1. I believe the definition the book poses is the most encompassing of all the definitions mentioned in the first chapter. I found it interesting just how evolved the definition(s) of ID have become over the years. There were aspects of past definitions that I thought were important, but like I've said the newest one seems to include these aspects, so that is good. The 1963 definition, I thought, was good because it "indicated that the field was not simply about media" (Reiser 4). With the 1970s definitions, it is also important to note that this one was a little different than any that had been seen in the past. The author states, "the second definition defines the field differently, introducing a variety of concepts that had not appeared in previous 'official' definitions of the field" and "it is particularly important to note that this definition mentions a 'systematic' process that includes the specification of objectives and the design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction, each term representing one of the steps in the systematic instructional design procedures that were beginning to be discussed in the professional literature of the field. I found this to be extremely important, specifically the inclusion of a focus on the evaluation of instruction, as this is how we as educators can see if what methods we are using are actually being successful, and not just for some of our students, but for all of them. I think this assessment step is essential and imperative to be utilized in reference to each and every one of our students and their actual learning and progress in the classroom. The 1977 definition plays into this idea of evaluation in that it included the "analysis phase of the planning process, which at that time was beginning to receive increasing attention among professionals in the field" (Reiser 5). In 2006 another important addition was made in focusing the instruction on the learner, rather than the teacher. I think we, as teachers, fail to do this often, as we tend to teach in the methods that WE learn(ed) best, and not necessarily take into consideration the best way to get information across to our students. The shift from instructor focused instruction to student focused instruction is essential, in my opinion. The best thing about the newest definition(s), too, is that with this focus more on the learner, the skills they are learning are (or at least should be) focused on specific skills that they can perform in the classroom, but that they can also perform in the workplace when they leave high school. Isn't that the point of education, or at least shouldn't it be? I think this, too, is a focus we, as teachers, tend to lose sometimes. We have to make it real world as much as possible so that our students can, and will, see the true value of the skills we are teaching them.
2. I am a fan of the Dick, Carey and Carey model of instructional design, as I feel it addresses all the major components of designing and implementing valuable lessons and instructions to our students. Therefore, there is nothing I would really add or take away (they are the professionals in this arena, right?) but I will comment on a few things in the model I feel are especially significant for valuable instruction. First, I think it's great that in the model they have "develop assessment instruments" as an early step in the process. I think this is something teachers don't think about necessarily, but it makes a lot of sense to know what they will need to know BEFORE actually beginning any instructional lesson or skill. It seems common sense when you think about it, but I myself am guilty of not doing this in the beginning of the process of ID. Another characteristic of this model, as I stated before about the text's definition, is that it is focused on student/learner centered learning, rather than teacher/instructor centered. This is important, as I stated above, so I will not be repetitive. One element of this model that struck me as a way to look at it in relation to my workplace was the last characteristic mentioned, "instructional design typically is a team effort" (Reiser 13). In my workplace, and specifically in my department (English at RCHS), we have a lack of this "team effort" in many regards. There are several teachers who plan together and design lessons together, but for the most part this is not an often occurrence. Typically I feel it's probably because most of us in the department have taught for at least 10 years, if not more, so we each personally feel we "know what we're doing" and are probably a little stuck in our ways of doing things. Change is hard, as I'm sure you know, especially for teachers. The lack of team planning, too, I think is minimal because of possibly personality conflicts, differences of opinions, etc., but I can see that this is something we probably need to step up and begin doing, no matter how painful, annoying, or time consuming it is. We do, like I've said, have a few teachers (who teach the same subjects) who plan together and share ideas, etc., but for the most part we all pretty much do our own things. I guess because our TAKS scores (because isn't that MOST important; sarcasm) have always been good, we feel we're doing things "right" and don't need to do more of this. I think that is WRONG and especially with end of course exams coming and TAKS going, this team effort in planning instruction is going to become even more essential.
3. It was actually very interesting to read chapter 3, as I had no idea of the history of instructional technologies, the predictions about technology that have been made over the decades, and ways in which instructional technology has been used, not only in the traditional school classroom, but also by the military, workforce, and other instructional facilities. While reading I found myself thinking back to my high school career, graduated HS in 1998, and how much, just in those 13 years, things have changed technologically in the classroom. We didn't have any computers at our school with internet access, and they were only used for the teaching of computer or typing skills, as the book pointed out as well. I didn't have an email address until I started college that year and did not have internet access at home until 1996, even with a father who was technologically savvy and into computers. Wow, have things changed, huh? The current technologies I have in my classroom are not the same as those I use. I feel, often, that much of the technology I have available to me goes unused, either because I feel the skill(s) can be just as well taught without, because it takes more work (just being honest) or because I'm just completely uncomfortable and terrified by it. I have an elmo camera that I thought was so cool for about a month. I haven't used it all year, as I feel like I can do things on the computer and project it the same way. I have a new Promethean board this year and have only used it maybe 8-10 times because I'm scared of it and uncomfortable with it. I'm sure a lot of teachers feel this reluctance toward technology, but I know we all need to step it up and embrace it, as this is where education is going, it seems. There was a statement in chapter 3, though, that said that research has found that traditional methods of instruction have been measured as just as effective as the newer, technological methods. I thought this was interesting and it made me feel a little better about my reluctance. However, I do realize I need to embrace the changes more. Maybe this course will help me do that! :)
As far as where I see things going in the future, I believe (although I find it heartbreaking) that every student will eventually have a laptop or a Kindle or something similar at least. I hate the idea of books being gone, but essentially this is a way to save space and probably money in the long run too with how much we pay for public school textbooks. I think if all of the students' textbooks could be uploaded to their Kindle (or similar product), that would be nice, but I still worry about their ability to annotate in the text and their physical embraceable of a book itself. Will they not FEEL books anymore? Will they not hear the pages turn or smell them? This is a really depressing though to me.
I also feel like every classroom (RC does already) will have a projection screen and projector to display films, videos, etc., will have more available internet access to sites like YouTube and Facebook to be used for instructional purposed (RC opened them up this year) and that the students will use their own smart phones in the classroom more for finding answers, research, seeing how to spell a word, etc. I know that I let mine use theirs for things like this often and (at least in my experience) when I've allowed them to use them responsibly, they tend to appreciate it more and not take advantage of its use. I believe the implementation of such activities as creating their own videos, their own blogs, their own Facebook page about a topic they are studying, building Wiki-spaces, etc., are all things we will begin seeing more of in the years to come. For me, personally, it's going to be a matter of accepting the changes and become knowledgeable enough in them that I feel comfortable demonstrated them well enough to have my students then do it as well.
