Kims+reflections...

**Feb. 16, 2010** Thinking back on class Tuesday night, I believe Linda has a good point about students trying too hard to “do what the professor wants” instead of thinking creatively about the task at hand. I know I have been guilty of this. One thing Linda has taught me (well she’s taught me many things…) is to **take risks!** Explore the creative side of yourself, try not to be boxed in by doing what is main stream or conventional. It’s ok to try something different and if it doesn’t work, well then what have you learned from it? How can you make it better the next time? As teachers ourselves we need to challenge our thinking, be original, and trust our own instincts about things. (within reason of course :-D)

Writing objectives can be hard. Add to that the fact that we are trying to “teach” Jamie about writing objectives at the same time she is trying to help her students understand the objectives, all in an environment (the case study) that is very abstract! WOW - -can you say cognitive overload? But I think this is where the fun comes in. Can we peel the layers away and work on each segment while still keeping the big picture in mind? Can we apply the cognitive strategy approach as outlined by Smith and Ragan (pg. 99)? I am going to try below…

// 1) Assess the learning task //.  **OK**, the assignment was to look at objectives from three perspectives: the importance of objectives for students, the alignment of objectives to learning activities, and writing clear objectives.

//2) Select or invent a strategy appropriate to the task. // Here we are working on putting **the three learning goals for understanding objectives** into short stories (vignettes) or realistic scenarios to help the new TA understand the context of objectives in a course.

3) //Apply the strategy// That’s what we are doing this week, creating these scenarios that depict various ways to understand and use objectives. By various I mean the scenarios with decision points that offer a range of choices from good ---better--- best (all very subtle). These choices are what the TA has to consider in the context of the different scenarios (our strategies). //4) Assess the success of the strategy // . To some extent we will do this during our class discussions, but the real test will be having a TA come in and go through our lesson.

//5) Modify the strategy if it’s not effective. //Of course, if this approach or the scenarios (with the decision options) don’t work well for a new TA, we go back and make changes based on TA feedback (the iterative part of the ID process).

In trying to better understand what we are doing and where we are heading, putting our objective tasks above (both from the “we are learning perspective” and the “we are teaching Jamie perspective”) into a cognitive strategy framework help me to chunk out what we are doing. But there is no denying it is complex with many different layers!

//“In order to create an engaging learning experience, the role of instructor is optional, but the role of the learner is essential.” // I could not find the author of this quote –but it is not mine.

Agnes did an excellent job describing her dissertation journey and the interesting topic she is exploring. She is focusing on female international students in doctoral programs here at UNC and the challenges they face on the road to a PhD. She is looking at them through a learner analysis lens. How neat! I can't wait to read her dissertation!
 * Feb 9, 2010**

Learner analysis sounds simple enough but after our discussion tonight, it's apparent there is nothing easy, direct or concrete about analyzing the learner. As Smith & Ragan point out, there are two key things to keep in mind 1) a learner's prior knowledge is key and 2) don't think that the learner learns or wants to be taught in the same manner you do! <-- Good advice. This leads me to wonder about differentiated instruction or individual instruction. As one web site states, differentiated instruction **IS** the **bridge** from content to learner. OK, but how do you individualize instruction for a room of 25 students? How can we do that in an online learning environment?

It still boils down to discovering WHO is the learner...what motivates them, how are they engaged...how do they learn. Do we ask these questions at the beginning of a class? Can the learner really articulate and understand how they learn best? Obviously, instructors who want to try and create instructional strategies that work for a variety of learners must be flexible. [|Tracy Hall, PhD] has written about differentiated instruction and talks about content, process, products and how to achieve differentiated instruction. But it still means you have to know the learner even if you are going to offer alternative instructional strategies in the confines of one class. Who knows, but as technology moves forward, it may get easier to create modules that the learner can pick and chose from in order to interact with the content, other learners, and the instructor.

As we discussed, learner analysis is "half of the ID equation" but it's often minimalized and given very little time and attention.

I am really enjoying our ET702 class because there are many different perspectives and interpretations of ID that we all bring to the class. Thanks Linda and Shari for capturing your thoughts and details about the Feb 2 class. It was several years ago that I first heard about the Death March and I had never thought of it in an ID context, but having seen million dollar projects get scraped (including the training piece) it seems like a very applicable concept. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don’t know if you can say that one part of the ID process is more important than any other part, but I think a good needs assessment is critical to any ID or learning project. Regardless of why instructional designers or trainers are being tasked with developing instruction, understanding the why and what’s needed is critical to all who are involved; from the stakeholders, to the ID’s, to the trainers, and the end users or learners. To me the needs assessment aligns with the //why// are we doing this, which is especially important in the corporate world. Not only do you need to fully understand what employees (the learners) need to be able to do (skills) and understand (knowledge) but you should be able to provide a solid rationale for why the training is necessary. This helps with attitude …at least if they know why they are required to learn something new their adoption of it becomes easier (esp. true of adult learners). We had an acronym for this in the training world: __WIIFM.__ This means "What’s In It for Me". It is a great way of ensuring that you keep the learner’s perspective in mind and can explain to them not only what’s needed but why it’s needed.
 * Feb 2, 2010**