An Unexpected Journey to the Perfect Destination Angela Christine Wilson Instructional Designer, Lewis-Clark State College, Lewiston, ID October 8, 2013 Introduction When I enrolled in the Elementary Education program at Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) in 2005, I had no idea I would end up working as an Instructional Designer four years later. I wanted to teach middle school science and math, and I spent two years following graduation in 2007 searching for a teaching job. During my two-year job hunt, I worked at LCSC helping education students construct webpage portfolios, and I helped instructors use various educational software and hardware. In 2009, an “instructional designer/trainer” position opened up in eLearning Services, and I was hired. The first year of my new position was definitely trial by fire. I had never designed training for adults or online courses. I dove right in, learning on the fly and applying my knowledge of technology and pedagogy as best as I could. In 2011, I decided it was time to pursue a master’s degree in my field so I’d have the credentials to back my experience. I selected Boise State University’s Master of Educational Technology program because it aligned with my professional needs and goals, and it is offered entirely online. As a full-time working mother and wife, online was a must for me. This paper is a showcase of the course work I’ve completed for the Master of Educational Technology program. Each artifact selected demonstrates my achievement of one of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology’s (AECT) “Standards for the Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology Specialist Programs.” There are five standards comprised of four sub-components, for a total of twenty demonstrable standards. In this paper, I define each standard and provide an explanation of my work and how it demonstrates achievement of the standard. Relevant references to educational theory, design theory, and pedagogy are provided where applicable.

STANDARD 1: DESIGN 1.1 Instructional Systems Design According to Earle and Persichitte (2005), instructional systems design is comprised of five subcomponents: analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating. Referred to as the “ADDIE” process, these steps involve conducting a needs analysis of a problem, planning a solution, creating a product to solve the problem, carrying out the solution, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. The ADDIE process is cycled through until an optimal solution is reached. To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my Instructional Design Project from EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. For this project, I created instruction for the use of the Voice Boards tool in the Blackboard Learn course management system. I engaged in all five steps of the ADDIE process. I conducted a needs analysis for the learners receiving the instruction. I designed learning objectives and a learning task analysis flow chart to map the major steps to be completed by the learners. I then developed a full set of instructional materials to teach the content. Due to time constraints, I was not able to implement the instruction, but I developed plans for one-to-one implementation, small group implementation, and a field trial. Last, I engaged in formative evaluation with a content expert who reviewed my instructional materials and provided feedback that I used to make changes to the instructional materials. I also submit my Course Design Planning Site for EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. This website contains all of the macro-level planning documents created in the process of designing and developing a “Course Assistant Training” course in the Blackboard CMS. The Analysis page details the need for instruction in the topic selected, the goals of the training course, the context in which the course will be delivered, and a learner analysis. The Concurrent Design page details the course learning objectives and maps them to Bloom’s taxonomy, defines the unit topics of the course and the objectives addressed by each, and lists the instructional strategies to be used in the course. It also contains flowcharts and storyboards developed for the course. The Final Product pages link to the materials developed for the course. I developed an extensive implementation plan, located on the Implementation Plan page. The Summative Evaluation plan describes the process I developed for evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional materials and course delivery, as well as the evaluation tools to be used to assess learning achievement of the course objectives. 1.2 Message Design According to Seels and Richey (1994), “message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message” (p. 14). Message design employs techniques based on what is known about attention, perception, and retention in order to communicate effectively with learners. M.E.T. candidates who have achieved this standard can “apply principles of educational psychology, communications theory, and visual literacy to the development of instructional messages specific to the learning task” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17).

To illustrate my achievement of this standard, I submit an example of graphic design from EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. This graphic applies color theory to draw the viewer’s attention to relevant information in the graphic. I used orange text and bullets to draw the user’s eye to key elements in the graphic. According to Lohr (2008), warm colors “make an element noticeable” and cause text to “advance” on the page, aiding in viewer selection of important information (p. 267). I also submit my Unit of Instruction Website for EDTECH 506 as proof of my achievement of standard 1.2. In my Final Project Website, I applied learning theory and design principles to optimize learning in a unit of instruction on embedding multimedia content into Blackboard courses. The unit is presented via four distinct lesson pages, with content for each lesson “chunked” into small, related segments in order to reduce the learner’s cognitive load (Lohr, 2008). The project website layout and the graphics used in the instructional materials utilize the CARP principles (contrast, alignment, repetition, and proximity) to facilitate learning. Contrast in text size between primary and secondary steps establishes an organizational hierarchy for the information presented in each lesson. The text on the website and in all instructional documents is left aligned “for easier reading” (Lohr, 2008, p. 201). Several graphic elements, such as the “person at the computer” image and the colors red, blue, and orange, are repeated throughout the unit website and the instructional documents. According to Lohr (2008), repeated elements “create a sense of harmony and unity” and serve to help reduce cognitive load (p. 203). Last, “students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page,” so related text and images are grouped in close proximity to one another in the instructional documents (Lohr, 2008, p. 199). 1.3 Instructional Strategies Seels and Richey (1994) describe instructional strategies as, “specifications for selecting and sequencing events and activities within a lesson” (p. 14). An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “select instructional strategies appropriate for a variety of learner characteristics and learning situations (1.3.a)” and “select motivational strategies appropriate for the target learners, task, and learning situation (1.3.d)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17). To demonstrate achievement of standard 1.3, sub-component 1.3.a, I submit my “Stone Soup” synchronous lesson development from EDTECH 523: Advanced Online Teaching. For this activity, I was paired with a classmate and we were tasked with selecting an appropriate teaching strategy for adult online learners for a lesson on copyright. Copyright laws are complex and often subject to interpretation based on the type of materials and the context in which they are used. We had only fifteen minutes to deliver the lesson, and we knew our learners were going to have varying degrees of familiarity with copyright law. With this in mind, my partner and I selected the Stone Soup synchronous teaching strategy, which calls for the students to be divided into small groups to work on different but related problems and then reconvene with the group as a whole to share their discoveries and conclusions (Finkelstein, 2006). This strategy “allows the instructor to cover more ground than would be possible if all learners were assembled in one room” and “mixes learners of varying competencies together to foster peer mentoring” (Finkelstein, 2006, p.104). We presented our students with a mini-lecture on copyright, and then divided them into groups to work on three different copyright scenarios. Working in small

groups allowed them to learn from more knowledgeable peers, and reconvening to share increased the groups’ knowledge as a whole. This example clearly shows my ability to select appropriate instructional strategies based on learner characteristics and the learning situation. To demonstrate achievement of standard 1.3, sub-component 1.3.d, I submit my matrix of Community Building Strategies from EDTECH 521: Online Teaching. During this course, I developed a matrix of strategies designed to increase motivation and engagement in K-12 online learners. According to Rice (2012), “a concern that is often expressed within the context of online education is student isolation and lack of socialization opportunities” (p. 4). As such, the strategies in the matrix focus on community building, social identity, and participation in the online learning environment. For example, one strategy listed is a “Find the Link” icebreaker activity. This activity asks pairs of students to find a trait they share in common. According to Rice (2012), icebreaker activities help build trust and provide scaffolding for more interactive forms of collaboration. Another strategy listed is the use of blogs for students to showcase their work, reflect, and provide peer reviews. This type of activity helps students develop tactful critiquing skills and allows them to become familiar with the technology before engaging in larger group collaborations (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004). These strategies, as well as the others listed in the matrix, demonstrate my ability to select motivational strategies for a target group of learners in a given learning context. 1.4 Learner Characteristics “Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner’s experiential background that impact the effectiveness of a learning process” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 32). Identifying learner characteristics allows an instructor to select and implement appropriate instructional strategies. An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “identify a broad range of observed and hypothetical learner characteristics for their particular areas(s) of preparation (1.4.a)” and “describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the selection and implementation of instructional strategies (1.4.b and 1.4.c)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 17). To demonstrate my achievement of standard 1.4, sub-components a, b, and c, I submit my Instructional Design Project (see Description of Learners, p. 8) from EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. While researching the characteristics of the potential learners for this project, I discovered a number of traits that went on to influence the selection of instructional strategies and how they were implemented. The learners were college instructors with advanced degrees who teach from two to five online courses each semester. As such, it was assumed the learners would have a high level of intrinsic motivation and would not have a lot to time to devote to a lesson. This required placing less emphasis on motivational strategies and more emphasis on delivering the instruction in a succinct and time efficient manner. I also submit my Unit Plan for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. In the unit plan I described in detail the characteristics of the learners, including age, employment, and education. I also described the learners’ presumed level of knowledge with the subject matter. This information, combined with the need for the instruction to take place entirely online, allowed me to develop instructional materials tailored to the learners’ needs. Namely, the instruction needed to be asynchronous to accommodate learner work schedules, and delivered in a web-friendly and

a print-friendly format to allow the learners to make off-line copies of instructions to follow while completing the lesson activities. These two artifacts demonstrate my ability to identify learner characteristics and use this information to select and implement appropriate instructional strategies. STANDARD 2: DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Print Technologies According to Earle and Persichitte (2005), “print technologies include verbal text materials and visual materials; namely, text, graphic and photographic representation and reproduction” (p. 18). One way for an M.E.T candidate to demonstrate achievement of this standard is to “develop instructional and professional products using a variety of technological tools to produce text for communicating information” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19). A second performance indicator is the ability to “produce print communications combining words and images/graphics using desktop publishing software” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19). As evidence of my achievement of this standard, I submit the syllabus I created for EDTECH 512: Online Instruction. This syllabus was created using the SoftChalk Create program. SoftChalk allows the user to generate multiple pages of “chunked” information in an easy-tonavigate, webpage-like interface. The software creates a hyperlinked table of contents, navigation arrows, and next/back buttons. Various levels of headings can be applied to the text to create an organizational hierarchy on the page and within the table of contents. The user can also format paragraph text and create “text poppers,” which are hyperlinked words on the page that “pop-up” additional information about the words when hovered over. SoftChalk content is intended to be delivered via the web, but the software also includes a built-in feature to generate a “printer-friendly” version of the text. The linked document above contains screenshots of the syllabus as it appeared in the course, as well as the printer-friendly version of the content. I also submit the instructions I created for the lesson on embedding in my unit of instruction for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. I used Adobe Photoshop to create the text and graphics for these instructions. I then optimized the document for both web and print delivery using Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert it to a PDF. These two artifacts clearly demonstrate my ability to use a variety of technology tools to produce text communications for web and print delivery. 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies Standard 2.2 involves the use of “appropriate analog and digital productivity tools to develop instructional and professional products” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 19). An M.E.T. candidate should be able to “apply development techniques such as storyboarding and/or scriptwriting to plan for the development of audio/visual technologies (2.2.2)” and “use appropriate video equipment to prepare effective instructional and professional products (2.2.3)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 20).

As evidence of my achievement of this standard, I submit my Digital Inequality Presentation from EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology. For this group project, my teammates and I created several shared Google Docs to generate scripts for our slides and plan the order of the presentation. (An example of a script can be found here. Please note this is an unpolished planning document.) We then uploaded our slides to VoiceThread and used this web application’s recording features to narrate our slides and create a video presentation. I also submit the instructional videos I created for the course I designed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. I created these instructional videos using Camtasia Studio to record my onscreen demonstrations of tool use in Blackboard. For each video, I created a script to plan out my on-screen actions and streamline the recording process. These examples clearly demonstrate my ability to plan via scripting and use appropriate digital productivity tools to create audiovisual products for instruction and professional presentation. 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies Computer based technologies are “ways to produce or deliver materials using microprocessorbased resources” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 39). Examples include the creation of computerbased instruction and electronic communications. Specifically, an M.E.T. candidate should be able to “design and produce audio/video instructional materials which use computer-based technologies (2.3.1)” and “design, produce, and use digital information with computer-based technologies (2.3.2)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 20). To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my “Course Assistant Training” course designed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. For this course, I designed instructional materials using SoftChalk Create, Camtasia Studio, Adobe Photoshop, and Microsoft Word. These instructional materials were then arranged in unit folders inside the Blackboard CMS. Blackboard is a web-based CMS that requires the student to use a computer to access the course and content. I created several instructional videos and stored them on YouTube, requiring students to use a computer to access the content. This course exemplifies my ability to design and produce digital information and instructional videos using computer-based technologies. I also submit my weekly Twitter activity for EDTECH 506: Graphic Design for Learning. In 506, I was tasked with using a mobile device or digital camera to capture real-world examples of effective or ineffective graphic design to share with my classmates via the social network Twitter. I used an Android-based smart phone and an iPad to photograph my examples, and I shared these to Twitter using both the Android and iOS Twitter apps. In my posts, I explained my rationale for the image I selected based on the design principles being covered in class at the time. I viewed my peers’ contributions and “tweeted” reflective responses to my peers’ posts using a desktop computer, a smart phone, and an iPad. This activity demonstrates my ability to produce and use digital information with computer-based technologies. 2.4 Integrated Technologies According to Seels and Richey (1994), “integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer” (p. 40). An M.E.T candidate who has satisfied standard 2.4 can “use authoring tools to create effective

hypermedia/multimedia instructional materials or products (2.4.1),” “develop and prepare instructional materials and products for various distance education delivery technologies (2.4.2),” “combine electronic and non-electronic media to produce instructional products (2.4.3),” “use… browsing tools for the World Wide Web to develop instructional and professional products (2.4.4),” and “develop effective Web pages with appropriate links using various technological tools (2.4.5)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 20). As evidence of my ability to use integrated technologies, I submit the homepage for the webpages created for EDTECH 502: The Internet for Educators. I created these webpages using Adobe Dreamweaver and Microsoft Visual Studio. Each web page was successfully validated at the time of creation using the World Wide Web Consortium’s HTML and CSS validation service. My virtual fieldtrip is the most encompassing example of my achievement of the subcomponents indicated above. For this activity, I created a multi-page “field trip” to Saturn. The site contains images, text, and video content properly formatted for optimal web delivery. For example, the “Cassini” page contains a thumbnail image linked to a larger format image that opens in a new browser tab to minimize page-loading time. The page also contains a 1.3MB video embedded to display at 320 x 256 pixels for optimal web delivery. The “Cassini” page integrates a “non-electronic” instructional product in the form of a print-off students can use to construct a paper replica of the Cassini orbiter. To develop the content for this site, I browsed the web to locate interactive web resources my students could explore for further information. For example, the “Moons” page links to NASA’s interactive moon map and the “Rings” page links to an interactive image about Saturn’s rings. The “Saturn” page contains an embedded audio file of the sounds captured by the Cassini orbiter as it approached Saturn. Last, I included a link to download the “Cassini” iPhone app. The combination of multi-media instructional materials provided on this web-based instructional site illustrates my achievement of the subcomponents of standard 2.4. STANDARD 3: UTILIZATION 3.1 Media Utilization According to Seels and Richey (1994), “media utilization is the systematic use of resources for learning” (p. 46). To demonstrate my achievement of this standard, I submit my use of Zotero for EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology. Zotero is a web tool for gathering, cataloging, citing and sharing resources. My reflection on using Zotero in Ed Tech 501 can be found on my learning log, along with an example of a citation page I generated using resources in my Zotero library. I also submit my use of Diigo for EDTECH 543: Social Network Learning. Diigo is a social bookmarking site that allows users to bookmark and tag webpages, highlight webpage content, and add comments via “sticky notes.” In EDTECH 543 I joined with peers in a Diigo group to build an extensive collection of bookmarks about communities of practice, connectivism, and personal learning networks. You can see the entire class’s activity here. Use of these resource-gathering tools to improve my learning and build my personal learning network illustrates my achievement of standard 3.1.

3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Seels and Richey (1994) describe diffusion of innovations as “the process of communicating through planned strategies for the purpose of gaining adoption” (p. 22). The ultimate goal of diffusion of innovations is to bring about change. To illustrate my achievement of this standard, I submit my Digital Inequality presentation created in EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology. This project involved assuming the role of a “Digital Inequality Task Force” asked to advise the “state superintendent of public instruction” on the best use of $50 million dollars allocated to her to address digital inequality issues in Idaho. My group collaborated via Google docs to generate a definition of digital inequality and an explanation of how it relates to education. We then conducted research on the proposed options for the funds and ranked them from least to most recommended. Last, we created a digital presentation with narrated slides using VoiceThread, and pitched our recommendations to the “stakeholders” for the purpose of gaining adoption. I also submit my final synthesis paper for EDTECH 504: Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology as evidence of meeting standard 3.2. In this paper, I discussed the educational theories that support the design and use of 3-D virtual worlds in education. My goal was to promote a change in the way the education community views the use of systems like SecondLife for learning. Such systems are more than “edutainment” and offer educators unique opportunities to foster learning that are grounded in established learning theory. The immediacy of positive feedback to reinforce desired behaviors via gamer scores, badges, and icons in the game world support virtual world use from a behaviorist standpoint (Charles, Charles, McNeill, Bustard, & Black, 2011). The ability to build on existing knowledge by engaging in highly realistic simulations in virtual worlds supports their use from a cognitivist perspective (Schiller, 2009). Social constructivism is foundational to making a case for the use of virtual worlds in education. These worlds allow students to construct knowledge and engage in simulated experiences that would otherwise be too costly, dangerous, or impossible in the real world (Dickey, 2011). Last, virtual worlds can be viewed as vast connectivist networks bringing novices and experts together to share and construct knowledge (Kop & Hill, 2008). This is just a sampling of the evidence I provided in my paper to support the diffusion of virtual world technology into today’s classrooms and online learning communities. 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization “Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated) settings” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47). To demonstrate my achievement of standard 3.3, I submit my Course Assistant Training course developed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. This training course was developed based on a real need in my work environment. Our institution was in need of a training course for students being requested to serve as course assistants in online courses. Typically, these students only have experience with Blackboard as students themselves, and serving as a course assistant requires them to know how to perform certain course administration functions. In addition, they have to be familiar with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations because they have access to view student grades and other protected information. This course was built in the summer of 2013, and it is currently being used at LCSC as the official training for student course assistants.

I also submit my synchronous lesson on using SoftChalk LessonBuilder from EDTECH 521: Online Teaching. This lesson was developed for synchronous delivery via Blackboard Collaborate and was delivered to a long-distance participant who teaches English for the Idaho Digital Learning Academy. According to Rice (2012), synchronous communication tools are appropriate to use for learning situations that require participants to demonstrate mastery of particular skills. The Collaborate platform allowed me to share the SoftChalk application with the participant so I could perform a live demonstration of the program’s features. I then transferred control of the cursor to my participant to enable him to demonstrate his ability to perform those same functions on his own. These examples clearly demonstrate my ability to implement instruction in real settings, thus satisfying standard 3.3. 3.4 Policies and Regulations According to Seels and Richey (1994), “policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society that affect diffusion and use of Instructional Technology” (p. 47). An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “identify and apply policies which incorporate professional ethics within practice (3.4.2)” and “identify policies and regulations which apply to the utilization, application, and integration of distance delivery technologies (3.4.5)” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 24). To demonstrate my achievement of sub-component 3.4.2, I submit my plagiarism instructional videos created in EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology. In EDTECH 501, I used Xtranormal to create two short instructional videos that define three types of plagiarism: non-attribution, self-plagiarism, and patch writing. The videos are aimed at 9th-12th grade students and college-level students, and are meant to inform them of the potential legal consequences and the ethical implications of committing plagiarism. According to DavidsonShivers and Rasmussen (2006), “the advent of the Web has made access to and improper use of work written or produced by others a relatively widespread phenomenon” (p. 192). To combat this issue at my own institution, these videos are currently integrated into the online Blackboard student orientation course in which our online students are enrolled. I submit my “Accessibility for Online Educators” webpage as an example of my achievement of sub-component 3.4.5. This webpage is targeted to online instructors who teach at LCSC. The webpage defines accessibility and provides links to detailed information about sections 504 and 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. These sections deal with accessibility of content provided in college courses, including those courses delivered via web-based course management systems like Blackboard. To help online instructors comply with these regulations and meet the accessibility needs of their students the webpage provides links to a variety of software tools for captioning video and audio content and creating speech-to-text transcripts.

STANDARD 4: MANAGEMENT 4.1 Project Management “Project management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional design and development projects” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 50). To demonstrate my project management skills, I submit my course planning site for EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. I managed this course design project by utilizing the steps of web-based instructional design (WBID). These steps include problem analysis (outcomes, context, and learners), analysis of the instructional content, evaluation planning, concurrent design (WBI preplanning and design tasks), instructional and motivational strategy planning, implementation planning, and summative evaluation of the initial implementation of the project (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). In the analysis stage of the project, I defined the nature of the instructional problem, developed a preliminary goal statement for the training, detailed the instructional context, and generated a detailed analysis of the target learners. In the second stage of analysis, I developed a learning task map to track the main steps necessary to accomplish the course goals. I then mapped the steps defined in the LTM to their respective outcome levels by creating a task-objectiveassessment item blueprint. The TOAB is used to “align the WBI objectives and assessment items with the learning task items and outcome levels” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 116). Evaluation planning involved developing an evaluation matrix to establish criteria for evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the goals, content, technology and message design to be used in the course. “This early planning allows the designer to review the WBI products of design and development for their strengths and weaknesses and revise them accordingly” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 136). I also planned for a series of tryouts designed to provide feedback during development. Last, I developed plans for summative evaluation of the course’s effectiveness, efficiency and appeal. These summative evaluations are distinct from the summative evaluations designed to assess learner achievement of the course objectives. The concurrent design phase involved developing a project timeline using a Gantt chart to map development activities and completion times. I also created a WBI flowchart to “establish navigational specifications for the website and provide an outline of the instructional sequence” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 257). Next, I developed storyboards of the course and unit layouts to illustrate where the graphic elements would appear in the CMS interface (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). A final aspect of concurrent design was defining the instructional and motivational strategies to be considered when developing the web-based instruction. The motivational strategies selected were based on the ARCS model and include strategies that focus learner attention, establish relevance for the learner, instill confidence, and create learner satisfaction (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). Implementation planning involved assigning duties to personnel and determining implementation costs, identifying initial learner contact, identifying technical requirements and preparing for technical support, and establishing means of communication with course participants. Because

this course was designed in the summer, I was unable to implement it with real students. However, I developed a summative evaluation plan for evaluating the course after its first full deployment, which is taking place this fall (2013). The summative evaluation plan includes an update of the evaluation criteria for assessing the course’s effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal, and it includes links to the summative evaluation tools developed to assess learner achievement of the objectives in the training course. 4.2 Resource Management “Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling resource support systems and services,” including instructional resources (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). As evidence of my achievement of this standard, I submit this Training Resources video showcasing the YouTube channel I manage and the Blackboard training courses I’ve built as part of my job as an instructional designer for LCSC. I created the majority of the instructional tutorials housed on my department’s YouTube channel, and I am responsible for ensuring that the videos are up-todate and open for sharing via links and embedding. Along with being available via the YouTube channel, the majority of this content is embedded in the online Blackboard training courses I’ve created. These training courses are designed to be entirely asynchronous, self-paced, and open for LCSC instructors to enroll and disenroll at their prerogative. As such, the trainings serve a double duty: they provide guided instruction for using Blackboard, and they serve as repositories of information that instructors can browse through to locate specific information on a topic they’re having trouble with. 4.3 Delivery System Management According to Seels and Richey (1994), “delivery system management involves planning, monitoring and controlling ‘the method by which distribution of instructional materials is organized’...” (p. 51). An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can determine hardware and software guidelines, plan for technical support, and develop or provide guidelines for various types of system users (Earle & Persichitte, 2005). As evidence of my achievement of standard 4.3, I submit my concurrent design work for my Course Assistant Training course developed in EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. Prior to developing an initial prototype of WBI, “the designer must take care of technical issues that could affect prototype development” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 265). Following Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen’s (2006) recommendations on pages 265-269, I developed solutions for a series of potential technical concerns related to the CMS and my institution’s CMS hosting servers. I also developed a “solution summary” to address general technical concerns, server capabilities, browser compatibility, ADA compliance, and quality assurance. These two elements demonstrate my ability to attend to hardware and software issues and technical support concerns related to information delivery systems. I also submit my webpages created in EDTECH 502: The Internet for Educators as an example of delivery system management. In EDTECH 502, I learned how to program W3C-compliant web pages for delivering instructional content via a web browser. Each web page created for the course required careful consideration of design principles, accessibility requirements, and

content format to ensure optimal functionality for a web-based delivery system. At the time of creation, all of my web pages passed W3-C validation. In addition to learning how to follow the programming protocols for a web-based content delivery system, I also learned how to manage the “back-end” file storage for this type of delivery system. The web pages created for 502 had to be housed on the EdTech web server, and I had to learn how to use file transfer protocol software to establish identical remote and local file folder structures. This was necessary to ensure proper functionality of navigational links and content links for all of the pages I built. (View the mirrored file management system I created for my EDTECH 502 work and my entire EdTech portfolio.) My work with web page building and remote file management demonstrates my ability to manage an information delivery system. 4.4 Information Management “Information management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling the storage, transfer, or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). An M.E.T candidate who has achieved this standard can “access and utilize a variety of information sources for their professional benefit” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 25). To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit my use of Twitter in EDTECH 543: Social Network Learning. According to Murray (2013), “Twitter chats have evolved into an excellent, differentiated form of professional development.” To utilize this emerging form of professional development, I was tasked in EDTECH 543 with “following” at least five Twitter hash tags related to my professional field. I chose to follow the Idaho Educators Chat (#IDedchat), Northwest Managers of Educational Technology (#nw/met), Pedagogy and Technology (#patue), Inside Online Learning (#iolchat), and Blackboard (#blackboard). I used the web app TweetDeck to follow the “tweets” for each of these hash tags. I shared a brief description of these hash tags, three professional development concepts learned from following them, and my thoughts on using Twitter for professional development on the EDTECH 543 Facebook page and my EdTech 543 Blog. On a similar note, my use of RSS feeds in EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology also demonstrates achievement of standard 4.4. RSS feeds, or really simple syndication feeds, are summaries of web content containing links to the full version of the content. To subscribe to a website’s RSS feed, a person needs to configure a “feed reader,” of which there are numerous varieties available on the web. Like TweetDeck, a feed reader can be configured to pull RSS feeds from multiple sources for easy browsing of content related to ones professional field. I no longer maintain a feed reader in favor of using TweetDeck to follow professional development sources, but my experience with using RSS feeds in EDTECH 501 demonstrates my versatility with accessing and utilizing a variety of information sources for my professional development.

STANDARD 5: EVALUATION 5.1 Problem Analysis “Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by using information-gathering and decision-making strategies” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). An M.E.T. candidate who has achieved this standard can “conduct needs assessments, identify and define problems, identify constraints, identify resources, define learner characteristics, and define goals and objectives in instructional systems design, media development and utilization, program management, and evaluation” (Earle & Persichitte, 2005, p. 29). The purpose is to use this information to improve instruction, projects, and programs. To demonstrate my achievement of standard 5.1, I submit my Evaluation Report from EDTECH 505: Evaluation. For this project, I conducted an evaluation of an online training program offered at my institution for the Respondus LockDown Browser. To conduct this program evaluation, I engaged in several aspects of problem analysis. In the “Purpose of Evaluation” (p. 5) section of my evaluation report, I explained why the identified program was in need of evaluation and defined the goals of the evaluation. I also described the stakeholders involved in the evaluation and how the results of the evaluation report might impact each. (In this situation, defining the stakeholders is akin to defining learner characteristics.) In the “Background Information” (p. 6-8) section of the report, I further defined the nature and parameters of the problem by explaining the original purpose of the program being evaluated, the current state of the program, the personnel tied to the program, and the program’s objectives and characteristics. This part of the problem analysis provided the context for understanding the evaluation design and the discussion of the evaluation results. I also conducted an extensive problem analysis for my Instructional Design Project in EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. In Part 1 (p. 4) of the project, I defined the goal of the instruction and described the major strategy used to design the instruction, which was primarily supplantive due to the procedural nature of the information to be learned. I also provided a detailed rationale for the teaching strategies selected to deliver the instruction, which was direction instruction with demonstrations, followed by guided practice. According to Smith and Ragan (2005), the best strategy for teaching procedural knowledge is “a straightforward presentation of the procedure with demonstrations of the applications of the procedure, rather than having the learners struggle with discovering the procedure for themselves” (p.192). This strategy was selected after conducting a “Needs Analysis Survey” (p. 5-6) of twenty members of the target audience. The survey was designed to gather data about participants’ proficiency with technology and their preferred methods of learning. In the “Learning Context Description” (p. 8), I described the learning context, which was the e-Learning Services Training Lab, and the Transfer Context, which was each participant’s personal Blackboard course. Last, I provided a detailed description of the learners, including academic background, gender, age range, current proficiency with technology, and motivation for learning.

5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement “Criterion-referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery of prespecified content” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). To demonstrate achievement of this standard, I submit the assessment measures I created for my “Course Assistant Training” course from EDTECH 512: Online Course Design. According to Smith and Ragan (2005), “when developing criterion-referenced instruments, designers use the precise objectives that they developed” and they “write items that match a goal or objective in terms of conditions presented and performance required” (p. 104). This Module 1 Assessment document contains a screenshot of the learning objectives I wrote for module 1 of the training course. Beneath the objectives are the test questions I wrote to assess achievement of these objectives. Note that the assessment items use the same terminology as that used in the learning objectives, and the assessment items ask the learners to indicate the correct answer using the same performance indicator specified in the objective. For example, the last two objectives ask students to identify information that can or cannot be released without written consent from the student. The assessment item for this objective provides a list of different types of student information and asks learners to identify them as “can be released” or “cannot be released” using a matching style question type. Another example of my ability to construct criterion-referenced assessment measures comes from my asynchronous lesson on Elements, Compounds, and Mixtures created in EDTECH 521: Online Teaching. One of the objectives for this lesson is to identify substances as elements, compounds, or mixtures. In the lesson, I provided an assessment activity that requires students to sort “cards” into the correct category of element, compound, or mixture. I also included several questions in a quiz group aimed at assessing learners’ ability to identify substances as elements, compounds, or mixtures. In these assessments students are asked to identify given substances rather than generating their own examples of elements, compounds or mixtures. This aligns with the performance level indicated in the lesson objective. 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation “Formative evaluation is the process of evaluating the instructional product during its design and development” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 133). Formative evaluation includes review of the design materials by an expert reviewer, learner validation, and ongoing review (Smith & Ragan, 2005). As evidence of my ability to engage in formative evaluation, I submit my Instructional Design Project for EDTECH 503: Instructional Design. In the “Formative Evaluation Plan” (p. 24-25), I described the qualifications of the expert reviewer and detailed the three phases of learner validation: one-to-one evaluation, small-group evaluation, and field trials (Smith & Ragan, 2005). The first phase, one-to-one evaluation, is conducted to “determine and rectify any gross problems in the instruction” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 329). I created a series of questions to ask of the participants at the end of the one-to-one evaluation stage to determine any major design flaws (6b, p. 24). I developed plans for small-group evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the changes made from the one-to-one evaluation and to see how well the instruction worked with more varied learners (Smith & Ragan, 2005). I created a set of follow-up questions for this

phase of the evaluation, as well (6c, p. 24). Last, I planned for a field trial to determine the effectiveness of the instructional materials with a large group of participants (Smith & Ragan, 2005), and I developed evaluation questions to be distributed to the participants at the end of the field trial. In the “Formative Evaluation Report” (p. 25-26), I listed the questions asked of the expert reviewer regarding the instructional materials. His responses were summarized in the “Report of Expert Reviewer” (7b, p. 26). My plan for incorporating the expert reviewer’s suggestions is described in the “Designer’s Response to Review” (7c, p. 26). According to Seels and Richey (1994), “summative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization” (p. 57). Summative evaluations are conducted at the end of a program to determine if the program should continue “as-is,” if changes need to be made, or if it should be discontinued. The summative evaluation process involves documenting program processes, measuring attainment of program goals, and conducting a cost-benefits analysis if applicable (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2011). My Evaluation Report for EDTECH 505: Evaluation was a summative evaluation of an online training program for the Respondus LockDown Browser. To conduct this evaluation, I described in detail in the “Background Information” (p. 6-8) section of the report the existing state of the training program being evaluated. This included describing the institution’s rationale for creating the training, the learning objectives of the training, the personnel involved with the training, and the manner in which the training is conducted. I gathered data on the number of instructors who have completed the training, the number of Blackboard courses in which the tool is in use, the average time spent completing the training, and the time spent developing the training. This information was used to generate a cost analysis table (p. 17) to facilitate the stakeholders’ decision-making regarding renewing the software license for the program. I also gathered existing data regarding correct implementation of the software upon completion of the training, and I analyzed participant feedback surveys regarding the efficacy and appeal of the online training program. The results of this information were described in the “Discussion of Results” (p. 16) for the purpose of providing stakeholders with information for making decisions about whether or not to modify the current program’s objectives, content, or instructional methods. 5.4 Long-Range Planning Long-range planning involves “trying to decide in the present what must be done to ensure organizational success in the future” (Certo, Husted, Douglas, & Hartl, 1990, p. 168). An M.E.T candidate who can develop a long-range strategic plan demonstrates achievement of standard 5.4 (Earle & Persichitte, 2005). In EDTECH 501: Introduction to Educational Technology, I developed a hypothetical “Technology Use Plan” to address the long-range technology use goals of a small four-year college. In the rationale, I described the need for long-range planning, which included meeting national standards for academic programs and providing a sense of campus-wide buy-in regarding technology use. I described the planning team and stakeholders, the overall process of long-range planning, and the types of instruments to be used to conduct a needs assessment of current technology use on the campus. The plan included long-range goals and objectives, considerations for faculty and staff development, and a process for evaluating

achievement of the plan’s goals and objectives. The final component of the technology use plan was the development of a timeline for completing each component described in the plan. The “Conclusions and Recommendations” section of my Evaluation Report for EDTECH 505: Evaluation also illustrates my achievement of standard 5.4. As part of an evaluation report, the evaluator is often tasked with making recommendations regarding the “short-term and long-term actions that will improve the program” (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2011, p. 196). In the “Conclusions and Recommendations” (p. 18), I provided two long-range recommendations. My first recommendation expressed my concern with the limited scope of the learning objectives in the training program. I recommended modifying the training to include a more authentic method to assess learner achievement of the program objectives, such as a performance assessment of the skills taught in the training. This could require an extensive redesign of the training program, necessitating a full cycle of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. My second long-range recommendation was to suggest that someone conduct a summative evaluation of how the training program is promoted on campus in order to identify what is currently being done and what might be done to increase awareness and use of the program. It could conceivably take several semesters to conduct both of these evaluations, examine the results, make changes, implement, and reassess. Conclusion Thus, we come to the end of my educational journey through the Ed Tech program at Boise State University. I believe this showcase of my work demonstrates beyond a doubt that I have achieved the standards selected by the Ed Tech program to describe a Master of Educational Technology. Through this program, I have gained access to new technologies, new strategies for implementing technology, new network connections, and opportunities to continue my professional growth as an instructional designer and educational technologist.

REFERENCES Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2011). The ABCs of evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Certo, S. C., Husted, S. W., Douglas, M. E., & Hartl, R. J. (1990). Business (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Charles, D., Charles, T., McNeill, M., Bustard, D., & Black, M. (2011). Game-based feedback for educational multi-user virtual environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 638-654. Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instructions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davidson-Shivers, G. V. & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Dickey, M. D. (2011). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the affordances and constraints of Active Worlds and Second Life with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 1-20. Earle, R. S. & Persichitte, K. A. (Eds.). (2005). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and educational technology specialist programs. (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.siteym.com/resource/resmgr/AECT_Documents/AECTstandardsREV2005.pdf Finkelstein, J. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lohr, L. L. (2008). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Murray, T. (2013). Utilizing Twitter chats for professional development. SmartBlog on Education. Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/education/2013/03/27/utilizing-twitterchats-for-professional-development/ Rice, K. (2012). Making the move to K-12 online teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Schiller, S. Z. (2009). Practicing learner-centered teaching: Pedagogical design and assessment of a Second Life project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 369-381.

Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd Ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.