When reading this statement, reflect on the Instructivist and Constructivist. Do you see a connection between the two learning outcomes? Illustrate your position by using an instructional experience and an understanding of Bloom’s.
Instructivist theory is the idea that students will learn through direct instruction approaches and constructivist hinges on students learning through discovery. It is important that teachers do not decide to pick one or the other exclusively, but rather approach teaching from the lens of a responsive pendulum. The video in the presentation really challenged teachers to go beyond one vs. the other but to utilize both theories (along with connectivism) to support individual learners where they are and move them forward.
The best teachers are those that model or scaffold through discovery moments when deemed appropriate and only for the students who need that support. This is discovered by the teacher through continually gathering formative feedback. It is important that students participate in constructing their own learning so that they can make connections and create meaning, but the teacher doesn’t have to leave the room for this to happen. The teacher can still play a pivotal role for students who need guidance in this process.
I recently was observing a teacher deliver a whole group mini lesson. She quickly determined through a formative poll that many students were ready to explore or practice on their own. She quickly changed her plan and separated students so that some were working on creating Educreation videos to teach others the concept. Another group took a sentence stem handout to work through the problem, and she invited another 7-10 students to remain on the carpet to continue working through the mini-lesson. Even then students were “released” from the mini lesson at different times as they gained the confidence needed to construct meaning around making tens. This teacher had students working within differing Blooms levels, after realizing every student did not need direct instruction. Did I mention this was a first-grade classroom with 32 students?
Larson and Lockee state “‘Changing workforce needs in the 21st-century demand that instruction and assessments build learner abilities such as expert thinking and complex communications, defined by Willis as ‘recognizing and organizing patterns and relationships and identifying and solving new problems as they arise.'” Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement. How should this impact the assessments we create?
I agree with Willis’ (2006) statement as Larson and Lockee point out the changing landscape for learners today. There is so much access to technologies and information learners need to understand how to access in order to solve problems and redefine our understandings. It isn’t enough to simply memorize and regurgitate, as access to information is immediate. I appreciated the comic at the beginning of chapter 7, that suggests people wouldn’t be happy allowing someone to give them a shot if they have never practiced actually doing this before. Getting an A on the test wouldn’t cut it as a learning assessment for this learning outcome. It also was pointed out that a multiple choice exam can highlight if a student can recall or can recognize – and recognition is sometimes the key necessity to follow-up application.
It is important that educators take care to also develop alternative assessments to foster assessment for and assessment as learning. For learners to grow to be capable of supporting and enhancing the 21st-Century workforce they need experiences authentically showcasing their understanding of learning outcomes throughout their educational career. The ability to respond to open-ended questions, produce a concept map or successfully navigate a performance assessment asks a student to exist on a higher level of skills.
Explain a lesson from your class and the levels of interactions within that lesson. Are there some interactions that are more essential or more important than other interactions? Explain what makes the difference. How did these interactions change the instructional strategies you chose? Be sure to discuss learner-to-content/instructor/context/learner/self.
Recently I was working with a 1st-grade class that had to write letters based on books they had read. The letters were written for a kindergarten class to help them learn the lessons from the books that the 1st-grades had learned. The Learner-to-Context interaction had the 1st-grades interpreting the morals of stories and describing them in ways younger learners could then understand them. The Learner-to-Instructor interaction came in the form of the teacher asking probing questions to help the 1st-grade writer determine if they had included enough detail for their future kindergarten audience. The Learner-to-Context interaction was well thought out in this classroom. Students work at small table groups but are encouraged to keep voices down during conferencing to minimize distractions. When peers are conferencing they sometimes go to the reading corner or other areas to allow students who are still writing to continue unphased. The Learner-to-Learner interactions come as discussion and peer conferencing. The Learner-to-Self interaction was highlighted in the form of a self-reflective rubric. Students were asked to make sure that their letter contained certain elements and the rubric was used by students to self-evaluate.
In this example all of the learner interactions were important. That by itself caused the teacher to create procedures and methods for students to write, conference, peer conference and self-evaluate. I have seen this teacher incorporate student friendly rubrics this year in an effort to support learner-to-self interactions as it was determined that some students needed assistance and scaffolding to become more self-aware and reflective.
Different pedagogical approaches use different planning processes to address content and learning experiences. Which of the five strategy frameworks have you used to develop the type of learning outcomes you have identified in one of your lessons or assignments?
Prior to this course, the only strategy framework that was somewhat familiar to me and my work was Gagne’s Nine Events, and even now I have a much better handle on it. However, Keller’s ARCS Motivation Model has really stood out to me as something I want to keep in the forefront when I plan. As a technology instructional coach, I am asked to take data throughout my cycle with a teacher to show student growth over time with relationship to our coaching goal. Many times the goal hinges on student engagement and time on task. The ARCS model alone or even in conjunction with other models fits this goal so well. What better way to increase engagement and time on task than with planned increases in confidence, motivation, relevance and attention-getting strategies.
Case study 06 was about K-12. Case study 08 discussed higher education. Case study 23 focused on the private sector. Which one did you most identify with and why?
I definitely identified most with Case Study 6, due to the K-12 content. Not to say that Case Study 8 wasn’t interesting, I am always facisnated by people who do not work in a school setting all day! Learning about the main character who got a masters in instructional design reminded me that I wasn’t even aware of this position a few short weeks ago, however, I digress.
I found Case 6 interesting as our school is newly rolling out some new technologies due to a Summer renovation. We are adding an additional wing this upcoming fall and we again will be funded for technologies within there buildings thanks to student/teacher success, and my coaching trackers. It it is happy to see that technology and the role of the technology instructional coach is being valued and having a positive affect at my site. If only this could happen everywhere.
1. Analyze a learning context where initial needs assessment might be tricky. Is the performance gap clear? Is the reason for the gap related to instruction, knowledge and/or skills. Are there other factors that might need to be addressed before determining whether or not there is an instructional need?
At my site, we have a math blended learning program that all teachers are expected to use with their students twice weekly for a total of 90 minutes. The time is scheduled into the master schedule and is protected in terms of lab/mobile lab check out. Students are expected to master 3% of the content each week to be “ready” for standards-based assessments come this Spring. However, each year consistently Kindergarten and 5th meet this goal, while all other grades fall short. As a leadership team, we have strategized a lot about this issue. We have laid out expectations for teachers to facilitate and question students during this time. We have shared research and data findings with staff as to the track-record with this program. We have required that staff complete the online training to better facilitate this program. Coaching has been offered to teachers who struggle using the program with their students. I don’t think that there is an instructional need. I know that teachers have trained in the program, they feel that with so many other things on their plate, the time students are using the blended learning program is a time teachers can do things they normally have no time for. Often times I see teachers testing students (one-on-one testing for reading levels), answering emails, or grading papers. None of these are a bad use of time as they all need to happen. I don’t think there is an instructional need for teachers to learn the program, they have done this. I think teachers know how to use and facilitate the program, however, time and time management gets in the way. I think it would be powerful for admin to speak with teachers about their belief in the program, but also open up a dialogue for less scheduled meeting time so teachers can focus on their class and help them grow even during blended learning moments.
2. Compare a situation where instructional materials seem to meet the needs of the learners with one where they do not. Are there clues that needs analysis is/is not part of the design? Do the materials provide formative assessment?
I will use an example from the ID Casebook as an example of instructional materials not meeting learners needs. In case 28, Natalie is tasked with with presenting solutions to a broken manufacturing training program. The current system is so entirely lacking in structure that trainers aren’t holding trainees to the same standards. While formative assessments were thought to be in place, it is evident, as Natalie interviews managers and trainers that not everyone is upholding standards or even understands their importance. It is evident that a needs analysis had not been completed as the current “program” is flawed in many ways. The most glaring lack of analysis was that non-native English speaking trainees can only advance in certain areas if they speak Vietnamese or Spanish, as these are the languages spoken by the trainers. I am confident that this, along with all of the other obvious problems, will be resolved as Natalie was brought in as a consultant to develop an instructional design.
An example of instructional goals and materials meeting the needs of the learners can be taken from a recent PD at my site. We brought in a trainer for eduCanon (PlayPosit), as our district recently purchased licenses. I was able to pre-conference with the trainer to give her background about our teachers, our students and best fits or needs for the integrative video tool. I was able to meet with teachers to understand their needs and hopes for the program if they were to attend the PD. Overwhelming and not surprisingly, ahem Adult Learning Theory, teachers wanted to walk away with usable products they could implement later that same week. I also prepped the trainer to come with supports that program had for audio and visuals for our kinder teachers so they weren’t turned off by the program. Needless to say, the pre-work paid off. Teachers came with video links they were ready to manipulate and they were trained to work with their own content in a very real and usable way. Formative assessments were used throughout the process as checks for teacher understanding were put into place. I am happy to report, from the admin dashboard, all teachers in attendance have gone on to create and implement – with students – additional video resources.
3. Describe an instructional situation in which there are elements of behaviorism, cognitivism or constructivism in the instructional design or delivery.
As I work in a bilingual (Spanish/English model) school, while reflecting, I realized I am able to bring all three learning theories into focus. A major goal of our dual language program is bilingualism but also biliteracy, with this lens a lot of work needs to be done for students to reach this level of proficiency. Behaviorism practices can be seen in flashcard work or centers activities as student work with sight words, letters, and syllables. Teachers will prepare interactive sorts for the whiteboard that give positive feedback for correct input. An example of cognitivism is witnessed as students are charting and discussing cognates and false cognates as a connection for themselves between the languages. And constructivism can be experienced as students present their final PBL projects in both English and Spanish at unit’s end.
4. Explain how the emphasis of one or more of these theoretical approaches may impact learning.
It is important that designers and teachers understand these different theoretical approaches so that they are intentional in their lesson design and implementation. There is a time and place for behaviorism, as I think to our young student who need to practice and understand letters, letters sounds, and print concepts. These reading behaviors need to be practiced and mastered so that meaning can be applied as they attempt to participate in higher level thinking activities. These foundational skills are so important, but if learning continued in this way for everything, meaning and connections for that learner would never develop. The real “meat” to knowledge and learning comes with the connection building and meaning creation through higher level processes. The teacher or designer must embed these intentionally for a student to find joy and power in their learning. Again gravitating toward younger students, while a child may still be practicing their letters and sight words, this doesn’t mean they cannot participate in a book discussion or sequencing activity. It is important designers utilize all theories to best support their learners based on the goal or objective.
I have encountered instructional design in my professional practice as both process and product often as my current role is one of a technology instructional coach. With this role, I deliver ongoing PD to the staff at my site usually on a 4-6 week cycle (30 minutes each 1/week session before school). I begin developing the content topics based on district goals, admin requests, teacher survey results or informal feedback. At times, PD is chosen to fit a larger technology plan but this year often it has focused on teacher needs with respect to a lot of new technology we have in our building this year due to a summer renovation. I both design and implement/facilitate the staff PD sessions.
One six-week series I created and delivered was simply on the basics interactive whiteboards. These were new to our building this summer, and most of the teachers were unaware of the basics from plugging in, to software, to online resources. During each session we focused on a basic topic around SMARTboard 101, topics were modeled by myself and teachers had time to practice and implement with each other. Some weeks were designed as a practice session to create a SMART Notebook file to use within the classroom. Teachers were asked to answer a warm-up question about something they tried in their classroom from the previous week through an online tool such as Padlet as a visual proof of our learning and growth. Following the whole series, teachers are always asked to take a survey and were asked to provide topics for future technology integration topics.
While a share some similarities to an instructional designer, this isn’t the whole of my role. I spend much of my time as an instructional coach at my site. As a coach, I develop a coaching plan with an individual or small group of teachers based on a student growth goal. We plan weekly and I offer classroom instructional support weekly. While I do design PD or lessons with teachers I am coaching, this is just a portion of my job. I also create and maintain my school’s website, social media, blended learning accounts, budget and I lead our hiring committee of all things! While I am not a classroom teacher anymore, my role is not strictly instructional designer in the traditional sense either. My clients are definitely the staff in my building which is true of an instructional designer as well. My role is a hybrid of a few different positions.
An instructional designer has to be an individual who is self-reflective and is willing to evaluate, revise and continually work to improve a product that is never going to be finished. In other words, an instructional designer must love the process of creating and designing instruction to solve educational problems that will continue to need updating.
A second skill that a successful designer needs is the ability to see the big picture. A designer must know what their key questions or end goal from the beginning. I use this in my role and would definitely as an instructional designer.
A third must-have competency of an instructional designer would be their knowledge of learning theories. This knowledge allows the designer to make informed decisions as they include instructional strategies that will be successful for their learners.
In my ideal job, I would love to continue to improve upon PD series that I create. Often times I find once I have teacher survey results, I can improve upon the next topic, but time doesn’t allow me to go back and make my series better surrounding the original product – I am always moving forward, cyclical evaluative practice can be challenging in a school setting.
Evaluation is the backbone of instructional design. Evaluation occurs throughout the process, not strictly at the end. Designers use evaluation to backwards map their product. Just as a classroom teacher uses formative and summative assessment throughout their work, so does an instructional designer. Formative evaluation is used throughout the design process to improve upon the product while it is being constructed or implemented. Whereas summative evaluation benefits the process as it is feedback gathered after the instruction as been delivered to the recipients. This would be reflected in Kirkpatrick’s Four-Levels with the measures: learner reaction, learning, behavior and results. This summative evaluation helps the designer to continually improve their product.