http://cia.gov/employment/jobs/Instructor_CIA_Leadership.html
Hey, you never know!
Friday, January 27, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Comments on article "Reclaiming Instructional Design"
As I read through this article, I couldn't help but keep thinking in the back of my mind about the contrast in two characters on the TV show 'Lost'. Jack, the doctor, is considered a man of science, while Locke, a guy who before the plane crashed was paralyzed but now can walk, is considered a man of faith. Throughout the episodes, they approach each situation from very different perspectives. At times I feel myself relating more to Jack, and other times more to Locke, based on each circumstance.
In regards to instruction, I have no doubt where I stand, and that is in agreement to this article, that it truly is a science that can be studied empirically. However, there is one specific point made that I had hoped would be explained further in the article, but it wasn't. On the first page, the writers compare the science of aerodynamics to the science of instructional strategies. The problem with this is that aerodynamics is based on a number of scientific laws, and laws in the scientific sense is not a term used lightly. Aerodynamics is based on laws such as the Perfect Gas Law, Bernoulli's Law, Newton's Laws, etc (http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Book/laws-01.html). Unfortunately, when it comes to the science of instruction, we do not have a repertoire of laws about learning from which the science of instruction is based on. I believe this is the reason that there is such a range of opinions of what instruction should look like. But that does not mean that there is not a wealth of research into what makes instruction effective, and that is what I'm interested in, knowing what the research says is sound instruction. Not the pseudoscience "Reader's Digest" version, but real, empirical research.
One other note about this article that I thought of is that since instructional design is a technology, then by that definition it is also susceptible to the problems all other technologies face. All technologies can be used in ways that are helpful or harmful. It does not mean the technology is good or bad, it is how the technology is used. Something for us all to keep in mind!
In regards to instruction, I have no doubt where I stand, and that is in agreement to this article, that it truly is a science that can be studied empirically. However, there is one specific point made that I had hoped would be explained further in the article, but it wasn't. On the first page, the writers compare the science of aerodynamics to the science of instructional strategies. The problem with this is that aerodynamics is based on a number of scientific laws, and laws in the scientific sense is not a term used lightly. Aerodynamics is based on laws such as the Perfect Gas Law, Bernoulli's Law, Newton's Laws, etc (http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Book/laws-01.html). Unfortunately, when it comes to the science of instruction, we do not have a repertoire of laws about learning from which the science of instruction is based on. I believe this is the reason that there is such a range of opinions of what instruction should look like. But that does not mean that there is not a wealth of research into what makes instruction effective, and that is what I'm interested in, knowing what the research says is sound instruction. Not the pseudoscience "Reader's Digest" version, but real, empirical research.
One other note about this article that I thought of is that since instructional design is a technology, then by that definition it is also susceptible to the problems all other technologies face. All technologies can be used in ways that are helpful or harmful. It does not mean the technology is good or bad, it is how the technology is used. Something for us all to keep in mind!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Learning Theory vs. Instructional Theory
I just read over this section on pg. 4 of the Morrison text. It seems to clarify and support what we talked about last week in class, that the way you teach does not necessarily label you as an "ism" (i.e., behaviorism or constructivism). Right off the bat, Morrison is making a very clear distinction between learning theory and instructional theory. I like the terms Morrison used to describe each: calling the theories "descriptive" (learning theory) and "prescriptive" (instructional theory).
This has been quite relieving to find out that no matter how you believe that humans learn, all instructional strategies are still on the table as viable options. I do agree that how we believe people learn will affect the instructional strategies that we employ. During my undergrad teaching methods courses, I was pretty much led to believe that anything that resembles "traditional teaching" is a waste of time. I found myself in my first year of teaching completely at a loss with implementing a curriculum that did everything in the constructivist column of the table (if you've seen that table), however had no resources or support to pull it off. After several months of frustration, I resorted in many ways to what I was familiar with, and that was teaching how I was taught: lecture and book work Boring!!!
This is actually one thing that led me to integrating technology into the classroom. I found that I absolutely hate lecturing day in and day out, so I tried to find any kind of supplement possible to replace me being the talking head.
As I said earlier, it is very refreshing to begin to understand now that it is just fine and in fact preferred to employ a range of instructional strategies, and you don't have to live in one "teaching methods column" or another based on the "-ism".
This has been quite relieving to find out that no matter how you believe that humans learn, all instructional strategies are still on the table as viable options. I do agree that how we believe people learn will affect the instructional strategies that we employ. During my undergrad teaching methods courses, I was pretty much led to believe that anything that resembles "traditional teaching" is a waste of time. I found myself in my first year of teaching completely at a loss with implementing a curriculum that did everything in the constructivist column of the table (if you've seen that table), however had no resources or support to pull it off. After several months of frustration, I resorted in many ways to what I was familiar with, and that was teaching how I was taught: lecture and book work Boring!!!
This is actually one thing that led me to integrating technology into the classroom. I found that I absolutely hate lecturing day in and day out, so I tried to find any kind of supplement possible to replace me being the talking head.
As I said earlier, it is very refreshing to begin to understand now that it is just fine and in fact preferred to employ a range of instructional strategies, and you don't have to live in one "teaching methods column" or another based on the "-ism".
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Information vs. Instruction
What’s the difference between information and instruction?
The difference between information and instruction has to do with the goal of each. Information is just there, if someone wants to take it in, fine, but either way, it’s there. Instruction, however has a specific goal to ensure that an audience receives the information, and receives it correctly. Because of this, instruction is more deliberate, and must provide measures to know that the audience has acquired the desired knowledge, and acquired it correctly. This is why instruction must include a) opportunity for the audience to practice or interact in some way with the information, skill, etc. and b) contain some form of evaluation to ensure that the audience can demonstrate their understanding of the information.
The difference between information and instruction has to do with the goal of each. Information is just there, if someone wants to take it in, fine, but either way, it’s there. Instruction, however has a specific goal to ensure that an audience receives the information, and receives it correctly. Because of this, instruction is more deliberate, and must provide measures to know that the audience has acquired the desired knowledge, and acquired it correctly. This is why instruction must include a) opportunity for the audience to practice or interact in some way with the information, skill, etc. and b) contain some form of evaluation to ensure that the audience can demonstrate their understanding of the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
