Week 1B Blog
Reflections on the
readings of the week
I appreciated the
opportunity to read the content this week. It covered a range of things, like
Spector’s article (Spector, 2008) on theoretical foundations of instructional
design, to Reeves’ article (Reeves, 2020) about the fallacies the public might
accept about instructional design. I think the article that was of most
interest to me was Reiser’s article (Reiser, 2018) on defining the field. I
have always been very interested in semantics and the obligation we all have to
“say what you mean, and mean what you say” …unless you are an elected official.
So, it with great interest that I read of how the field of Instructional Design
and Technology (IDT) has defined itself over time.
In the 1920’s, as the
technology of media was beginning to explode, IDTers of the time focused on the
new opportunities that media presented to educators, the ‘birth’ of
instructional media – now a subset of IDT. Fast forward 50 years, and now, with
many years of study behind researchers, it is determined that media alone isn’t
enough, we must also be aware of the process of instruction/education. This new
focus allowed for IDTers to include the systematic design of instruction with
media being just one aspect, not only that, but it should include an analysis
of the planning and design. Fast forward another generation and now we are
looking at a much more complex (and complete) animal. This new definition (Richey, 1994) included the “processes and resources
[needed] for learning.” Today that definition has been further refined to
include the ethical considerations of design as well as using technologies and resources
that are appropriate for the activity. I like that this new definition can
encompass a range of ‘technology’, from pencil and paper when appropriate, to
virtual reality headsets when appropriate.
Reeves, T. C.,
& Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not what we need. Educational
Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), 68(4),
1991-2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
Reiser,
R. A. (2018). 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 (4th
Ed.), (pp. 1-7). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Richey, R. C., & Seels, B. (1994). Defining
a Field: A Case Study of the Development of the 1994 Definition of
Instructional Technology. Educational media and technology yearbook, 20, 2-17.
Spector,
M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V.
Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 21-28).
New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
I also appreciated the readings this week. As both an Instructional Designer and Instructional Technologist, I have often struggled with defining the field. The readings along with our group's blog posts have been really helpful for helping establish a stronger definition of our field. It was interesting to read about the history of the field as well as the changes in the study's definition. Semantically, a proper definition of the field defines both how others perceive our work and even how we perform our work. I, too, have been thinking a lot about Richey's definition that expands technology to include to a wider range of education tools including as you stated pencil and paper.
ReplyDelete-Shanna Sanders
The chapter by Reiser, What Field Did You Say You Were In? is similar to Chapter 10: A history of the AECT’s definition of educational technology. I found both readings to be helpful in learning more about the evolution of educational technology. It is interesting how the term “design” was added to instructional technology creating instructional design and technology. Without the term “design” many would view our field as instructional media. In the lecture this week on Tuesday, Dr. Bonk gave more insight into the key elements in the change of the definition. During this time, some of the class discussed the title “instructional designer” and how maybe a better title is “learning designer.”
ReplyDeleteThere were definitely some interest readings this week. As Keirsten mentioned, Chapter 10 similarly followed the evolution of the field and how the definition has changed over time. You mentioned the use of VR headsets in your last sentence. That's the second time I've heard them mentioned in our team blogs. I've seriously considering the uses of VR and AR as possible research topics in the future, if it comes to that. As someone who is trying to make a transition from educational institutions to more corporate/public administration spheres, I'm intrigued how this technology how be applied to training and system designs. Do you have any experience with VR/AR in training?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I do not. I have seen it done, and I know of those that do it, but most of my trainings are stuck in the 20th century. :)
Delete