I am not in complete agreement with this definition because I don't see educational technology as process but more so as an extension of the teacher's and student's mind and body. As technology changes, and it will change, the definition provided by our authors, in my mind, will not be valid. Nano technology will be the new frontier in the distant future of education. Our recent future is focused on software and interface technologies that provide a more media rich experience. Here we encounter the aged old problem of the “haves and the have nots”. It is great that professors within higher education have all of the latest technological resources at their disposals. They would be what I call the “haves”. On the other hand, the "have nots" can not keep pace with their professors because they don't have access to the technology beyond the classroom, due to their economic situation, or due to the fact that they are not a digital native (older non-traditional students).
Many institutions will push the new technology from a teacher to student direction (this is the wrong way to go in my opinion). The only problem with this model is the fact that the infrastructure, technological advancement of the average student, does not exist on a wide scale. As technology changes, students that fall below the poverty line will struggle to keep pace. If institutions were truly interested in placing the needs of the students first, they would find out what technologies the students are comfortable with and have access to. This information could be used to develop technology enhanced curricula that could benefit all students involved. Some institutions of higher education are addressing this problem by providing technology (Apple i-Pods, i Pads, and Mac Note books) to new students.
I also believe, based upon my own observations, that some professors are rooted in their ways of teaching and are not open to change and the hard work that it might take for them to implement effective technology into their curriculum and their students' learning process. An institution can have all of the educational technology in the world, and it will mean very little if the students it is designed to help have limited access to that technology and are not free to use it in all aspects of their daily life.
I have made some changes to the instructional design model. I have included the pic below.
I chose to include the needs of a community and or society. I think this is important because the student does not know what they need to be effective in the particular. As with my experience in the military. They (military) will tell you what they need and they will provide the student with objectives that they will need to accomplish in order to be an effective contributing member in the U.S. military. Students needs are important but they must be evaluated in the context of the needs of the society or a particular profession. It is important for us, as an institution, to understand what are the technological capabilities of our students. This will allow professors to develop curricula that consist of technology that is not beyond the reach of our students.
I have also included terminal and enabling learning objectives. These are objectives that I use in my classroom. Terminal learning objectives are the overall goals that student must accomplish to function in his profession (i.e. calculate the length of a shadow cast by a building - construction engineers). An enabling learning objective would be how to use the Pythagorean Theorem.
The other key point that I have included in this study focuses on reviewing the instruction and making adjustments based upon the student's performance during the assessment and how well they apply what they have learned. The students that have an opportunity to apply what they have learned are those students attending certificate courses (i.e. welding, automotive mechanic training, and land surveying). Working with certificate instructors, I am able to determine if students are able to use what they have learned in the classroom - terminal learning objectives.
I have altered the design model because I believe that it is important for the institutions of higher education to serve the community and areas that support them and this is best serve through instructional design.
I have made some changes to the instructional design model. I have included the pic below.
I have also included terminal and enabling learning objectives. These are objectives that I use in my classroom. Terminal learning objectives are the overall goals that student must accomplish to function in his profession (i.e. calculate the length of a shadow cast by a building - construction engineers). An enabling learning objective would be how to use the Pythagorean Theorem.
The other key point that I have included in this study focuses on reviewing the instruction and making adjustments based upon the student's performance during the assessment and how well they apply what they have learned. The students that have an opportunity to apply what they have learned are those students attending certificate courses (i.e. welding, automotive mechanic training, and land surveying). Working with certificate instructors, I am able to determine if students are able to use what they have learned in the classroom - terminal learning objectives.
I have altered the design model because I believe that it is important for the institutions of higher education to serve the community and areas that support them and this is best serve through instructional design.
