Educational Technology Vision Statement

This assignment gave me an opportunity to write an educational technology vision statement for my organization. I work as the Director of Educational Technology for the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE). In that capacity, I work with RCOE’s own internal programs and with all 23 school districts in Riverside County.

The vision of the Educational Technology Services (ETS) unit is to support the education of students in the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices that will enable them to thrive in the digital world.

In order to achieve that vision, ETS will:

• Provide consultation and facilitation in the design, development, and implementation of educational technology services and applications to support the learning goals of school districts and the program goals of RCOE
• Plan, organize, design, support and deliver professional development to advance the understanding and application of educational technology approaches in the Common Core State Standards and the general instructional programs
• Facilitate leadership for administrators in the efficient and effective application of technology
• Keep apprised of the current and emerging trends in educational technology
• Disseminate best practices in educational technology with the Riverside County community

Research supports both the constraints and the affordances of educational technology. For example,

Clark (2012) points out very simply that there is no evidence that media or media attributes influence learning. When Clark wrote that he had reviewed 70 years worth of research studies on the topic. That is a mountain of evidence that is difficult to argue with. In counterpoint, Kozma (2012) argues that some students will benefit from a particular medium’s characteristics. Kozma insists that both medium and method are part of instructional design and are then tied together. 

Though I give Clark the edge in this debate, I did have a pretty strong negative reaction to one of his claims. Clark (2012, p.175) stated that “...if different media or attributes yield similar learning gains...we must always choose the less expensive way...” I take that as a very narrow view of the mission of education. I think I understand his point to be that if teachers can get the same results without using computers (as an example of a media) then we should not be wasting money on expensive computers. That argument assumes that achievement is the only goal of education. We can certainly educate students without the tools of the 21st century. It was done that way for a long time. However, by always doing things the least expensive way possible, we are not doing our job of preparing students for college and the workplace.

References:

Clark, R. E. (2012). The media versus methods issue.  In R. E. Clark (Ed.) Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (2nd ed.), (pp. 173-185). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Kozma, R. B. (2012). Robert Kozma’s counterpoint theory of “learning with media.” In R. E. Clark (Ed.) Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (2nd ed.), (pp. 103-145). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. 

Educational Design Research: Final Reflection

What more do I hope to learn about EDR?
McKenney and Reeves (2012) noted that, "The insights and the interventions of educational design research evolve over time through multiple iterations of investigation, development, testing, and refinement." The aspect of EDR that I would like to have a better understanding of is the relationship between the iterative process and the results of the study. I have struggled with the idea of putting the treatment through several iterations and then still knowing what I am measuring (or otherwise analyzing) in the end. I have no doubt that an intervention, or treatment, improves its effectiveness and efficiency over the course of pilots and trials and refinements. I am just unclear about how I could relate any results to any particular piece of the iterations.

Will I consider EDR for my dissertation?
No, I am not considering EDR for my dissertation. I am already committed to a case study approach of an existing program. However, learning about EDR this semester has made me think about the process that I (and colleagues in my office) use to develop new programs and projects. I can see using an EDR approach for the next major project that I roll out after my dissertation is completed. It would be interesting to use the EDR approach and perhaps even publish the results.

What aspects of the peer review activities did I find beneficial of challenging?
I found the peer review activities to be highly beneficial. My classmates gave me excellent feedback, often seeing things that I had completely overlooked. While I did not always incorporate all of their suggestions into my final drafts, I did find that I incorporated the majority of their suggestions. In the end, I think my papers were much improved by the peer process. At the same time, I also learned a great deal by doing peer reviews of other students' papers. That process forced me to take a close, critical look at what someone else was working on. I think that one of the outcomes of these assignments wa that I read the work of my classmates much more closely than I would have otherwise. I was purposeful in which peers' papers I read - choosing ones that were fairly closely aligned with my own topic. In the end, I learned quite a bit from reading those drafts closely enough to comment. Some of the ideas I read about in peers' papers even affected my own work.


McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

Decision-Making in Educational Design Research

The decision-making process inherent in Educational Design Research (EDR) is still a bit muddy for me. My sense of EDR is that the design is constantly in flux. Assumptions, decisions, and changes all continue to happen throughout the design and implementation process. According to McKenney and Reeves (2012), the interactions and resulting changes to the design continue, and can even increase, as a project matures. The video of Dr. Bannan-Ritland describing the process of decision-making in EDR contributed to my confusion. In the video, she defined EDR as an unstructured, problem-solving process. She went on to describe the EDR process as having large numbers of assumptions and decisions made during the design process. She even indicated that her graduate assistants made many decisions along the way concerning the design of a project.

This situation makes me then wonder how we are able to measure which aspects of the design principles impacted the outcomes of an intervention, and to what extent. Perhaps due to my inexperience as a researcher, I would find it difficult to feel confident about making continuous decisions regarding the design of a program. It seems to me that effective EDR requires an experienced researcher who can quickly make design decisions based upon assumptions from the literature and from experience. My concern is really the potential domino effect of making weak design decisions early on which can then have negative effects on the subsequent decision-making. Very quickly, a design can become either quite convoluted or just based on weak assumptions and decisions. Either way, a researcher would end up in a situation where it would be very difficult to have confidence in the ability to judge the impact of the design elements on the outcomes of the intervention.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

DBR: Questions & Literature Reviews

I think that McKenney and Reeves (2012) do a good job of explaining Design-Based Research (DBR) in our textbook. They are very thorough in describing the phases of the DBR process. The researcher investigates an educational problem or issue, then enters the design phase, then implementation (with iterations, and then goes into the evaluation phase. My confusion comes from considering who would do this kind of research. A doctoral candidate who is hoping to finish his/her dissertation in a reasonable amount of time is likely to shy away from a process that includes multiple iterations perhaps over the span of a couple of years. I can also imagine that many research institutions also prefer to spend their time and resources on projects that will not take so long to get to the publication stage. I wonder if some DBR studies are supported by vendors (individuals or companies) that are trying to get a product, such as a new professional development program, to the market. Those vendors might have the capacity in terms of resources and time to embark on a long range project which might help substantiate their own product in the long run?

According to McKenney and Reeves (2012), conducting a literature review should help the researcher to gain insight into how to shape the data collection for the study, and it should help the researcher identify important elements for data analysis. Conducting the literature review for my study helped me do both of those things. I had been thinking that a survey would give me enough data in order to improve the online professional development program for new teacher induction. However, as I read more about studying professional development (online or face-to-face), it became clear that in order to get the rich, descriptive data that I would need to be able to improve the online professional development and suggest design principles that others could use, I would need to conduct interviews with at least a subset of the participants in this induction program. Those interviews would lead to the detailed data needed to identify themes, provide rich descriptions, and and make decisions based on the real perceptions of the participants.


McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

Clarifying Design-Based Research

This post has two objectives. First, I will identify an area of Design-Based Research (DBR) that I am still finding a little confusing. And second, I will share a concept map that I created to represent some of my current understanding of DBR.

I am finding DBR, or Educational Design Research (EDR), to be a particularly useful methodology for addressing educational issues. However, one aspect of DBR that is still a bit muddy for me is the way some DBR studies end up with a list of design principles that are intended to be applied to other research or to the development of other programs or interventions. Generating a list of design principles as a result of a DBR study ends up feeling like a bit of a leap to me. I like the DBR process of identifying a an educational problem, creating a professional development (or other intervention) program based on the literature and known design principles, and then implementing and revising through an iterative process. My confusion comes when the researcher then generates design principles from the results of the study with the expectation that those principles could be generalized.


easel.ly

Above is the concept map I created (using easel.ly) to represent some of my learning from this module. All of the reading that we did for this module indicated a few basic phases of the DBR process. The phases include analyzing a practical problem, developing a potential solution based on existing principles, engaging in an iterative process of refinement, and then reflecting on the process in order to generate new design principles which might be generalized (McKenney and Reeves, 2012). I chose to use a path design for my concept map because the literature is very clear about the steps involved in the DBR process. The two studies that I reviewed both followed the process outlined by the authors of each of our textbooks. Also, the studies presented in in the VoiceThreads of my classmates followed the same basic steps. Upcoming readings in our texts will dive deeper into each of the phases of DBR. But for now, I am feeling good about my level of understanding of this methodology.

My learning really focused on the iterative process of design, trial, feedback, revision, and more trials. I fear that I have overlooked that phase too frequently in my career so far. The impact of this module will be a change in my approach to my next professional development design project. I intend to highlight an iterative process that I think will lead to a higher quality product than I would have gotten otherwise.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

Reflection on the Online Teaching for Adult Learners Course

I created a concept map on the dimensions of online learning leading to persistence earlier in this course. Now I have updated that concept map to include the critical features of the online learning environment. I started by searching for a quote that would summarize my learning and my thoughts on the topic: “Knowledge is constructed actively by learners within a socio-cultural context.” (Bose, 2010). With that belief in mind, I tried to relate it to some of the things we have learned this semester

Created on easel.ly

about what makes for good online instruction. The real difference between the two sides of this concept map is the move from the theoretical to the practical. For me, the right side represents some of the ways in which online instructors can activate what they know about andragogy, contextualization, and self-directed learning. Online (and blended) instructors need to be even more purposeful than face-to-face instructors when it comes to creating an environment that values the experience that adult learners bring to the class, respects the adult learners' need for choice and control, and plays to adult learners' need to connect and to see the relevance of what they are doing in the class.

For part two of this blog reflection, we were asked to explain how this course has impacted our current or future work. I feel fortunate in that this course has directly affected two large projects under my direction. The first is one that I was going to have to do anyway. The "Social Media in the Common Core" online course I developed for an earlier assignment was the subject of my previous post (see below). The second project that has a direct relationship with this course came as a surprise. I was in a meeting recently with some people from my office and from a large school district in our county. The discussion turned to the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program. An issue that some students were having with the AVID elective courses was finding time in their schedule without losing opportunities for taking courses which will help them meet college entrance requirements in California. I asked about the possibility of an online alternative to these face-to-face elective courses. By the end of the meeting I had a new project in my lap! So I am now leading a small consortium of school districts in the creation of online AVID courses. This is a great project with a lot of potential to impact students in Riverside County and beyond. I do not believe this would have come about if this course had not raised my confidence in being able to put together a quality online learning experience.

Bose, S. (2010). Learning Collaboratively with Web 2.0 Technologies: Putting into Action Social Constructivism. Online Submission.

Reflection on Online Lesson Creation

Image licensed through Presenter Media

For me, getting this assignment to create an online lesson was a blessing in disguise. In my regular job I was going to have to take a face-to-face workshop about social media in the Common Core that I had done a few times and turn it into an online min-course anyway. So this assignment gave me the kickstart I needed to get that work done that I was going to have to do anyway. So I started transforming the content of my day-long face-to-face workshop into a three-week online professional development experience.

One of the concepts that I struggled quite a bit with from the beginning was trying to decide how much content was the right amount for this short online course. I had a full day's worth (7 hours) of content for the face-to-face course ready to go. But not all of that content translates well into an online course. So I decided to chink the content into three sections, or modules, and prepare approximately two hours worth of content for each module. Not that I care so much about the seat time. I am more interested in the mastery of the content. But having an approximate target helped me organize the content.

I have some experience creating online courses for adults. But I had never created one that was going to be reviewed by my peers and evaluated my my instructor. I found the readings and the evaluation criteria posted by Dr. Ching to be of great value as references for the mini course I was creating. More than once, I thought I was ready to submit this assignment only to review the criteria again and realize that I had not addressed something important. In the end, there turned out to be two great benefits of doing this assignment at this time. First, as I already mentioned, I was going to have to do this anyway to have this online course ready to go in September. Second, it was a great opportunity to actually put to use immediately all of the things we had been learning during this summer course. It is always important for my learning to have some timely, practical application for something I have been studying.