My Comprehensive Reflection
I started my Educational Technology (Edtec) experience with a very open mind. I was finishing up my contract teaching English in Ecuador, and I was anxious to find a field of study that would wrap around my loves of culture, language, technology, and learning. I was looking for a more human-centered approach to the high-tech consulting that I had been doing before Ecuador. In 540, as I read Mager's Performance Analysis text, I remember saying to myself "This is related to everything." I found out immediately, and to my delight, that the field was much more than Education plus Technology. I started analyzing performance problems anywhere I could- looking for bottlenecks at the airport baggage check, wondering what motivates Ecuador's hardworking poor, and even blaming the stack of dirty dishes in my kitchen sink on my very own "What's in it for me?" attitude. I began using what Mager & Pipe (1997) call my new X-ray vision: "your new X-ray vision will help you see where expensive misfits exist between problems and solutions" (p. 4). I began to see problems and solutions in a new light. From the very start I liked how real life - organizations, systems, politics, culture, distractions and attitudes - plays a role in Educational Technology. Yes it's about training and learning. But more importantly, it's about getting to know people and figuring out how all of their life's variables come together on the inside to affect the way they learn and do and live on the outside.
How do we get to know people? That's the beauty of analysis. In Edtec, I've learned about lots of different approaches to analysis, but it all really comes down to getting to know the variables affecting the person and the job. That, however, can be a very overwhelming and ill-defined task. Mager & Pipe's (1997) Performance Analysis Flow Diagram was my first performance analysis model, and I liked the structure and systematic approach that it offered. Their flow diagram presents the questions to ask and the actions to take depending on Yes/No answers to analysis questions. But I began to wonder what happens when things aren't as easy as Yes/No answers? Do all kinds of interventions fit into this process flow? In First Things Fast, Rossett describes how the emphasis of the analysis changes depending on whether the opportunity deals with a rollout, problem, people development, or strategy development (1999). For each of these opportunities, client emotions may differ, the key information sources differ, and the questions that elicit responses from those key sources may differ (Rossett, 1999). Using Rossett's performance analysis templates, I felt like I had a good handle on the information that I needed to gather during analysis, but I started worrying about getting it wrong. What if I couldn't get answers from everyone? I felt even more reassured as I came to grips with "analysis-paralysis" (Rossett, 1999). Too much analysis can hurt the effort. As Rossett explains, I should instead be aiming to "transcend habit and bias, to involve a wide array of sources, and to create a textured picture of possibilities" (p. 83). Now that sounded doable. Another performance analysis model that has helped me to visualize my efforts was presented in The Performance Technologist's Fieldbook, by Judith Hale. Hale calls the overlap between the individual, the organization, and the job the "Zone of Competence" (2007, p. 117). The more overlap that exists across these three variables, the greater the chance for optimal performance (Hale, 2007). Hale's model provides a visual that reminds me that all parts of each of those variables affect job performance in some way. All the pieces of the puzzle enlighten the success of our development and design efforts.
I'm pretty sure that I began doing my own instructional design as an undergraduate, even though I never called it that. I was helping friends study, creating study guides, and reteaching myself material that I found interesting. It was then that I realized how my friends and classmates had unique study habits and learning styles. Learning has intrigued me ever since. In the Cognitive Science undergraduate program at UCSD, I was introduced to the learning frameworks and theories of the field. Behaviorism was straightforward to me, but I was more curious about the brain's role in learning, and needed more than just a stimulus-respose and reinforcement explanation to learning. Most emphasis in my undergraduate program was placed on Cognitivism - and so I've always felt most loyal to the learning models of this framework: Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, Merrill's Component Display Theory, knowledge as schema-building, chunking and the use of mnemonics. I think this framework most closely resembles how I understand my own internal learning process to occur. When I encounter new information, I compare it to what I already know to see if it fits anywhere. If it's brand new, then maybe it's similar to a schema that I've already created for something else. I use examples, guide myself through, I perfom solo, and I look for support whenever necessary. I realize that doesn't mean that everyone learns this way. I also realize that it doesn't even mean that I learn this way. It is, however, the way that I perceive myself to learn.
So, in Edtec 544, I had a tough time getting a grasp on the Constructivist approach to learning. It challenged me: "What do you mean knowledge is constructed internally? No, that can't be right." But then I thought back to my favorite learning experience - an 8th grade class field trip that I took with Mr. Sherman to Gettysburg. As we each assumed the role of a Confederate soldier and walked the route of Pickett's charge, I constructed a new understanding of battlefields, war, loyalty, and defeat. We weren't given learning objectives; there were no learning materials, and no tests. Yet I'll never forget the heat and horror that I felt on that day in Gettysburg. When my husband came to the U.S. for the first time two years ago, he had a lot to learn about the culture of the U.S. Again, he didn't have mnemonics or learning activities, and there were no performance-based objectives to guide him through the new environment. I remember the day that he went to the DMV on his own. With very little preliminary guidance from me, he asked, waited, asked again, negotiated the situation and figured things out. I was quickly finding evidence of Constructivism around me. So, it was only natural to ask "Which learning perspective is right?" What became evident to me through my Edtec experience, is not that one theory is better than another. But that the design - whatever design you choose - must be grounded in theory to produce results. Hannafin & Hill (2007) explain this by saying, "Both perspectives can be considered valid. . .if they employ methods that are consistent with the underlying epistemological frame. . . We should not only recognize approaches reflecting different underlying foundations and assumptions - we should expect them" (p. 59). There are two Edtec projects in particular in which I tried to incorporate a more constructivist design perspective. My 670 Board Game design and my 671 Informal Learning design both create a learner-centered environment in which learners are not explicitly informed of the learning objectives. Instead they are encouraged to explore the context on their own through the activities that I've designed. I think my new appreciation and understanding of Constructivist design not only makes me a stronger instructional designer, but also a more adventurous learner.
How do we know that all of this is making a difference? There are two ideas that stand out to me when measuring success of the program that we implement. First, I have to know what success means for my client. What does success look like? For every company and organization success will mean different things. For Company ABC success might mean reducing production costs, while for Business XYZ success means higher client satisfaction. In 685 we learned that success needs to be measured in terms of the ultimate business goals of the organization. As the authors of The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning put it, "Ultimately every training initiative must produce a positive financial return, directly or indirectly" (p. 17). After defining success, the second thing to remember is to consult the data. In 690 we learned the importance of finding proof in the data that what we do is really making a difference. Yes we need to motivate our audience, understand the performance problem, listen to our client, and write good objectives. But that's because doing all of those things makes it more likely that we'll see the data improve after implementing our solution system. We looked at Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation with the emphasis on Level 3, the transfer from training to on-the-job behavior of the learner (Kirkpatrick, 1998). Kirkpatrick's method made it clear to me that success is not just about numbers and surveys. Success means recordable on-the-job change which, hopefully, also leads his fourth level of evaluation - the achievement of business goals for the organization (Kirkpatrick, 1998).
Just when I thought I had my arms wrapped around things, I took Systems (650) at a distance. I had started working at the San Diego Community College District as an Instructional Designer in their Distance Education program. So I was learning about Distance Education and supporting it simultaneously. It was perfect timing; I had a lot to learn. Just learning the history of Distance Education enlightened my understanding of the field. I came to understand the mix of cultures under which our current higher education system operates: the instructors' pre-industrial culture, the administration's industrial culture, and the students' post-industrial culture (Saba, 2007). I recognized that some of the faculty members at my work were reluctant to adopt new technologies because it changed the nature of the Craftperson role that they were used to (Saba, 2007). I enjoyed learning about these theoretical frameworks of Distance Education because I was able to apply them directly to the work I was doing. Systems changed my perspective, and suddenly simple cause and effect relationships no longer felt like the whole picture to me. Linear processes became too simplistic as I explored the value of systems-modelling software in my 650 final project. At first, the Systems perspective on Instructional Design left me feeling a bit worried about the future of my career. "What happened to good 'ole ADDIE?" Then I realized that what I had been learning all along was being confirmed through my understanding of Systems. It's not about just one theory or process. It's about a system of theories, a system of solutions, a system of evaluation, a system of processes. With the new Systems Dynamics perspective, I learned that designing learning environments would have to take into account the changing needs of my diverse learners. This would mean designing learning environments that are highly interactive and adaptable (Saba, 2007). Yes, Systems confused me at first. But once I got comfortable with it, I felt a lot more excited about being a part of this field.
Another exciting part of this field is the technology. That's what keeps me captivated. I'm constantly finding new web tools and ways to use them at home and at work. Technology has not only changed the way we learn, it's changed the way we speak. We now tweat, google, blog, and wait for things to rez. We have wikis, feeds, mashups, and tag clouds. With all the new tools out there, the challenge is ensuring that the technology fits the need. An accurate gauge of technology's effectiveness requires "caution, humility, and vigilant attention to outcomes" (Merrill & Wilson, 2007, p. 344). Technology has to be implemented according to enablers and constraints of the audience and the technology itself (Merrill & Wilson, 2007). Technology has to be designed so that people can connect to it. I think with the right combination of design and creativity, you can "speak" to people through technology. I attempted to do this in the web site that I designed for 541. In 541 I made sense of concepts that I didn't understand well before. First, I learned some basic web development vocabulary and tools: servers, upload, download, HTML, CSS, Dreamweaver. Second, after learning the four basic design principles in Robin Williams' The Non-Designer's Design & Type Books- Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, and Proximity - I finally understood why some websites were more appealing to me than others (2008). I had known that there were things that were "off" about some of websites out there, but I could never put my finger exactly on what it was. Knowing the design principles made me feel more in control. As Williams says in her book, "Once you can name something, you're conscious of it. You have the power over it. You own it. You're in control" (2008, p. 12). I felt more in control and more confident about creating visually appealing web designs that would speak to my audience.
New risks, new adventures, new rewards
I have taken risks, and I have learned so much. My 795A client experience was a highlight of the program for me, as it allowed me to gauge how my Edtec knowledge and interpersonal skills apply immediately to a real world work environment very different from my own. It was proof that with my Edtec degree, there are several new and exciting directions I know I can go. I love working in higher education, and I hope to continue to find professional opportunities that challenge me in my current position as an Instructional Designer at SDCCD Online. I hope to be part of the Distance Education field in the future so that I can witness the changes - especially the unforeseen changes - that the field will undergo. I do not feel bound to higher education, though. The right opportunity might pull me back to the corporate world as an Instructional Designer or Performance Technologist. I would like to put my cultural passion and Spanish language skills to use professionally, and I think there will be a chance to do so. Companies with cross-cultural workforces must overcome cultural differences to identify a common mission and a common identity. Cultural understanding connects us to each other at a very human level that has the potential to improve job performance and motivation. I'm also very interested in the cultural elements of learning - both informal and formal. Do people from different cultures learn differently? Do they have different motivations to learn? I would like to continue learning about the instructional impact of culture. I know that there are several directions for me to go after finishing this Educational Technology program. Most of all I am anxious to continue my education informally. This degree is only the beginning for me. I look forward to the risks and rewards- snags and adventures - yet to come.
References
Hale, J. (2007). The performance consultant’s fieldbook: tools and techniques for improving organizations and people. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J.R. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 53-61). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Mager, R. F. & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Merrill, M.D., Wilson, B. (2007). The future of instructional design (point/counterpoint). In Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 335-351). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Rossett, A. (1999). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Saba, F. (2007). Chapter Three, The Individual Faculty. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from distance-educator Edtec 650 Website: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_OnLine/CR/0003-Chapter3IndividualFaculty-Revised.pdf
Saba, F. (2007). Chapter Six, Postmodern Theory of Distance Education. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from distance-educator Edtec 650 Website: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_OnLine/CR/0006-Chapter6-PostModernTheory.pdf
Saba, F. (2007). Chapter Nine, Learning as a Complex Dynamic Process. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from distance-educator Edtec 650 Website: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_OnLine/CR/0009-Chapter9-learningasDynamicProc.pdf
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model
of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-59.
Wick, C., Pollack R., Jefferson, A., & Flanagan, R. (2006). The six disciplines of breakthrough learning: how to turn training and development into business results. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Williams, R. (2008). The non-designer's design and type books. (Deluxe ed.).Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.