NSDL Reflections

An NSDL Retrospective: The Case of the Instructional Architect by Mimi Recker

December 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm Brandon Muramatsu 5 comments

The IA as a Teacher Tool

As NSDL tools gained maturity, it became clear from field testing that we needed to better consider the target context. For example, many schools lacked sufficient technological infrastructure (e.g, inadequate computers, filtering software that blocked access, overbooked labs). In addition, many teachers lacked sufficient technology knowledge, as well as knowledge of how to use technology in service of content and teaching goals, referred to as technological pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

As a result, we embarked on a project of developing a teacher professional development model. The perspective informing our approach is one in which teachers can be viewed as designers of learning activities for their students, a position generally aligned with a constructivist learning philosophy, and called ‘teaching as design’ (Brown & Edelson, 2003).

As part of the ‘teaching as design’ framework, Brown & Edelson defined a continuum of teachers’ curriculum use, ranging from offloads to adaptations to improvisations. In offloads, the curriculum is implemented essentially unchanged and the bulk of instructional decisions are contained in the resources. In improvisation, the teacher flexibly borrows and customizes pieces, while playing the major role in the decision-making process. The adaptation category represents the mid point of the continuum.

Brown and Edelson surmised that curricular materials afford and constrain design, interacting with teachers’ unique knowledge, skills and experience. But they noted that the continuum is neutral with regards to quality or effectiveness of the teacher or their designed activity. For example, in designing a class activity, an offload strategy may be planned by a teacher with low pedagogical or subject matter knowledge who cannot perceive a need to adapt a resource. The same offload strategy might be employed by a teacher with high pedagogical or subject matter knowledge who plans to wander around the room giving individual help to students.

Informed by this framework, we argue that the kinds of learning activities teachers can design are both supported and constrained by the wide availability and diversity of NSDL resources, and that the design of these activities also interact with teachers’ unique backgrounds and needs. Brown and Edelson’s continuum of teacher curriculum use provides a starting point, then, from which to examine how and why teachers use online learning resources. In particular, aspects of the Brown and Edelson continuum were operationalized to classify teacher design of learning activities, as follows:

1. Improvisation: teachers link to resources as a starting point or reference, but have clearly designed their own elements such as learning goals, added instructional content or activities, description of context of resource use, and assessment items;
2. Adaptation: a midpoint, with only some of the elements listed above;
3. Offload: teachers provide links to resources with little additional teacher-created instructional guidance (e.g., explanations or instructions). Use tends toward lists of links (perhaps with added navigational information).

Professional Development Model

Following best practices from the teacher professional development literature (Borko, 2004, we designed a professional development model consisting of two hands-on workshop sessions with between-workshop activities that include teaching, sharing, and communicating.

The characteristics of the professional development model are summarized in Table 1. The model follows a modified problem-based learning (PBL) approach (Barrows, 1996), which was selected in part because it has proven to be effective in professional development settings with adult learners (Walker & Leary, 2007).

During the first session, teachers are each asked to identify an instructional problem and then to design learning activities using the Instructional Architect and using online resources from the National Science Digital Library to meet identified classroom needs. Although PBL intends students to be self-directed, typically problems solved by students are carefully designed and sequenced to both promote student learning and mimic real world problems. In our case, in an environment where teachers needed to see immediate relevance, we opted to err on the side authenticity and have teachers select their own problems. This has the disadvantage of not being able to design problems that bring out the features of the professional development that we identify as most critical to learn, but the benefit of allowing teachers to see immediate benefit from their efforts.

Between the two workshops, participants design further activities, some of which are implemented in their classroom. They also engage in small group interactions. Note that in the full version of PBL (Barrows, 1996), these types of interactions have two essential parts, the first serves as a discovery phase, in which group members discuss the problem, brainstorm about their existing knowledge gaps in relation to finding a problem resolution, then split up the task of addressing those knowledge gaps. This phase was not part of our workshop model predominantly because teachers were not asked to solve the same problem, rather one that was unique to their own classroom. The second phase consists of reflection, a critical analysis of solutions and of the knowledge used as part of that solution. This phase was a part of the workshop, both in between the workshop activities, and supported by a simple email listerv, as well as within the second workshop. In addition to online interaction, participants were encouraged, and did engage in face-to-face interactions where possible.

Table 1. Professional development model

At the second session, participants present, discuss, and reflect upon their classroom implementation activities and experiences. Table 1 also shows data that are collected at each stage for research and evaluation purposes.

Evaluation Strategies

In 2004/5, we began a more systematic implementation and evaluation of teacher professional development workshops, including face-to-face and online versions. Through working with other NSDL projects, we were inspired to implement and collect detailed webmetrics (described later) analyses of usage, as well as developing online surveys that used items developed by other NSDL projects. These more automated forms of data collection greatly helped in our understanding of users and their needs.

During this period, we also worked more closely with NSDL projects, including the Exploratorium, Wayne State, and the Math Forum, to share teacher professional development materials and strategies.

Evaluation methods include online surveys, participant observations, classroom observations, group interviews, key informant interviews, IA project analysis, and webmetrics.

Findings were analyzed in terms of implications for current and future IA programs, product upgrades, and evaluations, specifically:

1. The impact of IA curriculum on participants in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, and competency using digital resources and IA.
2. Feedback from participants about how the IA curriculum could be improved.
3. Feedback from participants about how IA itself could be improved.
4. Feedback from participants about how the evaluation and instruments used could be improved (called participatory evaluation).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Entry filed under: NSDL Services. Tags: National Science Digital Library, NSDL, NSDL Reflections.