Reading Response Week 3

There are many definitions of what is later referred to as instructional design and technology presented in chapter 1.  It’s not that I disagree with any of these definitions.  In fact, I agree with most of them.  In my opinion, however, it seems as if the definitions are just expanding on what I think are bigger themes in the field.  For me, instructional design and technology should include the following characteristics:

·      It should create a more convenient learning environment for teachers and students.

·      It should look to create student-driven learning and greater student independence.

·      It should support an idea in the most user-friendly way.

·      It should be open to process and supplement the intuitive nature of teachers.

What I found to be surprising in chapter 1 was that humans weren’t included in the definition of instructional design and technology until 1977.  Media aside, it’s still humans who have to drive the media and design how the media will supplement classroom content.  I guess if anything seemed to be missing, it would be the mentioning of teacher intuition.  Maybe this wasn’t mentioned because it isn’t something that can be measured, but it seems as if the intuitive nature of a teacher plays greatly into the success of a classroom.  

The “Application” scenario presented in the book was interesting because our middle school rolled out a 1:1 initiative this year.  Although the program is still in the preliminary phase and it’s hard to gauge whether this initiative will positively affect instructional practices, I was able to come up with reasons why the hypothetical scenario in the book might have faltered.  

First of all, it’s likely that the project gave teachers and students lots of tools, but didn’t instruct the teachers how to use the tools or how to incorporate these tools into the curriculum.  It might also be likely that the tools themselves seemed trendy, but in actuality, didn’t supplement curriculum in any meaningful way.  In the two years I’ve been employed in an elementary school, I’ve probably seen 3-5 programs, which seemed like the new, trendy wagon to jump on, but faded out within a year because of the aforementioned reasons.  Perhaps many of our teachers had a similar mentality as Postman, wondering what problems these tools answered?  

Another possible reason the proposed program had minimal effect could be lack of funding needed to service and maintain the computers and update the tools.  Or, it could be one of the reasons why television media had minimal effect: teacher unwillingness to adopt the change.  Although many teachers have adopted widespread tools such as online grade books, email, etc.; other teaching tools, without proper training, could be seen as frustrating and more of a nuisance.  

I think one strategy that could be used to mitigate the above factors would be a thorough introduction of the tools and training of the tools for teachers so that teachers don’t feel the pressure of learning and introducing something new by themselves.  I think it would also be important for teachers to have a say in the instructional devices to be introduced before committing to them.  Perhaps by doing this, teachers would feel more included in the decision and would be able to select tools they think are applicable to the curriculum.