Educational Technology and Research

It was eye-opening to read such conflicting views about instructional technology research and development and it's future in the field. I started with 2 articles: "Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through Design Experiments and Other Development Research Strategies" (Reeves, 2000) and "Reflections on the State of Educational Technology Research and Development" (Kozma, 2000), then felt compelled to read,  "Reflections on the State of Educational Technology Research and Development: A response to Kozma" (Richey, 2000)
In the first article, Reeves shared views from many in the field regarding the problems with IT research, how we can attempt to fix some of those problems, and the future of IT research. First, there appears to be many differences of opinion about basic and applied research and it's value in IT. I appreciated the model of Pasteur's Quadrant View of Research by Stokes and how it showed that research can be inspired by considerations of use and fundamental understanding. Reeves believes that much of the research conducted by instructional technologists (and educational researchers) is neither. Much of the research, he claims, has been done to advance the careers of academics, or for the sole purpose of getting recognized in a publication. He calls for an increase in "use-inspired basic research", or development research. He recognizes that change will not be easy, as development research is time-consuming, requires practitioners apply theories from empirical investigations, and collaborate extensively with other researchers and practitioners. This requires a major paradigm shift, when many are used to basic research that can be performed in a relatively short period of time with quantitative data. Reeves observes that most of the research is riddled with problems like specification error, lack of connection to theoretical foundations, measurement flaws and others. He also states that many researchers don't give proper attention to research goals and methods, many even confusing the two. While I agree that there needs to clear goals and methods when conducting research, we need to remember the subject being researched is a human being. Humans are riddled with their own inconsistencies, behaviors, and intellectual capacity. Researching human behavior, particularly learning can never be in my opinion, an exact science. We can however, use research to create "best practices".
In Robert Kozma's reflections article, he shines a little more of a positive light on the direction of research in educational Technology. He gives some excellent examples of research projects involving the learning of challenging topics in math and science. He believes this latest research is vital to the field because "it combines design with advanced technologies, new collaborations, large-scale implementation, and alternative research methodologies". He also believes that a lot of current projects were possible only because computer technology enabled their designs. Rita Richey, in her response to the Kozma article, thinks that Kozma places to much emphasis on the importance of technology and accuses him of perpetuating the misconception that the field of instructional technology is only about computers. I agree with Kozma, "if we understand the media we use, they can inspire our creativity and enable powerful designs". He also stresses the importance of collaboration, learner centered environments and building strong working relationships with our clients.

I think that Reeves, Kozma and Richey have more in common that it might appear at first glance. All three believe a paradigm shift in instructional design research is necessary and all value a learner centered, collaborative philosophy. Despite the differnces of opinion about the best way to conduct research, all believe we need to mix traditional theories with current applied research in order to continue making progress in the field.

Reigeluth and Keller- Understanding Instruction

In Chapter 2 of Instructional Theories and Models (Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman, 2009) Reigeluth and Keller did a great job creating a "recipe" for effective instruction. I agree with their philosophy that instruction is both a science and an art and just like a good recipe, it takes a particular set of components, approaches and sequencing to get the instruction just right.  It may take a master chef years to get a particular dish just right, but many start with a basic recipe, following a particular sequence of steps and then experiment with the ingredients to get the recipe just right. I see our role as instructional designers in much the same way. We are learning a "formula" or process and over time will learn how to adjust the components, methods and sequence to get the instruction "just right". Unlike a chef, who is able to finally reach some level of perfection and replicate it over and over, instructional designers must be able to adapt for each new situation/organization. What works in one instance, with one group or individual might not work as well with the next. That is why formative evaluation is critical. We need to be able to evaluate throughout the process and adjust accordingly. I have taught elementary school children for more than 15 years and have found particular instructional methods to be effective with particular assignments, but it's not a perfect formula. What worked perfectly last year, might not be effective with a different group of students. I also find that the best instruction is a combination of methods.

When I taught third grade, part of our curriculum was teaching about Pilgrims. Students would participate in a small group activity to decide what to take on the trip to the "New World" (authentic task, role play, instructional simulation).  They would brainstorm ideas in small groups (collaboration), then post items on sticky notes for the whole class to see. Once we had a good collection of items (might be as many as 50 or more), we would categorize the items as a group, taking out any duplicates. I would then tell the class that they had only a limited amount of space on the ship and must take only what was truly necessary. I would then send them back to their small groups to pick 5 items not seen as necessary that could be removed (problem-based instruction, collaborative work). Once they had agreed, we would remove those items. We would perform this task several times, each decision to remove an item getting more and more difficult.(possibly deductive or elaboration sequencing?) The final step in the project would be to look at primary sources (actual historical documents) which gave lists of items Pilgrims actually took (authentic tasks). Students would discuss in small groups, then as a whole group why various items were important for the Pilgrims to take. (collaboration, elaboration, reflection, review) They would also have to identify certain items they were not familiar with, using a glossary (tutorial, peer tutoring). This reminded me of the model Reigeluth mentioned in his interview with Cammy Bean that I posted on our class discussion area http://instructionaldesigning.org/content/instructional-design-live-7-2010-2-26-learning-information-age-charles-reigeluth . He talked about an instructional model where students would start their learning in a task area and move to an instruction area when they needed additional information/skills. This type of learning environment allows students to work together and collaborate, while still having the flexibility to leave the task area to gain additional information/skills as needed. It takes some fine teacher management skills, but when done well can produce some of the best learning experiences for children.

I would love to hear thoughts from others about their teaching experiences (with both children and adults) and also, if you see other examples of instructional methods in my lesson above. I'm sure there are many others!