Page 1



M.E.T. Portfolio Rationale Paper

Anthony C. Saba

Boise State University

Author Note

Anthony Saba is a Graduate Assistant and a Masters Candidate in the department of Educational Technology. Email:



M.E.T. Portfolio Rationale Paper

What is Educational Technology? This is a question often asked when I tell people about my studies. Indeed, this was one of the first questions I was asked in Edtech 501: An Introduction to Educational technology. At the time, what immediately came to mind was the image of computers, disks, cameras and other forms of software and hardware. You know: technology. It seemed such a simple question. Now looking back I realize this is the same misconception so many make when thinking about the use of technology in education; they focus on the technology. One of the most important messages I have come to understand during my studies is that Educational Technology is, more than anything, about learning and about facilitating learning, technology merely being a tool towards achieving that end. I’ve certainly learned how to use technology while in the M.E.T. program, as I hoped and expected I would. But more importantly, I’ve learned what it is to be an educator who enables learners to think, reflect, produce, collaborate, corroborate, take risks and construct meaning with others and for themselves. The words of Thomas Szasz now ring truer to me than ever: “People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates” (Szasz, 1973, as cited in “The Quote Garden”, n.d.) Like the self, I’ve come to understand that knowledge is something neither given nor found, but rather is something each must create for him or herself while reflectively and actively interacting with others and the world. In this paper I’ve mapped nearly 45 artifacts I’ve produced to the standards defined by the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) while in the Boise State University Master of Educational Technology (M.E.T.) program. The purpose is to show what I’ve learned and to demonstrate who it is that I’ve become; how I’ve defined my self through the activity of creating each one; and the processes I now incorporate in my



own learning and instruction. For as Seymour Papert believed, “students will learn more effectively if they set their own problems, build their own knowledge and express ideas through mediums which foster direct experience”(McDonald & Ingvarson, 1997, p.517). These artifacts have been the mediums of my learning and represent that which I’ve learned. As such, for each artifact I shall explain: (1) why I’ve selected it for this portfolio; (2) how it demonstrates mastery of the standards to which they are mapped; (3) my understanding and utilization of underlying theories while producing them; and (4) how the development of the artifacts and, indeed, the artifacts themselves have affected me as a professional. I’ve laid out the description linearly according to the order in which I have taken my courses so as to reflect my growth throughout the process.

Edtech 501: Introduction to Educational Technology Edtech 501 was the first of two courses I took in the summer of 2009. It was my first foray into the field of educational technology and I went into the class with both enthusiasm and apprehension. I’ve chosen two artifacts from this course to present.

501 Technology Use Plan 1.4.a, 2.1.3, 2.4.7, 3.2.1, 3.3.3, 4.1.1, 4.2.1 This was the first major project I was required to do in the Edtech program. The project required creating a technology use plan for an institution and I chose to use the university that I am employed by in Korea, Hongik university as the site for the plan. I used a two part approach: in the first half I describe the requirements for and process of making a technology use plan; in the second half I propose a technology use plan for Hongik University. To construct the artifact I used PowerPoint to create the slides and exported it using iSpringPresenter. This was the first time I had ever created a narrated slideshow and I found it quite difficult. After several attempts at using an outline of what I wanted to say, I realized



that it would be best to write out the whole script and read it while doing the recording in order to get it to sound more professional. I was quite satisfied with both the content of the presentation and the layout of it and felt I produced a professional grade product. This was my first major success in the M.E.T. program, and it gave me confidence going forward, both in my ability to create a professional product as well as my ability to learn how to use new technologies, such as iSpring, on my own. The tech use plan artifact meets many of the AECT standards. It’s development required doing a needs assessment (1.4.a), using presentation application software (2.1.3), using audio and video files (2.4.7), identifying strategies for adoption of innovations in learning communities (3.2.1), identifying strategies for maintaining use after adoption (3.3.3), applying project management techniques (4.1.1) and applying resource management techniques (4.2.1).

501 Synthesis Paper 2.1.1, 5.4.1 The Edtech 502 synthesis paper assignment was one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in the M.E.T. program. Not only was the first piece of academic writing in the program but also for me in twelve years. The project involved four challenges: first was learning the APA guidelines and properly applying them to the format of the paper including the title page, the abstract, in-line citations and the references section; second was the selection of a topic on which to research and write about; third was learning the process of researching including the use of the online library, the locating of relevant research, determining if the research was quality research (i.e., peer reviewed journal articles), reading and taking notes on the located resources, and organizing the research for the paper; last was the process of writing the paper and synthesizing what I had learned. This required an enormous amount of time, discipline and



perseverance. The synthesis paper meets standard 2.1.1 in that it involved the use of a variety of technical tools to produce the text to communicate information. The tools used included the online library, web resources related to successful research and writing, a word processor and references tools for keeping track of research citations and references. The paper also meets standard 5.4.1 through the content of the paper. This paper studied the benefits of technology use in education and identified benefits ranging from improving scores and attitudes to acting as a catalyst for change in pedagogy. Thus, this paper helped me to form an overall picture of the various ways in which technology can improve education and provided me with the information I need to act as an agent for positive and effective integration of technology in education both in the near and long term. Edtech 502: The Internet for Educators I was very excited to take the Edtech 502 course since I had been wanting to improve my knowledge of web design for quite some time. Prior to the course I had some experience with HTML and Flash, but I wanted to know more about using CSS. I was also interested in learning how I could design web pages for my classes. I’ve chosen to include most of the web pages I designed and developed in the course because each was a stepping stone in my personal growth. I will not describe the requirements of the assignment since it is apparent. I will instead focus on my approach to each project.

502 Accessibility Lesson 1.1.2.b, 3.4.2 This artifact meets standards 3.4.2 and 1.1.2.b by considering the ethics of creating web content that takes into account the needs of all learners by incorporating accommodations for learners with special needs. To do so I used a color scheme and contrast that were accessible to those with visual impairments as well as a larger size font. I also



included descriptors for links and images so that those utilizing screen readers could access the page. Prior to this lesson I considered the adding of link and image descriptors to be something of a nuisance and generally disregarded doing so. This lesson helped me to realize the importance of including them, for I hadn’t understood the benefits they provided and hadn’t even been aware of screen reading technology.

502 Copyright Scavenger Hunt 2.4.1, 2.4.4, 3.4.3 Including images and multimedia in websites makes them more attractive, memorable and interesting. The copyright scavenger hunt activity, indeed all the web pages developed in Edtech 502 meet standard 2.4.1 in that they all required the use of authoring tools to produce hypermedia and multimedia instructional materials. One of the interesting things I learned in this lesson was how to incorporate a Youtube video into the web page and still get it to pass the XHTML 1.0 Transitional certification. This was despite the fact that it was believed to not be possible. It bothered me that it could not pass and I spent hours searching the web for a solution. I finally found one and got my page to pass and from there shared the method with the rest of the class. Using other websites and web resources for the lesson meets standards 2.4.4. The development of this instruction on copyright also informed me on copyright law as well as exceptions and guidelines outlined in fair use. This lesson helped me to understand the importance of protecting copyright and meets standard 3.4.3.

502 Jigsaw activity 2.4.1, 2.4.4 The jigsaw activity was one of the first lessons in the M.E.T. program where I created something which provided for cooperative learning. Weidman and Bishshop (2009) point out that jigsaw activities encourage interdependence and individual accountability while



providing for cooperative learning (p. 52). I chose to create an activity which explored the geography, history, demographics and famous sites of America. A component of learning a language is understanding the culture of those who speak the language. As such, I often teach my students various things about the United States that will help them to better understand the social, historical and cultural aspects of the language. Also, many of my students plan to study, travel or do business in the United States so this lesson helps them prepare for immerging themselves in the culture. While creating the site I learned to use various image editing features to blend pictures when creating a heading. I also learned to incorporate a table in the page. This lesson meets standards 2.4.1 and 2.4.4 by linking to various web resources.

502 M-learning 3.1.2, 3.3.1 I’ve seen the potential for mobile technology in education for some time now and anticipated this lesson greatly. As Zurita and Nussbaum (2007) note, mobile learning is a new and exciting field in educational technology which adds a new dimension to learning by offering motivating and dynamic environments with anytime and anywhere connections (p. 4). One of my goals when teaching is to get my students to not only use what they learn beyond the classroom but to also use opportunities outside the classroom to learn. Mobile technology has great potential in helping me to achieve this. I decided to modify a lesson I’d been using for some time to make use of mobile technology. The lesson typically involves having my university students generate various questions they might ask “foreigners” if they had a chance to meet them. I then have them go out into Seoul with partners and a video camera to meet foreigners and to interview them. They are required to take video of the interview (with permission of course) and then use the video to present to the class what they learned from their conversations. This mobile learning lesson has the students ask foreigners about their favorite places in Seoul that they frequently



visit. The students are to then search for the locations of the places on their cell phone using Google maps and then visit those locations using Google maps to find them. I have not yet had the chance to use this lesson for my classes because not enough students have had cell phones that are capable of supporting the lesson. However, I expect that within two years enough students will have smart phones which will make the lesson feasible. This lesson meets standards 3.1.2 (use educational communications and instructional technology) and 3.3.1 (use appropriate materials and strategies in various learning contexts).

502 Virtual Field Trip 2.4.5 The virtual tour was the biggest project in the Summer 2009 course. It required multiple pages and the use of a CSS template. This is also the project that I am most proud of from this course. I spent a great deal of time developing the color schemes and banners for each page. I also incorporated Google maps and embedded a variety of Youtube videos. I created this as an extension of the concept map lesson in order to helps my students gain a more in depth knowledge of New York City. This lesson also provides for the integration of assessment of learner reading comprehension and writing abilities in the lesson. This lesson meets standard 2.4.5.

Edtech 503: Instructional Design “Instructional Design refers to the systematic and reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources and evaluation� (Smith & Ragan, 2005, pg. 4). When first starting the Edtech 503 I had no idea that it would be one of the keystone courses in the Educational Technology program. I had a system for designing my instruction, but it was my system and it was hardly systematic. This course helped me to see the connection between theory, goals,



objectives, instruction and evaluation and set the foundation for everything else I was to learn in my other courses.

503 Intro to Instructional Design Slideshow 1.1.b, 1.1.c One of the first big assignments in the instructional design course was to create a slideshow in which we described or explained: the history of instructional design and a definition of it; six different models used by instructional designers; and constructivism, empiricism, behaviorism and information processing theory. One of the requirements of the project was to select pictures and create metaphors when describing the theories. Such images, as Clark and Lyons (2004) point out, help in the creation of mental models that assist in the comprehension of hard to grasp concepts such as learning theories (p.159). I now can’t help but to imagine the x-ray of Homer Simpson’s head when I think of Behaviorism. This project meets standard 1.1.b through the identification and description of various instructional systems models. It meets 1.1.c through the identification of various learning theories and how they are related to the instructional design models. Overall, I found this project to be very helpful in consolidating an understanding of the various models and theories. It was also the first time I used the slideshow feature of Google Documents, something which I’ve subsequently used rather frequently in my own teaching.

Instructional Design Project 1 503 ID1

1.1.a, 1.1.b,, 1.3.b, 1.4.b, 1.4.c, 5.1.1, 5.2.1,

Instructional Design Project One (ID1), was the first of two major assignments in the course. ID1 was based on a simulated need for in-service teacher training and required (1) the selection of and rationalization for an instructional design model; (2) a hypothetical front end



analysis including an analysis of the context, learner and tasks (and a survey); (3) the writing of objectives and outcome levels; (4) development of formative and summative assessment items; and (5) creating a Task Objective-Assessment Item Blueprint (TOAB) table to align tasks, objectives, outcomes and assessment. Overall, this project was very complex and time consuming despite being only a simulation. This project meets many of the AECT standards, particularly those related to standard 1. Standard 1.1.a is met through the specification of optimal conditions for learning defined as a result of a front end analysis survey. The selection and justification for using the Smith and Ragan instructional design model (Smith & Ragan, 2005) meets standards 1.1.b, 1.3.b, and 1.4.b. Moreover, the front end analysis component of this project meets standard 5.1 (problem analysis) and the development of criterion-referenced assessments (formative and summative rubrics) meet standard 5.2.1. Following is a look at each component of the ID1 project and how further AECT standards have been met through this project.

503 ID1-Context Analysis & Learner Analysis 1.1.1.b Smith and Ragan (2005) point out that it is critical to take a systems approach to instruction (p. 50) and to consider beyond the immediate learning system (p. 49). With this in mind, my context analysis looked at the various personnel including present and past managers and instructors and looked to bring to light any political or social issues existing in the learning environment. The analysis also looked at various aspects of the physical and technological infrastructure as well as other climate and human factors such as lighting, heating/cooling and refreshment availability. By doing the context analysis from a systems perspective I have become much more aware of factors beyond the learner or the lesson itself that can influence achievement of



objectives. I now pay much more attention to the comfort of my students, for example glare on the board, temperature of the room, broken desks, and so forth. I’ve even begun to provide cough drops to students who may have a cough and encourage my students to bring snacks to class (within certain guidelines). The learner analysis included a research of the literature, an emailed survey and interviews of potential stakeholders. Doing the survey (simulated), in particularly, made me realize how many things I’ve taken for granted about my learners (e.g., technological ability). I also realized that I hadn’t been taking into account previous knowledge or interests of my learners when I do my instruction. I have begun to use surveys of my learners at the beginning of a semester in order to assess their individual needs as well as the abilities, knowledge and experiences they are bringing to the class. I remind myself to take heed of the warning Smith and Ragan (2005) provide: “during learning analysis you should not be thinking of what learners should be like or what they need to know, but what they are like and what they do know” (p. 58).

503 ID1 Task Analysis 1.1.1.b I created an information processing analysis of the procedures involved in creating a narrated slideshow, uploading the slideshow to Youtube and posting the URL to a course forum and subsequently creating a Youtube channel in which the theme is changed, and comments and subscriptions are made. I used the program Inspiration® to create the task analysis flow chart. Conducting the task analysis helped me to understand the difference between the how and the what of my teaching, as Smith and Ragan (2005) state, “A key aspect of instructional design is that we separate making decisions about how to instruct from conceptions of what it is we are going to teach.” (p.85).



503 ID1 TOAB 1.1.1.a, 1.1.1.c, 1.1.5.c, I found the task objective-assessment item blueprint (TOAB) to be one of the most useful tools of the instructional design process. While completing the TOAB, I realized the importance of aligning the tasks, objectives, outcomes (Gagné’s Categories of Learning), and assessment items. I had previously learned both Gagné and Blooms’ categories of learning, but I had not been using them in my regular instruction. This exercise (as well as the Edtech512 TOAB) helped me to see the value in matching goals to outcomes, which “provide clues as to how to teach and assess student learning of the goal” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 78). It also provided me with much needed practice in matching them. I now feel confident in matching goals and outcomes and now consider them regularly in my instructional design and lesson planning. Constructing the TOAB fulfilled standard 1.1.1.a through the writing of objectives for specific content and outcome levels. I used the three component objectives described by Smith and Ragan (2005) in which I included (1) terminal behaviors, (2) conditions of demonstration and (3) a description of the standard or criterion (p. 97). It also fulfills standards 1.1.1.c through the categorization of the objectives using Gagné’s categories of learning. Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, it meets standard 1.1.5.c, demonstrating congruency across objectives, strategies and assessment measures.

503 ID1 Rubric 1.1.5.a The final part of ID1 was the construction of formative and summative rubrics. I had seen and used rubrics several times in my teaching, but these were, admittedly, the first comprehensive rubrics I had created of my own. As a result of this lesson I’ve now made rubrics a regular part of my teaching and have found them invaluable in not only assessing



my students’ work but also in defining expectations for students. These rubrics partially fulfill standard 1.1.5.a (other forms of assessment in other courses complete fulfillment of this standard). Instructional Design project one was the first major instructional design project I did and it prepared me well for doing instructional design project two as well as the online course I later developed in Edtech512: Online Course design. I was both humbled and honored when Dr. Perkins requested to use my project as an exemplar for the course.

Instructional Design Project Two Instruction Design Project two (ID2) was the culminating project for the course. For this project I created and implemented a full unit of instruction for making various types of project-based slideshows using Windows Movie Maker and YouTube. This included instructor’s materials as well as learner materials. Development of materials and implementation of the unit were not required. Whereas ID1 focused on the front-end analysis this project focuses on the design and evaluation (formative) stages of ADDIE. The project included a simple needs analysis, the selecting and justifying an instructional strategy, a simple front-end analysis, the listing of objectives, the construction of an objectives matrix (based on Bloom’s taxonomy), an instructional and motivational strategies plan (based on ARCS), an instructor’s guide, an outline of the learning materials, assessment materials and technology tool rationale and finally an evaluation plan. In order to complete the development and implementation of the ADDIE process, along with the report I also developed a website which included the materials to be used for the instructor and the learner. This was later implemented in an instructor technology workshop at the university where I work. I plan to do an evaluation of the workshop the next time I do one.



503 ID2 1.1.a, 1.1.2.a, 1.1.3.a, 1.1.5.b, 1.4.b, 1.4.c, 4.2.1, 5.1.1, 5.2.1 ID2 fulfilled many of the AECT standards, particularly standards 1 and 5. Standard 1.1.a was met through the front-end analysis of the learners and the context. Standard 1.1.2.a was also met with the creation of a plan for a topic of a content area, in this case an entire unit of instruction for various types of slideshows. Standard 1.1.3.a was met through the development of the actual learning materials including Youtube training videos and exemplars of previous students’ work. The project also included a formative evaluation which meets standard 1.1.5.b. The front-end analysis of the context and the learners meets standards 1.4.b and 1.4.c. The development of the instructor’s guide and the implementation of the unit in a workshop meets standard 4.2.1 by demonstrating the application of resource management techniques. Standard 5.1.1 is met through the problem analysis in an educational technology context and standard 5.2.1 is accomplished through the development of a criterion referenced measure in the form of a rubric on the website. The meeting of other standards is further looked at in the objectives matrix, ARCS table and website resources below.

503 ID2 Objectives Matrix 1.1.1.a, 1.1.1.c When discussing the trade-offs between generative and supplantive instructional strategies, Smith and Ragan state that: “the designer must balance…the need to require sufficient mental effort to lead toward learning, and the need to support the learners’ processing sufficiently in a way that does not overload their working memory” (p. 143). When designing strategies to meet the objectives, I chose to use primarily supplantive methods due to the fact that this workshop focused on the teaching of how to create slideshows, which requires many domain specific technical skills.

Smith and Ragan have



stated that a supplantive approach is more likely to be effective for lessons in which time is limited, where high achievement of domain specific goals is a high priority and where all learners are expected to learn at least a minimum level of competency (2005, p. 145, p.192). The creation of the objectives matrix helped me to consider deeply the cost-benefits of using generative and supplantive methods of instruction. Prior to this activity, I had thought that one of the two methods of instruction must be better than the other. However, as Smith and Ragan point out, they are both valid and important forms of instruction each with its own advantages and drawbacks (pp. 142-146). The objectives matrix meets standards 1.1.1.a, the writing of appropriate objectives and outcome levels and standard 1.1.1.c the categorizing of objectives, in this case to Blooms taxonomy.

503 ID2 ARCS Table 1.3.d Several studies have shown that when applied to instructional design, the ARCS model can have positive motivational effects on learning (Colakoglu & Akdemir, 2010). Motivating students was always something near and dear to me. To see a student begin to nod off out of boredom is a sign to me that I am doing something wrong in my instruction. Though I had often used strategies to motivate my students, I had never before systematically planned motivational strategies for my instruction. Since learning the ARCS motivational theory, I’ve begun to incorporate it into my lesson planning and instruction and expect to use it regularly in future planning. This meets standard 1.3.d, the selection of motivational strategies.

503 ID2 Website 2.1.4, 2.2.4, 4.3.1, The development of the website component to ID2 was voluntary, yet it was also the



most rewarding part of the project. The website integrates many of the principles I’d learned in the instructional design course as well as in Edtech502 and Edtech512. The website includes an instructor’s page, student’s page as well as a designer’s page which documents the instructional design of the unit. The instructor’s page includes resources including an overview created with iSpring®, the instructor’s guide and other instructional and training materials. The learner’s page has links to resources and tutorials for creating slideshows. I used the website for a small instructor’s workshop at the university I work at as well as with the students in my own classes. I’ve not done a formal evaluation of it, but the casual feedback I’ve gotten from students and other instructors has been good. Many of my students have commented on the fun and usefulness of slideshow projects we’ve done in class, often saying that though it was difficult and time consuming it was worthwhile. The website component meets standard 1.2.a in that it incorporates various principles of design learned in Edtech502 and Edtech512. For example, when I did the alignment of the webpage, I followed the principal of alignment that, according to Williams (2004), “nothing should be placed on the page arbitrarily. Every item should have a visual connection with something else on the page” (p. 31). I paid attention to every detail of the layout, which was very time consuming. Standard 2.1.4 is met in that the development of this site required the use of many different integrated application programs including Dreamweaver®, Microsoft Movie Maker®, Fireworks®, and more. Standard 2.2.4 is met by the use of the website in courses and the workshop which required a projector and screen. Standard 4.3.1 was met through the delivery of a workshop requiring delivery system management.

503 ID2 Website Rubric 1.1.5.a Included with the website I created a rubric for instructor’s to use. This meets



standard 1.1.5.a, utilization of a variety of assessment measures to determine adequacy of learning and instruction. The rubric is designed to measure four key criteria of the quality of the slideshow videos: length, content, language and voice, and quality of video production.

503 ID2 Website Videos 1.1.3.b, 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.3 In order to facilitate instructor and student development of slideshows to upload to YouTube, I developed a series of instructional videos. I used Camtasia to create tutorials on the use of Windows Movie Maker and the YouTube site. I made two versions of videos, one which is used for the workshop for native English instructors as well as videos that are for Korean students. In the tutorials for students I speak more slowly and use some Korean words to help reduce the cognitive load of the learning activity. These video productions meet standard 1.1, specifically 1.1.3.b, personal development with computer authoring applications, video tools and electronic communication applications. It also meets standards 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. Specifically, it fulfills: 2.1.3 by using presentation software to produce presentations and supplementary materials for instruction; 2.2.3, the use of video equipment to prepare instructional and professional products; 2.3.1, design and produce audio/video materials; and 2.3.3, the use of imaging devices to produce computer-based instructional materials.

Edtech 504: Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology The first three courses in the M.E.T. program looked primarily at practices and design in the field of educational technology. Edtech504, on the other hand, focuses on the grounding of educational practices in theory and the practices of research and writing. Having majored in Philosophy in my undergraduate, I came to this course enthusiastically wanting to understand the foundations of educational practices and beliefs. I also wanted to improve my writing and researching skills. I had previously had some experience with the theories of



behaviorism and constructivism and had heard of Dewey and Vygotsky, however I still had some difficulty in defining them. This class helped me to sort out the differences and to understand the implications of the theories on practice. Moreover, I was also introduced to a variety of other theories, models and frameworks that I had not heard of previously such as connectionism, distributed cognition, situated cognition, activity theory and connectivism as well as microworlds, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, discovery learning, scaffolding and more. Though I cannot say I have a full and complete understanding of all or any of these, I feel much more confident that I understand their basic tenets. One of the important conclusions I left this course with was one that I had already begun to formulate in Edtech503; there is no one best theory or model. As has been pointed out by others (Smith & Ragan, 2005; Vrasidas, 2000; Wilson & Myers, 2000), there are times that objectivist approaches are more appropriate and there are times when more constructivist approaches are more suitable. Learning theories and the frameworks and models designed around them are, as Vrasidas (2000) states, “tools which educators can use to make informed instructional decisions as they undertake the task of developing curricula and designing instruction” (p. 14). Below are five artifacts from the Edtech504 course which satisfy a variety of the AECT standards. 504 Microworlds –published as Google document


This was the first writing assignment in the class. I chose to write about Seymour Papert’s microworlds model of learning (McDonald & Ingvarson, 1997). I found his theory of connectionism to be very compelling and his creation of microworlds based on the theory to be fascinating. His usage of microworlds seems to foreshadow the emergence of virtual worlds such as Second life for learning and seems to be with Activity Theory and Systems theory as well. This paper was my second crack at using APA formatting while in the M.E.T.



program. One of the biggest challenges was to write within the one-page limit. I am not used to having limits on my writing (e.g., this paper) and this was truly an exercise of concise writing. I know that learning to write within limits will benefit me when I begin publishing, hopefully in the near future. This assignment fulfills standard 2.1.1, the development of professional products using a variety of technological tools, in that we were required to publish it in a Google Sites速 Wiki page, the first time I had done so.

504 Accessibility & Accommodation- YouTube Videos 2.4.1, 3.4.4 In the course, each module had two students working together to lead a class discussion. This required selecting an appropriate topic, creating questions, facilitating the discussion and finally summarizing what had been discussed. I worked with Alexis McKean (permission to use her name has been granted). We decided to do a discussion on the topic of accessibility and accommodations. Rather than using another text-based forum, we elected to create a Youtube Discussion. We created a video introducing the discussion topic, questions and method for doing it. I also created a Youtube Channel with several tutorials on how to create and post Youtube videos and video responses. We were really excited about trying a different format for the discussion, however were somewhat disappointed by the lack of class participation, since only one student, Susan Ferdon (permission to use name has been granted) made a response video. However, the video was outstanding and was a prime example of what we hoped others would have done as well. Despite few students taking the video response option, we had a relatively lively discussion in the text forum, which we also made available since we knew various other students may not be able to use Youtube for a variety of accessibility reasons. This artifact covers standard 3.4.4, in that it required us to think deeply about the issues of accessibility and accommodation as well as the utilization and integration of an



alternative instructional technology in the classroom. It also satisfies standard 2.4.1, in that we used both hypermedia and multimedia in designing the lesson.

504 Synthesis Paper 5.4.1 The synthesis paper was the culminating project in the course. I chose to do a paper on constructivism and web 2.0 in EFL education. This required me to use the skills that I had picked up in the Edtech501 course related to research, writing and the use of APA formatting. It was an extremely labor and thought intensive project but I am very proud of it and consider it one of my finest pieces of work in the M.E.T. program. Dr. Rice had even suggested I consider publishing it, something which I am still considering doing. This artifact meets standard5.4.1, the development of long-range strategic plans in that I learned a great deal about the uses of technology for language learning. I have identified several best practices for using technology in language learning as well as several problems that require further research in the field. One area in which there is some interesting research going on is in the use of mobile learning for English learning (Saran, Seferoglu, & Cagiltay, 2009; So, 2009). Through this project, I identified this as an area in which I will do further research going forward. Edtech 512: Online Course Design The Edtech512 course was a key course in the M.E.T. program for me. This course required the use of everything I’d learned in all prior courses such as: web design, communication theory, instructional design, learning theory, criterion-based assessment and more. The best part of it was that it was for a real course that I had been teaching for over four years at the time of its development. There are three types of artifacts that I present. One type is the use of technology for: (1) presenting my work as an Edtech512 student; (2) for developing the course as an



instructional designer; and (3) for using the course as an instructor. The second type is the documents that I created as an instructional designer. The third type is materials I developed for the instructor and the students of the online course I designed.

512 Project Plan Website & Moodle Course The project plan website is where I document the procedures of the instructional design of the online course I created. Moodle is the learning management system I used for the course I designed where both the instructor and students access the course materials. The development of the project plan website was my first attempt to use JavaScript, iframes, and PHP in the development of a website. I spent countless hours researching online and learning through trial and error how to integrate them. My most satisfying accomplishment was connecting the login page from my project plan website to my Moodle site. The instillation of Moodle on my own hosted server was a whole other challenge in itself. I had to learn how to use a Korean host and database (all written in Korean!) as well as how to install the Moodle site. There were many roadblocks along the way, but I managed to research my way through all of them. Once I had Moodle online I had to learn how to use the various features, particularly on the administrator and instructor’s side. I also spent a significant amount of time modifying and customizing a theme for the site.

512 Project Proposal 2.1.3 The project proposal drew from many of the concepts I learned while creating a technology use plan for Edtech501; this included the format of using an iSpringÂŽ presentation for doing so. This proposal fulfills standard 2.1.3, the use of presentation application software to produce presentations.



512 Problem Analysis 1.1.1.d, 1.1.2.b, 1.3.a, 1.3.c, 1.4.b, 1.4.c, 3.4.1 In order to do the problem analysis I followed instructional design and performance systems models which define the actuals, the optimals and the gap between them (DavidsonShivers & Rasmussen, 2006). In my problem analysis I determined that instruction was an appropriate solution to the problem. I also formulated three goals for the course and mapped them to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards (AECT 1.1.1.d; 3.4.1). The analysis also included a context and learner analysis (AECT 1.3.a; 1.3.c; 1.4.b;), determined entry level skills, and specified accommodations for learners with special needs (AECT 1.1.2.b).

512 Learning Task Map 1.1.1.b This exercise built on the experiences I had in doing a process analysis in Edtech503. I once again turned to Inspiration® to create the learning task map (LTM). The LTM used a combination analysis format because the instructional goals, major steps and sub-skills required both hierarchical and procedural analysis and ordering (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 111). The LTM exercise helped me to “see” more clearly the objectives of the course and the sub-skills required to achieve them. Prior to creating this LTM I had only had notions of the skills required of the objectives. This map helped me to understand the objectives of the course better and helped me to align them with lessons and assessment. What’s more, I’ve also use the LTM in my classes to help my learners understand the inter-relatedness of the lessons and the overall scheme of the course. They have commented on both its usefulness and complexity. The LTM has also been useful in discussing the course with other instructors who teach it; I’ve even proposed using it to work towards standardizing



course objectives for all instructors (currently there are no clearly defined goals or objectives for the course despite over 160 sections being taught by 80 instructors every semester). This map meets standard 1.1.1.b.

512 Evaluation Plan 1.1.5.b, 5.3.1 One of the important lessons I’ve taken away from the web-based instructional design (WBID) model is that evaluation is best placed early in the process of instructional design. Davidon-Shivers and Rasmussen (2006) recommend doing so immediately after the analysis phase and as soon as instructional goals have been stated (p. 134). They argue that “early planning facilitates integrating evaluation into both the design and development stages rather than at development only” (p. 134). By planning to use evaluation early on in my project I managed to avoid a few pitfalls. For example, one of the other instructors at my university pointed out that the Moodle site did not format properly at certain resolutions and on older versions of Internet Explorer®. This helped me to quickly make modifications that otherwise would not have been noticed until later in the development phase. Thanks to the early detection I was able to make some changes early on that would have been more difficult later on in the design of the site. The evaluation plan meets standard 1.1.5.b, the use of formative and summative evaluation in contextualized field of practice and standard 5.3.1, the development of formative and summative evaluation strategies.

512 Task-Objective-Assessment Item Blueprint (TOAB) 1.1.1.a, 1.1.1.c, 1.1.5.c The development of a TOAB in ID1 prepared me for the development of one for this project. The difference was that this TOAB involved many more objectives and was for a real context rather than a simulated one. Doing this TOAB helped me to solidify my



understanding of how to align tasks, objectives, outcomes and assessment. The process of writing objectives aligned to outcomes based on Gagné’s taxonomy maps to standards 1.1.1.a and 1.1.1.c.

512- Instructional and Motivational Strategies Plan 1.3.a, 1.3.d The instructional and motivational strategies plan meets standards 1.3.a and 1.3.d through the analyzing, selecting and defining of instructional strategies based on learner needs and course objectives. I was particularly impressed by the depth of such planning when done systematically. Prior to doing this (and ID2) I had used various strategies for instruction on the content, to orient my students to the learning and to motivate them, yet I realized how much more I could and should do as I considered the task systematically.

512 Moodle Storyboard & Prototype 2.2.2 The storyboard and prototype document makes specifications and standards for the development of Web based instruction. Specifications include typography, graphics and other elements of design as well as technical issues such as server access hours, cross-browser functionality and accessibility for learners with special needs. Included in the document also are a process flow-chart, which establishes navigation specifications and an outline of instructional sequence (Davidson-Shivers & Rasumssen, 2006, p.257), and a sketch prototype of the site. The process of preparing this document was very different than how I’ve previously designed websites. In the past I’d just jumped into the html and began designing and developing. This had proven to be very time consuming with a large amount of trial and error. As a result of this activity, I learned the benefits of taking the time to plan up front prior to development of the website. I now include sketching as a regular part of my web-design



strategy. This artifact maps to standard 2.2.2 through the application of development techniques for planning.

512 Implementation Plan “For an innovation to be successfully implemented, it typically needs to be used in a manner congruent with the ways it was intended to be used� (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977, as cited in Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 308). The goal of the implementation plan is to assure that the plan for instruction is implemented according to the way it is intended to be implemented so as to assure its successful use. One of the things that Ifound useful in this plan was the fact that it deals with specific details related to the instruction such as student assistant time on specific tasks.

512 Summative Evaluation Plan 1.1.5.b, 5.3.1 The final document in the course project plan is the summative evaluation plan. In order to allow for triangulation so as to verify information (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006, p. 324), the plan calls for various data sources, both quantitative and qualitative. The plan calls for (1) a pre/post course survey of the students in addition to (2) the standard university course evaluation and (3) interviews with a sample of students. I created a data collection and analysis timetable which includes a schedule for proposed and actual collection. There are links to the two evaluation surveys of the learners in the document. After completing this summative evaluation plan I realized, as Davidon-Shivers and Rasmussen (2006) point out that with a plan in hand one is more likely to actually include evaluation in the course, particularly if planning starts early in the design process (p. 60).



512 Moodle Unit 1 & Unit 4 Slideshows

Edtech 505: Evaluation for Educational Technologists Edtech505 with Dr. Thompson was one of the most labor intensive courses in the program. It was also one of the most well organized and facilitated courses in the program. I learned a great deal from Dr. Thompson’s modeling of effective online teaching. Among the many top-notch qualities he exhibited, some in particular stood out and made a lasting impression on me: (1) setting clear expectations and high standards for student work and a straight-forward no-nonsense critique of work that was sub-standard; (2) required students to post to discussion boards early in the module so as to allow for ample time for discussion; (3) participated in discussions regularly and viewed all posts, leading to a strong sense of instructor presence in the course and subsequently led to a high level of student-student interaction; (4) provided timely and effective feedback including insightful comments; (5) included a mid-term formative evaluation of the course and made clear and effective alterations in response; (6) required students to do a full review of all course materials about two-thirds of the way through the semester through a review assignment and discussion; (7) provided for ample extension assignments for extra credit; (8) not requiring, but allowing and encouraging students to explore and use alternative methods for presenting their work. I consider all of these to be key factors in creating successful online learning environments. Furthermore, these same qualities also align to the principles of best practice described by Grant and Thornton (2007, pp. 350-352). In particular, I recognize very clearly that the eighth principle which states that the practice of good pedagogy is more important than the use of technology (p. 352). Dr. Thompson, self-admittedly is not a technology guru, yet he understands and uses good pedagogy and this is what makes him most effective.



505 RFP 4.1.1, 4.2.1 The request for proposal (RFP) project was the second major assignment in the course. This required creating a response to the RFP. In the proposal I proposed a correlational mixed-method design model using both qualitative and quantitative data sources. The benefit of this assignment was that it required me to look at the overall process of evaluation and create an evaluation outline. This was good preparation for the final fullevaluation project. This artifact meets standards 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 in that it required me to take a project management perspective on evaluation. This included designing the outline of the plan as well as considering the task schedule, budget and fees, and payment schedule. By the end of this assignment I didn’t feel more confident that I could do a full evaluation, but I did have an over-all understanding of the process of an evaluation.

505 Book Review & Discussion Posting 2.1.2 As mentioned above, in the last quarter of the course we were required to do a full review of the course reading materials including a textbook review to be submitted and an online discussion of the other reading materials. I decided to create a website with a review of each chapter in which I reviewed all the main points. I also did two bonus assignments. One assignment was to propose a modification of the review lesson. I proposed using a PowerPoint slideshow and created an example of how one might be done. The second bonus was to write a possible discussion topic for reviewing the course book. I suggested using Edward de Bono’s six hat system and included an embedded video from YouTube. Incidentally, embedding the video was harder than I had imagined it to be and required me to learn how to use the position and z-index attributes in CSS. For my discussion posting I created a matrix using HTML which I styled with CSS and posted to the Blackboard discussion. I included images along with text based on the fact



that matrices produce more relational learning than just studying text alone would produce (Clark & Lyons, 2004, p. 133). The visual images also act as visual mnemonics to aid in support of memory recall (Clark & Lyons, 2004, p. 20). Demonstrating the effectiveness of these principles, several students in the class made comments that the layout of the information in a table as well as the pictures with the text helped them to remember the content better. This also meets standard 2.1.2 in that it could also be easily printed.

This assignment really impressed upon me the need for building review into the course. I think many instructors either assume learners will do it or they tell learners to simply review. Other instructors provide the review for the students, while others simply skip it all together. By having students actively reflect on what they’ve read and summarize it helps to bring all the content together and build a more coherent understanding. I also liked the idea of offering students a chance to design alternative lessons in this module. By doing so, it makes the learners feel they are part of the process of the development of the course and gives them a stronger sense of being an integral part of it- they are not just passive cogs in the class but rather active agents in its development. Additionally, it is demonstrating a good evaluation technique whereby it is embedded in a lesson. As Boulmetis and Dutwin (2000) state, “Reviewing goals, standards and activities and asking good questions that result in an effective evaluation will align the thinking and actions of all concerned� (p. 63). I think offering these types of lessons demonstrate good evaluation, instructional design and instructional strategies.

505 Dare Critique Using Prezi/Newsletter 2.1.1, 2.1.2 For this assignment we were required to critique an evaluation of the DARE program. This was very helpful in that it got us to think about what is and is not a good evaluation rather than just telling us what is and is not a good evaluation.



Dr. Thompson encouraged us to explore alternative ways of presenting information. I decided to try out two completely different formats to present the same information. One was a very traditional one- a newsletter created using Microsoft Office Publisher. The other was a very modern one based on Web 2.0 technologies- a Prezi presentation. Prezi is based on the idea of working on a canvas, like a whiteboard with the ability to move around the canvas in any way you like including rotating, zooming and panning. This was the first time I had ever used either program but I found it interesting to see how the exact same text could be presented in such varying formats. This project meets standard 2.1.1 by communicating information using a variety of technological tools and standard 2.1.2 through the production of a professional looking newsletter that can be printed.

505 Evaluation Project

1.1.5.b, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.3.1

The evaluation project was the culminating activity in the course. It was also one of the most challenging projects in the Edtech program. I did an evaluation of a verb tense unit for a business communications course in a Graduate Certificate program. The evaluation followed a correlational mixed-method goal-based design model and used both quantitative and qualitative data sources. This was the appropriate model to use since I was concerned primarily with measuring specified outcome variables of the stated objectives (Boumetis & Dutwin, 2000, pp. 76-77). For the evaluation I did data collection using instruments that I designed and extensive data analysis. This proved to be an invaluable experience for me because it gave me the confidence that I could do a professional evaluation. I also learned some valuable lessons from the data as well. For example, the data upheld my belief that the lessons do in fact help students to improve their listening ability. Not only did it reaffirm my beliefs, it also gave me data on which to support my beliefs. One surprising outcome was that although students reported enjoying a specific activity, the Alibi



Game, they didn’t feel it was as useful as I had expected they would. This evaluation conducted in a real context and was not a simulation. As such, the evaluation project meets standard 1.1.5.b, the use of evaluation within practice and a contextualized field experience. It also meets standard 4.1.1 and standard 4.2.1. through the application of management techniques and resources in various learning contexts. Standard 5.3.1, the development and application of evaluation strategies in a variety of SMET context, is also satisfied with this project.

Edtech 531: Teaching and Learning in Virtual Worlds The Virtual Teaching Worlds course was one of the most fun and exciting as well as sometimes frustrating courses in the program. It was the only synchronous course I took which made the class stimulating and fun by providing a sense of being in a physical space with other learners, something not afforded by primarily text-based asynchronous learning. This created a sense of social presence more than any other class. It was also somewhat frustrating; particularly in the beginning because the learning curve for using the technology is somewhat long. I took this course because I saw the potential for using virtual worlds and microworlds after writing my paper in the Edtech504 class on Seymour Papert’s constructionism and microworlds. As McDonald and Ingvarson (1997) point out, microworlds allow learners to explore alternatives, test hypotheses, discover facts, experiment, take risks and construct and create (p. 515). Through Second Life we were able to explore space stations and rocket ships, walk in and around the famous café in Van Goh’s Café Terrace at Night, and take a ride on a piece of plaque through the human heart, and much more. Learning in virtual worlds is also supported by systems theory, by allowing the



pushing of a system to extreme conditions and speeds and strengthening learning feedback (Sterman, 1994). As Sterman (1994) notes, effective learning from models occurs best through active participation in development of the model so as to elicit participants’ existing mental models for articulating the issues, selecting the model boundary and time horizon and mapping of causal structures (p. 30). I am now considering creating a Second Life ESL course here in Korea to test the practicality and the effectiveness of using Second Life in language learning. I plan to do this during winter recess, 2011 and may try to publish the results of the experiment.

Micro Teaching lesson 1.1.2.b, 1.1.5.a, 3.1.2, 5.2.1 The micro teaching lesson was the culminating activity in the Virtual Worlds course. A micro lesson in an online learning environment is, as defined by Snelson and Powers (2007) “development of small multimedia products such as short presentations, podcasts, or interactive simulations with a duration of approximately one to fifteen minutes” (para. 1). For this activity a partner and I developed a micro-lesson for instruction of ESL learners in Second Life. The lesson included the writing of a lesson plan, the creation of a note card to be distributed to learners in Second Life, and the design and preparation of the virtual environment. The virtual environment included the location, which was in a condo on Edtech Island, and the separation of the space into sections with walls. On either side of each wall geometric shapes of varying colors were created and stacked randomly. Learners were to stand on opposite sides of a wall with one instructing the other as to how to configure (rearrange) his or her shapes so as to match his or her own shapes. The learning objectives of the activity were related to the practice of prepositions of place, verbs for moving objects, practice using directives, practice writing and reading, and practice negotiation in communication.



Our group was the first to present a micro-lesson to the class. Participants met up in the Edtech Garden and were given note cards including the link to teleport to the location. Once arriving at the location an in-world slideshow presentation was given followed by an instructor demonstration and subsequently student practice. The lesson was designed to use only text-based communication so as to accommodate learners who were hearing impaired. The response to the lesson by other students was positive. Feedback included statements such as: “This is probably the best newb (newbie) tutorial for how to manipulate prims (virtual world objects), I love it. Nice job guys.” and “I liked it you guys, creative and fun. Would be a good prim exercise.” This artifact covers standard 1.1.2.b, the creation of instructional plans at the microlevel of design and includes accommodations for learners with special needs. It meets standard 1.1.5.a and 5.2.1 through the development and utilization of a rubric for formal assessment as well as instructor feedback during the activity. Standard 3.1.2 is accomplished through the use of educational communications and instructional technology in a variety of learning contexts (virtual world in this case).

531 Garden & Garden Wiki 4.1.1 This assignment involved the entire class designing and building a garden. The activity was done over several weeks and outside of regular class meetings. It involved the collection and creation of prims (virtual objects), negotiating the use of space, layout and design and the terra-forming of the space. I personally enjoyed this assignment and spent a large amount of time in the space designing and laying it out. I learned how to change the physical landscape, creating elevations and depressions in the landscape as well as streams and ponds. One of the most satisfying experiences was meeting up with a few other students in the garden and working together. I was the first student to begin development in the garden.



I added a pond and some vegetation to the garden as well as a large gazebo. Upon returning to the garden I was delighted to see that another student had added a bridge over the pond as well as a meditation room that complemented the space that I had designed perfectly. Later, a more experienced student notified me that the gazebo I had placed in the garden was an older prim and it used up a quarter of our allowed prims. This was surprising and I immediately deleted it. On one occasion I met another student and we worked together to add a stream to the pond I had built. On another occasion I worked with another student to integrate a waterfall with the stream and pond. Overall it was a great example of collaboration and situated cognition in which, as Wilson and Myers point out “authentic communities of practice are not so much designed, but rather emerge within existing environments and constraints� (in Jonassen & Land, 2000, pg. 77). An example of the emergence of a community of practice in the garden activity can be seen in the development of a class Wiki during the project. In order to encourage more of my classmates to participate and in order to give them a chance to become more involved in the decision making and development process, I created and managed a Google Sites Wiki. This helped to collaborate and manage the process much better. Many of the students used this space to make recommendations, ask how they could contribute and assign themselves tasks. The garden and garden wiki meet standard 4.1.1, apply project management techniques in various learning contexts. I became somewhat of a de facto manager of the project by helping to facilitate its development with the wiki.

Edtech 552: Introduction to Network Administration This was the most technical and difficult content classes I took. I took it in order to differentiate myself from others by gaining a skill set which is not very common. Until I took



this course the workings of the Internet were a complete mystery to me. I had no idea how an IP address or network mask worked and felt awkward when discussions of such technical topics came up. This course gave me the confidence that I could set up at least a simple network and it laid the foundation for advancing my skill in the area if I so choose.

552 Networking site 2.1.4, 2.3.2 In the course we also learned how to set up a server on our home computers. This was something I had always wanted to do and was very excited at the prospect of doing so. It was both a simple and complicated process. Simple to set up, yet complicated to configure around Firewall and Internet service provider (ISP) restrictions. I fortunately did not have any restrictions by my ISP and was able to complete the set up. After setting up the network I also installed and configured Joomla, which “is an award-winning content management system (CMS), which enables you to build Web sites and powerful online applications” (“Joomla”, n.d.). The process was similar to setting up Moodle, which I had done in the Edtech512 course. I did run into some problems, but finally got it set up. I also set up OSCommerce which is “an online shop e-commerce solution that offers a wide range of out-of-the-box features that allows online stores to be setup fairly quickly” (“osCommerce”, n.d.). I got most of the way through the instillation but had some trouble with setting up an email client on my server. I never did complete this one aspect of the setup, but I was satisfied that if I were to eventually decide to set up an online store that I would be able to do so. In order to document the process I went through to set up the server and the two applications, I created a procedures lesson. The purpose was to both document my experience and provide a lesson for others to use in order to set up a server on their computers. I built a website and used a modified form of the accordion menu I used for my Edtech512 project plan website’s navigation window. I didn’t know if it would work, but was ecstatic when I



managed to do it. The advantage of using the accordion was that it minimized that amount of scrolling that a user needed to do and made navigation of the process much simpler. In each page of the accordion I included a small image with a description next to it. However, I was concerned that this would be too small for users to see clearly, so I included a pop-up feature that shows a larger image while staying on the same page. In the images I

included labeling

and flow in the screenshots, as has been recommended by Clark and Lyons (p. 237). This flow is intended to direct attention along with text. Text is used to provide memory support and is included inside the image rather than outside to improve proximity, based on the contiguity principle (p. 79). Edtech 506 506 Facts 1.2.a, 1.2.b, 1.2.c The goal of this lesson was to introduce problem solving skills related to using comparatives and superlatives. The site is a resource I can use during my instruction as well as a site my students can use to review and practice what we've learned. It can also be used as an aid for looking up specific facts and information. The site opens with a welcome page which uses flash to orient learners to the process of the lesson. There are then seven additional pages which walk the learners through the processes for forming comparative and superlative questions. This includes many facts which need to be memorized such as syllable rules and the appropriate grammar forms based on the number of syllables. While creating this site I incorporated many of the visual communication guidelines introduced by Clark and Lyons (2004). For example, under the adjectives link I've included a simple table which categorizes adjectives as is recommended in Guideline 3 of Clark and Lyons where they state, "When constructing organizational visuals that contain large numbers of facts, find ways to break them into relevant categories" (p. 277).



When developing this site I integrated various newly learned technology skills as well. For example, I learned how to use PHP to create an external menu page that I could incorporate across all pages on the site. This made updating the menu links easy. I also include some Flash and jQuery into the site, both newly learned skills. This site meets standard 1.2, by applying principles of educational psychology, communications theory and visual literacy for macro- and micro-level design of instruction and for the development of instructional messages specific to the learning task (1.2.a; 1.2.b). It also demonstrates an understanding of the basic principles of message design and applying them to the development of a variety of communications with learners (1.2.c).

506 Procedures 1.2.a, 1.2.b, 1.2.c, 2.2.1 This is one of my favorite lessons that I’ve created in the Edtech program. This lesson involved creating a procedural visual. I decided to create an instructional slideshow describing how to create a slideshow movie for uploading to YouTube using Windows Movie Maker. I had already created video tutorials using Camtasia for this topic while designing the workshop for instructors in my Instructional Design course, but I found that some of my Korean students prefer still images and text to video and voice. This is especially true for lower-level students who have difficulty understanding spoken English. When creating this visual, I incorporated many of the visual literacy and communication design principles learned in the course and in the Clark and Lyons (2004) textbook. For example, I decided to use full screen captures rather than partial captures, since they increase learning time and increase retention (Van der Meij, Blijleven, & Jansen in Clark & Lyons, 2004, p. 236). Prior to this course I had used zoom features in Camtasia frequently, without considering the disorientation that learners may experience.



This artifact fulfills standards 1.2 in the same way that my factual artifact meets it (as described just above). It also meets standard 2.2 through the application of principles of visual and media literacy for the development and production of instructional and professional materials and products (2.2.1). Conclusion References Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. (2000). The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Clark, R. C. & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: proven guidelines for publishing, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Colakoglu, O. M., & Akdemir, O. (2010). Motivational mearsure of the instruction compared: Instruction based on the ARCS motivation theory v.s. traditional instruction in blended courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 11(2), 73-89. Davidson-Shivers, G.V, & Rasmussen, K.L. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Grant, M. R., & Thorton, H. R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: Mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 346-356. Joomla (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2010, from

osCommerce (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2010, from McDonald, H., & Ingvarson, L. (1997). Technology: a catalyst for educational change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 513-528. doi: 10.1080/002202797183883 Saran, M., Seferoglu, G., & Cag覺ltay, K. (2009). Mobile assisted language learning: English pronunciation at learners' fingertips. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (34), 97-114. doi:Article Smith, P.L, & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.



Snelson, C., & Elison-Bowers, P. (2007). Micro-level design for multimedia-enhanced online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). Retrieved from So, H. J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: Collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143-160. Sterman, J. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management. Retrieved from The Quote Garden. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2010, from Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339--362. Williams, R. (2004). The non-designers design book (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press. Wilson,B.G., & Myers, K.M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. M. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211-235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00580.x

Rationale paper  

Anthony Saba's Boise State University Master of Educational Technology portfolio paper