EDTEC440:

Lesson 2 Introduction

This lesson’s readings explore the definitions and foundations of two purposes for education: learning and performance. We explore such basic concepts in this educational technology integration course because we are not seeking to integrate technology for the sake of having our educational experiences look more contemporary, technical, or flashy. Should we choose to integrate a technology into our educational practice, then we want it to—at minimum—improve the learning experience for our learners, if not ultimately improving the quantity and quality of our learners’ knowledge and skills (when compared to a basic educational practice without any added technology). If experience is a valuable teacher, then the professionals who have gone before you have come to appreciate that you will be more adaptable and nimble in the face of technology integration challenges when you have a functional awareness of the processes and theoretical interpretations of learning itself. This course aims to avoid the thoughtless insertion of technology into learning experiences, as “jamming” technology into education could increase costs and frustrate stakeholders—including your students—instead of enhancing learning outcomes. As the designer and facilitator of learning in your preferred learning environment, you want to be confident that learning will indeed occur in your learning environment.

 

Objectives

After completing the readings and activities of Lesson 2, you should be able to do the following things:

• Discuss the concept of intentionality and how it relates to learning design
• Discuss the roles of assessment in the learning process
• Describe the differences between “learning” and “performance”
• Describe the components of the RIPPLES model of technology integration planning

 

Intentionality

Each of us learn something every day. We might not learn whole and useful facts, or even specific skills, but we are using our senses to observe, process, and navigate the world around us. Those small daily experiences accrete to form knowledge. When you move to a new home, with time you will come to understand your neighborhood and your home’s location in relation to other landmarks; eventually, you will be able to give directions to a friend when a road closure eliminates the easiest path to your door. How did you learn your neighborhood well enough to provide your friend with a detour route? Did you make an intentional effort to explore every detail of your neighborhood? Or was your understanding incidental, meaning that it just happened without much of a planful effort for learning on your part?

Intentionality is a core principle of education. It is even more critical for instructional design and therefore is intrinsic to a wise and learned process of technology integration. When we design a learning experience and plan for learning outcomes, we are being intentional about what our students learn and what they will be able to do with that knowledge or skill. The opposite of intentional learning would be incidental learning—where what is learned happens without the planning of an externally designed and implemented structure. Incidental learning is not bad—not in any way, shape, or form. But incidental learning is, by its nature, unplanned, and therefore it becomes difficult to declare in advance what students will learn or be able to do as a result of that learning experience. A backpacking trip led by the National Outdoor Leadership School^® (NOLS) or a Caravan^®-escorted road trip across Europe are particularly valuable—and sought-after—incidental learning experiences. Participants with NOLS or Caravan may receive general outlines about what they will visit and experience, but each trip will most likely be different, and therefore not every skill or fact can be identified in advance.

The intentional design of learning and instruction becomes immediately necessary when planning for learners’ active engagement. To use a layperson term, we could say that it is the planful design of the learners’ engagement that differentiates learning activities from busywork. We each have likely experienced what we perceived to be busywork, and even without a formal study in the education field, we would have known that busywork is more frustrating than it is educational. Anyone who has taught a group of energetic and inquisitive children, or even a highly sociable and enthusiastic group of adults, would appreciate the value that active engagement brings to the learning setting. When engagement is well-planned, as well as properly aligned with both the objectives of your instruction and the assessments you will use to identify when learning has occurred, the learners might very well learn what you wanted them to without lengthy lectures.

Active engagement is deceptively challenging in some cases. Think about the proverbial image of teaching a person to swim by throwing them into the deep end of a swimming pool. Some learners may be able to survive and eventually swim without much intervention, while others might simply drown—game over! Conversely, an entire swimming course that asked learners to play volleyball in shallow water up to their knees would also be a disservice to the learners in light of the target learning objectives. A well-planned set of learning activities—the opposite of a thoughtless toss into the deep end or an overly simplistic aim to have the participants get wet—would build both the learner’s confidence in the water and the physical capability for swimming.

Assessment

Spector (2016) presents an acronym known as WYMIWYG (pronounced “whim-ee-whig”), which means “What you measure is what you get.” The acronym is a play on a popular computer term, WYSIWYG, which refers to situations in which what you see on your computer screen is what you get in real life (like when you print the document onto paper). For our purposes, it may be more helpful to think of WYMIWYL (whim-ee-will)—or “What you measure is what you learn.”

Assessment plays an important role in learning in both the initial planning and the ultimate conclusion phases of the learning process. Let’s make a quick connection to other courses offered in the Learning, Design, and Technology program at Penn State. (Consider this a review or a preview, depending on whether you have already completed the LDT 415A or LDT 415B instructional development courses). In the systematic instructional development process, assessment items are developed after the learning objectives are established, but before the learning activities are produced. Why would you do that when the assessment usually comes last in a typical learning process? Within the professional instructional development community, a well-developed assessment is perceived to be a guide for the learning activities, so that the learning activities will actually prepare the learners with the knowledge and skills necessary to perform well on the assessment. Returning to our swimming lesson example, if the swim instructor establishes that a “swimmer” is a person who is able to swim a 50-meter length of an Olympic-size swimming pool without stopping and without assistance, then throwing a learner into the deep end of the pool during the first lesson seems even more pointless. However, if that swim instructor adopted the principle of WYMIWYG, she would be more likely to develop a series of learning activities that focus on the components of swimming technique, such as breathing, arm movement, and leg movement, and then on combining those components and swimming progressively longer distances.

Assessment’s importance to the conclusion of the learning process is more obvious: If the learner is able to perform with the knowledge or skills that were planned and delivered by the instructor, then that particular series of instructional activities may end and the learner may advance to the next learning objective. Ideally, then, on the back end of the learning cycle, assessment provides a roadmap for the instructor: Should I drive around this topical neighborhood one more time, or can this learner and I continue driving ahead into the next neighborhood?

An important consideration for any educator related to WYMIWYG is the selection of which content to include, and which to exclude, when developing learning activities. In our information-rich yperlinked digital world, even the simplest of skills can be connected with numerous bits of related information—some of it useful to the planned process, and much of it distracting. However, it could be argued that, when it comes to complex knowledge and skills—say, for example, in a graduate-level Educational Technology Integration course (ahem!)—it would be impractical, tedious, and downright maddening to assess each learner’s understanding and ability to apply every single idea presented in the course. The designer and facilitator of the learning experience may need to accept that there’s value in exposing learners to the fullest-possible landscape of knowledge on the topic while also accepting that each learner will frame that picture in a slightly different way. As far as the assessment of complex topics is concerned, the goal is to have every learner’s “picture” contain the same main subject.

Complex topics are more challenging to assess, which is why a designer of a learning experience must compare and contrast proficiency and expertise. A learner could be considered proficient in a topic area when she is able to consistently perform with skill and accuracy, and without failing in the face of abstraction—meaning that she doesn’t get tripped up when small things change about a situation. A great example of proficiency can be seen in the oft-maligned Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office. The DMV clerks receive from patrons numerous types of paper forms, various forms of identification, a variety of languages, and a variety of attitudes about the DMV. Usually, if a patron tells the clerk what they hope to accomplish, the clerk will be able to discuss what is needed to make that happen. But every now and then, a patron request will lead to a clerk calling for her supervisor; the supervisor listening to the clerk’s question; the supervisor offering an explanation to the clerk, patron, or both; and then the supervisor fulfilling or denying the patron’s request. If the DMV employs multiple clerks with varying amounts of service and training and one supervisor who oversees the whole location, you could imagine that each clerk would not ask the same questions of the supervisor. In a perfect (and non-political) world, we could believe that the supervisor became the supervisor because she mastered all of the situations that would be seen by a clerk in that job, thereby serving as the resident expert on DMV protocol. As the resident expert, the supervisor might not know every single rule, policy, and process by heart, but odds are that she will know where to look and how to proceed with responding to a request properly. Performance assessment in this situation is easy to see: every new patron request is an opportunity to deliver. Do it right and you receive (probably very little) praise. Do it wrong and you attract ire.

By reorganizing Spector’s (2016) summaries of learning (p. 34) and performance (p. 38), we can take a closer look at the relationship between these two concepts. It would be rare for someone to need to distinguish between these finer elements of learning and performance while working outside of an academic setting, but the connections across the concepts are useful for both comparison and contrast. As you review Table 2.1 below, consider this: The key points for learning highlight processes happening within the learner and may be only indirectly observed or influenced by the instructor, while the key points of performance are more likely to be observed and influenced by the instructor.

Table 2.1

Connection	Learning (p. 34)	Performance (p. 38)
Observation	Relevant changes can be directly or indirectly observed as evidence that learning has occurred.	Performance is something that can be observed and assessed, measured, or rated against a standard or other point of reference.
Change	Learning fundamentally involves change.	Change in performance, especially improvement in performance, is of particular interest to educators and trainers.
Holism	Learning is a holistic concept that involves both cognitive and noncognitive aspects. cognitive aspects: memory, mental constructs, language, associations. noncognitive aspects:  emotional states, attitudes, and physical conditions and constraints.	Performance is a holistic concept that typically involves cognitive and non-cognitive activities; performance may vary with an individual’s mood or with other events happening that impact that individual at a particular time.
Assessment	Determining the extent to which learning has occurred involves the analysis of measures or indicators of change (before, during, after, and long after the learning activities); determining why learning occurred to the extent measured or observed is even more challenging.	Developing an individual’s ability to monitor and assess his or her own performance is often a desirable and measurable goal for advanced learners.
Intentionality	Much learning is unplanned and incidentally associated with a variety of activities; much of the learning that occurs in educational programs is planned and intentional, with specific goals and objectives.	Performance and learning are closely coupled concepts; performing tasks and activities can result in learning, and as learning develops in a particular domain, performance on tasks in that domain is likely to improve.
Guidance	Planned learning activities typically occur in complex environments (e.g., classrooms, online settings, workplace locations) with many things that can enhance or inhibit learning.	Providing feedback on performance very soon after the actual performance is often effective in improving performance, especially if the feedback is specific and constructive.
The unknown	We have extensive knowledge about human physical development, but more limited knowledge with regard to other aspects of human development (e.g. cognitive, emotional, and social development).	Our understanding of human performance is reasonably well developed but far from complete; many variations in performance across different individuals and tasks are not predictable based on current evidence, knowledge, and theory.

Connecting Theory to Technology

Later in this course, we will learn about the value in analyzing the affordances (the qualities, characteristics, or functionalities) of a given technology. In this lesson, though, we begin to consider methods by which technology can assist with learning and performance in the broadest sense. If we were embarking on a journey through the galaxy of technology to find the best tools and processes to support our learning activities and environments, then we would need a star map to find our way to the proper (and helpful) points of light in the vast unknown. Learning theory can serve as that star map, which is why we review a few seminal learning theories in this lesson.

Spector (2016) commented, “Learning theories do not prescribe how to design instruction or implement learning environments, but they are certainly helpful in providing a way to conceptualize instruction and design practical frameworks to support learning and instruction” (p. 79). In other words, a scholarly proposal (in the form of a theory) about a mechanism of learning does not automatically translate into better teaching and learning. But the greater his or her understanding of theory, the more adept a designer will become at aligning learning objectives, learning activities, assessments, and a particular learning environment.

This lesson asks you students to explore and try learning technologies. You will read in the SAGE encyclopedia about the impact and potential that the Internet has on learning and instruction. In that article, you will read an overview of digital badging, and then in our activities for this lesson, you will proceed to earn two digital badges. Digital badges fall into the realm of competency-based learning, reflecting a developing assessment trend known as “microcredentialing.” Digital badging exemplifies a nexus of the main topics discussed this week: learning, performance, and technology.

RIPPLES Model

This lesson’s readings include an introduction to the technology integration planning model developed by Dr. Daniel Surry, known as the RIPPLES model. In this course, we are going to repurpose the RIPPLES model for our own preferred learning environments: Surry’s model was developed in the context of colleges of education within university settings, but we will use the elements of the model for our own purposes. A key reason RIPPLES was selected as a framework for discussing—and applying—the basics of technology integration in this course is the model’s simplicity. Instead of hiding good ideas behind a mountain of flowery language deeply enriched with academic concepts, Surry’s RIPPLES model gets straight to the point: These are the elements that you must plan for in any technology integration effort.

RIPPLES is an acronym for

• resources (the fiscal resources necessary to purchase, implement, service, and support a technology; answers: “How are we going to pay for it?”),
• infrastructure (the hardware, software, facilities, and network capabilities of a learning environment; answers “Will it work in our current system?”),
• people (cooperation among all stakeholders through shared decision-making and effective communication, cannot be overlooked; answers “Who will do it?”),
• policies (organizational policies and procedures that enable adaption to new technologies; answers “Are we allowed to do it? Are we expected to do it?”),
• learning (the technology is a means for enhancing the specific learning goals of a learning environment; answers “How will it improve learning?”),
• evaluation (continual assessment of the learning technology with regard to (a) its effectiveness for enhancing teaching, (b) whether a better alternative has emerged, (c) the efficacy of its integration into the learning environment, and (d) the return on investment achieved in relation to the technology’s cost; answers “Is it actually working?”), and
• support (the training, technical support, pedagogical support, and administrative leadership that enables the technology to continue to be effective; answers “Will it continue to work for us?”).

Surry does not describe RIPPLES as a linear model, meaning that infrastructure does not come from resources, learning does not come from policies, and so on. Because it is nonlinear, we can discuss components of the model individually, or in novel order, without harming the validity of the model.

As you develop your Technology Integration Blueprints for this course (described next), the RIPPLES model will serve as a framework for many of the blueprint documents. While the focus will be on integrating technology into your own preferred learning environment (an environment where you have control over what you use to support your teaching), the seven elements of RIPPLES will help you plan for the full breadth of needs that would support or hinder the implementation of a technology into your learning environment.

Technology Integration Blueprints: Assignment Details

Throughout this Educational Technology Integration course, the focus is on you, the individual teacher or facilitator, and the recommended considerations for integrating technology to support your target audience's learning in your selected learning context. The Technology Integration Blueprints (hereafter called “blueprints”) provide an opportunity to demonstrate and apply your understanding of foundational principles of integrating technology to support learning. In this course, you will complete a set of three blueprints. Each blueprint encourages realism, concise and accurate communication, and the synthesis of instructional design, learning, and technology integration theories and principles.

An inherent challenge in the blueprint development and delivery process is the level of refinement necessary to demonstrate your understanding while remaining brief. Not everything in the blueprint needs to be presented in paragraph form. Graphics, illustrations, diagrams, tables, charts, and other visuals are all encouraged. In the end, the blueprint should feel like a blueprint—not a report, not a project handbook, not a fully written implementation guide, and not a curriculum. The length of the blueprint is explicitly unspecified, but if you must have a number then think of between five and twenty pages (single-spaced, standard font, standard margins) if you were to use only text. The judicious use of visuals and other methods of presentation would affect the overall length of your document (either increasing or decreasing). While each of your blueprints should be primarily text-based and packaged into a single file (like a Google Doc, Word document, or PDF file), they can contain other forms of media (YouTube video, audio/video narration, photography, etc.). It is entirely possible to do too much work and too little work with this assignment, so anything that remains unclear after reviewing these assignment details should prompt a question to the instructor.

To assist students with conceptualizing the learning design decision-making processes that are targeted by this assignment, all blueprints will be based upon the following scenario.

 

Blueprint Scenario

Think of yourself as currently working in one of the following roles^[1]:

1. Educator (AKA teacher, professor, instructor, trainer, etc.)
2. Facilitator (AKA docent, guide, leader, etc.)
3. Learning designer (AKA instructional designer, content developer, curriculum writer, etc.)

You work for an educational organization—an organization that aims to provide educational experiences to its target audience. You are responsible for educating/facilitating/designing content for a specific topic of the many topics covered by your organization^[2].

At your most recent team meeting your supervisor told the group that [the topic you oversee] was not doing as well as s/he would want. Recent scores/evaluations are showing that the target audience is learning only half of the material, and there are a number of comments that [the topic you oversee] is irrelevant to their lives.

You recently completed a graduate-level educational technology course and you have developed an appreciation for the potential that contemporary technologies could have on teaching and learning. After talking with your team you volunteer to explore current technologies and find a technology that is well-matched for the topic, the organization, and the target audience. After the meeting you have a one-on-one conversation with your supervisor, and s/he mentions the following:

1. You will need to write a document—a blueprint of your learning design—that will help convince the “higher ups^[3]” that implementing the technology is worth the resources required (time, energy, money). S/he offered an outline (below) of the “things that the higher ups like to see.”
2. If the “higher ups” do give you a budget, it will be modest.
3. The “higher ups” are also worried about the reputation of the organization. They want to be confident that all learning experiences will make audience members find value in (read as: be impressed with) the organization.

Blueprint Outline

Note: You may organize your blueprint as you prefer, with original headings that you compose. The outline items below are not intended to be topic headings for the blueprint.

Your blueprint should be written with sentences and paragraphs that accomplish the following:

1. Introduction – Purpose of this document
2. Teaching/learning environment description
   1. Description of the setting
   2. Target audience (target learners)
   3. Existing technology in the setting relevant to your integration
3. Teaching/learning problem
   1. Description of the intended lesson/learning
   2. Description of the teaching/learning problem or deficiency^[5]
      1. Verification of problem/deficiency^[6]
4. Selection of technology to integrate
   1. Brief description of technology
   2. Affordances (characteristics) of this technology that directly meet the need arising from the teaching/learning problem
   3. Appropriateness for:
      1. setting,
      2. audience,
      3. content to be learned, and
      4. solving the identified teaching/learning problem
5. Rollout of technology integration via RIPPLES^[7]:
   1. Resources
   2. Infrastructure
   3. People
   4. Policies
   5. Learning
   6. Evaluation
   7. Support
      1. Training
      2. Technical Support^[8]
      3. Pedagogical Support^[9]
      4. Administrative Leadership
6. Conclusion – Persuasive statement to close your proposal

 

 

Document Specifications

1. Length of the blueprint is not exactly specified

   1. Longer than five pages of single-spaced text, probably less than 20 pages of text

   2. 12-point font, 1-inch margins

2. Images, visuals, multimedia are all welcome
3. References to credible outside resources are encouraged, especially where justification or rationale is expected
   1. APA 6^th edition or Chicago-style citations and reference lists
   2. Anecdotal evidence may be offered (as long as it is realistic)
4. Page numbers in header or footer of document

Selecting the Technology

The technology that you choose to integrate into your interpretation of the above scenario must currently exist. In other words, the technology cannot be imaginary. If it is an emerging technology, it must have an adequate amount of documentation publicly accessible so that you and the instructor can understand its capabilities and affordances. The technology is not required to be a thing or process that was originally intended for educational use. Because the blueprint aims for realism, the chosen technology must be reasonably affordable for the setting (with some flexibility for how it would be affordable—for example, through a budget carry-over or gift or grant of the typical size available to teachers in that particular environment). The technology should also be reasonably implementable for the setting. Consider the elements of the RIPPLES model as a guide for helping you make real-world decisions.

Each blueprint should focus on the integration of one distinct technology, but that distinct technology can have multiple components that work together in a sensible way. For example, a math instructor may seek to integrate iPad-based graphing calculator software with a digital projection system that allows for students to wirelessly link their iPads to a projector and enables the entire class to view the calculator app’s screen. Although the calculator and wireless projection system are two distinct technologies, they may be implemented as a cohesive package in a blueprint.

Across the assigned blueprints required for the course, each blueprint should present a different technology. If you choose, all of the blueprints can be based on the same setting.

Assignment Submission Details

There are three technology integration blueprints due for this course. The blueprints are due at the end of Lessons 4, 6, and 8.

The blueprint assignment must be a digital file that can be uploaded and shared. While the assumption is that the blueprint will be a word-processed document (Microsoft Word document, Google Docs document shared by an “edit” link, or PDF file), alternative media are possible as long as their content is substantive for the assignment, representing approximately five typical pages of prose or bulleted text. Fonts, margins, and styles should all be professional in appearance and reasonable for the assignment—for example, Georgia font in 12 point size with one-inch margins.

Blueprint Peer Review

Technology Integration Blueprints 1, 2, and 3 will undergo a brief period of peer review prior to the submission of the final blueprint to the instructor for a grade. A grade will be given to each peer reviewer based on the quality and substance of the review that is provided to the author of the blueprint. The ultimate goal of the peer review process is to improve the quality (and therefore the grade) of students' blueprints prior to their submission to the instructor. The following general process will guide the peer review. The overlapping nature of the process described below may be easier to understand by viewing this Gantt chart on Google Sheets.

1. Prior to the due date established for Blueprints 1–3 (the Tuesdays at 11:59 p.m. ET at the end of Lessons 4, 6, and 8, respectively), you will upload your blueprint file/link to the assignment's drop box.
2. After the due date and time for each blueprint, Canvas will automatically and randomly assign two blueprints to each student in the course.
3. Reviewers will review and provide feedback for the assigned blueprints from Wednesday morning to Friday night. Initial feedback to peers should be posted prior to Friday at 11:59 p.m. (ET). (Prompt feedback provides more time for revision to the blueprint author.)
4. After receiving feedback from their reviewers, authors may revise and improve their blueprint based on the feedback.
5. The final blueprint should be uploaded to the assignment drop box for grading prior to Sunday at 11:59 p.m. (ET).

Applicability to M.Ed. in LDT Capstone Portfolio

Students enrolled in the Master of Education in Learning, Design, and Technology program (M.Ed. in LDT) may consider using one or more technology integration blueprints as one project for their required capstone portfolio. You should discuss your proposed projects with your assigned academic advisor. Your advisor may recommend compiling the four blueprints of this course into one project for the portfolio.

If you are an M.Ed. in LDT student, please ask your advisor for a copy of the capstone portfolio guidelines if you have not already received them.

Postbaccalaureate certificate students are not required to compile a capstone portfolio. This requirement does not apply to certificate students. However, should a certificate student enroll in the M.Ed. in LDT program, then a portfolio will be required, and you may use projects from courses completed as a part of a certificate.

Lesson 2 Readings

 

Read

• Spector chapters:

3, "Learning and Performing" (pp. 31–40)

8, "Theories of Learning and Performance" (pp. 74–86)

• SAGE Encyclopedia: Internet - Impact and Potential for Learning and Instruction
• RIPPLES Model introduction (the lesson pages earlier in this module)
• Surry, 2002 - A Model for Integrating Instructional Technology into Higher Education
• For the following reading, click on the Library Resources (or Course Reserves) link in the course navigation menu. You will be directed to the University Libraries course reserves services search page. Search by the course number (LDT 440) to access the reading in PDF:
  • Surry, 2005

Lesson 2 Activities

At the end of the module, look for a link to each of the activities to participate/submit.

1. MOOCs and Badges: Earn the MOOCS and Badges badge from Penn State Digital Badges. This activity may take anywhere from one to two hours. There is a reflection (see Weekly Activity 2, below) due by Tuesday, so make sure you have given yourself plenty of time to complete this activity. 
   1. Click this link to bring you to the PSU digital badges page: Digital Badges (disabled for Welcome site). 
   2. Log in with your Penn State ID.
   3. To find the course, search “MOOCs and Badges” in the search bar.
   4. Once completed, post your link to the earned badges in the MOOCs and Badges Drop Box.
      1. Note: You are requred to earn a second badge in order to earn the MOOCs and Badges badge. To complete this activity, you are earning a total of two badges.
2. Flipgrid: Reflect on the MOOCs and Badges exercise, by responding to three prompts by Tuesday at 11:59 p.m. (ET):
   1. How can badges or MOOCs (or both) be used in your speciality area?
   2. Are these types of technologies suitable for every learning environment?
   3. If you were to have a desired goal for your learners, could a MOOC or badge realistically help you reach your goal?

   Flipgrid activity will appear here in actual course.

3. RIPPLES Matrix: This week you were introduced to the RIPPLES model. Using the matrix provided, respond to the questions and upload your matrix (with responses) to the RIPPLES Matrix Drop Box.
   1. You can download the unedited RIPPLES matrix template
      1. In order to edit the matrix you will need to go to File and then "Make a copy" in order to save it to your own drive
   2. Fill out the RIPPLES matrix
   3. Submit the link to your edited version in the RIPPLE Matrix Drop Box by Tuesday at 11:59 p.m. (ET).

4. Word-Matching Activity (Not graded): On page 83 of Chapter 8, complete the word-matching activity. A template of the activity can be found here. You will need to make a copy of the template in order to edit and then submit. Once you have completed the activity, please submit the link to your document in the Word-Matching Activity Drop Box by Tuesday at 11:59 p.m. EST.

5. Blueprint Introduction: You were introduced to the blueprints this week, as you will be required to complete three throughout the remaining weeks of the course. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments regarding the blueprint projects, feel free to post them in the Blueprint Q&A Discussion Forum. This forum will perpetuate throughout the course and will not be graded. You may also locate this forum by selecting the Discussions link in the course navigation menu.