Description:

Focuses on researching a variety of instructional design models and strategies and the application of these principles to educational learning environments with special emphasis on the design of web-based instruction. Letter grade only.

Standards:

Standard 2: Digital-Age Learning Culture

Technology directors create, promote, and sustain a dynamic, digital-age learning culture that provides a rigorous, relevant, and engaging education for all students.

Standard 2, Element 2.1. Digital Tools and Resources. Candidates assist district and school leaders to identify, evaluate, and select exemplary digital tools and resources that support learning goals, incorporate research-based instructional design principles, and are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.

Standard 2, Element 2.2. Research-Based Learning Strategies. Candidates locate, develop, and disseminate models of face-to-face, blended, and online instruction that illustrate how technology can support standards-aligned, research-based instruction and meet the needs and preferences of digital-age learners.

Standard 2, Element 2.3. Assessment and Differentiation Candidates assist educators in identifying and implementing technology resources to support research-based differentiation and assessment practices that meet the identified needs of all students.

Standard 2, Element 2.4. Student Technology Standards. Candidates ensure that technology standards for students and computer science/ICT coursework are implemented, assessed, and supported by a scope and sequence and curriculum alignments.

Standard 4: Systemic Improvement.

Technology directors provide digital-age leadership and management to continually improve the organization through the effective use of information and technology resources. Upon completion of the program:

Standard 4, Element 4.1. Innovation and Change. Candidates collaborate with school personnel to lead purposeful change by identifying teacher and student learning needs and by implementing technology innovations to address those needs.

Standard 4, Element 4.2. Program Evaluation. Candidates conduct evaluations of professional development programs, technology infrastructure, and instructional technology interventions by establishing metrics, collecting and analyzing data, interpreting results, and sharing findings to improve staff performance and student learning.

Standard 6: Content Knowledge and Professional Growth.

Technology directors demonstrate professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions in content, pedagogical, and technological areas, as well as adult learning, leadership, and management, and are continually deepening their knowledge and expertise. Upon completion of the program:

Standard 6, Element 6.1. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge. Candidates demonstrate content and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions in technology integration and current and emerging technologies necessary to effectively implement the NETS•S, NETS•T, and NETS•A.

Standard 6, Element 6.4. Continuous Learning. Candidates engage in continuous learning to deepen their content, technical, and leadership and management knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Standard 6, Element 6.5. Reflection. Candidates regularly evaluate, reflect on, and synthesize their work and research to improve and strengthen their professional practice.

Competency:

This course focused on various models of instructional design with a focus on Web Based Instruction. Some of the models we examined included ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation), SAM (Successive Approximation Model), and Pebble-in-the-Pond.

The ADDIE model is based on the Waterfall methodology that is often used in software development and IT project management. The idea behind that is that at a certain point in the development process you have to "lock down" the project parameters in order to control what project management calls scope creep. Scope Creep in project management is where you are part way through the development process and someone comes along and says "this product is great, but if it only did this too it would be perfect". Scope Creep requires additional development time and adds extra time and expense that may exceed projected development schedule and budget.

SAM is more of a rapid prototyping model and is also a technique used in software development. Here the focus is less on being perfect the first time through and more on hitting the high point the first time then using iterative design to make revisions until you've worked out the details with the other stakeholders. If the project is large scale and will be used by a large number of people, you may take what you think will be a final version and Alpha test it on a larger scale, make revisions, then Beta test it on an even larger scale before releasing it as the Gold version. In the software world, Alpha and Beta testing is done with users outside of the development team.

Pebble-in-the-Pond envisions a center circle with concentric rings going out from that center as ripples. The problem is at the center, with ripples going out from that as Progression, Component Skills, Enhance Strategies, Finalize Design, and Evaluation.

Having a strong IT Project Management background, I am a little biased towards SAM. SAM is more closely related to Agile than ADDIE, in that it gathers requirements quickly and begins iterative design, using multiple cycles of prototyping and testing. ADDIE attempts to get all of the details and develop the product in a single cycle.

The book talks about the variations of SAM - the 2 phase and 3 phase versions. Depending on the cost and complexity of the finished product, you may or may not include the 3rd phase as part of the design process.

Like most IT project teams, the instructional design team includes a variety of stakeholders: Budget Maker, Owner of the Performance Problem, Supervisor of the Performers, Subject Matter Expert, Potential Learners, Recent Learners, Project Manager, Instructional Designer, and Prototyper. These stakeholders meet as part of the Savvy Start team to define the goals and parameters of the project and brainstorm possible solutions. These are narrowed down and the prototyping process begins. After the Savvy Start, the prototype is evaluated and if more refinements are needed it goes back to the development phase, this process continues until the stakeholders are satisfied that the Threshold Target of required features has been met.

If it is a small scale project this may conclude the development, but if it is a larger project it may move to Phase 3 and go into Alpha testing. The Alpha is a nearly finished product with all of the elements implemented and only a few bugs. Once the bugs are found and believed to be corrected, the product is released in Beta. Often Beta testing includes users who are not a part of the design team. The Beta is the first candidate for the final Gold release and is the final test before deployment. If problems are found in the Beta, a revised version may be tested as Beta 2.

No matter which model you prefer, the important thing is that when designing a learning activity you analyze the Learners, Objectives, Methods, Evaluations to be used.

One of the ways to do this is to make sure classroom information is presented in multiple formats. Learners can vary based on their skill levels and their sensory capabilities. In one of the exercises for the class, I put together material using the LiveBinders web tool with references on Multimedia for for People with Sensory Impairments.

It is also important to examine the Objectives of your learning activity. This can be done with a Needs Assessment, such as the example Word document below.

Once you've determined your Objectives, you can begin planning your Method for teaching the course, you may use tools like the Course Schedule Builder PDF below to plan and schedule classroom activities.

Finally, to evaluate the big picture, you may want to look at Return on Investment using tools like the ROI Case Study questionnaire below. It provides a comprehensive look at the benefits of a course or program.

Application of Standards

Standard 2, Element 2.1: Digital Tools and Resources. Candidates assist district and school leaders to identify, evaluate, and select exemplary digital tools and resources that support learning goals, incorporate research-based instructional design principles, and are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.

As a former Systems Administrator and Broadcast Engineer turned Technology Coach, my job is to combine my technical background with my teaching education to find new ways to engage students. I do this in two ways, first by modelling the use of technology in my classes.

The second way I use my technical background in the education environment is by staying up to date in my technical knowledge and serving as a liaison between teaching staff and technical staff. I can talk to technical people about new products and the technical requirements to support them, then I can talk to teaching staff about what they want to accomplish and what tools to use. I can look at tools teachers are interested in and tell them if our technical infrastructure is compatible with it.

Standard 4, Element 4.1: Innovation and Change. Candidates collaborate with school personnel to lead purposeful change by identifying teacher and student learning needs and by implementing technology innovations to address those needs.

I actively seek out teachers to partner with where my Digital Media classes can work with their classes to provide enhanced learning opportunities for both. One example of this was our partnership with the drama department to produce a TV series which aired on the local cable system.

Prior to my program being discontinued, we were in the planning stages for partnering with the JROTC class that had just receieved a Drone with a video camera from the Air Force. The plan was for our students to work together to produce some aerial videos with JROTC piloting and Media students directing the shots. We were also looking at partnering with the State and Local History classes along with the Drama department to student produce documentaries on the history of the community.

In my previous position at Tri-Valley Local Schools, I worked as a system administrator. In that capacity I frequently had to conduct needs assessments on technology for the district such as wireless networking, computer workstation specifications for specific courses, etc., and in some cases develop training for staff on the new technology.

In one case, I needed to rebuild the control room for the performing arts department in our multipurpose space. After rebuilding the area, I had to create training materials for staff members and student operators.

Reflection:

In the Spring of 1992, I was in the Broadcasting program here at Northern Arizona University. One of the electives I took focused on Instructional Video Design. I would never have guessed that 25 years later, I would be attending NAU again taking courses on Instructional Technology.

While I learned some of the design process in that class, this class has expanded on that material and given me new tools to use in creating instructional media. I have always tried to make activities and assignments in my class as real-world as possible. As someone who has entered teaching from outside of the education business, I haven't always known the terminology to explain this to curriculum directors and other administrators.

This class has helped me by giving me more of the vocabulary to communicate with them about Authentic Tasks and Problem Based Learning. Some of this information came from the course and the instructor, but some of it came from working with other teacher/students in this program. For the Teaching and Learning Innovations assignment, each student created a presentation, then in part II we used each other's presentations to write up recommendations for an educational program. At the end of the course, we did assessments of each other's Instructional Activity that had been created throughout the course.

These peer to peer activities and feedback represented Element 6.5. Reflection. Candidates regularly evaluate, reflect on, and synthesize their work and research to improve and strengthen their professional practice and explain why and how it represents it.