From the photos, it appears that Dave did the very cool bandshell design at Rapid City's Memorial Park.

Dave has recently started a new business, based in Rapid City, SD. As you'd expect, he does the architecture thing, but also works in sustainable design. Anyone know what the heck adaptive reuse really means? I'll have to ask him sometime. Dave also does design/build, which I am a bit familiar with here at the U. Sir Stafford apparently does work in historic preservation. It'd be interesting to hear his opinion on some of the unrestored buildings here on campus, no doubt. Project management is also apparently something he does in his new gig. I wish Dave all the best of luck in his new venture. He had some very good advice when we installed the door on the side of our garage (the dog yard access portal) which was helpful. If I ever have any real questions, I'm sure he'd be the guy to ask. Who knows, maybe I'll win the lottery and be able to hire Dave Stafford's services for a sweet Black Hills Summer home. Yeah, right! Again, the website, davestaffordarchitecture.com , is pretty sweet.

First off, I was glad that Stephanie thought of this as an idea since I'd never heard of this one before. It seems to me that this idea, whether or not it really is an ID model, is a formulation of what many teachers do all the time in the field. They may not always follow a "model," but this kind of thing probably goes on all the time in classrooms. Teachers often don't have time our resources to do many of the ID models in the course of their everyday work. Getting completely unbiased and removed analysis isn't always practical. This method allows seemless integration into their teaching and actually having the students knowingly participating can be a benefit. There is reason to believe that this buy-in can be a positive motivator.

I think it can be argued that this is either not a true ID model or perhaps a method that can be used within an existing ID model or learning situation. The point was raised about the difficulty of using this model as it can be problematic to get reliable performance data, which seems to be such an issue in education today. In any case, Action Research should be looked upon as another tool, among others, to improve learning. I also liked the idea that Stephanie brought up where in practice, results of Action Research were added to an existing knowledge base that many educators can draw upon. Action Research will have different applicability depending upon the situation, but more critical, even scientific analysis of the learning situation can have real benefits for education.

And also thanks to the class for the interesting discussion items; it was tough to go after the JuiceMasters!

Another interesting thing he brought up was the question of where today's "designer" fits in with regards to being in the "artist to manufacturer" spectrum. Much of it seems to be dependent on the scope and nature of the product being worked on. Some things are done by an individual who does all aspects of the project where others have teams of people who are much more specialized. As with many things in ID, it's tough to nail it all down to a single model or job description and makes the case for people in this field to be as multi-faceted as possible, which conveniently falls into the area of being and indispensible employee in the work life. Learn the art, learn the programming/technology....it'll all be useful at some point.

I'm sure I'll have something better to reflect on after tonight's class, but for now other than continuing work on my final project, I have this tidbit.

Last week, I attended a meeting of the Educational Technologists Forum where they had a panel of students present to discuss the use of technology in their higher education environment. I believe they were all undergraduates. Much of the discussion was centered around tools such as WebCT, which is to be expected as we all pretty much have our likes and dislikes regarding this tool which is becoming more and more commonplace in our academic lives.

The point that was most interesting though was question put to them near the end of the session: Beyond convenience, which is in itself a reason for using techology, has technology actually changed or improved the way you learn here at the University? The students had made it clear that they all used technology, like most students today, all the time. It has become a part of their everyday lives. However, none of them could really come up with a solid way in which technology has changed the way they learn. One thing they could have mentioned was related to the way they communicate with faculty. Just having email to communicate between students and faculty has been a positive thing in many cases, but does it change the way they learn? I'm not sure, but it took me back to one of Aaron's good old "Great Media Debates." In particular, the debate over whether or not technology improves learning. Perhaps technology has changed they way these students learn, but they weren't able to recognize it. Or is it just another tool that doesn't make as much of an impact as we might think.

OK, enough of that, time to go do some IM and email!

Davey Jones: What can I say about Davey? For one, if you rely on the case study, he doesn't seem to have any problems with the team he's working with. By that I mean there aren't any obvious political or communication problems with the group. Sure, they may not know exactly how to stick all of this mountain of previous company information into the respective buckets...and maybe this is the point. How do you do this exactly? The people on the team may have very different ideas and it's going to take some good management skills to make it all come together, especially in a company as large as the "Widget" company. I also don't have the foggiest idea how they would evaluate the EPSS they want to build. Perhaps there's something in the previous learning systems that would give them some guidence in this area.

We had a good time with the presentation and got some great discussions going in the groups: thanks class!

One thing that's coming to mind right now is the whole media selection part of my ongoing final project preparations. I get to a section of the module and start thinking of all sorts of media that could convey the material, but have gone back over things to the point where I have come to the conclusion that there are some things in an online learning module that can be over-produced with too much media. Some things may be more directly expressed by text with images and others do well with videos and interactive clips/Flash stuff. It's very tempting to overdo things and often a second/third look at the planning can give a bit of perspective. Not to mention all the case studies, readings, good/bad design topics, etc...but duh, that's the way it should work!

We had an interesting class this week with "special guest star" (to use the old TV show term), Keith Miller.

I can see why Keith does well in front of groups, even though he often doesn't work that way; he was engaging, had a lot of material to worth with, and left things flexible enough for impromptu discussion to take place. His portrayal of life in the corporate world was very interesting with a refreshing amount of candor regarding the good and the not-so-good in that kind of environment. I was a bit surprised he didn't mention a primary reason people choose this particular work world: (typically) higher salaries. As a long (well for me) time employee in the public sector, I know I'm not going to get rich, but I do OK and I appreciate the working conditions enough to make it worthwhile for me. We all have tradeoffs and know (hopefully) what we're willing to do and what's more important. Sounds simple, but it takes a while for some people to figure this out in their careers.

Keith's words of wisdom crossed into the familiar, but true territory of wearing many hats. It's a lot less likely to get yourself outsourced if you can do a lot of things. Maybe you can't be too multi-talented; heck, look at him with a Landscape Architecture background that he probably doesn't use all the time (if much at all) in his ID career. I'm sure it has a role to play somehow just as there must be something in what I do that came from my background in music...right?

Also, the "Rapid Prototyping" presentation was fun and even though it's a common example, having everyone do paper airplanes got the idea going right out of the gate. OK, gotta go work some more on the presentation I have to do tomorrow with the group!

I've been reading some of the other blogs in the class and a common thread seems to be the lack of preparedness for our last class, which I was guilty of as well; Aaron's BS meter must have pegged on that one! So here are a couple of thoughts I've managed to squeeze out in this break, which is actually busier than other times of the semester for me! Go figure...

One of the points brought up was the fact that chunking actually comes into effect in web design; people have trouble reading long sections of text on a screen so the information has to be broken up more than, say a book. This is perhaps a bit obvious, but I hadn't thought about it before. That got me thinking that I have noticed a higher fatigue level in reading electronic text over printed. So the question is, why is that and how will that impact the whole "eBooks" thing that people have been predicting will take over conventional print media for years now? This has to figure in somehow, but if one is to design online learning, it has to take this into effect.

Also, the case study with the oil drilling company demonstrated that ID pros are going to find themselves in situations where they say to themselves, "why am I wasting my time here?" If the product that's being trained on is faulty can any good come of training? Once again, dealing with a group of people who have disfunctional communication gets in the way of making a project work. Making all the parties concerned talk to each other is going to be very difficult and could be tough without help from management. So is there a point where you just walk away? I'm not saying that the person in this case should have, but there are probably times where you have to do it. Knowing when may be another thing you learn as your skills develop.

Craig has to learn to be a politician and manager of sorts in this kind of scenario. There are a number of competing views and interests. He will have to accomodate some and work around others; otherwise how will he achieve buy-in from the employees?

I also would question why you would want to do something like this within the confines of a one day training. Wouldn't it be better to implement a long-term program that not only imparts information (which can be easily forgotten/blown off I might add) but continues the learning. This would also make it easier to further open the lines of communication between the different departments.

So I think Craig could make this work, but he has to try and think beyond the one day thing. Perhaps he can build this into more work...

The good/bad design presentation was fun and about something I am a fan of: the iPod. There was some good information about the product and the issues that go along with it. One thing I hope we get to talk about next week is the evolving design of the iPod's interface. The current "click wheel" design has changed over the years as well as the software that runs the iPod. I owned the very first model iPod back in 2001 the controls/software have certainly gotten better. IMO, the controls is one of the reasons the iPod has been so successful.

Another interesting question relates to students viewing college class content on their iPods. Students may find it handy to have lectures on their iPods, but aside from the audio, how useful is it really to have Powerpoint slides on that tiny screen? Right now, class podcasting is the hot topic and some are adopting it to stay with the trend, but how it gets used long term is the real issue. Will it still be of interest five years out?

As I work on my final project initial planning, I'm starting to get more focused on who will be the target audience or learner for this training module will be and the context in which they will be receiving the material. This should have some impact on how I go about putting it together and the media choices I make.

This week we discussed the "Phorget it Phil" case study, which was one that you'd be likely to encounter in a K-12 school. The personality conflicts, perceptions (correct or not) about technology, leadership skills (or lack thereof), and the pressures of test scores all came into play. While it was amusing and perhaps easy to just "pay off" the teacher who was near retirement and didn't want to "waste time" getting on the tech program, sooner or later the problem would be back and have to be dealt with. Obviously showing leadership on the administration side to keep the funding flowing has to be there, but those who advocate for having technology in the school should be asked to account for why it makes a difference, particularly for a principal who needs to improve the school's performance. Helping out those uncomfortable with tech and providing scaffolds needs to happen.

This situation reminded me of my Mom, a K-5 instrumental music teacher who, while being at least a novice, regular computer user, has never used technology in her teaching. I'm not sure she'd know where to begin to integrate it into what she's been doing for many years. How are teachers like her addressed? Her local school district spent its tech money to drop a laptop on her (not literally!) with no real training and it seldom gets used in the classroom.

Our Lego presentation was a lot of fun to work on and I feel silly that I didn't think of Papert since I did an assignment about him a while back (it's still on the web here) and should have recognized the "learning through play" ideas that connect the ideas of Lego and his work. Fun stuff!

The case study: It was pretty clear to all of us that Denny needs to do some real digging into those who've taken the workshop and finding out how it changed their teaching. The videos that were available would be a great resource since the creator of the material wasn't going to be much help in guiding the process. Some of the case studies are valuable because they remind us that personalities and peoples' working style can have an impact on getting a project done. People being as flexible as possible and good leadership would seem to be key here.

I was thinking of the back/forth we had in class about behaviorist teaching vs constructivist teaching. One thing that, while being more cut/dried to discuss, isn't always said is that teaching is almost never all one or the other. By portraying the terms in "lecture/simple testing/scantron hell" vs. "coop/group/self-guided," it's easy for the arguments to be straw men. Sure, it's fun to debate it, but this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum and I would say that few if any teachers do one rigid method all the time. I would think that some combo would happen and the teacher knowing when to use one or the other...or both.

The talk about technology in education is always interesting...takes me back to the "great debate" thing in a previous class. The jury still may be out on technology for teaching, but the best thing to do first is ask the question, so what?

The smart-ass reply could be, "because we aren't jerks."

OK, so that isn't so helpful...

Of course everyone says that education should have the learner at heart, but it often seems as though the learner is more of an afterthought or mere rhetoric. I had a couple of angles to hit this one on. One, which didn't come up (surprisingly) was that in the K-12 realm; does the focus on standardized testing really serve the students? I suppose that if you are most interested in teaching a pretty rigid set of knowledge, it might. Nonetheless, I remain skeptical that something like that could really serve all students well.

The other angle, which was talked about in class was that of large lecture classes in higher education. I generally consider them to be a necessary evil. There seems to be some debate about whether a large lecture format really does "care" about the learner. Some students can do well in this situation, if they're intrinsically motivated, but many do not. I believe this kind of class will be with us for a while, but perhaps if those who teach them focus as much as they can on the learner, they might make the most of a (IMO) compromised learning environment. ID is part of this as much as any class or learning program.

On the final project front, I'm starting to get some idea of the ID challenges connected with my project, such as how the learners will get to it if they don't have computer access? And, how will I effectively evaluate it?

OK, so this week we talked, among other things about ADDIE and co. plus we got more things nailed down about our upcoming assignments with our groups.

ADDIE: The first question that comes to mind is, who the heck uses ADDIE? The answer appears to be those in business, according to the discussions we've had in class. Reading some classmates' blogs kinda solidified it too. It seems as though a good way to consider using ADDIE is to get it, break it apart, and rebuild it in a different way with some new/improved parts (a Frankenstein ID model?). Dick/Carey/Carey/Dick seem to do this while compensating for some shortcomings in ADDIE. Not being locked into a format where re-evaluation isn't built-in seems like a mistake. Having the "constant feedback" zones allows one to constantly question the whole process. Things never turn out like we think they will, so this would seem to allow for adaptation when the real world rears its head.

On the other hand, don't we sometimes suffer under an ID model where the "model" is more like a large blob of feedback and analysis? Could it be hard to actually meet a goal in a timely way when we're constantly revising? What this means is that there probably isn't one ID model to fit every learning task, learner, and ID team. Knowing what to use is important.

I've enjoyed the back/forth discussions so far and Aaron does a good job trying "herd cats" in keeping the class somewhat on schedule. Like most people, I can't help but be reminded of my work situation during some of these discussions. We all have had to work with teams of differing personalities and even defining/re-defining our assumptions and goals can be a struggle within some groups. Just being able to ask the right question can be the thing.

Speaking of groups, I'm in three (for now?) assignment groups, all different which should be fun. Right now I'm pondering the "Good/Bad" assignment. Heck, we all probably have had opinions on good/bad design in our experiences. Finding something present should be easy, picking something out of all the examples may be tougher...but fun.

This week, among other things we talked about just what the heck ID is. It can mean a number of things, but it often has to straddle the line between conventional teaching planning and theoretical educational psychology. Taking Ed Psych concepts and weaving them into the fabric of either conventional teaching or online learning is a big part of what ID is all about. Having taken a class in Ed Psych (student learning) last year, it's interesting to apply some of what I learned there into the ID issues we've been talking about in class...such as the Pedro/Jenny case.

This was a really interesting one on at least two counts:

1) Yes, it was a translation of a conventional class/workshop which is not uncommon, but what made this one more challenging was the fact that it was more about changing behaviors than just getting information to the participants. This fact has an effect on how you deliver the material and the material itself. This is where knowing the learners makes a difference. Knowing their motivations, while always important, is critical here since behavior change is the goal.

2) The people working on it had very different ideas on how it should be done. Each person portrayed had a different style as well, which is a good representation of how these projects can go in the real world; dealing with different personal styles is part of the process. Each person has something of value to add in this scenario. Perhaps the management is what's needed here to put it all together.

Tonight we also discuss our final project ideas. I'm looking forward to fleshing out mine more to confirm that it's the right way to go...or whether I should consider something else.

Since I sprained my wrist (ouch!), I'm going to be brief this time around...

So far, Sir Aaron's class has been fun/interesting (oops, brownie alert). We had our usual "who we are/why are we here" introductions, which are always interesting to me; such a diverse mix of people in these classes.

The topic of why we are studying design and why it's important was brought up. I think it's important to be aware that good design crosses over into so many things we deal with everyday, which was mentioned with Aaron's pickup truck radio question. Things in design should be there for a reason and that's part of what we're going to be doing throughout the semester. So let's get going!

I'll leave you with a Colbert quote:

"Facts change, but my opinion never does."