I was asked to do this last week, mind you, and the question even came up "should we prepare any advance materials?" My answer? No. I _LIKE_ to fly by the seat of my pants, and even though some premade materials might help, my other flaw is that I like to be somewhat verbose. In otherwords, if I were to make up some materials ahead of time, I would likely run into three main problems:
1.) I would be unlikely stick to my own plan.
2.) I would present way too much verbally, but not back it up in written format.
3.) Or I would simply not know where to stop writing, and want to include too much information, and therefore devote way too much time to prep work for what it was worth.

Now, granted, this was to be a group of only about 4-6 people that I would be teaching, so that might affect what a pro would have done in my shoes (more likely to do as I did and not bother preparing much ahead of time?). Never the less, the whole time that I was getting set up to do my schtick, I couldn't stop thinking that this would have been a good idea to try and practice the theory that I'm supposed to be internalizing in class.

Conduct a needs analysis, Determine.....

Yeah right. Ok, the first thing that you guys are gonna want to know about Windows Movie Maker is that... Another thing to keep in mind is that... Good question, to answer that were already going to have to get off track.... and so it goes.

Another part of me says, WAIT, isn't some of what we're learning hinting that maybe some of the design steps (at least some of the design MODELS, such as Rapid Prototyping) are really more a DEscription of what is already going on inside our heads, rather than a PREscribed formula that one must stick to in order to do things right?

When that side of my brain takes over (and wins), then my brain continues down the path of "so if that's a DEscription of what is happening, like an event log, then the rest of me can get on with doing what I was doing with out paying too much attention to what I've been told is the best way to do it."

The problem? Then what good are "best practices" doing for me if the part of me that wants to ignore them and get on with what I feel I can do somewhat naturally (as I fly by the seat of my pants) wins and I go into teaching moments without preparing?

Isn't there a way that good learning can happen without having to go through a bunch of prescribed steps?

Well, I guess one thing that I got out of it was that in a way, trying to describe such a thing CAN be a waste of time, but at the same time, if you can approximate what is being done by some successful people, you can help others along with what they are attempting to do.

I was worked up about RP by the time we got to present because I felt like I understood both sides of that and how the pros and cons applied in this (RP model) case. In fact, that was the segment that I had spent the most time preparing for myself.

The downside of it was that I also felt like the class' energy was sapped after the long guest lecture. The vibe that my group felt during the Lego presentation was just not to be found with RP. And even with that paper airplane example! I found that online and that really jumped out at me since it seemed like a great concise way to explain what RP was all about. That exercise was itself what started my comprehension of RP in the first place, so I have to admit I had high hopes. It did seem like people had fun with the plane-making, but after that I felt like we had lost some people's attention/interest, and since it was my contribution to do most of the talking, I felt like that was my own weakness.

I guess last week's presentation was interesting enough, but it DID run a little (!) long, and upon reflecting later I think there were some considerable weaknesses.

1.) Don't talk at people for over 1.5 hours to tell them that direct lecture doesn't work. (Granted that's not exactly a fair analysis of what took place, but it really seemed like it was a 'guest lecturer', and not as much a 'pick the brain of' type thing.)

2.) So I'm just a budding web designer (professionally for the last 1.5 years now), but even I could tell you that there's nothing in Dreamweaver that automatically creates a great website for you (like adding accessibility features). You might get some plugins to help do some validation for you, but you're always going to have to do your own coding and analysis in order to make things as good as possible.

3. Frames. What else can I say? Frames were THE thing back in the mid-late nineties, but I haven't even HEARD anyone talk about using framesets lately (last few years) at all. They just aren't what you want to be using, for accessibility/compatibility/ and manageability issues.

There were some interesting points made about how to go about talking up the need for instructional design/analysis, and how to make things in a relatively modular way, so that you can have an easier time of it later when you need to plug in some content, but can re-use the format to cut production time, but I have to admit, that a week later, that's about all I can recall.

I just couldn't wrap my mind around the project in a way that would allow me to easily fit it to the types of analysis that we are expected to do in its preparation.

I find that one of my main weaknesses is that I might grasp the concepts of types of analysis, need for such, activities involved, and everything. However, when it comes to taking one concrete example from my own experience and fitting it to the model, then I have a hard time breaking it down (chunking it, if you will) to be able to describe it in the required manner.

That was my main problem up until the impromptu meeting with my boss (client) this afternoon. I finally got a chance to conduct what could be considered to be a more specific client interview to straighten out some of my perceptions of the learners, their needs, and for that matter, the objectives of this project.

The focus has shifted a bit from where I thought the project was, but now my challenge is that it has shifted to a meta-instruction project. Instead of having to eek out what could be classified as instructional aspects, my understanding of the goal now is to design an instructional tool that will help the learners get through what is essentially the instructional design process itself.

"The learner will learn to assess their learners' needs..." "The learner will assess the tools available to them in their project..." "The learner will state the intended outcomes..." " The learner will develop assessment tools to measure the effectiveness of their learners' development..."

That's essentially what MY objective statements now look like!

Now it feels like instead of struggling to figure out which of the aspects of Instructional Design are being addressed at any point, I'll be struggling to determine which layer of the whole process I'll be working on at any given time; defining my learner's needs assessment, or evaluating how well they have done their own needs assessment...

I'll basically be walking MY learners through the same process that I'm walking through myself. That is, unless I've already gotten myself lost! I have yet to see if anything has just gotten easier or not.

All of life is instructional design indeed.

The discussion deftly provoked by Scott, Jill, and Stephanie hit pretty close to home. Specifically, it brought directly into play views held by my father (a 5th grade teacher, ready to retire in the upper half of his fifties from a small school district in a state far far away) and my wife, a media specialist in a growing suburb of the Twin Cities.

My dad often grumbles about technology being pushed on the kids without regards to their "real" needs (being much more focused on "the basics" of reading and math that his relatively lower income students need, and pretty much a technophobe himself). My wife, on the other hand, complains more about the staff that refuses to check their email or brush off her attempts at cross-curricular integration and collaboration because the classroom teacher is to uncomfortable when faced with such a complicated web interface as the Google search page.

My dad does have his valid points. To my inexpert observer's eye (though I was a product of that same school district), the district DOES have a rather wrong-headed approach to technology. It seems that most of what is being taught is touch typing, and whether the library still uses old card catalog drawers or computer terminals, the students only get about 6 hours of library instruction PER YEAR in his building. My dad doesn't have an email account and has probably only adapted to some online search engines because of the switch that the public library made to computer catalogs 15+ years ago. He is no more likely than "Phorget It" Phil to be able to integrate technology into his lessons than he would be eager to try.

My wife, on the other hand, being in her late twenties and having done her undergrad studies on a campus that required laptops for each student, then continued into a library and media education MA, sees lots of opportunity to integrate technology into teaching methods and use it to reach more students in more ways.

I guess it still comes down to what I argued last week in my post. It really has to do with how you use the technology. Just having the boxes in the building does not do what you need. On the other hand, you might really find that some teachers, good teachers, will find it to be a real crimp in their style to be "forced" into using tools that they do not themselves feel comfortable using.

Technology for technology's sake in ANYTHING is not necessarily a good idea. Technology can seem daunting to people and actually serve as a deterrent to "getting things done" or feeling "at ease" with the process.

That said, no generation in the last century has been limited to the technology available to the one before it, and therefore there is always a "new" thing coming down the pike that younger learners "grow up with" and older teachers (as that is usually the dichotomy) "can do without".

I can think of nothing that supports keeping technology out of education in favor of the "old ways". If nothing else, the technology plays a part of the environment that the learners need to master in order to excel in the changing world, and for this reason alone should be included in the schools. Also, technology, although not always used by all people in the same ways, offers new methods of learning to students and may well reach learners previously fallen through the cracks of the "old ways".

The article that studied test scores in correlation with mere numbers of computers in the school did absolutely NOTHING to ask HOW those computers were or weren't being used. If the technology is not being used in integration with regular instruction, then there is a good chance that it is reducing the instruction of the other subject matters, but done well, it can only enhance the learning experience. THAT was not taken into account with the questions at all.

Or rather, I should ammend that. The idea of "good instructional design" would seem to be defined as "the design of effective and efficient teaching tools" (that's not too subjective, is it?). At least, it seems to me that "good instructional design" is instructional design that pulls this off. In this case, both words 'effective' and 'efficient' require the presence of the learner in the equation to have any value. Ergo, "good instructional design" should definitely hold the learner and his/her/their needs as the central focus.

If we widen the scope to possibly exclude the qualifier "good" and just ask what "instructional design" is, then I agree, we start taking into consideration the other factors than those that directly serve the learner, and perhaps have more to do with the needs of the client or the designer. In this case, however, if the focus becomes out of balance (as far as the need to keep the learner central), then I would argue that we are no longer discussing what could be declared good instructional design, but rather "business design" or even "project/product design". The learner's needs are no longer being served exclusively.

Now, there is a place and a real need for good "product design" principles when creating instructional tools, especially because ignoring factors such as time and budget could potentially be the downfall of an otherwise good project. Also, the learner's needs are never the only needs involved in a project. It just seems to me that the role of the instructional designer (a good one) falls within the scope of overall good product design (project management?), and it definitely entails focusing on the learner. All other considerations are not part of the "instructional" aspect of "instructional design".

Thus, why do we care about the learner? If we don't, then we are not designing for instructional purposes (no longer "instructional designers"), no matter what else is being considered (or whose purpose is being served). We are then talking about the (related) role of the "project/product designer".

I "get" the general ideas of what we're talking about in class, and I can really understand how each of the stages and elements involved in instructional design plays a role, but I have a hard time putting it into concrete applicable knowledge for myself moving forward in projects.

I feel like I am often being struck by seemingly random thoughts of "oh, THAT'S some good design" to a degree that my brain never really took it before: not just "cool!", but "No, really, there was some good planning on that aspect there. They must have really paid attention while conducting their learner analysis..."

Like today. I got an email that alerted me to the fact that I had, as of yet, failed to take a mandatory staff training online regarding sexual harrassment. I opted to click on the link in the email and finish it up right away. Immediately I started noticing things that might normally have ticked me off, but now really got under my skin because I could SEE myself taking steps to prevent my own annoyances, but just didn't have access to the original to make the necessary tweaks.

First off, I don't remember there being any info on time expectations. When it became clear that this might actually take more than a half an hour of my time, I began to wish I had saved it for later. I was distracted by wanting to get it over with because it became clear (like the teachers in our recent case study) that this wasn't the kind of thing I was going to find useful if I felt like it was taking up too much of my time. The training was designed so that I HAD to go through each step before it would report back that I had completed the workshop. At the same time, however, it had poor planning in areas like movie clip controls and menus.

I can understand the necessity of "forcing" each participant to view the whole movie clip, but more than once, just towards the end, I missed something because of environmental distractions, so I tried to go back and review what had just been said. Sometimes I could use the menu to jump back to the beginning of the WHOLE SEGMENT, but I never had the oportunity, having seen it once already, to just skip to the part I was interested in repeating. Also, if I accidentally clicked on the pop-up menu (think Windows START menu), it would partially visually block the segment I was in the middle of, and would NOT CLEAR without selecting one of the segments listed (the current one since it wouldn't allow you to skip ahead), and then it would start that whole segment over again! @#*#$@!

On the other hand, there were a variety of "activities" that I thought really were good examples of well-thought-out tools. Things that I wished I could save as examples for later, or refer back to as a model. The training was trying to change behavior, just like in our first case study. There were also sections that felt like they were trying to encourage a constructivist approach by letting the user view multiple video clips representing various viewpoints, and then simply asking some open ended questions to provoke thought without trying to push "right" answers. Other segments were assessments that required true-false or reality-myth distinction where there WERE right or wrong answers, and I felt like I wanted to purposefully get some "wrong" to see if the tool was designed to be adaptive or not. (I didn't want it to report that I was socially inept or pathological, though, so I didn't.)

So I find that I am feeling comfortable RECOGNIZING what goes into "good design" when I see an example of it, but applying it consciously to my work is a lot harder. I even lie awake at night trying to plan out my final project or apply some instructional design concepts to projects at work, but I find that my brain is more preoccupied with design of much less "instructional" things, such as a new wall/door partition for the bathroom, or a wiring pattern to hook up some new porch lights to an "optical eye" light sensor AND a motion sensor at the same time. I realize that some of the steps in planning are perhaps not too far off, but it feels like there's something there that I'm just not grabbing.

Asked in class, many (most?) of us identified with Pedro, basically admitting that we would think about some of the major challenges without holding ourselves to a more structured step-by-step approach to managing the project.

Where does this come in lately? Our current assignment is to come in to class with (an) idea(s) for our final projects. I was drawing a complete blank as I walked out of class. Then I made a mistake. I told my boss about this assignment. (I work in a department of the U dedicated in part to producing and disseminating educational materials.) I was immediately presented with several ideas that would fit at work as well as potentially work as a final project. Besides the implication that a LOT more potential work is now on the table at work (even if not used as a final project, but that should be fun !), I'm really feeling like my take on Pedro. All I can seem to see are potential problems with each idea (always the alliterative parenthetical pessimist) and I have the challenge of finding the parts that WILL work, or at least possibly take a more disciplined approach to one of them and see if the rest doesn't fall into place...

One of our case studies this week, however, is about the task of offering a rather emotional/personal type workshop on AIDS awareness for gay and bisexual men over the internet. My immediate reaction was to imagine a greatful introverted member of the public for whom the materials would be useful and informative, but not if attendance at such an emotionally charged (and inTERpersonal) workshop was required. This leads me to think of possibly moderated online discussions as a web-based alternative (anonymity being more possible if desired), but of course much of the impact delivered by the original workshops (small group discussions, led by trained experts, and "hot button" materials used to elicit reactions) would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce.

I would probably want to hear from some members of the target audience how useful this format would seem to them, but I can also imagine that it would be a lot harder to identify/find/elicit responses from those who would appreciate the privacy given by an online version of the workshop. Not quite sure how to approach that challenge...

This is relevant only in that our readings this week focus partly on "learner analysis". To me, this means really working the inTERpersonal skills to best gather useful information about the target audience of an ID project, whereas I seem best equipped to handle this from an inTRApersonal angle; what would I need from a tool for it to be most useful ('good design')?

At the same time, not being a professional educator, but rather the son, grandson, brother, and spouse to people who are, maybe, just maybe I can find some role modeling on how to do some inTERpersonal learner analysis.