Think Critically and Reflectively
- Develops a personal vision of inclusive educational practice
- Describes the relationship between Educational Technology and the broader field of Education
- Critically evaluates theory and practice
In the beginning of EDCI 66000A Learning Design and Technology Seminar, my
personal vision of Educational Technology personally and professionally included
just knowing about Moodle and that technology had to be engaging. I expected
this course would give me “the knowledge I needed on
the development side of instruction, and trends and tools in technology to
accommodate that instruction,” and “take a very abstract topic and make it more
concrete for the learner.” After the end of the course, my reflection on
Educational Technology changed to also include human performance as impacting
the field of education.
In order to create my initial vision statements of a Technology Educator
Vision in EDCI 56400, I read many articles:
Incorporating in my initial definition, I wrote that in order to integrate technology in a meaningful way, students should use technologies to support meaningful learning and become in control of their own learning. In addition, I added to my initial statement that “in order for teachers to integrate technologies in a meaningful way, they need to have the proper training on how to foster the learning of students utilizing technologies.” This is an important statement as educators don’t need professional development on not what the technology can do but instead how students can utilize it to learn new concepts. Reading research and developing my definition of a vision of a technology educator, helped me meet the competency of developing a vision of inclusive educational practice.
- Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 First Look
- The 2011 Horizon Report, Keeping Pace With K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice
- Teaching competencies for technology integration in the Classroom
Incorporating in my initial definition, I wrote that in order to integrate technology in a meaningful way, students should use technologies to support meaningful learning and become in control of their own learning. In addition, I added to my initial statement that “in order for teachers to integrate technologies in a meaningful way, they need to have the proper training on how to foster the learning of students utilizing technologies.” This is an important statement as educators don’t need professional development on not what the technology can do but instead how students can utilize it to learn new concepts. Reading research and developing my definition of a vision of a technology educator, helped me meet the competency of developing a vision of inclusive educational practice.
My revised definition held the same strong beliefs as my initial
definition as this was due to the research articles that I read showing the
various aspects of technology within education and the relationship that exists between the two. Without reading these articles,
my initial statement would have been shallow and less defined. I clarified my
revised definition to include gaming and upcoming technologies are always
advancing and it’s important to stay current with these changes. When students
use the new technologies, peers and the facilitator can learn from them in a
type of “train the trainer” model, as it’s impossible as a facilitator to learn
everything. Schools that utilize Project-Based-Learning (PBL) do practice the
latter.
Looking at the definitions of expert vs. novice within various research
papers, helped me to clarify what all is involved in becoming an expert in
instructional design. In addition it helped me to evaluate theory and practice. I found it thought provoking to write a reflection paper
on “developing expertise” in “Advanced Practice of Learning System Design” as I
had to engage in higher level processes to compare myself in analyzing and
solving instructional design cases to that of an expert. Critically comparing one’s
self to an expert instructional designer solidified the fact that I still have
much to learn in the field. Ertmer and Stepich
(2005) provide the basis of an expert of analyzing design into two categories
of problem finding: synthesize vs. summarize, principles vs. features,
relationship among issues, reflective vs. reflexive and problem solving:
relationships among issues, consideration of implications, and flexible vs.
rigid. Improvement was made in every expert category (synthesize, principles,
relationship among issues, reflective, problem solving) when analyzing the
various difficulties within the cases and how the processes for instructional
design could be improved. Based on the research that differentiates an expert from a novice is how an expert considers all of the implications, or pros and cons, by showing "cause and effect" for each decision. This definitely helped me evaluate theory and practice of an expert and apply it in analyzing the different cases. In the Michael Bishop case involving a science gaming pilot, I was too shallow in my suggestions and made many solutions such as defining the objectives to reinforce skills being taught. The con of this decision would be the time involved I creating the objectives and it would hinder his timeframe. After reading the "developing expertise paper," I realize that I really needed to come up with one solution that could be applied to all the issues after considering all of the implications. As I continued to analyze the other case studies, I learned to critically evaluate how this theory would work in practice and make sound judgments on what the solution would look like from different scenarios.
Reflecting, the one main area that I still need to work on is being more flexible in presenting solutions rather than offering one definite solution to a problem. Being aware of better expert processes just helps you to become a better instructional designer.
Reflecting, the one main area that I still need to work on is being more flexible in presenting solutions rather than offering one definite solution to a problem. Being aware of better expert processes just helps you to become a better instructional designer.
Artifacts:
Initial & Final Reflective Essay-Educational Technology
Initial & Final Vision Statements-Technology Educator Vision
Reflection on Developing Expertise
References
DeCraene, M. A. (2013). Initial and Final Vision Statement: Technology Educator Vision. Unpublished. Purdue University.
Ertmer, P. A. & Stepich, D. A. (2005, November-December). Instructional Design Expertise: How Will We Know It When We See It? Educational Technology, 38-43.
DeCraene, M. A. (2013). Initial and Final Vision Statement: Technology Educator Vision. Unpublished. Purdue University.
Ertmer, P. A. & Stepich, D. A. (2005, November-December). Instructional Design Expertise: How Will We Know It When We See It? Educational Technology, 38-43.