Here is a simplified overview of the interactions:
Educators participate in the instructional design process and work to create a rich learning environment. Technology offers significant options for enhancing the environment. Educators then interact with learners in the context of that environment, adapting to the diverse needs of the learners, in order to achieve learning outcomes.
The design process begins with goals and sets an ongoing process of implementation and evaluation in motion. As the cycle progresses, decisions become more refined, improving the learning experience and the long term retention of knowledge and skills.
Full Discussion
Ashford University's MATLT program has maintained several consistent approaches to instructional design and delivery. Among them is (a) the approach to instruction as learner focused and (b) the incorporation of technology into instructional designs as a means of achieving the desired outcome, rather than allowing available technologies drive design decisions.
Robinson (TED, 2006) identifies at least three characteristics of learners: they are diverse, dynamic, and distinct. In their design step "Know the learner," Lever-Duffy and McDonald (2011) identify learners' developmental stage, cultural background, incoming knowledge and skills, individual learning styles, individual cognitive styles, and individual intelligence profiles as significant traits to consider. Newby, Stepich, Lehman, Russell, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2011) list many of the same elements and add related characteristics such as socioeconomic status, motivation, special needs, and technical literacy in the PIE design model. Felder and Brent (2005) would have designers consider learners' orientation toward learning and intellectual development, in addition to learning style. Visser (2012) would add the students' concept of learning. Learners are, indeed, incredibly diverse.
Reigeluth (2012) advocates instructional design that is learner focused, learner centered, customized, and collaborative, implying a paradigm shift in the overall structure of education toward learner ownership of goals, methods, and direction. In this model educators are collaborative partners rather than disseminators of knowledge. This shift, while controversial, is consistent with the recommendations of Felder and Brent (2005), such as eschewing the "one size fits all" approach and identifying a variety of channels for learners to engage content and display mastery. Regardless of whether learner ownership emerges as the standard approach, educators are called upon to create rich environments in which diverse learners can pursue knowledge and skills in a variety of ways.
All of the writers consider technology valuable in addressing the needs of diverse learners, however none consider it the complete solution. Written materials, visual aids, and models have been consistently effective approaches to facilitating learning (Newby, et al., 2011). In the current milieu these supplemental aids have become digital, available, and accessible. Current and emerging Web 2.0 technologies offer improved access to research materials and worldwide collaboration. Assistive and adaptive technologies can improve access for special needs learners (Newby, et al., 2011). Carolan, Natriello, and Rennick make a provocative case for using technology to create learner profiles and identify specific materials and customized pathways in the same way that retailers create customer profiles in order to customize communications and special offers. Technology can play a significant role in supporting the design of rich learning environments that address the diverse styles and needs of learners, and meet the standards advocated by UDL and Differentiated Learning (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). Wise use of current and emerging technologies allow much greater range in the provision of multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement (UDLCAST, 2010).
References
Carolan, B., Natriello, G., and Rennick, M., (2003). Rethinking the organization and effects of schooling: the post-industrial conundrum. EdLab, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu/files/EdLab_postindust.pdf
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/DI_UDL.1.14.11.pdf
Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. B. (2011). Teaching and learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc./Allyn & Bacon.
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., Russell, J. D., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2011). Educational technology for teaching and learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Reigeluth, C.M., (2012). Instructional theory and technology for a postindustrial world. In Reiser, R. A. and Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
TED. (2006). Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity [Video]. Retrieved from TED Talks: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
UDLCAST, 2010. UDL at a glance [Online video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDvKnY0g6e4&feature=youtu.be
Visser, J. (2012). Developing learning to meet complex challenges for an undivided world. In
Reiser, R. A. and Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment