Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

Educational Innovation Petitioning


EDU655: Trends & Issues Inst. Design & Tech. Online Learning (MRX1446A)
Keith C. Quarles
Kris Jamsa
12-22-14

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

Educational Innovation Petitioning


While Common Core Standards programs initiated through the Obama Administration
standardizes lesson planning based on TCAP evaluation initiatives, the need to create programs
that instruct/train teachers/learners to specialize in discovering instruction design that suits a
particular learning environment. In other words, there is room for innovation within the
framework of Common Core Standards that keep in line with the provisions/rules of the
program. Instruction designers must stay within the parameters of elaboration set forth by the
common core standards yet venture into innovative instructional design so that decision-makers
understands the dynamics of the proposed creative processes and confirm the need for innovative
disruption. This paper is a form of petition devoted to persuading decision-makers/thought
leaders to accept technological integration into lesson planning and allow students to collaborate
on ideas that make the learning environment more conducive to teaching/learning.
E- Models Will Change

Learning models will more than likely include more technological innovation as the trend
towards integrating technology into education curriculum. Models that demonstrate the ability to
streamline instructional efforts traditionally are designed as lecture, assignment and grading in
general. New models such as TPACK include technology and the consideration of the learning
environment in constructing learning models. When teachers lecture, assign and grade that is the
sequence that outlines the instructional design which may be considered as linear while TPACK
may be considered as an exponential, multiplexed theory that integrates technology, pedagogy,
and content knowledge. According to Martinez (2011),

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

Technology is changing modern societies, but education is lagging behind. Until we


accept that education models must take new technologies into consideration we are doing
little to advance the professional and personal training of people in the education system.
(p.1)
In the event that Personal or informal learning becomes a larger market there may be need to
integrate an element of personal/informal learning into learning models that emphasize
collaboration/knowledge sharing. Thus, dependency increases on technology as one finds more
use for it in instruction and in turn more instructional design is adaptive.
In 15 years.
What happens to technology in the next 15 years may not simply impact learning in a
typical cause-effect relationship. Rather, it might be the case that one absorbs the other,
where information access, socializing ideas, and creative collaboration may be organic
and completely invisible. (p.1)
Thus, I assert that models will become more complex and maybe even quadratic in nature by
natural progression of advances in instructional design which will allow for integration of
innovations in technology and the discovery of combinations of technological integration (social
networks/instructional software) that suit specific unmet need that emerge in a specific learning
environment.
Future Trends in Technology Tool Use

The expansion of Learning Communities which overlap at geographic borders, social


institutions and age levels represent a niche in the educational instruction technology/Media
Presentation industry which permeates schools and organizations decision-making.

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

According to Heick (2013),


Technology to promote early literacy habits is seeded by venture capitalists. This is
the start of new government programs that start farming out literacy and educational
programs to start-ups, entrepreneurs, app developers, and other private sector innovators.
Digital literacy begins to outpace academic literacy in some fringe classrooms. Custom
multimedia content is available as the private sectors create custom iTunesU courses,
YouTube channels, and other holding areas for content that accurately responds to learner
needs. (p.1)
Thus, hardware, software engineers are in a rat race to come up with new instructional
technology in addition to the way the technology is utilized. The trend towards
interactive/collaborative social networking as viable means of training will continue to produce
challengers to the market dominated by Skype, Facebook, twitter, etc. which were actually
invented for socializing over distance and time. Technological tools designed for educational
instruction specifically such as RSS feeds, blogging, Jing (screencast), videoconferencing, and
even emails are being used for training/instruction.
According to Martinez (2011)
Technology is changing modern societies, but education is lagging behind. Until we
accept that education models must take new technologies into consideration we are doing
little to advance the professional and personal training of people in the education. (p.1)
Thus, I think even more software/hardware will be created which seeks to satisfy needs from
specific customers (instructors/executives) in addition to generic needs of training/instruction
systems for education/business. The .more pro-active instructional media engineers comprise
more advanced personal learning software for informal learners.

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

The Changing Role of the Instructor and Learner


The transition from teacher too student-centered design may have increased the
instructors awareness of ones own teaching style, learners diversity and the benefits of
knowledge-sharing and collaboration between students in addition to teachers. According to
Lanier, J. (1997),
They no longer see their primary role as being the king or queen of the classroom, a
benevolent dictator deciding what's best for the powerless underlings in their care.
They've found they accomplish more if they adopt the role of educational guides,
facilitators, and co-learners. (p.1)
The instructors role has diminished as far as authority over the disclosure of information
pertaining to decision-making regarding instructional design. The instructors role has been
expanded in some respects due to the need to research subjects, create lesson strategy and expose
learners to lesson activities that are supported by research according to the specific needs of the
particular class of learners. Teachers take on more of the role of a coach than an authority
figure. According to Lanier, J. (1997),
In practice, this new relationship between teachers and students takes the form of a
different concept of instruction. Tuning in to how students really learn prompts many
teachers to reject teaching that is primarily lecture based in favor of instruction that
challenges students to take an active role in learning. (p.1)
At any rate, the role of the instructor has changed in terms of the way one interacts with learners.
The focus for creating lesson strategy has become more centered on the student. According to

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

Doyle (N.D.),
Students will find in a learner centered classroom that they are expected to do most of the
work and take on most of the responsibilities for their learning. This is a big change and
will take some getting use too. Thus, students are taking an active role in instruction
design that is targeted toward the learners respectively. (p.1)
Students have been empowered through student-centered instructional design to conduct
research, collaboration, add input regarding the content and design of educational curriculum and
technologys teaching/learning enhancing potential.
Judging the Effectiveness of the E-Learning Model
Of course, effectiveness may be measured in terms of expected outcome versus actual
outcomes of using certain e-learning models. Yet, in terms of what component of the model
made it more preferable over another model only a comparison would reveal which model is
optimal for a particular lesson activity. According to Oehlert (2008),
More than ever, what you say about the future of e-learning depends on how you define
it. Seemingly for the traditional attempt s to replicate classrooms and courses online, the
future is fairly bleak. If however, you define e-learning as an environment, rich in
context, interaction and opportunities for collaboration - then the evidence seems to point
to a bumpy road but with a worthy destination. (p.1)
Thus, judging the effectiveness of e-learning models may be better served by conducting
research/experiments in order to test hypotheses regarding the fit of the model for a specific
program before/after implementation since trial and error would mean using resources and time
on e-learning strategies just to compare them.
The evaluation approaches may show a progression of concepts from traditional to

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

contemporary theory on approaches to evaluation. As evaluation approaches progress from a


subjective/utilitarian perspective to an objective/pluralist, one may discover a continuum of
evaluation model that progresses evaluation approaches from objectives to management to
consumer to learning to expert to naturalistic/participation orientations (Atwell. 2006, p.21).
Thus, the education evaluation practice/theory has experienced stages of growth and discovery of
how to structure evaluations according to the purpose for the evaluation and its expected
outcomes which in turn personalizes the evaluation method according to the learning
environment and actors. Subsequently, outcomes will be judged according to the evaluation
approach and interpreted within the confines/mandates of the approach.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper facets of e-learning have been discussed in light of a proposed
change in instruction design. Instruction designers must stay within the parameters of
elaboration set forth by the Common Core Standards; yet, venture into innovative instructional
design so that decision-makers understand the dynamics of the proposed creative processes and
confirm the need for the innovative disruption. Common Core standards were not the focal point
of the petition by intention but may be considered as a foundation for re-structuring instructional
design. Through technology such as e-learning instructional media is available before during
and after learning activities and in most cases at the teacher/learner fingertips through
technological tools. Now, it is simply up to us as thought leaders to be proactive in integrating
technology that gives our teachers/learners the advantages that has become status quo throughout
the nation and in existing learning paradigms within our region.

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning

References
Atwell, G. (2006). Evaluating e-learning: A guide to the evaluation of e-learning. Retrieved
from http://www.pontydysgu.org/wpcontent/uploads/2007/11/eva_europe_vol2_prefinal.pdf
Doyle, T. (N.D.) The changing roles of students in a learner centered classroom. Retrieved from
http://learnercenteredteaching.wordpress.com/learner-centered-teaching-resources/thechanging-roles-of-students-in-a-learner-centered-classroom/
Heick, T. (2013). 30 incredible ways technology will change education by 2028
Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/trends/30-incredible-ways-technology-willchange-education-by-2028/
http://blogoehlert.typepad.com/eclippings/final_report_exec_summary.pdf
Lanier, J. ( 1997). Redefining the role of the teacher: It's a multifaceted profession.
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/redefining-role-teacher
Martinez,.V. (2011). E-learning-new-models-new-challenge. Retrieved from
http://iberosphere.com/2011/12/e-learning-new-models-new-challenges/5052
Oehlert, M/ (2003). The Future of e-Learning Models and Language We Use to Describe
Them. Retrieved from
http://blogoehlert.typepad.com/eclippings/final_report_exec_summary.pdf

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning