So.....What Is Instructional Design?

          Good instructional design is preparing streamlined, engaging instruction appropriate for various learning styles.  In chapter 1, Larson and Lockee (2014) describe good instructional design as being dependent on the training itself, and how well the message is relayed to the learner—how well the learner relates to the material, and understands the material.  The way the learner relates and understands is dependent upon the learner’s learning style, and the method in which the message is presented.  Instructional designers must take several factors into consideration when developing instruction.  These factors include: occupation, socioeconomic status, learning style, prior knowledge and skills, learning disabilities, need for mobility, motivation, attitudes, and relationships.  The ADDIE model outline aids designers in accounting for learner needs when developing instruction.

            One aspect of instruction that designers should keep in mind is cognitive load theory.  Throughout my school career, there have been many times that I have felt my brain was too full—I just did not realize that was a real thing!   As discussed in chapter 10, cognitive overload is when the brain can only hold so much information.  Larson and Lockee (2014) explain that there are different levels to cognitive load.  Intrinsic load is the type and amount of mental processing used, extraneous load is the unnecessary aspects involved in instruction, and germane load is the “good stuff”—the information that can be used and is relevant to the learner.  There are steps instructional designers can take to make the most of the learner’s working memory.  To cope with intrinsic load, designers should organize material to help learner’s process information.   To avoid extraneous cognitive load, designers should eliminate excessive, unnecessary material.  To improve germane load, designers should use design principals to make information more meaningful to the learner (Larson and Lockee, 2014 pg. 81).

            The training I have developed for this course is designed to help elementary teachers incorporate STEM activities in their classroom instruction.  Many of the teachers have expressed an interest in learning more about implementing project-based learning.  I feel that STEM activities would be a good way to incorporate these types of activities in their classrooms.  The training incorporates various elements that allows them to stay busy, rather than just being talked to, and that they can also use in their classroom.  The training begins with a self-assessment quiz, “What Kind of Engineer Should You Be?”  Teachers can use this quiz to spark student motivation in the area of engineering, as well as learn more about their students.  The results could be used as a grouping method for future projects.  Following the quiz, we will briefly discuss the results and how they relate to each individual’s personality and/or learning style.  We will then watch a motivational video created by STEM students, and discuss why STEM activities are important based on information from related articles.  Participants will then share ideas to incorporate STEM activities in the classroom. 

Example STEM Activity

Art can also be included as an element of STEM activities, so we will incorporate STEAM.  Teachers will then complete a STEM team-building exercise that can also be used in their classroom.  We will discuss variations of the activity to make the activity grade-level/age appropriate.  Teachers will then watch an example of a STEM activity in a kindergarten classroom.  The training will conclude with access to resources including Pinterest boards with links to activities, and handouts of sample STEM classroom supply lists and STEM recording sheets.

            The STEM training has been developed to provide information in a streamlined manner, provide learners with an opportunity to be involved, and with materials and information that can be utilized immediately.  Trainings that “mix it up”—allow you to participate in a variety of activities—and provide you with sources to implement information immediately, incorporate elements of good instructional design.        

References

              Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional design.  New York: Routledge.

How Technology Affects Instructional Design

In just a few, short weeks most of us will be participating in our school district's Institute. For most of us Institute includes at least a two hour session of "sit and listen to people present powerpoints" to cover various trainings required by the State Department.  Now, don't misunderstand, I know these trainings are necessary, but they quite often are not examples of good instructional design.

Choosing the correct technology for instruction is an important part of the design process.  Larson and Lockee (2014) discuss the factors that influence technology decisions in instructional design in chapter 9.  These factors include technology that supports the instruction/learning, the learner's prior knowledge/motivation/capability, and addresses the desired learning outcome. 

The "Universal Precautions" training presentation is a great example to use when discussing these factors.  For one, the presentation is not always given by the person who designed the instruction.  So, the presenter sometimes finds themselves reading the material to us, which is in direct opposition to supporting the learner's motivation.  Another factor to consider is the learner's prior knowledge.  Most all of us have heard this material before--many, many times--so the material could be more tailored to the audience.  However, I would say that the Universal Precautions training does address the desired learning outcome--no one wants anyone to get sick.  

As teachers we are always looking for ways to motivate our students to learn, and to keep them engaged.  Recently, we have looked to technology to help us in these areas since our students are constantly using some type of device, and seem to be most motivated and engaged when using technology.  For about the past three years, our school has used a program called XtraMath as supplement for our daily math instruction.  We began using the program because we were looking for a way to track and document our students' math fact fluency.  Using this program is an excellent example of using technology during instruction.

Our students are to show fluency in math facts based on grade level.  Xtramath is web-based, so it can be completed on any device with Internet access--and students can even practice at home!  The program administers students with an initial test that determines their prior knowledge, and which facts they need to practice the most.  It is timed, so students are able to receive daily practice answering within the 3 second interval they will be required to meet during benchmark testing.  The program moves at the student's individual pace.  Once they have mastered an area, the program will move them on.  Best of all, teachers can print out a graph showing their progress over time. The media used during instruction should be in direct reflection of the performance context (Larson & Lockee, 2014). 

My students have enjoyed the program.  They can complete it during math centers, or when they finish their morning work.  They like being able to tell me, "Mrs. Sloan, I'm on subtraction!"  And I love it when they tell me because that means they completed addition, and they know their facts.  

References

            Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional design.  New York: Routledge.

*Image retrieved from Google Images http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6153558098_9653fd714b.jpg

Ineffective Professional Development

            Just this summer, I attended a workshop with several other teachers from my school.  It was our understanding that we would be learning how to use a certain program within our reading instruction.  Saying that we were disappointed in the outcome of the workshop would be an understatement.  The program has been in our schools and/or system for quite some time so we were all familiar with the program, but we wanted more ideas and suggestions for incorporating the program during our small group instruction.  Instead we were given an EXTENSIVE background of the program and why it works.  I cannot begin to tell you how many times I heard “This is not what I thought it was going to be”. 

            What was the problem with the workshop?  First of all, we could all tell from her accent, and her inability to correctly pronounce names of towns in Alabama, that she was not from here.  There were definite cultural differences.  Larson and Lockee (2014) describe culture as “distinguished by shared language/jargon, history, traditions, and values” (pg. 60).  One of the examples the presenter gave us was a poem where we were asked to identify the people in the poem.  The poem insinuated that the writer had lost a parent, and it was up to us to decide if the parent had passed away or if they had simply left the child—in fact, that was a large part of her discussion prompting.  Despite the Southern stereotype that we are predominately rural, we do teach in a rural county, and many of our students have come from this type of situation where either one or both of their parents have left or died.  As stated in the text, we typically view things using “cultural lenses” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg.60), and as the South is often referred to as “the Bible Belt”, most cultures identify Southerners as having strong core values and moral beliefs.  Several of us agreed that this poem would not be appropriate for our students, and we would most likely not use this example.  

            The next problem we had with the workshop was that she kept splitting us up—which we HATE!  I understand why presenters often split their audience into groups.  It’s the same reason why we use this tactic with our students.  We use engagement strategies in order to “involve learners with interactive activities” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg. 157).  For some reason this seems to be one our least favorite things about workshops.  When we come in and find a seat, that’s where we want to stay.  We do not mind presenters using strategies such as “Think, Pair, Share” or “Reciprocal Teaching”.  We like to share and discuss ideas within a group, but not necessarily move from our seat.  I think our resistance to movement comes from the amount of stuff we typically have with us—bulky teacher editions, supplemental books, bags, pens, pencils, notebooks.  During workshops, we like to have our stuff spread out where we can work, and we do not like having to move around because we either have to pack it all up and take it with us or, we have to leave it altogether for a period of time. 

Watch an example of "Think, Pair, Share" in the classroom.

            And last, but certainly not least, we did not receive the information we wanted to know.  Larson and Lockee (2014) discuss analyzing content in chapter 5, and one of the aspects of this process is to identify prerequisite knowledge and skills.  Since the program was already in our schools, we had prerequisite knowledge of the program.  The workshop was designed more for novices than for practitioners, as the training focused on the background of the program, rather than implementation.  Although, I was able to take away some additional strategies that I will work towards implementing in my instruction, I would still like to have more ideas on how to implement the program itself. 

            Even though we did not necessarily like the workshop, there were some useful aspects.  We were given an opportunity to share ideas with other teachers in our county about strategies that are working in our classrooms.  We found a topic we would like to learn more about. We were able to provide our Instructional Coaches with additional training topics for the upcoming school year.  In the end, even a “bad” workshop can have positive outcomes. 

References

Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional              design.  New York: Routledge.

What is Instructional Design?

          While reading the first chapter of the text, Streamlined ID: A Practical Guide to Instructional Design (Larson and Lockee, 2014), I repeatedly found myself asking the same question--“What is Instructional Design?”  I’m a math person, so I like to have concrete answers for things.  I wanted a specific definition for “instructional design”.  As I continued to read the chapters, I was able to develop a sense of what an Instructional Designer does.  The truth is, as educators, we are essentially all instructional designers.  We design lessons for instruction every day!  I just never thought of “Instructional Designer” as one of our “titles”.

            So, what is the difference between an Instructional Designer and a teacher—why IS there a separate title?  In the text Foundations of Instructional Design by Smith and Tillman (n.d.), the authors discuss that classroom teachers are given a set of standards to teach their students during a course.  For the most part, we develop our own plans based on these standards.  As educators, we are consistently looking for activities to keep our students actively engaged in the lesson.  As discussed in Streamlined ID, our classroom students can be described as “digital natives”, learners who have grown up using technology.  These learners use technology in some fashion in their daily lives, and are comfortable using it (Larson and Lockee, 2014).   So when the necessary mediums or materials may not be available for teachers to use, such as technology, systematic planning is necessary to implement instruction (Smith and Tillman, n.d.). 

           
            One former teacher turned Instructional Designer writes a blog called "For the Love of Teaching".  In one article, "Teaching vs. Instructional Design" (Kidder, 2011), she describes the differences in the titles "Instructional Designer" and "teacher".  She explains that most Instructional Designers do not consider themselves teachers, and vice-versa, because most of them work in the corporate setting rather than a classroom.  The author discusses his confusion of why teachers are “eliminated from the equation” in the area of Instructional Design, and how an Instructional Designer cannot see him/herself as a teacher.  

            Given this example, perhaps Instructional Designers could be more identified as trainers and professional development instructors.  As I read the text, Streamlined ID, I noticed that most of the text referred to working with, or training, adults.  The authors emphasize that the designs of presentations must be sustainable, optimized, appropriately redundant, right-sized, and continuously improving (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg. viii).  I agree that these elements of instructional design are important. 

            Personally, I can understand how developing instructional lessons for adults can be challenging.  First of all, your students are your peers.  You don’t want to be “that boring workshop that was never ending!”  I’ve actually sat in a workshop and said the words, “This is like dying a slow death.”  There is the pressure of not wasting their time, and of relaying meaningful information.  Larson and Lockee (2014) also discuss that the “streamlined” approach should “meet the needs of ID novices and practitioners in a variety of work settings” (pg. viii).   The differences in experience could range from someone who has been teaching for 20+ years who can make adjustments and differentiations to instruction without batting an eye, but are also “digital immigrants”, to the person who has been teaching for 1-3 years who is a “digital native” and more likely to be able to adjust instruction towards a technological based lesson effortlessly. 

            So to answer the original question, "What is the difference between an Instructional Designer and a teacher?" we refer back to Smith and Tillman’s definitions of training and teaching.  Training most often refers to “those instructional experiences that are focused upon individuals acquiring very specific skills that they will normally apply almost immediately”, and teaching most often refers to “learning experiences that are facilitated by a human being” (n.d. pg. 3).  Personally, I tend to agree with Kidder, the author of “Teaching vs. Instructional Design” (2011).  I believe Instructional Designers and teachers can be one in the same because each definition of “training” and “teaching” require the act of learning.   

References
  

Kidder, L. (2011).  Teaching vs. instructional design. Retrieved from                       
       https://lkidder.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/teaching-vs-instructional-design/.

Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional              design.  New York: Routledge.

Smith, P. L. and Tillman, J. R. (n.d.).  Instructional design (2^nd edition).  New York:                   Wiley. Retrieved from 
            http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/reading/smith_ragan_1_2.pdf

**Image retrieved from Google Images 

            http://annalizavillanuevaportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/9/0/29908095/72694_orig.jpg