Friday, August 29, 2014

Questions 29Aug2014



1. How do the definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of instructional or educational technology?
 
My definition of educational technology, before reading the first chapter, was focused on media. I thought educational technology was all about a/v and computer technology, not including teachers or any type of “process”.

 What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition? 

My original definition of educational technology was shaped by how it was presented to me growing up. In school anything to do with technology was computers and media. There wasn’t a lot of focus on anything else.

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

After reading the first chapter of the book I have expanded my original definition to include not only the media involved but also the people and process that is used to deliver the media. I would say now that educational technology is not separate components but a process of delivering a whole learning package.


2. 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? 

The first instructions that come to mind are classes I had in the Army. Army training classes usually follow the same simple format. First present the information, show the students how to apply the information, and finally review the information again. While Army classes usually involve some type of media, be it slideshows or computer, they also have a hands on part followed by a re-teaching of the information so any problems experienced in the hands on portion can be resolved. As far as the six characteristics of instructional design, I think the Army classes are pretty spot on.

1.       Student centered. Army classes are taught to a group but each student must receive a pass individually, so I think the classes are student centered.

2.       Goal orientated. Again as each student must receive a pass the goal is to put the information to a practical use, so I would say the classes are goal orientated.

3.       Focuses on meaningful performance. A “go/nogo” practical demonstration of the task is exactly meaningful performance.

4.       Outcome can be measured in a reliable and valid way. As part of the class a soldier will put the information to use in a real world environment. I can only view this as reliable and valid.

5.       Empirical, iterative and self-correcting. Everything in the Army is scored and recorded so there are always records of performance and retraining. Since classes have a retrain built in they are self-correcting in that each soldier will train until he can perform the task.

6.       Team effort. Everything in the Army is a team effort. You train with your fellow soldiers and your success or failure depends on the team.

How would you redesign it to better adhere to the six characteristics?

I don’t think Army classes could be better designed according to this six step list. While Army classes may seem a bit repetitive or slow to people who learn fast, they are undoubtedly effective.


3. In the 3rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media. Why?

Personally I think Reiser excluded teachers chalkboards and textbooks to limit his area of discussion to just other technological media. I think he did this to narrow the focus and differentiate it from traditional instruction. I believe an argument could be made to include teachers ect as instructional media and maybe he made a mistake by excluding them from his evaluation.

 Would you consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media? 

Yes.

Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction?

I believe the purpose is to facilitate real learning. It is less important what form instruction takes as long as the goal of real learning is met. If traditional instruction isn’t getting the desired results, or even nor optimal results, then other methods should be employed. If technology can help students learn more effectively, it should be employed. I think some people get too caught up in the form learning takes rather than focusing on the end goal of effective real world application of knowledge.

4 comments:

  1. My definition of educational technology before reading this chapter was much like yours. I tended to just think of it in terms or computers or devices. You bring up an excellent point at the end of this post that I truly agree with. The goal of instructional design should be to facilitate learning and teachers should not be as concerned about the form of instruction as long as the goal is met.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Like you, my first impression of the term “Instructional Technology” was all about electronic media. However, after reflecting back on some of my library courses, and even an Archeology course I took several years ago, I was reminded that “print” is a type of media, and to the “caveman,” tools, no matter how archaic, were a type of technology. Therefore, I was reminded that instructional technology is simply the method by which instruction is presented.
    2. I love the fact that you bring up the Army’s method of instruction. There is no better example of a “mixed” student population, with numerous learning styles. The repetition and varied types of activities encourage and reinforce the learning. The hands-on aspect allows the audio-visual part of the lesson sink in.
    3. I, too, include the textbook and chalkboard as forms of media, but I excluded the teacher. I came to that conclusion only after considering other professions and the work done in those professions. For instance, paintings on canvas are done by an artist, but only the paint and the canvas are the media.

    ReplyDelete
  3. William,

    Good examples from your classroom and I agree with your statements. I have not taught an Army class, but I do work closely with an LOTC teacher and I completely understand your struggles to meet all expectations. It is so hard for elective classes to meet requirements that core content classes do, but that just means we are much more creative. Good Job!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I feel the same way sometimes when I want a yes or no for an answer, however I have learned that there is no absolutes but arguments, I also wish to learn what I may use in practical life, I used to question myself on what I will do to the math skills that I learned. I like behavioral theory for both elementary and high school students, some students need to be motivated to do better but some are self motivated.

    ReplyDelete