An Unexpected Journey to the Perfect Destination
Angela Christine Wilson
Instructional Designer, Lewis-Clark State College, Lewiston, ID
October 8, 2013
Introduction
When I enrolled in the Elementary Education program at Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) in 2005, I had no idea I would end up working as an Instructional Designer four years later. I wanted to teach middle school science and math, and I spent two years following graduation in 2007 searching for a teaching job. During my two-year job hunt, I worked at LCSC helping education students construct webpage portfolios, and I helped instructors use various educational software and hardware. In 2009, an “instructional designer/trainer” position opened up in e-Learning Services, and I was hired. The first year of my new position was definitely trial by fire. I had never designed training for adults or online courses. I dove right in, learning on the fly and applying my knowledge of technology and pedagogy as best as I could. In 2011, I decided it was time to pursue a master’s degree in my field so I’d have the credentials to back my experience. I selected Boise State University’s Master of Educational Technology program because it aligned with my professional needs and goals, and it is offered entirely online. As a full-time working mother and wife, online was a must for me.
This paper is a showcase of the course work I’ve completed for the Master of Educational Technology program. Each artifact selected demonstrates my achievement of one of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology’s (AECT) “Standards for the Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology Specialist Programs.” There are five standards comprised of four sub-components, for a total of twenty demonstrable standards. In this paper, I define each standard and provide an explanation of my work and how it demonstrates achievement of the standard. Relevant references to educational theory, design theory, and pedagogy are provided where applicable.
STANDARD 1: DESIGN
1.1 Instructional Systems Design
According to Earle and Persichitte (2005), instructional systems design is comprised of five sub-components: analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating. Referred to as the “ADDIE” process, these steps involve conducting a needs analysis of a problem, planning a solution, creating a product to solve the problem, carrying out the solution, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. The ADDIE process is cycled through until an optimal solution is reached.
To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my Instructional Design Project from EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. For this project, I created instruction for the use of the Voice Boards tool in the Blackboard Learn course management system. I engaged in all five steps of the ADDIE process. I conducted a needs analysis for the learners receiving the instruction. I designed learning objectives and a learning task analysis flow chart to map the major steps to be completed by the learners. I then developed a full set of instructional materials to teach the content. Due to time constraints, I was not able to implement the instruction, but I developed plans for one-to-one implementation, small group implementation, and a field trial. Last, I engaged in formative evaluation with a content expert who reviewed my instructional materials and provided feedback that I used to make changes to the instructional materials.
I also submit my Course Design Planning Site for EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. This website contains all of the macro-level planning documents created in the process of designing and developing a “Course Assistant Training” course in the Blackboard CMS. The Analysis page details the need for instruction in the topic selected, the goals of the training course, the context in which the course will be delivered, and a learner analysis. The Concurrent Design page details the course learning objectives and maps them to Bloom’s taxonomy, defines the unit topics of the course and the objectives addressed by each, and lists the instructional strategies to be used in the course. It also contains flowcharts and storyboards developed for the course. The Final Product pages link to the materials developed for the course. I developed an extensive implementation plan, located on the Implementation Plan page. The Summative Evaluation plan describes the process I developed for evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional materials and course delivery, as well as the evaluation tools to be used to assess learning achievement of the course objectives.
1.2 Message Design
According to Seels and Richey (1994), “message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (p. 14). Message design employs techniques based on what is known about attention, perception, and retention in order to communicate effectively with learners. M.E.T. candidates who have achieved this standard can “apply principles of educational psychology, communications theory, and visual literacy to the development of instructional messages specific to the learning task” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17).
To illustrate my achievement of this standard, I submit an example of graphic design from EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. This graphic applies color theory to draw the viewer’s attention to relevant information in the graphic. I used orange text and bullets to draw the user’s eye to key elements in the graphic. According to Lohr (2008), warm colors “make an element noticeable” and cause text to “advance” on the page, aiding in viewer selection of important information (p. 267).
I also submit my Unit of Instruction Website for EDTECH 506 as proof of my achievement of standard 1.2. In my Final Project Website, I applied learning theory and design principles to optimize learning in a unit of instruction on embedding multimedia content into Blackboard courses. The unit is presented via four distinct lesson pages, with content for each lesson “chunked” into small, related segments in order to reduce the learner’s cognitive load (Lohr, 2008). The project website layout and the graphics used in the instructional materials utilize the CARP principles (contrast, alignment, repetition, and proximity) to facilitate learning. Contrast in text size between primary and secondary steps establishes an organizational hierarchy for the information presented in each lesson. The text on the website and in all instructional documents is left aligned “for easier reading” (Lohr, 2008, p. 201). Several graphic elements, such as the “person at the computer” image and the colors red, blue, and orange, are repeated throughout the unit website and the instructional documents. According to Lohr (2008), repeated elements “create a sense of harmony and unity” and serve to help reduce cognitive load (p. 203). Last, “students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page,” so related text and images are grouped in close proximity to one another in the instructional documents (Lohr, 2008, p. 199).
1.3 Instructional Strategies
Seels and Richey (1994) describe instructional strategies as, “specifications for selecting and sequencing events and activities within a lesson” (p. 14). An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “select instructional strategies appropriate for a variety of learner characteristics and learning situations (1.3.a)” and “select motivational strategies appropriate for the target learners, task, and learning situation (1.3.d)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17).
To demonstrate achievement of standard 1.3, sub-component 1.3.a, I submit my “Stone Soup” synchronous lesson development from EDTECH 523: Advanced Online Teaching. For this activity, I was paired with a classmate and we were tasked with selecting an appropriate teaching strategy for adult online learners for a lesson on copyright. Copyright laws are complex and often subject to interpretation based on the type of materials and the context in which they are used. We had only fifteen minutes to deliver the lesson, and we knew our learners were going to have varying degrees of familiarity with copyright law. With this in mind, my partner and I selected the Stone Soup synchronous teaching strategy, which calls for the students to be divided into small groups to work on different but related problems and then reconvene with the group as a whole to share their discoveries and conclusions (Finkelstein, 2006). This strategy “allows the instructor to cover more ground than would be possible if all learners were assembled in one room” and “mixes learners of varying competencies together to foster peer mentoring” (Finkelstein, 2006, p.104). We presented our students with a mini-lecture on copyright, and then divided them into groups to work on three different copyright scenarios. Working in small groups allowed them to learn from more knowledgeable peers, and reconvening to share increased the groups’ knowledge as a whole. This example clearly shows my ability to select appropriate instructional strategies based on learner characteristics and the learning situation.
To demonstrate achievement of standard 1.3, sub-component 1.3.d, I submit my matrix of Community Building Strategies from EDTECH 521: Online Teaching. During this course, I developed a matrix of strategies designed to increase motivation and engagement in K-12 online learners. According to Rice (2012), “a concern that is often expressed within the context of online education is student isolation and lack of socialization opportunities” (p. 4). As such, the strategies in the matrix focus on community building, social identity, and participation in the online learning environment. For example, one strategy listed is a “Find the Link” icebreaker activity. This activity asks pairs of students to find a trait they share in common. According to Rice (2012), icebreaker activities help build trust and provide scaffolding for more interactive forms of collaboration. Another strategy listed is the use of blogs for students to showcase their work, reflect, and provide peer reviews. This type of activity helps students develop tactful critiquing skills and allows them to become familiar with the technology before engaging in larger group collaborations (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004). These strategies, as well as the others listed in the matrix, demonstrate my ability to select motivational strategies for a target group of learners in a given learning context.
1.4 Learner Characteristics
“Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner’s experiential background that impact the effectiveness of a learning process” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 32). Identifying learner characteristics allows an instructor to select and implement appropriate instructional strategies. An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “identify a broad range of observed and hypothetical learner characteristics for their particular areas(s) of preparation (1.4.a)” and “describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the selection and implementation of instructional strategies (1.4.b and 1.4.c)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17).
To demonstrate my achievement of standard 1.4, sub-components a, b, and c, I submit my Instructional Design Project (see Description of Learners, p. 8) from EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. While researching the characteristics of the potential learners for this project, I discovered a number of traits that went on to influence the selection of instructional strategies and how they were implemented. The learners were college instructors with advanced degrees who teach from two to five online courses each semester. As such, it was assumed the learners would have a high level of intrinsic motivation and would not have a lot to time to devote to a lesson. This required placing less emphasis on motivational strategies and more emphasis on delivering the instruction in a succinct and time efficient manner.
I also submit my Unit Plan for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. In the unit plan I described in detail the characteristics of the learners, including age, employment, and education. I also described the learners’ presumed level of knowledge with the subject matter. This information, combined with the need for the instruction to take place entirely online, allowed me to develop instructional materials tailored to the learners’ needs. Namely, the instruction needed to be asynchronous to accommodate learner work schedules, and delivered in a web-friendly and a print-friendly format to allow the learners to make off-line copies of instructions to follow while completing the lesson activities. These two artifacts demonstrate my ability to identify learner characteristics and use this information to select and implement appropriate instructional strategies.
STANDARD 2: DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Print Technologies
According to Earle and Persichitte (2005), “print technologies include verbal text materials and visual materials; namely, text, graphic and photographic representation and reproduction” (p. 18). One way for an M.E.T candidate to demonstrate achievement of this standard is to “develop instructional and professional products using a variety of technological tools to produce text for communicating information” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19). A second performance indicator is the ability to “produce print communications combining words and images/graphics using desktop publishing software” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19).
As evidence of my achievement of this standard, I submit the syllabus I created for EDTECH 512: Online Instruction. This syllabus was created using the SoftChalk Create program. SoftChalk allows the user to generate multiple pages of “chunked” information in an easy-to-navigate, webpage-like interface. The software creates a hyperlinked table of contents, navigation arrows, and next/back buttons. Various levels of headings can be applied to the text to create an organizational hierarchy on the page and within the table of contents. The user can also format paragraph text and create “text poppers,” which are hyperlinked words on the page that “pop-up” additional information about the words when hovered over. SoftChalk content is intended to be delivered via the web, but the software also includes a built-in feature to generate a “printer-friendly” version of the text. The linked document above contains screenshots of the syllabus as it appeared in the course, as well as the printer-friendly version of the content.
I also submit the instructions I created for the lesson on embedding in my unit of instruction for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. I used Adobe Photoshop to create the text and graphics for these instructions. I then optimized the document for both web and print delivery using Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert it to a PDF. These two artifacts clearly demonstrate my ability to use a variety of technology tools to produce text communications for web and print delivery.
2.2 Audiovisual Technologies
Standard 2.2 involves the use of “appropriate analog and digital productivity tools to develop instructional and professional products” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19). An M.E.T. candidate should be able to “apply development techniques such as storyboarding and/or scriptwriting to plan for the development of audio/visual technologies (2.2.2)” and “use appropriate video equipment to prepare effective instructional and professional products (2.2.3)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 20).