Post Industrial Paradigm of Instruction

Re-post from Avila University CTL November 2013

The saying “May you live in an interesting age” reminds us that change often comes with wonderment, but also challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable moments in our lives. As higher education navigates the choppy waters of transition from an industrial age to an information age educators must be ready to expect a dramatic shift in practice. Let’s examine why this is so and how we can manage the challenges we now face.

The historical perspective of public education within the United States goes as far back as the building of the British Empire. The components and functions of modern public education were uniquely designed to support the growth of an empire with little or no technologies that could support standardization. For the British Empire to expand there was a need to create consistencies of skills, beliefs, and attitudes toward building a singular view of societal needs (Louis, 1999; Ferguson, 2003; Brendon, 2007). The ability of this empire to create a bureaucracy that identified common knowledge, consistent verbiage and text, protocols for learning behaviors, and acceptable social norms allowed for the birth of the public school structure as we know it. The rules and expectations found in public (and even some private) schools today extend back to a nation that required a people who all believed and acted within a given social norm. Thus jobs could be filled, economic growth occur, and social mores kept. Today students still sit in rows, sometimes even alphabetical order when learning. Hands are raised as signals for individuals to share learning; while testing of the 3 R’s is still in force.

However, what are the expectations of societal norms today? Have the changes in our global economic status altered our need for standardization? Is there a need for a bureaucratic approach to achieve success within our future workforce? Will those who contribute to our economic, political, and service success even considered a workforce anymore?

Movement from an industrial workforce to participants within an information age has brought about a need to move from the industrial approach to learning to that of a post industrial approach. Post Industrialized instruction per Reigeluth (2011) is defined as a reconstruction of task and space, Knowing the difference can help us in transitioning our approach to education.

‘Imagine a small team of students working on an authentic task in a computer-based simulation (the “task space”). Soon they encounter a learning gap (knowledge, skills, understandings, values, attitudes, dispositions, etc.) that they need to fill to proceed with the task. Imagine that the students can “freeze” time and have a virtual mentor appear and provide customized tutoring “just in time” to develop that skill or understanding individually for each student (the “instructional space”).’

How does one design a space within a Post Industrial institution? Consideration of learner centered instruction is one consideration. Articles and research on use of Learner Centered instruction has been contained within academic literature for at least the past 20 years. In 1996, a report entitled, Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education was written by the Education Commission of the States. In this document 12 quality attributes of best practice in undergraduate education were outline. High expectations, integration of experience and education, and active learning were three qualities highlighted. These qualities are evident in Socially Constructed Learning Theory.

Socially Constructed Learning presupposes that students and professors will interact with content as well as each other to establish a learning space that is respectful and valued. Huba and Freed (2000) identify learner and professor actions that promote learner centered instruction. Learner actions include: (a) active involvement in learning content, (b) application of content knowledge to solve enduring and emerging issues relevant to daily life, (c ) achieving goals to increase critical thinking, (d) reflection and refinement of learning based on given feedback and, (e) acknowledging and acting on the assumption that learning is an interpersonal skill. Professor actions include: (a) transmission of formative and summative feedback to support student reflection and refinement of learning, (b) coaching, (c ) facilitation of interactive learning and, (d) collaboration to further both student and professor learning. Barr (1995) shared 5 levels of transformation within a university setting that enable and support student or learner centered design.

These include: Identify learning outcomes in detail; system for measuring these LOs; backward design on the curriculum; wide range of powerful options for achieving LOs; and continually investigate alternative methods for empowering students to learn (p.19-20).

When considering Avila University’s practice and policy structure, and Barr’s 5 levels of transformation, levels 4 and 5 appear to be where we as a Center for Transformational Learning can assist. To do this, sharing information regarding learning spaces, student-centered instruction, and professors’ new role in instruction are best described by Reigeluth’s (2012) instructional design for Post-Industrial paradigm of instruction.

‘Research shows that learning a skill is facilitated to the extent that instruction tells the students how to do it, shows them how to do it for diverse situations, and gives them practice with immediate feedback, again for diverse situations (Merrill, 1983; Merrill, Reigeluth, & Faust, 1979), so the students learn to generalize or transfer the skill to the full range of situations they will encounter in the real world. Each student continues to practice until she or he reaches the standard of mastery for the skill, much as in the Khan Academy (www.khanacademy.com). Upon reaching the standard, the student returns to the task space,where time is unfrozen, to apply what has been learned to the task and continue working on it until the next learning gap is encountered, and this doing-learning-doing cycle is repeated.

Well-validated instructional theories have been developed to offer guidance for the design of both the task space and the instructional space (see Reigeluth, 1999b; Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009c, for examples). In this way we transcend the either/or thinking so characteristic of industrial-age thinking and move to both/and thinking, which is better suited to the much greater complexity inherent in the information age – we utilize instructional theory that combines the best of behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories and models. This theory pays attention to mastery of individual competencies, but it also avoids the fragmentation characteristic of many mastery learning programs in the past.” (p. 8-9)’

References:

Barr, R. B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change 27 (6): 12–25.

Huba, M.E. & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Reiguluth. C.M. (2012). Instructional theory and technology for the new paradigm of education. Reusta de Educatcion a Distancia, 32, 1-18.

Digital Literacy

Originally posted on Avila University CTL website

August 2014

What is digital literacy and how does it apply to the university setting? While researching this topic, I came across a website entitled US Digital Literacy . The site begins with the following definition:

“The definition of literacy has evolved in the 21st century. The basic definition of literacy means to be able to read and write. To be successful in today’s digital world, literacy goes far beyond being able to read and write. What it means to be digitally literate has reflected the change in how information is processed, delivered, and received in today’s highly connected world.”

When reviewing specific competencies within digital literacy there are three basic areas to consider:

use of digital technology and tools to find, evaluate and use content provided on the web;

having the skills to synthesize aggregated digital content from a variety of platforms and sources;

grow personal ability to read, interpret, validate, and manipulate content via the internet.

According to the US Digital Literacy website these skills include:

“learning how to use technology’s tools. The list of digital tools is never ending. New releases make something that was new yesterday old today. Educators as well as students must thoughtfully determine which tools are essential to their digital literacy tool kit. Tool kit’s vary from one educator to another as they do from one student to another. Once you have mastered a particular tool, move on to another so you can increase your digital power.”

Students are wired to learn digitally. They enter higher education with digital devices practically attached to their limbs. Our obligation is to teach them to become responsible digital citizens as well as discerning users of everything the internet has to offer in our globally collaborative world. Pamela Ann Kirst states in a November 2013 Zanesville Times Recorder article, “Accessing information takes a nanosecond; the assimilation of that information, the interpretation and application of it, are the skills we need today. Anyone with Internet skills can find the data; it’s the finder who can tell us why it’s important that gets recognized.”

Media literacy is a 21st century approach to education in which the Center for Media Literacy defines as:

“a framework to access, analyze, evaluate, create and participate with messages in a variety of forms — from print to video to the Internet. Media literacy builds an understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-expression necessary for citizens of a democracy.

‘Technology ignites opportunities for learning, engages today’s students as active learners and participants in decision-making on their own educational futures and prepares our nation for the demands of a global society in the 21st century.’ “

Team-Based Learning

Team Based Learning an Overview

Team based learning is an instructional design methodology that creates a venue for students to learn as an individual at the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy and scaffolds the learners into a creation based learning experience through collaborative efforts.

The Description of the Artifact

This artifact is taken from a course on Instructional Design that was taught in the fall of 2013. The purpose of the course structure was to guide the learners from acquisition of content regarding design and development within instructional design to creation and evaluation of current practices within his or her organization. Each unit was constructed to include individual readings and quizzes, team based assessments, problems, and participation in team simulations.

IBSTPI Competencies Met

Planning and Analysis- 8

Select and Use analysis techniques for determining instructional content.

Review of scores from individual quizzes allowed for construction of instructional content that would best meet participant learning needs. As seen in the screenshot above, the participants were provided readings to create a knowledge base regarding planning and analysis within instructional design. Each person was then required to complete an individual quiz based on learnings. A group review of content learned based on each question provided me with an opportunity to review the construction of the questions or modify learning content based on the need for additional information. This is why there is a section for additional resources. The intent was to used participant knowledge to drive selection of additional needed content to support the highest level of learning possible.

Design and Development- 11

Organize instructional programs and or products to be designed, developed and evaluated:

Determine overall scope of program
Identify sequence of instructional goals
Specify and sequence anticipated learning

The artifact shows a sequencing of learning that moves from individual recall to interactive team based learning to support exchange of ideas to create a synthesis of learned content. Each unit within the course was designed in the same scope and sequence to provide a usable framework that supports repetition and consistency of learning methodology.

Reflection

The structure of the team based learning gives participants the ability to own the learning sequence of content thus enabling individual movement through each unit with confidence. The appeal process after each individual quiz is beneficial for both the students and the instructors. This process created clarification of content, reassessment of thinking when responding to questions, and opportunities for learners to provide additional or outside resources to promote higher level learning and ownership of response.

A concern with this methodology that should be considered is the ownership of individuals effort within the team process. Although learners are adults, the ownership of equal participation within team problems and simulations was not always evident. Students on some teams share frustration with team members who did not participate fully within the process.

Using team charters, facilitating team conflict, and learning about the use of collaboration on projects in the world of work are all areas that should be intentionally taught to students to enhance their participation with these assignments.

I continue to use this methodology due to the scaffold learning and require ownership of learning by the student. The structure creates a venue that supports higher level thinking and problem solving instead of a regurgitation of content with little or no connections.

ID 611 Experiential Essay

In 2012 a colleague and I set out to create an interdisciplinary graduate certificate that would support business, human resources, organizational development, training, and higher educational design within learning. Our goal was to create a 5 course certificate that would enable participants to experience adult learning theory within the construct of learning design.

The first course we designed, Introduction to Instructional Design, is described below.

LEARNING METHODOLOGY

The Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) Course is an accelerated learning, time intensive course designed for adults. The design of the course recognizes that adults learn most effectively and most rapidly through a process of self-discovery and self-learning. The design of the course further recognizes that each adult brings life, work and religious experiences to the course that can be a learning resource to the other students in the class.

Shared-learning is to occur in the classroom, where each participant learns from the life and professional experiences of others. Self-learning is to occur before class so that each participant can contribute in a meaningful way to group discussions and be an effective resource in shared-learning.

Each adult learner in the course must be a participant, with secondary responsibility for the learning of others through the sharing of his or her own thinking and work experience. The principal responsibility of the facilitators is to facilitate the learning process, not to teach the technical content of the course. The facilitators are technical experts in the field and will answer questions beyond the competence of the participants, but the primary responsibility for learning belongs to the student. Ordinarily, the facilitators will not lecture for extended periods of time.

At first, a student may feel that he/she doesn’t have much experience that can be shared. As the course progresses, most students are delighted to discover that they have more relevant experiences than they first thought.

SUGGESTED GRADING REQUIREMENTS

The Avila Graduate Certificate in IDT uses a competency-based evaluation process. The grading criteria is explained below in the next section. Generally students demonstrating an accomplished level of competency in most areas will receive the highest grade. Showing solid competency in most areas will result in the next level. Competencies are assessed through ePortfolios, publications within blogs and wikis, and through observations in various team and individual activities.

At the heart of this process is the ePortfolio which each student will maintain throughout the certificate program. It is based generally on these competency areas for instructional designers (ibstpi (c) www.ibstpi.org and 2012 ibstpi ID Competencies):

Professional Foundations
Planning and Analysis
Design and Development
Evaluation and Implementation
Management

The class will create and maintain a knowledge base using a wiki site. Students will contribute to the site and collaborate on each other’s work. In addition each student will publish one professional blog article based on work conducted in the team project as described below. The assessment of professional foundations will come from the ePortfolio, wiki, and blog for competencies related to effective communication, application of research and theory, and managing one’s self-learning.

During this course on IDT trends students will collaborate in teams to analyze a training program based on learning theory, instructional design, and technology used in the program. The report will form some opinions, positions, or hypotheses that students may use in an applied setting during subsequent courses in the program.

Students will collaborate in this analysis using a Google shared document. It’s revision history will allow the instructor to view the contribution of each student in the team and to evaluate the meaningful contributions of the student to the team effort.

The analysis will also form the basis for two additional graded assignments as follows:

Each students will publish a blog article using their preferred blog tool of choice (a published article in the organizational website of the student’s employment, a personal blog, a Canvas course blog, or as a guest blogger in another blog site. The topic may be directly or indirectly related to the analysis.
Student teams will give a presentation to the class on the results of their analyses. Teams will use a modern presentation tool of choice to curate and present (Storify, Prezi, Google presentation, etc.).

Background Information

Introduction to Prior Learning:

Working at Avila University has brought a variety of exciting and challenging experiences. As an employee who is both faculty and administrative, I am continuously reviewing the purpose behind new initiatives in order to bring value and growth into academic experiences.

Participation in book studies, webinars, national conferences, and course development have provided me a plethora of experiences that have guided, revised, helped refine my practice as an educator. The content in the course Instructional Design 611 appears to dovetail nicely with my learning over the past 6 years.

The competencies and outcomes in ID 611 are aligned in four instructional parts.

Part 1: Learning theories (This link supports all three items below)

Use learning theories to describe how people learn.
Describe the impact of technology on learning theory.
Apply aggregation technology in evaluating and describing principles and theories.

Part 2: Instructional design models (Individual links provided below)

Examine ID competencies and create an ePortfolio.
Compare Andragogy and Pedagogy as it relates to instructional design models.
Create and maintain a Professional Learning Network (PLN) through a wiki site to increase IDT knowledge.
Analyze an existing course or case study.

Part 3: New directions in instructional design.

The link below is an artifact for each of the objectives and competencies below.

[View the story “Learning and Instructional Design: Principles and Theory” on Storify]

Explain the difference between learning theory and instructional theory.
Illustrate how an existing instructional design model is or is not an instructional design theory.
Appraise a curation model as an instructional theory. (This link supports the Storify artifact link above.)

Part 4: Theoretical framework behind each intersecting dimension of an academic curation model. (This link will support the objectives and competencies below)