An Unexpected Journey to the Perfect Destination

hystericalcoolMobile - Wireless

Dec 10, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

100 views

An Unexpected Journey to the Perfect Destination


Angela Christine Wilson

Instructional Designer, Lewis
-
Clark State College
, Lewiston, ID

October 8
, 2013


Introduction


When I enrolled in the Elementary Education program at Lewis
-
Clark State College

(LCSC)

in
2005, I had no idea I

would

end up working as an Instructional Designer four years later. I
wanted to teach middle school science and math, and I spent two years following
graduation in
2007 searching for a teaching job
.
During my two
-
year job

hunt, I worked
at LCSC
helping
education students
construct webpage portfolios, and I
helped

instructors use various educational
software and hardware. In 2009,
an
“instructional designer/trainer” position ope
ned up in e
-
Learning Services, and I was hire
d.
The first year of my new positio
n was definitely trial by fire.
I had never designed training for adults or online course
s
. I dove right in, learning on the fly and
applying my knowledge of technology a
nd pedagogy as best as I could.
In 2011, I deci
ded it was
time to pursue a master’s degree in my field so I’d have the credentials to
back my experience
.
I
selected Boise St
ate University’s Master of Educational Technology

program because it aligned
with my professional needs
and goals,
and
it
is offe
red entirely online. As a full
-
time working
mother and wife, online was a must for me.


This paper is a showcase of
the course work I’ve completed for the Master of Educational
Technology program. Each artifact selected demonstrates my achievement of one

of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology’s

(AECT)

“Standards for the
Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology Specialist Programs.”
There are five standards comprised of four sub
-
components
,

for a total
of twenty demonstrable
standards. In this pap
er, I define each standard and provide an explanation of my work and how
it demonstrates achievement of the standard. Relevant references to educational theory, design
theory, and pedagogy are provided where a
pplicable.










STANDARD 1:
DESIGN


1.1 Instructional Systems Design


According
to
Earle and Persichitte (
2005
), instructional systems design is comprised of five
sub
-
component
s
: analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating. R
ef
erred to as the

ADDIE” process, these steps involve conducting a needs analysis of a problem, planning a
solution, creating a product to solve the problem,
carrying out

the solution, and evaluating the
effectiveness of the solution.
The ADDIE process is
cycled through until
an

optimal solution is
reached
.


To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my
Instructional Design Project

from
EDTECH 503: Instru
ctional Design.
For this project, I created instruction for the use of the
Voice Boards tool in the Blackboard Learn course management system.
I engaged in all five
steps of the ADDIE process. I conducted a needs analysis
for the

learners receiving the
instruction. I designed learning objectives and a learning t
ask analysis flow chart to map the
major steps to be completed by the learners. I then developed a full set of instructional materials
to teach the content. Due to time constraints, I was not a
ble to implement the instruction, but I
developed plans for one
-
to
-
one implementation, small group implementation, and a field trial.
Last, I engaged in formative evaluation with a content expert who reviewed my instructional
materials and provided feedba
ck that I used to make changes to the instructional materials.


I
also
submit my
Course Design Planning Site

for EDT
ECH 512: Online Course Design.
This
website contains all of the
macro
-
level
planning documents created in the process of designing
and
developing

a “Course Assistant Training”

course in the Blackboard C
MS. The
Analysis
page details

the need for instruction

in the topic selected
, the goals of the training course, the
c
ontext in which the course will be deli
vered, and a learner analysis. The Concurrent Design
page details the course learning objectives and maps them to Bloom’s taxonomy, defines the unit
topics of the course and the objectives addressed by each, and list
s the instructional strategies to
be used in the course.

It also contains flowcharts and storyboards developed for the course. The
Final Product pages link to the materials developed for the course. I developed an extensive
implementation plan, located
on the Implementation Plan page. The Summative Evaluation plan
describes the process I developed for evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional materials
and course delivery, as well as the evaluation tools to be used to assess learning achievement

of
the course objectives.


1.2
Message Design


According
to Seels and Richey (1994
),
“message design involves planning for the manipulation
of t
he physical form of the message


(p. 14).

Message design employs techniques based on
what
is known about attention, perception, and retention in order to communicate effectively with
learners. M.E.T. candidates who have achieved this standard can “apply principles of
educational psychology, communications theory, and visual literacy to th
e development of
instructional messages specific to the learning task” (Earle
&
Persichitte,
2005
, p. 17).


To illustrate my achievement of this standard, I submit an
example of graphic design

from
EDTECH 506:

Graphic Design for Learning. This graphi
c applies
color theory to draw the
viewer’s attention

to relevant information in the graphic
.
I used orange text and bullets to draw
the user’s eye to key elem
ents in the graphic.
According to Lohr (2008), warm colors “make an
element noticeable” and cause text to “advance” on the page, aiding in viewer selection of
important information (p. 267).



I also submit my
Unit of Instruction

Website

for EDTECH 506 as proof of my achievement of
standard 1.2.
In my
Final Project Website
, I applied learning theory and design principles to
optimize learning in a unit of
instruction on embedding multimedia content into Blackboard
courses
.
The unit is presented via four distinct lesson pages, with content for each lesson

“chunked” into small, related segments in order to reduce the learner’s cognitive load

(Lohr,
2008). T
he project website layout and the graphics used in the instructio
nal materials utilize the
CARP

prin
ciples (contrast, alignment, repetition, and pro
ximity) to facilitate learning
. Contrast
in text size between primary and secondary steps establishes an or
ganizational hierarchy for the
information presented in each lesson. The text on the website and in all
instructional documents
is left
aligned “for easier reading” (Lohr, 2008, p. 201). Several graphic elements, such as the
“person at the computer” imag
e and the colors red, blue, and orange, are repeated throughout the
unit website and the instructional documents. According to Lohr (2008),
repeated elements
“create a sense of harmony and unity” and serve to help r
educe cognitive load (p. 203). Last,
“s
tudents learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented near rather than far
from each other on the page,” so related text and images are gr
ouped

in close proximity to one
another in the instructional documents (
Lohr, 2008,
p. 199).


1.3 I
nstructional Strategies


Seels and Richey (1994) describe instructional strategies as, “
specifications

for selecting and
sequencing events and activities within a lesson” (p. 14).
An M.E.T candidate who has achieved
this standard can “select instructional

strategies appropriate for a variety of learner characteristics
and learning situations (1.3.a)” and “
select motivational strategies appropriate for the target
learners, task, and learning situation (1.3.d)” (Earle & Persichitte,
2005
, p. 17).


To demo
nst
rate achievement of sta
ndard

1.3, sub
-
component 1.3.a
, I submit my

Stone Soup”
synchronous lesson

development from EDTECH 523: Advanced Online Teaching
. For
this
activity, I was paired with a classmate and we were tasked with selecting an appropriate teaching
strategy for adult online lear
ners for a lesson on copyright.
Copyright laws are complex and
often subject to interpretation based on the type of materi
als and the context in which they are
used
. We had only

fifteen

minutes to deliver the lesson
, and w
e knew our learners were going to
have varying degrees of familiarity with copyright law. With this in mind, m
y partner and I
selected the Stone Soup sync
hronous teaching strategy, which calls for the students to be divided
into small groups to work on
different

but related
problem
s

and then reconvene with the group as
a whole to share their discoveries and conclusions

(Finkelstein, 2006). This

strategy
“a
llows the
instructor to cover more ground than would be possible if all learners were assembled in one
room”
and “mixes learners o
f varying competencies together to foster peer mentoring”
(Finkelstein, 2006, p.104).

We

present
ed

our students with
a mini
-
le
cture on copyright,
and then

divided them into groups to work on
three diff
erent
copyright
scenarios
. Working in small
groups allowed them to learn from more knowledgeable peers, and reconvening to share
increased t
he

groups’ know
ledge as a whole. This e
xample

clearly shows my ability to select
appropriate instructional strategies based on learner characteristics and the learning situation.


To demonstrate achievement of standard 1.3, sub
-
component 1.3.d, I submit

my
matrix of
Community Building Strategies

from EDTECH 521: Online Teaching
. During this course, I
developed a matrix of strategies designed to increase motivation and engagement in K
-
12 onli
ne
learners.
According to Rice (2012), “a concern that is often expressed within the context of
online education is student isolation and lack of socialization opportunities” (p. 4). As such, the
strategies in the matrix

focus on community building, soci
al identity, and participation in the
online learning environment. For example, one strategy listed is a “Find the Link” icebreaker
activity. This activity asks pairs of students to find a trait they share in common. According to
Rice (2012), icebreaker

activities help build trust and provide scaffolding for more interactive
forms of collaboration. Another strategy listed is the use of blogs for students to showcase their
work, reflect, and provide peer
reviews
. This type of activity helps students dev
elop tactful
critiquing skills and allows them to become familiar with the technology before engaging in
larger group collaborations (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004).

These strategies, as well as the others
listed in the matrix, demonstrate my ability to select

motivational strategies for
a target group of
learners in a given learning context.


1.4 Learner Characteristics


“Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner’s experiential background that impact the
effectiveness of a learning process” (
Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 32
).
Identifying learner
characteristics allows an instructor to select and implement appropriate instructional strategies.
An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “
i
dentify a broad range of observed and
hypothetica
l learner characteristics for their particular areas(s) of preparation (1.4.a)” and
“describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the selection and
implementation of instructional strategies (1.4.b and 1.4.c)” (Earle
&
Persichi
tte,
2005
, p. 17).


To demonstrate
my achievement of standard 1.4, sub
-
components a,

b, and c, I submit
my
Instructional Design Project

(
see
Description of Learn
ers, p. 8)

from EDTECH 503: Instructional
Design. While researching the characteristics of the potential learners for this project, I
discovered a number of traits that went on to influence the selection of instructional strategies
and how they were imple
mented. The learners were college instructors with advanced degrees
who teach from two to five online courses each semester. As such, it was assumed the learners
would have a high level of intrinsic motivation and would not have a lot to time to devote t
o a
lesson. This required placing less emphasis on motivational strategies and more emphasis on
delivering the instruction in a succinct and time efficient manner.


I also submit
my
Unit Plan

for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design
for Learning.

In the unit plan I
describe
d

in detail the characteristics of the learners, including age, employment,

and education.
I also described

the

learners’ presumed level of knowledge with the subject matter. This
information, combined with the need for the instruction to take place entirely online, allowed me
to develop instructional materials tailored to the learners’ needs. Namely, the instruc
tion needed
to be asynchronous to accommodate learner work schedules, and delivered in a web
-
friendly and
a print
-
friendly format to allow the learners to make off
-
line copies of instructions to follow
while completing the lesson activities.

These
two
art
ifacts demonstrate my ability to identify
learner characteristics and use this information to select and implement appropriate instructional
strategies.



STANDARD 2: DEVELOPMENT


2.1

Print Technologies


According to Earle and Persichitte (
2005
), “print technologies include verbal text materials and
visual materials; namely, text, graphic and photographic representation and reproduction” (p. 18).
One way for an M.E.T candidate to demonstrate achievement of this standard is to “develop
instructi
onal and professional products using a variety of technological tools to produce text for
communicating information” (Earle
&
Persichitte,
2005
, p. 19).
A second performance indicator
is the ability to
“produce print communications combining words and ima
ges/graphics using
desktop publishing software” (Earle
&
Persichitte,
2005
, p. 19).


As evidence of my achievement of
this
standard, I submit the
syllabus

I creat
ed for

EDTECH
512: Online Instruction. This syllabus was created using the SoftChalk Create program.
SoftChalk allows the
user

to generate multiple pages of
“chunked”
information in an easy
-
to
-
navigate, webpage
-
like interface. The software creates a hype
rlinked table of contents,
navigation arrows, and next/back buttons.
Various levels of headings can be applied to the text
to create an organizational hierarchy on the page and
within

the table of contents. T
he
user

can
also

format
paragraph
text

and cre
ate “text poppers,” which are hyperlinked words on the page
that “pop
-
up” additional information about the words when
hovered over
. SoftChalk content is
intended to be delivered via the web, but
the software

also includes a built
-
in feature to generate
a
“printer
-
friendly”

version of the text. The linked document
above
contains screenshots of the
syllabus as it appeared in the course, as well as the printer
-
friendly version of the content.


I also submit the instructions I created for the
lesson on embedding

in my unit of instruction for
EDTECH 506:
Graphic Design for Learning
.

I used Adobe Photoshop to
create the text and
graphics for these instructions. I then optimized
the document

for both web and print delivery
usi
ng Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert it to a PDF.

These
two
artifacts clearly
demonstrate my ability to use
a variety of
technology
tools to produce text communications for
web and print delivery.



2.2 Audiovisual Technologies


Standard 2.2 involves the use of “appropriate analog and digital productivity tools to develop
instructional and professional products” (
Earle
&
Persichitte,
2005
, p. 19).
An

M.E.T. candidate
should be able to “apply development techniques such as storyboarding and/or scriptwriting to
plan for the development of audio/visual technologies (2.2.2)” and “use appropriate video
equipment to prepare effective instru
ctional and professional products (2.2.3)” (Ea
rle
&
Persichitte,
2005
, p. 20
).


As evidence of my achievement of this standard, I submit my
Digital Inequality Presentat
ion

from EDTECH 501: Introduct
ion to Educational Technology. For this group proje
ct, my
teammates and I created several

shared Google Doc
s

to generate scripts for our slides and plan
the order of the presentation. (An example of
a

sc
ript

can

be found
here
. Please note this is an
unpolished planning document.)

We

then uploaded
our
slides to VoiceThread and used this web
application’s recordin
g features to narrate our
slides and create a video presentation
.


I also submit the
instructional videos

I created for the course I designed in EDTECH 512: Online
Course Design.

I created these instructional videos using Camtasia Studio

to record my on
-
screen demonstrations of tool use in Blackboard
.
For each video,
I created
a
script

to plan out
my on
-
screen actions and streamline
the recording process
. These examples
clearly
demonstrate
my ability to plan via scripting and use appropriate digital productivity tools to create
audiovisual
products for instruction and professional presentation
.


2.3
Computer
-
Based Technologies


Computer based technologies are “ways to produce o
r deliver materials using microprocessor
-
based resources” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 39).
Examples include the creation of computer
-
based instruction and electronic communications.
Specifically, a
n M.E.T. candidate should be
able to “design and produce au
dio/video instructional materials which use computer
-
based
technologies (2.3.1)” and “design, produce, and use digital information with computer
-
based
technologies (2.3.2)” (Earle
&
Persichitte, 2005, p. 20).


To demonstrate achievement of this standard,

I submit my “
Course Assistant Training
” course
designed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design.

For this course, I designed instructional
materials using SoftChalk Create, Camtasia

Studio, Adobe Photoshop, and Microsoft Word.
These instructional materials were then arranged
in unit folders

inside the Blackboard CMS.
Blackboard is a web
-
based CMS that requires the student to use a computer to access the course
and content.

I creat
ed several instructional videos and stored them on YouTube,

requiring
students to use a c
omputer to access the content.
This course exemplifies my ability to design
and produce digital information and inst
ructional videos using computer
-
based technologies
.


I also submit my
weekly Twitter activity

for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning.

In
506,
I

was

tasked with using a mobile device or digital camera to capture real
-
world

examples of
effective or ineffective graphic design

to share with my classmates via the social network Twitter
.
I used
an

Android
-
based smart phone and

an iPad to photograph my examples, and I shared these
to Twitter using both the Android and iOS Twitte
r apps.
In my posts, I explained my rationale
for the image I selected based on the design principles being covered in class at the time.
I
viewed my peers’ contributions and
“tweeted”
reflective
responses to my
peers’ posts using a
desktop computer,
a

s
mart phone, and an iPad
.

This activity demonstrates my ability to produce
and use digital information
with computer
-
based technologies.


2.4 Integrated Technologies


According to Seels and Richey (1994), “integrated technologies are ways to produce and de
liver
materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer” (p. 40). An
M.E.T candidate who
has satisfied standard 2.4

can “use authoring tools to create effective
hypermedia/multimedia instructional materials or products (2.4.
1)
,


“develo
p and prepare
instructional materials

and products
for various distance education delivery technologies (2.4.2),”
“combine electronic and non
-
electronic media to produce instructional products (2.4.3),”
“use…
browsing tools for the World Wide Web to develop instructional and professional products
(2.4.4),” and

develop effective Web pages with appropriate links using various technological
tools (2.4.5)” (Earle
&
Persichitte, 2005, p. 20).


As evidence o
f my ability to use integrated technologies, I submit the
homepage

for the
webpages

created for EDTECH 502: The Internet for Educators.

I created these webpages using
Adobe Dreamweav
er and Microsoft Visual Studio
. Each web page was successfully validated at
the time of creation using the World Wide Web Consortium
’s

HTML and CSS validation service.

My
virtual
fieldtrip

is the most encompassing example of my achievement of the
sub
-
component
s indicated above.
For this activity, I created a multi
-
page “field trip” to Saturn.

The
site contains images, text, and video content properly formatted for optimal web del
ivery. For
example, the “Cassini” page contains a thumbnail image linked to a larger format image that
opens in a new browser tab to minimize page
-
loading time.
The page

also contains a
1.3MB

video

embedded to display at 320 x 256 pixels for optimal web
delivery
. The

Cassini


page
integrates a “non
-
electronic” instructional product in the form of a print
-
off

students can use

to
construct a paper r
eplica of the Cassini orbiter.

To develop the content for this site, I browsed
the web to locate interactiv
e web resources my students could explore for further information.
For example, the “Moons” page links to NASA’s interactive moon map
and
the “Rings” page
links to an interactive image about Saturn’s rings.
The “Saturn” page contains an embedded
audio

file of
the sounds

captured by the Cassini orbiter as it approached Saturn. Last, I included
a link to download the “Cassini” iPhone app.

The combination of multi
-
media instructional
materials provided on this web
-
based instructional site
illustrates

my

achievement of the sub
-
components of standard 2.4.



STANDARD 3: UTILIZATION


3.1

Media Utilization


According to Seels and Richey (1994), “media
utilization is the systematic use of re
sources for
learning” (p. 46).
To demonstrate my achievement of this standard, I submit my
use of Zotero

for

EDTECH 501: Introduc
tion to Educational Technology
.
Zotero
is a web tool
for gathering,
cataloging, citing and sharing resources.
My reflection on using Zotero in Ed Tech 501 can be
found on my

learning log
, along with an example of a citation page I generated using resources
in my Zotero library. I also submit my
use of Diigo

for EDTECH 543: Social Network Learning.
Diigo is a social bookmarking site that allows users to bookmark and tag webpages, highlight
webpage conten
t, and add comments via “sticky notes.”
In
EDTECH

543 I
joined

with peers in a
Diigo group to build an
extensive collection of bookmarks

about communities of practice,
connectivism, and personal learning network
s.
You

can see the
entire class’s

activity
here
.

Use
of these resource
-
gathering tools to

improve my learning and

build my personal learning network
illustrates my achievement of standard 3.1.



3.2

Diffusion of Innovations


Seels and Richey (1994) describe diffusion of innovations as “the process of communicating
through planned strategies for the purpose of gaining adoption” (p. 22). The ultimate goal of
diffusion of innovations is to bring about
change. To illustrate my achievement of this standard, I
submit my
Digital Inequality presentation

created
in

EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational
Technology.

This pro
ject involved assuming the role of a “Digital Inequality T
ask Force” asked
to advise the “
state super
intendent of public instruction”

on the best use of $50 million dollars
allocated to her to address digital inequality

issues in Idaho. My group collabora
ted via Google
docs to generate a definition of digital inequality and an explanation of how it relates to
education. We
then
conducted research on the proposed options for the funds and ranked them
from least to most recommended.
Last, w
e
created a digi
tal presentation
with

narr
ated slides
using VoiceThread, and pitched our recommendations to the “
stakeholders”

for th
e purpose of
gaining adoption.


I

also submit my
final synthesis paper

for EDTECH 504: Theoretical Foundations of Educational
Technology

as evidence of meeting standard 3.2
. In this paper, I discussed the

educational
theories that support the

design and

use of 3
-
D

virtual worlds
in education. My goal was to
promote a change in the way the education communit
y views the use of systems like
SecondLife

for learning. Such systems are more than “edutainment” a
nd offer educators unique
opportunities to foster learning that are grounded in established learning theory.
The immediacy
of positive feedback to reinforce desired behaviors via gamer scores, badges
, and icons in the
game

world

support

virtual world use
from a behaviorist standpoint (Charles, Charles, McNeill,
Bustard, & Black, 2011).

The ability to build on existing knowledge by engaging in highly
realistic simulations in virtual worlds supports their use from a cognitivist perspective (Schiller,
2009).

Social constructivism is foundational to making a case
for

the use of virtual worlds in
education. These worlds
allow students to construct knowledge and engage in simulated
experiences that would
otherwise
be too costly, dangerous, or impossible in the

real world
(Dickey, 2011).

Last,
virtual worlds can be viewed as vast connectivist networks bringing
novices and experts together to share and construct

knowledge (Kop & Hill, 2008).
This is just a
sampling of the evidence I provided in my paper to supp
ort the diffusion of virtual world
technology

into
today’s classrooms
and online
learning communities
.


3.3 Implementation
and

Institutionalization


“Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated) settings”
(Seels &

Richey, 1994, p. 47). To demonstrate my achievement of standard 3.3
,

I submit my
Course Assistant Training

course developed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. This
training course was

developed
based on a real need in my work environment. Our institution
was in need of a training course for students being requested to serve as course assistants in
online courses. Typically, these students only have experience with Blackboard as stude
nts
themselves, and serving as a course assistant requires them to know how to perform certain
course administration functions. In addition, they have to be familiar with Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations because they have
acce
ss to view student grades

and other protected information
.
This course was built in the summer of 2013, and it is currently
being used at
LCSC

as the official training
for student course assistants.



I also submit my
synchronous lesson

on
using
SoftChalk LessonBuilder from EDTECH 521:
Online Teaching.
This lesson was developed for synchronous delivery via Blackboard
Collaborate and was delivered

to a
long
-
distance participant who teaches English for the Idaho
Digital Learning Academy.
According to Rice (2012), synchronous communication tools are
appropriate to use for learning situations that require participants to demonstrate mastery of
partic
ular skills.
The Collaborate platform allowed me to share the SoftChalk application with
the participant
so I could

perform a live demonstration
of
the program’s features. I
then
transferred control of the cursor to my participant to enable him to
demons
trate his ability to
perform t
hose same functions on his own.



These examples clearly demonstrate

my ability to implemen
t instruction in

real setting
s
,
thus
satisfying standard 3.3.


3.4
Policies and Regulations


According to Seels and Richey (1994), “p
olicies and regulations are the rules and actions of
society that affect diffusion and use of Instructional Technology” (p. 47). An M.E.T candidate
who has achieved this standard can “identify and apply
policies which incorporate professional
ethics withi
n practice (3.4.2
)” and “identify policies and regulations which apply to the
utilization, application, and integration of distance delivery technologies (3.4.5)” (Earle
&
Persichitte, 2005, p. 24).


To demonstrate my ac
hievement of sub
-
component 3.4.2
, I submit my
plagiarism instructional
video
s

created in EDTECH 501: Introdu
ction to Educational Technology. In EDTECH 501, I
used
Xtranormal

to create two short instructional

videos that define three types of plagiarism:
non
-
attribution, self
-
plagiarism, and patch writing.
The videos are aimed at

9
th
-
12
th

grade
students and college
-
level students, and are meant
to inform them of the potential legal
consequences and the ethica
l implications of committing plagiarism
. According to Davidson
-
Shivers and Rasmussen (2006), “the advent of the Web has made access to and improper use of
work written or produced by others a relatively widespread phen
omenon” (p. 192).
To combat
this iss
ue at my own institution, these videos are currently
integrated into the online Blackboard
student orientation course

in which
our online

students are enrolled.


I submit my “
Accessibility for Online Educators” webpage

as an example of my achi
e
vement of
sub
-
component 3.4.5. This webpage is targeted to online instructors who teach at
LCSC
. The
webpage

defines accessibility and provides links to detailed information about sections 504 and
508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. These sections deal with accessibility of content
provided
in
college courses, including those
courses
delivered via web
-
b
ased course
mana
gement systems like Blackboard.
To help online instructors
comply with these regulations
and
meet the accessibility needs of
their

students

the webpage provides links to a

v
ariety of
software tools for
captioning
video and audio

content an
d
creating speech
-
to
-
text transcripts
.








STANDARD 4: MANAGEMENT


4.1 Project Management


“Project
management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional design and
development projects”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 50).
To demonstrate

my project management
skills, I submit my
course planning site

for EDTECH 512: Online Course Design.
I managed
this course design project by utilizing

the steps of web
-
based instructiona
l design
(WBID)
.
These steps include problem analysis (outcomes, context, and learners), analysis of the
instructional content
, evaluation planning,
concurrent design (
WBI preplanning and design tasks),
instructional and motivational strategy planning, implementation planning, and summative
evaluation of the initial implementation of the
project

(Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006).


In the
analysis stage

of the projec
t, I defined the nature of the instructional problem, developed a
preliminary goal statement for the training, detailed the instructional context, and generated a
detailed analysis of the target learners.
In the second stage of analysis, I
developed a
lea
rning
task map

to track the main steps necessary

t
o accomplish the course goals. I then mapped the
steps defined in the LTM to their respective outcome levels by creating a
task
-
objective
-
assessment item blueprint
. The TOAB is used to “align the WBI obje
ctives and assessment
items with the learning task items and outcome levels


(Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p.
116).



E
valuation planning involved developing an
evaluation matrix

to establish criteria for evaluating
the effectiveness, efficiency, a
nd appeal of the goals, content, technology and message design to
be used in the course.
“This early planning allows the designer to review the WBI products of
design and development for their strengths and weaknesses and revise them accordingly”
(Davidso
n
-
Shiv
ers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 136).

I
also
planned for
a series of

tryouts

designed
to provide feedback during development.
Last, I

developed

plans for
summative evaluation

of
the course’s effectiveness, efficiency and appeal.
These

summative evaluati
on
s

are

distinct

from
the
summative
evaluation
s

designed to assess learner achievement of
the
course objectives.

The concurrent design phase involved
developing a
project timeline

using a Gantt chart to map
development activities and completion times.

I also created a
WBI flowchart

to
“establish
navigational specifications for the website and provide an outline of the instructional sequence


(Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 257).
Next,
I developed storyboards of the
course

and

unit

layout
s

to
i
llustrate where the graphic elements would appear in the
CMS

interface
(Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006
).
A final aspect of concurrent design was defining the
instructional

and
motivational

strategies to be considered when developi
ng the web
-
based
inst
ruction.
The motivational strategies selected were based on
the ARCS model and include
strategies that focus learner attention, establish relevance for the learner, instill confidence, and
create learner satisfaction (Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006).


Implementation planning

involved assigning duties to personnel and det
ermining implementation
costs, identifying initial learner contact, identifying technical requirements and preparing for
technical support, and establishing means of communication with

course participants.

Because
this course was designed in the summer, I was unable to implement it with real students.
However, I developed a
summative evaluation

plan for evaluating the course after its first full
deployment, which is
taking place this
fall (2013). The summative evaluation plan
includes
an
update of the evaluation criteria for assessing the course’s effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal,
and it includes links to the summative evaluation tools developed to assess learner achievement
of t
he obje
ctives in the training course.


4.2 Resource Management


“Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling
resource support sy
stems
and services,” including instructional resources (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51).

As evidence of
my achievement of this standard, I
submit this
Training Resources

video

showcasing
the

YouTube channel I
manage

and the Blackboard training course
s

I’ve bu
ilt
as part of my job as
an
instructional designer for
LCSC
. I

created the ma
jority of the
instructional tutorials

housed on
my department’s YouTube

channel,
and I am responsible for ensuring that
the videos are

up
-
to
-
date and
open

for sharing via links a
nd embedding. Along with being available via the YouTube
channel, the majority of this content is embedded in the online
Blackboard training course
s

I’ve
created.
These training courses are
designed to be entirely asynchronous, self
-
paced, and

open
for
LCSC instructors

to
enroll and disenroll

at their prerogative. As such, the training
s

serve
a
double duty
:
they provide

guided instruction
for using Blackboard
, and
they serve as repositories

of information that
instructors

can browse through to locate sp
ecific information on
a

topi
c
they’re having trouble with.



4.3 Delivery System Management


According to Seels and Richey (1994), “delivery system management involves planning,
monitori
ng and controlling ‘the method
by which distribution of instructional materials is
organized’...” (p. 51).

An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can determine
hardware and software guidelines, plan for technical support, and develop or provide guidelines
for various types o
f system users (Earle
&

Persichitte, 2005).



As evidence of my achievement of standard 4.3, I submit
my
concurrent design
work

for my

Course Assistant Training course developed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design.

Prior to
developing an initial prototype of WBI, “the designer must take care of technical issues that
could affect prototype development” (Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006
, p. 265).
Following

Davidson
-
Shi
vers and Rasmussen’s (2006) recommendations on pages 265
-
269
,

I developed
solutions for a series of potential
technical concerns

related to the
CMS

and
my

institution’s
CMS
hosting

servers.
I also developed a “
solution su
mmary
” to address general technical
concerns, server capabilities, browser compatibility, ADA comp
liance, and quality assurance.
These
two
elements

demonstrate my ability to attend to hardware and software issues and
technical support concerns
related to
information
delivery systems
.


I also submit
my

webpages

created

in EDTECH 502: The Internet for Educators as an example
of delivery system management.

In
EDTECH 502
, I learned how

to program
W3C
-
compliant

web pages for delivering instructional content via a web browser.

Each web page created for the
course required careful consideration of design principles, accessibility requirements, and
content format to ensure optimal function
ality for a web
-
based delivery system.

At the time of
creation, all of my web pages passed W3
-
C validation.
In addition to learning how to follow
the
programming protocols for a web
-
based
content
delivery system, I also lear
ned how to manage
the “back
-
en
d” file storage
for this type of delivery system.
The web pages created
for

502

had
to be housed on the EdTech web server, and I had to learn how
to
use file transfer protocol
software
to establish identical
remote

and
local

file folder structures
. This
was necessary

to
ensure proper functionality of navigational links and content links
for

all of the pages I built
.
(View the

mirrored
file
management

system

I
created

fo
r my

EDTECH
502 work and my entire
EdTech portfolio
.
)

My work with web page building and remote file management demonstrates
my ability to manage an information delivery system.




4.4 Information Management



“Information management involves planning, mo
nitoring, and controlling the storage, transfer,
or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.
51).
An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “access and utilize a variety of
information sou
rces for their professional benefit” (
Earle
&

Persichitte, 2005
, p. 25).


To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my
use of Twitter

in EDTECH 543:
Social Network Learning.
According to
Murray (2013),

“Twitter chats have evolved into an
excellent,

differentiated form of professional development
.


To
utilize

this emerging form of
professional development
, I was tasked
in EDTECH 543
wi
th “following” at least five Twitter

hash tags related to my professional field.
I chose to follow
the Idaho Educators Chat
(#IDedchat), Northwest Managers of Educational Technology (#nw/met), Pedagogy and
Technology (#patue), Inside Online Learning (#io
lchat), and Blackboard (#blackboard).
I used
the web app
TweetDeck

to follow the
“tweets”

for each of these hash tags.
I shared a brief
description of these hash tags, three professional
development concepts learned from following
them,
and my thoughts o
n using Twitter for professional development
on the
EDTECH 543
Facebook page

and

my
EdTech 543 Blog
.


On a similar note,
my
use of RSS feeds

in EDTECH 501: Introduction

to Educational
Technology also
demonstrates achievement of standard 4.4
.
RSS feeds, or really simple
syndication feeds, are summaries of web content containing links to the full version of the
content. To
subscribe to a
web
site’s RSS feed, a person need
s to configure a “
feed reader
,” of
which there are
numerous varieties

available on the web. Like TweetDeck, a feed reader can be
configured to pull RSS feeds from mult
iple sourc
es for easy browsing of content related to ones
professional field.
I no longer maintain a feed reader in favor of using TweetDeck to follow
professional development
sources
, but my experience with using RSS feeds in EDTECH 501
demonstrates my versatility with accessing and utilizing a variety of information sources for my

professional development.








STANDARD 5: EVALUATION


5.1
Problem Analysis


“Problem analysis involves

determining the nature and parameters
o
f the problem by using
information
-
gathering and decision
-
making strategies” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56).


An M.E.T.
candidate who has achieved this standard
can “
conduct n
eeds assessments, identify and define
problems, identify constraints, identify resources, define

learner

characteristics,
and
define

goals
and

objectives in instructional systems

design, med
ia

development and

utilization, pro
gram
management, and

evaluation”

(
Earle
&

Persichitte, 2005
, p. 29
).
The purpose is to use this
inf
ormation to improve instruction,
projects
,

and programs.


To demonstrate my achievement of standard 5.1, I submit my
Evaluation Report

from

EDTECH
505: Evaluation.
For this project, I conducted an evaluation of an online training program
offered at my institution for the R
espondus LockDown Browser.
To conduct this program
evaluation, I engaged in several
aspects

of problem analysis. In the “
Purpose of Evaluation


(p.
5)

section of my evaluation report, I explained why the identified program was in need of
evaluation

and d
efine
d the goals of the evaluation. I also described the stakeholders involved in
the evaluation and how the results of the evalu
ation report might impact each.
(
In this situation,
defining the stakeholders is akin to defin
ing learner characteristics.
)

I
n the “
Background
Information


(p. 6
-
8)

section of the report, I further define
d the
nature and parameters of the
problem
by explaining the original purpose of the program being evaluated, the current state of
the program, the personnel tied to the progra
m, and the program’s objectives and characteristics.
This
part

of the problem analysis
provided

the

context for understanding the evaluation design
and the discu
ss
ion of the evaluation results.


I also conducted a
n extensive

problem analysis
for my
Instructional Design Project

in EDTECH
503: Instructional Design
.
In
Part 1

(p. 4)
of the project, I define
d

the goal of the instruction and
described the major strategy used to design the instruction, which was primarily supplantive due
to the procedural nature of the information to be learned. I also
provide
d

a detailed rationale
for
the teaching strategies

selected to deliver the instructio
n, which was direction instruction with
demonstrations
,

followed by guided practice. According to Smith and Ragan (2005), the best
strategy for teaching procedural knowledge is “a straightforward presentation of the procedure
with demonstrations of the ap
plications of the procedure, rather than having the learners struggle
with discovering the procedure for themselves” (p.192). This strategy was selected after
conducting a

Needs Analysis Survey


(p. 5
-
6)
of

twenty members of the target audience
. The
sur
vey was designed to
gather data about
participants’

proficiency with technology and their

preferred methods of learning.
In the

Learning Context Description
” (p. 8)
,

I described the
learning context
, which was the e
-
Learning Services Training Lab, and th
e Transfer Context,
which was each participant’s personal Blackboard course. Last, I provided a detailed
description of the learners, including academic background, gender, age range, current
proficiency with technology, and motivation for learning.






5.2 Criterion
-
Referenced Measurement


“Criterion
-
referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery of pre
-
specified content”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I
submit the assessment mea
sures I created for my

Course Assistant Training


course
from

EDT
ECH 512: Online Course Design. According to Smith and Ragan (2005), “when developing
criterion
-
referenced instruments, designers use the precise objectives that they developed” and
they
“write items that match a goal or objective in terms of conditions presented an
d
performance required” (p. 104
).
This
Module 1 Assessment
document

conta
ins a screenshot of
the learning objectives I wrote for module 1 of the training course. Beneath the objectives are
the test questions I wrote to assess ac
hievement of these objectives. Note that the assessment
items use the same terminology as that used

in the learning objectives, and the assessment items
ask the learners to indicate the correct answer using the same performance indicator specified in
the objective. For example
, the last two objectives ask students to i
dentify information that can

or ca
nnot

be released without wr
itten consent from the student.
The assessment item for this
objective provides a list of different types of student information and asks
learners

to identify
them

as “can be released” or “cannot be released” using a
matching st
yle question type.


Another example of my ability to construct criterion
-
referenced assessment measures comes
from my
asynchronous lesson

on Elements, Compounds
, and Mixtures created in EDTECH 521:
Online Teaching.

One of the objectives for this lesson is to identify substances as element
s
,
compound
s
, or mixture
s
. In the lesson, I provide
d

an
assessment activity

that requires

students
to sort “cards” into the correct category of element, compound, or mixture.

I also included
several questions in a qu
iz group aimed
at

assess
ing

learners’ ability to identify substance
s

as
element
s
, compound
s
, or mixture
s
. In these assessments students are asked to identify given
substances rather than generating their own examples of e
lements, compounds or mixtures. T
his
aligns with the performance level ind
icated in the lesson objective.


5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation


“Formative evaluation is the process of evaluating the instructional product during its design and
development” (Davidson
-
Shivers & Rasmusse
n, 2006, p. 133).
Formative evaluation includes
review of the design materials by an expert reviewer, learner validation, and ongoing review
(Smith & Ragan, 2005).


As evidence
of my ability to
engage in

format
ive evaluation
, I submit my
Instructional Design
Project

for EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. In
the

Formative Evaluation Plan
” (p. 24
-
25)
,

I
described the qualifications of the expert reviewer and detai
led
the

three phases of learner
validation: one
-
to
-
one evaluation, small
-
group evaluation, and field trials (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
The first phase, one
-
to
-
one evaluation
, is conducted

to “determine and rectify any gross
problems in the instruction


(Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 329). I created a
series of questions to ask
of the participants at the end of the one
-
to
-
one evaluation stage
to de
termine any major design
flaws
(6b
, p. 24
). I developed plans for small
-
group evaluation
to determine the effect
iveness of
the changes made from the one
-
to
-
one evaluation and
to
see how well the instruction worked
with more varied learners (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
I created a set of follow
-
up questions for this
phase of the evaluation, as well (6c
, p. 24
).

Last, I p
lanned for a field trial to determine the
effectiveness of the instructional materials with a large group of participants (Smith & Ragan,
2005), and I developed evaluation questions to be distributed to the participants at the end of the
field trial. In t
he

Formative Evaluation Report
” (p. 25
-
26)
,

I listed the questions asked of the
expert reviewer regarding the instructional materials. His responses were summarized in the

Report of Expert Reviewer


(7b
, p. 26
). My plan for incorporating the expert
rev
iewer’s

suggestions is described in the

Designer’s Response to Review


(7c
, p. 26
).



According to Seels and Richey (1994), “summative evaluation involves gathering information on
adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization


(p. 57). Summative
evaluations are conducted at the end of a program to determine if the program should continue

“as
-
is
,
” if changes need to be made
, or if it should be discontinued. The summative evaluation
process involves documenting program processes
, measuring attainment of program goals, and
conducting a cost
-
benefits analysis if applicable (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2011).



My
Evaluation Report

for EDTE
CH 505: Evaluation was a summative evaluation of an online
training program
for the Respondus LockDown Browser
.
To conduct this evaluation, I described
in detail in the

Background Information


(p.
6
-
8)
section of the report the existing state of the
training program being evaluated. This included describing the institution’s rationale for
creating the training, the learning objectives of the training, the personnel involved with the
training, and the manner in wh
ich the training is conducted.
I gath
ered data on the number of
instructors

who have completed the training,
the number of Blackboard courses in which the tool
is in use
, the average time spent completing the training, and the time spent developing the
training
.

This information was used to
generate a

cost analysis

table

(p.
17)

to facilitate the
stakeholders’ decision
-
making regarding renewing the software license for the

program
.

I also
gathered exis
ting data regarding correct implementation of the software upon completion of the
training,

and I analyzed
participant feed
back surveys regarding the
efficacy

and
appeal

o
f the
online training program.

The results of this information were described in the

Discussion of
Results
” (p. 16)

for the purpose of providing stakeholders with information

for making decisions
about whether or not to modify the current program’s objectives, content, or instructional
methods.



5.4 Long
-
Range Planning



Long
-
range planning involves “trying to decide in the present what must be done to ensure
organizational
success in the future” (
Certo
,
Husted
,
Douglas, & Hartl
, 1990, p. 168). An M.E.T
candidate who can develop a long
-
range strategic plan demonstrates achievement of standard 5.4
(
Earle
&

Persichitte, 2005
).

In EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Techno
logy, I
developed a hypothetical “
Technology Use Plan
” to address the long
-
range technology use goals
of a
small
four
-
year college.
In the rationale
,

I described the need f
or long
-
range planning,
which included meeting national standards for academic programs and provi
ding a sense of
campus
-
wide buy
-
in regarding technology use.
I described the planning team and stakeholders,
the overall process of long
-
range planning, and t
he types of instruments to be used to conduct a
needs assessment of current technology use o
n the campus. The plan included

long
-
range goals
and objectives, considerations for faculty and staff development, and a process for evaluating
achievement of the
plan’s goals and objectives. The final component of the technology use plan
was the development of a timeline for completing each co
mponent described in the plan.


The “Conclusions and Recommendations” section of my

Evaluation Report

for EDTECH 505:
Evaluation also illustrates my achievement of standard 5.4.
As part of an evaluation report, the
evaluator
is often tasked with making recommendations regard
ing the “short
-
term and long
-
term
actions that will improve the program” (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2011, p. 196).
In the

Conclusions and Recommendations


(p.
18)
, I provided two
long
-
range
recommendations.
My
first recommendation
expressed my concern with
the limited scope of the learning objectives in
the training program. I recommended modifying the training to include a more authentic method
to assess learner achievement of the program objectives, such as a performance assessment of the
skills taught in

the training.

This c
ould require an extensive redesign of the training program,
necessitating

a full cycle of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.
My
se
cond long
-
range recommendation was to suggest that someone conduct a summat
ive
evaluation of how the training program is promoted on campus in order to identify
what is
currently being done and what might be done to increase awa
reness and use of the program. It
could conceivably take several semesters to conduct both of these ev
aluations, examine the
results, make changes, implement, and reassess.



Conclusion


Thus, we come to the end of my educational journey through the Ed Tech program at Boise State
University.
I believe this showcase of my work
demonstrates

beyond a doubt that I have
achieved the standards
selected

by

the Ed Tech program
to describe a

Master of Educational
Technology.
Through
this program
,

I have gained access to
new technologies, new strategies for
implementing technology, new network conn
ections, and opportunities to continue my
professional growt
h as an instruction
al designer and educational technologist.






REFERENCES


Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2011).
The ABCs of evaluation
. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
-
Bass.


Certo
, S. C., Husted,

S. W., Douglas, M. E., & Hartl, R. J. (1990).
Business

(3rd

ed.).

Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.


Charles, D., Charles, T., McNeill, M., Bustard, D., & Black, M. (2011). Game
-
based


feedback for educational multi
-
user virtual environments.
Briti
sh Journal of Educational

Technology
, 42(
4
), 638
-
654.


Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. A. (2004).
Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for


creative instructions
. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
-
Bass.


Davidson
-
Shivers
, G. V. & Rasmussen, K. L. (2
006).
Web
-
based learning: Design,

implementation, and evaluation
. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.


Dickey, M. D. (2011). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K
-
12 educators: Investigating the

affordances and constraints of Active Worlds and Se
cond Life with K
-
12 in
-
service

teachers.
Educational Technology Research and Development
, 59(
1
), 1
-
20.



Earle, R. S. & Persichitte, K. A. (Eds.).
(2005
). Standards for the accreditation of school media


specialist and educational technology specialist
programs
.

(4
th

ed.).

Bloomington, IN:

Association for
Educational Communications and Technology
. Retrieved from

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site
-

ym.com/resource/resmgr/AECT_Documents/AECTstandardsREV2005.pdf


Fink
elstein, J. (2006).
Learning in real
time: Synchronous teaching and learning online
.


San Francisco, CA: Jossey
-
Bass.


Lohr, L. L. (2008).
Creating graphics for learning and performance
: Lessons in visual literacy.



Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.



Murray, T. (2013). Utilizing T
witter chats for professional development.
SmartBlog on

Education.
Retrieved from
http://smartblogs.com/education/2013/03/27/utilizing
-
twitter
-

chats
-
for
-
professional
-
development/


Rice, K. (2012).
Making the move to K
-
12 online teaching
. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson


Education Inc.


Schiller, S. Z. (2009). Practicing learner
-
centered teaching: Pedagogical design and assessment

of a Second Life project.
Journal of Information Systems Education
, 20(
3
), 369
-
381.




Seels, B., & Richey,

R. (1994).
Instructional

technology:

The

definition

and

domains of



the

field
.
Bloomington, IN
:

Association for E
ducational Communications

and

Technology.


Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005).
Instructional design

(3rd Ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley &


S
ons.