Reflects on their own design processes by discussing how they will use "lessons learned" in their future design endeavors.

       One of the biggest "a-ha" moments I have experienced in the Instructional Technology program is the realization that I do not view constructivism and cognitivism as separate learning theories.  I really don't see enough difference between them to warrant the separation of the two into distinct categories. If you take the ultimate constructivist lesson plan, in all likelihood it'll have strong cognitivist elements. So for me, constructivism falls under the umbrella of cognitivism.

          Another of my problems with constructivism is that the products are often quite nebulous.  Hannafin, Hannafin, Land, and Oliver's (1997) article on designing constructivist learning environments mentions this when they say that "Frequently, the foundations of given efforts are unclear, the methods inconsistent with presumed underlying assumptions, and the design methodologies are not well-articulated."  The article goes on to say that construcvist believe that "objects and events have no absolute meaning; rather, the individual interprets each and constructs meaning based on individual experience and evolved beliefs." I thoroughly disagree with this.  I hold an objectivist view that there are indeed universal truths.  According to the authors, constructivists do not favor breaking down knowledge into component parts, but instead prefer the content to exist naturally. This makes me think back to Cobb and Bowers (1999) and their discussion of the artificiallity of schools. There is a contradiction there. One cannot develop an environment for learners where the content exists naturally, for it would then no longer exist naturally. This is like a twisted instructional design version of Schrodinger's cat (1935). 

Connects design decisions and other professional practices within the ID&LT program to their own emerging philosophy surrounding issues in the field.

          When I first came to this realization that I had serious misgivings about constructivism, I was concerned about what this would mean moving forward.  However, I realized that in my chosen career path, objectivism is the predominant philosophy.  Constructivism, or something similar, may work in K-12 schools where the learners are developing thinking skills, but  in creating corporate training the focus is not on thinking but on developing skill sets.  After all, if the learner did not have the thinking skills required for the job, then they would probably not be working there.  In the corporate world, the emphasis seems to be on being able to "do" rather "think."  That old line that says "you're not paid to think" is certainly pertinent.
        This shift in my thinking has also brought me a peace of mind because now there is a more solid and substantial framework to work in.  Reflecting back on my designs in the program, I have had more success when developing instruction using traditional objectivist models, like in this instruction made using the MRK model.  The reason for this, I think, is the emphasis that these models place on crafting good learning objectives.  I have come to realize that objectives are the heart and soul of an instruction; they define it and give it a unique character.  When I made that instruciton for making candles, I used mostly Mager type objectives and one Gronlund objective.  The Mager objectives were very specific and precise, and because of this I was able to design assessments to meet those objectives exactly.  My Gronlund objective was, by its very nature, not nearly as precise, and this in turn led to a less than optimal assessment.  I will be sure to continue using Mager objectives in the future whenever possible.
        My shift to a more objectivist stance will also enable me to use more concrete models.  Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, in particular, will feature prominently in my future designs.  Although I have not had the opportunity to use Gagne's model yet, it formed the basis of Madeline Hunter's popular lesson plan format which I have had great success with during my under grad studies.  I do not see using some of the other what I call micro-models.  NTeQ, for example, is meant to be used by school teachers, but some of the principles can be used in conjunction with other models.  By keeping Clark's (2001) idea that it is not the media but the methodology that leads to learning, I can remind myself that technology integration is only peripheral to the main issue: design effective instruction. 

              At the behest of Dr. Nelson, I took another look at situated learning and some of the work of J.S. Brown.  In their article on situated cognition and learning cultures, Brown et al (1989) acknowledge the difference between "know what' and "know how."  I agree with this distinction.  Brown et al point out that school culture is insular, and can get in the way of knowledge transferability.  I concede the point, but note that it is not relevant to my situation.  I have no desire to work in schools, but rather in a business/corporate environment.  In developing training in that context, the transfer problems found in schools would be minimized, if not nullified altogether.  The reason is simple: the learning setting IS the application setting.  

                 It would be extremely naive of me, however, to assume transfer of skills is guaranteed.  After all, as my old platoon sergeant used to say, "Assumption is the mother of all foul-ups."  So what in my own design framework can I use to ensure knowledge transfer?  In my mind, Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction model (1992) makes a solid effort in this regard.  Two of the steps, recall prior learning and enhance retention, are obvious ways that the designer can build in a method for the learner to transfer knowledge.  The first step, gaining the learners attention, can also be put to good use.  A quick example of a problem in the workplace, such as maybe a new software program or a particularly confusing procedure, will immediately cause the worker to turn their thoughts on how to transfer what they are about to learn in order to address the problem. 

                    It is also interesting to point out that Gagne's model is a firmly objectivist creation, suitable for behaviorists and cognitivists.  So even though this problem of knowledge transferability is being point out by authors coming from a very constructivist point of view, a solution can be found in the smart application of a behaviorist design process.  This is hardly surprising considering that behaviorists would be very concerned with shaping the behaviors of learners.  The problem that some behaviorists run into, I think, is they take a too short-sighted view of what behaviors they want to influence.  If your goal is to simply make sure that the behavior to be improved is how well the learner does on a test, then transferability would indeed become an issue.  If the behaviorist designer has an eye towards making sure the learner understands the "real world" application of the instruction, then application problems would be lessened.  Let it not be said that the constructivists hold a monopoly on authentic activities, they are just as useful to the objectivist, perhaps more so.

Analyzes how the processes used in creating various artifacts has contributed to their own development as an ID&LT professional.

          Since starting this program, I have come to realize how many skills a good instructional technologist must have.  This is reflected in the fact that the program has four different emphasis areas, but each student should have an understanding across the disciplines.  For myself, I am concentrating on Instructional Design and Performance Improvement, but I have also taken enough courses to qualify for the Interactive Multimedia Technologies emphasis. 

          It has not always been easy though.  For example, the amount of detail required to put together a robust and effective instructional unit, such as this instruction for Dr. Knowlton's IT 510 class showed me that I must do my upmost to account for all variables and eliminate all vagaries.  On the other hand, projects such as this project management plan for Dr. Nelson's IT 530 class taught me to not lose sight of the big picture, especially when getting deep into the minutia of a particular instruction.  The creative processes that I learned in various tools were invaluable as well.  While I will not pretend that I am a great graphics designer or web developer, I do think I have enough skill in that area to at least get my concepts across. 

          Working on these various projects has taught me other valuable lessons.  For example, for each artifact I had to meet the needs and requirements of the client.  While in this case my client happened to be my professors, the point is the same; you must work hard and sometimes bend over backwards to appease those judging the caliber of your work.  This is true whether its college professors, or a boss, or an actual client.  The quality of work is to be the paramount consideration.

            Currently I am working on my final project, and it truly has been a culmination of all that I have learned so far.  For my project I am developing an online video tutorial on how to use Microsoft Project 2010, and am working with Dr. Moore of the CMIS department.  In developing this tutorial, I have had to go through the normal design process, but then I have to also contend with learning a new development tool, in this case Camtasia.  It would be very easy to get overwhelmed by all that is required, but then I just think back to what I learned in Dr. Nelson's Managing Instructional Development class, and I simply begin applying those principles.  I have broken down the work into individual tasks and simply begin marking them off of my "to-do' list as I go.  This third Design Studio iteration has probably been the most authentic yet.  I actually feel like an instructional designer as I work towards my goal.  This is, of course, very motivating and energizing. 

          Throughout the program, one thing that has been a constant is collaboration which is reflected in all of my previous course work at SIUE.  Whether it is peer reviewing projects, or talking with others to reach a common understanding of the content, working with others in the field has been essential.  In my discussions with professional instructional designers at the Federal Reserve Bank and Anheuser Bush, I realize that this is very common outside of school as well.  I am excited at the prospect of continuing to work with design professionals to create innovative and effective products.

References

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning.          

          Educational Researcher. Jan-Feb, 32-41.

Clark, R.E. (2001). The media versus methods issue. In R.E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from

       media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 179-198). Greenwich, CN:

       Information Age Publishing.

Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning in theory and practice.

      Educational Researcher, 28(5) 1483-1489.

Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th Ed.).

            Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.

Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Land, S.M., Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the

      design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and

      Development, 45(3), 101-117.

Schrödinger, Erwin (1935). " The present situation in quantum          

      mechanics". Naturwissenschaften.