Stereotypical title, I know, but what else can be said for one of the most face paced and ever changing field to exist in education. Instructional Design and Technology is a fitting title but it comes with enough baggage to be stopped at most airports. How can we ever agree on what we do if we cannot find a common label for our field? Why do we need such extensive ways to label ourselves when the only people that are served by it is ourselves?
I do like how Chapter 1 is laid out but I also found way to many words for what we do. Showing a progression that also includes a document that is over 120 pages long seems to be a way to distract those who are curious from being curious. I found this chapter to be a detractor as well because it took something as simple as a name and streched it paper thin.
I agree that we need validation for what we study and do, but having the AECT continually finding new ways to describe it seems like a waste of time. We have to remember that what we do does matter and giving validation through definition only turns others off of our cause which is to create ethical and educational ways to learn for our students that uses technology and is not a flash in the pan. Media has a purpose and so does technology, but does validating ourselves to no one else but ourselves help.
Times change and so do the meanings of words. As a history teacher, I face this everyday. I just need to remind myself that technology changes faster and keeping up with it should remain goal number 1 and that is how we will be known to those wish to hire us, give us new tasks, seek our advice, and/or need our talents to create valuable curriculum.
4 comments:
Hi, Clifton,
Well, I see your point about how Trends and Issues treated the IDT definition - it was pretty detailed, and I admit I got bogged down a couple times. But I thought about why the authors would dissect this term so completely, and it occurs to me it's partly because they're laying a base for the material in the text. But also, I think they're establishing a historical context for discussion of IDT, assuming, correctly in my case, that many of us wouldn't be aware of all the aspects of our field, especially with all the recent technological advances. It seems to all lead up to their emphasis on the media and procedures that will "improve learning and performance in a variety of settings". That kind of put it in perspective for me.
I agree with your points and I beleive that too much emphasis was placed on the words and their usage. I do believe that every field designate itself for all intents and purposes, it was just way to much for me in this text. Setting up the book is fine but there has to be a better way. This could be because I am very visual and it seemed that most of the text became lost on me due to repetition of language. I hope that makes some sense.
Clifton,
It does put things in perspective especially for teachers. Instructional technology and the associated processes can facilitate and improve learning. What makes the process so intriguing are the tools and software. As teachers, there is a greater demand for us to keep the pace along with the advancements with the technology.
Patricia,
Thank you for your comment. I agree with keeping up, I just wish school boards and administrations agreed. Most are unwilling to see a benefit or have not experienced the benefits first hand. Everyday I learn about something new for the benefit of our students and now I have to make time to review it. I like this work, but like many, have very little time to invest in it.
Post a Comment