Section 4: Human Performance Technology

Identify a performance problem in your area of work and identify non-instructional solutions that may help solve the problem.

This year, my school district has given me the new responsibility of “District Librarian.” Besides the responsibility of running my own elementary library, I am also required to supervise the library aides who manage the other three libraries in our district. The library aides have been working at the schools for many years and routines and behaviors were already established before I took on my new role. One of the performance problems I have experienced in my work as district librarian is a lack of clearly stated job duties/descriptions.  I hear the phrase “that is not my job” frequently from one aide in particular, and it has been a challenge to communicate just what is expected from her. According to Figures 14.1 and 14.2, a HPI non-instructional fix for “lack of motives and expectations” would be to provide the library aide with “Environment information”—a description of what is expected of performance, guides for how to do the job and feedback on performance. In order for this to be achieved, I need to give the library aide not only expectations, but also the motives for these expectations and allow for her input for achieving them, especially tasks that are less than gratifying, such as shelving books. Applying Situational Leadership from Ch. 12 (specifically explaining and clarifying goals) will provide intrinsic motivation needed for team members to “buy-in” to the importance of performing certain jobs, and from my experience as teacher I have found that this works better for most situations that extrinsic motivation (i.e. rewards & incentives).

 

Define performance support systems and explain how a performance support system might (or might not) help solve the problem you identified above.

Performance support systems are methods that provide timely support to individuals in a form that they can use. A PSS is an intervention for problems that interfere with performance, and can come in the form of online or offline support. One of the reasons problems occur with my library aides is because I cannot be there physically to help with day-to-day library activities. This week’s reading has motivated me to create a District Library wiki as a solution to my performance problems (clearly defining expectations). This form of Web 2.0 will help increase the timeliness of performance support, provide an outlet for point-of-need instructions and provide support for procedures that are less-frequent/critical such as our once a year inventory. Perhaps the greatest benefit of keeping a library wiki will be enabling the aides to collaborate with each other, share their own ideas and provide feedback for optimizing performance in the library. Since I have not created my library wiki yet, the following is an example of a library wiki that was created as a form of performance support for librarians: http://elementarylibraryroutines.wikispaces.com/

What knowledge would help solve the problem you identified above and how would that knowledge need to be collected and managed to help facilitate problem solving?

This chapter gives insight to how knowledge in the workplace is labeled and categorized.  The types of knowledge that would help solve my identified problem of “identifying library job duties” would be sharing explicit knowledge, with the goal being the ability for the library aides to share tacit knowledge, or undocumented knowledge they have acquired as a result of their own experience rather than through training. I would like for the library wiki to address procedures such as Accelerated Reader management, information literacy links, tech-support info for our library automation system, and FAQ concerning day-to-day activities such as circulation and weeding.

The type of knowledge that this chapter recognizes as the greatest challenge to capture is undiscovered knowledge or the hidden knowledge that may help benefit the organization. A benefit of using a wiki for knowledge management is the fact that it fosters collaboration among colleagues and provides an outlet for undiscovered knowledge. Many issues in organizations stem from only one person having the knowledge to fix a problem-one gatekeeper who has the ability to make a project work or bring it to a screeching halt-and by applying KM an organization can prohibit the gatekeeper mentality. My vision for the library wiki is a knowledge management system that does not look like a dull policy and procedures manual, but one that encourages the library aides to share what they have learned from their own experiences to possibly uncover some hidden knowledge that will benefit the whole district.

 

What informal learning experiences have you participated in at your organization? Could those informal learning experiences be shared with others? Could the knowledge gained in those settings be codified and managed? And should it be managed or should the informal experiences be replicated or broadened to include others?

I use a variety of informal methods to gather information about my job, but I use the Internet the most for answering questions from everything to technology to bulletin board ideas. I also rely on other librarians and colleagues to get input about issues concerning policies, and keep a stack of journals by my computer to read reviews and learn about library trends.

I do agree that informal experiences should be replicated in most cases, but there are some exceptions. For example, information concerning technology that changes so rapidly is difficult to codify, because tomorrow when we Google the same question we asked today, there may be a better solution to the tech problem. Another example pertains to the “museum experience” mentioned on pg.173. From my own experience, this type of informal learning is difficult to manage, and the writers of this chapter are correct when they state that words can’t quite express the magical experience of seeing a real artifact in a museum or seeing a live performance and this type of informal experience is often missing in education. On the other hand, informal experiences are the only way to address problems on our campus, because we do not have time to have formal gatherings otherwise.  One way we manage and document our power lunch/ lounge chat sessions is by using our phones to take notes because it is simple to e-mail our lists to other teachers and our principal.

 

I agree with the statement on pg. 175 that perhaps the biggest role for informal learning environments is that of promoting the love of learning itself, and in the future, lines between formal and informal learning will diminish.  One issue in education is the Bring Your Own Device policy, and many schools are creating Acceptable Use Policies for students to use phones, e-readers, etc. to have learning at their fingertips. Our district does not agree with BYOD for reasons pertaining to internet safety; however, I believe we are not taking advantage of a tremendous tool for informal learning.  After all, students already have access to information outside of school, and by making them “power down” during school hours is a set back to the education of our students.

Another example of informal learning was mentioned in an article we were required to read in my last ETEC course titled Creating a New Culture of Teaching and Learning, in which Alan November makes points about how we acquire/share knowledge, and he described how we as educators need to tell our stories. He states that professionals in education isolate themselves, and do not see anything special about what we do every day; however, he believes in documenting what we do as educators and states that we must share our tacit knowledge—what is working for us in the classroom with others in our field so that what we do makes a difference. One advantage I have as a district librarian is that I have the ability to see what is happening around the district. I would like to apply the principle of supporting informal learning mentioned on pg. 175 because I believe it will make a difference in my district if I observe, share, participate and encourage others to recognize informal learning so that this collective knowledge has an impact.

Section 3: Evaluating, Implementing and Managing Instructional Programs and Projects

Eisner’s Connoisseurship Model of Evaluation
When considering which two methods of evaluation to investigate, I reflected on my teaching experience, first as an art teacher, and then as a librarian. The first evaluation process I investigated was created by ElliotEisner (1985) in what he termed “educational connoisseurship.” Eisner’s expertise-oriented evaluation was influenced by his background as an artist and is grounded in the contextual paradigm. Eisner emphasizes the importance of evaluator as judge and relies heavily on qualitative data, as opposed to methods such as CIPP that prefer quantitative data, accountability and control. When I taught art, it was often difficult to translate art success to administration who defined achievement in terms of figures and percentages. This method would be appropriate for evaluating visual art programs in which evidence of achievement would need an evaluator with an “enlightened eye.” A particular lesson that Eisner’s method could evaluate was a lesson that introduced conceptual art, such as students’ ability to illustrate abstract concepts (diversity, beauty, peace, etc.). The evaluator of the lesson would need a level of art expertise in order to determine whether or not the lesson was a success; therefore, an art teacher from another school or campus should fill the role as evaluator-judge. The collection of data would follow a naturalistic/qualitative approach in which the evaluator chooses student critiques, interviews and the art itself as evidence for learning outcomes.

 

CIAO! Framework for Technology Evaluation
This framework was created by Scanlon, et al. (2000) to evaluate education and communication technologies for learning. This framework falls in the contextual category, in which learning occurs based on what tools are available and seeks to evaluate learning in context of the lesson, rather than the educational technology alone.  Scanlon et al. cited many other methods of evaluation for creating the CIAO! method including the Parlett and Hamilton (1972) Illumination framework of evaluation because it did not separate the instructional innovation apart from the learning, and focused on the processes instead of the outcomes (goals & objectives). This evaluation method also uses mixed methods to assess whether or not technology has an impact on learning such as questionnaires, data, observations and tests.

CIAO! stands for context, interactions and outcomes, and the difference in this method and other methods is that it emphasizes changes in attitudes and perceptions as a result of the technology as well as the learning outcomes. Context refers to the technology’s purpose and how it fits into the lesson’s objectives. Interactions focus on the students’ interactions with each other and the technology. Outcomes refer to the students’ perceptions/attitudes to more fully describe the impact the technology had on learning. This method would be appropriate for evaluating any lesson that integrated technology such as blogs, social media and wikis.  Recently, my school received a grant to purchase class sets of iPods and I am responsible for their maintenance and distribution. This method of assessment would be valuable for assessing the effectiveness of their use in classrooms and the outcomes of the evaluation could provide data for future technology grants.

 

From the reading this week and from researching other methods of evaluations I have concluded that programs should not just be evaluated just by learning outcomes and satisfaction.  Many other questions need to be addressed when evaluating a program, especially in education. The reason is because stakeholders who regard the results of the evaluation need to see the bigger picture of a program’s effectiveness. Even if a program did not provide the end results it was intended for, the evaluation can answer questions that affect future decisions regarding other programs. The following are questions that would be beneficial for evaluating a program’s overall effectiveness:

• Was the program cost-effective in terms of money, time and manpower?
• Can the program’s effectiveness be re-produced in other settings or other campuses?
• Is the program sustainable, and can the program have an effect over time?
• Did the program have an impact on the population it was meant for?
• Besides the intended goals and objectives, were there any other benefits that occurred because of its implementation?

Leadership requires one to 1) diagnose and assess the situation in order to solve the problem 2) adapt behavior to match whatever actions are required and 3) be a good communicator in order for others to understand plans and goals (p. 117). A situational leader has the ability to influence and motivate people, not matter the situation and is a requirement for successful management. 

This case of providing training during economic decline applies to me because I was asked to provide technology integration training to teachers on my campus at the beginning of this school year, and the purpose of the in-service was to provide some uses for free educational Web 2.0 applications to use as a result of budget cuts. These chapters provided me with insight on how I could improve my methods to include better resources and leadership skills to motivate my colleagues. For example, I would have selected resources more carefully because some of the applications I chose to include required cell phones, and some teachers did not feel comfortable because of questions of security.  Hersey and Blanchard described four phases of Situational Leadership--S1)Telling-the leader tells the team exactly what to do, S2) Telling-the leader still tells, but is "selling" what he wants team members to do, S3) Participation- leader works alongside team members and shares decisions, S4) Delegating-the leader passes on responsibilities and makes less decisions.  According to these phases, I directed my training by "telling" teachers what to do, and a better approach would have been to focus more on the "selling" of the tools that I introduced, as well as a participatory approach that allowed more time for input from the teachers.  Hersey et al. (2001) stated that influencing people requires, among other things to be able to assess the readiness level followers exhibit performing a specific task. Looking back, I would have made more provisions for different levels of teachers' technology efficacy and readiness to accept the technology. Also, as a result of this week’s focus on program evaluation, I see the importance of following up my training by questioning teachers about the effectiveness of the Web 2.0 applications I included in my presentation.

 

 

 

Section II-Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

Epistemology seeks to answer questions such as “what is knowledge?” and “how is knowledge acquired?” Epistemology or underlying beliefs about knowledge provide the foundation for a philosopher’s model of instruction, thus influencing specific instructional methods to obtain knowledge. An example is Skinner’s theory of radical behaviorism which dealt with empirical knowledge, or knowledge gained by observation. Skinner’s instructional methods were influenced by the Positivist viewpoint, that scientific knowledge is the only form of authoritative knowledge. Epistemology theories are important to consider because they impact how one views instruction, the role of the learner and teacher, as well the methods and tools instructors use to achieve learner outcomes.

 

A contextualist epistemology is one uses the term “know” dependent on context. In other words, one makes meaning of a situation based on one’s language and surroundings. The objectivist/positivist epistemology defines knowledge as only relative if it can be observed. The subjectivist/relativist epistemology defines knowledge based on one’s beliefs. A contextualist epistemology is different from these epistemologies because it states that knowledge is useful if it is relative to the context in which it occurs.  Vygostsky’s social constructivism theory is an example of contextualism because learning was achieved through everyday settings and tools that were prevalent in a culture. A teacher who has a social constructivist approach creates lessons and activities for learning that are similar to situations students use outside of school, and allows time for discussion and group activities to make concepts more meaningful.  Vygostsky believed one should use any tools available for transfer of knowledge, and if he were alive today, he would be a big fan of blogging, Facebook and Twitter.  While social contructivism concentrates on deeper conceptual knowledge, the behaviorist approach places a focus on external and observable behaviors. The teacher distributes all of the knowledge, and then rewards the student for correct observed behavior. Many activities we do today are influenced by this philosophy, for example, the benchmark tests our students take each six weeks are formative assessments carried out to test if the intervention (instruction) has been effective. Another behaviorist method we use on our elementary campus is our system of rewarding good behavior—students carry “punch-cards” with them from class to class, and teachers give hole-punches for good behavior.

A behaviorist method of teaching is less likely to acknowledge the importance of relevancy in solving problems, and more interested in monitoring progress and reinforcing correct behavior to achieve established learning goals. This method also requires students to master content before applying their knowledge to a problem; on the contrary, constructivist models of problem-solving assume students will achieve mastery of content in the process. Chapter 7 mentions two kinds of problems: well-structured and ill-structured problems.  Word problems are well-structured problems that may or may not have relevance to students and are still predominant in standardized testing today. As a consequence, problems that have no relevancy provide little motivation for students. Reiser states “the industrial-age paradigm systematically destroys self-motivation by removing all self-direction and giving students boring work that is not relevant to their lives” (p.79). Ill-structured problems, on the other hand, would be more suited to a constructivist approach because they resemble problems in the “real world” such as decision making, troubleshooting and policy problems. Problem-based learning, which is grounded in the constructivist theory, supports meaningful connections, thus providing a degree of motivation to students.



I think, therefore I am...dangerous!

This week’s reading was somewhat of a cognitive over-load, if you will, and my brain is still trying to free up some short-term memory space:) Nonetheless, it has implications for those of us who are involved in education, and that is the fact that “what is knowledge?” has been researched, tested, studied and applied by many individuals through Earth’s history and we would be careless not to learn from the individuals who came before us.

Section I-Defining the Field

According to Chapter 1, the definition of Instructional Design and Technology has changed through the years.  My definition has changed as well, and before reading this chapter, I would have said that “educational or instructional technology was any media used to facilitate learning in the classroom.”  My definition was shaped by my experiences as an art teacher, and I probably never gave one thought to the design aspect of educational technology. In reality I used technology in my instruction everyday with no thought of any systematic process.  I recently read a paper that suggested we often make the mistake of focusing on the technology first, and then design ways to use it within our lessons.  The reverse should be true, and that is to consider learning goals first, and then decide if and when the technology can enhance instruction.  After reading the chapter, my definition has shifted from focusing on the media and instructional delivery, to focusing on the end product, namely student performance.  The newest definition is the most relative to today’s educational environment, stating that “the goal of the field is to improve (or facilitate) learning and performance” (p.6).  I understood this to mean that although technology makes tasks and activities easier and more engaging, the ultimate goal of instructional design and technology should be to help students achieve learning goals.  By researching and reading the materials this semester, I hope to achieve a better understanding of instructional design and technology so that I may improve my own teaching practice.

I taught an art lesson about the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Ratio.  At the beginning of the lesson I gave the students a historical background on the phenomena and showed them examples of artists’ works that were inspired by these sequences and patterns.  I also showed them many examples of the Fibonacci sequence and how it appeared in nature, such as the Nautilus shell or flower petals. I then required the students to search for samples of these patterns in nature and art and then design a presentation that included their findings as well as personal sketches that incorporated Fibonacci’s sequence. 

My lesson included aspects of Instructional Design characteristics 1, 2, 3 and 4—it was mostly student centered (except for my introduction), was goal oriented, and included meaningful performance because it required them to apply the knowledge they attained. I also evaluated their performance by completing a rubric that assessed each step of the project.  I believe I fell short in the last two characteristics—data collection (comparing what they know/don’t know) and team effort.  Many students enjoyed the project, but became frustrated when attempting to create Fibonacci-inspired designs.  If I had been more careful to listen and require student feedback earlier in the project, the lesson could have been more successful.  I also failed at team effort because the lesson could have been enhanced by a math teacher’s expertise in helping students with the mathematical aspects of the lesson to strengthen the relationships between math and art.

 I see Reiser’s reasoning for excluding teachers, textbooks and chalkboards because these three methods of instruction are not the “physical means” of instructional delivery and are what he states are the most prevalent method used in our educational system. I also agree with the Reiser & Gagne definition that instructional media is any physical means in which instruction is presented to learners. Students can attain knowledge in any number of ways including instructor to learner, media to learner and learner to learner.  A teacher is by definition, a form of instructional media, but serves a purpose in the learner-centered classroom that goes beyond this definition, and that is the role of “facilitator” of learning. The chalkboard and textbook here appear to be representations for all other media, including e-books, projectors and tablets, so I believe they should be included in the definition of instructional media.

The chapter gives an account of the history of instructional media and instructional design separately, but I don’t believe that the sole purpose of ID is to incorporate media, rather to improve overall performance, with or without media.  On the flip side, Reiser states that there is an “obvious overlapping between these two areas,” and that “many instructional solutions arrived at through the use of ID processes require the employment of …instructional media” (p. 27).  Consequently, ID&T as a field is the combination of two closely linked practices and it has become more appropriate to use the term instructional design AND technology.