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.
Dometrius, thanks for sharing your views. I was surprised to read that you believe that professors in higher education fall in your explanation of 'haves.' I'd be interested in hearing more about why this is your perception.
ReplyDeleteSo what are your thoughts about the Dick, Carey, and Carey instructional design model? What would you change about the model, and how would you apply it to your work environment?
The "Haves" and the "Have Nots"
ReplyDeleteI believe that the professors within higher education are the "haves" because of their access to the technology that we use on an daily basis. In my original post, I referred to my experiences (at Tyler Junior College), where the students are the "have nots". A large majority of our students are not considered financially stable or they fall somewhere in between the middle and poor classes of the economic structure. Many students don't have access computers, hand held PDAs and or various other electronic equipment that we use in our classroom. At Tyler Junior College (TJC), we currently don't provide access to computer labs when a majority of non-traditional students and those students that are taking part in college preparatory courses needed them the most. We are looking into the problem at TJC and we are in the process of trying to extend lab hours beyond (8:30 AM and 6:00 PM). The student population at TJC has out grown our number of general labs (computers for English, and math - that can be done on most any computer) and is almost non-existent for our students in drafting, website design and optometry. Those students in those technical fields must try to use the equipment and the computers when other classes are not in session and if a professor in that department has the time to allow them to do so.
The other point that I would like to make is that many of our students that live south of Tyler (Flint, Texas) don't have the reliable high speed internet access that is required for many of their classes. Many professors do have access to high speed internet access.
Please understand that I use the terms "haves" and "haves nots" as a means describing access to technology. Professors at TJC have the access to the technology that they use in their classrooms while a majority of the students do not. I think it will change over time but it will take time.
I think you made some good points about the "digital divide" that still exists. Many of my economically disadvantaged high school students do not have access to the internet at home, or they have very old, outdated computers. Some of the students who are not necessarily economically disadvantaged cannot get high-speed internet access because of their rural location. Both issues are problems that need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you about the community college students not having the access we do to technology. This makes it hard for students to keep up with the growing technology of today and what is expected of them in their course work. With budget cuts on many college campuses the resources needed for students such as computers with high speed internet, hand held devices, etc. are very limited to those students.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with your comment that technological advancement for the average student does not exist on a wide scale. I teach in a fairly affluent district and still have students that have no basic computer skills in upper elementary grades. This problem is not only seen in low socioeconomic students. I believe that this does not "set them up for success" which is what I strive to do for my students. I try to look past this school year to try to prepare them for future grades.
ReplyDelete