What Should You Do With Your Life?

This week's topic is Careers and Professional Development. To explore this topic, we take a look at two articles. In Butler and Waldroop's (1999) article, employee retention takes a front seat. They claim that employers do not understand the concept of work satisfaction. Employers seem to think if someone is a successful employee, he or she is a happy employee. However, research shows that happy employees are those whose work aligns with their interests. Aligning word with those interests is called job sculpting, and employers would be smart to take it into consideration. The authors blame hiring practices and development practices as reasons why the system is currently broken. Hiring practices are based on abilities, not interests. The problem with professional development is that HR people are not your boss. If you want to truly develop as a professional, you and your boss need to collaborate on that. Another interesting aspect of this article was the discussion of the top eight life interests for people suited to business careers. These are application of technology, quantitative analysis, theory development and conceptual thinking, creative production, counseling and mentoring, managing people and relationships, enterprise control, and influence through language and ideas.

Paradise (2009) looks at the 2009 ASTD State of the industry report. The good news is that those of us in areas of study that align with workforce development and performance improvement are in a field that remains steady. At least in 2009 organizations were not cutting professional development budgets. That said, the employee to training staff ratio is quite high. So, while there is plenty of work to be done, organizations do not appear to be hiring more of us to do it. Outsourcing went down a little bit, which would suggest organizations are hiring their own development teams, rather than hiring outside companies.

While the job market in professional development tends to be seasonal, I've noticed a lot of jobs in that area over the last couple of years. My job board notices are constantly flashing with new entries for instructional designers, trainers, and workforce development coordinators. Perhaps, as more of us are hired into this field, we can design professional development programs that take into consideration people's interests and helps to bridge the gap between employee and supervisor for better collaboration.

References

Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (1999). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best people. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 144-152.

Paradise, A. (2009, November). The 2009 ASTD state of the industry report. T+D, 44-49.

Every Field has It's Issues

It appears a big issue in Human Performance Technology is research, or lack thereof. James Klein (2002) takes us through three years' worth of articles in Performance Improvement Quarterly to determine how many involved empirical research and what that research had to say. Apparently, about 36% of the articles were empirical research. This is quite high, on one hand, since the article also refers to a similar review of four publications that only turned up 7%. Yet, it is quite low, on the other hand, considering the importance of research in the field. Most of the research involved surveys and case studies. Direct observation was not common. The topics of these research articles tended more toward practices of professionals and training strategies rather than on whether or not different methods are actually working. Klein identifies the many gaps in HPT research that many consider vital to address.

Pershing, Lee, and Cheng (2008) gather the opinions of fifteen experts in the field regarding dominant methods, influential fields of study, and research and development within the field. Popular models included the ISPI model and models by Rummler, Gilbert, Mager-Pipe, and Tosti. The experts did not push for new models, but did call for better evaluation methods. Most appeared to be neutral with regard to interventions, not seeing them as the major focus of HPT. The top three most influential disciplines were "systems theory, information technology, and cognitive science" (Pershing, Lee, and Cheng, 2008). Although many other disciplines were also influential to some degree. There were mixed reviews of the current research in the field. Some even thought research was not needed. It's clear that most have an opinion about research. The problem is that many of those opinions conflict with one another.

This trend toward lack of research in HPT keeps coming up in my classes this semester. It has come up repeatedly in my course on needs analysis. Most of our readings are quite old, simply because there is so little research on the topic, especially with regard to which methods are most effective. In IT Foundations, it is coming up again. While instructional technology and HPT are both applied fields, instructional technology tends to be more academic, whereas HPT is more organizational. Organizations simply do not have the time, nor take the time, for research. Academia tends to focus on itself, leaving very few folks actually studying organization interventions and methods. The real question is what needs to change in order to support and encourage more research in this area? My suspicion is that it would require a paradigm shift on the part of modern business practices, as well as more incentives for academics to do field research in organizations. I welcome your thoughts.

References

 

Klein, J. D. (2002). Empirical research on performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 99-110.

Pershing, J. A., Lee, J. & Cheng, J. (2008). Current status, future trends, and issues in human performance technology, part 2: models, influential disciplines, and research and development. Performance Improvement, 47 (2), 7-15.

A Matter of Ethics

This week we are looking at performance standards and ethics within instructional technology and human performance technology. Honestly, this subject deserves an entire course just by itself. It's a matter of great importance within any professional association. I am a member of AECT, and there is a section in every Tech Trends issue devoted to ethics. A section of the website is devoted to the ethical principles agreed upon by the membership. This is true of other associations, as well.

One of those issues of Tech Trends was assigned reading on this subject. This particular article provides a provocative scenario. A student appeals to her professor regarding another student who was looking at pornography during class. The principle covered addressed the responsible use of media as being a commitment to society. While the article provided no closure to the fictional scenario, it offered possible explanations and solutions that could have been used to correct the problem before it became a problem. Like many ethical principles, this one contains a lot of grey area. I can think of all kinds of reasons naked people might pop up on someone's computer screen. I remember doing research on vermicomposting (composting with worms) and finding all the wrong websites for the topic. Indiana University has the famed Kinsey Institute. Insert a minor in sex education, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a student to be utilizing pornography for valid educational use. I've worked in community health for many years. My branch of health studies originated in Europe, and I can tell you that most of my textbooks feature a lot of naked people. Even if the student had been viewing those sites unjustifiably, the article points out that there is a big continuum between freedom of speech and expression and unlawful acts.

Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh (2003) take a look at ethical management and the fact that we view our own ethics above where they actually are. This brings up a question. If we do not know we are being unethical, how can we correct it? The first issue covered in this article is that of implicit bias, when we have biases we are not even aware of. I don't have to take the Implicit Association Test to know I have implicit bias. Leaving home and going away to college taught me that I soaked up a lot of bias along the way, despite years of rebelling against the prejudices around me. The next issue covered is in-group favoritism. Apparently, nepotism is alive and well in our culture. The problem is that our groups tend to be made up of people like us. Another problem is that people tend to think too highly of themselves. While confidence is identified as virtue in today's world, this article explains how this dilemma can lead to diminished group performance. Conflict of interest is another problem. I just started working for a research project of the Center for Research on Learning and Technology. Part of the new hire process is taking compliance training. Identifying conflicts of interest and recognizing which ones need to be disclosed is an important part of that training. The training program is quick to point out that we all have biases, whether or not we know it, that contribute to conflicts of interest. This is a good reason why data collection and analysis should always be triangulated. So, back to the question of how to correct unintentional questionable ethics. This article suggests collecting data, shaping your environment, and broadening your decision-making. That sounds much easier said than done.

Finally, Guerra (2006) takes an extended look at ethics with regard to HPT.  I found the comparison between the definitions of ethics, morals, values, and business ethics in this chapter interesting. The author explains that the chapter deals with normative ethics. This branch of ethics looks at acceptable behaviors. The consequentialist theory bases the morality of an action on its consequences. My undergraduate degree is in religious studies, and in that field this approach was identified as a developmentally childlike approach to morality. Some people never grow out of this stage. This author encourages reflection on where on the continuum of ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and ethical altruism one's organization stands when making ethical decisions. The next step up to consequence-based ethics is conforming to the rules. This is called intentionality in this chapter. Then, what follows is virtue ethics, which is based in developing good moral character. The author next addresses the question of whether or not ethics are relative or absolute, without actually answering the question. Let's face it. These questions have been debated for millennia, chances are good we are not coming up with the answers anytime soon. According to the four-stage process for making ethical decisions, one must recognize there is a moral question in order to make an ethical decision. This reminds me of the saying, "Hindsight is 20/20." It's much easier to recognize a morally questionable situation after the fact. The good news from all of this is that professional codes of ethics actually do make a difference. Therefore, AECT, ISPI, and all the other professional organizations that put so much effort in them are not wasting their time.  I could fill another blog post with the discussion and suggestions this author provides regarding ethical values in both instructional design and human performance. So, I'll just say that there are guidelines out there, and they are gaining more and more attention.

Guerra (2006) paints the picture of organizations that are growing in their focus on ethical standards, and I hope that is true. The chapter was written eight years ago, and I must say that one of my explicit biases is that ethics seems to have no place in modern business practices. I really hope that is an unfounded bias, and corporate America is far more ethically sound than I imagine it. I'm glad ethics is being covered in my foundations course. As I said before, I would love to see it offered as a required course so that we could explore some of the professional codes more thoroughly.

References

Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (Un) ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.

Guerra, J. A. (2006). Standards and ethics in human performance technology. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.) (2006), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 1024-1046). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Napper, V., Hadley, K., & Yeaman, A. R. J. (2010). Is Janet viewing porn in class!?!! TechTrends, 54(2), 22-23.

HPT Models and Concepts

Human Performance Technology exploration continues today with concepts and models. In the first reading, Welmoth, Prigmore, and Bray (2010) explore some of the major models in HPT. Then, Brethower (1999) discusses the relationship of general systems theory and behavioral psychology with regard to HPT. I'll finish up with some of my own observations.

First, let's take a look at the models, beginning with some of the early ones. Thomas Gilbert started things off in the field of HPT by stressing the importance of removing environmental barriers to performance. However, it was Joe Harless who gave us one of our first HPT models. His focus was on front-end analysis and the ADDIE stages. Later, Robert Mager's model brings in the notion of objectives focused on what you want the learner to be able to do. He provided a chart to help analyze the perceived performance problems. Geary Rummler's contribution was his focus on organizational performance, as well as individual performance.

Beyond these early ones, models can be classified as diagnostic models, process models, or holistic models. In simplest terms, diagnostic models tell us where to use HPT, while process models tell us how to use HPT. Holistic models are integrated. The four diagnostic models used as examples include William Deterline's Performer-Centered HPT Model, David Wile's Synthesized HPT Model, Tosti and Jackson's Multiple-level Model, and Danny Langdon's Language of Work Model. Many of the early models were process models. You can identify a process model by looking for five characteristics that are usually present in them. These include:

• Linear or sequential method
• Phased or grouped activities
• Gap analysis
• Intervention-oriented
• Including a feedback mechanism

 Finally, holistic models are non-linear, with overlapping domains. Examples include the Holistic HTP Model and the Three-Dimensional HPT Model. The bad news is that none of these models apply to every situation. We still have to use our critical thinking skills to determine which one to apply or adjust for the task at hand.

Underlying the models are two major concepts HPT is built upon. General Systems Theory isn't really just one concept. It actually borrows from many different concepts from many different fields. To make things simpler, Brethower (1999) conveniently breaks it up into seven principles. These are:

• Open systems - resources need to come from outside
• Information processing - exactly what it sounds like
• Guided systems - energy is directed
• Adaptive systems - also what it sounds like
• Energy channeling - prioritizing
• Environmental intelligence - understanding the environment
• Subsystem Maximization - limitations imposed by environment

Behavioral psychology relates back to behaviorism. There seems to be no end to the ways behaviorism can be linked back to every aspect of IT. In this case, it is used to determine why people do what people do. Once we know that, we can link it back to general systems theory, which tells us what people need to do to thrive, and come up with good solutions to performance problems.

Half of my professional life is spent designing and/or maintaining professional development programs and resources. When I look at my own methods of addressing performance problems, I notice I tend toward the process models more than the diagnostic models. I'm not completely sure why, and will have to give that some thought. Perhaps, it is simply that I'm new to all this. There is some evidence that novices need the crutch of a process to follow until they are confident enough to branch out from that. Maybe the rapid design world I live in does not allow me the time to think diagnostically. It will be interesting to see how I develop in this topic area as I continue with my program.

Resources

Brethower, D. M. (1999). General systems theory and behavioral psychology. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 67-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. 

Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.

What is HPT and How Do You Do It?

There might be a pattern to all of this. I've seen a lot of articles and discussions in social media about whether or not universities should offer, much less require, courses in the foundations of IST. After exploring these foundations over the past several weeks, I have to say I am on the side of offering the courses. This exploration has been eye-opening for me and helped me understand my field better. After this week's readings, I'm seeing how all the topics flow into each other.

A few weeks were devoted to the theories underlying instructional technology - behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories - as well as where these fit into the history of IT. These theories popped up again in the readings about Human Performance Technology (HPT). Reading the history of HPT was like re-reading the history of the IT field. Both Ferond (2006) and Stolovitch (2007) cover the historical foundations of this popular area of IT.

Once upon a time, people learned how to do their jobs through apprenticeships. This remained the same for a very long time, much like methods of teaching in education. Then came the Industrial Revolution. There were lots of theories about how to increase the productivity of workers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  By the nineteenth century people figured out that miserable employees weren't productive, and we need a literate workforce. That second point tied back into the history of IT again, because education is required for literacy. Frederick Taylor promoted the idea of employees as extensions of the machines being used in the factories where they worked.

Eventually, the focus switched to the worker, much like the focus in education turned to the learner. this happened in the 20s and 30s. HPT became goal-oriented rather than productivity-oriented. Notice that this is also around the time that behaviorist theory was developing with John Watson. In fact, the father of HPT Thomas Gilbert was a graduate student of B. F. Skinner. When cognitivist theorists started exploring how it is that learners learn, they were also influencing the field of HPT and performance improvement as managers tried to determine why learning wasn't always enough to get the results they wanted. Robert Mager influenced education with his focus on instructional objectives, but he also influenced HPT by suggesting training wasn't always the answer. As with education, HPT felt the influence of the audiovisual movement and changes brought about during World War II.

The field of HPT inspired the formation of professional organizations. Just as DAVI experienced a major shift in focus and became AECT, the National Society of Programmed Instruction (NSPI) became the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) after an influx of businesspeople into the organization. Both education and HPT are also being influenced by our age of questioning. While instructional technologists question whether we might need some new theories, HPT experts are questioning whether they might need some new models. This brings us right back to the trends and issues readings of the past couple of weeks.

Pershing (2006) and Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) take a look at different models and approaches to HPT. It's interesting to compare the two definitions of HPT these authors offer. Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) is pretty straightforward. "PT is a systematic, comprehensive approach to improving job performance" (p. 6). Pershing (2006) gets a little more verbose with it. The definition given here is "the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic" (p. 6). They both agree on it being comprehensive, a point that seemed to be criticized in the articles blasting ISD recently.

Pershing's Performance Improvement Model begins with perception analysis, where one asks who, how, and why. Then, one looks at the mission, goals, and objectives of the organization. This includes looking at values, norms, culture, structure, performance, and environment. Next comes performance analysis. Pershing stresses the importance of moving from a macro vision to a micro vision in this part of the process. Then, one selects the best interventions. Out of these interventions, which are the most feasible? Only then does design, development, and implementation come into play. Finally, evaluation is conducted and feedback given. While this model may at first appear linear, Pershing (2006) is quick to write, "At any given time in the process, one may have taken five steps forward and have to go back two or three steps to collect and analyze new data and change or modify responses to those data" (p. 27).

The Human Performance Technology Model described by Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) begins with performance analysis. This stage includes a look at the organizations, the gaps, and the environment. Next comes cause analysis, followed by intervention selection, design, and development. This is followed by implementation of interventions, which is then followed by evaluation. On the whole, these two models do not appear that different. They both are heavily modeled after the ADDIE approach. I can imagine the people complaining about ISD having plenty to say against both of these models. Yet, all of the authors this week seem to think HPT isn't going anywhere.

It is apparent from these readings that the history and theories of HPT and educational technology have coincided significantly. There are obviously many different views of how this performance improvement thing should be done. Some think it is time for a change. Others think it's all good. Now that we are a few years beyond these articles, I find it interesting to note that HPT has come full circle. For the past couple of years, the idea of apprenticeship has been making a comeback in the research, theory, and practice of workplace development. It will be interesting to see where the future leads us.

References

Ferond, C. (2006). The origins and evolution of human performance technology. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 155-187). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Pershing, J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.) (2006), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Stolovitch, H. D. (2007). The development and evolution of human performance improvement In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 134-146). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education.

Van Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance technology - defined. In Fundamentals of performance technology. (pp. 2-20). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.

The Two Debates

People love to to debate issues. Apparently, the movers and shakers of instructional technology are no different. This has been evidenced by the interesting back and forth between Clark and Kozma regarding the place of media in instructional technology. Another issue addressed in this week's readings involved whether or not ISD is dead. Both issues brought up some interesting questions.

First, does media play a role in learning in and of itself? Apparently, back in the 80s, Richard Clark wrote an article claiming that media have no impact on learning. In fact, it is instructional method that is holds the key. A decade later, Robert Kozma (1994) doesn't really argue this claim, but he does suggest an obligation (or at least an opportunity) to make media impact learning. He thinks researcher's holding on to Behaviorist beliefs is the key to why this has not happened yet. He argues that research needs to embrace a more cognitivist and constructivist point of view to move forward. He supports his argument by exploring ThinkerTools and the Jasper Woodbury Series. He calls for researchers to search for what causes learning to occur. He calls practitioners to design media that produces new methods.

This challenge does not go unanswered. Clark (1994) responds with an article of his own in response both to Kozma and his other critics. He states that his claim that media have no real effect on learning is not new news. Many others established this fact before him. One challenge he received was that it was the attributes of media that influenced learning, not the whole of media. Clark responds that if another attribute achieves the same goal, then it cannot be the attribute that influenced the learning. He further states that if multiple attributes achieve the same goal, then we have a responsibility to choose the least expensive route. Many critics stated that method and media are the same. His response is that any given medium is capable of a number of methods. Another argument is that research has shown learning benefits from different media. His response to that is those studies failed to control for method of instruction. One critic argued that his claim that method of instruction is the key was empirical. Clark did not argue, but stated the claim was just a hypothesis. Throughout the rest of his article, he basically says the same thing in several different ways. Essentially, he continues to assert that research does not control for instructional methods when determining the success of media for learning.

Another hot debate in the field is whether or not ISD is dead. One thing was clear from my readings. Ron Zemke really likes the phrase "stripped to its shorts" to refer to the intrinsic place of ADDIE within ISD. The phrase shows up in both the articles. The April 2000 article touches on some of the arguments given by trainers who believe ISD's time has passed. The first argument is that it is too slow of a process. The second argument is that it doesn't ever really reach its goal. Third, the solutions it produces are not good ones. Finally, it is stuck in the past. The follow up article in February 2002 summarizes some of the debate that happened following that article. Some argued that ISD isn't the problem, but the way it is used. Some argued the complaints were about older versions of ISD. While some criticize what they see as a linear, systematic method with not enough flexibility, others felt that it provided a sense of professionalism. Still others argued that the problem was not enough ISD, not too much.

With regard to the media debate, I don't believe I agree with Clark or Kozma. If I had to agree with something, I would say I lean toward Clark's view that method is more important than media. I don't believe media can ever truly replace human interaction, though some advancements in artificial intelligence make me wonder. I certainly do not agree that we should force media to replace method, any more than I believe we should design online learning around the tools we want to use rather than choosing the best tools for the content. I think media is a necessary enhancement to method for learning. It's like the Benadryl IV they give you prior to a procedure requiring twilight sleep (where you are sedated but conscious, and don't remember it afterwards). The Benadryl makes the anesthesia work better, but you don't want to have the procedure done on the Benadryl alone.

As for the ISD debate, I simply cannot relate to it. Perhaps, this debate sparked changes in the field that addressed all these problems, because instructional design today seems to be very flexible. I was always taught that ADDIE was a guide, not really a model, and as we have seen in all the different models throughout the history of the field, not everyone considers it a linear process. I've seen ISD correct the same kinds of problems the articles were discussing. For example, the statements about training that didn't produce results struck me as strange. I use instructional design to correct that problem. I've not ever seen it cause the problem. So, maybe I've just been spoiled by getting my education at a time when these issues aren't related to IST, or maybe my experiences simply do not match other people's. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about it.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21- 29.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-53.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D, 42(2), 7-19.

Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34.

Is History Repeating?

This week I'm exploring the big picture history of Instructional Technology. Two themes emerged as I read through the material. First, new technologies are slow to find their ways into the hearts and classrooms of everyday teachers, particularly in the K-12 environment. Second, Europe has consistently been ahead of the United States with regard to adopting new technologies into the educational systems.

Michael Molenda (2008) takes his readers through the history beginning with the Sophists, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They were some of the first to emphasize the importance of cognition and critical thinking. Later, Comenius introduced us to classroom management and the importance of play as a tool for learning. Then, came the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, opening us up to new worlds of educational media.

New forms of media mark the milestones of IT history from that point forward. Molenda (2008) starts with slide projectors using handpainted slides and oil lamps until the oil lamps were replaced by incandescent bulbs. He says, "Silent films began to be used in schools as early as 1910' (p. 6). This led to catalogs of available films and educational museums. Eventually, folks figured out that the media was not as important as how the media was used, this was the same conclusion people came to with regard to the teaching machines of Behaviorism. Yet, Reiser (2007) reminds us that not everyone thought that way. He states that some people felt teachers were just another tool, not the primary mover in the instructional transaction.

In 1910 the phonograph brought sound into availability to add to the visual elements. Unfortunately, the educational system preferred the visuals without sound so that teachers could modify them for individual purposes. All this new media and the discussion about how to best use it led to the development of organizations devoted to audiovisuals in the 1920s. Then came educational radio. This one was a hit. Yet, it still wasn't really incorporated into lesson plans, again because teachers didn't find it flexible enough. All of these forms of media were quite popular in Europe, particularly Britain and France. The big names with regard to educational radio were the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), NHK in Japan, and CBC in Canada. In the U.S., Reiser (2007) states that "while the field continued to grow, the educational community at large was not greatly affected by that growth" (p. 19).

World War II created a successful platform for the use of films for educational and propaganda purposes for all parties involved. The military uses of media had a tremendous impact on instructional technology, as this was the context where best practices for instruction were tested and studied. That said, Molenda (2008) states, "Most of the basic research on visual and auditory perception has been done outside the field of educational technology" (p. 9). Despite its use in adult settings, K-12 teachers were not jumping on the bandwagon. They claimed a lack of convenient accessibility to the materials as a barrier.

The BBC found itself, once again, in the forefront with educational television as early as the 1930s. The war had a large influence on this medium, as well. By the 1950s educational television was being broadcast directly in schools in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. Cognitivism changed the way TV was being used in the classrooms. Rather than just replacing lecture, it was suggested that TV become more participative. As television became a common item, it's value as a tool in developing countries became apparent. At the same time, television for instruction in the U. S. was waning due to cost and resistance by teachers. Then, came the 80's and the advent of widespread computer use. At the same time models for instructional technology were becoming more widespread. The creation of new audio-visuals and other products became a separate area of specialization.

Molenda (2008) focuses on the various paradigm shifts throughout the history from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism, to a blending of the the three. The latter had much to do with computers in education. Once again, we see the pattern of teachers not really using them in day-to-day instruction. Reiser (2007) states that they had little influence as late as the mid 90s. What struck me as I was reading this was that computers actually came to my school system before educational television, and I was in relatively small schools. My graduating class was only 210 people. I took my first computer class in 1988. It was at least three years later before they installed televisions in our homerooms to broadcast a student news program. They were short-lived.

Then came the Internet. Once again, Britain jumped on this new technology and its value for education with its Open University. Now, distance education is everywhere, but many traditional universities are slow to offer entire degree programs via distance learning. However, they have been quick to incorporate these technologies in their face-to-face programs. Is history repeating itself? It does not appear so. What makes this medium different? Why did the other types of media have such a hard time breaking into mainstream education, while Internet-based technologies have been embraced? Reiser (2007) has a few theories. He believes their versatility and interactivity play a role. What do you think?

Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-20). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Reiser, R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 17-34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Constructivism and Cognitivism: The Yin and Yang of Foundational Theories?

When we covered cognitivism and constructivism in my masters program, I simply couldn't grasp the difference between them. Many of my peers seemed as clueless as I, and my professor couldn't really explain it, either. Thankfully, this week's readings on these two theories finally made it all click for me. While they both address what happens during learning, cognitivism looks at it more from a neurological standpoint, whereas constructivism looks at it more psychologically.

Silber and Foshay (2006) do an excellent job of explaining cognitivism in an organized, well-outlined method. They explain that cognitivism covers selective perception, limits in sensory stores, and how our short-term and long-term memories affect learning. They also cover the difference between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. The model covered in this reading is called the Cognitive Instructional Design Model, which includes five tasks of learners when they are learning. Learners choose the information to focus on; they link that new information with existing information in their knowledge banks; they organize all this information until they can assimilate it with their existing knowledge; finally, they strengthen the new knowledge within their memory. That said, none of that has to be done in any particular order. The rest of the chapter is devoted to explaining how to put the model into practice when lesson planning. All of which comes at the perfect time, as I am creating lesson plans for an upcoming volunteer training at work. I foresee keeping this reading as a reference tool in the future.

Driscoll (2005) helps me to understand why we all had so much trouble understanding the difference between the two theories in that other class. For one thing, "there is no single constructivist theory of instruction" (p. 387). Constructivist theorists are, to some degree, all over the place. In addition to being difficult to define in its own right, constructivism draws, in large part, from cognitivism. The difference being that cognitivists put their attention on how the learning is happening, and constructionists put their attention on who is doing the learning. Constructivists force us to deal with uncontrollable aspects of instruction, for "knowledge constructions do not necessarily bear any correspondence to external reality" (p. 388). Cognitive theory touches on perception with regard to selective perception, but constructivism emphasizes the importance of perception on learning and how we test those perceptions. In fact, contructivists encourage this testing by taking learner-centered education to a whole new level. This has drawn a fair amount of criticism to this theory.

Now that I am better able to compare and contrast these two theories, I have a greater appreciation for them. I am especially drawn to constructivism, particularly social constructivist theory, though I recognize its limits. They have much in common, and the differences are subtle. the way I keep them straight is to see cognitivism as addressing the how, constructivism as addressing the who, and both addressing the what of learning. I would be interested to hear other people's strategies for comparing and contrasting these two theories.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 384-410). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Silber, K. H., & Foshay, W. R. (2006). Designing instructional strategies: A cognitive perspective. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (370-413). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Behaviorism's Influence on Instructional Technology

Last week's angst over how to connect the underlying theories of instructional technology with the other theories that make up my educational experience has been reduced this week due this week's readings on behaviorism. Driscoll (2005) covers a history and overview of radical behaviorism. Saettler (1990) covers a history of behaviorism, in general. Finally, Molenda (2008) is a nostalgic article about technologies related to programmed instruction.

Driscoll (2005) gave me a better appreciation of behaviorism. The reading provided some history, described the theory in organized detail, covered the principles of behaviorism and the types of reinforcements used, and addressed some of the right and wrong ways to use it. What really turned me around on the theory were the sections on its contributions to instruction, mainly because I recognized them in qualities I appreciate about classes I've taken and taught in the past. Behavior modification, classroom management, and instructional objectives applications did not come as a surprise. That is what I primarily think of when someone talks about behaviorism. What I had not attributed to behaviorism were the modules effective online courses are broken into. Another takeaway was that there is not just one type of behaviorism. There was quite a bit of disagreement even among behaviorists and a lot of overlap in different approaches, especially in the 1960s.

Saettler (1990) was quite a bit harder to read. This reading provided a history lesson, but it was all over the place. That inspired me to take learning styles into consideration. Thus, a timeline was born. Tiki-toki allowed me to organize all the information from the readings into an interactive visual representation to lessen confusion. The program also allows for categories, which allowed me to color code the source material for the timeline "stories." Right now, there is a lot of clutter in the heyday of behaviorism. I hope to go back in later to remove some of the less essential "stories" to make the timeline easier to read.

Sometimes, the optional readings professors assign end up being the most interesting. Such was the case last week with the Smith and Boling (2009) article and this week with Molenda (2008). The author provides background information on programmed instruction, and the respect held for PI comes across strongly. Particularly interesting was the section discussing how PI was addressed in presentations and publications, and how it influenced the name change from DAVI to AECT. The sentence that really stood out to me was "The innnovators who followed were similarly motivated to expand human freedom and dignity by giving learners more customized programs of instruction in a humane, caring context with frequent one-to-one contact" (Molenda, 2008).

That sentence, more than anything else I read, made me reconsider my previous perceptions of behaviorism. Behaviorism as a theory is not black and white. There is a lot of grey and a lot of color in there. Behaviorism is made up of a lot of different opinions about how to achieve the goal. Finally, there are many aspects of learner-centered, quality online education that have their roots in behaviorism.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Radical behaviorism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 29-69). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Molenda, M. (2008). The programmed instruction era: When effectiveness mattered. TechTrends, 52(2), 52-58.

Saettler, P. (1990). Behaviorism and educational technology. In The evolution of American educational technology (pp. 286-317). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

 Smith, M. K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17.

Are You an Educator or a Trainer?

While considering the theories, models, and frameworks surrounding Instructional Technology, I struggled with how corporate-focused most resources on the subject seem to be. Perhaps, this is why the majority of instructional technology jobs are in the corporate sector and in the military. These tend to focus on training and human performance. As a humanistic educator with experience in the liberal arts, I have often asked myself why I have such an interest in a field that seems so far removed from my own educational philosophy.

These questions came up again on Tuesday during a webinar I was moderating for work. Dr. Bruce Jackson, who was presenting the webinar, provided some final thoughts. One of them was perhaps the best comparison and contrast of pedagogy and andragogy I have seen. I'm not sure where he gleaned these definitions, or if he came up with them himself, but they were:

"Pedagogy: Instructional methods of teaching. Everybody learning the same thing and in the same way.

Andragogy: Everybody learning what s/he needs to learn and in his or her own way"(Jackson, 2013). 

I found myself asking how this idea of andragogy fits with the instructional technology frameworks I've been learning about, such as the Dick and Carey Model that is systems-based (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009). They seem to be more applicable to this definition of pedagogy. What's a designer to do if the instructional goal varies among students? What if the instructional goal is to help students become self-actualized? How do you write performance objectives for that? Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) contrasted education and training without ever revealing how instructional technology fits into each. However, they also wrote, "Instructional design starts by first identifying the performance problem and never assumes that instruction is the answer to all problems." Perhaps, that explains why I have a much easier time using the various frameworks with a class on Ayurvedic pulse assessment, but a harder time applying it to a philosophy class. 

Some of the literature seems to suggest one needs to be a behaviorist, cognitivist, or constructionist to be an instructional technologist. Other literature suggest the theories, models, and frameworks of instructional technology can be applied to any course by anyone. I want to believe the latter of the two. I am still struggling with what that looks like. Hopefully, by the time I get through my program of studies, I will have a better grasp of it. Of course, I welcome thoughts, comments, and feedback on the topic from others.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). Introduction to instructional design. The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.) (pp. 1-13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jackson, B. H. (2013). Finding your flow: A personal leadership model for any meaningful life arena. (PowerPoint). The Institute of Applied Human Excellence. 

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Introduction to the instructional design process. Designing effective instruction. (5th ed.) (pp. xviii-26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Are We What We Are Not?

As I explore the definitions of instructional technology throughout the ages, one observation stands out in particular. A lot of the discussion surrounding what it is has been focused on what it is not. Perhaps, this is because instructional technology is such a broad, fluid, dynamic field that describing what it is not is easier and/or less time-consuming than describing what it is. I hope that is the case. Sometimes, non-examples help more than examples. Still, I like to feel my feet on solid ground, but there has been no firm foundation with regard to defining instructional technology.

In A History of the AECT's Definitions of Educational Technology (2008), Januszewski and Persichitte describe some of the discussions that led to the various definitions over time, starting with the 1963 definition back when AECT was DAVI. Reiser (2008) reminds us that prior to this time the focus was on "instructional media." The 1963 discussion centered around what was wrong with the definition of audiovisual communications. Januszewski and Persichitte (2008) state that the major problem was the definition was product-based rather than theory-based. "The 1963 definition was heavily influenced by James Finn's (1953) six characteristics of a profession.... Finn (1953) evaluated the audiovisual field against each of the six characteristics and determined that the audiovisual field did not meet the most fundamental characteristic: an organized body of intellectual theory and research" (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008). The 1963 definition was meant to correct that.

Less than a decade later DAVI became AECT. Leadership wanted to emphasize that the field was not just about audiovisuals anymore. This seemed like a good time to also emphasize that the field preferred learner-centered education, not teacher-centered education. The authors of the 1972 definition no longer supported the view of educational technology as a theory. Instead, they viewed it as a field of study.

The 1972 definition was short-lived. The 1997 version grew from more things the field was not. For example, the field is not just instructional technology. "The reasoning was that since instruction was considered a subset of education then instructional technology was a subset of educational technology (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008). This definition also emphasized that educational technology was not a theory like the earliest definitions, not a field like the previous definition, but a process that encompassed both of these, as well as it being a profession.

This definition managed to last a long time. The next definition was not until 1994. This time, we were back to instructional technology because the thing we were not was inclusive. Apparently, educational technology had been too broad and all-encompassing. The authors of the 1994 definition wanted to be more specific, not just with the title of the field, but with how the word theory was defined with regard to it. Unfortunately, this definition did not last, either. We eventually decided we were not "the systems approach to instructional development" (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008) and wanted everyone to know it.

Admittedly, this analysis has been a bit "glass half empty." A more even-handed view would be to say that while each definition attempted to separate itself from what we did not want to be, there were also moments of recognizing what we do want to be. We want to be more than just a product. We want to be more than just a theory or a field. We want to empower learners. We want to define ourselves as a profession, so that there is no mistaking who we are and what we are about. According to Reiser (2007), "the 1977 definition statement was the first such statement to mention the analysis phase of the planning process." By the time we get to 2006, the definition has been cut down to only one sentence. Still, there was a lot being said in that one little sentence.

Perhaps, wherever there is change, there will be both moving away from and moving toward something. "A fundamental aspect of educational communications and technology is change" (Spector, 2008). If that is true, perhaps I should make peace with the fact we will sometimes have to focus on what we are not. Still, I hope we will place most of our attention on what we aspire to be.

References

Januszewski, A., & Persichitte, K. A. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. In A. Januszewski& M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology (pp. 259-282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, R. A. (2007). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 2-9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Spector, M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 21-28). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Orientation Week as a New Grad Student

You can view my latest post in the ACUI The Commons here.

A First Time for Everything

The 2013 IST Conference was held on February 28th and March 1st. This was my second IST Conference and my first time on the planning committee. While my role as Adult Education Liaison was more of an advisory role than a planning role, I had the opportunity to witness all the hard work from many people that goes into planning a successful conference. I have an even greater appreciation now for the heads of associations tasked with coordinating week-long conferences. My heart goes out to you!

The conference also allowed me the opportunity to facilitate my first conference roundtable discussion. The subject of the roundtable was Building Community in Online Education Programs. It was well attended, suggesting this is a topic of interest in the instructional systems technology community. Some of the discussion prompts included:


* If successful online education requires a different pedagogy than f2f instruction, is the same true of online community building? Is more required than just creating virtual versions of traditional community building environments?
* What types of interaction do online distance education students feel they are missing, if any?
* What types of interactions do students and instructors wish they had outside of the formal classroom environment, if any?
* What is lacking in current strategies being utilized to build program-wide community?
* What other questions do you think are relevant?

There was a lot of conflicting experiences about community within online education courses among the participants. Conversation kept going to community within online courses, and I had to continually ask questions about what happens outside of the class to bring the focus back to programs as a whole. Some students wanted community outside the classroom, many did not. There was some discussion about the difference between interaction and community, between social interaction and networking. I came away with the additional questions of what impact does age, program of study, location, etc., play on the desire for community? What effect do they have on the method of community desired?

Overall, these firsts provided me with new perspectives. Isn't that the point of a conference, to initiate transformational learning in the attendees? Well, sometimes it can lead to transformational learning on the part of planners and facilitators, also. When has attending a conference led to new perspectives for you?