Week Three Response

I'm not required to add this week's response to the reading to my blog, but as I created this blog for the class, I'm doing it anyway.  We were asked to read chapters one and three of Trends and Issues in Instruction Design and Technology by Robert A. Reiser and John V. Dempsey.  Then we were asked to respond to the definitions in the reading as well as some of the questions raised.  Here goes.

Like many language constructs, the term "instructional technology" has had an evolving definition since its earliest uses in the first decade of the twentieth century.  In the earlier half of the 1900's, it would seem that the term mostly referred to different media used to assist instruction in the classroom.  During much of the latter half of the century, a switch was made to focus on the process of designing, implementing, managing, and evaluating educational experiences in a meaningful and effective way for students.  (By the way, students in the context of instructional design and technology extend beyond the traditional view of K-12 students.  It applies to them, yes, but it also applies to workers, professionals, military members, and basically anyone who needs to learn new ideas and skills.)  Reiser and Dempsey maintain that both aspects need to be recognized, as well as asserting that the intent is "to improve learning and performance" (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  They also claim  that most people, including many individuals in the profession, will list of types of media when asked what educational technology means, but they will miss the whole concept of designing, preparing, and using the media in a manner to improve learning and performance.

Maybe I have the pleasure to work with dedicated, intelligent teachers at my school, but based on my experience, I must disagree with the last claim.  The people I work with are for the most part young, and they understand that using media in the classroom is not the same as utilizing technology effectively in the classroom. They know that they can't just show a picture of a cell to a class and say, "There you go.  Learn."  They know that while pictures of various cells definitely have their part in a Biology classroom, the lessons and processes used to impart the knowledge and understanding to the students must be well planned and executed; they know that ideally, mere pictures are not enough, but rather the use of technology that engages students in conversation is more effective.

An older definition of the term "instructional media" was the physical means by which instruction is presented.  I was surprised by this definition, as it is extraordinarily broad.  (Hey, cool, I'm "media"!)  Reiser and Dempsey want to ruin my enjoyment of being called media by defining it for their purposes as the physical means... other than teacher, chalkboard, and textbook.  Joking aside, though, this is for the best.  Teachers have been used since oral tradition societies, textbooks since the dawn of the printing press, and chalkboards (sort of) since elk were scribbled onto cave walls.  These things are hardly cutting edge, highly engaging tools.

I've been given a hypothetical situation.  I'm an evaluator at a Pseudo Middle School, which has been given laptops and internet access for every teacher, student, and mouse (presumably) at the school.  The innovation had very little effect on the manner of instruction.  One possible reason for this is that teachers are resistant to change, especially change that is instituted from the top-down.  For the sake of an example, we'll say one teacher that didn't change instruction was Mr. Fossil, who's in his 47th year of teaching at PMS.  He's seen film, television, and desktop PCs enter the classroom with little change in the resulting learning, so now this punk administrator is telling him to use the internet to teach, and he'll be damned if it's going to change anything.  A second possible reason that the experiment was not immediately successful could be that teachers utilized ineffective teaching methods on the computers.  The old drill and practice method is not looked upon favorably by just about anyone, and it can be done on computers just as unsatisfactorily as it can be done on paper or slates.  A third possible reason for the manner of instruction remaining stagnant, and this could be the cause of the second reason, could be mediocre instructional quality of the materials given to teachers prior to this experiment.  It's not as if laptops with internet access are a magic wand - teachers need to be trained how to utilize them effectively, and if the teachers aren't trained effectively with high quality instructional materials, they haven't learned effectively, so they won't perform effectively.

To mitigate these hypothetical factors, I would recommend two things.  First: while the materials are mandatory for all teachers and students, their use is not mandated.  The School Board might have a fit: "Why are we spending all of this money on materials if you aren't going to make teachers use them?!"  However, Mr. Fossil will never willing use and effectively utilize something that his young-whipper-snapper boss tells him to use, like he knows anything anyway.  So, while Mr. Fossil's laptop sits unused in the corner, and the students keep their laptops in their bags during his class lest they be subjected to one of his rages, across the hall, the other Math teacher, Ms. Fresh, is learning how to implement successful systems of learning into her classroom through the use of the new technology.  Who knows what might happen?  Maybe over time Ms. Fresh will be able to convince Mr. Fossil that her students rising test scores are because of this great new system she uses.  Maybe she can convince him that the internet can actually be utilized effectively to improve learning and performance.  (If not, Mr. Fossil's going to retire or die soon anyway.  We can always hire a teacher who is more willing to work with technology when the time comes to replace him.)

Second: Train your teachers.  You just give them computers, give their students computers, and tell them to make it happen?  Good luck.  Here's a better implementation plan: Give the teachers their laptops a year before the students.  Have all of the required PD that year be related to using them effectively.  Give the teachers choices of PD classes that they will attend.  (Again, resistance to top-down change is strong - I might add that it's not just teachers, but rather human nature that's to blame for this one.  Choice might help alleviate this.)  Maybe these classes could be led by their tech-savvy peers for a modest stipend rather than some outside speaker - the teachers leading these sessions throughout year would enjoy helping their fellow teachers, and the teachers learning from their peers would be more likely to listen.  As an added bonus, they would have resources to talk to - the person who led the PD is just two doors down the hallway, after all - as they experiment throughout the year.  Then following year, when the students get their one-to-one laptops, you have a staff that has had plenty of instruction and time to acclimatize themselves to the new systems they will be using.  Instructional innovation.  Positive impact on learning and performance.  Happy board, happy parents, happy students, happy teachers.


Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.  Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.