The Ten Guiding Principles of Instructional Technology and Distance Education (ITDE) Project is a list of ten guidelines that educators can use to create online lessons. The audience for this project is comprised of educators planning to teach a virtual lesson. The two goals for the project are to teach educators how to: 1) create lessons using instructional technology; and, 2) become effective digital teachers. Guiding Principle #1 : Do consider the teacher as a facilitator, not the source of information (Smaldino et al, 2019, p. 2) Insight: According to Smaldino et al. (2019), students have a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips because of instructional technology and media (p. 2). Because of this, teachers are the guides of learning and “facilitators of knowledge acquisition” (Smaldino, 2019, p. 2). Guiding Principle #2: Do realize that technologies are merely tools that can be used in a variety of ways (Bates, 2015, section 7.8) Insight: Technology is a tool that facilitates different types of learning including visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Technology aids in the learning process. Guiding Principle #3: Do use the ADDIE Model when creating an online curriculum (Bates, 2015, section 4.3) Insight: The ADDIE Model is a series of steps educators take to create effective curriculum. ADDIE stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. According to Bates (2015), Stage 1: Analyze means “identify all the variables that need to be considered when designing the course” (Bates, 2015, section 4.3) Stage 2: Design “focuses on identifying the learning objectives for the course and how materials will be created and designed.” Stage 3: Develop means “the creation of content” Stage 4: Implement refers to “the actual delivery of the course” Stage 5: Evaluate means “feedback and data are collected in order to identify areas that require improvement” Guiding Principle #4 : Do measure your digital teacher skills using the seven ISTE guidelines (Smaldino et al. 2019, p. 10) Insight: The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) created a comprehensive set of standards for digital teachers to follow. Smaldino et al. (2019) highlight technology standards that are vital for digital educators in the table below. Guiding Principle #5: Do incorporate “research-based classroom practices to engage learners” in the lesson (Smaldino, et al. 2019, p. 24-26) Insight: According to Smaldino et al. (2019), the principles of research-based classroom practices “offer ways to engage learners regardless of their ability levels” (p. 24). These practices include “consider individual differences, state objectives, develop metacognitive skills, provide social interaction, incorporate realistic contexts, engage students in relevant practice, and offer frequent, timely, and constructive feedback” (Smaldino et al., 2019, p. 24). Guiding Principle #6 : Do follow the six steps of the ASSURE Model when planning lessons (Smaldino et al., 2019, p. 40-41) Insight: The ASSURE Model helps focus and organize the lesson to provide optimal learning outcomes. The acronym ASSURE stands for: analyze your student, state objectives), select methods, media, and material, utilize technology, require learner participation), and evaluate and revise (Smaldino et al., 2019, p. 40-41). Guiding Principle #7 : Do make sure you include the ABCDs of well-stated learning objectives (Smaldino et al, 2019, p. 45) Insight: Teachers can use the ABCDs of well-stated learning objectives to help clarify the objectives of each lesson. Smaldino et al. (2019) created the checklist below to help educators create effective learning objectives. Guiding Principle #8 : Do incorporate competency-based learning into your lessons (Bates, 2015, section 4.5) Insight: According to Bates (2015), teachers who evaluate student learning using defined competencies "meet the needs of students and employers in ways that are progressive...and coherent”. Bates (2015) uses the chart below to exemplify how an educator could use competency-based evaluation in a lesson. Guiding Principle #9: Do develop a total learning environment for students your virtual classroom (Bates, 2015, section 6.2) Insight: According to Bates (2015), a learning environment is a space that “optimizes the ability of students to learn.” (section 6.2). There are many learning environments. A total learning environment incorporates many activities, resources, assessment strategies and student culture. Guiding Principle #10 : Do follow the principles of effective learning assessment. (Smaldino et al., 2019, p. 32) Insight: According to Smaldino et al. (2019), “the method of assessing achievement depends on the nature of the objective” (p. 32). Methods of assessment include performance checklists, grading rubrics, and performance evaluation to assess knowledge retention and lesson effectiveness.
0 Comments
D4: Theories of Learning and Cognition
A lesson I previously taught was “Descriptive Paragraph Writing” for fifth grade students. The objective of the lesson was for students to identify descriptive adjectives and write a descriptive paragraph using descriptive adjectives. A Behaviorist approach According to Robinson et al. (2008), behaviorism “demonstrated that it is possible to achieve dramatic achievement test gains through careful control of the contingencies among stimuli, responses, and consequences” (p. 24). The behaviorist approach includes “analysis of learning tasks, precise specification of objectives, subdivision of the content into small steps, eliciting active responses, and giving feedback to those responses” (Robinson et al, 2008, p. 24). The strength of the behaviorist approach is that “individual learners can work effectively at their own pace without the guidance of a live teacher, freeing instruction from the teacher-centered, group-based paradigm” (p.24). The behaviorist approach proposes that “learners learn by doing, experiencing, and engaging in trial and error” (Burton et. al, 2001, p. 4). Analysis of learning tasks Before administering the lesson, I would need to review and clearly present the learning tasks. According to Richter (2012), a learning task is “characterized as an interface between the learners and the information offered in the learning environment. They serve to activate and control learning processes in order to facilitate successful learning”. In the case of my lesson, the learning task is for students to read the first paragraph of a nature poem and identify all of the adjectives used to describe the nature scene. The learning tasks will need to be clear. Students will review and expand upon adjective identification skills. Precise specification of objectives In the behaviorist lesson, I would clearly present the learning objectives to students to make sure they understand the learning objectives. Subdivision of the content into small steps While organizing the lesson, I will separate each section into a small step or mini lesson. The mini lessons would be: define an adjective, identify an adjective, collaborative peer-to-peer learning with the paragraph review, and group writing using descriptive adjectives. Eliciting active responses I will also incorporate a section of the lesson to encourage active student participation. One way to accomplish active participation is for the students to read or screen share their group writing activities with the class. Students in larger group will identify adjectives as the presenters read their own paragraph out loud. One student will be a tally-keeper and keep track of the number of adjectives. Another student can be the class description monitor (1-5: 1 not very descriptive and 5 very descriptive). Students can be evaluated on the number of adjectives (at least 6) and the level of description that the adjectives add to the paragraph. Give feedback to those responses Peer-to-peer feedback is powerful in the classroom, especially in a collaborative lesson. Students will give detailed feedback for each of the other class groups. Therefore, students will complete a peer review form during the paragraph presentations.
According to Robinson et al. (2008), one useful cognitivist approach is Gagne’s Events of Instruction A-I (p. 31). Following Gagne’s approach, I would edit my lesson to follow each of Gagne’s steps. Gagne’s Events of instruction A. Gain the learners’ attention by telling them or dramatizing the reason for mastering the skill I would accomplish this by briefly reviewing student knowledge of adjectives. Then, I would tell students to count the adjectives in each of the following: a) a 3-4 sentence description of a volcano that a student reads out loud from the screen; and b) a 30 second YouTube close-captioned video of a highly descriptive National Geographic nature description of a volcano. Finally, I would ask students the number of adjectives in each example and ask why one description was better or more descriptive than the other. B. Tell them clearly what they are expected to be able to do after the learning session On the virtual whiteboard, I would clearly share the objectives of the lesson so that students will know what they are expected to do by the end of the lesson. C. Remind them of what they already know and how the current lesson builds on that I will remind the students that they know what an adjective is and put the definition on the virtual whiteboard. This lesson is building on their definition of adjective and descriptive adjective (bad versus rancid or rotten). D. Demonstrate the new skill or present the new information The students practice identifying descriptive adjectives. Then, students will write their own descriptive paragraphs in pairs. E. Guide the learners in mastering the content by suggesting mnemonic devices, asking questions (Blooms taxonomy), giving hints During the group writing sessions, I will visit the breakout rooms to help students and give hints. F. Provide opportunities to practice the new knowledge or skill Students will practice their skills during the peer-to-peer writing session G. During the practice, confirm correct responses or desired performance and give feedback to help learners overcome errors When the pairs read their paragraphs out loud, students will work together to identify/count the descriptive adjectives. If students misidentify or omit a descriptive adjective, I will intervene and provide correction to overcome the error. H. Test the learners’ mastery, preferably by having them use the new knowledge, skills, and attitudes in real or simulated problem situations After the group discussion, students can participate in a simulation where they will have to describe a nature scene at Yellowstone National Park. I. Help the learners transfer their new skills by giving them on-the-job practice or simulated practice involving varied problems Students can participate in a simulation where they have to create a book to be published. They will go through the draft, edit, peer review, submission, and publication process.
According to Wolpert-Gawron (2016), inquiry-based learning “activates a student’s curiosity...and releases authority from teacher to students”, which leads to more student engagement. The four steps for creating an Inquiry-based lesson are: “1. Students develop questions that they are hungry to answer, 2. Research the topic using time in class, 3. Have students present what they’ve learned, 4. Ask students to reflect on what worked about the process and what didn’t”. To take a cognitive constructivist approach, I would follow the four steps:
Ask students about how to use storytelling to get what they want in life: raise money, get a job, start a YouTube channel, etc. Stories are everywhere!
Students research the three types of storytelling in groups of two. The students then:
Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M. & Magliaro, S. G. (2001). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. (1st ed., pp. 1-29). Lawrence Earlbaum. https://aect.org/first_edition.php (Links to an external site.) Richter S. (2012) Learning tasks. In: Seel N.M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_342 Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski, & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 16-48). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/Publications/EducationalTechnology/ER5861X_Afterword.pdf Schuh, K. & Barab, S. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. (3rd ed., pp. 67-82). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C007.fm.pdf Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2016, August 11). What the heck is inquiry-based learning? Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learning-heather-wolpert-gawron D3: Theoretical Framework (Week 4)
Psychology of learning For Spector (2008), the psychology of learning is an important foundation because communication is deeply embedded in the learning process (p. 23). Spector (2008) credits Dewey with applying his concepts of abstract thought and concrete thought to instructional planning (p. 23). Communications Theory Spector (2008) then recognizes the importance of communication theory in educational technology. According to Spector (2008), nearly all learning involves language and therefore includes communication (p. 24). Communications theory is necessary for researchers to understand how educational technology can either enhance or impede communication. Human-computer interaction When reviewing human-computer interaction framework, Spector (2008) highlighted the importance of activity theory or the “framework for studying humans and [the] use of artifacts” (p. 25). Spector (2008) focused on activity theory as a means to understand “purposeful social interactions” and how humans “work with others to achieve a particular goal” (p. 25). Instructional design and development Finally, Spector (2008) focused the fourth section on the theoretical framework of Reigeluth (p. 25). Regarding instructional design and development, the biggest distinction is between prescriptive research (researchers use educational technology to get a desired outcome) and descriptive research (learners have already reached a desired outcome under specific conditions) (Spector, 2019, p. 25-26). How do these foundations conform to (or not) your expectations/understanding of our field? Psychology of learning Since one of the main topics in educational technology is student learning, it makes sense that learning would be a part of the theoretical foundations of educational technology. However, I am new to the idea of the psychology of learning. Intuitively, since learning happens in the mind, there must be some connection to psychology. It is also clear that researchers and educators must understand the way students learn and the psychological processes involved in learning in order to assign an educational technology to enhance learning. Communications Theory My understanding is that media is the message - sound, sentence, image - and instructional technology is the vehicle that carries the message from the instructor to the student (traditionally). With the myriad of instructional technology now available, it makes sense for communications theory to be a major part of educational technology. One question I have is how communications theory takes into account students who communicate non-traditionally such as students who have disabling conditions and those who have learning challenges (such as dyslexia and dysgraphia). Human-Computer Interaction It will be interesting to read more about human-computer interaction. One question I have is how Spector (2008) defines a computer. One could argue that a computer is a laptop or desktop. However, others could argue that a computer has a chip and is connected to a network (intranet or internet). Using the former definition, VR headsets, smartphones, and tablets would not be considered computers. Yet, using the second definition these would be computers. In any case, I can see how the human-computer interaction would be important for user-experience programmers to think about. The question of when to give humans control and when to give machines control must be an important element of programming for various age groups. Instructional Design and Development Like Spector (2008), I believe that Reigeluth’s framework is valid and provides a useful foundation for instructional design and development. However, there is room for research to see if outcomes exist beyond prescriptive and descriptive. Which of these foundations is/are already familiar territory for you? I am honestly not very familiar with any of these frameworks. I do have experience with instructional design and development from supporting my school with curriculum design. However, I do not have the theoretical or empirical research to support any one method over another. With this in mind, I am eager to read on and learn more. Reference Spector, J.M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C002.fm.pdf D2: Tentative Beginnings (Week 3)
The Molenda (2008) chapter was a historical overview of educational technology. In the chapter, Molenda (2008) used paradigmatic shifts or a “shift in identity” to show the evolution of educational technology over time (p. 4). The most interesting parts of the chapter were the sections on cognitivism and constructivism. According to Molenda (2008) cognitivism means how “learners use their memory and thought process to generate strategies as well as store and manipulate mental representations and ideas” (p. 14). Following Molenda (2008), complicated mental processes occur when students learn ,and these processes can be understood using behavioral psychology (p. 14). The section was particularly interesting because the science of learning is a new concept for me. I have never formally considered how students learn or the role of technology in the learning process. It will be interesting to keep this topic in mind as I continue reading in this class. Molenda (2008) defines cognitivism as a way that “learners use their memory and though processes to generate strategies as well as store and manipulate mental representations and ideas” (p. 14). The researcher notes that there “is no single constructivist theory of instruction” (Molenda, 2008, p. 15). The connection between all iterations of constructivism is that “knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences” (Molenda, 2008, p. 15). Moving forward, it will be interesting to consider the role of technology in facilitating or improving upon the knowledge construction process. Perhaps, educational technologies such as virtual reality can present information to students in a realistic and meaningful way thereby improving the constructivist process for students. Overall, the chapter provided a comprehensive overview of theories in the educational technology field. It will be interesting to see how each of these theories is covered in future readings. References Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). Routledge. https://members.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C001.fm.pdf What is Instructional Technology?
According to Januszewski and Persichitte (2008), “educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (p. 280). My definition of educational technology is technology (instructional media, hardware, and software) that aids in the learning process for students ranging from early learning to adults. After completing the readings there were various similarities, differences, and surprises when considering my definition and AECT's definition of educational technology. Similarities One similarity is that my definition and the AECT both include facilitating learning or using educational technology to positively impact learning. For the AECT, the goal of educational technology is “facilitating learning and improving performance” (Januszewski and Persichitte, 2008, p. 280). The AECT goes further by explaining how educational technology facilitates learning “by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski and Persichitte, 2008, p. 280). According to Januszewski and Persichitte (2008), the 1994 definition of educational technology included four components including “(a) theory and practice; (b) design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation; (c) processes and resources; and (d) learning” (p. 278). Similarly, my definition includes resources (instructional media, hardware, and software) and learning. Differences There are various differences between my definition and the AECT definition. These differences can be separated into two sections: theory and ethics. Theory The AECT committee created a definition that includes the idea that educational technology relies “on the research and theory bases of many disciplines” (Persichitte, 2008, p. 332). In my definition, I did not consider that educational technology was a theory or a practice. I only considered educational technology tools as a means to enhance learning. Ethics According to Persichitte (2008), the AECT created a code of ethics and professional standards for educational technology (p. 336). I did not consider educational technology to be a profession or a field of study, and I did not include ethics or professional standards as part of my definition. Surprises It was surprising that Robert Heinich argued “a definition can be viewed as an attempt to establish a power base” (Januszewski, 2008, p. 344). For Heinich, defining the field is a political act that inherently establishes power. As a novice researcher, it seems that research should stay neutral. Yet, Januszeski (2008) agreed that “creating such a definition of educational technology is not a value neutral act” (p. 344). Does this imply that the changing definitions of the field reflect changing power dynamics within AECT? How does this impact the future of the educational technology field and its practitioners? References (2008). Definition. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 327-340). Routledge. Januszewski, A. (2008). Afterword. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 341-350). Routledge. Januszewski, A. & Persichitte, K. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 259-282). Routledge. Persichitte, K. (2008). Implications for academic programs. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 327-340). Routledge. |