Osborne_LTEC 6010_Wk7_Blog

Assignment:

Report back to me on the learning activities you created and experienced. How hard is it to spur critical thinking? Were there any issues in terms of say, wanting there to be one correct answer? Post a link to this blog post in Activity 2.

Besides what it asks for the blog, I want you to think about all the components of the technology challenges the communication work, social negotiation, and technology affordances you experienced with the activity. Also, think about how you would explain how you learned from the experience and what you learned during the process that may not have been intended.

 

Response:

The discussion/exercise was interesting. After introducing ourselves we started to ask each other about what we would do to address the assignment.  Since we couldn’t identify a topic, I suggested creating an instruction design related to how someone would jump-start a dead battery since several of us had recently experienced this issue.

We discussed how we would go about creating the design and learning outcomes of the course for this assignment. Each of us gave our inputs and as a team we were able to address each of the five elements of the assignment. It was beneficial in that each of us had experienced this situation or were exposed to this issue in our lives. I thought the course subject matter was applicable because of the current weather issues and we are going from Fall to Winter this semester. I must confess that when I was teaching electronics courses at a local college, I taught the proper way to jump start a car with a dead battery. I taught this process so that when one of my students encountered this situation, they could safely perform this this process without hurting themselves or the car.

We determined that the theoretical framework for this instructional design was constructivist theory. This theory has the learner subjectively constructs their own representations of their objective reality. They take the current new information and link it to what they already know “thus mental representations are subjective” (David, 2015, p. 1). So the learner is constantly comparing and constructing the current presented information with what they already know.

The amount of information and subjective constructed is dependent on the learner’s internal assessment of the interest and need of the information. If the learner does not own a car and is not interested in knowing about or wanting a car, their subjective construction will be very low. However, most individuals drive or ride in cars so this topic will elicit some interests. The interest would increase when the learner is not certain about the proper process of jump starting a car’s dead battery.

Once we agreed on this topic we were able to construct the learning goals and set of instruction for the learner.  The set of instructions are listed in a linear format to provide a step-by-step process for the learner. This linear instruction reduces the confusion of this process by focusing one element of the task at a time. The course content provides a linear process that the learner can have access to a copy in the event they may need to perform this task.

The recommendations for the use of technologies for the learner would be to use the many resources for this subject on YouTube. This course instruction can include a short YouTube video link as part of the course content. The post-instruction assessment would consist of having the learner perform this process in front of the instructor via F2F or using FaceTime.

The technology challenges for this course design would be low in that the instructional designer can create a video that can be uploaded to YouTube for the learner. The video can contain additional hints and content, providing more in-depth information, that would not be included in the linear text instruction. This activity afforded our group the opportunity to exchange information that identified additional ideas to improve the course content that would not have been possible if this task was preformed by just one of us.

 

 

 

Reference

David, L., (2015) Constructivism. Learning Theories. Retrieved from: https://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html

Advertisements

Osborne_LTEC600_Wk3/4_Blog

Assignment:
Review the Tweets from around 9 PM on Wednesday 9/12/18 for what I’d like you to reflect on for the blog. Check the #LTEC6010 to find it.

“Reflect heavily on how technology impacts communications and what the consequences are.”

 

Response:

The twitter/tweets session on September 12 was quite interesting. This technology is new to me.  I had opened my account in Jan/Feb 2018. I only used the account a handful of times for class. With this class, LTEC 6010, this is the first time that I have tweeted with so many inputs. My impression of the class was that it was hard to follow and I was more focused on how to respond to the questions instead of understanding the discussion. I felt that it was a free for all.

I tried to answer about 4 of the posted questions. Since I am a novice to Twitter, I found it hard to get my bearings an navigate around the site. If I had more hands on experience with Twitter, the responses may have been more substantive. I think that if there were 2 questions versus 5 the discussion would have been more focused. I do have to admit that I don’t use social media (Twitter, Facebook, …) at all, except that I do IM at work only on occasion. Most of the time I am working in one or more applications of Microsoft Office and many times I miss seeing that I have received a message until hours later.

My primary form of communication is usually through emails and phone calls. Sometimes it is frustrating using some of the applications, because it takes more effort to type out each of my responses.  I usually can cover more ground in a conversation when talking on the phone or face-to-face. I can get all of the information I need through a phone call than through typing. Many times, right in the middle of typing a message, I stop and realize that I’m not productive enough as it takes a lot more effort to sending short typed messages. When I get frustrated I call the person I have been sending text or emails to, and I call them to complete the conversation.

Technology has accelerated our communication skills, but sometimes I think that it can be very distracting. This in-turn causes me to constantly refocus on the typing communication process and thus taking my attention away from the job at hand. This situation impacts both the job productivity as well as the staccato messages back and forth. I don’t think that I would see much improvement even though I significantly increase my typing speed.

Each of these interruptions, emails or IMs, require that I stop focusing on what I’m working on and re-focusing on the communication stream. This is that back and forth staccato activity. Not everyone can consistently and effectively multitask with consistent success. One or the other tasks will suffer after a short while. So in many ways all of the conveniences afforded by the new technologies can and do cause divided focus and can result in being less effective and productive. However, some of my opinion is a result of me not being exposed to these many new technologies in my early childhood. I have been slowly acquiring the necessary skills to use the different applications as I need them in my daily life.

Osborne_LTEC6010_Wk2_Blog

Assignment:

This week I want you to write out your philosophy of the world and learning in particular. What is? What can we know? How can we know it? How do people learn? What is your evidence? Is it anecdotal from your experience and others or research-based? Effectively, what is your personal theory of teaching and learning? Next week, you’ll extend that to include your personal philosophy and theory of how and why to integrate technology into teaching and learning processes.

 

Response:

My personal philosophy of the world is one of an evolving nature. As I look back on my life I think that it has changed many times. Through childhood and adolescence, it was based on influences of the family, what I was taught and studied in school, and my interactions with friends. I think much of my maturing occurred while I was in the military, where during a regimented life I was able to discover what my talents and skills were. After serving in the military, I met my wife which was a challenge to my philosophy of the world at that time. Now I was responsible to/for another person. When we had children, I the shift in my philosophy took a significant turn as now it was my responsibility to provide for the family – financially, socially, and security.  In addition to the focus of my career, my spiritual growth and church life provided a significant underpinning in my overall world philosophy. I think that through the various stages of my life, there were many instances that the challenges refined and reshaped an matured my philosophy of life.

The basis for knowing about my world philosophy is when I compare my current life’s experiences with what I have learned throughout my life. This comparison process is where I look at what is occurring (experiencing every day), and comparing that experience with what I know. It’s these ongoing comparisons that either support of refute my current beliefs, so there is this constant course correction process.

My philosophy of the world is still a work in progress. I think that the human activities associated with action and behavior fit well with my world philosophy. Here “mere behavior is what happens inside our bodies and actions are what we do” (Rosenberg, 2016, p. 35). Albeit social science does not focus on behavior as much as on human activity, both of these aspects are interdependent factors. I liken the common sense theory, where “it is a theory we use every day to form our expectations about the behavior of others and to explain to others our own behavior (Rosenberg, 2016, p. 36).

My world philosophy approach related to teaching and learning flows form the sum total of what I have learned and experienced in life. Since I have been studying the different aspects of Learning Technologies for both my Master’s and Ph.D. degrees, I currently focus on a particular philosophical approach. I have a non-positivist and constructivist view/approach to my teaching and learning pursuits. Much of my teaching and learning has focused on engineering and technical content. Since I work in an industrial environment, I have a focus to improve the overall effectiveness of the learner’s outcomes as demonstrated on the job.

I have taught electronics courses for over twelve years. Electronics is primarily a mathematics focused discipline, as all of electronics is theoretically modeled and problems solved using mathematical equations. While I was teaching these courses, I would redirect and refine how I taught the class in order to improve the student outcomes.  Now that I work in a production environment, I focus on using these concepts and skills across different disciplines (electrical, mechanical, finishes, computing, and data analytics).

 

 

Reference

Rosenberg, A, (2016). Philosophy of Social Science, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado

Osborne_LTEC6010_Wk1_Blog

The front end of the article authored by M Eraut, entitled “Educational technology: Conceptual frameworks and historical development” (Eraut, 1994), was somewhat confusing for me in that the introduction and early history was hard to follow. There are many new names and concepts introduced in this article that I have not heard of before this course. The front end of the article serves as an ‘introductory survey course’. It would be great to have an overall introduction to the field of instructional design and learning technologies at the beginning of the Master’s degree program. After taking Masters and Ph.D. courses I have been introduced to some of these founders. My overall impression is that the author, M Eraut, should have expanded this article into a textbook so that he could have expanded on the content.

In the ‘Early Developments’ section the author identifies an issue that I wrestle with in my own research endeavors. Here he identifies “communication theorists have shown that there is a limit to the amount of information that can be received and processed at any one time” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1884). What was identified then in 1994 is much more relevant today. With the growth of new technologies, knowledge, and data content there are significant demands on the individual to keep up with the cognitive load. The article focuses on the transition from audio/visual technologies of the late 20th century into the yet to be discovered impact of the exponential growth of the digital/computer age.

Eraut’s identified a primary argument of James Finn that while “many areas of North American society are being transformed by technology, but it is inevitable that education would eventually undergo a similar transformation” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1884). To that predictive point, education is still catching up to the transformation. Much of the content of the article is informational, touching on various concepts with the associated definitions. The concepts are presented in relation to expanding the landscape related to the growth of educational technologies. No data analysis is presented in association with the exploration of educational technologies.

As the author addresses the ‘systems approach’ he discusses the relationships related to a systems engineering approach which is identified as “a set of principles, a scheme, method” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1886). The concepts of engineering, as many define it, typically refer to science, electrical, mechanical, chemistry, and biology. There is an interchange of man, machine, ideas, procedures, and management. All of these concepts relate to technology where “the central problem of education is not learning, but the management of learning” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1887).

There is this gray zone where education technologies cozy up to those other engineering professions. Much of “systems engineering (operations research) found its success in military and aerospace sectors as well as many applications in industry” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1887). Educational technologies have a significant challenge to transition into the engineering sector. The author defines aspects of engineering, but does not fully develop how instructional technologies equate to an engineering discipline. Instructional technology like educational technology and related to systems engineering is a “systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives based on research in human learning and communication” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1889).

The author’s contention is that “educational technology has been, often justifiably, accused of being a solution in search of a problem” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1892). In relation to education technology’s association with an engineering discipline, there is uncertainty about the systems approach to the educational discipline. I don’t see where the author fully addresses these concerns so as to justify educational technologies being associated with an engineering discipline. I suggest that an approach that is supportive of the positivist paradigm is a good place to start by incorporating experimental, quasi-experimental, and direct observation methods of research analysis. However, much of the current research focuses on a non-positivist approach where the research focus is on subjectivity and relative properties.

The author discusses the need to “work toward future needs, where societies are increasingly looking to their education systems to develop independence and collaboration, and the appropriate use of learning resources” (Eraut, 1994, p. 1896). The concept of developing effective educational technologies is not fully defined in this article. The concepts are presented without providing a specific path forward to meet these goals, hence the earlier contention still stands that education needs to reinvent its capabilities and its technological effectiveness. One thing is certain, change takes time and persistence.

This article is salvageable in that there is a lot of historical and informational details. With the introduction of many concepts and research contributors, the overall article would be best served if it were expanded or a more focused in its presentation. This assessment would impact the literature review and its overall structure. The author should have provided a separate and detail conclusion in order to restate the key points and focus of the article.

 

Reference:

Eraut, M., (1994). Educational technology: Conceptual frameworks and historical development. The international encyclopedia of education2, 1882-1899.

Osborne_LTEC6516_Wk10_ReflectionBlog

This semester has been quite interesting, yet there is still more to learn about Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis. Since this is a continuation of the LTEC 6512 qualitative research course, I can see why it does take more effort and time to conduct this type of research.  This is the second course that I’ve taken related to qualitative analysis and there are several take-aways and observations.

  • I can see where conducting qualitative research is beneficial when the study dictates going below the surface of an event or process. Qualitative research analysis is quite different than quantitative analysis.
  • Qualitative analysis affords a researcher the tools to consider information that goes beyond the measurement analysis processes of quantitative analysis.
  • I deal with quantitative analysis process every day at work. I mine different data sources to identify recurring defects in structural and electronic components and systems. The quantitative analysis provides the pointers to the error source. I can see where qualitative data analysis will be helpful in digging deeper into the root cause of these defects.
  • Understanding and using the correct instructional design framework is an important consideration when developing course content.
  • I thought it was quite helpful to see and understand the differences between Positivist and Non-Positivist research methods. Until it was developed in class I didn’t see the difference clearly in my readings.
  • The class content did touch on the various theoretical framework concepts. I think that it would be a great help for the students in Learning Technologies to have a survey course where all of these concepts are presented to provide an in-depth comparative analysis. This would be a great foundational skill development for every student.
  • My concern with both the LTEC 6512 and LTEC 6516 courses is that we didn’t get the hands-on experience that I hoped to develop. Developing and understanding the foundational theory and concepts of qualitative analysis is very important, but a practitioner must have and develop the coding and analysis capabilities.  I feel that I did get a lot of the front-end information, but I severely lacking in the coding and analysis skills.
  • A helpful part of this semesters studies is the concept of continually evaluating what and how I ask interview questions so as to minimize any biases that may directly impact or influence the outcomes of a study.
  • Since I work in a production environment, my focus is to analyze various processes and figure out how to identify and improve them. I have been looking at qualitative analysis processes and I’m trying to figure out how to create a standardized process formula or template that will reduce the amount of pushback and fear surrounding using qualitative analysis tools. After taking these two courses, I still see that there is a huge commitment associated with using this tool in research.
  • As I continue may Ph.D. studies I hope to develop better and consistent coding and analysis skills. I can see where the instructional designs where I work can benefit from this skill set. In a way I see this as learning an new language.

Osborne_LTEC6516_Wk6_Blog

Assignment:

Write a blog reflecting on what you read and what you saw in the video related to coding. How does the coding process help identify and vet new knowledge construction from qualitative research processes? How might technology distort “knowledge” communicated using social media, forums, synchronous tools, and others? What considerations should we make when using technology-mediated communication?

 

Response:

It was insightful to read through Aaron Cooley’s article entitled “Qualitative Research in Education: The Origins, Debates, and Politics of Creating Knowledge” (Cooley, 2013). Though I detect a hint of politically biased suppositions, ultimately Cooley identifies a key concern throughout the American education system, where “conversations as well as discourse at academic conferences often come to question the entire value of the education system” (Cooley, 2013, p. 248). There is much discussion and dissatisfaction concerning the overall effectiveness of the public-school systems and as a parent, I was dissatisfied with the outcomes of the school districts where I lived. What most parents have complained about but didn’t necessarily have a full conceptual grasp of is the “notion of the hidden curriculum” (Cooley, 2013, p. 251). As a result, many parents are choosing to put their children through homeschool and private school where they have more control of the education outcomes.

Cooley further discusses, the lack of acceptance of qualitative research within political and business entities. So, they view educational research and the associated qualitative research processes with skepticism. Hence the opinion of these groups holds that “qualitative work as noted by some critics allege, come from liberal and ideological college faculties and may be viewed as more suspect” (Cooley, 2013, p. 254). Cooley further notes that “proponents of qualitative methods should try to better educate critics in these policy circles to both the value and rigor of qualitative work” (Cooley, 2013, p. 254). In order to overcome these roadblocks, the challenge to the proponents of qualitative methods is two-fold:

  1. continue to develop qualitative studies that consistently provide substitutive results and findings
  2. develop processes that support analysis capabilities similar to those of quantitative method processes times

The old adage is ‘necessity is the mother of invention’. Current technologies have limitations to meet the demands of qualitative methods and supportive of coding analysis. With new technologies continuing to evolve, Artificial Intelligence has the potential to address these issues. Instead of making complaints about the circumstances, researchers need to develop their way through the issues.

Regarding the video discussion about coding, as a novice at this practice, it will take me an amount of time and practice to get the hang of the process. By performing multiple coding analysis activities, I will gain a better understanding of the process. Currently I’m working through a qualitative analysis project from the Spring semester. I am actively coding six interviews where I documented (field notes) the responses from six participants. The participants are active instructional designers that are designing and updating many training modules related to an aerospace production environment. The basis of the research project is to interview the participants to understand how through their instructional design activities they can know the effectiveness of the course outcomes. I hope to identify both positive outcomes and areas where they can improve their course designs. Even though this is a small scale qualitative analysis project, I hope to learn some of the essential skills in conducting non-positivist qualitative studies. This will help to build on the current body of knowledge and skill capabilities which will in turn help build trust and acceptance of the application of qualitative research in academia and business.

 

Reference

Cooley, A., (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics of creating knowledge. Education Studies, 49, 247-262.

Osborne_LTEC6516_Wk5_Blog

Assignment:

Take some time to REALLY think about what you believe you know about qualitative research after last week’s discussion and the video tonight. What were your misconceptions? What are challenges that come out of your past knowledge vs. the new? How will you take this forward into your research work?

 

Response:

After reviewing the qualitative research methods over the past couple weeks, I still have a lot to learn about all of the intricacies of this process. I had my first introduction to qualitative analysis this past semester. I have many years of experience with quantitative analysis in an industrial environment, where I collected process data, analyzed it, then created charts that depicted process defects and corrective action changes. I refer to this process as measurement and analysis (rack-and-stack). This type of processes are seen throughout many businesses and industry.

I reviewed the presentation posted for this week. I learned a lot from its content. There are some areas that I still need to gain further understanding. One of the key benefits is that it provides a roadmap into the qualitative analysis process. I now understand the difference between the Positivist and Non-Positivist qualitative process approaches. The qualitative research project that I am currently involved with will focus on the Non-Positivist process as I am focused on the subjective nature of how instructional designers approach and validate their course designs.

Since I have worked at the company for many years, I do have some preconceived opinions concerning the various course designs. Based on my understanding, I align with the ‘Reality’ sections Option A, where there is an objective reality, but I don’t see where anyone can gain a complete understanding of all that is involved in the process (ontological). However, each of the interviewees have indicated an agreement that there are gaps in the design, development, delivery and effectiveness of their courses (epistemology). Once I complete the coding along with two other professors, I’m anxious to see how my preconceived biases align with the results of the qualitative analysis.

I have developed a list of six interview questions that were given to six instructional designer participants. There were several additional questions related to their professional experience. I am currently in the process of coding each of their responses. I was not allowed to make audio and video recordings of the interview process, which placed limitations on the research study. I think that I captured much of the perceptions, feelings, opinions, and thought of the participants.

The design of the six interview questions was based on a course evaluation set of questions that are given to students at the conclusion of each training class. The course evaluation consisted of 23 Likert Scale type questions, in eight categories. The six questions that I created were a condensed version of those 23 evaluation questions. These six questions provide an overview synopsis of a course evaluation. The approach taken was what I refer to as a reverse engineering of the end of the course looking back to the design of the course. Overall, these six questions are a representation of the instructional designer’s efforts to design and develop each of their courses.

The topic of inquiry focuses on the approach that the instructional designer takes when designing the course. The six questions helped to answer the what, how, where, and who questions that are part of the topic of inquiry process. Being the ‘researcher as instrument’, I have considered two of the questions noted: what do I think I already know about the topic, and what is my subjective bias about the topic?  Since I have taken many courses at work for professional development and for required compliance training, I have formed some subjective biases. I don’t feel that these biases have influenced the interview questions created for this research study. The reason for my assessment is that the interview questions were developed directly from the evaluation instrument discussed earlier.

In order to establish the credibility of my research I will be incorporation three of the triangulation processes noted. These are as follows:

  • Member checks – once I completed the initial interview process, I transcribed my hand-written field notes into a Word document. I conducted a follow up meeting with each of the participants to review the transcribed document. I made updates and revisions based on their follow up responses.
  • Multiple coders – I am in process of coding each of the participants responses to the interview questions. I will obtain additional inputs from 1-2 other coders in order to confirm, expand, or eliminate my coding entries.
  • Field notes – I have transcribed all of my hand-written field notes into Word documents. In order to assist with the next phases of the qualitative analysis process, I will transcribe all of the Word document content into an Excel spreadsheet. This will enable better collaboration between coders and the final analysis.

My understanding of the coding analysis will be the use of a ‘constant-comparative analysis’ process, which will help to identify knowledge, skills, concerns, and opinions of the instructional designers.

After completing the qualitative analysis, I will need to write an article about the findings. In addition, I will need to create a presentation, which will include and executive summary of my findings, to be delivered to my professors as well as the instructional design participants and their managers. I hope the final qualitative analysis report will provide concrete suggestions for instructional design process improvements. The most important outcome is that I hope to better understand how to conduct effective qualitative research studies for my current Ph.D. and post-academic research studies.

One of the key benefits that is afforded to each Ph.D. student is the availability of tools that provide guidance, checks and balance in research endeavors. The concept where each new researcher builds on the shoulders of giants, is accomplished when the right tools are available that enhance the capabilities of the researcher. Otherwise the researcher is left to spend an inordinate amount of time developing the tools instead of focusing on the research.

With each Ph.D. course that I take, I’m looking for the tools that enable me to be an effective researcher. In both of the qualitative research courses that I have taken, I want to be sure I understand and have performed all of the steps necessary to gain the right experience to conduct qualitative research.  If possible, I hope that the content of these courses can serve as a foundation for future offerings of these courses. There needs to be a balance between the understanding of the foundational history and theory, but the hands-on experience is what’s needed for an effective outcome.