Chose an organization, which you are familiar with, and using the ADDIE model and the “Agile Design” model outlined by Bates’ (2014), evaluate its educational technology conditions.
I am going to have a look at and describe the recent changes that my school district are looking to in terms of inquiry based learning and the adoption of Google Apps For Education accounts for all students. My division itself employs around 1400 teaching staff within 40 schools that spans a very large geographic area. In order to further give context, the adoption of Google Drive For Education as a technological affordance was a challenging endeavour to undertake as there are issues around student information and where it is being stored. However, now that the district has developed safety protocols for the storage of student information, GAFE has made its way into many of the classrooms throughout the district and with the adoption of IBL, GAFE is working well within this 21st century model of learning.
1. How informative these two models are for determining whether your organization implements educational technologies in the most effective way?
When looking at Bates (2014) two models, ADDIE and Agile Design module, I believe that my district has certainly followed through with some of the criterial characteristics seen in the ADDIE model. I believe that they were successful in two of the five areas that support an ADDIE model of learning. Many of the variables were analyzed prior to bringing GAFE into the district, and within the model of IBL, the learners’ characteristics were certainly addressed. Further, delivery and implementation of GAFE for each student has been seemless as student access was readily available. However, within the other three characteristics, I believe that the school district needs to focus their outlook. For instance, there has been little attention paid to the learning objectives and how GAFE can successfully enable them. Rather, GAFE was promoted and teachers who were technological leaders have since seen that there is a lot of work on the front end that is required for GAFE to be a successful affordance. I wonder here if many teachers might choose to continue without such affordance? In terms of the evaluation of the success of GAFE in a IBL environment, there is yet to be a lot of data collection to support areas that require improvement and development. I also question the inflexibility that the ADDIE model brings with it, as the technologies that come into the classroom are in a constant state of change and requires educators to adjust/challenge, and work with a variety of technological affordances in the IBL classroom. After all, IBL is about choice.
2. Which of these two instructional design models better fit your preferences in the instructional design?
Given the ADDIE model, I would argue that the Agile model of learning best supports the preferences that I have as an IBL educator who employs a vast array of technological affordances in the classroom, including GAFE. THe flexible models for design certainly resonate more with my educational outlook within my classroom and school. In particular, the community of inquiry model might best fit my preferences within my classroom. The guidelines (appropriate technology, etc.) certainly resonate and are evident if you walk into my classroom. Certainly, the main advantages of the Agile design Bates (2014) fit well with IBL, and my students prepare themselves through real life situational learning objectives for the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. I work to develop these digital age specifics and when approaching technology in the classroom, we work together within a First Attempt At Learning (F.A.I.L.) environment (the students of course love the acronym). More often than not, my students are highly engaged, a part of which stems from the enthusiasm that I have for the IBL model and the integration of technologies such as GAFE.
Consider the evaluation method introduced by Nel, Dreyer and Carstens (2010), and their division between the primary and secondary criteria for analysis.
1. Use these criteria to demonstrate to what extent your organization is ready for implementing educational technologies.
The primary and secondary criteria as a form of evaluation within Nel, Dreyer, and Carstens (2010) provide a sound opportunity to assess the readiness for implementing educational technologies. Within my district and the push towards IBL along with the successful implementation of technology as a tool certainly demonstrates the move from Long-Standing Pedagogical Practice towards Newly Prefered Pedagogical Practice. We are a district that is outcome based, cooperative and collaborative, opening up further to Multi-Faceted Interaction and Accommodation, and provide opportunities for Multi-Faceted Feedback. Many classrooms are working from the mixed mode model of learning as described by Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010). In particular, I believe that our organization is ready to roll out a more learner-learner environment that is collaborative and social. You do not have to look far within my own school to see such examples.
Within the secondary criteria, I do however see some concerns as they relate to access. In particular, if the goal is to have and access technological affordances such as GAFE in multiple classrooms, and multiple schools within my district, then there are some major opportunities to change the status quo. As an example, of you look at the two neighbourhood schools that are within a five minute drive from my school, you would notice a major difference in the inclusion of technology in classroom environments. Where my school has a strong infrastructure to support technology (Wireless, access to device on a 3:1 ratio probably), the two schools within minutes are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Neither have the infrastructure (Wireless, access to devices anywhere near 3:1).
2. What are some other factors that contribute to a better organizational readiness?
Aside from the costs associated with developing the infrastructure to sustain the integration of technology in all schools, there are some factors that would provide better organizational readiness. As suggested in Zaied (2007), lack of staff training, lack of expertise, and lack of time are certainly playing a role in the organizational readiness. However, where one could argue we are behind the times within our district, I would argue that we are very forward thinking and progressive in the technology integration into authentic learning opportunities for our students. I believe that we have excellent personnel who are working hard and are successful at challenging the lack of staff training, and lack of expertise.
References
Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 4: The ADDIE model; Teaching in a Digital Age. (online book)
Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010).Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. (PDF)
Zaied, A. (2007) A Framework for evaluating and selecting learning technologies. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 4(2), 141-147. (PDF)