Defining the Field

I have never tried to define the field of Educational Technology. I decided to attempt a definition before delving into the text Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology by Reiser and Dempsey.

Here is what I came up with:

My personal definition of Educational Technology is very general. Educational Technology is any use of technology (be it as simple as a copy machine or video, or as innovative as online vodcasting, class blogs, or cell phone apps) that may be used to enhance, enrich, or add efficiency to student learning. I prefer the term educational technology over instructional technology because, in my opinion, the former implies a more student-centered view of how the technology may be used. For example, if a student uses technology to create a product that expresses his knowledge and ideas, this is not an “instructional experience” as instruction is presented from an entity separate from the student. It is rather an “educational experience”, as “education” may come from something the student himself has done. In other words, one cannot self-instruct, but one can self-educate.

After reading the first chapter of the text I realized that I was guilty of that which the the text accuses many of; most equate “instructional technology” with “instructional media”, or the tools themselves. Perhaps because I am a librarian, I find myself ever-searching for resources, media, and materials. As a teacher and instructional designer, I must also think about the process involved in applying these technologies. This is exactly the shift in thinking that I found to occur as I read this chapter.

From reading the text I have moved from thinking mainly about the technological resources to thinking more about the processes involved in applying them. It will be my responsibility as a librarian and technology leader in my school to not only acquire and provide media, but also to think through ideas such as: How does this serve to solve a learning problem? Why is this use of technology better than that which has previously been done? Has integration of this technology been sufficiently planned? Throughout the integration or implementation, and upon completion, has the use of this technology been critically evaluated and reflected upon?

The textbook calls this field “instructional design and technology”. I think this is appropriate because this label lends itself to a more complete view of the field.

The Instructional Design Process

Last Spring I completed my practicum in the school library and was given several opportunities to develop technology-based lessons. The American Association of School Librarians (AASL) has published a set of Standards for the 21st-CenturyLearner that  librarians should use when designing lessons and activities. One such lesson that a fellow librarian and I collaborated on during my practicum was to teach K-12 Online Database research skills. The lesson focused on AASL Standard 1.1.1 Follow an inquiry-based process in seeking knowledge in curricular subjects, and make the real world connection for using this process in own life. 

According to Branch and Merrill (chapter 2), instructional design models should include six characteristics. The first of these is that “instructional design is student centered.” I believe this lesson was student centered because we designed this instruction so that students would come away with the skills necessary to effectively and efficiently conduct inquiry-based research. The beauty of inquiry-based research is that students are able to explore and deepen knowledge in areas of personal interest. The method that we used for teaching this was, as the text recommends, “a means to the end”. The outcome of student learning was more important to us than the method used. Characteristic two is that “Instructional design is goal oriented.” Our goal was as follows: Students will develop leading and supporting questions to begin research on the K-12 Databases. Characteristic three is that “instructional design focuses on meaningful performance.” If successful, our students would be able to apply the research technique to any authentic real-world problem, interest, or question that they might need to research. Characteristic four is that “instructional design assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way.” Our method for evaluating the learning outcomes was more qualitative than quantitative. The criterion for showing attainment of these research skills was that the student’s leading and supporting questions were open-ended and relevant to the topic, and key words and subject areas identified were relevant to the leading and supporting questions. 

Upon reviewing the lesson I feel that, thus far, we were on track with the six characteristics of design prescribed in this chapter. Our lesson, however, began to veer from this course at characteristic five (instructional design is empirical, iterative, and self-correcting). In designing this lesson we had no data or evidence that this method would be successful, nor did we make a point of collecting data throughout. Not to undermine the importance of designing a lesson and making adjustments based on existing, formative, and summative data, but I suppose we were more interested in our end result. In relation to characteristic six (Instructional design typically is a team effort), other than consulting a few other reputable sources for ideas on best practices, and the fact that the other librarian and I wore several hats, there was no “team."

I would like to point out that when put into practice, the lesson was a success. I cannot say that I would change much about the design if I were to do it again. 

Instructional Media

Reiser and Gagné (1983) defined instructional media as “the physical means via which instruction is presented to learners. However, in chapter 3, it is pointed out that many in the field separate teachers, texts, and chalkboards from instructional media. The reasoning behind this is that instructional media is considered supplemental while teachers, texts, and chalkboards are considered fundamental. Reiser ,therefore, re-states the definition of instructional media as follows: “the physical means, other than the teacher, chalkboard, and textbook, via which instruction is presented to learners.”

I would be inclined to argue that teachers, textbooks, and chalkboards are instructional media. The Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS), defines media as “material in any format that carries and communicates information content.” Teachers and textbooks, although fundamental to instruction, are still indeed but mediums for presenting instruction. Why are they fundamental? I believe teachers are fundamental because instruction is designed for human subjects; therefore it is imperative that another human (teacher) guide the process of instruction in some way. Textbooks are possibly considered fundamental because they are so common place in education. In fact, I am using a textbook even now as I write this paragraph, as an instructional medium to learn more about instructional media. Admittedly textbooks are not always fundamental, but still they have come to be accepted as a practical and cost-effective medium for dispersing instruction and ideas. There may be a better medium than the textbook on the instructional horizon, but for now, textbooks are an accessible medium to most any student.

It is not the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction.  Although instructional media can include useful tools in enriching the learning of students, I believe the purpose of instructional design is to most efficiently and effectively instruct via whatever medium necessary.