Chapter 1 of our text offered us many evolving sets of definitions for the field of instructional design and technology. The two latest definitions offered were the AECT 2006 definition and the authors’ own definition. I have to say of the two, I prefer the AECT definition over the authors’ definition for several reasons.
First, I believe the AECT definition is very succinct because it incorporates the key points of both study and practice of the field, as well as includes both processes and resources. It seems like the authors’ definition is very wordy and a little unwieldy. Their definition also incorporates the field of performance technology and non-instructional resources and processes. At this point, I am not sure how these fit into the field, particularly in the K-12 setting. Perhaps as we study the book and other resources more in detail, this will become clearer and I may change my perception.
I also tend to prefer the term “educational” over “instructional”, although I am perfectly fine with calling it whatever is deemed to be politically correct at the time. But the word “educational” seems to be more synonymous with both teaching and learning, whereas the word “instruction” connotates teaching, but not necessarily learning.
“Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.” (P.6 of Reiser & Dempsey’s “Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology”.)
I made a Model of Instructional Design implementing both Dick, Carey & Carey’s model and the six characteristics of Instructional Design in Webspiration. It concentrates on the Goal Oriented and Meaningful Performance aspects of Instructional Design.
Here is a Link to my Model of Instructional Design:
http://www.mywebspiration.com/view/757453af8a2
Please let me know if you cannot access this from this link.
It would be tempting (and disheartening) to imagine that Internet-based instruction might go the way of several of the other technological advances mentioned in the text: first there is a lot of excitement and hype over the potential for advancing learning and instruction, but then it seems like the implementation never catches on large-scale in the K-12 environment. I am hoping that Internet-based instruction might be the exception, and that although it may take some time to implement effectively, it will become an extremely useful tool. One reason is the almost-universal availability of the technology. Yes, the digital divide still exists, but there are many low-cost ways to access Internet-based instruction, and many Internet-based technologies are free or very low-cost to schools and individuals.
The second is the interactive and collaborative nature of Internet-based instruction, particularly Web 2.0 technologies. This helps contribute to more learner-focused constructivist types of learning activities. One example of how a blog could capture learning in the K-12 environment would be to have each student or group of students assigned to learn about a particular animal in science, country in social studies, or concept in math. Students can then present information using text, video, sound, animation, etc. about their particular assigned area on their blog. This information can be shared with classmates, parents, and other classes.
I think the need for continuing education (both in Higher Education and Continuing Adult Education) will be needed in this and future generations. No longer do workers necessarily stay at the same jobs with the same skill levels. Continuous learning and upgrading of skills will be necessary for citizens to remain competitive in the present and future marketplace. Learning will continue to take place way past the K-12 level.
