Week 2 Readings

Day One

Today's readings focused on the background, basics, and limitations of Instructional Systems Design.  The first article "What is ID?" centered on the core elements of traditional ID's and what they look like. Furthermore this article discussed the history of ID and how it came into being.  According to this article traditional ID's are learner centered and goal oriented.  They follow the behaviorist school of thought and are designed in a linear fashion.  There is a beginning and and end divided up into various sections of information which the learner must demonstrate mastery to move forward to the next section.  "What ID's Do" followed up on this article by explaining how ID's have been used historically.  Beginning in the mid 20th century ID's were used by government, military, and corporate entities for training purposes.  In my mind this seemed like the first flight simulator used by the USAF.  I also likened it to a course I had to take in order to be certified to give the Keystone exam.  Once I achieved each objective I had to take a final exam and was then a certified Keystone exam Instructor.  "A Hard Look at ID's" looked at the flaws and limitations of ID's.  The author explained the the flaws with ID's has more to do with the design process rather than the principals upon which they're based.   According to the author typical usage of ISD's has centered more towards project management and as a result is not rigorous enough to meet the needs of the modern student.

Day Two

The next days readings looked at a Constructivist approach to ID.  In the first article, by Willis, Constructivist ID Model, the author explains that though Constructivists to not outright reject objective standards, they do view those standards as more subjective.  Furthermore, Willis call for a more balance approach to instruction.  he believes that a good ID model blends both constructivism and objectivism.  He asserts that it would be more beneficial to the leaner to use direct instruction to support a constructivist approach.  The second article, Translating Constructivism to ID, deals with putting Constructivist ideas into reality through ID.  As the author sees it, the fundamental problem is that "behaviorists can teach, well, without having students learn."

That statement struct a gigantic chord with me.  That quote alone is the reason I stopped teaching for my districts online program.  The program that we utilize is based on a behaviorist approach to learning.  Students can easily get through the material at break-neck speed and not learn a thing! All they needs to do is complete various objectives, go on to the next level, and receive at least 70% effeciency on the summative assessment to receive their passing grade.  A given student could pass 10th grade history and not learn a thing about it.  I've watched it happen!

In order for students to truly learn according the author, Constructivist ID models should involve real world examples, multiple perspectives  modeling, and problem solving.   Furthermore, these problems should reflect authenticity and contain various scenarios for the learning path.  I see none of this when I look at the ISD programs my district currently utilizes.  This ID model seems more like gaming to me and this is something that the students can really get into as long as they're motivated to do so.

The last reading for this day was again by Willis, Maturing Constructivists ID Principals.  In this article Willis explained that the R2D2 model was really the first ID model to really lay out constructivists instructional material.  The most important passage in this read I believe was when he spoke about how Constructivists view general principals in education.  This carried on with his early theme of not outright rejecting standards.   Willis proposes that Constructivists done't see general principals of ID as immutable, but as guidelines to be explored.  I looked at this as a Reese's cup analogy.  The shape and construct of a Reese's cup will never change, but "there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's cup".

Day Three

I found these reading to be the most troubling.  After reading Chaos Theory, by You, I had to look at a few other resources to try and understand what Chaos Theory is and how it applies to ID.  From the best I could gather You was trying to say that "X" does not always equal "Y"; different "X's" can equal an infinite amount of "Ys".   The best I could get of this when applied to learning is that we all learn in different ways and demonstrate understanding differently,  furthermore, our demonstration of understanding can be shown in a variety of way.  That's the best I could do with this article as I don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics; I then took two extra-strength tylenol and rested on the couch for a 1/2 hour.

The New R2D2, by ISU's own Willis and Wright explained what the new ID should look like based on Constructivist principals.  According to the authors ID should be done as a team with each team working on a specific, but well defined task . Furthermore, good ID should be constantly evolving and adapting to the learner.  While this does seem like an arduous process, but working as a team it becomes a bit more doable.

Week 1 Readings

Day One:

These readings more than any seemed to be more in line with the week one lecture.  The first two readings Philosophical Perspectives in Education Section II and II, summarized the four main educational philosophies that were presented in lecture but gave a bit more substance and background to what was presented.  More concrete historical examples would have been a nice touch as I thought some of the practical application of these philosophies was bit lacking.  Status and Change in the definition of Educational Technology outlines reasons for and implications of the new understood and accepted meaning of the term, Educational Technology.  The new definition is much more broad and seems to fall more in line with an Essentialist school of educational philosophy by focusing on the teacher as NOT simply the one disseminating knowledge to the student, but one that facilitates learning by appropriately utilizing technological processes and resources. 

Day Two:

General System Theory by Bertaalanffy, is about attempting to formulate a general theory about how and why people learn.  In this paper, the author argues against the traditional theory espoused by Skinner in that a learner can be conditioned to learn and that man is not a robot or moron.  Bertaalanffy believes that people are by nature looking for problems to solve and obstacles to overcome.  I don't know if I agree with that totally, however, man is often in conflict with his environment which motivates him to be more industrious in trying to solve problems and overcome obstacles.  Nevertheless, keeping in line with the theme this week Bertaalanffy's ideas seem to be more in line with an Essentialist or Progressive school of thought.  Learning Theories Overview seemed to echo the aforementioned article in that the author explains that people learn best by doing and specifically doing what interests us.  We learn through experience.  The last reading for this day, Communication Theory, by Shannon was a mystery to me.  I have no idea how it relates to anything I was reading about.

Day Three:

Today's articles were quite fascinating.  Taylor in the Classroom, by Rees discussed how methods for increasing industrial output in a factory system when applied to education (as the author posits they have been) keep teachers from teachers and from students truly learning.  He argues that Taylorism treats students like workers and that as a result we've seen a deficit in problem solving ability and practical application.  While much of what the author says is true and what I believe to be at the heart of many of our educational problems today I think the author lacks context.  This system worked well at the turn of the century because of the nature of the students.  Much of what Rees and also Calahan (in the later article) derided about education had to be employed because for the first time in history the masses of an entire population were going to be education.  Of these masses many were non-english speakers or illiterate.  The industrial age provided a standard of living so high (even amongst the poorest) that even the industrial worker could now send his child to school rather than depend on their labor for subsistence.   In Education and the Cult of Efficiency, Calahan expands on this and seems to imply the industrialization experienced in Europe and North America robbed people of how to learn through experience.  While this is true, this education could only be attained because the nation generally had achieved a much higher standard of living.  Both articles seem to attack the Essentialist Philosophy of education which I too believe to be dated, but was good for it's time, place, and population.  Now that the US is no longer a nation that has mass industry as it's economic base it only makes sense that we need to change the manner in which our students are now instructed.

Day Four: 

Confronting Challenges seemed to show modern education is and can be.  Students were doing, modeling, and using technology to learn through their experiences.  Students were problem solving and involved with topics that interested them.  To me this is the ideal as well.  However, to many administrators and politicians this learning is not easily measurable.  They cannot say,  "we spent "X" amount of dollars and our math scores went up "Y" amount of points.  Here is the challenge.  We want students to truly learn and to teach students how to solve problems and give them the tools to solve them on their own, but the outcome is not measurable in any objective way.