Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 1

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 2

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),

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

cept that education models must take new technologies into consideration we are doing

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 3

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.

According to Heick (2013),

Technology to promote early literacy habits is seeded by venture capitalists. This is

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 4

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.

The Changing Role of the Instructor and Learner

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 5

The transition from teacher too student-centered design may have increased the instruc-

tor’s awareness of one’s 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, facilita-

tors, and co-learners. (p.1)

The instructor’s role has diminished as far as authority over the disclosure of information per-

taining to decision-making regarding instructional design. The instructor’s role has been ex-

panded 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

Doyle (N.D.),

Students will find in a learner centered classroom that they are expected to do most of the

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 6

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

technology’s 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

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

Running Head: Educational Innovation Petitioning 7

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 8

References

Atwell, G. (2006). Evaluating e-learning: A guide to the evaluation of e-learning. Retrieved

from http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-

content/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/the-

changing-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-will-

change-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 9