effectively accommodate last minute changes in technology designs.   Military education context does not have the luxury of making mistakes or accommodating for margins of error on the battlefield.  Because lives are on the line, this necessitates the need for a rigorous, quality instructional design.  When mistakes do occur they are studied and corrected to the fullest possible degree for use in future instruction because ineffective instruction can lead to catastrophic consequences in combat.   While both utilize problem based learning approaches; the P-12 sector tends to focus more on drill and practice tutorial applications and even some COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) game-based learning applications which are designed to help students visualize difficult concepts while also improving their engagement and critical thinking skills.   Much of the technology used within a military context is job specific.   While both rely mainly on external designers for IDT, the military must, on occasion, turn to “in-house” designers when matters of national security are involved.

  

Context	Compare	Contrast
Health Care & P-12 Education                                 Health Care & P-12 Education	Both are, for the most part, locally operated and community based. Students are given tasks to practice and repeat which are spiraled throughout the curriculum to insure rote memorization and the ability to apply these skills sets on demand, automatically, and with little mental effort. Working in teams, both use a collaborative approach to IDT in coming up with their designs for learning and solutions. Each has a focus on development of life-long learners by creating cooperative, hands-on learning experiences for their trainees/students. Problem-based learning (PBL) is seen as a relevant and effective learning technique in both contexts. The health care industry and P-12 education IDT’s are increasingly turning to social networking tools which allow their learners to work together outside of the classroom setting. The regulations and standards in place for the health care industry are similar to the standard student objectives found in P-12 education.  Both are used as a guide.  In education they serve as a boundary to direct instruction while trainers in the health care field follow their regulations to insure that they are providing the most purposeful and up-to-date training possible for their staff. Both rely primarily on external designers for IDT needs and requirements.	The health care industry has a plethora of donors and corporations involved in providing funding for educational research enabling them to spare no expense on the incorporation of additional and newer technologies than P-12 might be able to.   Health care education is a very varied and broad field encompassing not only hospitals and clinics but also many public, private, and non-profit organizations while P-12 has transitioned, over time, from observation, to basic information learning, to a more vigorous problem-based learning approach.   Health care education context does not have the luxury of making mistakes or accommodating for margins of error in their service industry.  Because lives are on the line, this necessitates the need for a rigorous, quality instructional design.  When mistakes do occur they are studied and corrected to the fullest possible degree for use in future instruction because ineffective instruction can lead to serious injury or even death.   Much of the technology used within the context of health care is job specific.   The health care context is comprised of three IDT phases which rely heavily on science, sensory perception, and innovation, they are the: ·         Prescientific Phase ·         Scientific Phase ·         Post-Flexner Phase Instructional design in the P-12 education system employs components found in the ADDIE model (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) for technology integration. The three types of ID development are: 1.  Systems – Integrated learning systems which is used to create computer-assisted instruction (CAI), includes instructional software. 2.  Product – Computer based learning instruction providing drill & practice and tutorials, also including the use of some COTS educational games designed to help students visualize difficult concepts while also improving their engagement and critical thinking skills. 3.  Classroom – Integrated technology in lessons reflecting educational standards which help to insure memorable & meaningful learning for all students.

Context	Compare	Contrast
Business, Industry & P-12 Education                 Business, Industry & P-12 Education	Both employ instructional designers which will, more often than not, work on a physical or virtual team incorporating a list of objectives to be accomplished; as well as, an instructional sequence to be followed to achieve/maintain projected goals and projects.   Each context has a set budget and time constraints which can play a key role in shaping IDT. Cross-cultural issues play a role within business & industry as well as a P-12 educational context.  In business, these issues help to establish corporate design based on societal and learner cultural factors.  Within education, these issues play a key role in shaping ELA instruction, specifically for ESL students.     Both demonstrate an ongoing need for employee training in the hopes of producing a more knowledgeable workforce with improved on-the-job performance.  In industry this equates to improved sales and profit margins while in education this is demonstrated through increased student performance on state mandated standardized tests.	The business & industry context is global in nature whereas P-12 education is, for the most part, locally operated and community based.   All districts which receive federal funds for technology implementation within the school, for use by both students and teachers alike, are legally bound by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations.  In the private sector, businesses are under no such limitations.  The competitive nature of industry is what drives innovation within this field.   An instructional designer in the business world deals with technology-driven projects which, with a little luck and a lot of planning, may one day expand to fit a global market.   Compared to other U.S. business and industry sectors, P-12 education is experiencing a huge gap in their technology integration. Many companies are placing high school graduates into positions that they feel that they are not being properly prepared for.  These employers argue that these students are not being taught the skills they need to be successful in a 21st century work environment.    Many industries are finding it more cost effective to move out of the country or, at the very least, outsource some if not all of their labor costs abroad.  In P-12 education we do not have this luxury and every effort must be made by districts to spend tax-payer funds wisely and in an economical manner.

 

How are business & Industry, military, and health care education, similar or different from the IDT trends and issues in the context in which you work?

In my current assignment as a middle school teacher, I can see many similarities between military, health care, business & industry, and P-12 education.  In all of these context, students/learners, teachers, and even instructional designers are all faced with navigating rapidly evolving technologies.  As the You Tube video entitled “Did you know 2014: Shift Happens” points out:

“We are currently preparing our students for jobs that don’t yet exist… Using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.”

Thank goodness there’s no pressure!  Cultural diversity issues also seem to be a recurring theme throughout each of these educational fields, from cross-cultural instructional interventions in business design to making allowances in our lesson design for the diversity of students within our classrooms, our nation attempts to “address global changes to ensure economic stability, international competitiveness, and the welfare of its citizens” across all of these contexts.

          In the health care sector they mention that lack of time is a major consideration when it comes to choosing and implementing educational technologies within their program.  Over the years, I have experienced the same time constraints within my instructional design and although in my case no lives are actually at risk, sometimes it seems like there are.  Every year I am given more and more material to cover with my students before the STAAR test with very little if anything ever being taken away.  With less time to actually instruct my curriculum, trying to integrate all of the technology tools at my disposal is difficult and I find myself having to pick and choose between them at the cost of omitting some quality educational technology.
 

Part B: Chapters in Section VI discuss global trends and issues in IDT. As the world’s population grows exponentially, we face unprecedented challenges that have implications for learning. How and can we prepare our youth to address the problems of living in a world with 9 billion people when the earth’s resources cannot sustain that many? Does our current education system, curriculum, and instructional practices help learners foster the complex problem-solving skills necessary to tackle these issues? Are there methods and practices used in European and Asian countries that we should use here in the US? Why or why not?

 

             With the world’s population increasing at an alarming rate and the Earth’s resources being used at a staggering pace with no visible end in sight, we must prepare our youth to face these challenges creatively, armed with problem solving abilities which can be tailored to practically any setting.  Our current teaching models will not adequately prepare our youth to tackle this sustainability issue, but awareness of the problem is the first step to solving it.  To this end; we need to create a more hands-on, problem-based learning approach to instruction.  The days of the “sit-and-get,” lecture formatted, teacher centered instruction are over.  Our students need to be challenged, to get acquainted with current technologies increasing their overall effective technology literacy, and to work collaboratively to solve real-world problems and develop socially.  Beginning this process within the confines of the classroom, provides them a safe haven in which to observe, practice, and develop their skills, honing them for the day in which they join the work force with the necessary tools to be confident in their abilities as well as successful in their future careers.  Our survival as a species and the future of our planet are at stake, we have to get this one right.  Just like in health care services, lives are on the line and we don’t have the luxury of margin of error.          

 

Are there methods and practices used in European and Asian countries that we should use here in the US? Why or why not? 

The answer to this question is of course a resounding yes!  For instance, Germany’s innovative I-VET or Initial Vocational Education and Training model is an exceptional way to give their students exposure to real-world problems by having them apprentice 1 day out of every week, 20% of their instructional time, with a company of their choosing over a period of anywhere from 2 to 3½ years.  This hands-on, problem-based learning approach not provides them with practical experience but could also quite possibly lead to employment after graduation.  Although the text did not mention a grade level for this dual-system program, I would assume that it would be introduced either towards the end of middle school or the beginning of high school. 

           Across the globe in Japan, in April of 2009, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, or MEXT for short, introduced an initiative called the “School New Deal Plan” which is focused on increasing the use of information communication technologies (ICT) in school across the country.  This initiative is aimed at increasing their student’s scientific understanding of information, their skills in utilizing this information, while instilling a “participatory attitude” towards today’s information society.  They have introduced an “Integrated Study” curriculum for grades 3-12 while also advocating an “active learning” approach to instruction for their universities, as well as, grades K-12.  These programs are intended to promote and foster some of the 21^st century skills these students will need in order to successfully navigate the global sea of unrest in these uncertain times.  The students are not the only focus of this initiative; current teachers in Japan are also being given opportunities by the government to attend training seminars in basic ICT-related skills and enhanced instructional models while those seeking certification are now required to take a two-credit hour course in “ICT basics” to receive their licensing. 

Two heads are better than one, three are better than two, and so on….  Just imagine the progress we can make in helping to manage some of the world’s most pressing issues by working together globally, the possibilities are simply endless; but then again, so are the consequences if we fail to act in time.     
 

Addendum:

           

Just yesterday I read an article which I thought should be included in this post even though it isn’t specifically aimed at a discussion of IDT.  But, in order to accomplish what they did, there had to be an enormous amount of instructional design and technology going on in the background in order to achieve this level of success.  The piece by Dominique Mosbergen was called Chinese Province Larger Than Texas Just Ran For An Entire Week On Only Renewable Energy and, like the title suggests, it’s an article about meeting the energy needs of the Qinghai province of China, population 5.8 million people, by using nothing but wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.  The results of this government sponsored “Fossil Fuel-Free Week” initiative are impressive even before you take into account that China is the number one contributor of global CO₂ emissions.  They are single-handedly responsible for nearly one-third of the world’s total annual CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing at a staggering 10,641,789 kt of CO₂ per year.  In response to this crisis, China is positioning itself to become a global leader of green energy with plans to dedicate $360 billion to renewable energy infrastructures by the year 2020 which will drastically reduce its reliance on coal consumption and exceed their nation’s commitment to clean energy development, as stated and agreed upon, in the Paris climate agreement.  Although I’m not certain this is exactly what you had in mind when you asked us to discuss if there are any “methods and practices used in European and Asian countries that we should use here in the US,” I believe this model of efficiency should be strongly considered, researched, and modeled here in the United States who is by the way the number two contributor of annual global CO₂ emissions at a whopping 5,172,338 kt of CO₂ per year.         

REFERENCES:

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

 

Mosbergen, Dominique. (2017, June 29). Chinese Province Larger Than Texas Just Ran For AN Entire Week On Only Renewable Energy. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/qinghai-china-renewables-week_us_5954d053e4b02734df3020c7

Pan, Anna. Did you Know 2014: Shift Happens. Dreamer Film Productions, [Video file] Retrieved June 27, 2017 from http://www.youtube.com

 

 

 

 

Week 3: Evaluating Programs & Human Performance Technology

1.    Chapters in Section III discuss evaluation in instructional design and provide you with three evaluation models: CIPP, Five-Domain, and Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation model. Search for at least two other models used for evaluation and summarize these models. Describe how you would use them to evaluate your instruction.

Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method (SCM):

        

Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method focuses on identifying and then studying in great detail both successful and unsuccessful cases within a given learning program.  Through a comprehensive comparison one can establish what worked and what changes/modifications need to be implemented to the program’s design in order to help ensure future success.  Within the pages of Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, Reiser and Dempsey have identified five steps to Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method including:

       

            Step1   The “evaluator” must define the program to be evaluated, identify which goals are to be met, and agree on a budget and time frame for the study along with the other stakeholders.    

            Step 2  A “visual impact model” is fashioned next which outlines the “capabilities (knowledge and skill provided by the program)”, the “business goals (what the stakeholders stand to gain),” and also what “behaviors and organizational/environmental conditions must be present in order to achieve the desired results.”

            Step 3  Involves a “research study” in which individuals are surveyed to help establish what constitutes a “best and worst case.”  The questionnaire used is typically quite short focusing on these three main questions;

“To what extent have you been able to use the program to achieve success?”

“Who is experiencing a lot of success in using the program?”

“Who is having the least success in using the program?”

            Step 4  An “in-depth interview” is conducted to gain empirical evidence demonstrating which performance factors lead to successful cases verses the obstacles which hindered the unsuccessful cases.  During success case interviews, Brinkerhoff suggests gathering data on the information/strategies/skills which the participant felt were effective, the successful results/outcomes achieved, the difference they made, the value of the experience, the factors which they feel lead to this successful result, and finally, suggestions for program improvement.  During nonsuccess case interviews, Brinkerhoff suggests focusing on perceived barriers and lack of use factors which prevented participants from applying what they learned as well as “suggestions for increasing future program use.”

            Step 5  “Document and communicate the evaluation findings” in the form of a final report.  This information needs to be shared with the stakeholders and include “detailed data and evidence” demonstrating the program’s success as well as recommendations for future improvements.

 

In applying this evaluation model to my classroom instruction, I would begin by serving as the evaluator and determining, for the purpose of this case study, which goals and/or outcomes would be focused.  I would include a detailed description of what a successful case should look like, create a visual impact model to help myself and others envision the proposed plan, and also develop a brief questionnaire for the students to fill out helping me to establish successful/unsuccessful cases.  Interviews would be conducted, a final report written, and I would then share the results with my stakeholders (students, department head, and administrators).  Knowing that they were going to be asked for their feedback, I believe that the students would feel more involved in the learning process and may gain a fuller understanding of the activity by viewing it with a critical-eye for detail as a co-collaborator in their own learning experience.

Patton’s Utilization-Focused Evaluation (U-FE)  

            Patton’s Utilization- Focused Evaluation method emphasizes the importance of creating evaluations “for and with an intended user in mind” so that they will have value, be used, and hopefully result in positive program changes.  This “participatory evaluation approach” involves both the client and primary users who will be tasked with becoming “actively involved in the structuring, conducting, interpreting, and using evaluation results.”  From beginning to end, the evaluator’s main focus is on the continual assessment of, and ongoing adaption to, the evaluation in the hopes of creating a working environment in which the “evaluation results will continue to be used even after the evaluator leaves the organization.”  This is referred to as “process use” in which “organizational members are empowered to become internal evaluators.”  Below, I have included a (U-FE) checklist which was taken from Michael Quinn Patton’s work entitled Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. 

Step 1  Assess and build program and organizational readiness for utilization-focused evaluation.

Step 2  Assess and enhance evaluator readiness and competence to undertake a utilization- focused evaluation.

Step 3  Identify, organize, and engage primary intended users.

Step 4  Conduct situation analysis with primary intended users

Step 5  Identify primary intended uses by establishing the evaluation’s priority purposes.

Step 6  Consider and build in process uses if appropriate.

Step 7  Focus priority evaluation questions.

Step 8  Check that fundamental areas for evaluation inquiry are being adequately addressed.

Step 9  Determine what intervention model or theory of change is being evaluated.

Step 10  Negotiate appropriate methods to generate credible findings and support intended use by intended users.

Step 11  Make sure intended users understand potential controversies about methods and their implications.

Step 12  Simulate use of findings.

Step 13  Gather data with ongoing attention to use.

Step 14  Organize and present the data for use by primary intended users.

Step 15  Prepare an evaluation report to facilitate use and disseminate significant findings to expand influence.

Step 16  Follow up with primary intended users to facilitate and enhance use.

Step 17  Metaevaluation of use: Be accountable, learn, and improve

           

In applying this evaluation model to my classroom instruction, as I am already a member of the school’s faculty, I would not need to conduct a “readiness assessment” or “identify the primary users and develop a working relationship with them” as I would be the one committing to the U-FE and have already established a rapport with my colleagues and administrators.  I would however need to decide on which stakeholders to involve in the collection of data while also working to develop their understanding of the evaluation process and commitment to its continued use/implementation.  I would want to review any available past evaluations, stakeholder’s concerns, and conduct individual or small group interviews to help establish a baseline of pertinent information.  Evaluation standards would then be introduced and priorities established all-the-while involving the stakeholders in the process to make sure they feel that they are part of its development, are valued, and to promote a sense of ownership in the procedure.  If the stakeholders genuinely care about the findings, the likelihood of them continuing to participate in on-going/future evaluations greatly increases which of course is the main goal of Patton’s Utilization- Focused Evaluation method.   

 

2.    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. Should return on investment and management of resources also be considered in evaluations of instructional programs? What other measures should/could be considered?

In addition to instructional design evaluations addressing learning improvement and student satisfaction, perhaps these evaluations should also focus on whether or not a product/program includes a built-in support system for addressing user questions, training, operating problems, and system updates.  Without these considerations being properly addressed, a district could very easily end up spending an inordinate amount of money on something which is not properly supported and ends up yielding no discernible, positive results on instruction or student performance leading to a monumental waste of tax-payer monies with little or no return on investment (ROI).  Activity does not necessarily equate to results, something which our text has referred to as a “value shift,” just because the students are engaged doesn’t necessarily mean that they are interacting with the information in a meaningful/measurable way. 

 

Another consideration should include the amount of time and effort needed for proper implementation of a product/program above and beyond that which is required for regular daily instruction.  If a district chooses to implement a new program without regard, allowance, or additional compensation for their staff the result can be disastrous; stress levels and tempers can rise, performance measures drop, and employee turn-over drastically increase.  Quality of life for educators should be a consideration in any evaluation; happy teachers are usually more productive and less prone to absenteeism and/or departure from a school/district which equates to higher student performance. 

 

A final product/program consideration should focus on the students themselves, in particular, not just their learning improvement and student satisfaction but also whether or not these products/programs are giving them an opportunity to interact socially, collaboratively instead of only in isolation.  In order to prepare them to enter the work force as a successful, contributing of our society they must be given an opportunity to work collectively in problem solving situations, over time, in a safe environment, encouraging conversation to develop the communication skills they’ll need and rely on as adults.          

 

3.    Section IV focuses on human performance, performance support systems, knowledge management systems, and the concept of informal learning. Not all problems in learning and/or performance require an instructional one. Many times a non-instructional approach is a more appropriate solution. Identify a performance problem in your area of work and identify non-instructional solutions that may help solve the problem. Would better performance support systems, knowledge management systems, or opportunities for informal learning solve the problem?

Every semester I have students who will sit silently with genuine questions and/or concerns about the material presented in my 7^th grade honors pre-algebra class without ever saying a word.  I think this is due in part to the misconception that if you have to ask for clarification you’re either “stupid” or “slow.”  Even though I actively encourage questions and when none present themselves then I have some prepared which hopefully help some of my silent sufferers.  And that’s when it hit me that “Twitter could have a potential place in my world as an educator, possibly... Maybe, we’ll see.”  I like the idea of anonymity; and by having my students set up and use twitter accounts created specifically for my class, I could give them an opportunity to send me a tweet privately, without fear of reproach, in which I could address their concerns without them being singled out by others in class. The lack of physical contact and partial anonymity of this community, I think, would allow for a more honest feedback and critiques from my learners allowing for greater insight and collaboration than would be possible in a face-to-face framework.  By removing obstacles, promoting the community, and encouraging conversation between users I would be fostering this informal learning environment in which students could learn as much from each other as they do in class.  The ability to read and respond to tweets from anywhere, anytime is also a genuine plus. 

 

I have spent many, many hours exploring Twitter’s potential integration into a classroom environment and I am more than a little impressed with some of the creative ways educators have chosen to use this Web2.0 tool within their instructional model.  For instance, I spend a great deal of time every week posting my weekly lesson plans including information on upcoming assignments, quizzes, tests, projects, etc… through our on-line gradebook program only to have my students and parents tell me that they “didn’t know about the homework assignment” or “when the unit review was due” or my personal favorite “What Test!?!”  This was a constant source of irritation and concern, sometimes I felt like I was just wasting my time and knew there had to be a better way of informing them beside or in addition to what I was already doing.  Enter Twitter.  What an incredibly simple yet effective idea, I could have simply set up a Twitter feed dedicated specifically to important class information, simple, effective, problem solved.  These Tweets could have included a reminder of my tutorial times, assignment & review due dates, late work submission deadlines, upcoming quizzes, projects, or quizzes, the end of each grading cycle, and STAAR testing dates.  I really missed an opportunity to work “Smarter not Harder.”  Any downtime I could find during the day was dedicated to calling and emailing parents, sending home reminders, and reminding students when I could have simply used the direct message feature on Twitter to speak privately with them.  I feel a little silly looking back now in the realization of how much more effectively I could have communicated this pertinent information.  There’s so much more to Tweeting than I could have ever imagined, the sheer versatility of the “Twitter-verse” is amazing and I sense that I’m only just beginning to scratch the surface of its potential as an educational tool.  I’m looking forward to incorporating Twitter into my instructional design this fall.     

Other ideas for Twitter integration within an educational setting which caught my eye include:

 

·         Connecting Classrooms – Allowing my pupils to interact and collaborate with students from other classes, schools, cities, states, or even other countries on shared projects.

      ·         Facilitating Exploration – By using Twitter’s search engine to introduce and investigate new concepts.

      ·         Posting Sample Questions – By using Twitter to post sample questions to
            upcoming assignments/tests.

·         Facilitate Discussion – By carrying on a discussion, within the classroom completely on Twitter allowing all an equal voice in the conversation especially including those who do not feel comfortable contributing verbally in class.

·         Posting Syllabus Changes

·         Polling Students – Involving students in the decision making process of what types of activities, assignments, and/or projects to use within the class.

·         Teach Probability – By having students respond to broad, general questions and then chronicling and charting the results through @replies.  

·         Post Weekly Math Puzzles – By microblogging a problem of the week which students work on, solve, and then Tweet back their solution.

·         Post Videos – By using Twiddeo, a service which allows users to send Twitter updates via video, to post clips of instruction for students who are absent or those who simply need to review a specific topic.

·         TweetStats – Allows users to input account information to create a bar graph showing how and when an account is used.

·         Summarization – Twitter can be used as an “Exit Ticket” for students to summarize, in 140 characters or less, the day’s lesson while also messaging any questions they might have on the topic.

 

References:

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

Patton, Michael Q. (2012) Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. London: SAGE.