LSTE Program Reflection

UALRLSTE Program ReflectionA Journal

Mario D. Wallace3/1/2015

ContentsA Journal3The Systematic ADDIE Model and Its Authorless History3Effective Performance Objectives5Chucking is great for coursework development7Why Do We Chunk?10Formative and Summative Assessments12Why Are Formative and Summative Assessments Important?14Systems Integrations15Integrating Educational Technology15Distance Education Reflections17Learning is Social and Contextual18Modeling Variability20The Dynamics of Scaffolding21Human Technology Interaction (HTI)24Case Analysis Assignment #126Case Analysis Assignment #231References35

A JournalThe Systematic ADDIE Model and Its Authorless History

The ADDIE model or methodology is one of the most talked about instructional design and development methods in the field of Instructional Design; yet, it is a generic model that has no known author. According to Molenda, "The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure" (Molenda). Basically, it is a collage of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) methodologies.

The acronym ADDIE has five elements that spell out the following: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. The first letter of the acronym "A" provides the most important step in the model because it sets the stage for an effective course development. In this element, the designer is challenged to study learning behaviors, demographics, and sometime computer literacy of learners. The designer must know the learning capabilities of the learners in order to design an effective lesson. The first "D" of the model is essential because the design strategies are developed at this point. Designers systematically choose activities that can potentially provide learning for users of the lesson. The second "D" of the model takes into consideration the platform to deliver a lesson and a setting. The designer must develop a lesson according to the learner's academic competency and familiarity. The "I" in the model provides the opportunity of assessing the development of a lesson to see if its effective. If Instructional Designers (IDs) did not apply the "I" in the ADDIE model, IDs would not be able to refine a lesson given that no one has ever interacted with it to provide feedback. Lastly, the "E" of the model is the second critically important stage because it examines the interactivity of learners to provide a plan of action for improving the lesson. The six elements of the ADDIE model signify a systems approach to developing asynchronous and synchronous lessons designs and/or effective instructions. The ADDIE model is a term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development and design with an effective practical application although it has no academic theoretical foundation (Molenda). The model provides a step by step practical application that is easy to comprehend and follow because it is linear and presented in a visual image in more times than not (See Figure 1).

Figure 1

The linearity in the model's structure aids in the memorization of the acronym and the steps so that IDs, teachers, or trainers can effectively follow the model when developing and designing lessons. Each letter of the acronym builds upon the next to provide interconnectivity.

The ADDIE model is one of the most prevalent systems approach methodology in the field of Instructional Design and the least historically sound. Although experts in the field say that the model has not real origin, no theoretical foundation, and is considered a generic model, it is still one of the most effective practical models today.

Effective Performance Objectives Performance objectives are considered the life blood of any instructional designed lesson and program given that the purpose of the objectives is to guide the designer during the development of the lesson, to instill observable behavior in the learner, and to provide a structure for measuring results. According to Mager's behavioral terms both to facilitate the evaluation of educational programs and to improve the validity of the measures and scales utilized in the evaluation process" (Metfessel). Performance objectives are behavior-based constructs that include instructional goals, terminal objectives, and should factor in Bloom's Taxonomy Domains. Instructional goals are developed at the close of the analyze phase of a instructional design process in which the instructional developer (ID) has completed the performance analysis or needs assessment and has determined the goals for the lessons. The goals are developed in response to the needs of the learners (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). Terminal objectives are directly related to the instructional goals because they are build onto instructional goals. According to Dick "When the instructional goal is converted to a performance objective , it is referred as the terminal objective" (Dick, 2015). Terminal objectives includes the derivation of behavior, the derivation of condition, derivation of criteria. The derivation of behavior is the concept of being able to identify the learners behavior after the completion of the lesson; the derivation of condition is the idea of the setting, the circumstance, and the resources that will be available to the learner when the objectives are performed (Dick, 2015); and the deviation of criteria is the act of judging the behavior according to a set criteria as in the example, the student will be able to count to thirty-five in Spanish, English, and Arabic without intermixing the languages. In addition to terminal objectives, Bloom's Taxonomy plays an important role in performance objectives (See Figure 1). Bloom's Taxonomy identifies the level of learning that is required in the lesson so that the ID can develop performance objectives that meet the learners needs. For example, the lowest level of Boom's Taxonomy is remembering. When writing an objective for learners who need to remember information, the ID may write the objective that demonstrates how the learner will be able to repeat or identify the material in the lesson; when the ID writes an objective for understanding the material, the ID may write the objective that demonstrates how the learner can restate the material. The upper levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are more complex and required the learner to be able to critically think to produce the desired results. See Figure 1.

Figure 1: The image is a diagram of Bloom's Taxonomy.Performance objectives are fairly easy to write when the ID follows the ADDIE model. But when they do not, they develop poorly written performance objectives that hinder the human learning (See below).Bad Performance Objectives1. In an open group setting, the learner will be able to define the word "perpendicular". (This objective is missing the criteria and the verb choice is weak). 2. The learner will be able to answer the telephone. (This objective is missing the condition and the criteria, the verb of choice is weak also).Good Performance Objectives: 1. In an open group setting while using a arrow to point to directions, the learner will be able to point to the perpendicular direction on the first attempt.2. In an office setting, the learner will be able to answer the phone, communicate the script for the office, and determine to whom call should be transferred The instructional design process is a formulaic process in which no steps can be omitted or the sequence rearranged to met the ID needs, especially when the ID uses the ADDIE model. When using this model, the ID will be able to cultivate his or her skills and develop effective performance objectives to ensure that human learning is met.

Chucking is great for coursework developmentThe science and art behind chunking owe their existence to George Miller, a psychologist from Harvard University, who studied this phenomenon in the mid 1950's. Miller's research focused on the process of how humans retain information in their working, short-term, and long-term memory. In his research, he experimented with unrelated items to test the memory capacity of humans. According to Dr. Robin Smith, "[George Miller]. . . found that when given a list of unrelated items, a typical adult can recall between 5 to 9 of them" (Smith, 2008). Miller's research explained how information have to be presented, organized, and delivered in order for it to be successfully process through the working memory and into the long term memory. Miller's research is considered to have introduced the rationale behind chunking, pioneered the process of chunking, and provided the best evidence-based approach for developing asynchronous and synchronous instructions for effective content development. When chunking is integrated into content that is used for human learning, it improves the content development. According to Smith, "If your content is chunked, it is divided into short segments of passive learning, followed by an opportunity for active learning . . ." (Smith, 2008). For example, Figure 1 and 2 present information taken from a letter addressed to the Federal Financial Office at Pulaski Technical Community College. The content is the same, but the organization of the content is different. Figure 1 provides an example of the letter when chunking is not used in the content development. All of the information is ran together without any paragraph breaks to allow readers to digest small portions of the information while reading it. When attempting to read the letter, the reader is forced to take in all of the information without breaking, which can cause mental fatigue or for a better term "erroneous processing". Once mental fatigue occurs, the information is not retained and the cognitive processing begins to fade until the information becomes disinteresting. Figure 1: This is an example of content that is not chunked. On the other hand, Figure 2 provides an example of the same letter, but it is presented in chunks. The content is organized into five paragraphs that are separated by independent topic sentences and paragraph content. The reader of this letter has the ability to read small chunks of the message and digest it before proceeding to the next paragraph. As a result, the reader can read the letter without experiencing mental fatigued and can decidedly take in each chunk of information till the entire message is read. Whenever this occurs, cognition has taken place in which information is processed in the working memory.

Figure 2: This is an example of chunking content. When content is chunked for the purpose of human learning, the chunked content provides an opportunity for information retention and passage into the short and long-term memory. According to the article titled Chunking Mechanism in Human Learning, ". . . researchers in cognitive science have established chunking as one of the key mechanisms of human cognition " (Gober). As humans process chunked content, they experience the transition of information through the working and shirt-term memory where its cognitively processed with prior knowledge to see if the information will be admitted into long-term memory or remain in the working memory until it is erased. Chunking affects this process because it aids in the retention of information and the processing of it into the long-term memory. When new content is not related to prior knowledge, it can potentially be erased from the working memory and never enters into the long-term memory. For example, when information is chunked, the learner processes the information in small pieces and digest it before moving on to more content. During this process, the generative process is activated and learning occurs. When learning occurs, the new information makes a transition through the memory cycle where it is passed from the working memory, to the short-tem memory, into the long-term memory. Once in the log-term memory, the new content sits until it is summoned again for future usage. This process occurs daily in learning situation when the content is chunked, but it needs to be a standard across the board for today's busy students. Todays students are busy with school, work, and family oriented tasks; thus, they expect the best learning situation that can provide them with the ability to self-pace through their coursework while experiencing cognitive processing. Cognitive processing can occur for busy students when course content is organized in which students can get something done in twenty minutes . . . course content developed in modular components (Smith, 2008). When course content is presented in chunks, students can self-pace themselves throughout the day or week by studying small portions of the content. Studying small portions prevents students from becoming overwhelmed with the content while processing it until they know it. For example, just image a 60-minute lecture that is broken into 6 ten minute lectures. In this example, busy students are not forced to find a block of 60-minutes in their schedule to dedicate to the long lecture; instead, they only have to dedicate 10-minutes for a portion of the entire lecture, which can be easily carved out of a student's schedule. As a result, they can watch each 10-munites lecture segment periodically throughout the day or week until they have seen them all. Chunking only provides this option. When course content is chunked, the content partake in the process of the learning cycle by assisting the flow of information through the working, short-term, and long-term memory. When course content assist in learning, it ensures instructors that each student has an equal opportunity to learn the material without becoming overwhelmed, and it provides students with the opportunity to self-pace and experience learning independently. Chunking is the act of organizing course content in a way that assist in human learning while protecting the integrity of the learning process. Chunking should never be considered as an option in course development; it should be considered the only choice.

Why Do We Chunk? Chunking has been a topic of discussion since George Miller, a Harvard University psychologist, first experimented with the concept in 1956. According to Dr. Robin Smith, "[George Miller]. . . found that when given a list of unrelated items, a typical adult can recall between 5 to 9 of them" (Smith, 2008). Miller's research focused on how humans retain information in their working, short-term, and long-term memory. His research is considered to have introduced the rationale behind chunking and pioneered the process of chunking. To briefly describe his research, I present the following example: if an adult studied 12 Spanish words hours before an oral discussion where he had to state the words, he would only be able to recall between 5 to 9 words. Although I agree with the findings of Miller's research, I have provided my own definition of chunking. Chucking is defined as information organized in small digestible chunks for the purpose of making the reading, communicating, and learning effectively manageable in the working memory. I use the work "manageable" because when information is presented in small chunks, it is easily consumed, retained, and recalled, especially when it relates to information that has been stored in the long-term memory; I use the term "working memory" because the first step in retaining information is when it is to carry from the working memory where it is processed into the short and long-term memory. Thus, why do we chunk? We chunk to assist in the learning process of information so that it can be retained. See Figure 1 below. In this figure, the images underneath the line are scattered and provide no apparent relationship; thus, the learner who attempts to learn it has to first mentally organize it, which could have the potential of creating erroneous processing. And when the erroneous processing occur, the mind becomes mentally fatigue and learning cease.

Figure 2: The images above the line are organized in chunks where the learning can focus on the material without having to mentally organize it, which creates erroneous processing. Thus, the organized information can potentially provide learning with the opportunity of retaining the information. Chunking information is necessary especially when the purpose of the information is for human learning. When information is chunked, it provides a better chance of information retention and long-term memory storage.

Formative and Summative AssessmentsLearning assessment gained popularity in the 1960's with the advent of large curriculum development projects (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). These early assessments did not meet the standard of assessments today, but they did initiate the assessment craze. The assessments only required the instructor or developer to do a first pass of the material before the material was put into production; the first pass was similar to the first edit of an essay. The mechanics were the primary focus, and the punctuations were not even considered. Thus, the essay still provided lots of room for improvement.

The early assessment method is somewhat a far cry from the two types of assessments today. The two type of assessments today are formative and summative. Formative assessments are ". . . the collection of data and information during the development of instructions that can be used to improve the effectiveness of the instructions" (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). Formative assessment are included in the instructional process prior to the published production. During this phase, they developer tests the instructions several times, makes revisions, and tests them again. The developer tests individual students to gauge their level of difficulty and ease because their feedback is the catalyst for improving the instructions; summative assessments are "given periodically to determine at a particular point in time what students know and what they do not know" (Ehringhaus). Basically, the primary concern is to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, school improvement goals, alignment of curriculum, or student placement in specific programs. This assessment is not concerned with the individual student. It is concerned with group scores, regional scores, and national scores. Benchmarking scores come directly from summative assessments. Although both assessment are needed to gauge learning outcomes, formative assessments are more valuable to instructional developers.

There are three phases in the method of formative evaluations that should be completed before publishing any instructions. The first phase is the one-to-one assessment. In this phase, the instructor meets one-to-one with the students from the targeted population and administers the instructions. The developers selects three classification of students: above average, average, and below average. The developer selects from each classification to ensure that there is a fair representatives from the targeted population. As the test is administered, the developer seeks feedback and interacts with the student during the assessment if needed. The developer also instructs the student to scribble notes on the test in difficult areas. At the conclusion of the test, the developer interviews the students, makes revisions based on test feedback an interview responses, and prepares for the second phase: small-group evaluations. The small-group evaluation is not concerned with individual student scores. It purpose is to determine the effectiveness of revisions and to see if students can test without the instructor (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). The developer selects around 8 to 20 students to assess the instructions, and they students come from the same targeted populations as in the one-to-one evaluation. However, during the assessment, the instructor do not interact with the students because the purpose of the assessment is to see if they can successfully complete the assessment without the instructor. Once the assessment is done, the instructor interviews the students and use the responses to make more revisions before proceeding with the field study. The field trial evaluation is the final phase, and its purpose is to make sure that the instructions are ready for publication. This phase is the closet to the students given that if the development is sound, it will be published and polished for classroom usage. Thus, in this phase, developer is not included in the assessment. The developer explains the instructions to an instructor and establishes the expectations of the assessment. The instructor is a subject matter expert (SME); thus, his/her will be highly considered when evaluating the instructions. The instructor selects about 30 students to test the instructions and give aggressive feedback. Given that this is the final phase in the assessment process, they instructor cannot take any chances to not deliver an effective set of instructions. The formative and summative assessments are valuable for evaluating instructional developments. Although they differ in regards to usage, they are equally important in the study of instruction improvements.

Why Are Formative and Summative Assessments Important? 1. What is the difference between formal and informal assessment?

Formal and informal assessments are designed to evaluate knowledge retention and transfer of the learner. However, formal assessments are basically multiply choice test, quizzes, matching and etc.. These test seeks mostly verbal responses from the learner based on studied coursework. These test seek to see how much information has the learner retained and can repeat. On the other hand, informal assessments are written responses to questions such as essays, product developments, portfolios, and etc... According to Dick, ". . . assessment instruments used to measure performance, products, and attitudes does not involve writing test items per se. . . " (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). Informal objectives deals with one's intellectual skills according to the learning domains. It forces one to stretch his cognitive processing to formulate effective and comprehensive work.

2. Where does self-assessment fit?

A self-assessment is design for learners to assist in his academic growth by taking responsibility of his own progress. According to Dick, "Learners are encouraged to engage in self-assessment on their path to assuming responsibility for the quality of their own work" (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). A self-assessment gives the learner a self-awareness of his current state as it related to the content of the lesson and based on his score, motivates him to try harder in the subject.

3. Are they all important? Why?

Assessments can determine if the learners know the instructional objectives. Dicks states, "Instrument composed of items or performance tasks that directly measure skills described in one or more performance objectives"(Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2015). Given that both informal and formal assessments are directly related to instructional goals, which determine if he learner has retained the material, they are both equally important when testing the knowledge o the learner.

4. Provide examples of the benefit of each from your own classroom/training experience.

Examples of formal and informal assessments in this course are the weekly SoftChalk quizzes and the blogs. The SoltChalk assignments are formal assessment given that they are designed to test my verbal knowledge of the reading material to see if I know it. The weekly blog are informal assessments because they challenge my knowledge of the weekly reading by making me use my intellectual skill to produce a high level skilled assignment.

Systems Integrations Integrating Educational TechnologyEffectively integrating educational technology into all educational settings is long overdue although there has been an educational technology movement spearheaded by university faculty and students since 1950. I am an advocate for educational technology because I believe that it has the ability to transform the way we educate and how we meet educational desires, needs, and wants of society, especially the working class. For example, just imagine an at-home parent who wants to enroll into a local college but cannot because the school does not provide online courses. At-home parents are busy with their children and never seem to have time for external obligations, especially school. Their average day consist of running errands, which can include taking their children to doctor appointments, driving their children to school and back home, shopping for groceries, preparing and cooking meals, cleaning their houses, and etc. If they had access to online education, they could learn new skills, acquire knowledge, and increase their potential.

As I stated in the first weeks discussion post, the integration of a multimedia training program for entry level service staff (ELSS) at UAMS opened my eyes to socioeconomic barriers in society that I did not know existed. My objective for designing an multimedia training program was to assist ELSS in becoming independent workers who could met customers expectation and communicate effectively with astute knowledge of processes and procedures. But I soon learned that the integration of technology has the ability to create resistance when no research has been considered before initiating it. And based on the A.D.D.I.E. model, we must analyze our audience before we decide to design or implement educational technology.

The uses of Technology in society should be determined by generational standards regarding Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennium, and the now infamous Generation Z; although each generation makes ups the whole of society, they function differently. For example, the Baby Boomer generation came along between 1946 and 1964 almost 20 years before schools implements ILS networked systems and 25 years before the Internet era. The closest technical instrument they had that resembled a computer was the typewriter, which was a far cry from a word processor. On the other hand, the Millennial Generation was born in the 80s when ILS networked systems had been integrated into classrooms and during the Internet era, which gave them a great advantage to technology. Thus, the majority of them are fluent users of technology.

The social application of educational technology is that technology usage can actually remove socioeconomic barriers and aid in developing computer skills. When members of the Digital Divide are introduced to education technology, they approach technology with fear, but overtime they eventually become comfortable with the technology and barriers are broken. As these barriers are broken, their acceptance for technology have the potential of narrowing the divide for their children, which could make them as competitive as their counterparts.

Mobile computing has definitely impacted my rationale for educational technology. Although I am an advocate for educational technology, I did not foresee the advent of mobile computing, but I did see the advancement of mobile phone usage for more than texting, talking, and surfing the web. The trend toward using mobile devices for educational technology is awesome and incredible, and I have had my share of experiencing its awesomeness. As stated in my first week's discussion post, I attempted to use BB Collaborate as a manager's meeting tool for busy managers. I wanted the managers to be able to access the meets using their smart phones and tablets without even having to come to a physical location and breath in unwanted air. The prerequisites or training for the technology was to download the BB Collaborate app and interact with the it before the live session; the training instructions also included interactions with BB Collaborate web-based tools. We trained with the tools for at least three weeks but to no avail. The managers initially agreed but later abandoned the technology because of its complexities. They did not approach the technology seriously and the ideal fizzled.

Distance Education Reflections1. As a distance education instructor, how do you think you could ensure that the learning experience is a positive one for your students?

To ensure a positive learning experience, the Instructional Designers (ID) must begin with the ADDIE model. When a course is developed using the phases of this model, the course has a greater chance of providing a positive experience for the students. For example, when Instructional Designers (ID) is hired to analyze an existing program or analyze the learners of a new program, he must perform an initial assessment of the skill level of the learners. Once he performs an assessment, he can determine the gap analysis and begin to design and develop the course. During the design phase, he should always conduct a formative assessment to ensure that his strategy is sound and course material is accessible. Next, he implements the course and evaluate it via a summative assessment. This assessment assist in determining course modifications to ensure success and a positive learning experience.

2. What role do you see yourself, or would like to be, in the future concerning distance education? Perhaps a state level position, an administrator of one of the Learning Centers, a local distance education instructor?

I would like to work in a state level position as an advisor of distance education. As a student with firsthand knowledge of the discipline, I will be able to advise legislators, congress people and governors of the benefits of distance educations and its positive applications. I will lead distance education research opportunities and use the results of the studies to base my argument. My goal will be to ensure that every child has access to distance learning courses and the infrastructure to have an equal opportunity for success.

3. Have your opinions changed about distance education this semester?

I have become more motivated about the topic of distance education and as a future Instructional Designer (ID). Upon graduating this program, I plan on enrolling in a Doctorate of e-Learning program in which I will use my degree to advise educators throughout the nation about the benefits of distance education. I will use evidence-based research as a tool when advising educators. Although I have been interested with the LSTE program since enrollment, I am now fascinated with all of the opportunities this program will provide me and in return how I will be able to provide society with a wealth of knowledge.

Learning is Social and ContextualJohn Dewey believes that learning is created through a combination of strategically designed (ADDIE model) coursework that identifies with the learner's level of education and teacher-guided instructions that direct the learner through the learning process. Dewey also believes that early childhood learning begins with innocent children interacting with their environment, which Dewey believes that this form of learning does not lead to a structured, expert-centric or scholarly knowledge, but it leads to a plethora of personal, experimental knowledge about the physical and abstract world. When a child's experimental knowledge meets a structured curriculum, his/her knowledge is elevated and challenged beyond compare because each child experiences information differently. Dewey believes that humans are not machines in which data is inputted into a database and recalled upon by a key click; humans are not sponges as tradition educationalists believe in which lectures are mentally recorded for future usage beyond the assessment exam. Dewey believes that humans are creatures of habit or repeated patterns when the environment is set up to deliver a structure that assist with learning. This structure is one where the human learns through corrective actions from teachers who design the idea environment so that fosters learning. The ideal environment is tailored for the independent learner, which the environment differs based on the desired subject. For a technical writer, this environment is using InDesign to developing pay layouts; for a police officer, the learning environment is practicing patrol stops in a simulated environmental or in a real-life face-to-face interactive setting with traffic violators. Dewey believes that the learner's environment is just as involved in the learner's educational acumen as the curriculum and teacher's guidance. Learners must be given the tools for success if learning is expected, and it begins with the environment. Just imagine teaching fiend work to a CIA operative in a kitchen of a Dinkins Donut; just imagine teaching basketball on a football field. The learning environment is the foundation of the learning experience and the crux of experimental learning. The controversial regarding today's common core would conflict and marry Dewey's concept of effective learning. To understand how today's common core relates to Dewey's concept of effective learning, refer to the list of pros and cons. Cons "States will now share the same set of standards. Students in Arkansas should be learning the same thing as a student inNew York. This will benefit students whose families move continuously" (Meador). a. Dewey believes in within variation and grouped variation. Within variation is the learning patterns of an individual learner whereas grouped variation is the measured variation of the group. When learning is structured for the group and independent learning is ignored, it will not provide an effective outcome. "TheCommon Core Standards assessmentwill not have an equivalency test for students withspecial needs" (Meador).a. Given that Dewey believes in universal learning by agreeing that every child's learning should be innocent and in an environment that motivate learning, Dewey would disagree with any system of education that discriminate against human learning because of special needs. Pro "The Common Core Standards will benefit students with high mobility"(Meador). a. Dewey believes in the equivalency of education and given that mobile technology provides opportunities for the learner to access coursework at anytime and at any place when learning is best for the learner.

Dewey believes in placing a learner in a learning environment where the environment stimulates independent and social interactions, and today, that environment is created by the Instructional Designer (ID). Thus, how does Dewey's concept of effective learning relates to the course project? The course project begins with a proposed idea that summarizes the learner's demographics, the learner's skills, the learning environment, and the strategic model to construct the learning environment that meets the needs of today's educational system. In this environment, the learning has to be measured to assure that the learning strategy, environment, and material is effective. According to Dewey, " What we need is something which will enable us to interpret and appraise the elements in the child's present putting forth and falling away exhibition of power and weakness. . ." (Schlichtmann). Dewey's believes that learning needs to be assessed to determine if learning occurs. Thus, the course project relates to Dewey's concept of effective learning because the design has to be inclusive of all learners, it has to be structured in which the instructor guides the learning experience, and it has to be assessed to assure that learning occurred.

Modeling VariabilityThe Chapter Modeling Variability presents a fascinating argument about the fundamental difference between individual and group learning and development. The author argues that the statistical approach of assessing group development in students using a linear model limits the understanding of individual student development and provides no sound information about individual learning performances. Basically, when assessing the individuality of student development using grouped student assessment scores leaves no room for understanding the learning behavior and variability of the individual student but instead provides interesting statistical data for the learning behaviors of groups.Educators, social scientist, psychologist have used the linear model to measure student development for centuries, and according to Van Geert, this approach is completely incorrect. Van Geert believes in the dynamic systems theory of learning, which in essence states that such a model is to contribute to the understanding and prediction of long-term processes of learning and teaching individuals than in groups (De Bot, 2007). The linear model for understanding student variability actually restricts natural nonlinear learning behavior of individual students. This nonlinear variability is what makes humans unique. According to Van Geert, "If approaches to teaching reduce intra-individual variability, then a child's ability will be necessarily constrained. If a learning environment encourages high intra-individual variability, students will be more likely to explore areas where they are not talented as well as areas where they are. . ." (Schlichtmann, 2012). Van Geert believes that human variability is natural for all humans, and it should not be looked upon as a negative but as unique human trait.The dynamic systems approach is not a messy facts as noise but as part of the sound you get in real life (Geert, 2005), and grouped learning approaches can be considered messy when it's used to learn about the variability in individuals. This sound is heard and seen in individual variability, and if acted upon, individual learning can be augmented. As a result, students who are considered low achievers in grouped studies can achieve as their counterparts.

The Dynamics of ScaffoldingScaffolding is an essential component for bridging learning throughout any educational platform. Scaffolding assist learning by providing a bridge in the learning process when complex obstacles could potentially or can block pathways to essential in learning. According to . . . scaffolding refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding . . . Today's Instructional Designers (ID) intertwine scaffolding in the development of their face-to-face or online courses. Scaffolding includes identifying the learning gaps of the learners and developing performance goals to assist in the learning process. When developing the performance goals, the ID can refer to domains of Bloom's Taxonomy to assure that the course strategy aligns with the learners needs the learning process. In addition, in the textbook A Research Reader in Universal Design for Learning, Dr. Kurt W. Fisher discusses the four themes that emerge in relation to scaffolding. 1. Contextual Support Is Fundamental to Learning and Development: According to Fisher, even in the social contextual aspect of society scaffolding is presence (Rappolt-Schlictmann, Daley & Ross, 2012). As a child, how we learn the standards of culture is by way of scaffolding presented by our family members, neighbors, and community. As we attempt to understand any aspect of our culture, we tend to seek information from those around us who assist us in making cultural connection in which embrace and carry with us till we run into a another obstacle where we need a scaffold to assist us.

2. Variability Within a Developmental Range: Although scaffolding is one of the most effective learning strategies to bridge learning, its effectiveness can vary from learner to learner. Fletcher says, "Finding the fluctuation between levels in the development range is robust" (Rappolt-Schlictmann, Daley & Ross, 2012). As some learners can be assisted through scaffolding and retain the majority of information throughout the learning process, other learners can get the same assistance and fail to recall any information in the learning process. This failure does not necessary means that scaffolding is ineffective, but it does means that there is variability in each learners ability to retain and transfer knowledge. 3. Learners Develop Initial Understandings That Guide Their Learning: Learners at the high end of the development range tend to understand the scaffolding process and in return begin to scaffold themselves. As high end learners experience scaffolding, they learn from their experience and replicate the learning; thus, become self-scaffolding learners. They know the methods for advancing their learning, and they take advantage of it.

4. Dynamics in Assessment and Research: Knowledge retention and transfer from scaffolding is determined from assessments. Learners who transition through the learning cycle via scaffolding should be assessed along the way to ensure that learning has occurred. Have you benefited from a scaffold learning environment in which additional support resources were built into the activity?When I was a student in the Lean Six Sigma program offered at Villanova University, I would have fallen way behind if it wasnt for scaffolding. My first lesson was an introduction to Transactional Value Stream Mapping (TVSM), which is a technique used to identify wasteful steps in a transactional process flow. The objective was to map the current process, examine it for waste, remove the waste, and redesign for the future state. See Figure 1.

These are swim lanesCycle time: 2:08.16 hrsWaste: 8 hrsLead time: 10: 08.16 hrsFigure 1: Sterilizing Corrective Maintenance program value stream mapping process. Before I could understood anything about TVSM, I had to learn the concept of the Swim lane diagram (See above) where all of the data is gathered in separate lanes and recorded. Next, I had to learning the terms, the symbols, and how the symbols are applied. I had to learn how to map the process, measure the cycle time, waste, and lead time in the process. Lastly, I had to learn how to redesign the current process to a more efficient process for the future.

In each stage of the learning process, I was assisted through scaffolding in which I was able to effectively understand each stage of the learning process. The scaffolding process in the TVSM activities really assisted in my leaning performances. What would happen if those supports were removed? In my scaffolding example, if the support were removed or didn't exist, I would not have successfully completed the program. I can say this with confidence because I am a true Liberal Art student who happened to venture into Lean Six Sigma, which is a statistical-based program. Reading the literature was easy but the math was difficult, and I endured with one of the highest GPA's because scaffolding assisted my along the way. The takeaway from scaffolding is that it's a essential piece in the learning process. And in any formal or informal learning, scaffolding takes place to assist in the learning process.

Human Technology Interaction (HTI)

What have you learned about human-technology interaction? I learned that the there are three components of HTI: usability, utility, and aesthetics. The three components of HTI are independent and significant to the end user of technology. Usability is the process of allowing consumers to test/examine the product before it goes to the market. Testers are joined with developers to determine the usability of the technology. The results of the study are used to make decisions about the final design of the product; utility is the functionality of the product that is developed by computer engineer (CE). Although CE design the product based on schematics and effective historical data, they also study the results of usability test studies to determine the final prototype; aesthetic of design is quite new to the discussion of consumer choice of product. However, there is evidence that aesthetics of design is close to 33% of a consumer's choice of product. Aesthetics of design consist of the color, texture, the shape, and etc. In todays competitive market, most companies design with aesthetics in mind. Were there any specific readings or activities that stand out?Readings: 1. HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION: Psychology as a Science of Design2. As We May Think3. Human-Computer Interaction Fundamentals Assignments: Other than the group project, the storyboard activity really stood out for me. When I initiate the assignment, I really thought that I knew how to develop an effective storyboard because I had developed one in a previous LSTE course. As I read the course material, I realized that I needed to research the subject more before I began the assignment. As I wrestled with developing my storyboard, iterative learning took place, and I developed a great storyboard, which lead to one of three chosen group projects in the course. My storyboard was titled UAMS Way finding Application.

Were there any topics we did not explore that you think we should have? Were there any topics we should have spent more time on? I believe that we covered the majority of the topics for the subject. However, I would have liked to have spend more time the lit review. When I say spend more time, I mean that I wish that we worked on one section of the paper at a time so that we could perfect how we write lit reviews, theses, dissertations. Given that I will start a PhD program upon my graduating, I want to make sure that I can write effective research papers.

Please talk about your group project. Did you group work well together? Did the contract activity help? The group project was awesome although not all members of the group equally participated. Given that my needs assessment was chosen for one of three group projects, I had way more knowledge about the subject than my group members, which placed me in position to educate the other members of my group about why I chose the topic and how it was directly related to HCI. From the onset of establishing the group, we begin to discuss the way finding app and our methodology for approaching the project. Initiating the contract made us hold each other accountable for portions of the project, and it allow us to meet deadlines. Given that we had established dates for submissions, if one of the group members failed to meet any mile marker, other members would notice it before the deadline and address the matter. We worked as a unit with the same mission and vision as we complete the assignments.

Case Analysis Assignment #1Case: Craig GregersenCase Analysis 22: Balancing a Range of Stakeholders Interests when Designing InstructionsIntroductionCraig Gregersen said it best when he said, ". . . it seemed that his name was going to be associated with a course that would satisfy no one. . ." (Ertmer, 2003). Craig's case analysis is quite interesting, and his situation was challenging for any novice or expert Instructional Designer (ID). Craig's project was to design and develop a training program for product reliability for the employees at Electron Corporation, a company that operated in many countries throughout the world and that had sites in 16 countries. The reason behind the need to develop a training course was to address the following liability factors: Transmission system interfering with the operation of other electronic equipment in hospitals, Defective software causing shut down in police communication systems, and Battery dispose problems (Ertmer, 2003). The above three liability factors could potentially cost Electron millions of dollars in law suit payouts if consumers determined that its products caused any one of the factors. Thus, Electron needed to develop and implement an effective training course to eliminate product defects. When Craig arrived at Electron, he was met with conflicting stakeholder's interest and associated goals. The project had no consistent goal, scope, leader, or direction. Workers for the company operated in silos and blamed each other for any product issues and claims against the company. The engineers blamed the attorneys for lack of communication; the legal team blamed the engineers for lack of general sensitivity to the legal realities; and the chair of the safety committee claimed that the company suffered for lack of proactive approaches to product safety. Although Craig had a law degree and PhD in Instructional Design, his education did not prepare his for this project. Craig's problems begin when he first arrived at the company and met with the three main stakeholders: Stan, Louise, and Richard. Their initial discussion revealed that there were two competing goals and two related scopes. See below: Goal 1: to design and develop a product reliability course for employees across the organization and at every level that teaches them proactive approaches to product safety while preventing law suits and increasing the company's bottom-line. Goal 2: to make minor modifications to the existing four-hour training course and concentrate on general sensitivity to the legal realities.

The scope of the case study is as following: Scope 1: the development a one-day, in-class training course that provided education on proactive approaches to product safety. The training will be held at the site locations.

Scope 2: the modification of an existing four-hour course that focused general sensitivity to the legal realities. The training will be held at the site locations.

Craig's initiatives were to use the contact list that he was provided to make face-to-face and phone Interviews with stakeholders to gather knowledge of the needs of the company to begin designing and developing the course. His initiatives were also to complete the phases of developing the course. This is where his problem magnified. Key stakeholders and their primary concerns:The key stakeholders and their primary concerns are spelled out below.1. Craig Gregersen: Lead designer; credentials law degree and PhD in Instructional Design; his primary concern was to develop training course for Electron Corporation. 2. Electron Corporation: The contractor/client that has sites in 16 countries; its primary concern was to implement a training course that trained its employees about product liability to prevent law suits and increase the company's bottom-line. 3. Stan Neuhaus: Senior design engineer and chair of the Safety Committee; his primary concern was to ensure safety within the company and product outcomes. 4. Louise Masoff: training manager; her primary concern was to manage the staff and training opportunities. 5. Richard Mull: Attorney for Electron; his primary concern was to ensure that national and international standards were followed and met. 6. Managers: Manage the productions of products and staffing; their primary concern was to make sure that product was produced, replicated, and product in timely manner. 7. Engineers: Design and develop products; their primary concern was how to fix problems, how to make decisions about problems, and etc. There should be a systematic way to address issues. 8. Marketing: Market products through strategic approaches by making claims about the company's products. Design challenge case-specific 1Craig was faced with conflicting project goals that polarized the direction of the project, an opponent (attorney) who was assigned to provide legal advice but stood in the way of creating a course, and a growing scope that appear to have no boarders. Stan Neuhaus and Louise Masoff wanted Craig to develop a course that addressed product reliability and proactive approaches to product safety, and Richard Mull wanted him to make minor modifications to the existing four-hour training course and concentrate on general sensitivity to the legal realities.

Design challenge case-specific 2: Timeframe of the project will definitely impact the Craig's ability to address design challenges. Based on Craigs initial discussion with Stan and Louise, he was allowed 5 weeks to complete the training course. Instructional Designers (ID) use several formulaic design models to develop learning modules, lessons, courses, and etc. The most common design model is ADDIE. When using the ADDIE model, the ID has several steps in the analyze phase to fulfill before initiating the design phase, and the main step is the needs assessment. When designing a course, the ID has to be able to understand the learners skills and knowledge levels before transitioning into the design phase. In Craigs case, he was allowed 5 weeks in total: 3 weeks for interviewing stakeholders and 2 weeks for developing the course. This is an unreal task for any ID to develop in 5 weeks, especially for Craig since he had to understand the international laws for the 16 locations of the company and for all the countries where the products are sold. In additional to the "A" and first "D" of the ADDIE model, the second "D" in the model is very significant as well. During the development phase, the ID review data collected from formative evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the training prior to fully developing the course. This process is crucial when developing a course. And according to the Craig's case, he will not have enough time to conduct a formative evaluation. Prioritize design challenges and case-specific issuesI would prioritize the design challenge and case-specific issues in the following order:

1. First, I would address the lack of a unified goal and scope for the project.

2. Secondly, I would address the unreal timeframe by presenting my strategy for successfully completing the project.

Previous experiences contributed to understanding the case problemAs mentioned in the case-specific 2 section, the ADDIE model is one of several effective designing models that's used by many IDs in the field. And if any course stands a chance of being effectively designed and developed, it needs to be fully vetted by the design process. In Craig's case, he was not given a fair chance to develop a course for Electron. The first misunderstanding was that the representatives of the company did not provide Craig with a project goal. Without a goal, how can one develop performance measure to gauge the success or failure of a goal; how can one determine initiatives to complete; how can one manage a project; and how can one determine a timeframe.

Throughout my coursework in the LSTE program, I have consistently read that in order to develop an effective course, I must respect the designing process. I must effectively analyze the demographics of my learners; I must allow the data from the analyze phase to determine my design; I must allow the assessment from the design phase to determine the course development; I must implement the course and allow the summative evaluation and assessment to determine the course improvements. In Craig's case, he was not give a goal or allowed enough time to effectively develop a course.

Solution 1: Craig needs to schedule a meeting with Stan, Louise, and Richard to discuss their competing goals and to establish the project's goal, scope, and timeframe. During the meeting, the team needs to agree to disagree to the projects goal, scope, and timeframe. Craig will use the information to initiate his project. Pro: With an established goal, scope, and realistic timeframe, Craig will be able to design and develop an effective course for Electron. The employees at the company will be training to understand the concerns of the company and be able to minimize problematic product outcomes. Con: Although the team members will agreed to disagree with the direction of the project, they will not wholeheartedly buy into the project. The team is essentially compromising to a position for the sake of initiating the project. But compromising does not guarantee that all team members are satisfied with the final decision. And in Craig's case, I do not believe that Richard will ever be satisfied with compromising his position and buying into a consultant developing the course. Thus, Richard will do everything in his power to sabotage Craig's efforts.In addition, the team needs to establish a realistic timeframe for developing the course, and the timeframe needs to be based on a proposed strategy provided by Craig. Solution 2: Craig needs to meet with Stan and Louise to discuss the project's goal, scope, and timeframe and Richard's strong hold on his failed training course and defiance stance against Craig's purpose. Stan and Louise need to establish parameters for Richard and communicate them to him. Richard should not be involved in establishing the goal for the project. Pro: If Stan and Louise determine the goal and the direction for the project and limit Richard's involvement to legal advisor, they will empower Craig to make decisions to develop the course. And by empowering Craig, he will be able to successfully satisfy the course without distractions from Richard. Although he will be advised by Richard, he will control the designing of the course and Richard will only be the advisor. Con: Richard might become furious and remove himself from the project. If he does, Craig will have to research all the legal regulations for the 16 counties where the sites are located and all of the countries where business is transacted. This will be a nightmare and will extend the timeframe too far into the future. Trying to complete the course in a reasonable timeframe will be lost in the abandonment of Richard.

Final recommendationThe final recommendation for the project is to establish one goal, develop a scope, and to agree on a realistic timeframe. Justify choice for the cons:Con 1: To prevent Richard from sabotaging the efforts of the training, he needs to feel that his advice is useful and beneficial. He also needs to know that parts of his training program will be included in the production of the course. Given that Richard understand the international and national laws regarding the company's products, he could be an asset in the design phase of the course. However, he still should have limited control. Con 2: To prevent Richard from abandoning the project, Craig needs to include him in the decision for the project's goal and include him in the design phase of the project but limit his control. Richard needs to understand that Craig was hired to satisfy the course because he has the skills, knowledge, and experience to develop a course that effectively satisfy the training concerns of the company.

Case Analysis Assignment #2Case: Denny CliffordCase Analysis #3: Designing Learning Experiences for Middle School Science TeachersIntroductionDenny's approach in developing course material for Dr. Cynthia Oakes's constructivist, reform-based method of scientific learning has created his dilemma. According to Denny, the constructivist approach ". . . translated into an aversion to such words as objectives, criterion-referenced test items, directed instruction, and right answers" (Ertmer, 2003). And given that Instructional Designers (ID) construct instructions based on learning, performance objectives and assessments, Denny is totally bewildered. In addition, he thought that his basic understanding of science would meet the needs of his project, but he realizes that he must rethink his approach to developing lessons, and he must learn the reformed approach to science before he can start. On the other hand, Cynthia is a forward thinker, an innovator, and a researcher who is passionate about reforming the way science in taught in middle school. She has developed and presented reform initiatives that has garnered her acclaimed success from science teachers and grant funders who are willing to invest dollars into her methodology. She is definitely an intellectual whose educational experience supersedes Denny's, which appears to have caused his intimidation. Denny wants to design and develop the course material for Cynthia, but given that he cannot wrap his head around her approach to science and that he feels she has an aversion for instructions that solicits right answers, he feels totally overwhelmed and bewildered. In fact, his bewilderment has distracted him from his normal approach to an instructional design project and left him in a situation where he doubts his ability to perform. With just five days to propose a strategy for Cynthia's course, he fears the worse although he has enough material, notes, and contacts to grasp Cynthia's reform method to be able to propose a sound strategy. Key stakeholders and their primary concerns:1. Denny Clifford: the independent consultant for the project; his primary concern is to develop a set of innovated instructional material for middle school science teachers 2. Dr. Cynthia Oakes: the client of the project; her primary concern is the development of a set of innovative materials for middle school science teachers and providing scientific problem-solving education to middle school teachers 3. Grantor: the grantor's primary concern is that Cynthia's method of science delivery be distributed to teachers throughout the district and nation; the grantor also expect that the delivery method be effective. 4. Middle School science teachers: targeted audience who are forced to learn and who want to learn how to use the constructivist approach to teaching science.

Design challenge case-specific 1Denny's intimidation of Dr. Oakes' educational experiences and his lack of understanding her reformed-based approach to teaching science have clouded his ability to meet the needs of this project, which in turns may cause him to lose the project.

Design challenge case-specific 2Cynthia's reform-based method of teaching science has driven Denny to confusion because it provides no confined structure for organizing controlled activities or assessing content outcomes. In fact, Cynthia's method does not seek right or wrong answers; her method only seeks to guide problem-solving strategies and correct scientific procedural application to aid in learning. Danny, on the other hand, is accustomed to developing assessments based on learning objectives to test the learners knowledge of course content. Denny's tunnel approach to science has blocked his ability to embrace Cynthia's reform-based method of science delivery. Prioritize design challenges and case-specific issuesPriority 1: First, Denny needs to psychologically get beyond Cynthia's level of education, review the material she provided him, and learn her scientific, problem-solving method of teaching science. Once he has reviewed the material and learned her style of teaching, he needs to draft a list of questions to present to her prior to developing his proposal. Priority 2: Secondly, Denny needs to review the material he has been presented, and learn her scientific, problem-solving method of teaching science to determine how to develop instructions and assessments to meet the needs of the reformed-based approach to science. He needs a shift in paradigm of how he normally conceptualize instructions and assessments and concentrate on what Cynthia is requesting.

Previous experiences contributed to understanding the case problemIn a previous reading, I learned the domain levels of knowledge as they relate to a novice, an advanced beginner, and a expert. In Denny's case, he is set on following the rules of the ID model of developing instructions and assessments, which categorizes him as a novice or advanced beginner. In this situation, he needs to deviate from the normal approach to develop objectives and assessments to meet the needs of this assignment. And it can be done if Denny loosen his hold on rules. For example, instead of assessing right answers in a problem-solving learning environment, he should only assess the learner's approach to problem solving. And he can develop an online classroom simulation workshop where teachers interact with students and encouraging them to problem solve. The teachers can take information from the students and show them how to use the information to problem solve according to the reformed-based method. If the teachers fail to correctly follow the method, they will be assessed on their failure to follow scientific problem-solving and not on recall of terms or the ability to correctly solve an algebraic problem. Solution 1: Denny needs to review the material that Cynthia has provided him, his notes, and draft a series of questions to discuss with Cynthia before he develop a proposal for the instructions. Pro: By reviewing the material and meeting with Cynthia, he would have an informed approach to a discussing with her so that he do not feel intimidated or he can gain a better understand of the case. Then he will be able to draft a proposal for the instructions. Con: Given that Denny has met with Cynthia on four occasions regarding the material for the workshop, he will lose credibility if he decided to meet with her again prior to submitting the proposal. Cynthia is expecting a proposal from him within 5 days or less, and she do not expect to meet with him any time before. Solution 2: Denny needs to review the material, notes, and study Cynthia's constructivist approach to science delivery, and once he understands it, he needs to wrap his head around how to develop a set of instructions and assessments that deviates from the normal ID approach and create an approach that meets the needs of Cynthia's reform-based method. Pro: If Denny learns a new way of designing instructions and assessments for non-objective, criterion-referenced, and right answers, he would present to the field of instructional designing a new way of looking at instructional development in which future IDs will have the knowledge and know how to approach a similar situation. Con: Given that Denny has wasted a lot of time trying to understand Cynthia's reform-based scientific approach, which has prevented him from reviewing his notes and the material that she provided him, Denny will not meet the 5 day expected date to submit a proposal to Cynthia, and if he does not have a proposal to submit, he will lose credibility and maybe the job.

Final recommendation

Denny needs to schedule a meeting with Cynthia and explain to her that he needs at least 7 more days to draft the proposal because her request is more complex than he expected. He needs to convince her that he is confident that he can satisfy the job, but he needs more time to test theories about non-objective based instructions and assessments. And when he submits the proposal, he will include an instructional analysis along with the proposal.

Con1: Denny needs to review the material so that he can have an informed discussion with Cynthia and be able to draft the proposal within 5 days. And when he presents the proposal, he can be more confident so that he can ask leading questions to gauge more information about the non-objective based instructions and assessments. As Cynthia gives him feedback, he can use the knowledge to complete the instructions.

Con 2: Given that Denny needs to review the material and understand it to the point to draft a proposal to submit to Cynthia within 5 days, he needs to sacrifice his sleep to get the job done. Like sacrificing, he needs to meet with contacts who have attended Cynthia's workshops to gain a better understanding of the reformed-based approach to science delivery and carefully draft a proposal to present to Cynthia.

ReferencesChunking: Design for efficient learning. (2014, January 1). Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.theflyingcashew.com/2013/03/31/chunking-design-principle/De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, (10), 7-12. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Google Scholar.Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2015). Identifying Instructional Goals Using Front-End Analysis.The Systematic Design of Instruction. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc .Duchastel, P., & Merrill, P. The effects of Behavioral Objectives on Learning: A Review of Empirical Studies .Eric,45, 1-50.Ehringhaus, K., & Garrison, M. (n.d.). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. . Retrieved July 14, 2014, http://ccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/formative_and_summative_assessment_in_the_classroom.pdfErtmer, P. A., Glazewski, K., & Quinn, J. (2003).The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.Geert, V., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, (23), 115-128. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Google Scholar.Gobet, F., Lane, P., Croket, S., Cheng, P., Jones, G., Oliver, L., et al. Chunking mechanisms in human learning.Trends in Cognitive Science,5, 236-243. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from www.trends.comHoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280 (5362), 390391.Meador, D. (2014, January 1). What are some Pros and Cons of the Common Core Standards? Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://teaching.about.com/od/assess/f/What-Are-Some-Pros-And-Cons-Of-The-Common-Core-Standards.htmMetfessel, N., Michael, W., & Kirsner, D. Instrumentation of Bloom's and Karthwohl's Taxonomies.Eric,106, 1-12.Molenda, M. In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model.Performance Improvement,42, 34-36. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from the Google Scholar database.Prensky , M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants .On the Horizon,9(5), Retrieved from http://www.nnstoy.org/download/technology/Digital Natives - Digital Immigrants.pdfRappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education.Roblyer, M. D., & Doering , A. (2013).Integrating educational technology into teaching. (6th ed., p. 17). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.SCAFFOLDING. (2014, February 3). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://edglossary.org/scaffolding/Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S., & Rose, L. (2012). Emotion and Cognition Are Co-regulated. InA Research Reader In(pp. 57). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Smith, R. (2008). Design with content in mind.Conquering the Content: A Step-by-Step Guide to Online Course Design. San Francisco: John WIley & Sons, Inc.

2