final 632 PLE thoughts

First things first- I just submitted my final ISD model project! YAY!

It definitely took me a lot longer than I expected. Since I had spent so much time on constructing the model and its components, I thought explaining all of the bits would be easier. It wasn't "difficult," per se, as I felt like I knew what I was doing, but making sure that I addressed everything I thought was needed, based on the grading criteria in the syllabus, made it more challenging. That, and creating new sections and section breaks on Every. Single. Page. to make sure the formatting was what I wanted.

I am very happy that Fantasia reviewed my model for me. We were able to chat a bit in class, and she always had good comments about my work as it progressed. She was also one of the few people who commented on my postings on this blog- there was a point when Fantasia was the last person I had heard from in a month. As we all got closer to the end of the course, the idea for a shared community emerged a bit more, but that seemed more like we were checking out what each other was doing to make sure we were on the right track. (I know, because I did my own fair share of lurking on others' PLEs.)

In theory, the PLEs could be a good idea. In reality, there are a lot of confounding issues. First, everyone needs to have some level of tech savvy. We can all be brilliant individuals, but maintaining a blog does not tend to be one of those skills you just pick up now if you haven't had one before. The format of blogger is very easy for me to use, but I keep looking at my snark at the beginning of the course about this serving as a possible procrastination tool. To be frank, I spent too much time trying to wade through modules to really worry about adding more than the weekly post.

That's another issue I had with the PLEs- weekly posts. They made sense to me, since it reflected what we talked about in class, and seemed like a simple assignment. What was frustrating was that people tended not to keep up with them- a real pain if I was scheduled to review that person's thoughts and they hadn't posted in a long time. I know that it was usually not until the next week when I had time to post, but I still did it before the next class.

I also have been suffering from information inundation. Maybe it's because, when it comes down to it, I like things to be low-tech. I always print out papers to read them, and doubt I will ever buy a Kindle or anything like that. I like having all of the information I need in one place, rather than checking through a mountain of handouts and multiple websites. My ADD self can't handle too many things going on at once. That's probably why I never really explored the feeds, links, etc. on others' PLEs--I was suffering from a form of cognitive overload. That, and I didn't really have the time.

I do read others' blogs, just usually not the school/ID-related ones. I know how to subscribe to a feed, but my inbox is too full as-is, and I still like checking my bookmarks to see if someone posted a new story. I like taking in information when I'm ready for it- I don't think I could handle another avalanche of stuff.

Will I add anything more to this blog? I don't know. I might if I need to do something similar for another class. I am thinking about a possible online portfolio, but that would be different. That also would be something where I can rely on myself for feedback, keeping things up-to-date, etc., and something that can be organized in a way that suits me.

some more thoughts about my model....

I've been thinking about my model this past week as I've been sharing it with others and trying to explain it to them. A lot of people have commented that they like the overall model because of its simplicity and the fact that the name helps make the parts easier to remember. I still wonder about the evaluation aspect of it, but keep going back to liking how I've depicted it here. I don't think evaluation should only inform the "input," but all parts of my model.

I've also been thinking about the pieces of my model and how they're represented. I still am happy with how they've turned out, as I think they've done a decent job of explaining contextual factors that need to be considered during the entire process. I shared my model with a senior doctoral student, and felt comfortable in my ability to explain it to her. She noted that the context is really important to my model, and that I was able to show parts that an outsider might not normally think of when creating a K-12 ELA curriculum. I also shared my model with someone with no interest in ID whatsoever, my husband. Although he wasn't able to offer the insight that my classmates might have on the product, he was able to tell me that the model made sense to him, and seems like a solid progression through the stages. (He also does not have any K-12 experience, so explanation of the context was also important here.)

Although it's still a novice model, I'm happy that I can share what I've created with an IDD&E student who's been in the program for years, someone completely outside of the field, and my classmates, and it seems to make sense to everyone. I like that my model is a simple depiction overall that can be fairly easily understood at first glance, and that a person's understanding of it seems to increase with explanation of each part. It makes sense to me; always good for it to make sense to others, too.

Complete ABCDE model as of 4-14-10

I uploaded the entire package to scribd, so you can look at the overall model and then the pieces in sequence. The fonts got changed slightly from the PDFs I posted earlier, but otherwise the diagrams are intact. Click below to view.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29903680/Full-ABCDE-Model-041410

The "E" in my ABCDE model

Yay! Last piece!

The "E" in my ABCDE model is Evaluation. In my "big-picture" model, I drew a dotted line on an arrow that encircled all components of my model. I think that evaluation is needed in all parts. Mostly, this is formative, but in some cases, it is summative. I decided to create a table explaining how each piece has evaluation incorporated into it.

Click on the picture to make it larger. The diagrams for A, B, C, D, and the entire model are all available in previous posts.

The "D" in my ABCDE model

The "D" in my ABCDE model is for both design and development. These work together with change in a rapid prototyping fashion. I chose a rapid prototyping model because district resources in terms of time and money for the Agents creating the curriculum is usually limited. The goal is to create a curriculum that is being reviewed and "tested" as it's being created, in lieu of developing a full model, even for small-scale pilot testing.

As with my other diagrams, click on the image to enlarge. Representations of A, B, and C are all in earlier posts, as well as a depiction of the entire ABCDE model.

The "C" in my ABCDE model

The "C" in my ABCDE model for K-12 ELA curriculum development stands for Change. Communication is vital to this part of my model. I tried to think of how other models showing communication (such as the Gentry Instructional Product Development and Management (IPDM) model (1994; in Gustafson & Branch, 2002, p. 50). However, I know that some of the communication is linear and top-down (like when it is initially decided that a curriculum needs to be created), and other times there are groups working somewhat equally within the subsystem to make it all happen. I chose to categorize my Agents by what they would be doing to implement the change needed with creating, implementing, and evaluating a new ELA curriculum.

The image can be clicked to enlarge it. Previous posts show my diagrams for A, B, and the entire ABCDE model, and they can also be reviewed to help understand this post.

The "B" in my ABCDE model

The "B" in my ABCDE model for K-12 curriculum development is essentially a front-end analysis piece of what is needed to close the gap between the current curriculum and the ideal curriculum. After Agents are selected, the Background needs to be analyzed to determine what steps should be taken in order to create a curriculum specific to this system.

Please click on the image to see more detail.

The "A" in my ABCDE model

The "A" in my ABCDE model for K-12 curriculum development represents the agents that are responsible for this system-wide change. There is definitely a hierarchy that exists for these agents in terms of what I'm calling "political power," yet those who will be making the change happen through creation, implementation, and evaluation have just as much, if not more, "change power." I will likely identify who possible agents for change specific to this curriculum are within my model, although the individuals selected may vary from task to task. Color coding who is responsible for what for each stage of ABCDE may be useful in helping to determine/demonstrate who does what and where.

As with my overall ABCDE model, you can click on this image to make it bigger.

Prototype of the ABCDE Model

Based on feedback from Jerry, I've revised my overall model. I still plan on creating components for each part, but this is my overarching plan. I'm not sure how to indicate that evaluation encompasses all parts, other than to draw a big circle around it all. Hey, it's a start.
(You can click on the image to make it larger.)

Model Status Update #2

Today I tried drafting some ideas for what my final model might look like. It's still in the developing stages, but I think I'm going with the "ABCDE Model for K-12 Curriculum Development." You're welcome to review my sketches and sloppy handwriting at the following URL:
http://www.scribd.com/full/29204505?access_key=key-286oqqi8swkesq80rkc5

(You may just want to skip to the last page, as that's the clearest. The first page is just brainstorming, while pages 2-4 describe more about each stage of my model.)

Categorizing my ID model

Below is where I currently believe my ID model fits into the frameworks described by Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee (1994):

Orientation: My curriculum development ID model definitely leans more towards the prescriptive, because it matched well with what Edmonds et al. described as a model that "outline[s] how a learning environment can be altered or constructed in order to affect the variables of interest in a certain way or bring about the desired outcome" (1994, p. 60). This would certainly apply to the concept of a unified and grade-specific ELA curriculum. Based on what I've seen resulting from the process of a well-planned and structured curriculum development effort, I would say that my model could also be categorized as both descriptive and prescriptive. My model will "speculate and recommend organizational strategies, and...[will be] comprehensive and explicit in the amount of detail for application" (Edmonds et al., 1994, p. 60).

Knowledge Structure: This label is much more straightforward; I believe my model is procedural, since it is concrete and not abstract in nature. I am definitely working with the idea of how a goal can be reached, rather than answering the question of why we're trying to reach it (Edmonds et al., pp. 60-61).

Expertise Level: Although I think that the audience for whom the final product [curriculum] is intended should cover the range of novices, intermediates, and experts, I believe that those who are creating the curriculum and following my ISD model are more likely to be in the intermediate to expert range. Those charged with creating something that will potentially affect thousands of students should be well-versed in what the state standards are, and how to address them in the classroom. They should also be familiar with classroom-level instructional strategies so that lessons addressing these standards can be implemented effectively. Although a novice may be able to follow the model, application of the model would be best used by those with teaching/classroom/curriculum development and implementation experience.

Structure: At this point, I am going to categorize my model as novice/soft-system-based. I am choosing this designation because the primary audience of my model can be made up of instructional designers, but more likely, will be comprised of teachers. There will need to be flexibility factored into the curriculum as it is being created, as individual teachers using the product resulting from the model will use their own strategies in order to address the delineated standards and approaches. Also, since both the creators of the product and the consumers of the product are teachers, I do agree with Edmonds et al., who state that teachers have expertise in instruction in their contexts, but may not have experience as formal instructional designers (pp. 65-66). Based on my own experience, teachers rely on a more intuitive form of instructional design. Through IDD&E, I have learned a more structured approach that matches well with, and more importantly justifies, the decisions I made as a classroom teacher based on what I believed to be "good teaching."

Context: This may be the easiest category for me, as the nature of working with a district-wide curriculum is a clear sorting of my ISD model into the K-12 arena.

Level: For this categorization, I am a little unclear. My first thought is that this is institutional-level, as it affects the entire school district. However, it encompasses curriculum-level, although at all grade levels, as well as course-level, unit-level, lesson-level, and even module-level. The only level described in Edmonds et al. that I do not view as applying to my particular model is mass-level, since this is not global nor is it national (1994, pp. 67-69). Could it be national? Yes, but then different standards would need to be addressed from state-to-state. This may also change my context from K-12 to either K-12 specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, or K-12 in the United States, depending on how I'd like to go with this. I may even choose to limit this to one particular school district, greatly limiting the context, but still remaining at the institutional level.

One thing that I was happy to learn from this exercise was that categorizing my ISD model, even in the planning stages, is a lot easier than I thought it would be. Even though I don't have everything on paper yet (still mulling over how exactly all of this will be represented), it's good to know that I have a fairly clear idea of where I'm going with this.

Evaluation in my model

Evaluation- determining the value or worth of something.

Formative evaluation- evaluation that takes place in order to affect the final outcomes via shaping the process due to feedback/analysis.

Summative evaluation- evaluation that assesses the overall worth or value of something in a final manner.

As Nick Smith has said, formative evaluation is like the cook tasting the soup while cooking. Summative evaluation is what the restaurant patron thinks when they taste the soup.

Although my experience is limited, I really like working with evaluation. I'm currently taking 641 with Nick. I took 841 with him in the fall (The Nature and Design of Inquiry), and I think that course has really helped my understanding of how to approach an evaluative process. It also helps that Nick and I are reading and discussing a book about exemplary evaluations. I get to think about evaluation a lot as a practice.

I think that evaluation's there in K-12 education, but usually not to the level needed. In my experience, formative evaluation happens to a point, until the next big intervention comes along and everything is abandoned. The only summative evaluation that seemed to occur was dropping one program for another. As a teacher, I felt that programs were not given adequate implementation time before they were evaluated. If formative evaluation did happen, it didn't seem that many changes were made to improve the system.

For my model of curriculum development, formative evaluation will be very important. A major output will be the curriculum itself, but it will need to go through many iterations before it is even implemented. There will need to be several cycles of formative evaluation with those writing the curriculum, where they can work as a group and refine it at a certain grade level (such as 10-12). In order for the curriculum to be aligned, it will also need to be evaluated formatively by checking for discrepancies between K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. Another formative evaluation may occur when the curriculum is presented to other major stakeholders, such as the district's curriculum coordinator and the school board for approval.

Although formative evaluations should continue to occur during initial implementation, this may not happen. Minor changes may happen at the classroom level, but the district may not be willing to pay teachers for their time to edit the curriculum again. In a sense, the decision to approve and implement the curriculum would then be summative. Ideally, a curriculum would be continually revised to meet the ever-changing needs of the district's students, but this may not be feasible in the real world.

Management of Instruction for My Model

I'm still processing how my model will be depicted. It seems like such a simple thing (especially because I've been involved with it before), but the readings and reflection questions keep shifting my thinking. Then again, I need to remind myself that the creation of an ELA curriculum wasn't simple when we were working on it; a representation of how the process ideally progresses won't be simple, either.

# What are your ID model’s goals/objectives?
The goal is to create a unified, standards-based, grade-specific ELA curriculum for an urban school district.

# What is/are the goal(s) of your supra-system? Do the goal/objectives of your ID model align with the mission and goals of the supra-system?
From what I can tell at this point, the goals are identical for the district, the teachers creating the curriculum, and the schools that will implement it.

# What will be your method of delivery – who & what provides instruction?
The dissemination of the curriculum will be done by those ELA teachers involved in the creation process, as well as any relevant administrators (ELA dept. head, district reading specialists, asst. principal(s), district curriculum coordinator, etc.). The actual instruction will be presented by all ELA teachers.

# What will be your method of instruction – instructional architecture?
# What will be your method of grouping for learning?

I am still working on these questions. The instructional architecture will likely have a foundation/infrastructure of instructional strategies used by the teachers creating the curriculum. These strategies will have been implemented in the classroom in some form or another to ensure that they help to provide authentic learning experiences and involve the learners in the context to help maximize engagement. The grouping will likely be separated by grade level.

# Other logistical / administrative issues or problems?
Design and implementation will display a lot of differences. Although the entire process should be iterative after pilot implementation, the district may be eager to launch the new curriculum without trying it first. The district may also be reluctant to allow more time to revise the curriculum, even if it is direly needed.

# What changes, clarifications, edits, etc. can you make to your model based on the feedback you are receiving?
I am not sure about any changes yet, since I have not received a lot of feedback with suggestions on changes. I would definitely appreciate more constructive feedback to help me create my model.

# How are you going to visually/graphically represent your model?
Short answer: boxes and arrows. Longer answer: boxes, arrows, levels of involvement, depiction of iterative process, possibly endpoints where the model may stop for whatever reason (administration wants to stop working on this, etc.). There are a lot of pieces that could be involved; I need to think about what really needs to be included for this to work.

ID Model Status

At this point, there are a few major criteria that I know will be needed for my ID model:
1. FEA is critical. Needs should be determined and analyzed before creation of a district-wide ELA curriculum.
2. Design and development likely will run together, as the time allotted for the ELA teachers/others to create the curriculum will be limited. This may be somewhat like rapid prototyping, in that something is created immediately and then revised until it's what is the desired product.
3. Communication will be extremely important.
4. Implementation will also be key.
5. Ideally, summative evaluation will be involved, but typically a district can only afford so much time spent on editing and revising. Formative evaluation is also very important, and this will likely influence the outcomes a lot more (see item #2).

I will keep thinking about how this process will be represented, as it is fairly large in scope, even with a very specific outcome.

Making Change

Obviously, the creation and implementation of a new curriculum would be a major change in any school district. The gatekeepers would likely be the superintendent, the school board, and possibly anyone with a post of or similar to "district curriculum coordinator." These are the individuals who ultimately decide whether the change will happen, even though they have little or nothing to do with the implementation.

School-level administration would be next in line. This would involve principal, assistant principal(s), any reading coordinators, etc. The school's media specialist(s) should also be involved, as they could assist greatly with selection of appropriate materials. They may also be the ones that are gatekeepers to the school's resources, such as a computer lab.

The ELA department would be next, headed by the chairperson (or chairpersons, if applicable). They should be heavily involved in the creation of the new curriculum, as they are also the ones responsible for implementation. The department chair(s) will likely have mandatory involvement, and may belong also in the second tier of this described chain of command. This process may or may not involve the entire department initially, depending on when the curriculum is created and implemented. If time for creation of the curriculum is only in the summer, volunteers will be needed to assemble everything. Hopefully, these volunteers will also have a more vested interest in creating an effective curriculum than if everyone was mandated to be involved. Teachers that are reluctant to change could be very resistant in making a shift from the familiar to the new, even if it may benefit them and their students.

The school-level administrators and the ELA department chair(s) would be the ones that should initially gain the knowledge about why this change is needed. Although he administrators can disseminate the information to ELA teachers, the department chair(s) is likely to have the most clout with them, and would be able to best persuade them that change is needed. The decision process, as mentioned above, would involve at least ELA department volunteers to create an aligned, standardized, and uniform curriculum, while the entire department is responsible for implementation. This would be overseen by both school-level and district-level administrators. Confirmation would occur after the entire curriculum has been accepted as part of the school culture and has been in place, likely for several years.

There are many other factors to consider when attempting to make this change in the particular school I'm examining. The school is in the suburbs, but it is a public school with an urban population. Accommodations would need to be addressed in the curriculum for the range of student abilities, including the approximate third of the students that are identified as having special needs (IEPs, 504 plans, etc.). Resources and funding (or lack of both) are major factors to consider, as they will affect how teachers will be compensated for their time when writing the new curriculum, and what they will be able to use to implement it. The school board and superintendent, although in charge of the school, may not understand completely its student population, which could be a barrier to the success of the change. Implementation may also be difficult with the aforementioned teachers who are complacent with the status quo and feel no need to change their pedagogy to suit a new curriculum. Even teachers who are interested in effective implementation will need to devote a great deal of personal time and energy to familiarize themselves with the new curriculum and associated materials.

Needling needs needed

There are several needs that should be addressed in my context. As mentioned before, the most obvious is test scores for the state of PA. The 2009 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) reading results for 11th graders were that 31.1% of tested students scored at levels of proficient or above, but 63% of the tested students need to score proficient or higher in order to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

(For my other needs, I am thinking about these as if the ELA curricula were not developed, and as if we are only starting to plan them now.)

Another need are standardized ELA curricula for the district. The district in my context did not have a standardized and aligned ELA curricula, and they needed to be in place.

Third is the issue of state-mandated, grade-specific ELA standards. PA has ELA standards established for the grades in which PSSA tests are administered: 3, 5, 8, and 11. Grade-specific standards need to be created to address grades K, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.

In terms of prioritizing these three major needs (and there are likely others), they all have their own costs to be met, and also would have costs if they were ignored. For the increase in PSSA scores, the costs would be revision of curricula, teacher time, student time, and costs associated with any intervention plans used to try to fix the problem. (I knew of at least three that were attempted in the five years that I was a teacher in this school.) The cost of ignoring the problem is probably the greatest out of all three needs: if the school does not meet AYP, it will be in danger of being taken over by the state. This restructuring process would cost the school money to send students elsewhere, and may cost teachers and administrators their jobs. Another important aspect that could be lost is teachers' academic freedom in being able to teach lessons that they have specially adapted for the school and its limited resources. Those teachers that are successful would be punished with the school as a whole because assessment of the school in this case relies only on PSSA scores, rather than individual student achievement or other measures of learning.

Creating grade-specific, aligned ELA curricula will take a great deal of teacher time out of the classroom. If teachers work on this during the summer, it is still their time that is spent, and they will need to be paid for it. Administrators that are involved will also need to spend their time/be compensated for their time working with the teachers. Teachers from all grades will need to be involved, as they are the ones most familiar with their resources, current lessons, and how they may address PA standards in their classrooms. Ignoring the need for curriculum development will prevent the schools from being consistent in what they teach, resulting in unevenly prepared students. Not connecting classroom pedagogy with state standards will also result in students being unprepared in their school and after graduation. Of course, students also will not be prepared to meet state standards, and the school will be going against NCLB and AYP guidelines.

Continuing to think about this from an FEA point of view, context of the school is extremely important. The development of curricula in a well-off or even somewhat decently funded district would be very different than what might take place in this lower-income urban district. Teacher and parent buy-in and support of developments is very important, especially when the school has a history of underperforming on PSSAs and other tests. Teachers need to see value in what they are doing in order to create curricula that meet standards but also are pedagogically sound and engaging for a student population that includes ELL/ESL, special education, and disadvantaged youth. There's a lot that would need to be considered contextually before launching into the actual curriculum writing and development.

FEA and a school in PA

If I were to begin working on creating a unified and standardized curriculum again, I would certainly believe that Front End Analysis (FEA) would play a huge role. The district in which I worked struggled for years with funding and academic achievement (or lack thereof, according to standardized testing). The introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) emphasized these gaps. I recently viewed the 2008-2009 state standardized test scores and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the school, and the scores have not shifted much, despite multiple interventions. The school is also in its third year of Corrective Action II, the lowest ranking for AYP.

By using FEA in this context, a curriculum could be planned that addresses multiple needs of the school, district, and students. For example, according to the PA Dept of Education (http://paayp.emetric.net/):
"To meet the Performance Target required for AYP, schools and every measurable subgroup in the school must have at least 56% of the tested students achieve a Proficient score or higher on the mathematics assessment and 63% of the tested students achieve a Proficient score or higher on the reading assessment."

To gain some perspective on the context, in 2008-2009, my school scored 29.6% proficient or above in math for 11th grade, and 31.1% proficient or above for 11th grade reading.

The most obvious need for NCLB and AYP is for students who are currently earning 31.1% proficient or advanced rankings on the PA state assessments to score a total of 63% proficient and advanced. This is no small feat, and the school's scores have not shifted much from 2003-2009, according to the PA dept. of ed.

There are many other needs that could be addressed. Using Romi's book, Chapter 6 described systems approaches at the micro and macro levels. I probably could view my context from both, considering the impact that students/school/community all have on each other. I think I'll be focusing on the issues at the micro level though, in working with the ELA department.

Narrowing down context ideas...

I've thought more about my particular context and what I'd like to use as my focus for my instructional design model. A colleague and I are teaching an undergraduate course for pre-service teachers together, and both of us are encountering New York State standards for the first time. In our discussion of how to make our students aware of the need to address standards and how to do it, I brought up how in PA, the standards are written for the grades when students take their state standardized tests. When I was teaching there, this was grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. This is great if you're only teaching those grades, but a lot trickier if you've got anyone else. My colleague suggested I use the process of creating a grade-specific curriculum as a context for my model. It makes sense, since I spent a few summers at my old district helping to create a uniform, grade-specific 7-12 ELA curriculum. At the time, I focused mostly on the 10-12 range, since those were the grades in our school. However, we did work a lot with the 7-9 teachers, too, since alignment was needed across all grades. (The elementary curricula were also examined by the 7-9 teachers for alignment.)

It's definitely a process that could be applicable to many different situations, and it's one that is needed when there is a push for uniform standards. It helps that I had experience in doing the task itself, but at the same time, I was not thinking about it from an "instructional designer" point of view. Time to start from that vantage point.

More ideas about my context

I'm still unsure of the exact context I'm planning for my IDE632 project, but I'm still stuck in the general realm of secondary ed/ELA. This may not be a bad thing, since I've got familiarity with the context. This may be a bad thing, since I've got familiarity with the context. I always wonder how much personal bias steps in and prevents me from seeing the forest for the trees.

Should I continue on this path, my professional context would be working with the English/Language Arts curriculum in a 10-12 school in PA (i.e. where I used to teach). The system itself are the courses required of all 1100+ students in the school, and serviced by about 15 ELA teachers. This department is part of the suprasystems of the school itself and the district. (There is only one high school in the district for grades 10-12; grade 9 is at a separate building from junior high, grades 7 and 8.) The subsystems can be separated by grades (10, 11, 12) or by courses offered (e.g., 10th grade English, 12th grade AP English Lit). Two information channels that exist are those between ELA teachers, and also with the school's literacy coach/coordinator. The literacy coach is involved with ensuring that the reading portion of an intervention program is implemented as designed. A subsystem interface would be the department chair, who interacts with both administration and the administrators/teachers involved in overseeing the intervention program. The department chair then disseminates information back to the rest of the ELA department.

POST THIS ON YOUR BLOG

Last night in class we were asked to define, in our own words, the aims and means of "Instructional Development." The example had two blanks to fill in; the paper read "e.g. To achieve _______ by means of _________." Everyone else in class filled in the blanks. I did too initially, but using "ideals" and "processes" just didn't work for me. I ended up writing the following:

"To create effective instruction using systematic processes as a basis in order to bring the status quo closer to identified ideals."

I have a tendency to be verbose in classes, but that really is how my mind works. For me to process new ideas, I have to use/apply them, otherwise they don't make sense. The guide of "in your own words" is what led me to think outside of filling in the blank, and to express the idea as I currently view it. I got teased a bit by my classmates, including "OK, Romi" [the author of our main text] and comments about how I must have been the kid who used all of my vocabulary words in one long sentence in elementary school. (For the record, they were separate sentences, thanks.) Jerry wrote on his page, displayed by the projector, "POST THIS ON YOUR BLOG."

The thing is, this is what I think now. Fully admitting that I am an ID novice and that I am expecting to grow, learn, and change my ideas over this semester and the next several years, this is a good reference point. Will I still believe this later? I don't know, but I will actually reflect on it. For 621, 631, and 841 last term, some of my ideas remained the same, but I made a lot of changes in my perceptions of learning and ID. That's why I'm a doctoral student. If I came in and left the same, I'd be wasting my money, time, and effort.

So, here it is, posted on my blog. Critique away, but know that I am going to be doing the same.