Here is what classmate N. responded:

I completely agree with you and I do not see why grading participation is so important. Obviously the ultimate goal is to teach the topics covered in a course effectively by enforcing critical thinking. As long as a student demonstrates that he/she has learned the topics introduced through his/her performace in exams and assignments why we should force an individual to participate in a discussion by assigning grades to participation.  I think having a forum to exchange ideas is helpful but a lot of people can learn without participating or  by passive participation (by just reading the posts that interests him/her) in a discussion group. My approach would be to provide all the learning tools available to the students and let them choose the most effective method themselves. As instructors our job is to measure the outcome.

To that, classmate J. responded:

I don’t see that there are any secrets to the educational process.  Students must interact with certain amounts of information in order to make it their own.  Participation has been proven to improve the levels of comprehension and absorption for the kinds of things most graduate students are expected to learn in their programs.  Yes there are some things that we can learn the first time we see or hear them, but most things take time.  Maybe I miss the point of this discussion but some of this is the reason I think I will always prefer the face to face discussions for some subjects.

Here’s what I wrote back:

The real issue is that the educational process is so variable.  We can design, design, design to get effective educational materials and activities for our instruction, but we still can’t account for the variability in humans as learners.  We can design multiple entry points into the instruction (audio, video, verbal, etc.), but we’ll still never hit all the learners.

As for your comment that “participation has been proven to improve the levels of comprehension and absorption for the kinds of things most graduate students are expected to learn in their programs,” I’m gonna disagree with you on that, but it could just be semantics.

When I teach my instructional design courses, I spend an entire day discussing the question “what is the difference between information and instruction?”  Answers are all over the place.  Most instructors think they are providing instructional activities to their students, but in reality they are just disseminating information; they are regurgitating content.  The difference between information and instruction is the ability to practice.  Instruction will involve the ability for the learner to practice and receive feedback. Here is a link to a blog post I wrote on just that topic, with an example of what a grad student response to the question might be (mine from grad school is posted there).

If you take your quote and change it to “PRACTICE has been proven to improve the levels of comprehension and absorption for the kinds of things most graduate students are expected to learn in their programs”, then I’d agree (thus my assertion that we just might be disagreeing on semantics.)  Otherwise, I think your comment is an overgeneralization.  Content is too variable.

I do agree with you that some content lends itself better for face to face instruction.  Even as an instructional designer and educational technologist, I don’t think everything should be taught online.  It just doesn’t work.  Once I was an instructional designer for an online college algebra class.  It was the hardest thing I’ve ever designed.  The technology we have today wasn’t available, and it was a nightmare.  Now, with that said, online components and simulations can ENHANCE face to face instruction (as can be seen with this story about brain surgeons practicing on virtual brains), but I still want my doctors and pilots to have practiced and learned on someone else before I need their services.

As I said, I go up for tenure this coming fall, and that brings with it extra pressure.  And last semester wasn’t a good one.  Yes, I got three publications, but my teaching wasn’t to the level I’m accustomed to.  And to make matters worse, while I research and design online instruction, they were all online courses, and I definitely didn’t practice what I preach.  So I figured I needed to “sharpen my saw.”  To do this, I enrolled in a course offered by the faculty development group here at Oklahoma State University. The title of the course? The title of this post: Preparing Online Instructors.

We’re one week in, and I’m already feeling weird about taking the class.  There is quite a range in technological expertise amongst the students, and an even broader range about pedagogy.  To be honest, as an instructional designer and when it comes to online instruction, I feel that I’m more experienced than the instructors.  Now that’s not a knock on them, I just think I’ve done more.  So as we’ve started discussions, I find I write a lot more detail–based on my experience–than the other learners.  I’m afraid I’m going to come off looking like the “know-it-all,” and I don’t want that.  But if you’re going to ask me a question, you had better want my answer, because I’ll give it to you.

I thought the course would be a good way to get back to blogging, so here’s what I’m going to do.  As I participate in discussions, I’m going to post my responses here.  I don’t really know why other than if I’m going to spend that much time writing, I’d like feedback on my ideas and thoughts from those within my field.  So feel free to comment.

One more thing, I’ll never identify a classmate by name.  I’ll use an initial.

Here we go . . .

This podcast had to be removed for clearance purposes.

I’ve got to admit, I’m enjoying thinking about these questions.

Wendy Wickham from In the Middle of the Curve has joined the conversation. Wendy has an MA in Instructional Technology from Towson University (I don’t think I know anyone on that faculty). Wendy makes a good point saying:

How I use theory – selling my instructional design ideas.

People respond to jargon. And, interestingly, people love learning other people’s jargon. I had never seen such an excited group of people as the day I introduced ADDIE to the Project Management group and related that process to how they do business.

Do I use ADDIE? Not always – but it does seem to be a nice way to keep track of the status of my ID projects.

Citing academic theory makes it sound like you are putting more effort into it than “I dunno – this just made sense. Whadya think?”

Do I need my MS in Instructional Technology to practice? No. The theoretical ammunition I received in that program helps.

Great point. I had the same experience working with some military officials earlier this year. But later Cammy responds:

I completely agree that this stuff impresses clients. I use it all the time.

But one can learn the jargon without going to grad school. And one can cite the academic theory by reading and staying informed.

Perhaps the (somewhat cynical) question to ask is — what’s the right amount of jargon needed to get by? Do I need to know all of the things on John’s list?

Personally, I don’t think so. I’ve gotten by well enough without most of those theories, it seems.

This comes back to my quest from last year of getting an informal masters in ID.

If one were to construct an informal, self-paced, DIY instructional design curriculum, what content would you include?

So Cammy, only because I’m a big fan of yours, I present How to get an Instructional Design education without paying tuition.First of all, let me reference some previous posts from my blog.

On April 1, 2006 I posted What my graduate students need to know. Specifically, on that post I’d pay attention to the suggested self-study program for Instructional Systems Development (ISD) by M. David Merrill (Yeah, I know, I keep referencing him in things, but it’s hard not to, he taught me design!). It’s outdated to a degree, but it has a solid foundation. He’s since given me a list of books to add to it, but I can’t find it right now. (Note to self: LOOK FOR IT!)

Next, when I was designing the EDTC 5203: Foundations of Educational Technology course here at Oklahoma State, I posted my Reading list for Foundations of Educational Technology. I later followed that post with Foundations readings revisited, in which I pointed people to Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd Edition. Specifically appropriate for this discussion is chapter 32 of the text: The Future of Instructional Design (which I referenced in my original post). Also in that chapter was Merrill’s breakdown of the proper study of instructional design. I posted my responses to the chapter in June 2006. According to that chapter, I would be considered an instructional scientist to Cammy’s instructional technologist.

With that said, if I wanted someone to get an instructional design education without paying tuition, here would be my list of must haves:

• One of the following (Whichever you’d prefer. I’d probably read the first and then pick one of the following three ):
  • The Essentials of Instructional Design, by Abbie Brown and Timothy Green. It provides a great, fundamental overview of the process, including all three of the following books.
    • Instructional Design, by Pat Smith and Tim Ragan.
    • The Systematic Design of Instruction, by Walter Dick, Lou Carey, and James Carey.
    • Designing Effective Instruction, by Gary Morrison, Steven Ross and Jerrold Kemp.
• The Conditions of Learning, by Robert Gagné. This is a seminal work, and in my opinion, a must have.
• The ID Casebook, by Peggy Ertmer and Jim Quinn. A case study approach to implementing ID in various arenas.
• Training Complex Cognitive Skills, by Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer. Dr. Merrill says this is the most significant work since Gagné’s Conditions of Learning. This design takes us beyond the simplistic domains of learning we’ve always dealt with and answers the question, “What if it’s a combination of domains?” FANTASTIC book.
• The Design of Everyday Things, by Donald Norman. Good design is good design.
• What Engineers Know and How They Know it, by Walter G. Vincenti. A book on how engineers solve design problems. After all, aren’t we educational engineers?
• Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field, by Barbara Seels and Rita Richey or Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (more recent), by Al Januszewski, Michael Molenda, and Phillip Harris.
• Preparing Instructional Objectives, by Robert Mager. Ahh, the beginning . . .
• Rapid Instructional Design, by George M. Piskurich. This is more like it’s done in the “real world,” isn’t it?
• Absolute Beginner’s Guide to Project Management, by Gregory Horine. Like we’ve already established in my first post to Cammy, this is where we are headed.
• A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment, by Kavita Gupta, Cathy Sleezer, and Darlene Russ-Eft.  Another good one (but about 20 years old) is Training Needs Assessment by Allison Rossett.
• Psychology of Learning for Instruction, by Marcy Driscoll. We need an idea of what we believe how people learn.
• Survey of Instructional Development Models, by Kent Gustafson and Rob Branch. Nice overview of the models.
• Instructional Design Theories and Models, Volume 1, and Volume 2, by Charlie Reigeluth. They are kind of dense reading, but well worth it.

Disclaimer: In these last series of posts, I am in NO WAY saying that it isn’t necessary or beneficial to have academic training.  I actually had Tyler Wardle, of our Ph.D. recruits,  tell me last night that I shouldn’t have posted what I did until he actually entered our program (or someone else’s).  So perhaps I wasn’t clear.  I do believe the theory informs practice, and that knowing the theory should make you a better designer.  When I commented that it wouldn’t make a difference, I was speaking directly to Cammy.  I was saying that she seems smart enough that it probably wouldn’t make a difference to her situation.

So there you have it, Cammy. I hope this helps.

Comments, anyone? What did I leave off?

I guess it’s just the illusion of normalcy. At any rate, I’ve uploaded it to my YouTube account, and you can see the whole thing (it’s only 14 minutes, including buffer music) where I introduce myself and my philosophy of the undergrad preservice teacher course. You can also see different movie clips I use in the course on that YouTube page.

See the vodcast after the jump. Nope. It’s too long for YouTube. Here’s the link.

My friend John Curry reminded me that I’m not posting very often on my blog these days, and he’s right. It seems I’m taking a shorter route–kind of “mini-blogging”. Basically I’m just saving and tagging interesting net resources in my delicious bookmarks account. I now have over 1000 items in that account, and it’s been useful for me, and for students–sort of like my external long-term memory. So, if you would like to know what I’m reading about, investigating, or find interesting, that’s the place.

I thought that was funny because I started blogging after listening to Trey and Dave Wiley’s presentation on blogs and wikis at AECT in 2005. I thought, “How can Trey go away from this to something else? Just posting stuff to del.icio.us isn’t the same!”

Well, ten months later, and I find myself right where Trey was (is). I’m blogging less, but posting more to my del.icio.us account and the del.icio.us account for our EDTC 3123 course. Not only that, but I’ve been using my Google Reader account like crazy, and I’ve actually been reading more than I ever have been, and I’m starring a lot of different items.

So even though I’m doing more, I’m writing less. So what does that mean? Is what I’m doing not meaningful? It’s meaningful to me, but am I really doing anything worthwhile?

Jury’s out . . .