Week 3: Evaluating, Implementing and Managing Instructional Programs and Projects

Chapter 10 discusses evaluation in instructional design and provides you with two evaluation models, the CIPP and Kirkpatrick models for evaluation. Search for at least two other models used for evaluation and summarize these models. Describe how you would use them to evaluate your instruction.

Another model of design and evaluation I have encountered before is the ADDIE model.  The acronym that comprises the name of this model comes from its five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. Evaluation is not the entire design model, but is incorporated within its framework at every step. This is important to note, because it forces the designer to really take stock of whether their instruction is going to be effective when completely implemented. This model is very generic and serves as the basis for many other design models. It can be customized to fit many ages and stages of learning and instruction.

I would use the ADDIE model exactly as it is designed. The purpose of the model is to step back an evaluate our instructional planning at each step of the process. This is essentially what all good educators should be doing anyway. This insures that each student will benefit as much as possible from our instructional designs.

The ADDIE Model:

A second model of instructional design that I focused on was the Bates' ACTIONS model. ACTIONS is an acronym that stands for Access, Costs, Teaching (& Learning,) Interactivity, Organizational Issues, Novelty, and Speed. This model specifically deals with how to choose effective technology for classroom use. By using this model, teachers can evaluate new or proposed technologies to determine whether they will serve all students in a classroom setting. Access looks at whether the technology is easy to use and appropriate for a particular group of students. Costs is used to determine technology cost per student and whether there are more economic alternatives. The Teaching and Learning aspect of this model aims to pinpoint the exact learning or objectives that are to be fulfilled by the technology. Interactivity looks at what features a particular piece of technology can offer in a classroom environment. Organizational Issues deals with any possible barriers to being able to use the technology effectively in a particular district or classroom. Novelty assesses whether the technology offers new capabilities and to what extent students will find it engaging and new. Finally, Speed evaluates how fast products can be changed or distributed using the technology.

I think this model would be an excellent means of deciding what tools to use in a classroom. It seem that more questions are addressed with this model. It would be important, however, to still keep sight of the overall learning objective when evaluating any new technology for the classroom.

The ACTIONS Model: 

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. What else would be useful to know?

I believe that one of the most important questions to consider when dealing with the real world application of models and theories is cost-effectiveness. In a perfect world, teachers could try out one kind of technology and evaluate its effectiveness mid-implementation. We live in the real world, however, and should therefore make an effort to evaluate new technology and instructional design ideas objectively before we spend the money to implement them in our schools. It has been my experience that school administrators and districts will invest funds in new technologies and programs without consulting teachers beforehand. This, of course, leads to the realization later that the chosen products were not the best choices for the school.

Additionally, when evaluating cost effectiveness, it is important to not lose sight of whether new tech or programs are actually needed at all. Many districts now implement BYOD (bring your own device) initiatives to solve the problem of cost. This can be a great alternative to investing precious funds into unknown technologies.

Another thing to consider when evaluating design and technology is whether the product or plan provides students with an underlying real-world skill that can help them be more prepared for the job market later in life. Using Instagram to compile a visual report is cool, but will an employer someday need an employee who can use Instagram well? Most likely not. I think it is always a good idea to teach kids technology work skills while also teaching them the content objectives. Kill two educational birds with one stone!

Chapter's 12 & 13 focus on project management and how to manage projects when resources are scarce. You have been assigned to develop a series of professional development sessions focusing on technology use in the classroom for teachers during a time of economic decline. How will you use Situational Leadership to facilitate this project and manage scarce resources?

One of the points I gleaned from this section is the kind of “save for a rainy day” philosophy. Like I mentioned above, I have seen instances where school administrators will invest in new technology and resources without ample input from the teachers who will be expected to make the tech useful and worth the investment. This, I think, would be an example of how not to embody situational leadership. It would be better instead to very carefully analyze what teachers say they want and what they say they would actually use. Even in times of economic plenty, a district or school should tread very very carefully and deliberately when implementing new technology. The text emphasizes choosing resources wisely. A very careful approach to selecting technology for the classroom should begin with the people who will use it the most outside of students, namely teachers.

Also, to achieve a “bias toward scarcity” as the text advises, we should focus on existing resources or new ways to implement old technology. Many districts are achieving this with the use of BYOD (bring your own device) initiatives where students may use their own tech tools in the classroom. You could get around the problem of accessibility (not every student can afford a smartphone) by grouping students. You could also research companies who will donate older model hardware for educational use. In general, I think dealing with scarcity requires a great deal of creativity and positive thinking. We must create new ways to use old technology and think in a positive manner about the resources we do have.

Week 2: Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

1. Epistemology (the study of what and how we come to know) is discussed in multiple chapters in this section. Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories. What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

Epistemology is different from instructional theories and methods because it really is more of a philosophical view of how we come to know what we know. It is more abstract and tends to remain that way. In general, learning theories deal more with the application. They are methodology more than epistemology.  They do have underlying beliefs, but they rely on empirical results to support their conclusions.

For example, though Skinner’s theories of learning rely on underlying beliefs, these beliefs are supported by application in the real world. As the course text states, “To begin with, behavioral learning theory is empirically based, which means that behavior is observed both before and after and intervention such as instruction has been implemented, and the observed changes in performance are related to what occurred during the intervention.” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, p. 36.)

Overall, the difference between epistemology and theories, methods and models of learning comes down to being a difference between beliefs without application and beliefs with empirical, real world application.

2. Chapters in this section present two contrasting epistemic stances: positivist and relativist. However, a third stance, the contextualist or hermeneutical, is also widely recognized. This stance falls somewhere between the strictly objectivist/positivist beliefs about knowing and the purely subjectivist/relativist stance. While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and methods. However, relativists ascribe to radical constructivist approaches, while contextualists draw upon social constructivist theories and models. Based on what you’ve read about positivist and relativist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches, try to more fully describe a contextualist epistemology. How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?

Contextualist epistemology, when reduced to its basic idea, asserts that what one “knows” is dependent on context, and meets a set of other criteria dependent on that specific context. Because of this, “knowing” something can change from one situation to another.

Contextualist epistemology differs from a relativist or positivist stance in that it supports the notion that knowledge and reality are shaped by interaction and society. Relativism relies more on the idea that each individual constructs a unique perception of reality and “knows” the world in an individual manner. Positivism asserts that reality and knowledge exist independently from the perceptions of the individual and can be verified empirically.

In the context of learning, a social constructivist stance would likely emphasize collaborative learning and interaction among peers, whereas a radical constructivist approach might encourage a student to discover and express their own perceptions of the content. A positivist approach would probably require students to acknowledge certain empirical facts without as much emphasis on student perceptions or opinions.



3. Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving. Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives. How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process? Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?

Anyone who has taken an introductory undergraduate psychology course has probably studied operant conditioning and the Skinner box. Essentially, all behaviorist approaches to learning rely on the same basic principle as the Skinner box: reinforcement. Specifically, reinforcement of desired behaviors. In a classroom setting, a behaviorist approach might mean offering positive praise for a correct answer, or consequences for a behavioral misstep. The same idea is applied to problem solving in a behaviorist classroom. The problem solving is facilitated by the teacher via positive or negative feedback and reinforcement. Problems to be solved might be applied in a more individual way, with one student working by himself or herself to achieve the goal of positive feedback from the teacher.

A constructivist approach to problem solving would likely emphasize more collaborative efforts and working with peers to come to a solution to a problem. In this scenario, a teacher might facilitate problem solving by providing several sources of information or other tools the students could use to find answers and solutions. The students would probably rely less on direct feedback from the teacher. As we read in our course text, a constructivist approach is a “closer match to how people really learn – through direct engagement with their worlds, generally leading to more meaningful learning outcomes.”(Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, p. 50.)

I believe a constructivist, rather than traditional behaviorist, approach would have a more positive effect on overall learner motivation. Students in a constructivist setting are encouraged to deal with the world around them. The application of problem solving strategies to the world they actually live in lends authenticity and relevance to their learning. Behaviorist approaches, while effective in eliciting rote responses, cannot deliver the same level of authentic learning.

References:

Reiser, R. R., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.