27SEP2014

1. 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 and industry appears to be focused on profit. They expect training to be delivered fast effective and cheap. This usually means automation of learning skills. You tend to see a lot of self-paced computerized learning in business focused on delivering information and testing that the information has been delivered.

The military is involved in quite a bit of teaching. While much of the teaching and learning in the military is done “old school” with teachers and students, hands on testing. A lot more instruction is being delivered electronically. Standardized Department of Defense slideshows and interactive field training are being implemented across the branches of the military.

Post-secondary education has always been ahead of the curve in implementing new teaching and learning practices. This class is an example of this. Colleges have been innovative in delivering new forms of learning and improving on old forms.

All three of these separate contexts have a similar goal, effective teaching and learning. While there may be different end goals, profit, security, and education, the main thrust of each is the delivery of knowledge. Currently I do not work in a teaching role, I usually have to relate back to the classes I was in and taught in the Army. The end goal was always to get a soldier the knowledge to perform a task. The knowledge had to be internalized by the soldier in such a way that he/she would be able to perform the task even under pressure. In the military this is a lot more vital than in college or business, because lives may depend on a soldiers effectiveness.

2. 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?

This question assumes a lot. It assumes the world’s population will continue to grow and there will not be major loss of life due to war disease or famine. Starvation is nature’s cure for overpopulation. For example if we kill off the wolves in an area, the deer population explodes and eats more than the land will support, without enough food a lot of the deer die of starvation.  Who is to say human overpopulation won’t be cured in the same way?

Regardless we are preparing our youth to address this potential problem as best we can. Creativity is stressed in schools and science and technology have been making a comeback. If all else fails we are one of the few countries that has armed citizens. Survival in a world with scarce resources may come down to who has the most weapons.

Many Asian and European countries have superior education systems, and yes we should implement their ideas. One of the most obvious to me is year round school. I have read that students spend three to four months at the beginning of each school year relearning what they forgot during the summer. This seems a waste to me. I think the nine month school year is an outdated system that should be replaced with a year round system. The nine month system was designed for a mainly agricultural society. Most of America is not agricultural anymore. It is time to revamp the system to more accurately reflect today’s society.

Week Four

1. The first thing that comes to mind when thinking of human performance improvement is teamwork in the army. When a unit is first formed, there is a learning curve while everyone learns to adjust to their teammates. Everyone already knows how to do their specific jobs but that special camaraderie is still missing. The camaraderie is more than just a feeling of brotherhood; it affects reaction times and improves the safety of the entire platoon. I think the best way to describe it is knowing what your teammates will do and being able to adjust to improve not only your own job but theirs as well. Camaraderie isn’t something that can be taught in an instructional setting, it just takes time and practice. In a war time setting camaraderie can build very quickly because you learn to trust your teammates with your life. In garrison it can be tougher to build camaraderie between soldiers but it isn’t impossible. Social settings and events can help a lot. While it isn’t necessary for everyone to be friends, there must be trust. Teamwork building exercises and drills help and can be very effective.

2. Most performance support systems consist of four components: (a) an advisory component, (b) an information component, (c) a training component, and (d) the user interface component. I can’t really see using a PSS to build camaraderie in soldiers. It seems too rigid and systematic to be used as a trust building exercise. Camaraderie is built on feelings of trust and emotions. It is hard to develop a system that would train emotional reasoning.

3. While camaraderie can be difficult to train it is rather easy to measure. Live fire exercises and similar real world response training can be times. As camaraderie improves times will go down and responses to the unexpected will be quicker. It is easy to tell the difference between a newly formed unit and one which has been working together for a while. The older unit will have better times in training and will be capable of reacting quicker faster and better. Camaraderie will also affect morale. A high level of camaraderie will equate to high solder morale.

4. Informal learning in the Army occurs on a daily basis. Soldiers are professionals and we constantly strive to improve. This leads to informal teaching between soldiers, from ideas for quick reaction force deployment to the best way to load your m16. I don’t think this type of learning should be organized. If it were standardized it wouldn’t have the same impact of either the teacher or the learner. Being informal it helps build camaraderie between soldiers because it allows a private to teach even a sergeant a quicker or faster way to accomplish a task. It also allows for peer review of the technique which can lead to more improvements or new ideas.

14SEP2014

ADDIE Model

The ADDIE Model consists of five phases. Analyze, Design, Development, Implement, and Evaluation. I like this model because it incorporates revision between each major step. This allows for on the fly fixes and review of what is working and what is not.

Michael Scriven's Goal-Free Evaluation Approach: This approach is premised on the assumption that an evaluation should establish the value of a program by examining what it is doing rather than what it is trying to do.

I liked this approach because its focus is not on what the programs goals are but on actual results. It is a bit cynical approach in that it asks if the program is actually doing what it is designed to do.

I could see myself using both these methods as well as the CIPP and Kirkpatrick models to determine if my instruction is effective. There is a lot of focus on the results of state testing and while I can see where standardized testing can be useful it is not the only indication of learning. it would be useful to know if learners are internalizing information, learning how to think for themselves and how to acquire knowledge in a dynamic setting.

Part two

I have never worked anywhere where there were unlimited resources. I can’t imagine a school or business that isn’t interested in saving money. Situational leadership is changing your style to match your learners. This fits well with using what is already available at a location. Take a school for instance; there are already resources in place that can be used to teach. Be it older computers, projectors, or slides. Using what is already paid for saves money for the organization and allows you to retrofit older equipment in new ways.

6SEP2014

1. Epistemology in my understanding is the background of how we come to knowledge. It is the why of learning, focused on the way and reason people acquire knowledge. Instructional methods or theories or methods are the practical application of Epistemology. It is using knowledge to teach or to solve actual problems. 

I have never been a great student of psychology. I had some difficulty with these chapters. I have always focused on practical application of knowledge and skills. It was interesting reading about the theories behind the application but I didn’t see a lot of value in a real world sense. I have read about Skinner and I have always admired his logical, measurable approach. I can see how his work would be included and still used in education today.

2. I would have to say I identify with the Positivist stance. Objective truth or practical application is and always has been my goal. It doesn’t seem worthwhile to me to have knowledge without being able to utilize that knowledge in a practical way. Relativists and Contextualists don’t seem to favor practical application, but have a grey picture of application of knowledge. I think I favor a positivist stance because of my time in the army where everything had a practical application or because I value results.

I have had a few instances where I believe my instructor had a different epistemic stance. Mr. A, a professor in civil procedure seemed to be a relativist. Anytime I would ask a question I would not get a concrete answer. Everything he said was in terms of particular hypotheticals. And the answer to the same question would be different depending on what hypothetical he ran the question through. I had a problem with this as I wanted and expected a black/white answer to what I assumed was a yes/no question. Mr. A taught me that even in procedural law there is no absolutes, just arguments.

3. A behaviorist approach to learning would focus on structure and feedback. I personally favor this approach. I have seen it used effectively in the army and have used it myself when giving classes in the Army. A constructivist approach would present the group with a problem and let them come to their own solution. I like some aspects of this approach. I can see it being beneficial in a situation like you are in charge of a squad and must ambush a convoy, how do you accomplish the mission?

I think the major difference in the two approaches is what type of learning is desired. Are we talking about a basic skill like setting up a claymore mine or clearing a building? Or are we talking about a leadership skill such as deployment of a squad prior to engaging the enemy? I believe the behaviorist approach would be best for personal skills but a constructivist approach would be better for tactical response to a changing situation.

Learner motivation would probably be harder to maintain in a behaviorist approach. There is quite a bit of repetition but eventually the desired response will become automatic. It will get to a point where the student doesn’t even need to think and appropriate actions will be taken. A constructivist approach would have higher student motivation simply because the outcome would depend entirely on how the student decided to proceed.