Defining The Field

In Chapter 1 we were asked, "How do the definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of instructional or educational technology?  What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition? How has your definition changed from examining the definitions in the first chapter of this book?"

This was a challenge since the field of instructional technology keeps changing.  There are so many tools, techniques and ideas which continually emerge. I feel my own definition is a combination of the the ideas presented from the past to the present.  Instructional technology is not specifically about a piece of equipment but also about finding resources to which will enhance teaching and learning. It is creating a learning system that will reach the style of the learner in a manner that is fair and appropriate. What techniques and tools will best meet the group?  Instruction should not be designed around a piece of technology, but the technology should support the instruction.  The lesson should then be continually tested, evaluated and revised to meet the needs of the learners.

Working in the classroom with students has been the biggest factor to shape my definition.  I learned quickly how to design my instruction and choose the best method of delivery based on the learning needs or styles of my students.  I would then revise what did not fit or seem to work.

I would not say my definition has changed much since I began teaching ten years ago. The technology has changed, but I have basically found that not all technology tools will work for every learner. It is finding the correct mix of the instruction and method of delivery that enhances learning in an ethical manner.

In Chapter 2 we were asked to think of a lesson or unit of instruction that we have developed. Or if we haven’t ever taught or developed instruction, think of one that we have received. How does that lesson adhere or fail to adhere to the six characteristics of instructional design? How would we redesign it to better adhere to the six characteristics?

I worked with a Science teacher developing a lesson recently using Animoto videos. Students worked with a partner to present understanding of the vocabulary for a unit on force and motion. A group of two students made a 60 second video using pictures they located online to represent their word. After uploading pictures to the site they added the vocabulary term, a short definition in their own words, 3 pictures to express the meaning and a sentence which explained understanding of the word. Using the Six Characteristics of Instructional Design I can see our lesson followed the concepts.
The Instructional design was student centered, the students were an active participant in the design to illustrate definitions. The Instructional design was goal oriented, students were able to use scientific vocabulary words, explain them in their own words and find pictures to fit the meanings while creating an Animoto project. The Instructional design focused on meaningful performance.  This activity was used at the beginning of the unit and understanding of these words was important to the rest of the unit.  Choosing pictures to describe the vocabulary words showed understanding, rather than looking up the word versus writing down the definition which the student may not understand. This was a very good activity for struggling English readers. The pictures helped them understand the words, since they could put a picture with the definition. The Instructional design assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way.  A rubric was used which measured the performance of the students. The Instructional design was a team effort since a science teacher and I collaborated together. The only part of the Instructional design that was not met involved being empirical, iterative and self-correcting.  Data could be collected from the classes which completed the activity for feedback and to give guidance in making corrections to the lesson.

In the 3rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media. Why? I felt teachers, chalkboards and textbooks were omitted from his Reiser’s definition in order for him to clearly describe history. I think he was mainly interested in discussing tools which had emerged since the early 1900’s since 40 years later psychologists and educators began research on the instructional principles during World War II. They would evaluate and “test the skills of  trainees who would most likely benefit from particular training programs” according to Reiser & Dempsey (2007).  This was a new area using these technology tools, which had just emerged, and I feel they were considered in a different class than teachers, chalkboards and textbooks since those had been around. I would however consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks as instructional media.  Although they are not technology based, except when textbook information is used from an online source, they can still be included in the instructional design with positive results. I would say yes the purpose of instructional design is to incorporate media into instruction. Instructors want  to encourage and  motivate all students to learn especially the struggling students. Our students today have grown up with technology devices and use them constantly. I feel including them in lessons properly will enhance the instructional design.

Reiser, Robert A., and John V. Dempsey. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Boston ; Munich [u.a.: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.

Instructional Technology Picture from http://www.pgisd.net/