I guess the one thing I'm confused about as far as instructional design goes and the project I have chosen to do is the front end analysis. I am confused as to what all it should entail.
I guess the material that I strongly related too was in Chapter 10 dealing with Learning Environments and producing instructional activities. I know we would all like our classrooms to be an open-ended environment where the students drive the instruction and the teacher is just the guide, but in education today what seems to drive the learning is the assessments. I view my instructional philsophy as one that is both directed learning and at times open ended. I guess I feel uncomfortable with an open ended environment. I guess I'm a bit of a control freak and like to conduct a more directed learning environment where I decide which way the instruction will go to meet the end goals. The Library/Media curriculum will be changing next year and so I will have to rethink how I will develop my lessons. WE are going to have certain goals that we will have to cover before the end of the school year and use assessments to track the students learning. I think for my subject content area this will kinda be sad. I think our main purpose as Library/MEdia specialists especially at the primary level is to teach our students basic library skills and instill in them a love of reading and a thirst for knowledge. I think it will take the edge that the Library/Media specialist had over the classroom teacher in that they didn't have the same pressures with us that they had in the classroom and this change to our program will make the children feel that we are becoming more and more like their classroom. Some of our magic and mystic will be gone.
I can.t remember what I posted on the first blog. I guess my philosophy leans still more toward the directed learning environment, but striving to become more open-ended. I have learned through the course of the reading we have done what points I need to look at when I'm designing a lesson or unit and how to more deeply dig into learning the target audience and trying to design instruction that will catch their attention, tap into previous experiences, and to have opportunities to keep the students more engaged in the learning process.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Learning Journal Blog Post #3
I find that I’m hesitant in choosing the “perfect” needs/task analysis. I wonder how an ID professional feels confident that they’ve chosen the correct analysis. Although the different tools are all very similar, they each help you find something different. I understand that you can pick and choose segments from each, but it seems you’d do that for every assignment. My question is: Do ID professionals categorize the different approaches to make it easier for themselves? Basically, I wonder if they combine different approaches for one broad topic, like education, and use that tool only.
During the development of my project, I found myself second guessing the approaches I chose. Because of time constraints though, I had to choose what I thought “fit” and would give me the answers I need.
As a special education teacher, I found myself connecting to chapter 11. When writing IEPs, you must be data driven. The student’s Present Levels of Performance is the heart of the IEP. Without appropriate data, the IEP will not effectively reflect the student’s abilities and needs. Additionally, it’s important to know the best way to evaluate students. The information following the subtitle, A Change in Skill, on page 220, is very appropriate to assess a student’s skill when documenting progress quarterly.
Well, reading back on my first journal log showed me how little I understood the differences in philosophies. I can say with 100% certainty that my instructional philosophy is constructivism. To me, knowledge is about experiences, and learning is easier when you can connect the new material to previous experiences. My teaching style reflects this as well. Throughout my lessons I’m constantly revealing to the students how the new material connects to material that was covered in the past or even to my own personal experiences. This may also provide the students with a picture in their minds that reinforces the connection of the material.
During the development of my project, I found myself second guessing the approaches I chose. Because of time constraints though, I had to choose what I thought “fit” and would give me the answers I need.
As a special education teacher, I found myself connecting to chapter 11. When writing IEPs, you must be data driven. The student’s Present Levels of Performance is the heart of the IEP. Without appropriate data, the IEP will not effectively reflect the student’s abilities and needs. Additionally, it’s important to know the best way to evaluate students. The information following the subtitle, A Change in Skill, on page 220, is very appropriate to assess a student’s skill when documenting progress quarterly.
Well, reading back on my first journal log showed me how little I understood the differences in philosophies. I can say with 100% certainty that my instructional philosophy is constructivism. To me, knowledge is about experiences, and learning is easier when you can connect the new material to previous experiences. My teaching style reflects this as well. Throughout my lessons I’m constantly revealing to the students how the new material connects to material that was covered in the past or even to my own personal experiences. This may also provide the students with a picture in their minds that reinforces the connection of the material.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Laura Peet-blog 3
This process of instructional design is long and complicated. Although I have no real questions about the process, I do have questions about if it is really worth it. Do these experts really know what they are talking about? It may sound odd but I will need to see an end product and reflect upon that to put any stock in this process. What I really want to know is is it a better way to do this than what I originally thought? I just wonder if all these pieces are necessary and hwo effective it is. I believe my questions and doubts will be answered when I complete my project.
The one thing that I do like about the process is the learner analysis. I think that it is a wonderful tool and it is very helpful. In the classroom is it challenging to try to get good data on the students, but when you do is well worth it. Knowing what they know and have trouble with is very helpful when planning a lesson. Also, knowing how they feel about it can also be useful. This learner analysis decreases the element of surprise about your students. It is not perfect but gives you somewhere to start, a little ahead of the game.
Overall the instructional design process is what I thought it was going to be. The only thing that may have changed from my original thoughts is that I was clueless as to the many parts of it. The complexity of the process was very surprising to me. I should have known though because planning a lesson in teaching is very complex, but the more you do it the easier it becomes. Some things start to come more naturally than before. I imagine that it will be the same for instructional design. The goal is clear but the parts are still a bit fuzzy. When used more, they too will start to become more clear.
The one thing that I do like about the process is the learner analysis. I think that it is a wonderful tool and it is very helpful. In the classroom is it challenging to try to get good data on the students, but when you do is well worth it. Knowing what they know and have trouble with is very helpful when planning a lesson. Also, knowing how they feel about it can also be useful. This learner analysis decreases the element of surprise about your students. It is not perfect but gives you somewhere to start, a little ahead of the game.
Overall the instructional design process is what I thought it was going to be. The only thing that may have changed from my original thoughts is that I was clueless as to the many parts of it. The complexity of the process was very surprising to me. I should have known though because planning a lesson in teaching is very complex, but the more you do it the easier it becomes. Some things start to come more naturally than before. I imagine that it will be the same for instructional design. The goal is clear but the parts are still a bit fuzzy. When used more, they too will start to become more clear.
Holliday Blog #3
I think I have had more confusion than questions so far as I have progressed through my project. Many of the theories seem like they discuss the same exact thing…so I have a hard time sometimes differentiating between them throughout different steps of the design process. For example, right now, I am trying to get a better grasp on the formative/summative assessment of design (in particular, formative). Because I am still fairly new to my company, I usually have a lot of questions when I go through the design process. I am constantly double-checking with my co-workers, superiors, etc…to make sure the work I am doing is both accurate and effective. But the assessment has always been so informal, and now it’s difficult to imagine it as a formal part of the process.
I’ve tried to read more about formative assessment through various online resources, but they have confused me even more. A lot of the information I am reading online discusses formative assessment and how to utilize it in the classroom. These articles give examples like “letting students grade their own homework” as a formative assessment tool. It just seems like the instructional designer is evaluating the students more than he is evaluating the instruction in some of these scenarios. The way that I understood formative assessment in the book was that it is performed throughout the design process to make sure the educational objectives are being met. Basically, you don’t want to spend 3-4 weeks developing a course, and then have your manager tell you the course doesn’t quite meet the same purpose that he/she had envisioned. From what I have read in the book, formative assessment allows you to evaluate your work throughout the entire design process so that you don’t have to start all over when your original product is rejected. I think that as I read more and more case studies, I will begin to recognize the different strategies for implementing formative assessment. I can then draw some ideas from those scenarios and apply them to my design process.
In the most recent chapters that we read, I really took an interest to Mager’s theory/approach to goal-setting and reaching objectives. At work, we have a review process called the “Performance Partnership Process” (PPP) that we complete 2 times per year. We basically sit down with our manager, develop a list of goals that we wish to meet over the next few quarters, and then assign each goal a percentage based on their importance/significance. We then meet with our managers regularly throughout the quarter to review our progress in meeting those goals. Even though Mager is referring more to the subject of “learning” objectives, I was still able to correlate how this process of goal setting can be applied to my corporate training environment. My manager is basically telling me the action that I need to perform in order to meet each goal, the tools and resources that I will have access to in order to meet each goal, and together we set the criterion that will determine how successful my end results are. I have found that this process is very successful because I know exactly what is expected of me in order to meet my objectives. There’s no surprises at the end of the year when it comes time to review my performance and talk about PROMOTIONS!
Also, on page 179, the text discusses a pitfall of teaching that I have learned from experience. The authors warn not to design instruction based around activities that you remember using when you were a student. It says that people often teach as they were taught because it supports their preferred learning style. Unfortunately, when I did my teaching internship in college, I went through this painful experience. I became accustomed to the lecture-style instruction of college professors and I actually grew very comfortable with listening closely and taking very good notes. When it came time to teach an 8th grade history class, I learned that this strategy doesn’t work with everyone. My initial classes were horrendous. I actually felt sorry for the students because they had to listen to me lecture. I was literally boring myself. Although I knew I had to incorporate some sort of fun activities into the class, I just didn’t feel comfortable doing it. I was too accustomed to the way I was teaching, and all the little games and activities felt too cheesy. But once I stepped outside the box and began incorporating some interactive events to the instruction, the internship got a lot easier. The class responded well, and I didn’t have to worry every night about how the class would respond to my lectures. I felt confident that I was using a diverse set of tools to meet the learning needs of all of my students, and I definitely noticed improvement not only in the learning environment…but in my students’ performance on tests and quizzes as well.
I don’t think my instructional philosophy has changed over the course of this class. I just think I have a better understanding of how to apply my philosophy more effectively. Although I originally thought my philosophies drew from a pragmatics line of thinking, I quickly realized I am actually more in line with the constructivist principles (after some helpful feedback on my original blog post). I still try to make my classes as meaningful as possible to the participants. I want them to find a purpose for attending training, and I want to engage them in topics/issues covered in class. I understand that each of them has a unique learning style, and so far, this class has taught me the steps that I need to follow in order to make sure I am effectively reaching each learner. Before the class, I didn’t have a formal process of designing instruction and evaluating its effectiveness. Now I have a better understanding of not only why I need to diligently design my instruction…but I have the tools, resources, and theories to guide me through its creation. So like I said, although my instructional philosophies still revolve around making the content meaningful to the learner, I now understand why I need to examine the design process, and how to incorporate other philosophies to meet my training objectives.
I’ve tried to read more about formative assessment through various online resources, but they have confused me even more. A lot of the information I am reading online discusses formative assessment and how to utilize it in the classroom. These articles give examples like “letting students grade their own homework” as a formative assessment tool. It just seems like the instructional designer is evaluating the students more than he is evaluating the instruction in some of these scenarios. The way that I understood formative assessment in the book was that it is performed throughout the design process to make sure the educational objectives are being met. Basically, you don’t want to spend 3-4 weeks developing a course, and then have your manager tell you the course doesn’t quite meet the same purpose that he/she had envisioned. From what I have read in the book, formative assessment allows you to evaluate your work throughout the entire design process so that you don’t have to start all over when your original product is rejected. I think that as I read more and more case studies, I will begin to recognize the different strategies for implementing formative assessment. I can then draw some ideas from those scenarios and apply them to my design process.
In the most recent chapters that we read, I really took an interest to Mager’s theory/approach to goal-setting and reaching objectives. At work, we have a review process called the “Performance Partnership Process” (PPP) that we complete 2 times per year. We basically sit down with our manager, develop a list of goals that we wish to meet over the next few quarters, and then assign each goal a percentage based on their importance/significance. We then meet with our managers regularly throughout the quarter to review our progress in meeting those goals. Even though Mager is referring more to the subject of “learning” objectives, I was still able to correlate how this process of goal setting can be applied to my corporate training environment. My manager is basically telling me the action that I need to perform in order to meet each goal, the tools and resources that I will have access to in order to meet each goal, and together we set the criterion that will determine how successful my end results are. I have found that this process is very successful because I know exactly what is expected of me in order to meet my objectives. There’s no surprises at the end of the year when it comes time to review my performance and talk about PROMOTIONS!
Also, on page 179, the text discusses a pitfall of teaching that I have learned from experience. The authors warn not to design instruction based around activities that you remember using when you were a student. It says that people often teach as they were taught because it supports their preferred learning style. Unfortunately, when I did my teaching internship in college, I went through this painful experience. I became accustomed to the lecture-style instruction of college professors and I actually grew very comfortable with listening closely and taking very good notes. When it came time to teach an 8th grade history class, I learned that this strategy doesn’t work with everyone. My initial classes were horrendous. I actually felt sorry for the students because they had to listen to me lecture. I was literally boring myself. Although I knew I had to incorporate some sort of fun activities into the class, I just didn’t feel comfortable doing it. I was too accustomed to the way I was teaching, and all the little games and activities felt too cheesy. But once I stepped outside the box and began incorporating some interactive events to the instruction, the internship got a lot easier. The class responded well, and I didn’t have to worry every night about how the class would respond to my lectures. I felt confident that I was using a diverse set of tools to meet the learning needs of all of my students, and I definitely noticed improvement not only in the learning environment…but in my students’ performance on tests and quizzes as well.
I don’t think my instructional philosophy has changed over the course of this class. I just think I have a better understanding of how to apply my philosophy more effectively. Although I originally thought my philosophies drew from a pragmatics line of thinking, I quickly realized I am actually more in line with the constructivist principles (after some helpful feedback on my original blog post). I still try to make my classes as meaningful as possible to the participants. I want them to find a purpose for attending training, and I want to engage them in topics/issues covered in class. I understand that each of them has a unique learning style, and so far, this class has taught me the steps that I need to follow in order to make sure I am effectively reaching each learner. Before the class, I didn’t have a formal process of designing instruction and evaluating its effectiveness. Now I have a better understanding of not only why I need to diligently design my instruction…but I have the tools, resources, and theories to guide me through its creation. So like I said, although my instructional philosophies still revolve around making the content meaningful to the learner, I now understand why I need to examine the design process, and how to incorporate other philosophies to meet my training objectives.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Neelam - Learning Journal 3
At this stage I understand how to approach almost every stage of the instructional design process; although, I still have questions regarding the formative assessment. I understand that the formative assessment basically plays the role of providing data that should be really collected during early stages of design which can help to improve the instructions. My major question is in understanding how to design the data collection tools for the formative assessments. I went ahead and read online case 3 which gave me some clues but did not satisfy me completely. I am planning to take a look at the formative assessment models in more details and research through some of the databases to better understand the development and implementation of the formative assessment. I think I will also get a better understanding as I implement the instructions for the class project. I think that the formative assessment is a very important piece because it shows how effective the instruction design was.
I think I connected well with most of the material that I read in the last few chapters. I don’t have any direct experiences which I can use to show connection but I have used stages of the ADDIE process while designing engineering and technical solutions. Till now I have not applied this process to instruction design but throughout I saw similarities. It seems to me that processes like ADDIE are universal and have application in many areas.
Thinking back to my first learning journal, I would still prefer an eclectic and practical approach to instructional design. This way there is more flexibility available while designing instructions for various situations. Approaches such as the Just-In-Time-Teaching and universal instructional design would be great asset to an eclectic like me.
I think I connected well with most of the material that I read in the last few chapters. I don’t have any direct experiences which I can use to show connection but I have used stages of the ADDIE process while designing engineering and technical solutions. Till now I have not applied this process to instruction design but throughout I saw similarities. It seems to me that processes like ADDIE are universal and have application in many areas.
Thinking back to my first learning journal, I would still prefer an eclectic and practical approach to instructional design. This way there is more flexibility available while designing instructions for various situations. Approaches such as the Just-In-Time-Teaching and universal instructional design would be great asset to an eclectic like me.
Erin's Blog Post #3
One of the current problems I am facing with the instructional design project is that of formative and summative assessment of the design. I think because I do this on an everyday basis – I am constantly evaluating what I teach and how – and it’s hard to put a method to what I do just by instinct. As I’m working on the project, I know that it will take some rereading of chapter 12 in the text and possibly searching for other resources to help me understand these concepts better. At the same time, however, it was easy for me to connect to the section on learner evaluation. Many of the methods Brown and Green discussed in the chapter are things I have used in my classroom, including objective test questions, essay items, portfolios, and surveys. It depends on the concepts being taught and the method of teaching as to which type of assessment would be the best fit.
With the project, I had some difficulty with the task analysis at first, but once I found a few resources online, and charts, it became easier. I felt as though this section of the book could have used a little more explanation of exactly what you needed to do at each of the steps.
Most of the information in the other chapters (8-10) made a lot of sense to me and was familiar from prior education classes, particularly in my undergrad work. Every day, teachers write objectives on the board to tell the students what they will do that day. My goals usually come from the curriculum, then I break them down and rewrite them into objectives that will make sense to the students. Once I know my goals, I am able to create a sequence for instruction that will help students to meet the goals and choose the delivery method that will meet my students’ needs that day. The delivery method varies by the concepts that will be addressed that day, but can also vary between classes that are working on the same ideas.
In my first learning journal, Dr. Lohnes commented that I may be an “interpretivist” based on my thought that there is frequently no right answer when it comes to discussing a story in language arts. I believe that may be true, but I also think that I am moving more toward the constructivist side of things. I see the value in constructivist teaching and that it also keeps kids more engaged when they can choose activities, or ways to do an activity, to facilitate their own learning. When I teach persuasive essays to the students, this is something many of them want to write about – choice.
With the project, I had some difficulty with the task analysis at first, but once I found a few resources online, and charts, it became easier. I felt as though this section of the book could have used a little more explanation of exactly what you needed to do at each of the steps.
Most of the information in the other chapters (8-10) made a lot of sense to me and was familiar from prior education classes, particularly in my undergrad work. Every day, teachers write objectives on the board to tell the students what they will do that day. My goals usually come from the curriculum, then I break them down and rewrite them into objectives that will make sense to the students. Once I know my goals, I am able to create a sequence for instruction that will help students to meet the goals and choose the delivery method that will meet my students’ needs that day. The delivery method varies by the concepts that will be addressed that day, but can also vary between classes that are working on the same ideas.
In my first learning journal, Dr. Lohnes commented that I may be an “interpretivist” based on my thought that there is frequently no right answer when it comes to discussing a story in language arts. I believe that may be true, but I also think that I am moving more toward the constructivist side of things. I see the value in constructivist teaching and that it also keeps kids more engaged when they can choose activities, or ways to do an activity, to facilitate their own learning. When I teach persuasive essays to the students, this is something many of them want to write about – choice.
Billie's Blog #3
The only question I have at this time is how to do the evaulation piece. I know we discussed this piece of the process in class but I would like a more defined answer as to how we evaluate the IDP we used. Again, do we ask students and colleagues to evaluate our assessment? The only other comment I have to make is I honestly feels that I need to look at everything and absorb the information Before I ask any other questions. I don't feel that I have had the time to do this because of the other required assignments and my professional responsibilities. Is it possible to revisit this question in a week.
Due to the fact that I am a teacher I feel that I am able to make a connection to much of the information provided in chapter's 8,9, and 10. Instructional goals are given to us in the curriculum which helps to create daily objectives for student learning. The objective is then used t create a lesson. The lesson is the scope and sequence of information to meet the objective. For example, student come into the classroom and begin working on the drill which is usually about information already learned or information that is going to be covered in the lesson...what do they already know? Then, some type of engaging activity goes on which is used to motivate the students. After that the "meat" of the lesson is delivered which can happen in a variety of ways, depending on your learners. Finally there is closure, was the objective met. This can be used as an informal evaluation. Each lesson is a sequence of activities to meet the objective.
The learning environment is always considered when teaching students. What type of learning styles are there in the classroom, what is the gender ratio, how many students are there, how long to the instructional time, and what is the range of learning ability. This information is then used to teach an effect lesson.
I don't believe my philosophy about teaching and classrom manage has changed since the start of this class. My ideas on how to manage my classroom is more the behaviorist perspective and I am more of a constructivist when teaching. I do believe every student can learn, we just need to take the time to learn what type of learner each student is.
Due to the fact that I am a teacher I feel that I am able to make a connection to much of the information provided in chapter's 8,9, and 10. Instructional goals are given to us in the curriculum which helps to create daily objectives for student learning. The objective is then used t create a lesson. The lesson is the scope and sequence of information to meet the objective. For example, student come into the classroom and begin working on the drill which is usually about information already learned or information that is going to be covered in the lesson...what do they already know? Then, some type of engaging activity goes on which is used to motivate the students. After that the "meat" of the lesson is delivered which can happen in a variety of ways, depending on your learners. Finally there is closure, was the objective met. This can be used as an informal evaluation. Each lesson is a sequence of activities to meet the objective.
The learning environment is always considered when teaching students. What type of learning styles are there in the classroom, what is the gender ratio, how many students are there, how long to the instructional time, and what is the range of learning ability. This information is then used to teach an effect lesson.
I don't believe my philosophy about teaching and classrom manage has changed since the start of this class. My ideas on how to manage my classroom is more the behaviorist perspective and I am more of a constructivist when teaching. I do believe every student can learn, we just need to take the time to learn what type of learner each student is.
Tracie - Blog #3
I had to go back and reread my first blog, because honestly, I couldn't remember what I wrote. At the beginning of the course, I was behaviorist in my classroom management, and constructivist in my instruction. I don't think that has changed at all. I am perhaps more aware of why I teach the way I do, or why I build my instruction the way I do, but my underlying reasons and beliefs have not changed.
I still struggle with how to motivate kids/people to learn. Reading through the case studies, I realize how much harder it is to motivate adults who are potentially set in their ways than children who are still somewhat willing to learn. I struggle with the kids who have so much baggage that they just don't care about learning, or have learned that no one at home cares, so why should they. As I worked on my project, I tried to pull ideas and resources that would make it as hands-on and interactive as possible, to try to pull in even these reluctant learners. I think I succeeded to some extent. However, it is frustrating to note that I had to write up three students during one activity for squirting each other with food-colored water during a lab. Not a shining moment, and it did include one of those kids who just doesn't care.
That brings me to my connections to the readings. The first is in Chapter 9 on page 164. The authors state, "The events of instruction should be considered a reciprocal process in which instructors and students make contributions that lead to an effective learning experience." That screams to me the reason why students who are carrying too much baggage from home have difficulty learning. They cannot focus long enough on the task at hand to actively participate and make the contributions that will leat to an effective learning experience because they are so overwhelmed by their home life. So, how do we get them past that so they can achieve success?
I also connected with Mager's Approach (p. 146) to setting goals and objectives. His use of Action, Conditions, and Criterions reminded me of writing/reviewing IEP's for students. They always have a % criterion for the goal to be considered met. As I mentioned in class, I still have an issue with teachers who create a lot of activities, but have no sound basis for them. In Chap. 10, (p. 178), it specifically says that instruction could be designed this way, but the approach would never be recommended. I think teachers should have to justify the activities they are doing in class, and show how they are going to bring students around to learning, not just playing.
Finally, I enjoyed reading the chapter on evaluation. I use most of the test items described, except true/false. I try very hard not to use them, and found it interesting that the first bullet under guidelines is, "use them sparingly, if at all". I like that! The one thing that I do differently is matching. Over the years, I have learned that kids have a really hard time doing matching where the word is on the left, and the matching definition is on the right. Instead, I put the definitions or answers on the left, and have the single word on the right. In this way, students read the longer definition, then find the matching word. My special educators also like this way, as it is easier for sped. students. Also, for sped. kids, I chunk the matching into groups of 4-5 items.
I still struggle with how to motivate kids/people to learn. Reading through the case studies, I realize how much harder it is to motivate adults who are potentially set in their ways than children who are still somewhat willing to learn. I struggle with the kids who have so much baggage that they just don't care about learning, or have learned that no one at home cares, so why should they. As I worked on my project, I tried to pull ideas and resources that would make it as hands-on and interactive as possible, to try to pull in even these reluctant learners. I think I succeeded to some extent. However, it is frustrating to note that I had to write up three students during one activity for squirting each other with food-colored water during a lab. Not a shining moment, and it did include one of those kids who just doesn't care.
That brings me to my connections to the readings. The first is in Chapter 9 on page 164. The authors state, "The events of instruction should be considered a reciprocal process in which instructors and students make contributions that lead to an effective learning experience." That screams to me the reason why students who are carrying too much baggage from home have difficulty learning. They cannot focus long enough on the task at hand to actively participate and make the contributions that will leat to an effective learning experience because they are so overwhelmed by their home life. So, how do we get them past that so they can achieve success?
I also connected with Mager's Approach (p. 146) to setting goals and objectives. His use of Action, Conditions, and Criterions reminded me of writing/reviewing IEP's for students. They always have a % criterion for the goal to be considered met. As I mentioned in class, I still have an issue with teachers who create a lot of activities, but have no sound basis for them. In Chap. 10, (p. 178), it specifically says that instruction could be designed this way, but the approach would never be recommended. I think teachers should have to justify the activities they are doing in class, and show how they are going to bring students around to learning, not just playing.
Finally, I enjoyed reading the chapter on evaluation. I use most of the test items described, except true/false. I try very hard not to use them, and found it interesting that the first bullet under guidelines is, "use them sparingly, if at all". I like that! The one thing that I do differently is matching. Over the years, I have learned that kids have a really hard time doing matching where the word is on the left, and the matching definition is on the right. Instead, I put the definitions or answers on the left, and have the single word on the right. In this way, students read the longer definition, then find the matching word. My special educators also like this way, as it is easier for sped. students. Also, for sped. kids, I chunk the matching into groups of 4-5 items.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Jen's Blog 3
The part of the instructional design process I still have questions about is assessing not my learners but the instructional design process itself. I am think that the two learner assessment and assessing the instructional design are so closely related that it is hard for me to isolate the two. I have yet to complete this section of my project but I think that I have to keep in my mind they are different and look at the two accordingly. I do think that it is easier for me to identify the pitfalls in an isolated lesson opposed to an entire process. As a teacher I am constantly assessing the lesson what I could have done differently, what misconceptions my students still have, and what if any further teaching I may need to develop. This is a formative assessment of each lesson. This however is not a summative assessment of the entire instruction or the big picture. This project and readings has made me realize that this is a down fall of mine. I also thought I was assessing my instruction because I looked so critically at each lesson or sub-skill. I now realize that I need to assess the big picture. I do look at the data and try to bring it back up in quick reviews. I need to dig deep and ask why and think about how to change the big picture like I do for each lesson. The one thing that I really connected with was the learning environments chapter. That chapter was nothing new to me but just reiterated for me the need to match the content to the learning environment. There always a push to try this type of lesson or this type of tools in the classroom. Many of them are great but do not work for everything or every student. I often get pressured in trying to use a lesson model or teaching tool that just does not work. I try it out and it does not work but I have the fear of not using because that is “what you should be doing”. It is not that I am not willing to try but there are some things that are not appropriate for 6 and 7 year olds. That is a great tool for the upper grades. It just really validated to me that changing your learning environment is appropriate and should be done to meet the needs of your learner and the content. My understanding of instructional design has not changed much but rather has deepened. I always considered students’ needs and assessment I just did not do them in the depth that we have looked at. My understanding was very surface level and I feel now I have deeper understanding of the process and how to go about it. I do not think that I could go that in depth for every lesson but it is definitely something to consider when I am developing a unit or mini unit. Also it would valuable when I see a problem in the classroom. The various approaches are a tool for me to use as a problem arises. I would say another change is knowing the name for many of the process. As teacher we do some form of the step every day naturally without even thinking about it.It is important to know the step so that it is not getting skipped. It is also important to know other perspectives and methods to go about. I knew the importance of learner analysis and task analysis but I did not know the different approaches and step to take to conduct them. I was winging it basically. Reading the book and class discussions has helped me further my understanding of these components.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Christine Forrester/Learning Journal Blog # 3
I am having trouble with the task analysis - I think. I did this part of the project incorrectly, and thankfully my peer group (Billie and Erin) set me on the correct path last Thursday evening in class. I re-wrote parts of the task analysis and re-posted it in the group discussion files. I am still not sure I did this right! I am reaching out for help here!! Please give me some insight.
I also do not understand question 8/section 2 of the IDP - Describe the plan for the interface design/production of materials and media. I really need clarification here. I have no clue what this means!
Setting Instructional goals and objectives is the easiest part of teaching for me. Once I have these clarified, which in many cases my curriculum guide does this for me, I can jump right into planning units and individual lessons. Sometimes I get very bogged down in the details of lesson planning. Often, I find that I have trouble deciding what materials to use because I have so much I can choose from. I learned a long time ago that setting goals and objectives and sharing them with students at the start of every lesson is essential to student success and closure of a particular topic. I identify completely with Morrison, Ross, and Kemp's Approach to objective setting. For every lesson I teach I have my students write in their notebook the objective (s). I combine Morrison's, et. al. terminal and enabling objectives when I write them. This way students know from the beginning of a lesson what the expected outcomes will be.
In chapter 9, Creating Instruction, I learned the specific names of the steps of creating instruction. This chapter definitely gave me "food for thought" about the scope and sequence of unit and lesson planning. It emphasized the importance of understanding the organization of materials, events, learning experiences, delivery methods of instruction, and scope and sequence in order for learners of all levels to be reached in an effective instructional manner.
As a teacher, I use both open-ended learning environments and directed learning environments. I started using open-ended learning environments very recently, though, and I am not very comfortable using this type of environment. I am always afraid that the "big ideas" will somehow not get taught, but they always do. So long as I am clear about my expectations for students and in explaining the goals and objectives. I have found that this type of environment works well with long-term assignments and research projects.
The chapter on evaluation was interesting to me. I use many of the evaluation processes that were described in this chapter, including performance assessment. When using technology in a lesson or for a project, some students do not know how to use selected software programs. I have found the doing direct testing along the way and then performance ratings after, have proven to be great sources of hands-on learning for students and confidence builders. Constructed response, short-answer, matching, and selected response are types of questions I often use during a lesson/unit and after a lesson/unit to evaluate how well students are grasping what is being learned in class. True/false test items are not something that I use often. I have found that students get very confused when answering these type of question. When I do use them, it is usually as a preinstruction tool and I always require students to correct the word or phrase that is incorrect in a false statement or question. It has been my experience that students will change and re-write the entire sentence and still get the answer wrong.
My instructional philosophy has not changed. I re-read my first learning journal blog post and I still identify with cognitivism, constructivism, and postmodernism. Mental processes can be identified in many cases and the human mind, hence thinking, is very complex. I totally agree with the constructivist view in that learning and thinking are directly connected to a person’s understanding of the world and their experiences. Postmodernism piggy-backs on this thought, in that a person’s reality is based on their experiences and the realities in their life. This is constantly changing and depends on a person’s interpretation of the world in which they live. The way that students think and learn are directly connected to each other, as well as the philophies discussed above.
I also do not understand question 8/section 2 of the IDP - Describe the plan for the interface design/production of materials and media. I really need clarification here. I have no clue what this means!
Setting Instructional goals and objectives is the easiest part of teaching for me. Once I have these clarified, which in many cases my curriculum guide does this for me, I can jump right into planning units and individual lessons. Sometimes I get very bogged down in the details of lesson planning. Often, I find that I have trouble deciding what materials to use because I have so much I can choose from. I learned a long time ago that setting goals and objectives and sharing them with students at the start of every lesson is essential to student success and closure of a particular topic. I identify completely with Morrison, Ross, and Kemp's Approach to objective setting. For every lesson I teach I have my students write in their notebook the objective (s). I combine Morrison's, et. al. terminal and enabling objectives when I write them. This way students know from the beginning of a lesson what the expected outcomes will be.
In chapter 9, Creating Instruction, I learned the specific names of the steps of creating instruction. This chapter definitely gave me "food for thought" about the scope and sequence of unit and lesson planning. It emphasized the importance of understanding the organization of materials, events, learning experiences, delivery methods of instruction, and scope and sequence in order for learners of all levels to be reached in an effective instructional manner.
As a teacher, I use both open-ended learning environments and directed learning environments. I started using open-ended learning environments very recently, though, and I am not very comfortable using this type of environment. I am always afraid that the "big ideas" will somehow not get taught, but they always do. So long as I am clear about my expectations for students and in explaining the goals and objectives. I have found that this type of environment works well with long-term assignments and research projects.
The chapter on evaluation was interesting to me. I use many of the evaluation processes that were described in this chapter, including performance assessment. When using technology in a lesson or for a project, some students do not know how to use selected software programs. I have found the doing direct testing along the way and then performance ratings after, have proven to be great sources of hands-on learning for students and confidence builders. Constructed response, short-answer, matching, and selected response are types of questions I often use during a lesson/unit and after a lesson/unit to evaluate how well students are grasping what is being learned in class. True/false test items are not something that I use often. I have found that students get very confused when answering these type of question. When I do use them, it is usually as a preinstruction tool and I always require students to correct the word or phrase that is incorrect in a false statement or question. It has been my experience that students will change and re-write the entire sentence and still get the answer wrong.
My instructional philosophy has not changed. I re-read my first learning journal blog post and I still identify with cognitivism, constructivism, and postmodernism. Mental processes can be identified in many cases and the human mind, hence thinking, is very complex. I totally agree with the constructivist view in that learning and thinking are directly connected to a person’s understanding of the world and their experiences. Postmodernism piggy-backs on this thought, in that a person’s reality is based on their experiences and the realities in their life. This is constantly changing and depends on a person’s interpretation of the world in which they live. The way that students think and learn are directly connected to each other, as well as the philophies discussed above.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)