Presentation Day!

As soon as I saw the list of topics for the presentation, my eyes were drawn to Motivation. I have always been interested in the motivation of students and specifically how technology can play a role in motivating students. Notice that I tried to be careful with the way that I worded that. Technology, of course, can not be the motivator alone. We cannot expect to design a lesson that uses some kind of technology and expect that alone to make students have the desire to learn. Keller points out that we need to be focused on creating instruction that engages students rather than just entertains. I do, however, think that motivation is a very tricky thing as classes and groups of students are extremely dynamic. Keller's ARCS model provides a great foundation and provides guidance for both instructional designers and teachers to properly create and assess the motivational aspects associated with a lesson. One thing that is not specifically mentioned, but may be assumed if task analysis is performed, is that the designer or teacher must be aware of the specific needs of his or her audience. As a teacher, I know that sometimes what is motivating to one group of students is not motivating to the other group. I have often come up with strategies that completely engage one class, but fails miserably with the next. I am looking forward to the presentation tonight and I hope that we can all engage in a discourse that will be mutually beneficial.

Misinterpreting Marzano

We have often discussed the "trends" in the field and the implications of those "trends" in higher education and research study. But, how does new research affect our K-12 schools? Marzano has been a buzz word in the K12 world for a few years now. And, as research-based instruction has become increasingly important as it is now mandated and thus, has been tied to the budget, state and district officials have called for research-based instruction to be implemented in their schools. As an educator, I see how research-based instruction has the ability to positively affect our students if implemented correctly. In case you missed it, the operative words there were "implemented correctly." If not implemented correctly, the research-based instruction has the ability not only have a negative affect on student learning, but could adversely affect teachers and the way that they teach. For example, the district that I was working for last year mandated that teachers use Marzano's strategies. It wasn't that they wanted us to used research-based instruction, it was that they really didn't show us how. They constantly threw buzz words at us like "instructional goals," "cues," "advance organizers," and "non-linguistic representation" in faculty meetings and development workshops. They told us what these things were, but they gave no indication of how they should be implemented in our classrooms. And, on top of that they gave us ultimatums for not implementing the strategies in our classrooms such as, "Teachers may receive letters in their files if objectives are not visible when administrators enter the classroom." Though this is only one example, the ultimatums put pressure on teachers to use strategies they were not comfortable with and did not fully understand. Therefore, many teachers used the strategies, but in inappropriate and ineffective ways.
Merrill does a good job in chapter 7 of breaking down his principles of instruction, but as I was reading through the chapter, I kept coming back to the problems that the teachers faced last year. We would constantly say, "How can we use this in our own classrooms?" I think that implementing this type of instruction is feasible, but also extremely problematic for subject matter teachers because some subjects lend themselves better to implementing these strategies. I know we are not expected to use every strategy in every lesson, but I think more work needs to be done so that teachers can use these strategies in specific contexts. Moreover, failure to implement theses strategies is directly related to higher-ups who are not well-read in the research. It should be the responsibility of those mandating the use of these strategies to not only fully understand them, but to aid in the transition and implementation process.
I do agree with Merrill, however, the field seems both limiting and extensive. There are many theories and strategies, but a lack of foundation. I, too, hope with the maturation of the instructional design, that the principles can give us the foundation we need for models and prescriptions to come.

Where are OUR theories?

The Theory Development article seemed to jump around from perspective to theory and back again without any solid conclusions. The authors presented a plethora of ideas, but made no distinction of which theory or perspective is best. Though I was frustrated that with this process, I realized that this in itself should be the conclusion that I draw from the article.
The authors state that "it can also be observed that every time new media or technologies are introduced the field is tempted to reinvent the
wheel. This suggests a need for (1) a consolidation of the theoretical approaches, and (2) a kind of classification of the various models so their relationships can be more clearly exemplified and more robust theories elaborated."
Since technology is developing at such a high rate, we are constantly seeking new theories that include these new technologies. What we need to do is formulate basic theories about learning with technology that can be adapted to any new product. What would this mean? We would probably need to look at the core learning theories first. For example, what if we look at Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. Within his seven different types of learning, he predicts that learners have the ability to learn through all modes, but have strengths in certain areas. What if the addition of technology into our daily lives has allowed learners to adapt to a new kind of learning style...a sort of combination of all of Gardner's ideas...where the strengths lie in a particular combination rather than one type of learning? What if being exposed to technology and learning through it at a young age changes the way that we learn?
I think there is a lot of work to be done here, especially because of the rapid development and expansion of technology that has occurred over the last decade. Thus, we are just beginning to see learners who have been exposed to these new technologies their whole lives. What kind of research can be done now that could not have been done in the last ten years? What kind of core learning theories can be developed with respect to those who learn through these media? So much to do...so little time...

Social Networking and Constructivism- Comments Please!

As I explored the tenets of constructivism, I couldn't help but think how constructivist practices are developed and used in social networking sites. I started becoming interested in social networking sites and their potential in education while writing a paper last semester titled, "Social Networking Sites Enable New Literacy Practices." I will be happy to share it with anyone who is interested.
I guess what I'd like to know is, what do you think about constructivism, social networking, or both? Pros and cons of using it the classroom?

PS. If you respond you are engaging in constructivist practices! :)

If I could do all over again...

The environment was ripe for learning as I began to read the next assignment: Reiser and Dempsey, Chapters 4-6. My eyes were focused, my highlighter was working, I was actually comprehending the concepts until I got to Chapter 5. That is when I began to think about the project that gave me so many nightmares last semester in Instructional Design. My group's goal: 12th grade students will be able to construct a college application essay. Unbeknownst to us, we were designing instruction from an objectivist perspective...which I have to say was probably better for our first project. As I read about Design Research, however, I tried to imagine what would have changed about our process, our design, and our result if we had used the design research method instead. Instead of using formative assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, "design researchers use formative experiments (pg. 48)" Although we thought that our process was quite iterative, I wonder what would have been different if we would have been able to make adjustments during the design process. One of the advantages might have been that we would have been able to make changes based on learner feedback, adjusting the design appropriately and therefore increasing its effectiveness. Of course a drawback would have been the time commitment to this type of design strategy. Whereas we were able to perform task analysis quite quickly, planning stages of design research and process between each macrocycle would have prevented us from actually completing the assignment.
So, which design practice would have worked best for learners? In Chapter 6, I tried to envision the changes to the product. What would our website have looked like if it was more constructivist? We probably would have focused on creating an environment of discovery rather than an environment of instruction. We would have had to construct an environment that was more process based rather than end-product based. For example, we could have posed the question, "How do admissions counselors determine which essays qualify for admission into a university?" Picture this: the home page is set up like an office. A counselor sits at her desk with a stack of applications. On the bookshelf behind her are her resources, similar to the ones we provided (dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) Students could explore the environment rather than being forced to create the essay step by step. Of course, the construction and explanation could have its own blog...so I will stop here for now.
Although it seems like the authors go back and forth between which approach (constructivist or objectivist) is best, I believe that both of these perspectives have the potential to effect education in a positive way.