objectives

I guess it feels good to be going somewhere other than analysis. . .

However, I have to admit, I am having a hard time figuring out why we need lots of super-detailed goals (and sub goals and sub-sub-goals) and also another even more detailed objective.

They kind of seem like the same thing to me. I can see that the objective is basically the goal, restated with ABCD or BCC or whatever acronym you choose. I guess I'm just wondering what the purpose of writing it any other way was. We did that whole chapter on writing good goal statements; why not just include these specifics in the original goal statements (and sub statements)? Is there some use for the goal statements that is separate from the objective?

And then there are the "ism"-s

Since I mentioned that two different articles spoke to me, I guess I should have mentioned the second one :)

I really liked the article from last week: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism. . ." I liked it for several reasons. First, having a husband who is a teacher (and although I sometimes teach, my degree is in math), I have heard these terms for years and not really completely understood them. This article was a really great concise explanation of the prevailing "doctrines" of education, and as I read it, things began to fall into place. Especially as I read about how those different groups of people (behaviorists, cognitivists, etc.) would use Instructional Design, I began to understand how I will use Instructional Design as I teach. I was especially intrigued that there are some things that a "behaviorist" and a "constructivist" would do the same, but for different reasons (like feedback -- either to reinforce behavior, or as a learning tool) Of course, in practice, we would hope to use all of these philosophies where they fit best, but it was very helpful for me to understand all of these different approaches to utilizing ID.

I also really liked the article because I realized where I lie on the behaviorist-congnitivist-constructivist spectrum. It is useful for me to realize this about myself -- where I am coming from, and what style of teaching I naturally gravitate to. This is especially useful because I can now see the great value that is in the other two "camps" and when these techniques might also be of use to me. Wow!!

Back in town . . . so what is technology??

Well, I've been out of town for 10 days having hands-on history lessons (and science lessons and life lessons. . .) in Boston with my 4 kids. We flew in last night at midnight, so today I am trying feverishly to get back into "my life" (and also my school work).

I did try to take the opportunity on those long airplane rides to read some of the articles for class. I have to say that two of these articles spoke to me in different ways.

I really liked the various definitions of terms in "Educational Technology A Question of Meaning" (Gentry). I found several that I thought fell closer to my "evolving" definition. I liked Paul Saettler's definition of technology (page 2):

"any practical art using scientific knowledge"

and also Admiral Hyman Rickover's definition (same page):

"technology deals with tools, techniques, procedures: the artifacts and processes fashioned by modern industrial man to increase his powers of mind and body."

I like the breadth of these two statements, and I like how Saettler uses the word "art," because I think that there is always an art to using any technology well. But mostly, I guess those definitions just "feel right" to me.