Category Archives: Standard 1: Design

Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to design conditions for learning by applying principles of instructional systems design, message design, instructional strategies, and learner characteristics.

Ed Tech 504 Annotated Bibliography

I really enjoyed this assignment.  Once I figured out how to navigate the BSU library system and the data bases.  I owe  big thank you to the reference librarians who I emailed regularly with “how to” questions.  The research was interesting, I concentrated on constructivism, science education, flipped classroom model, and 21st century learning skills.  AB_Using the flipped classroom model to promote constructivist learning in a science classroom is my annotated bibliography.

Ed Tech 504 Final Synthesis Paper

What a project! The rubric and instructions for the paper can be found by clicking ET504 Syllabus for Summer 2014. A big thank you to my peer reviewer and Dr Friesen for their incredibly helpful comments in rearranging the paper and adjusting the wording.  Dr Friesen gave us an extra week to complete the paper, but because we were leaving for Mexico the day the class was scheduled to end, I needed to pass it in before the new deadline.  I worked all week re-writing and re-arranging the paper.  Feel free to offer any feedback.  Cooney Synthesis paper w corrections (1) is my final paper.

I chose the following standards:

1.1 Instructional Systems  Design, and in poarticular 1.1.c Identify learning theories from which each model is derived and the consequent implications.  The paper concentrates on how to use the flipped classroom model to implement a constructivist environment.

1.4 Learner Characteristics, in particular, 1.4.a Identify a broad range of observed and hypothetical learner characteristics for their particular area(s) of preparation.

2.3 Computer Based Technolgies, in particular 2.3.4* Incorporate the use of the Internet, online catalogs and electronic databases to meet the reference and learning needs of students and teachers.

2.4 Integrated Technologies, in particular 2.4.8* Prepare instructional materials, bibliographies, resource lists for instructional units, and other materials as appropriate to support students and teachers.

 

Week 6, Unit 5 reading and discussion on theory

This week we continued our development and knowledge of learning theory as we read the following articles.

Seeley, et al on Situated Cognition

J Kolodner on the Learning Sciences

C Hoadly on Community of PracticeCHAP12HOADLEY

Video from MIT on Anthropology

As we watched and read, we were asked to think about the following questions:

1. What are anthropology and ethnography? Why did cognitivist educational researchers begin to find it necessary to incorporate elements from these studies into their studies (and to make cognitive science “scruffy”)?

2. In “The Learning Sciences: Past, Present, and Future,” Janet Kolodner tells a kind of “story” about the emergence of the “Learning Sciences” as a field. What does her account indicate about the way fields and research agendas change and re-form?

3. What is a community of practice and why is it important to teaching and learning?

4. What do Seely Brown, Collins & Duguid define as being “indexical” language, and why might it be so important in teaching and learning?

Here is my initial response:

As I read the articles and watched the videos, certain ideas jumped out at me.

First, I see that learning theories evolve and emerge, and both anthropology and ethnography  have had some influence as both are concerned with the study of people in terms of culture and society.  In particular, anthropology studies how groups of people apply knowledge to solve human problems. (http://www.aaanet.org/about/whatisanthropology.cfm)

In terms of developing learning theory, culture plays an impact on constructivist learning theory, and newer ideas including situated learning and communities of practice.

As I read the article by Kolodner, I couldn’t help but think, the evolution of Learning Science is a microcosm for a community of practice.  The emergence and growth of the field and journal , mirrors how a community of practice works together.  One thing I found interesting is the distinction between learning sciences (LS) and Instructional design systems (ISD).  I see the two as complementary.  The role of ISD is to integrate sound theory from LS that has been tested , and shown to be an effective tool for learning.

Lastly, the article by Seeley, et al was fascinating to me.  They set forth that learning is situated and culturally dependent.  I see a  lot of overlap w/ constructivism as constructivism asserts that “learning is subjective…it is constructed through discovery, interactions …with others, society.’ (Larson & Lockee p 77).    It is how people use the knowledge in context rather than the knowledge by itself that makes for true learning.  I thought there were some excellent examples of how learning is situated from the acquisition of language to developing math skills.  I like that emphasis is on the process (something I always tell my physics classes), and that there is more than one way to solve a problem.

 

Ed Tech 504 Jigsaw Summary of article

In this week of class, we formed small groups, read an article, and wrote a 500 word summary of the article.  We then commented on each others’ summaries, and answered any questions that came up regarding our summary.  The ensuing discussions on the Moodle board, I thought, really enhanced everyone’s summaries.

Condensing the summary into 500 words was no easy task.   The article discussed the science of learning (the study of how people learn), and the science of instruction (the study of how material is presented including strategies and tools to facilitate learning).  The author argues that the best instructional tools need to founded on the science of learning, and must be tested in order to determine if they are successful.  The author tested several strategies, and developed a list of the ten principles for multimedia learning.  The list is intended to help instructors help their student select important ideas, organize the ideas, and ultimately integrate the ideas into their knowledge.

Here is the link to the article we reviewed. Mayer_2009 (1)

Below is our summary of the article.

Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction

This article shows the reciprocity between the disciplines of the science of learning and the science of instruction working together to determine the best instructional practices based on research from both disciplines.  Mayer uses the science of learning to identify and test instructional strategies to inform the science of instruction.

Science of learning is the process a learner goes through as they create change in their knowledge by selecting what needs to be learned, organizing the information in a way to help make meaning, and integrating the information with prior knowledge to create meaning. Science of instruction is the presentation of material to facilitate learning.  Multimedia learning is any learning that involves both words (spoken or written) and pictures (static or dynamic). Learners have two channels to process verbal and visual information, each channel has a finite capacity at any given moment in time.  The author demonstrates that in order for instruction to be meaningful the strategies must be tested in a controlled experiment to determine if the strategy suggested by the science of learning is effective in increasing learner knowledge.  After testing several strategies, the author developed the ten principles of multimedia learning.

Within these ten principles, Mayer developed five principles specific to reducing extraneous processing.  The first two principles, coherence and signaling, address the need to stay focused on the main goal by reducing or avoiding extraneous information and highlighting the essential information. Redundancy is most easily summarized by, “…people learn better from animation and narration than from animation, narration, and on-screen text.” The spatial contiguity principle states that people learn better when corresponding images and text are in close proximity to each other. The final principle to reduce extraneous processing is the temporal contiguity principle; it states that people learn better when corresponding narration and animation occur simultaneously rather than successively (2008, p. 763).

In addition to the above mentioned principles, Mayer also discusses three principles for managing essential processing.  Segmenting, pretraining, and modality encompass the ideas of breaking the information into small chunks, providing background information before the learning, and presenting information as spoken text instead of printed text (2008, p. 765).

When extraneous processing has been reduced and essential processing has been managed effectively, learners must be enticed to engage in generative processing. Based on cognitive learning theory, Mayer developed and tested the effectiveness of the multimedia principle, which demonstrates that people learn better from words and pictures, than words alone.  Last, the personalization principleindicates that a conversational style of instruction because a sense of partnership has been established  (Mayer, 2008). Throughout the article,  the effectiveness of conducting applied research on cognitive theories of learning is demonstrated to resulted in sound instructional theories. Mayer refers to this as  “conducting basic research on applied issues” (2008, p. 767). These instructional theories can be used to design instruction, which can be used to further test and develop theories of learning, thus defining a reciprocal nature between the science of learning and the science of instruction.

 Mayer, R.E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, (63) 8, 760-769.http://edtech.mrooms.org/pluginfile.php/91214/mod_resource/content/0/Mayer_2009.pdf

 Written by: Cheryl Brown, Caroline Cooney, and Beth Swaby

Some comments from our Instructor include:

“The science of learning is NOT the process…, but rather the study of learning” (the process of).  Also, our instruction thought the summary would have been better if we tied the summary to one of the “big three” learning theories, behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism.”  Lastly, he felt that some of the sentences could have been clearer.

Here is our updated summary (not for a better grade, but for the sake of making the summary clearer.)

Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction

This article shows the reciprocity between the disciplines of the science of learning and the science of instruction working together to determine the best instructional practices based on research from both disciplines.  Mayer uses the science of learning to identify and test instructional strategies to inform the science of instruction.

The science of learning is the study of learning which includes how people learn.  According to Mayer, the process of learning includes selecting what needs to be learned, organizing the information in a way to help make meaning, and integrating the information with prior knowledge to create meaning.  Science of instruction is the presentation of material to facilitate learning.  Multimedia learning is any learning that involves both words (spoken or written) and pictures (static or dynamic).  Learners have two channels to process verbal and visual information, each channel has a finite capacity at any given moment in time.  The author demonstrates that in order for instruction to be meaningful the strategies must be tested in a controlled experiment to determine if the strategy suggested by the science of learning is effective in increasing learner knowledge.  After testing several strategies, the author developed the ten principles of multimedia learning.

Within these ten principles, Mayer developed five principles specific to reducing extraneous processing.  The first two principles, coherence and signaling, address the need to stay focused on the main goal by reducing or avoiding extraneous information and highlighting the essential information. Redundancy is most easily summarized by, “…people learn better from animation and narration than from animation, narration, and on-screen text.” The spatial contiguity principle states that people learn better when corresponding images and text are in close proximity to each other. The final principle to reduce extraneous processing is the temporal contiguity principle; it states that people learn better when corresponding narration and animation occur simultaneously rather than successively (2008, p. 763).

In addition to the above mentioned principles, Mayer also discusses three principles for managing essential processing.  Segmenting, pretraining, and modality encompass the ideas of breaking the information into small chunks, providing background information before the learning, and presenting information as spoken text instead of printed text (2008, p. 765).

When extraneous processing has been reduced and essential processing has been managed effectively, learners must be enticed to engage in generative processing. Based on cognitive learning theory, Mayer developed and tested the effectiveness of the multimedia principle, which demonstrates that people learn better from words and pictures, than words alone.  Last, the personalization principle indicates that a conversational style of instruction is best because a sense of partnership has been established (Mayer, 2008). Throughout the article,  the effectiveness of conducting applied research on cognitive theories of learning is demonstrated to result in sound instructional theories. Mayer refers to this as  “conducting basic research on applied issues” (2008, p. 767). These instructional theories can be used to design instruction, which can be used to further test and develop theories of learning, thus defining a reciprocal nature between the science of learning and the science of instruction.

Ed Tech 504 Week 2 Defining Ed Tech

Picture of caroline cooney
Ed Tech Definition~ Cooney

by caroline cooney – Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 9:05 PM

I expect this first pass at a definition to change with the input of my peers.

I remember in my second year (2008-2009) of teaching, our principal kept talking about utilizing and teaching 21st century skills and knowledge.  Based on those discussions, and before taking any classes at Boise State, my definition of Ed Tech was the use of computers/technology in school to access education, and build a working knowledge of the topic being studied.  My principal really started me thinking, and it was through his encouragement that I decided to pursue the MET.  As a result, my initial ideas have evolved.

“Ed Tech is the use of technology including, but not limited to computers, smart phones, tablets, computers, smartboards, graphing calculators, etc to both access the curriculum, and create knowledge by working with peers and instructor to build knowledge by using the technology to read, interact with learning materials and people and create educational items to show evidence of learning.  Educational Technology not only includes the use of technology for learning, but also the systematic study of how using technology can enhance learning, as well as the process of designing instruction systematically with technology.”

It is important to note that the technology itself changes over time, but the discipline works with the changes to help create meaningful learning.

Revised Definition based on feedback…

Picture of caroline cooney
Re: Ed Tech Definition~ Cooney

by caroline cooney – Friday, June 20, 2014, 2:40 PM

My updated definition…

Educational Technology is the systematic use of technology as it pertains to planning for and implementing of curriculum, and the ongoing study of how to use technology as it relates to education.

Much more concise, this time.  I am trying convey that it is the use and planning as well as study of how it pertains to learning.

 

Ed Tech 504 Week 1, Introductions and Initial posts to readings

This first week was spent getting to know our peers, and reading about (and watching a quick video) on the History of Ed Tech.

Here are my initial posts.

Picture of caroline cooney
Caroline Cooney- Introduction
by caroline cooney – Thursday, June 5, 2014, 4:33 PM

My name is Caroline Cooney, and I am just finishing my 7th year teaching high school physics, earth science, and physical science.  Prior to teaching, I worked in other fields.  In terms of the MET program, this is my 4th class in the program.  I am taking it slowly, one course per spring semester and one per summer semester.  One of my goals of the program is to help my students take more responsibility for their learning by using technology to help drive instruction, communication, and collaboration.

I have not taken any theory specific courses, although I did take Ed Tech 503 last semester, and we learned about some theories as part of the Instructional Design Process.

I live in Mansfield, Massachusetts with my husband and three sons, and teach in Mansfield Massachusetts.  I have  a great commute, less than 1.5 miles each way!  Living and working in the same town is great, although my three teenaged boys might feel differently, (although I think they secretly like having me at the high school!).  My oldest son graduates from high school this Sunday (June 8th!), my middle son is a junior, and my youngest son joins us at the high school (grade 9) in September.

When I am not working, planning, or grading, I can be found at many local school events, including plays and cheering on the hometown teams, especially, soccer, cross country, and track (my boys do both).  In my free time, I enjoy running, and I train as part of a triathlon team called “Gals for Cal” that raises money for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.  Triathlon season is just beginning here in the Northeast, so I use my summers to train.

It was nice to see some familiar names on the course list.  I look forward to meeting some new people, and working with all of you this summer.

Picture of caroline cooney
Cooney~ Week One Readings & Ted Talk thoughts
by caroline cooney – Friday, June 13, 2014, 5:03 PM

First, I have to say, Happy Friday to all!  We have seven more school days here in Mansfield, MA, but who is counting?  Oh, that’s right, I am! Summer is right around the corner!

After reading the two articles and viewing the Ted Talk, several thoughts come to mind.

First, the article by Larry Cuban, “Teacher and Machines” and the Ted Talk reinforced each other.  In fact the video quotes the Cuban article. What struck me from these is that the struggle to introduce technology into schools is not new.  Each generation or time period has had something that was going to revolutionize education.  Each has had an impact, but no one thing has completely changed the face of education. Although, I think that every classroom in America at one point had a chalkboard, it is not the chalkboard that changed education, but what teachers and students did with the chalkboard to push forward education.

I found the long list of technology interesting ( I don’t think that I even really thought of some of these as technology in the classroom until the article and video pointed them out.): paper, slate & chalk, textbooks, ballpoint pens, radio. television, computers.  There are still others, such as calculators.  I still remember when my sister (who is nine years older) came home from college (I was in fourth grade) & spoke about the student in her physics class that had a calculator (he spent hundreds of dollars on it)!  She was still using her trusty slide rule.  Fast forward about eight or nine years to when I was in high school, our physics teacher showed us how to use a slide rule, but we all used calculators!

I am a big believer in using technology in the classroom, whatever it is, but we must keep in mind it is a tool to help our students learn. Technology  is a means to an end (student learning), rather than the end.

Another thing that I found interesting was how much time some schools spent watching the TV programs designed for school.  I know that when I show a movie or video in my classroom, many students think that is  break time.  I like to use videos, but only if I know the students will pay attention.  As the Tedtalk said, dark room is disaster in high school.

 

The article by Ertmer and Newby was a good primer for me, as I am not that well versed in Educational Theories.  I see the three theories as building upon each other (although the ideas behind them are quite different). I can see the validity of how the constructivist approach is for more advanced learning.  Although I can also see it in play in some of the really simple things that we do, but we develop a deeper understanding as we use and apply ideas.  For example, teaching, I know my topics, but every time I teach a unit, I develop a richer understanding based on interactions with students and content.

Currently, in my teaching I see a lot of cognitivist in terms the learner is an active participant, the emphasis on promoting mental processes (p 58) makes me think of problem solving in physics.  I tell the students all the time, “I would rather see the process w/ a math error, rather than the correct answer w/o the process!”  I can also see bits of constructivism as students apply the knowledge to solve new or different problems. One area that I find difficult is finding authentic activities.  For example, today we calculated how much work and power we generated walking and running up the stairs (a very common high school physics lab).  It is not necessarily “real world”, but it definitely is a hands on way to demonstrate & help students construct their understanding of the topics.  Another interesting point was that in the constructivist model “objectives are not pre-specified” (p 166).  The reality in a high school class is that there are pre-set objectives and a variety of tools and strategies (some may fit into more than one theory) will help the student master the content.

 

One last thought I had as I was reading the the Ertmer/Newby article is that the basis for behaviorist theory “ learning is accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated following a stimulus” (p. 55) reminded me of the high stakes standardized tests.  Of course some of the questions require higher order thinking, but just the response to stimulus just made me think of tests (in general, all tests!).

Ed Tech 503 Final Project :Instructional Design Project

For this final project, which actually was completed through out the course, I created a three hour instructional design project on “introduction to the rock cycle”.  Thinking like an instructional designer is very different than thinking like a teacher.  As a teacher, I create lessons based on state standards, and what students should know, and create assessments (either project based or traditional) to assess if students have mastered the material.

The instructional design process goes far beyond that process utilizing the ADDIE model of instructional design. ADDIE stands for: analyze (learner needs, stakeholder needs), design (instruction and assessment), develop (instruction tools, assessments, evaluations), implement (run the instruction), evaluate (determine if instruction worked, where it needs to improved or changed).  The process is ongoing, and the different components can affect change to other areas.

For me, the initial surveys were quite interesting; I enjoyed learning about what fellow teachers and students thought about instruction and content.  One of the challenges for me was creating a good set of objectives, and then creating a flow chart of tasks from that.  The flow chart was done prior to the objectives, which to me seemed backward.  I couldn’t create a thorough flow chart, until the objectives were done.  I originally created a flow chart for part one, then when I completed my objectives for part tow, the flow chart needed to changed completely.  As I reflect on the project, I plan to update the flow chart one more time.  At this point, the flow chart is a regurgitation of the objectives, but I need to create a task flow chart based on each objective.  I had this epiphany after passing in my final project, so while grading wise, i may lose some points here, I feel like I finally have a good understanding of what it should like!

Creating both the assessments (did students learn the material) and evaluations (was instruction effective) was interesting.  In the past, as a teacher, I would assess students’ learning, and informally evaluate the process.  Using a survey tool for both students and teachers will help me to know if the instruction was successful.

Here is the link to the final project.   IDProjectReportfinal

I chose the following AECT standards: Standard 1: Design: 1.1 Instructional Systems Design, 1.23 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics,

Standard 2: Devlopment: 2.2 AV Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies

Stndard 4: Management: 4.1 Project management, 4.3 Delivery System,

Stndard 5:Evaluation: 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evalutaion

Down to the wire…This week, Voicethread presentation on the ID project.

I realized as I was preparing for the Voicethread that not only did I need to make adjustments to my project based on peer feedback, but also would need to do some updating to the objectives.  The objectives are part of the “part 2”, but for me, my corrections to part 1 (the flow chart) are based on the objectives.  Here is the Voicethread presentation w/ comments by my peers.  Overall, the process was helpful.  My favorite part of the online classes is the interaction w/ peers, and the ability to give & receive feedback.  I find it very helpful in terms of the process.

 

 

Ed Tech 503 “lead discussion”

For our fourth week in Ed Tech 503, our small group was responsible for leading the weekly discussion.  This entails, creating a narrated presentation in Voicethread that  summarizes the readings, and responding to our classmates comments on the discussion board for the two questions.   We also needed to develop four potential discussion board questions, that Dr. Trespalacios then tweaked for the actual discussion board.  The questions that we submitted were:

Discussion #3 Questions by Alissa Blackburn, Caroline Cooney, Kent Ellison, & Erica Fuhry


1) How exactly can we create a better connection between performance and learning contexts through our instructional design decisions? Can you offer examples from your own experience? Is it really that important to have a connection between these contexts?

2) Based on learning theories and the Pedagogical approaches (Instructivist, Constructivist, Connectivist), as presented in the book,  which pedagogical approach do you feel most comfortable with as a new Instructional Designer and why?

3) While collecting and reviewing content, why is it important to keep your terminal instructional goal in mind?

4) As an Instructional Designer how do we create material applicable to all audiences? How do we differentiate between age groups and second language learners without adding too much irrelevant content?

The actual questions for the Discussion Board were:

Question 1: Based on learning theories and the pedagogical approaches (Instructivist, Constructivist, and Connectivist), as presented in the book, which pedagogical approach or approaches do you feel would be more appropriate to use in your instructional design project and why? Please, make a short introduction of your project to understand better your instructional decisions.

Question 2: In case study #2, Michael Bishop encountered many different barriers getting his educational games piloted in various school districts. What are some of the barriers that stood out to you, and what do you (as an instructional designer) recommend he could have done to overcome these challenges?

Here is the link to our Voicethread presentation.

I chose the Following AECT standards

1.2 Message Design “Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended to communicate with  the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected and the learning task.  I chose this because question one discusses how the students will apply learning theory to their ID project.

1.2 Message Design “Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended to communicate with the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected and the learning task.  I chose this because question one begins the discussion of how the students will design their message for their ID project, as well as we created a Voicethread presentation which is a specific medium to help students understand the meassage.

2.4 Integrated Technologies “Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 40). Integrated technologies are typically hypermedia environments which allow for: (a) various levels of learner control, (b) high levels of interactivity, and (c) the creation of integrated audio, video, and graphic environments. Examples include hypermedia authoring and telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and the World Wide Web.  I chose this standard because we utilized av, print (various forms of media) that were presented using a computer that allow the end user to interact with the content and each other.

Ed Tech 503 Discussions

As part of Ed Tech 503, each week a different group of students prepares a Voicethread presentation on the week’s readings.  Also, each week, the lead group leads the discussion board comments based on questions that the  group developed on the readings.  Here are the questions, and my initial responses.  As part of the discussions students are encouraged to comment each other’s posts. I did not include any of the follow up posts here.

Ed Tech 503 Discussion 1

Question #1 by Jesús Trespalacios – Monday, February 10, 2014, 11:55 AM  According to the iterative ADDIE Model and the continual improvement streamline principal, Instructional Designers should evaluate each phase of the design model by asking input from subject experts and target audience. As an educator, does this seem feasible in your teaching environment? Why or why not?

Re: Question #1  by caroline cooney – Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 9:39 PM

Some interesting responses especially in terms of collaboration and time constraints.  Karin~ I agree that it is imperative or non-negotiable for teachers to work w/ instructional designers to achieve the educational results that are the goals of the project.

In our school and school district, we do not have any Instructional Design team, and our Technology Dept is maxed out in terms of workload.  The teachers at our school do work collaboratively together to produce and share lesson plans, but that is a far cry from instructional design.  We do meet regularly as a department (Science), and sometimes we have extended professional development time to work together on projects.  An example is we have been working on improving scientific writing at our school, and have been developing a rubric to use that will work across all science classes, and grades.

The reality is that most of the professional development time is spent on  district initiatives such as the new teacher evaluation, or NEASC accreditation, etc.  As a district, if we were to use a “true” instructional design process, we would have to look very carefully  at the amount of time dedicated to the project (s), and how we go about implementing and evaluating.  I think that we do very many things very well at our school.  Providing time is not one of them!  We definitely have collaborative teams, so we could easily build on that collaboration to successfully implement Instructional Design into our school.  Getting feedback from the target audience (teachers and/or students) could be done w/ quick surveys, with occasional meetings.  For me, the biggest issue for getting input from subject matter experts, and formative assessments though out the process comes down to time constraints.

Questions #2 by Jesús Trespalacios – Monday, February 10, 2014, 11:59 AM

As a novice instructional designer, which aspects of developing instruction do you consider to be inherently artistic? Which aspects of developing instruction do you consider inherently  scientific? (Brown & Green, 2011, p.18)

Re: Questions #2 by caroline cooney – Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 9:55 PM

As I was reading about Instructional Design over the past two weeks, I was getting very excited because I teach science, and I see the ID process as scientific especially in terms of the analysis of needs and evaluation of materials, teaching, etc.  I see the actual design as both scientific & artistic because it requires understanding of the analysis and learner needs/goals, but also requires the ability to creatively approach the problem to solve in a variety of ways, and to develop multiple methods to address diverse learning needs.  I see the artistic part of ID as  the implementation process.  Implementing any instruction involves the ability to adjust instruction as needed, to do quick formative assessments to help guide the “on the fly” revisions to instruction.  Being able to adjust instruction is an art that takes practice, but it is helpful to have developed (which is both scientific and artistic) many tools to have at your disposal.

As I read this, I realize that I am having a difficult time separating the instructional Designer role from the classroom teacher role.  The ID uses creativity to develop multiple methods to approach and teach the material.  The classroom teacher will use those multiple methods, and adjust as needed.  Hopefully, the two are in regular communication to help adjust and evaluate the process…an ongoing process.

Ed Tech 503 Discussion 2

Question #1 by Jesús Trespalacios – Monday, February 17, 2014, 11:33 PM

As a classroom teacher, there are several ways I assess my students’ knowledge.  First, if the course has prerequisites, I assume that they have the baseline knowledge. Within the class setting, I will sometimes do KWL chart.  I find that these activate the prior knowledge, and the get the students thinking and curious about the topic.  I like the updated version with “H” for How can I learn. Here is a link to a blog describing it.

Another method is to do a pre and post assessment.  In several classes that I have taken, we have been given pre & post assessments, and I really liked seeing where  I improved, and where I still had questions.   I have only done this once in one of my classes that I teach, as the very first unit in an earth science class, where the material was mostly review.  If the students’ score showed that they knew the prerequisite material, they were able to move on to the next unit of study.   I currently do not employ this method in my classes, but am considering adding a pre-assessment  for each unit (perhaps as part of my ID project) to help my guide my lessons.

Still another method, are the formative assessments that I do daily in class, some are formal, others are done as I walk around the class.

Of course, that response was wearing my classroom teacher hat.  As an Instructional Designer, it is important to know what the students know, so appropriate material is provided as content.  I think that as an Instructional Designer, it is different than being in class, where a teacher can quickly assess if the students know something or not, so the teacher can  either add or take away some of the content depending on how much help they need.  I think as an Instructional Designer, it is important to plan for that. Building redundancy into the lessons to plan for extra help, just in case. Conversely, if the students know the basics, the Instructional Designer can plan the content to allow for the instructor to jump into more complex, and deeper problems and understanding.

A couple areas stand out for me.  The Instructional Designer needs to plan the instruction for future classes where the knowledge may vary from class.  A good way to plan out the instruction is to interview and observe current classes/teachers to get feel for what needs to known before the class, as well as take into account any prerequisites for the class.  As part of the actual class, it might be good for the Instructional Designer to plan for some type of pre-assessment that allows the instructor to gauge the prerequisite skills, and have different jumping off points.  Of course, all the while keeping in mind the end goals for the design.

An example comes to mind (again w/ my teacher hat), but as part of the CP Physics class that I teach, there are certain math prerequisites.  So I assume that all students have an understanding of Sine, cosine, and tangent.  I quickly realized (my first year) that just because it is a prerequisite, doesn’t mean that all students know the necessary math, so I have planned for a variety of lessons depending on the students level of understanding of the content.  I would think that if this course went through the Instructional Design Process, the Designer would plan for that up front.

Question #2 by Jesús Trespalacios – Monday, February 17, 2014, 11:35 PM

a) In case study 7, critique the steps Maya took to identify the needs in the case. What are some things she did well? What would you suggest to improve her practice.

b) In general, is a needs analysis always necessary when planning an instructional design project? Why or why not?

Re: Question #2 by caroline cooney – Thursday, February 20, 2014, 9:10 PM

a. To identify the needs, Maya reflected on the socioeconomic changes in the community, and what effect those changes were having on educational expectations. Maya listened to the classroom teacher explain her perception of the problems.  Maya asked the classroom teacher questions relating to the typical student in class. Maya again listened, noting the teacher’s frustration with the current situation, and during this interview, Maya picked up on other things, such as the teacher’s teaching style.

Next, Maya went to the district curriculum office to research and determine any trends in the students placed in the different levels of math class.  Maya also interviewed other math teachers, the assistant principal, and about ten students.

Last, she researched state standards and how the textbook compared to the standards.

She wrote up all her notes.  Of particular note, was that there was a poor attitude toward education among some of the students.  Maya also noted discrepancies between the current textbook and the state standards.  As part of her report, Maya made some curriculum suggestions to the teacher based on her findings that might help engage the students in more real world thinking and problem solving.

My initial thought was that Maya’ note were very qualitative  While I thought she was thorough in her assessment, I think that she could have backed up her findings and suggestions with data (perhaps from a survey or questionnaire of current students and teachers).  I think that Maya uncovered two issues, and I would think that the Instructional Design Plan should address the needs.

I see the  needs as:

  1. Textbook and state standards are not aligned.

  2. Some students have a poor attitude toward school / teacher believes a more hands on approach will engage the students (I think that this is same problem being looked at from two perspectives, the students, and the teacher).

Maya’s Instructional Design plan should look at ways to address these issues.  First, find content that aligns with state standard.  Second, as part of content, find some hands on approaches.

b. Absolutely necessary!  Needs must be assessed, to determine if the 1. need exists, 2. the need can be addressed through instruction.  If the need cannot be met through instruction, determine how to “fix” the problem.

Ed Tech 503 Discussion 3

My group lead the discussion for that week.  Please refer to Lead Discussion post.

Ed Tech 503 Discussion 4

Question #1 by Jesús Trespalacios – Sunday, March 30, 2014, 10:19 PM

What does it mean to align outcomes, assessments, and strategies according to Larson and Lockee (2014)? As an example, describe how this alignment would be presented in your ID project offering details of each one of these three sections. Please, introduce shortly your project at the beginning to understand better your instructional decisions.

My initial response Re: Question #1  by caroline cooney – Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 5:08 PM

My ID Project is to create/update three hours of classroom instruction on the Rock Cycle, as part of one of our Earth Science classes.  Currently, the way the class is designed, this unit falls at the end of the trimester, and is often glossed over or skipped due to time constraints.  I liked how Larson and Lockee liken the three (outcomes, assessments,and strategies) to a three legged stool.  “Visualize instruction as a stool that supports learning experiences with three legs: the learning outcomes, the assessments, and the strategies (learning activities).  If a leg is out of alignment, the integrity of the design is compromised, and the stool won’t support the learner adequately.”  The three need to be integrated, and support each other.

For my project, the learning goal is:

Students will work collaboratively to interpret the rock cycle from a variety of internet sources.  Students will explain the rock cycle, using both pictures and words, and will describe and identify features of and give examples of the different types of rocks. Students will demonstrate their understanding by creating a fictitious “Rock Band” that releases a new “Rock album / CD” complete with cover art, band member biographies, song list, and lyrics to one song (may be set to the tune of another song).

 

In this project the outcome as stated is to be able to describe, explain (in pictures and words) the rock cycle and give examples of rocks.

Students will be given a set of learning objectives on day 1.

Strategies include:

Think, Pair, Share as students read and review some US Geological Survey USGS Website including: Rocks, and Rocks 101, Igneous RocksSedimentary RocksMetamorphic Rocks.Students will engage in a partner read of this website, one student reads, while the other asks questions, the reader attempts to answer.  Reverse roles for next page.

Next students engage in two online activities.  The first, is from the online McDougall Littell  On Line Earth Science Text Book,and it helps students to visualize the processes of the Rock Cycle, and shows a couple of pictures of different types of rocks.

The Last on line activity is from Interactive.org on the Rock Cycle.  Students rad through the website, and take the quiz at the end.  Students will print out their quiz scores for the grade purposes.

All of the above activities will enhance students understanding of how rocks form, and the different types and examples of rocks.

Assessments: 1. The on line quiz.

2. Creation of a rock band  and release of an album.  Students will be given the rubric on day one, as well as an example of the project.  Students will use their knowledge of the rock types and rock cycle to creatively explain the process and give examples through a album.  Each band member has a “band bio” is a different rock that has undergone the rock cycle to get to his or her present rock type.

An Example (making this example up as I go, so…) Mary Marble is a magnificent Metamorphic Rocker, but her long career hasn’t been easy.  Mary started her life as a young guitar playing  Molten magma deep inside a volcano.  All was quiet, until one day, her home erupted, and she was literally thrown into the world.  Mary cooled quickly forming an extrusive igneous rock.  She remained an igneous rock for a while, but time slowly crept up on her, and wind & rain began to wash and weather Mary away forming sediments. Her sediments eventually compacted forming a sedimentary rock.  Before Mary knew it, her life as a sedimentary rock was heating up with all the pressure of being a rock star.  This intense heat and pressure eventually turned Mary into the magnificent Marble that she is today!

The album title and cover art will help to show understanding.  The album art must include a drawing of the rock cycle.

It will tight trying to squeeze this into three days of instruction, so will either need to include some homework for students OR I can end this part of the ID process at the on line quiz, and do the Rock band as the next lesson. OR   The last possibilty is to tighten up the rock band rubric, and have students come up  with Rock Band name, album title, rock cycle picture for album cover, and the band bios that show an understanding of how one rock type can turn into another.

 

Question #2 by Jesús Trespalacios – Sunday, March 30, 2014, 10:21 PM

In your opinion, should anything have been removed from or added to Jackie’s evaluation plan on case study 8? Support your ideas with quotes and/or concepts from the Larson and Lockee chapters.

My initial Response Re: Question #2 by caroline cooney – Thursday, April 3, 2014, 6:37 PM

On Page 117 in Larson & Lockee the authors state:

“1. Define the types of outcomes to be identified and the level of detail to be assessed.

2. Write outcomes that communicate the desired behavior, conditions, and standards.

3. Align outcomes to assessments and strategies.

4. Plan how to convey the outcomes and communicate their relevance to learners.”

It seems to me that # 3 & 4 were not necessarily thought about upfront.  After meeting with her supervisor (after about four months), she was told about the upcoming meeting and need for the evaluation plan.  She went back to the original grant (figure 8-1 on pa 83 In ID Casebook), and re-read about the evaluation component.  I think that perhaps when she was first hired, it would have been a good idea to really review the original grant, to determine where the the project was, and what needed to be done to implement the grant as written.  If that were done, she might not have felt so overwhelmed at developing the assessment and evaluation plan.  If she had done that, perhaps, then all four of the above list would have been considered.  Also, I would like to think that her direct supervisor should have mentioned the importance and the focus of the evaluations and assessment component to her, when she was hired.  Although, ultimately, as the designer, it is Jackie’s job to implement & design for the grant, and implement the learning objectives.

One thing I thought might be interesting would be to survey the students of the faculty who have taken the course to determine what extent the material was covered in the class &/or where they did not understand the material.  The Instructional Design is for the faculty, but ultimately, it is for the students of who are in the classes of the faculty.

Ed Tech 503 Discussion 5

Question #1 by Jesús Trespalacios – Sunday, April 6, 2014, 8:54 PM

 Considering the seven “…essential tasks common to almost all IDT projects” (Larson & Lockee, 2014, p. 223), what is the greatest challenge Scott’s design team is facing on case #1? What challenges, if any, do you see in the makeup of the project teams?

My initial response…  Re: Question #1

by caroline cooney – Thursday, April 10, 2014, 8:02 PM

I think that one of the biggest challenges for the team is # 1 and #2 from the list. “Examine existing materials for use in the project, and Identify  project management requirements.  It seems that the group has read only one brief so far, and is getting bogged down with that one.  I would think they need to read the briefs to get a feel and understanding for the requirements for each learning object, and determine if there is some interplay between them.   Another concern is ability to choose the best 15 briefs out of the 32 learning objects, and revise and develop the briefs w/i the time frame.

It seems that the teams will be working independently, so that could become an issue if there is not clear understanding on all the learning objects.  Another potential challenge for  the group is that they will hand off their part of the job.  Once approved by the steering committee, the project is handed over to the Development team, and the Design team is not longer involved.  This seems to go against # 5,6,7.

5 Manage production and formative testing if instruction

6. Guide implementation and promote adoption.

7. Evaluate and revise for continuous improvement.

Once they hand off their piece, they are no longer involved, so it seems cannot do 5,6,or 7!

Lastly, while this is not on the list of seven on p 223,  it seems to me, the the group has the leeway to change the content as the briefs were  “starting points” (p 22); however, by changing the content to what should be brought on a camping trip, rather than a trip to Mars,  they lost the sub-concepts which are to develop an understanding of “how people contribute to the needs and well-being of the community, and how we all contribute to the community in productive and fair ways.”

Question #2 by Jesús Trespalacios – Sunday, April 6, 2014, 8:58 PM

2 a) Based on the concepts and theories discussed on chapter 10, how do you design and deliver an effective message?

2 b) Thinking in your ID project, what are the most important elements to develop an effective message presentation and flow? As you did in the previous discussion, introduce shortly your project at the beginning to understand better your instructional design decisions.

My Initial Response  Re: Question #2
by caroline cooney – Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 7:45 PM

According to Larson & Lockee, “there are two primary characteristics of an effective instructional message: accessibility and support of your overall design plan.” 

To me, this means that  all learners must be able to access the curriculum (content,and how it is delivered-the message) in terms if both the physical structure and unique needs of all students, including individualized education plans.  Furthermore, the message and its delivery need to support the overall goals of the Instructional Design.

My project’s goal is:”Students will work collaboratively to interpret the rock cycle from a variety of internet sources.  Students will explain the rock cycle, using both pictures and words, and will describe and identify features of and give examples of the different types of rocks.”

To create an effective message as the designer, one that tunes out the extraneous load, it is critical that I find sources that are both factual and engaging for high school students.

In terms of the content message and delivery, the Earth Science classes have a wide range of student abilities, and always include several students on Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s).  As a result, it will important to design a message that helps to pair the visual with verbal, as well as create opportunity to review, repeat, and dig deeper, and chunk the content (all in three hours!).

Students will access the websites from one of two places. 1. The Mansfield High School Library website or the classroom website (some of the teachers use class websites, but others do not.)

Student will work together in pairs, and partner read information on rock types from US Geological Survey.  The partner read will give students the chance to read aloud to each other, and ask questions of each other, helping to increase their comprehension.

The websites are USGS rocks, USGS Rocks 101, Igneous RocksSedimentaryMetamorphic.  Students will be asked to take notes and create a concept map to help make sense of the information.

Next students, with their partners, will review two interactive websites. McDougall, Littell and Learner.org.

The last website has an interactive quiz that students will take to assess their knowledge.  They will show their teacher their score, and have the chance to print out their quiz results if they would like a copy.

Students will take a traditional paper and pencil assessment to evaluate their  learning.   This next section, the “rock Band” will demonstrate how students apply their knowledge in a new way to show depth of understanding of the rock cycle processes, as well as rock types and examples.  Students will use their new rock knowledge to create a “Rock Band”, complete with band bios, song list, and cover art.

My Follow up to peer question
The plan is that the student partners work through the material  at their own pace.  I think it should NOT take any more than two class days. In terms of the partner read, you are right,it will be difficult to manage the cognitive load w/ all those people reading.  I will encourage them to find a quiet corner, and use appropriate voice level.  I really like to do the partner read, especially if there are any English Language Learners in class.  Yes, they will swap reading roles.  Depending  on the student, will depend if they listen or read along and listen.

Thanks for making me consider all these things, that I might not have thought of!