Competency 4:
Think critically & Reflectively
For this competency, I have selected a series of written artifacts that demonstrate my ability to think critically and reflectively.
The set of reflective statements I wrote at the beginning and end of the course demonstrates the development of my personal vision for an inclusive educational practice. For the initial reflective statement, we were asked to set our goals for the Purdue MS LDT program based on our professional and personal experience and our knowledge about the field of educational technology. For the final reflection, we were asked to synthesize what we had learned in this course and revise our initial reflection regarding career goals, program expectations, and plans.
My initial and final reflections for EDIC 66000 represent the trajectory of the educational goals I had envisioned accomplishing in the LDT program:
-
stabilize my shaky instructional design knowledge and skills foundation;
-
push myself to explore different directions within the field;
-
meet, interact, collaborate with, and learn from others working in other areas of the LDT field; and
-
obtain a higher qualification (MSEd) to enhance my prospects in the LDT field.
I had several years of experience as an e-learning instructional designer coming into the program. However, I had not had any formal training in instructional design. In my initial reflection, I felt I would be able to design and develop more effective training for my clients with the knowledge I expected to gain through the extended community of practice with colleagues and professors in the program.
In my final reflection, I can see how my personal vision had already begun to undergo a change after just 8 weeks in the program. For example, in my initial reflection, I stressed the importance of meeting, interacting, and collaborating with others in the program, but I didn’t have an idea of the effect it would have on my personal and professional development. I also noted how much I had underestimated learning from working with others on group projects and from reading and responding to discussion posts. In my final reflection, I noted how I was able to overcome my increasingly anachronistic 20th-century learning skills and use the digital tools to write a research-based literature review using materials sourced online. I now appreciate how theory and research can illuminate what we do as instructional design practitioners.
Lastly, in my final reflection, I referenced other areas of the field that were outside my domain of expertise, such as human performance. As I complete the program, I look forward to exploring these other areas of opportunity as a way to enhance my freelance instructional design services.
4.1: Develops a personal vision of inclusive educational practice
Artifact: Initial and Final Reflective Statements – EDCI 66000
4.2: Describes the relationship between Educational Technology and the broader field of Education
Artifact: Initial and Final EdTech Definitions – EDCI 51300
My initial and revised definitions of educational technology, which I composed for the first course I took in the program, demonstrate my ability to describe the relationship between educational technology and the broader field of education.
At the beginning of the course, my definition of educational technology was informed by my own context as a freelance e-learning designer. My definition also consisted of a patchwork of ideas from across the instructional technology definition timeline. I attributed this eclecticism to the fact that my knowledge of instructional design was largely informal prior to beginning the Purdue LDT program. Moreover, I hadn’t considered that learning is not always the end goal in some contexts, like the workplace, where the focus can be on performance improvement, which is almost an area of study in and of itself.
As I reflect 8 weeks later on the trajectory of my definition as it developed throughout the course, I can see my initial narrow conception of the field. Thus, I broadened my revised educational technology definition to encompass the systems, processes, technologies, and instructional principles, strategies, and techniques that activate, engage, and motivate users in an environment designed to facilitate learning or enhance performance. Interestingly, I felt this definition also opened up more possibilities for me as an e-learning instructional designer. Specifically, instructional designers shouldn’t necessarily create instruction, but design learning experiences in which “learners are themselves architects of their own learning experiences” (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2012, p. 284).
I’ve now reached the end of the Purdue LDT program, and over the last year and a half, I have been able to think reflexively about the definition and nature of educational technology. I have a more panoramic view of how vast and diverse this field is in terms of the different learning and training contexts, each of which for me represents a potential professional challenge and a new area of opportunity.
Reference
Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. N. (2012). E-learning and instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 281–289). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
The case study that I analyzed and for which I provided solutions grounded in aspects of different theories demonstrates my ability to critically evaluate theory and practice. In the Sanchez and Peters case study (Cullen & Rulison, 2014), I provided several solutions that would address the ID challenge in the case: Design a training program for teachers that enables them to adapt their teaching methods to meet the Common Core Standards and develop a plan that assesses how teachers are progressing toward this goal.
To develop solutions to this challenge, I examined research about the diffusion of innovations theory (Sahin, 2006) and found the different stages of the innovation–decision process helpful in articulating what the instructional designer in this case would need to do to successfully implement the teacher training program. Specifically, I was able to critically evaluate the four main elements in the diffusion of innovations and select one, “communication channels,” that could be used to support my solution by designating the school intranet as an additional communication source the teachers could use to cooperate, collaborate, and negotiate information to build consensus.
As I’ve advanced through the Purdue LDT program over the last year and a half, I’ve really come to appreciate the role theory can play in helping to provide solutions to ill-structured training problems such as the one illustrated in this case study. As a practitioner, I realize I won’t have solutions to every problem I encounter. Knowing how to critically evaluate theory and abstract relevant elements I can apply to my projects will enhance my instructional design skills and expertise.
References
Cullen, T., & Rulison, S. (2014). Helping a school prepare for a new mandate. In P. Ertmer, J. Quinn, & K. Glazewski (Eds.), The ID case book: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed., pp. 51–62). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14–23.