1. How do the
definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of
instructional or educational technology?
What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition? How
has your definition changed from examining the definitions in the first chapter
of this book?
In these first three chapters, Reiser gives us a breakdown
of the evolution of how we define educational technology. He starts off by
noting that there can be many definitions of education technology, and that we
still don’t have a true consensus of what that really means. However, the
reading does present some more general definitions of the field of educational
technology as it has evolved over the last several decades.
My own definition of educational technology closely
resembles that of the more current statements of the AECT. I believe technology
in the classroom should facilitate learning, but not be the sole cause or sole
control of learning. Seeing my own students use technology has helped me
understand that this is how these tools should be used. They tend to acquire
and retain more information when they are forced to create and own it
themselves, rather than simply having it dumped on them by a computer or iPad.
I have also found this to be true in my own experiences as a student. I am a
member of a generation of “digital natives” who have always used some type of
technology to assist in learning, so I understand the need to use technology
effectively in the classroom.
Since examining the definitions of the first chapter, I’ve really looked at my own way of using technology in practice. In theory, I have always said facilitating is key, but in reality, my practice of using technology tends toward a more “old school” design and implementations. My definition has changed in that I think it is no longer enough to say I will use technology to facilitate learning, but that I must also really make an effort to do it.
Since examining the definitions of the first chapter, I’ve really looked at my own way of using technology in practice. In theory, I have always said facilitating is key, but in reality, my practice of using technology tends toward a more “old school” design and implementations. My definition has changed in that I think it is no longer enough to say I will use technology to facilitate learning, but that I must also really make an effort to do it.
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? How would you redesign it to better adhere to the six
characteristics.
For one of my previous ETEC classes, I designed a technology
integration unit using student polling and internet activities.. I designed
this unit to coincide with Celebrate Freedom Week, which is a required observance
for all students in Texas. I sought to integrate the use of polling and teams
to help the students understand the importance and meaning of founding
documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
In thinking about whether my design fulfilled the six characteristics mentioned in our reading, I singled out two that I thought could use improvement. Specifically, I looked at characteristics 4 and 5. Number four states that design “assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way.” My initial design for my Celebrate Freedom Week activity did not embody this characteristic as much as it could have. I think there are many technologies available to help improve this aspect of my technology integration and instructional design overall. Also, the fifth characteristic says that instructional design is “empirical, iterative, and self-correcting.” I think I could easily build in more reliable and consistent ways of collecting data and formative assessment into my instructional design in order to better fulfill these criteria. If I did a total redesign of the lesson, I would start by using the six characteristics of instructional design as my guide from the beginning.
3. In the 3rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media. Why? Would you consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media? Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction? The first three chapters of your book define the IDT (Instructional Design and Technology) field and provide a history of how it has evolved over time. In your blog post for this week, reflect on the following:
I believe Reiser makes this distinction to help us think about instructional media and design with a “clean palate,” so to speak. We already know from our experiences teaching and being students that teachers, chalkboards and textbooks can be used in the educational setting. The goal, I think is to pull us out of that traditional box in terms of our thinking. I would still consider chalkboards and textbooks to be more basic types of instructional media, but in order to improve our ability to design instruction, we must move beyond what is basic. I don’t think the only purpose of instructional design is the incorporation of media. Instead, we should see instructional media and one element that leads toward the greater goal of instructional design. In my opinion, the ultimate goal of instructional design should be student learning. Whatever tools are the most effective are what should be used to obtain that goal.
In thinking about whether my design fulfilled the six characteristics mentioned in our reading, I singled out two that I thought could use improvement. Specifically, I looked at characteristics 4 and 5. Number four states that design “assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way.” My initial design for my Celebrate Freedom Week activity did not embody this characteristic as much as it could have. I think there are many technologies available to help improve this aspect of my technology integration and instructional design overall. Also, the fifth characteristic says that instructional design is “empirical, iterative, and self-correcting.” I think I could easily build in more reliable and consistent ways of collecting data and formative assessment into my instructional design in order to better fulfill these criteria. If I did a total redesign of the lesson, I would start by using the six characteristics of instructional design as my guide from the beginning.
3. In the 3rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media. Why? Would you consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media? Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction? The first three chapters of your book define the IDT (Instructional Design and Technology) field and provide a history of how it has evolved over time. In your blog post for this week, reflect on the following:
I believe Reiser makes this distinction to help us think about instructional media and design with a “clean palate,” so to speak. We already know from our experiences teaching and being students that teachers, chalkboards and textbooks can be used in the educational setting. The goal, I think is to pull us out of that traditional box in terms of our thinking. I would still consider chalkboards and textbooks to be more basic types of instructional media, but in order to improve our ability to design instruction, we must move beyond what is basic. I don’t think the only purpose of instructional design is the incorporation of media. Instead, we should see instructional media and one element that leads toward the greater goal of instructional design. In my opinion, the ultimate goal of instructional design should be student learning. Whatever tools are the most effective are what should be used to obtain that goal.
This model for instructional design is unique in that it encourages evaluation of every step of the process. It is obvious that this is intended to help the designer catch any issues that may crop up at each step of the designing process. If we, as instructional designers, seek to really evaluate our own thinking at each phase of the process, we are much more likely to develop instruction that is effective for our students.
