AECT Standard 5 (Research)

Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.

The artifact “Technology Toolbox for Teaching” was created in the fall of 2022 for EDET 603, the first class for design and development tools. This was my first class in the master’s program and one of the very first assignments. This means that I had no prior knowledge on the content, and that I was learning and applying everything for the very first time. 

To create this artifact, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the ASSURE instructional model and the importance of each step. The technology toolbox was aimed at determining online resources that would be beneficial to use during each stage of the ASSURE model. The information I researched and picked for this artifact was presented for others to view in an infographic. 

This artifact was solely created for the class assignment but was important to my foundational learning within the master’s program. The idea of an instructional models for design, development, and effective technology use were brand new to me and this was an introduction to one of the many I would come to learn about. It was a small part of the larger unit in which I would grow in my understanding of instructional models, but it allowed me to start making connections to my personal experiences in teaching and how I could more effectively create and use instructional tools.

For this artifact, I would not consider myself an instructional designer or developer, and I certainly was not a subject matter expert on the ASSURE model. For this artifact, I would simply consider myself the author of an infographic. This product was purely the results of my first time learning about the ASSURE model and attempting to express those thoughts through this artifact. 

When comparing this artifact to the Morrison, Kemp, and Ross (MRK) and ADDIE instructional models, there is a connection to MRK’s designing instructional strategies phase and ADDIE’s analysis phase. The authors of the MRK model state that a “designer’s primary goal is to design effective and efficient instruction that produces reliable results each time it is presented to the learner. We achieve this goal by developing prescriptions that describe an optimum method of instruction for different types of content” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 138). Within the technology toolbox, various online resources are presented for potential use as a “prescription” to optimize learning for students. Technology can often be used to tailor students’ learning experience so that their learning is more individualized to their needs. 

Within the ADDIE model, the analysis phase consists of determining the needs at hand and resources that can be used to address those needs. Dr. Serhat Kurt, in talking about the analysis phase, poses that there are several steps and questions that can be used to guide the process. Specifically, she states the importance of, “Determining popular methods being used around the subject and taking a look at what needs to be developed and improved. Review of existing instructional strategies employed. Are they adequate? What aspects need to be added, clarified and improved upon?” (Kurt, 2018). This analysis can include determining what technology others are using to teach certain concepts or to engage students in their learning more. Each technological resource can be evaluated to determine if it can be used at face value or if there are adjustments needed to improve the use of the technology.

This artifact is related to AECT standard 5. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 5 (Research): Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance (pp. 4, 6-7).

Indicator:

• Theoretical Foundations - Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology. (p. 242)”

At the time of this artifact’s creation, I had little to no understanding of any instructional design models. It was the very beginning of my road to becoming an instructional designer and developer. Since this artifact, my knowledge has improved exponentially. I have grown a stronger understanding of not only the ASSURE model, but a wide variety of different instructional models like MRK and ADDIE. 

Looking back at this artifact, I can see just how much I have learned from the way in which I interpreted the ASSURE model when first learning about it. For example, in the toolbox I misunderstood the “Select and Utilize Strategies” stage in two ways: (1) I combined these stages when they are two separate stages and (2) I presented the stage as one in which students are actively learning materials. These are two mistakes that I would quickly fix in this artifact for future use by separating the two stages, giving a better description, and selecting more useful tools for each stage. 

In connection with AECT standard 5, this artifact matches with the “Theoretical Foundations” indicator. Instructional design models are the foundation of successfully creating learning resources that effectively use technology. This includes the ASSURE model that is demonstrated within the technology toolbox. While there are flaws with the artifact, it still presents my initial understanding and how I have grown in my understanding. I have not only shown a stronger understanding of instructional design models, but I have a better understanding of the online tools available and how to evaluate tools for successful use. 

 The “Technology Plan Evaluation” artifact was created in the Fall of 2024 in EDET 746, a course on management of technology resources. This course was the only of its kind where the focus was on building our skills as a technology manager. This artifact contributed to that goal through the evaluation of two different technology plans; I specifically chose to evaluate the South Carolina Department of Education’s technology plan and the Michigan Department of Education’s technology plan. 

To complete this artifact, I had to first learn what a technology plan was, the elements that were important to have in a plan, and how to evaluate its content. Once I built my understanding of technology plans, I was able to read both departments’ plans and take notes on what was present and what was missing. In my evaluation I also spent time comparing the two plans as they contained very different purposes while talking about the same idea of how to properly use technology.

This artifact was a class assignment that was part of a larger unit. The class was to strengthen our skills as a technology manager which required learning how to set boundaries and expectations with the use of technology. Evaluating different technology plans not only developed my understanding of setting guidelines for technology use but also prepared me to write my own technology plan later in the course. 

For this artifact, I served as an evaluator and author. I also was the only person that contributed to the evaluation report. My time spent as evaluator in this artifact built my capabilities as a technology manager.

Examining this artifact in comparison to the Morrison, Kemp, and Ross (MRK) instructional design model, the artifact can be defined as a part of an evaluation stage. The authors of this model describe how an evaluator, “is responsible both for gathering and interpreting data during program tryouts and for determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the program after it’s been fully implemented” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 19). This artifact was not a full evaluation but provided the opportunity for me to evaluate the usefulness of each plan to the environments that they serve. 

In comparison to the ADDIE instructional design model, this artifact can also be defined within the evaluation stage. “This is the stage in which the project is being subjected to meticulous final testing regarding the what, how, why, when of the things that were accomplished (or not accomplished) of the entire project” (Kurt, 2018). Both technology plans that were evaluated in this artifact have both obtained accomplishments while also having shortcomings. An evaluation of the plans allows for there to be improvements for the next publication of technology guidelines.

This artifact is connected to AECT standard 5. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 5 (Research): Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance (pp. 4, 6-7).

Indicator:

• Ethics - Candidates conduct research and practice using accepted professional and institutional guidelines and procedures. (p. 296-7)”

When writing this artifact, I already possessed a strong understanding of instructional design models and the ability to effectively implement technology into instruction. However, I was new to learning about the big picture of technology use. This artifact represents my initial understanding of how guidelines can be used within corporations to manage the use of technology while also setting goals for use. Even though the technology plan evaluation is not perfect, it accomplishes the objective of building my understanding of the elements and purpose of having one in place. 

The technology plan evaluation directly relates to AECT standard 5 and its indicator of “Ethics”. When technology plans are put into place, it is a set of clear guidelines and procedures for employees and/or students to follow while they are implementing technology. This artifact demonstrates my research in understanding the use of technology plans while also preparing myself to write one of my own. 

This artifact played a unique role in my growth as an instructional designer and developer. Adding the element of becoming a technology manager forced me to see technology in a different perspective than specifically focusing on one lesson’s use of technology. There is a broader scope of viewing technology and setting guidelines for proper use. Additionally, I grew in knowing the legal requirements of how copyright laws fit into a technology plan.