​

Sub-competency 1: Develops a personal vision of inclusive educational practice

Artifact 1: EDCI 66000A – Initial/Final Reflective Essays

​

​

​

The first discussion in EDCI 66000A was to share our personal career goals and projected outcomes for participating in the learning design and technology program at Purdue University. My vision was based on my personal experience and knowledge about the educational technology field. This artifact summarizes my vision for personal and professional career goals to continually expand upon my foundational L&D skills and knowledge to follow a path towards a career as an Instructional Designer and I/O Psychologist. This degree has proven to be a beneficial pathway towards being a professional asset to the L&D community. As a result of participating in this program, I have come to realize I would like to continue my pursuit of a PhD in Organizational/Industrial Psychology so I can pursue a career as a Performance Improvement and Instructional Design Consultant.

 

Sub-competency 2: Describes the relationship between Educational Technology and the broader field of Education

Artifact 2: EDCI 51300—Initial/ Revised Ed Tech Definitions

​

​

​

The first discussion in EDCI 51300 asked the class to define our own definition of Learning Design and Technology prior to reading the textbook. I defined learning design and technology as a process (such as the ADDIE- Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) to first determine the root cause, is the solution instructional or non-instructional, and how can instructional solutions improve performance?

​

After reading the textbook, I compared my definition with the definitions identified in Reiser and Dempsey’s Chapter 1 (Dempsey, 2012). I determined the book’s definition somewhat aligned with my own. I interpreted the book’s definition of learning design and technology as divided into two parts. In part one, I compared the definition of instructional design and the ADDIE process to that of putting together a puzzle. In part two, I reflected on how the definition of technology has changed as quickly as technology itself in our world. However, I also defined technology as a TOOL. Tools are used as a creative method for developing and delivering content in addition to solid foundational DESIGN without which we risk the danger of falling flat on reaching our terminal objectives.

​

Throughout my participation in this program, I have continued to revisit my definition of learning design and technology as I am exposed to different perspectives of the definition from colleagues and other professional in the field.

.

 

Sub-competency 3: Critically evaluates theory and practice

Artifact 3: EDCI 53100 – Final Paper

​

​

​

The purpose of this final paper was to critically evaluate the contributions of Behaviorism, Cognitive Learning, and Constructivism Learning Theories to the field of instructional design by applying each of the learning theories within a lesson plan.

​

The goal of this lesson plan was to expose the target audience of instructional design students to a variation of learning theories by designing content and exercises to model each learning theory. In doing so, this would allow students the opportunity to reflect how each learning theory may be relevant to various learning styles and models and how the implementation of the learning may be effective.

​

I found the biggest challenge was creating a cohesive and engaging lesson plan modeling six different learning theories. Each module would need to scaffold on what students had learned in the previous module. After evaluating each learning theory to create activities within the lesson plan, I too had developed a deeper understanding of each theory and was able to apply these theories to other ISD projects on the job.

​

References

 

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd. ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Brain Rules. (n.d.). Schema Learning Example. Retrieved from YouTube: https://youtu.be/o4HHCgFmkcI

Cibmtr/training and reference. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.cibmtr.org: https://www.cibmtr.org/DataManagement/TrainingReference/FAQs/Documents/Kolb%20Learning%20Styles%20quick%20assessment.pdf

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. .

McLeod, S. (2013). Kolb-Learning Styles. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

Overview of Learning Styles. (2015). Retrieved from learning-styles-online.com: http://www.learning-styles-online.com/overview/