Reflections
As I reflect on both the course, and this specific artifact, I am reminded of how this acquisition of knowledge has contributed to my career development, as well as learning to critically and respectfully evaluate situations, while always considering the environmental context (1.11). I have learned that each environmental factor will contribute to the success or impediments to learning.
Both the course and assignment highlighted the importance of systems theory and the impact it has on instructional design. To further elaborate, the focus of the assignment was to identify an education system that I have experienced, while also considering all of the sub-systems that are vital to the execution and sustainability of the education system.
Interestingly, I was working as a Learning Management System (LMS) administrator at the time. This position provided me with the opportunity to have great insight into the day-to day functioning of an education department, including all of the related sub-system; It was while authoring this assignment that I learned the importance of identifying and understanding all of the of the related systems, essential to an efficient and productive education delivery system (2.4). Having a sound knowledge of both systems and related processes greatly helps to monitor and evaluate the delivery of quality education and training.
As I started to formulate both ideas and a framework for my assignment, I found myself to be somewhat surprised at just how many people, systems and processes were involved in my workplace; each of the sub-systems, working in synchronicity, to deliver quality products for both internal and external stakeholders (2.2). As stated by Littlejohn, (1996) “a system is a whole because its parts relate to one another and cannot be understood separately”.
Learning systems can be complex and dynamic in nature, which was exactly the case in my employment environment (2.3). For example, within the education department that I worked in, training and education products followed a very concise development lifecycle, very similar to the "Software Development Life Cycle” (SDLC). This included the elicitation of curriculum requirements, training outcomes, objectives, pedagogy selection, as well as the development timelines. Both the project management office and the director of education consulted with key subject matter experts (SME). Each of these "sub-systems" was an integral part of this development process, with each important component collectively forming a “suprasystem” (Cookson, 1998).
From a practical working perspective, once learning objectives had been defined, I realized that it was now time for the instructional designers to begin to build the course workflow, via storyboarding. Once again, while reflecting back on my course and assignments, I realized that the instructional designers constitute yet another sub-system as part of the overall development process (3.5)
This assignment proved to be a valuable tool to observe real life work situations, a means to evaluate current processes, while helping to identify what is and is not working (5.8). The monitoring and evaluation of all systems is an essential activity in maintaining quality and efficiency for all education delivery sub-systems. This involves analysis of potential issues and problems that may impact the quality and delivery of education products. The goal is to better understand the whole system (1.5).
I have learned that the environment lens model is a very interesting systems method of analysis that includes a means to focus on the systemic environmental factors (Cookson, 1998). The systemic environment utilizes 7 different factors in assisting development of an assessment framework for a distance education system. These factors included such things as geography, demographics, economics, social factors, technology, culture and history. What I discovered was that each factor provided information that should be considered for the success of an education system (1.6).
It was Cookson (1998) who defined the systemic environment lens as being the “complete system”, including all subsystems that contribute the overall functioning of the education system (1.1). This included factors, such as expectations, policy and constraints, just to name a few. Interestingly, as I continued to read and absorb this information, I realized that the systemic environment is very much a method to plan strategically and be proactive in clearing defining strategy, mandate and expected outcomes (6.2).
References
Cookson, P. (1998). Settings for distance education: A comparative study of two organizational systems. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University
Littlejohn, S (1996). Systems theory. In Theories of human communications (pp. 42-63.) New York: Wadsworth.
In Summary
The Foundations of Instructional Design course provided me with invaluable information. While participating in this course, I was involved in a work project with the task of reviewing and monitoring the course development lifecycle. I never really considered or viewed the course development process as a flow of integrated sub-systems working cohesively to achieve a common objective.
This assignment really assisted in helping me to consider all processes, roles and responsibilities involved in developing quality learning products. To this day, I continue to make a concerted effort to review and monitor process effectiveness through the systems lens. It is of great value to have a sound understanding of all integral components that collectively work to deliver quality distance education program offerings. Without a clear understanding of the education as a whole, it becomes a great challenge to evaluate both areas of efficiency, as well those areas that may impede of the quality and delivery of education programs.
Comments
Susan Moisey
20 April 2017, 3:18 PM
Dillon,
Your first sentence is not a sentence. You make several common errors noted on the Tip Sheet. Also, use quotations to support your argument, not to make it. Proofread carefully.
It was not clear why you put in the rich picture. This is a different assignment than the artefact you selected, and was associated with much different learning outcomes and competencies than the systems analysis. It did not enhance your reflection. Furthermore, you did not analyze the "lens" component of the assignment or discuss what added insight or learning that part of the artefact gave you.
Susan
Attachments (1)
Dillon Young
26 June 2017, 6:25 AM
Changes completed:)
Dillon
Debra Hoven
12 July 2017, 1:44 PM
Ok Dillon, you really need to get someone else to help you proof-read and edit as, even though I can see that you have made an effort to do this, there are still numerous places on this page where you have misplaced commas, used the wrong word, or left out words that are essential for your readers to understand what you are trying to say.
Also, this para in your Reflection is a complete repetition of what you have in the Introduction above, so please remove one or the other: Assignment #1 objective was to think of an education system that I had experienced, and then analyze the system using one of the three lenses that Banathy proposes, for describing educational systems. Since I was working in a health care related setting, my analysis was based on an existing education system that I was familiar with. This was a great opportunity to engage in a practical and real-life education system analysis, identifying all the interrelated system and subsystems that are required to successfully development and implement learning products."
Your "In summary" section also needs to be proof-read and edited.
This sentence in your last para above doesn't seem to make sense yet: "The Systemic Environment lens also provided an additional means of assisting, in helping to plan and measure the success of an education system.".
Let me know when you have gotten someone else to help you proof-read.
Thanks!
Debra