I have identified a range of artifacts that demonstrate my competency in the ability to think critically and reflectively.
Competency Artifacts
- Artifact 1 for Competency 4 Think Critically and Reflectively_EDCI 6600_Learning Design and Technology
- Artifact 2 for Competency 4 Think Critically and Reflectively_EDCI 513_Foundations of Learning Design and Technology
- Artifact 3 for Competency 4 Think Critically and Reflectively_EDCI 56600 Educational Applications of Multimedia
This narrative explains how my artifacts support the following three characteristics of thinking critically and reflectively.
Characteristic 1: a personal vision of inclusive educational practices
The artifact that I chose to support this characteristic was my career path and personal reflection for EDCI-66000 Learning Design and Technology Program Seminar. My personal vision is to be a human performance improvement consultant or work within the field, which I described in the reflection. The example below supports inclusive educational practices because to reach organizational goals, solutions must account for all employees’ needs.
Example from page 2:
Both instructional design and human performance improvement focus on better results for the learner. While instructional designers focus on building individual knowledge and capability, human performance improvement has to do with building individual capability for the interest of the organization as a whole.
An HPI specialist is essentially a performance consultant. They are responsible for identifying and managing gaps between current performance and the desired result, along with suggesting and implementing potential solutions (Stolovitch & Beresford, 2012). HPI consultants use similar processes as instructional designers, such as identifying outcomes, identifying solution systems (Rossett, 2013).
HPI consultants and instructional designers must also have well-defined and communicated results from the performer/learner before thinking about the supports for supports to be effective (Interviews of instructional designers, 2009).
Careers similar to HPI consultants aim to improve performance to achieve company, shareholder, and employee objectives (Stolovitch & Beresford, 2012).
Characteristic 2: the relationship between educational technology and the general field of technology
The artifact I used for this is my definition for Learning Design Technology, which I wrote for EDCI 513 Foundations of Learning Design and Technology. The reason why I chose this as my example, is because whether it’s Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson, Kozma, Reiser or my definition, they all refer to the dependence on the impact that technology has on the process of learning. My revised definition on page 2 supports the relationship between educational technology and regular technology:
Learning design and technology is a team effort of using a process of analyzing performance to identify learning gaps to design and develop instruction that revolves around the learner and is objective focused. The application of knowledge uses technology that enables learning and is practical and evaluative.
Characteristic 3: evaluates theory and practice
The artifact that I chose was a discussion reflection from EDCI 56600 Educational Applications of Multimedia about Kozma (1994), and Clark (Reiser, 1994) who debated whether or not media influence learning. The reason my discussion artifact evaluates theory and practice is that I bring in Reiser’s ideas on why we should not unnecessarily increase cognitive demand (1994). I then relate this to instructors’ ultimate goal fostering higher order thinking skills and application of learning. For example, in the fourth paragraph, on page 3, I write:
In Reiser’s (1994) section on media in context, he discusses distributing the cognition between the learning and the media (i.e., computer) by utilizing the strengths of each (p. 33). As instructors, we eventually want our students to be exhibiting complex thinking skills, such as applying knowledge, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating situations and/or concepts (Driscoll, 2005, p. 357). Teachers must understand that these more complex skills will not occur without a foundational knowledge and understanding of them. Therefore, as Reiser (1994) suggests, why fatigue the learner with understanding this foundational knowledge, and let media such as computers provide this information, and save the learners’ energy for more complex thinking skills for teachers to introduce (pp. 33 & 37). This also plays to the teachers and the media’s strengths.
In my future design work, I will demonstrate this competency by being well-versed in theory to articulate and support my design decisions.
References:
Driscoll, Marcy. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Interviews with instructional designers (2009, May 12). Instructional Design Rules of Thumb – Learning from the Pros – Part 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZODZkTb2NA
Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media:Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31-39. doi:10.1007/bf02299089
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. doi: 10.1007/bf02299087
Reiser, R. A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: An instructional designer’s response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45-48. doi: 10.1007/bf02299091
Rossett, Allison. (2013, April 3). Why we need instructional design more than ever: Learning Technologies 2013. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsAGIZuMxmQ
Stolovitch, H. D., & Beresford, B. (2012). The Development and Evolution of Human Performance Improvement. In Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (Third ed., pp. 135-146). Boston, M.A.: Pearson Education.
Allison Brinkerhoff 