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.