Two of the readings this week focused on a debate of media, in which the essence of this debate had me wholeheartedly saying I'm PRO media. I read Clarks' article first, and at first I thought he had some valid points. One that resonated with me, which he also stated was critical to his argument, was that "a number of very different media attributes serves the same or similar cognitive functions. If there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task, then the attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains." He stressed that media and method must be viewed separately, and if different media forms served the same function with method being the same, we must always choose the cheaper one. Made sense to me, and that's about where I left off agreeing with him. The term "mechanistic" sprang to mind while I read the rest of Clarks article (I thought him and B.F. Skinner would have gotten along just fine in that he seemed to really be putting his foot down that media will NEVER influence learning). He compared media as "mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." Clarks' article was in response to a fellow named Kozma, who wrote the second article on media debate in this weeks material, and I think it's important to include they did agree that "evidence does not yet support the claim that media or media attributes influence learning." Kozma's article was actually in response to a previous one submitted by Clark on the same topic, and instead of debating Clark, Kozma reframed the overarching question to "not do, but will media influence learning?" His article provided a few examples of two separate instructional environments to demonstrate the difference media can make for learners (which I wasn't necessarily swayed either way by these examples), and explained this different way of looking at media through examining the role of media, and the implications it has on theory, research, and practice. His parting question/statement was to ask "in what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, task, and situations?" YES - keep looking how to make it better. Overall, I agreed with Kozma's viewpoint. I think the learner of tomorrow not only wants, but is going to demand, what works for them, not necessarily what works broad spectrum for the masses using the cheapest delivery method. I believe they will take their money to schools that offer those choices and that don't take such a rigid stance against the application or even possibilities of new media (in reference to Clarks' viewpoint).
Another topic in the readings this week, focused on the major criticisms being made of the "systems approach to ISD." Gordon and Zemke (2000), summarized those major criticisms in the following:
- ISD is too slow and clumsy to meet today's training challenges.
- "ISD takes too long, it costs too much, and by the time you're through, the opportunity you were trying to exploit through training has passed you by."
- There's no "there" there.
- "Pretending that the model represents a real technology can lead you into trouble because training actually is not-and was never meant to be-a lock-step, engineering-like endeavor."
- "The beginning of the end was when universities developed curricula to produce Ph.D.s in ISD. The whole thing became process-driven rather than results-driven."
- Used as directed, it produces bad solutions.
- Because ISD is deeply rooted in behavioral psychology it demands that a training designer address only demonstrable skills and knowledge. [But many executives are] more concerned with developing a creative and resilient work force than with having employees memorize and play out some predetermined set of steps."
- It clings to the wrong world view.
- "The need for people who just follow set procedures is limited in today's average work environment. Knowledge resides all over the place, and you've got to create mechanisms for conversations-for mutual teaching and learning-rather than for better top-down information feeding."
On the flip side, there were alternative paradigms to ISD being proposed in reference to these criticisms. Gordon and Zemke (2000), stated, "The ISD model assumes that a job is a known quantity. It assumes the presence of a master performer who knows how to do the job in the best possible way." That's not necessarily the case today and has been characterized "as a shift from prefigured work (the job is clearly laid out for you to do) to configured work (you have to make it up as you go along)... The core skill then becomes problem-solving, [and] if we're all figuring it out as we go, our preferred teaching strategies should include things like coaching, open classrooms (instead of rigorously structured ones), and Web-based forums as opposed to pre-programmed Web-based instruction." Another alternative paradigm presented in the same article, was in reference to ISD becoming more process-driven instead of results driven. "Blind observance of ISD is a characteristic of designers who lose sight of the real problem and focus on coming up with the perfect instructional program instead of the right business result. [Instead] start with outcomes. What are you trying to accomplish? What value are you trying to create? Then work backwards. If you keep working back down that value chain, you are more likely to come up with a variety of approaches to creating the change you need." An alternative presented in Zemke and Rossetts' (2002) article, was to "define ISD as a set of general guidelines, a heuristic, and not a rigid step-by-step algorithm. If ISD is a heuristic, then it is all about guidance for decision-making on matters as diverse as developing interactive elements, instructional programs, and selecting performance and support over instruction."
I must admit, I got a little nervous for the future of ISD while reading these other two required reading articles this week. A lot of the criticisms seemed valid enough, BUT, before I went off the deep end, I reminded myself of Molenda's recommended strategy that "any response to criticisms [of ISD] must begin by specifying which "ISD" they are defending, and which criticisms they are answering" and also of an earlier caution he gave in the week 4 presentations, against "leaping too quickly from descriptive theories to prescriptions" and to also be concerned when prescriptions are supported "by force or argument rather than evidence." Something I felt seemed pertinent to the material this week and so, I'm not throwing in the towel yet - I still believe a "systems approach" can serve in many different ways, it might just be time to make some adjustments.
References:
Clark, R.
E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.
Gordon,
J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-53.
Kozma, R.
B. (1994). Will media influence learning? ETR&D,
42(2), 7-19.
Zemke,
R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34.
Hendel-Giller,
R., & Stepich, D. A. (2007). Diane King: Rapid design approach to designing
instruction. In P. A. Ertmer & J. Quinn
(Eds.), The ID casebook: Case studies in
instructional design (3rd ed.) (pp. 201-205). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., &
Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of
educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.
Presentations:
Molenda, week 4, Theories
of Learning
Molenda, week 8,
Contemporary
Issues in Instructional Technology and Current
Controversies - ISD
No comments:
Post a Comment