I admit I found the selection from the book of "Educational Technology" a bit hard to follow and comprehend. I could say it's from my complete lack of knowledge regarding anything about Instructional Technology foundations (hence, taking this class:). Or it could just be I thought the way it was written could have cut to the chase a little quicker, which WAS what I really enjoyed about the second reading from "Trends and issues in instructional design and technology." Speaking of which, that article stated "as is the case with many professions, different individuals in the field focus their attention on different aspects of it, oftentimes thinking that the work they do is at the heart of the field, that their work is what instructional technology is "really all about""......not so sure that "professionals" are the only people thinking they're the center of the universe in whatever matters most to them but maybe that is why we have had so many recognized definitions for this field! Since the article by Reiser, 2007, was easier for me to comprehend, my quotes have been cited from this article unless noted otherwise.
In the beginning, early definitions in this field were focused on "the physical means via which instruction [was] presented to learners." This was known as the visual instruction movement (what exactly did they focus on during this time? Handling the projectors and slides alone? I didn't get a good feel for that but I'm not sure it's that important). In the 1950's and even moving into the 1970's, some top leaders in the field started to discuss it as more of a process rather than just associating or equating it with media by itself. The 1963 definition was the first "approved" definition and focused on "the design and use of messages which control the learning process." I'm not sure what they meant exactly by "control" in this sense - was it meant to be more of a guide to the learning process? What was the status of the definition of "the learning process" itself at this time? This definition was also the starting point that identified "several of the major steps often associated with what has become know as systematic instructional design." So far, we've gone from thinking this field was just about the media used to present learning, to looking at it from a more systemic process oriented view of developing and delivering learning messages. Seems like a logical enough progression to me.
1970 brought two new definitions - the first (and better known) mostly reflected the older view (media focus) of instructional technology. It was the second (and less familiar) definition that struck a chord with me (kindof an ah-ha! moment in that I wanted to know more about this "process"). This second definition spoke of " going beyond the device itself [and is] more than the sum of its parts. It is a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluation of the whole process of learning and teaching terms of specific objectives, based on human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more effective instruction."
1977 brought about a new definition that got a little wordy. It sounded like they weren't really sure which direction they wanted to commit to with the two definitions in 1970 (even retreating a bit with the first of the two), but in 1977, it sounded as if they wanted to cover maximum ground by including every possibility for the field (pretty much with one sentence too). They were, however, still putting emphasis on the "systematic" design process approach and other emphasis that "reinforced the notion that the work of instructional technologists was not limited to the development and use of media." Still moving forward.....
The 1994 definition was brought about by shifts in the fields base learning theories and was also propelled forward by advancements in media (the Internet!!). They were also able to keep this definition short, sweet, and to the point (while still remaining open to many possibilities in my opinion). This new definition was not as focused on being process oriented in itself, but now described the field as being made of five domains - design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation (although I think there was still a "process" feel within each of these domains).
2006 brought about the most recently approved definition and one that sounds like a definition I can better understand and relate to. It focuses on the intention of "facilitating learning" versus that which would "cause or control learning" (which was a term included in the 1963 definition I wasn't sure of the true intention behind). "The new perspective recognizes the important role that learners play in determining what they will learn, regardless of the instructional intervention they are exposed to."Did they think it was just a matter of getting a bigger hammer and hitting harder if someone wasn't getting it before? I admit that's the easier way to assume and a path I've taken myself in some areas.....But maybe that's not what it's about. Maybe it's more about putting some more of the responsibility and ownership of learning on the student and not all on the instructor (although this definition also tells me the instructor needs to have an even broader knowledge base of different learning styles and be able to facilitate the learning for those multiple perspectives and styles). Another good point within the newest definition is that it "also indicates that one of the goals of professionals in the field is to improve performance," meaning the ultimate goal isn't just about the learning, it's about applying the learning they've acquired. In my experience, I've found that application of knowledge (at least from a management perspective) is way more difficult than the learning itself. Taking a course on Excel is so much simpler than looking at data and deciding to actually do something with it. Reading about how to handle employee performance problems is cake compared to actually dealing with one. So far I'm excited to contemplate the possibilities this newest definition brings!
1977 brought about a new definition that got a little wordy. It sounded like they weren't really sure which direction they wanted to commit to with the two definitions in 1970 (even retreating a bit with the first of the two), but in 1977, it sounded as if they wanted to cover maximum ground by including every possibility for the field (pretty much with one sentence too). They were, however, still putting emphasis on the "systematic" design process approach and other emphasis that "reinforced the notion that the work of instructional technologists was not limited to the development and use of media." Still moving forward.....
The 1994 definition was brought about by shifts in the fields base learning theories and was also propelled forward by advancements in media (the Internet!!). They were also able to keep this definition short, sweet, and to the point (while still remaining open to many possibilities in my opinion). This new definition was not as focused on being process oriented in itself, but now described the field as being made of five domains - design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation (although I think there was still a "process" feel within each of these domains).
2006 brought about the most recently approved definition and one that sounds like a definition I can better understand and relate to. It focuses on the intention of "facilitating learning" versus that which would "cause or control learning" (which was a term included in the 1963 definition I wasn't sure of the true intention behind). "The new perspective recognizes the important role that learners play in determining what they will learn, regardless of the instructional intervention they are exposed to."Did they think it was just a matter of getting a bigger hammer and hitting harder if someone wasn't getting it before? I admit that's the easier way to assume and a path I've taken myself in some areas.....But maybe that's not what it's about. Maybe it's more about putting some more of the responsibility and ownership of learning on the student and not all on the instructor (although this definition also tells me the instructor needs to have an even broader knowledge base of different learning styles and be able to facilitate the learning for those multiple perspectives and styles). Another good point within the newest definition is that it "also indicates that one of the goals of professionals in the field is to improve performance," meaning the ultimate goal isn't just about the learning, it's about applying the learning they've acquired. In my experience, I've found that application of knowledge (at least from a management perspective) is way more difficult than the learning itself. Taking a course on Excel is so much simpler than looking at data and deciding to actually do something with it. Reading about how to handle employee performance problems is cake compared to actually dealing with one. So far I'm excited to contemplate the possibilities this newest definition brings!
References:
Januszewski, A., & Persichitte, K. A. (2008). A
history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology (pp. 259-282).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reiser, R. A. (2007). What field did you say you were in?
Defining and naming our field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design
and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 2-9). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
I agree that the domains in the 1994 definition still imply a systematic approach to the design of instruction. And I, too, think the latest definition is the easiest to understand thanks to its plain language.
ReplyDelete