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.

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.