Instructional Design

January 21, 2016 – D2L Post

My philosophy of teaching

My philosophy of teaching is somewhat difficult to pin down, likely because my teaching assignment is to teach technology, so assessing the role that I see technology playing is challenging, as it is the core of my course content.  Philosophically speaking, I would consider myself to be progressive in my viewpoint. I believe that students should have opportunities to learn in a context that mirrors the real world as much as a school environment can recreate it, and I believe that education is experiential and that an active hands-on environment is the preferred classroom setting. Kanuka (2008, p.104) states that “the teacher/student relationship is best characterized as a partnership. Learning is something students do for themselves.” I believe that students learn best by doing, and by being actively engaged with the content they are learning. Students in my classes engage in inquiry-based projects, they work with computer applications in ways that adults use them in the work world, and they expand their skill sets through exploration which is at times guided and instructed, and at other times open-ended.

My philosophy of technology

My philosophy of technology is very much that it is an integral part of our modern reality and we are charged with not only teaching by using technology as a fundamental tool, but it is also critical that we teach students how to manage technology. In this information age, we have overwhelming access to knowledge and information, notwithstanding the rigors of communication demands placed upon us. Students (and adults as well) must learn to leverage and manage technology as a resource to guide their exploration and inquiry. I believe this is a life skill in our modern society. We all must be able to ignore certain technologies when it is not appropriate to be engaged in their use, but we must also be able to leverage the information that computer technology offers us in order to expand our knowledge and guide our day-to-day inquiries that present.

How this influences my understanding of instructional design

Holding these philosophies influences my instructional design in that the core of my design centers around the idea that students must have some amount of freedom within the context of the work, and it needs to have a direct tie to real world applications. This philosophy certainly presents challenges. When students are permitted agency in their learning, planning is inherently more complex as a result. I see my role in the classroom as being the organizer, and the facilitator; but students are the engine that actually drive the learning. I redirect them, I stimulate them, and ultimately, I assess their learning; but I do not take on the role of the all-knowing sage. I design learning in my classroom where students are much more active in the process.

Closing question

The overall theme of this chapter was pertaining to e-learning.  I believe that Laurel is the only one in our cohort who works in an e-learning environment. I am curious as to the perceptions of my colleagues with respect to the effectiveness of e-learning. Both as teachers and as students who are now undertaking to learn in an e-learning environment. Do you feel that the e-learning environment can provide an education that is comparable with a more traditional classroom setting?

Unit of Instruction: The Digital Footprint

As a computer technology teacher, much of my instruction centers around concrete skills acquisition. Tools and skills are taught, students practice said proficiencies, then demonstrate the acquisition and mastery of said skills through the creation of content.  Conceptual topics are quite rare in my curriculum. Two years ago, I realized that on a regular basis, my students were making alarming choices in their day-to-day use of social media and cell phones, so I went the route of graphically illustrating to them how fast and how permanent the digital footprint is by using a photo of myself. The experience was alarming, disconcerting and stressful, and as a result, I’ve never built a formalized unit of instruction around it. However, this means that the value of having done this is not being leveraged.

Measuring the outcome of this lesson is my challenge. Having an outcome beyond “understand” or “conceptualize” has been the problem for me thus far with this content. Carr-Chellman instructs us to “avoid the use of vague terms like “understand” or “know”.” (p.28). The skill I am seeking from students surpasses these verbs, and approaches the level of synthesis if we employ Bloom’s taxonomy; but evaluating this comprehension and application is going to present a large challenge in the context of this lesson.

As I am an option course teacher, I do not use tests in my classroom as a means of students demonstrating their knowledge. I will need to have a solid mechanism for assessing the learning, without employing the use of tests to ascertain the level of student learning. This has historically been the challenge for me in teaching this component of my course. Once we have covered the content, I have not had a concrete means of knowing what the level of comprehension and application of the learning has been. I generally have various students approach me individually after the lesson to inquire about the privacy settings of their specific social media concern; but the percentage of students would be less than one percent make this type inquiry. I have been at a loss as to the assessment of this outcome.

Carr-Chellman’s heuristics

I found the idea presented on page 72 of trying out the instruction on a test population to be preposterous. I can’t think of a scenario where a teacher would have access to such a population, or for that matter, would be so ill-prepared to teach that a “dry run” would be merited. I think that the in-depth process of preparing instructional design correctly negates the need for this. Additionally, no two groups of learners are the same, so challenges that present in the rehearsal (equally successes that are attained) may not translate to the next presentation of the same instructional plan.  Teaching is a full-time endeavor, before we even take into account the rigors of assessment. To rehearse instruction in advance of teaching a lesson is, simply put, not realistic. However, as an honest educator, I will certainly concede that the first time I teach a newly planned instructional plan is the weakest of my delivery. Most of my courses I teach multiple classes of; this year, I have seven seventh grade computer technology classes. So, I will repeat the same lesson seven times. The first, without exception, will always be my weakest; and in the sense of Carr-Chellman’s heuristics, they are my trial class. However, despite the fact that the strength of my lesson delivery will not be as good as the fourth or fifth time I deliver the same lesson, learning will occur, and my assessment results of that class will not be significantly compromised due to my lack of pre-rehearsal.

Teaching multiple classes of the same course lends to a very iterative process. There is, as Carr-Chellman calls it, the “smile test” (p.78), and the observation of student attention and engagement throughout the instruction, but there is also the evaluation of the learning. In my particular course set, it is the observation of errors as the students apply the learning and practice their newly acquired skill; and it also comes in the form of student questions. When I have fewer one-on-one questions after a lesson, I know that I did a better job of pre-empting their questions than in times when I am bombarded by student questions after teaching.

Beyond this recommendation, I found all of Carr-Chellman’s directions with respect to instructional design to be relevant, pertinent and valuable. I have done as was instructed on page 83, and have selected a lesson that has historically been problematic for me to work on with this process.

February 27, 2016 – D2L Post – The ADDIE Approach and my Personal Evolution

Branch (2009, p.4) instructs that “ADDIE is responsive because it accepts whatever goals are established as its orientation. ADDIE is context sensitive, proactive, interactive and is a vehicle for communicating ideas to all stakeholders. This aligns with Kanuka’s progressive school of thought in which “the preferred methods of instruction include the experimental, problem-solving, and situational approaches to learning.” (2008, p.103).

The ADDIE system of instructional design aligns well with my philosophy of teaching, as I feel that students need to be considered and included in the process of planning as much as is feasible. Kanuka states that in a progressive model of instruction the “teacher’s role is to organize, stimulate, instigate, and evaluate the highly complex process of education” (2008, p.104). ADDIE fits with this definition as it strives to move from a teacher-dependent structure of learning toward a more teacher-independent model as is illustrated on page 8.

Both Kanuka and Branch feel that the process of teaching and learning is a collaborative relationship between the learner and the teacher. It is an iterative cycle that relies on feedback from the learner, both in terms of the acquisition of information (achievement of the learner outcomes) and in terms of the nature of the instruction. Technology plays a key role in both ADDIE and the progressive model of instruction, but it exists as a form of media, not as the central focus.  Further, both are data-driven philosophies relying on the outcomes of the learning and the instruction to guide further planning, evaluation and re-evaluation of the material at hand.

I believe that ADDIE is going to be invaluable to me in designing my unit of instruction on the digital footprint. I’ve struggled to return to the iterative process of designing this unit, as I haven’t had a solid model in place to follow to assist me with the design. I am looking forward to taking control of this piece of instruction which has, for quite some time felt like a weakness in my course.

February 12, 2016 – D2L Post – ID4T, Standards-Based Curricula, PATs, SLAs…

While the notion of the standards movement appears to be a fairly novel concept to the south of our border (No Child Left Behind, Common CORE), it is by no means new in Canada. We have long been held to provincially-established curricular outcomes with regular standardized assessments appearing throughout the educational career of all children. Third, sixth and ninth graders have been subject to Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) for the past couple decades, and grade twelve students have written diploma examinations (until very recently worth half their final grade) in order to qualify to graduate from high school.

Certainly, this philosophy behind our education system has proven successful; Canada has long been at the top of international educational rankings (such as the OECD’s Pisa rankings), however, it has also proven to be somewhat of a barrier to the embracing of philosophies of teaching. To ask a teacher to consider evolving into a more constructivist philosophy, or to embrace some inquiry-based learning will, more often than not, be met with a raised eyebrow and hesitation. The new methods of teaching need to be certain that they will achieve the outcomes that are going to be measured by the standardized measurement tools! Carr-Chellman highlights this when she states “The reason standards-based education is significantly different fro the prior three innovations is that it falls out of step with the student-oriented innovations of constructivism, user-design, and inquiry-based learning. This movement is motivated much more politically than through research on what is through to be the best for learning and learners. Standards and accountability are a very politically popular movement” (2010, p.124).

The results of the standardized tests in Alberta are not only publically available, they are published by the Fraser Institute as a means of ranking schools. This publicized information, whether it is realistic or not to feel it, causes schools and teachers to feel pressure to achieve outcomes on the standardized tests that show acceptable standards and continued improvement. Having quantitative means of measuring the acquisition of curricular outcomes is important. Sadly, it seems to be a reason (excuse?) why teachers can be resistant to philosophical and methodological change. They feel they don’t have time to try something new and have it fail. If a new methodology does not sufficiently teach the curricular outcomes, they have to start over and have lost valuable instructional hours.

In terms of ID4T, the stage of “setting learning goals and objectives” is easily achieved. The government prescribes the curriculum. Teachers, however, need to be fluent in its contents and then prioritize which are to be the big ideas, and which outcomes need only be briefly taught and learned.  Carr-Chellman instructs us that it is “essential that care be taken to assure prerequisites are in place in a standards-based classroom” (2010, p.127). Certainly the assessment for learning philosophy that has become prominent in Alberta in the past decade supports this notion as well. Teachers, in an assessment for learning model, are instructed to assess what students know already, and want to know. The idea of “want to know” ties nicely to the ID4T model as it is where a teacher may gain a deeper insight as to the best selections to make for the text and media to use to teach the curricular outcomes. This may ease the feeling of being pre-committed to particular selections, as a standards-based model does limit this step somewhat. 

It is viable for inquiry-based learning to be employed with the construct of a standards-based model. Constructivist philosophy can peacefully exist in standards-based environments. User-design methods can work within the context of a standards-based educational environment. However, it is not without challenges to the teacher. When there is the looming standardized test at the end of the school year, it can be very intimidating to deviate from the industrial-model of education.

Okay, cohort – what are your thoughts on this?  Do you agree with my statements? Do you have examples of successful uses of inquiry-based learning, user-design or constructivist modelled classrooms, despite the framework of and standards-based curriculum?

February 23, 2016 – Chapter 7 Precis – written with my partner, Kelly:

How can we integrate standards-based curriculum into the ID4T model?

While the notion of the standards movement appears to be a fairly recent concept to the south of our border (No Child Left Behind, Common Core), it is by no means new in Canada. We have long been held to provincially-established curricular outcomes with regular standardized assessments appearing throughout the educational career of all children. Since the early 1990’s, third, sixth and ninth graders in Alberta have been subjected to Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) to measure their learning of the standardized curriculum. Grade twelve students have long written diploma examinations in order to qualify to graduate from high school. As Vogel states, “Education shouldn’t be dependent on the individual preferences of a teacher or a principal and a student ought to be able to count on this quality of an education regardless of where they go to school at.” (2010, p.6) and a standards-based education assures that the quality of education students receive is not varied depending on where they were geographically located during their formative years.

Certainly, this philosophy behind our education system has proven successful; Canada has long been at the top of The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) educational rankings. However, his model does not lend itself to inquiry based learning and student orientated innovations. We have both found, in our roles as classroom teachers and as instructional coaches/lead teachers that teaching in a standards-based environment can also create barriers with respect to instructional design. It is our experience that to ask a teacher, most especially a veteran teacher, to consider evolving their practice into a more constructivist philosophy, or to embrace some inquiry-based learning may meet with a raised eyebrow and hesitation. Teachers need to be certain that they will achieve the outcomes that are going to be measured by the standardized measurement tools. “Teachers aren’t likely to implement new practices unless they are powerful and easy to implement” (Knight, 2009, p.509).

Indeed, the standards based curriculum movement is a political effort to ensure accountability, and it accomplishes that task effectively. Carr-Chellman elaborates on this notion when she states “The reason standards-based education is significantly different from the prior three innovations is that it falls out of step with the student-oriented innovations of constructivism, user-design, and inquiry-based learning. This movement is motivated much more politically than through research on what is thought to be the best for learning and learners. Standards and accountability are a very politically popular movement” (2010, p.124). The results of the standardized tests in Alberta are not only publically available for those who seek them, they are published in newspapers by the Fraser Institute as a means of ranking schools. This publicized information, can cause schools and teachers to feel enormous pressure to achieve results on the standardized tests that show acceptable standards and continued improvement. Having quantitative means of measuring the acquisition of curricular outcomes is important. Sadly, it seems to be a reason, or could be considered an excuse given the body of evidence in the research, why teachers can be resistant to philosophical and methodological change. They feel they don’t have time to try something new and have it fail. “When it comes to change, teachers have to really drink the water, so to speak, before they will believe” (Knight, 2009, p.510). If a new methodology proves to not have sufficiently taught the curricular outcomes, they have to start over and have lost valuable instructional hours. Ironically, research would show that embracing an ID4T philosophy will improve student outcomes in the long-term.

Despite the perception we have regarding the hesitation from teachers in standards-based classrooms, research conducted by The Galileo Educational Network has shown that embracing an ID4T model within the construct of a standards-based curriculum improves outcomes. “Design-based professional learning can be used to improve student outcomes, including achievement, engagement and well-being through an iterative process” (Friesen & Jacobsen, 2015). The research shows that the iterative process of task designing within the limitations of a standards-based education system will facilitate insightful pedagogical practices. “Group and individual discussions with teachers indicated that they were becoming more thoughtful about task design and reflective about their practice” (Friesen, Jacobsen, Brown, Saar & Hampshire, 2015, p.18)

In terms of using ID4T in a standards-based system, the stage of “setting learning goals and objectives” is easily achieved. The government prescribes the curriculum. Teachers, then, need to be fluent in its contents and prioritize which are to be the big ideas, and which outcomes need only be briefly taught and learned. Teachers in this model do not have the luxury of simply utilizing a textbook. The selection of media is critical in a standards-based environment. As Carr-Chellman points out, “you may find that the texts are inadequate so do not automatically assume that the assigned text will suffice” (2010, p.127). This is an important point for teachers in a standards-based environment to be aware of, as it is very easy to do what is known as “teach to the textbook”. Carr-Chellman further instructs us that it is “essential that care be taken to assure prerequisites are in place in a standards-based classroom” (2010, p.127). The obligation falls to the classroom teacher to ensure that students learn the outcomes of a given curriculum to be sufficiently prepared for the rigours of the grade that follows. The pressure of this cannot be understated.

The question that arises is how do we ensure that classroom teachers are actually current on the research regarding outcomes and content delivery? The fact that teachers show resistance to change, despite the body of evidence surrounding improved outcomes is cause for concern. Jim Knight’s quote was that “teachers have to drink the water, so to speak, before they will believe” (2009, p. 510). How do we convince them to drink the water?

D2L Post – The Beginnings of an Instructional Design Blueprint

(By this point in the course, I had finalized my choice to conduct my design around my new CTF course offering, Students as Game Designers)

The gap I wish to address is the lack of critical thinking I feel is inherent in a course that predominately focuses on skills acquisition. Teaching CTS Computers has been, for the last fifteen years that I’ve taught it, a course targeting skills. As Alberta Education adjusts the curriculum for junior high to CTF (Career and Technology Foundations), I want to take a look at the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that I feel children should be learning in the classroom. They encounter problems to be solved when we work on computers, but don’t necessarily learn to problem solve, and I feel like opportunities for critical thinking have been traditionally meagre.

To encourage and facilitate critical thinking, I want students to assess the PROBLEMS with their games. All groups have a game design idea in place, but, all games have problems and gaps within the overall idea. Students are reluctant to address the problems inherent with their games, but it is important that they do this. Game designers in the real world need to carefully consider all angles and repair problems with their games. They may not just brush off questions that their consumers may have. They need to be critical, without having their feelings hurt. They need to separate their emotional identity from the product they are producing.

Final Course Reflection – D2L Post – April 10, 2016

I am going to be honest. I am surprised by how much I learned through the course of the past 13 weeks in this class. As an experienced teacher, I felt like I had a good handle on instructional design. As it would turn out, I had a good handle on lesson planning, and solid implementation of constructivist philosophy, but I wasn’t particularly aware of my personal philosophies and leanings. It took me some time and careful consideration to wrap my head around those things, and specifically those things as they relate to the use of technology in education.

I was not aware of how iterative the process of instructional design is. Over the weeks of designing and refining my blueprint, I went back and forth in my head what seemed like hundreds of times; even if the written document did not reflect that, my mind was busy synthesizing the information we were reading, and adjusting my planning and my blueprinting. Some days it felt constant.

At the end of the thirteen weeks, what I have is not only a completed assignment, but an overhauled grade nine course plan. I will be continuing the blueprint over the coming four months so that in September I am prepared, not only with ideas, but with assessment plans to run this as a course for grade nines. I am really excited about this!

References

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Boston, MA: Springer. e!SBN: 9780387095066Carr-Chellman, A. (2010). Instructional design for teachers : Improving classroom practice. Florence, KY: Routledge. eISBN: 9780203847275

Friesen, S. & Jacobsen, M. (2015). A design-based approach to teachers’ professional learning. Canadian Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/sharon- friesen-and-michele-jacobsen/2015/03/5/design-based-approach-teachers%E2%80%99- professional-lear

Friesen, S., Jacobsen, M., Brown, B., Saar, C., Hendricks, A. (2015). Focus on Inquiry Final Report. Werklund School of Education. Retrieved from http://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-report.pdf 

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning (2nd Ed.) (pp. 91-120). Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.

Knight, J.. (2009). What Can We Do about Teacher Resistance?. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 508–513. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20446161 

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en 

Vogel, L. R. (2010). Leading Standards-Based Education Reform. Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com