EdTech 503 – Module 7 Reflection

For this module, we focused on formative and summative evaluation. This evaluation refers to the instructional design product we are creating, which may contain some formative and summative assessments that will inform us on the design product. The three groups we created evaluation for are one-to-one, small group, and field trial.

For one-to-one evaluations, the designer has a few of it’s target audience try out the instructional materials. The main purpose of this is to find any major problems with the instruction. This could entail missing directions, mislabeled illustrations, typographical errors, or any other thing that may be confusing. The designer would then revise the instructional materials.

For the small group evaluation, the designer will be checking how effective the revisions are from the one-to-one evaluations. This small group would also be a time where the instructor would allow the students to work on their own, and only step in when students cannot solve without assistance. If any flaws are found again, the designer would revise the instructional materials. 

For the field trial, the designer would meet with around 30 students to determine the efficacy of the revisions made during the small-group evaluation and to mainly determine if the instruction can be implemented as designed.

I really enjoyed working on the evaluations this week, as I believe they are an important component to a successful instructional design project. It’s great to get feedback and be able to revise your product before you finalize it. I like to relate this to a company that creates a new product has a trial run in a few stores before doing a full-scale production for all their stores nationwide. Like Chipotle, offering breakfast in a few airport locations before deciding they were not going to offer this at all locations, dang it.


EdTech 503 Module 6 Reflection

One thing that is always a challenge in teaching is finding the right motivation for students. Often times, integrating technology into a lesson can enhance the learners to be motivated. However, if the assignment is poorly designed, no amount of technology will be able to keep students motivated over the long-run. As we continued to work on our Instructional Design project this week, we looked into how to motivate learners. One model that we have used is Dr. John Keller’s ARCS Model. In this model, Dr. Keller breaks down motivation into four categories: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction.
The first thing a lesson must do is grab the student’s attention. This can be done through a variety of different things ranging from a video clip, to a loud noise.
The second this a lesson must do is be relevant. The learner has to find a reason to want to learn the material you are presenting them.
The third thing a lesson must do is instill confidence in the learner. In order to help this confidence, the teacher must provide clear expectations and acceptable work examples.
The fourth thing a lesson must do is be satisfying. The student needs to feel good about the work they have accomplished.

This week has been great for my current and future work. I have already started evaluating the lessons I am currently teaching, and realizing I am not meeting the four parts to the ARCS Model. I feel like I need to do a better job of grabbing my student’s attention. I often times just get going into a new unit without providing some type of information or intro that piques their interest. Most of all, I think this week was a great eye-opener for me. It has provided me with a template to create lessons in the future not only for myself, but for other educators.

EdTech 503 Module 4 Reflection

This week we had the opportunity to complete the second phase of our case analysis. In the first phase, we conducted a case analysis of our desire and created a VoiceThread on our assessment. Classmates then responded to our assessments and gave us feedback from a key stakeholder’s perspective. For my case analysis, I chose a case that focuses on a high school setting where a technology coordinator received a $20,000 grant to improve teacher skills and knowledge in providing new environments for learning. The main problem is that not everyone is on the same page with how to use the funds.  Suzanne would like to use funds for teacher tech training for technology integration but her principal and curriculum coordinator would like funds focused on content areas and state-mandated tests.

After receiving feedback from classmates, it made me realize that I had not thought of all perspectives when conducting the case analysis. The main perspective I thought through things was from the technology coordinator (which is the perspective I can most relate to) and I forgot to see things from other people’s point of view. 
The one perspective I chose to give all of my feedback to classmates from was a principal. I believe this also gave me further insight into the perspective of another key stakeholder and allowed me to dive in deeper to this case analysis. 

Once again this week, I gained further perspective in the instructional design field. These assignments have challenged my default setting and have made me think outside the box. As the activities director at my school, I am given the task of helping coordinate all extra-curricular activities that take place. While doing this, part of my pre-activity checklist is to think about different perspectives (teachers, administration, students, community) and then evaluate if the activity we are putting on is in the best interest of those different perspectives. My goal is to first and foremost provide activities for students, but I must think about how it will affect the other key stakeholders as well. Through this case analysis, it has given me further wisdom and experience in this assessment.  

EdTech 503 Module 3 Reflection

This week we have been working on creating a flowchart and starting to think of questions for our needs assessment of our ID Project. This has been a great task that really makes you think about the overall goal you have for the learner and what steps are needed in order for the learner to be successful at achieving the goal. In Ross Perkins Adobe Connect “Learning Objectives” presentation, he mentions that learning is represented by change. If learning is going to take place, we need to make sure that we use the information from our needs assessment and focus on learning objectives the learner has not mastered. When doing this, we must make sure our flowchart is broken down into steps that are manageable so that this change can occur.

Through the Module Discussion, I have been able to give feedback to fellow students and help them in evaluating their flowchart, goals, type of learning, and learning objectives. By doing this, I have not only been able to see flaws in other projects, but also see great examples of an ID project. Even though we have been focusing on projects other than our own, I have actually thought of many different ways I can improve my ID Project through evaluating others’. On the other hand, I have received some great feedback on my initial ID Project post. The feedback that has benefited me the most is on the learning objectives. After looking at feedback others have received, I wish the flowchart creator, LucidChart was a tool that did not require a log-in in order to view. I believe this has been a deterrent for some students that do not currently have a LucidChart account.

I have actually really enjoyed creating the flowchart for my ID Project.I think it’s because I tend to be pretty detail oriented in my everyday job, and this week I have really had to think about each step. As I was teaching this past week, the students were required to create a presentation and present it to the class. After I received many questions from students as the project was underway, I began to think that my instructional objectives must not have been clear enough and I assumed too much information about their prior knowledge. I really like how this project has begun to change my thought process as I teach.

EdTech 503 – Instructional Design Job Description


This position provides leadership in the research, design, and development of instructional materials for the traditional, flipped, hybrid, and fully online K-12 classroom.

The candidate will:

  • Design and develop a wide-variety of instructional resources based on needs of staff and administration.
  • Assist administration and teachers in selecting, evaluating, and experimenting with web-based instructional technologies.
  • Develop and maintain expertise in instructional design and technology integration.
  • Design process for analyzing effectiveness of training materials and professional development.
  • Design needs assessment tools.
  • Collaborate with Directors of Secondary and Elementary Education to ensure learning objectives and instructional methods are met.
  • Support teachers in creating instructional material, activities, information resources, and evaluation methods.

Required skills/knowledge/background:

  • Masters in Educational Technology, Instructional Design, Curriculum and Instruction, or related discipline.
  • Demonstrate understanding of learning theories.
  • Communicate effectively orally and in writing.
  • Be able to analyze training needs and effectively implement solution.
  • Proficient in multiple word processing and presentation tools
  • Expertise in learning & content management systems
  • Competent in lesson building software

Desired skills/knowledge/background:

  • Experience with coding and website development.


The main role of an instructional designer is to create instructional materials that teachers can implement in the classroom. Their work is done behind-the-scenes and allows teachers to focus on the implementation rather than the research.  Their role is much like an equipment manager of a football team who prepares the equipment so the players can focus on playing and not worrying if their shoulder pads are going to fit right or if their helmet has the latest concussion preventing design.

Teachers are the ones who deliver content to the students. They utilize the information and tools the instructional designer has recommended to deliver the material. Their job is made easier because of the the work done by the instructional designer. The teacher typically is an expert in one field of study and adapts instruction to their content.

There are three main differences between a teacher and an instructional designer. The first is that a teacher directly delivers content to the students and the instructional designer does not. The second is that the instructional designer develops the curriculum the teacher delivers. The teacher arranges the specific content for the curriculum, but does not develop the curriculum. The third difference between a teacher and instructional designer is that the instructional designer trains the teacher through professional development on current technologies and other curriculum implementation tools.

In my experience as an educator, I have not directly worked with an instructional designer. I feel as though I have been a teacher and instructional designer.  I have developed my instruction from professional development unrelated to my school and have integrated technology I have learned through my education and post-graduate studies.

PART III – ID Job Listings
Kansas State University Libraries, Instructional Designer – http://tinyurl.com/l7rj75m

Northern State University, Instructional Design Coordinator – http://tinyurl.com/k8duuep

San Diego Unified School District, Instructional Designer – http://tinyurl.com/nxezwwl