The topic of technology competencies for beginning teachers has been raised recently in several venues among administrators and faculty of St. Louis Community College. It has been suggested that specific technology competencies be established for SLCC's teacher preparation program. This is a response to that expressed need. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has developed and published a set of standards which includes a section of foundation standards appropriate for all beginning teachers, regardless of specific disciplines, and these goals have been benchmarked as the exemplary model of how we should proceed.
Recently a memo from Commissioner Bartman of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education-Division of Urban and Teacher Education provided the impetus for the creation at SLCC of a proposed practical application of those standards to the redevelopment and realization of a standards based course on Computers in Education which would serve as a model for other such district courses.
This document records the instructional design process for such a course, and is in and of itself an artifact of the need.
The ID was approached with a perceived problem and a needs assessment was conducted and existing evaluations inspected to ascertain if a course redesign was in order to insure that the course would be able to meet anticipated changes in Missouri teacher certification requirements.
Analysis of existing documentation and proposed standards yielded an expressed problem inventory. The lack of comprehensible data made the requirement to proceed to needs analysis necessary. Expert interviews yielded corollary human resources problems as well as a lack of a coherent course curriculum among the various campuses in the district.
A general plan for course development was proposed with prototyping stage and formative evaluation to occur in Spring semester 2001 and the final course offering instituted in the Fall of 2001. ISTE standards were abstracted and instructional goals were pulled from the latest published standards. These goals were then prioritized and defined according to learning domain and ranked by priority level.
Broad conditions of learning were then proposed as strategies to help students encode or cognitively process information, skills, and strategies more effectively (e.g., rehearse, elaborate, organize). One major strategy is the specification to utilize the course management tool the instructor uses to extend to the student the real world experience of constructing their own learning resources in the context of the class as an administrator of the tool themselves. "Blackboard" is the course management platform of note.
A task analysis for a specific lesson was then completed in accordance with the class assignment. A sample lesson plan for another lesson was also completed at a later point in the process.
In order to pinpoint potential inadequacies in the course so plans could be developed to address them, an environmental analysis followed. The instructors, climate, curriculum, learning materials, production facilities and physical space was defined. Questionnaires, a computer skills assessment, and expert interviews were appealed to gather information about the audience of learners.
As the final stage of analysis, the identified needs and need types were matched with their corresponding instructional goals. I use the word final advisedly as later design and development decisions informed a number of revisions. In fact this entire process was revisited as the process evolved.
Next, the instructional designer moved into the development phase. Several models of instruction were proposed as alternative delivery strategies. Most of these strategies would be used in tandem throughout the course. Media or technology selections were proposed based on what was available in the learning environment and on the instructors skills and abilities. Pre-existing resources, but also student tools were proposed for use. Media selection was based on a number of criteria based on information collected during the "analysis" instructional design phase.
Next, a master objective list was generated and each objective was classified as to whether it was enabling or terminal in nature. At this point, criteria for success were also determined. From these objectives, a preliminary course map was generated and instructional activities were mapped to instructional goals. Sample test items for the specified lesson was completed at this juncture. A criterion referenced rubric for evaluating student success on the chosen lesson was completed.
For the evaluation portion of the design, proposals were made for criteria in several areas: student success, student attitude toward course, supervisor's input, and student feedback.