R511: Instructional Technology Foundations (Fall 2017)
Department, IU School of Education
4947; Online Version; Syllabus (HTML, Word, PDF)
Zoom (Synchronous); https://IU.zoom.us/j/8123222878 or https://IU.zoom.us/my/curtbonk
Course Link to
Professor Curt Bonk, Indiana University, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Assistants: Annisa Sari, IST Doctoral Student, Email: email@example.com
Haesol Bae: IST Doctoral Student, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
is a foundational course in Instructional Systems Technology (IST) and provides
an overview of instructional technology (IT) (which many people refer to as
“educational technology” (or just “ed tech”) and more recently, some might
refer to “learning technology” and “digital technology”). Your instructor was
trained at the University of Wisconsin where they referred to the field as
educational technology, in which he minored, while majoring in educational
psychology. Hence, he will refer to the field using different terms this
semester. The course also explores the important and fast emerging field of human
performance technology (HPT). There are several courses in IST related to HPT.
that many IST students come from diverse fields and backgrounds, R511 provides
a sense of history and an explanation of how the components of instructional
technology, educational technology, learning technology, and human performance
technology, and other associated fields all fit together. The course has been
designed to focus primarily on IT and HPT. An introduction to IT and HPT
includes definitions, theories, histories, trends and issues, and career
opportunities. Class discussions and activities will be devoted to broadening your
understanding of these fields as they relate to learning and performance in
diverse organizations and institutions (e.g., schools, colleges and
universities, military training departments, corporate learning, non-profit
entities, government settings) as well as in more self-directed and often
solitary educational pursuits.
in this course are expected to develop an understanding of the basic vocabulary
and underlying principles of IT and HPT as well as learn about many of the key
contributors to these fields. By the end of this course, you should be able to:
Terms: Use and comprehend many of the
basic terms in IT and HPT with comprehension, confidence, and high ethical
Definitions and Frameworks: Generate personal definitions and
conceptual frameworks for thinking about the fields of IT and HPT as a means to
better engage with the content and expand one’s learning.
Conceptual Models: Compare and contrast different
conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions that have emerged over the past
century or more; in particular, the past two or three decades.
History: Trace the evolution of major
ideas in IT and HPT over time, including being able to explicate one’s internal
understanding in the forms of concept maps, timelines, taxonomies, flowcharts,
Leaders: Begin to associate key people
with different ideas in terms of HPT and IT. As the course moves into the
latter stages, one should begin to discern people with common perspectives or
Trends: Identify and discuss trends and
issues that affect the fields of IT and HPT today. In addition, one should
predict new trends and concerns on the near horizon.
Careers: Gain an understanding of career
development and potential roles in IT, HPT, and associated fields. As part of
this, one should learn about key professional organizations and associations as
well as popular and emerging conferences, institutes, and meetings in the
field. One might even become a member, reviewer, or contributor within one or
more of such professional organizations. Exploring possible career paths and
goals is a part of this objective.
Potential Role: Begin to realize the vast job
opportunities in the field as well as some in related fields; and ponder your
potential role or responsibilities in one or more such positions.
Personal Network: Begin to grow your network of
contacts in the field of instructional and educational technology through
meetings with synchronous guest experts as well as archived videos of such
Become aware of
performance standards advocated by different professional organizations and
institutions, technical reports and white papers, and governmental policies.
different values espoused by those in these fields as they push for greater
access, instructional efficiencies, effective educational processes, and
generally enhancing the human condition through educational and instructional
with ethical challenges that characterize IT, HPT, and related fields.
about some of the emerging learning technologies and tools helping shape the
field. And obtain such experience and competence in using one or more of these
savvy with the content and technology resources provided for learning the
topic(s) of each week in the R511 course (including the weekly videos, digital
documents, PowerPoint slides, etc.). By the end of the course, the learner will
have ability to respond to questions and concerns using such content and
that there is no one right answer for many of the key issues, questions, and
concerns that will be discussed in the course. Be flexible at times with such
ambiguity in the field (including the definition of what the field actually
is). In effect, you will have a continuing conversation with your peers in this
course as well as with experts, the instructor, and others.
Schedule (Note: This may
change depending upon circumstances)
(August 20): Course Introductions and Open Explore Week
(August 27): Instructional Technology Overview
(September 3): Instructional Systems Design (Task #2 due)
(September 10): Instructional Development Process
(September 17): Theories of Learning: Behaviorism
(September 24): Cognitive and Constructivist Perspectives
(October 1): Authentic Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeship
(October 8): Theories of Learning Comparison
(October 15): History of IT (Task #3 and Task #4 due)
(October 22): Trends and Issues in IT
(October 29): Human Performance Technology: Concepts and Process Models
(November 5): History, Trends, and Issues in HPT
(November 12): Professional Ethics
(November 26): Career and Professional Development
(December 3): Self-Selection Week, Explore, & Final Projects (Task #5 and
Task #6 due)
Grading Criteria, and Due Dates
The course will
be broken into three main areas or modules:
definitions, concepts, models, theories, history, and trends and issues
definitions, concepts, models, theories, history, and trends and issues
and HPT career and professional development, ethics, and standards
participation & discussion in class 40
Definition of IT in Canvas 20
points September 3
Theories or Book Issue Review 30
points October 15 (Midterm team-based)
and Script on an IT Issue or Trend 30
points October 15 (Midterm team-based)
and/or HPT or Book Issue Review 30
points December 3
Project and Reflection (see options) 50
points December 3
Note: Many of the course tasks will require
an associated reflection paper. Note also that the “Midterm Teams” will be
determined democratically and with student voices, if possible.
Total Points = 200 (Grading will be
according to a 90-80-70-60 scale; see below.)
Grades: 200 or more = A+; 187 = A; 180 = A-; 173
= B+; 167 = B; 160 = B-; 153 = C+; 147 = C; 140 = C-; 120 = D
All papers will
be evaluated for criteria such as: (1) organization and clarity; (2) coherence
and flow; (3) content appropriateness and relevancy; (4) apparent effort
expended and completeness; (5) originality and creativity; and (6) attention to
details (including the use of APA 6th edition where appropriate). I
will use more detailed grading rubrics for several of the tasks.
have a 48 hour lateness policy with no penalties for any assignment. Anything
submitted after that 48 hour cushion or window loses 1 point per day. So if it
says it is due Sunday at midnight, you actually have until Tuesday at midnight
to turn it in without penalty.
Copyright, Plagiarism, and Original Work: I
expect personally created, unique work on all assignments. Please do not try to
cheat the system or this course. Please acquaint yourself with the “IU Code of
Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct” for the
concept of plagiarism. If you are
unsure of the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism, you can take a self-paced course on Understanding
Plagiarism from Dr. Ted Frick from the IST department. This website is devoted
to teaching people about plagiarism and it has tutorials and tests (info). Any assignment containing plagiarized material will
be awarded a grade of F. At the discretion of the instructor, any assignment
turned in that is deemed incomplete, failing to address the task objectives, or
seriously flawed in any way may be turned back to the student for revision or
correction of the problem. No incompletes will be awarded unless there is an
emergency or mutually agreed upon reason.
book is required for this course. Book chapters and articles are available in
Canvas and Dropbox. If you want to purchase the books below, please try to
acquire cheap used versions at Amazon. But you will
likely find them cheaper at Half.com, AbeBooks.com, Half-Priced
Books and Resources:
1. Januszewski, A.,
& Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with
commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Amazon; AbeBooks.com; AECT
2. Reiser, R. A.,
& Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc. (Note: the second edition of this book
from 2007 is much cheaper to find online used and perhaps is all you need. The
third edition is cheaper too.)
A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.) (2017). Issues
in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary
issues. NY: Routledge.
Bonus Bonk Book (free): You also have access to a new free e-book
from the course instructor:
Bonk, C. J.,
& Khoo E. (2014). Adding Some
TEC-VARIETY: 100+ Activities for Motivating and Retaining Learners Online.
OpenWorldBooks and Amazon
CreateSpace: Free book: http://tec-variety.com/; free chapters at http://tec-variety.com/freestuff.php
Presentations and Course Resources (and acknowledgements)
modules include narrated presentations featuring Dr. Michael Molenda and Dr.
James Pershing, IST Professors Emeritus, with their take on IT and HPT. We
should all recognize and appreciate their respective contributions to this
class and to this field. I personally thank them for their assistance and
knowledge in forming many of the course materials that we will use. I also wish
to thank Professor Yonjoo Cho and Professor Kyungbin Kwon for their time,
resources, and kindness. Dr. Kwon also provided help with the activities and
resources that we will access in Canvas.
Bonus Bonk Resource:
help you understand learning and instructional theories, you might also want to
access and watch one or more of my set of video lectures on learning theories
developed for a different course (i.e., P540). Some that I recommend are
specifically listed in the weekly course schedule as optional. Video Lectures: http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/September102008.html
Optional Weekly Synchronous Meetings (i.e., chats
with former IST students, professors, and IST leaders—Note: these are optional
Like in the past
fall and spring of 2016, I will use Zoom (and perhaps Skype) for optional weekly
meetings of around an hour with
former professors of IST here at IU as well as well-known researchers and leaders
in the field and former master’s and doctoral students of the IST program from
the past two or three decades. I typically invite a different person for each
week of the course. We will vote on the time, but perhaps 7 or 8 pm on either
Monday or Tuesday night might work. You have the option to attend any or all of
these or skip them entirely. If you attend these one hour sessions, you can ask
them any question about the field or their professional life or research that
you want. The conversation might be about the topic of the week, what they
learned about the field when in graduate school, their current or past job
responsibilities, major projects and publications, professional
accomplishments, and any trends and issues that they see for the field now or
on the near horizon.
They will be recorded. The link will be shared and also posted to Canvas.
Remember these sessions are OPTIONAL!
If you attend 4 or more of the optional
synchronous sessions (see page 1 for the link(s)) and write a 2-3 page single
spaced reflection paper on what the guest speakers said about the field of IT
and/or HPT, you can replace Task #3, #4, or #5 (Important Note: “or” means just once can you use this option).
If you attend 7 or more of these
sessions and write a 4-6 page single spaced reflection paper, you can replace
the final assignment (i.e., Task #6). If you select this option, I want you to
include at least 3 similarities across two or more guests and at least 3
differences. Summary tables or charts are always helpful and informative. Look
for themes in the trends and issues which they mention for the field of IST.
The inclusion of a few direct quotes is optional but strongly encouraged. How
has the field of IT and HPT evolved and changed according to these experts
including many former professors and students of this class? And where is it
headed? What insights have these guests revealed or hinted at? What kernels of
knowledge and wisdom can you now bank on or at least lean on? Can you come up
with a summary of the top 10 kernels of wisdom from these guests and relate
these to your own future career goals? Again, a summary table or two is often
useful for putting your observations together.
R511 Course Tasks
Class Discussion (Task #1
Group; Task #2 Individual but shared)
#1: Weekly Postings (40 points)
will not be lecturing in this class. Instead, I will post PowerPoint files and
various other resources from a couple of the IST instructors. One student in
the class will post a set of questions each week as the discussion starter and
moderator that discusses those articles (you can sign up for
for this role: http://trainingshare.com/r511.php). This person
will also wrap up discussion at the end of the week as the closer (e.g.,
summarize key points made and discussion themes, note questions that remain
open, and remind us of some of the cool or interesting resources shared). In
starting the discussion, he or she will be required to post their questions by 10
am EST Sunday morning of the week (for example, Week 2 would be due on Sunday August
27). All students are also required to reply to at least two other students’
questions by the end of Friday (11:55 pm EST) each week in Canvas (Discussion).
The instructor will decide whether postings are acceptable by reviewing the
quality and the quantity of the postings throughout the semester. We may engage
in some online role play in the middle of the semester. The online role play
form for R511 can be found here: http://www.trainingshare.com/r511roles.php.
Task #2: Researching
Your Own Definition of Instructional Technology (IT) (20 points)
of instructional technology (IT) and educational technology (ET) are diverse
and are often not agreed upon because they are constantly evolving. To be frank
and honest, I am the instructor and even I do not fully know what IT or ET means.
In this first task, you are asked to conduct interviews with at least two educational
technology or instructional technology people located anywhere on Planet Earth
or in the international space station hovering above. One interviewee should be
a faculty member, instructional designer, learning center director, trainer,
instructional consultant, or similar. The second interviewee should be a graduate
student or recent graduate in the field of education or training (preferably
someone who has taken R511, but that is not required). Request: Please avoid interviewing an IST professor at IU. Please
also avoid interviewing one of the instructional assistants for this class. I
can provide a list of former IST students who are now professors and
instructional designers in the U.S. and other countries. Based on your interviews,
readings, and associated class discussions, you will write up your definition
of IT as well as educational technology along with your key interview notes and
post it to Canvas. At the instructor’s discretion, a bonus point will be
awarded to one or more students who interview someone highly distinctive,
interesting, important, or unusual or whose result is deemed markedly
interesting or innovative. Maximum length is 1 page single spaced (or 4
paragraphs), whichever is shorter.
Midterm Tasks (In Teams of Two or Three
Members (Tasks #3 and #4)
Task #3: A. Designing
a Learning Theories Matrix and
Explanation Guide (30 points)
In this task, I
want you to work with one other course member and display your basic
understanding of the underlying concepts and principles of behaviorism,
cognitive theory, constructivism, and cognitive apprenticeship in theory and
application. As a team of two (or three) people, you will negotiate your
understanding. In essence, you will create a matrix table that indicates
characteristics, principles, theorists, and examples for at least 3 learning
theories. You will develop a customized matrix that showcases your
understanding of the three frameworks and how they fit into your context. The
context could be a business, school, university, government agency, non-profit
organization, consulting firm, or military training institute. Please be sure
to mention how your matrix would affect approaches to instructional design and
delivery. Prepare a comparison advance organizer (matrix table) and an
accompanying explanation guide that walks others through your customized
learning theories matrix. The visual should be a maximum of 2 pages while a one
page single spaced reflection paper of your learning growth and on the ideas in
your display should accompany it (i.e., 3 pages total).
will be graded for its overall originality, logic, clarity, parsimony,
relevance, and persuasiveness. The main terms used should be explained or defined.
Effort should be made to include terms and ideas from both the readings as well
as the class discussions in Canvas. There should be a brief overview of each theory.
The categories and format of different classifications in the table should make
comparisons and contrasts relatively easy.
Task #3 Option B: Book Issue, Dialogue, and Debate
As noted in the recommended books for this class, there is an exciting new book
out from an IST alum, Dr. Ali Carr-Chellman. This book focuses on a number of
interesting current debates, challenges, trends, issues, and discourses in the
field of instructional and educational technology. It is titled:
A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.) (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and
contemporary issues. NY: Routledge.
In this option,
I want you to map out the issues from 3 to 5 chapters from this book, including
content found in any expert responses and author rejoinders to each chapter
selected. What is the debate or concern all about? What are the new
possibilities for the field and for education in general? What role can
educational and instructional technologists play in this area? Your resulting
completed assignment could be in the form of a series of flowcharts, pro and
con tables, comparison and contrast charts, unique diagrams, chapter concept
maps, or simply a text recap of the prevailing issues and opportunities.
Estimate about 1 page of content per chapter reviewed or at least 3 pages
total, not counting appendices and references. If you choose a visual option,
please include a 1-2 paragraph (single spaced) description of what each chapter
visual means or represents. Two bonus points will be offered to those who
perform a skit, debate, or related activity (preferably with a partner) related
to one of those chapters and post it to Canvas. In addition, up to two bonus
points will be offered for those who recap or map out 1-2 additional chapters
from this book.
Task #3 Option C: Extended Book Reading and
Also noted in the earlier recommended book section of this syllabus, there is a
brand new version of the Robert (Bob) Reiser and Jack Dempsey book (i.e., the
long awaited 4th edition) from which we are reading many chapters
written for earlier editions of this book. It is titled:
R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
As my friend Dr.
Bob Reiser mentioned to this class a year ago when he was a guest in Zoom,
there are many new chapters in the fourth edition of the popular book. Hence,
in this option, you will read 3-5 chapters that are not already assigned in the
R511 syllabus and analyze them. What chapters interested or engaged you and
why? What did you learn when reading them that we had not already discussed in
R511? Why are certain trends and ideas discussed and debated in these
particular chapters important to the field of instructional technology? You
might attempt to make the case for including these chapters next time. Finally,
what did you read that confirmed what you have learned in R511 thus far? In
terms of length, estimate about 1 page of content per chapter reviewed or at
least 3 pages total, not counting appendices and references.
Creating a Script and Video for an Issue or Trend (30 points)
In the same
team, you will create a video of some pressing issue or trend in the field of
IT or HPT. The purpose of this task is to help you better understand the
history, issues, trends, and views surrounding the IT or HPT field. Please
select an issue that seems highly pressing or important to you. Next, develop a
script that discusses the issue from different points of view. After that, put
this script into a video format which should be of 5-10 minutes in length (12
minutes maximum). A video creation tool like Go Animate, Moovly, PowToon,
VideoScribe, Wideo, Make Web Video, or some other such tool can help. Finally,
you should complete this task with a one page maximum single spaced reflection
paper discussing your stance on the issue as well as the process you went
through in creating your video. Make sure to include supporting evidence and
place the issue in your own context, including your possible role in the future
in terms of this issue or trend. Please post a link to your video in Canvas and
attach your reflection paper.
will be graded for its overall originality, completeness or depth, logic and
coherence, clarity, parsimony, relevance, and persuasiveness. The script should
include at least two characters discussing or debating the issue, trends, or
concept. Key terms within that issue should be included. In addition, an effort
should be made to link this issue to class discussions in Canvas. References
should be included where appropriate. And substantial evidence should be provided
to back up any claims made.
Task #4 Examples:
The Relative Advantages and Disadvantages of Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOC’s), by Michael Karlin and Sabina Ramazanova, November 4,
R511 Midterm Video Flipped Classroom, by Roger Dreher, Angie Lauchtmann, Kim
Woodward, March 7, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcr3_aZT_xQ&feature=youtu.be
How to Create an Authentic Environment in a
Content-Driven School?, by Nik Bauchat and Nick Hargnett, Spring of 2015:
The Impact of Blended Learning, by Renee Hung and
Kim Spartz, March 7, 2015
School Board Meeting Debate: The
Flipped Classroom Model, by Nora McCaffrey and Lauren Smith, March
6. March 8, 2016, R511, Task, Ran Record and Amber Knox, Video:
7. March 8, 2016, Ryan Russell and Geng (Roy) Niu, R511 Task 4, Open
Educational Resources, R511: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giHtFjzHQc
8. March 8, 2016, Deb Cole and Channelle Jones, HPT Task 4, R511
9. October 21, 2016, Merve Basdoga, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpouHO2eJ8&feature=youtu.be
10. October 26, 2016, R511, Faishal Zakaria, Roberto Borfecchia and Weipeng
Yang, PBL (11:11): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9YDNkNTIa4DNHJTazd0NDk2VUE/view
11. October 26, 2016, R511, Rob Elliot, Erin Milanese, and Patrick Walsh
Traditional Textbook (8:11): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B25AtCR9Ddd5NE9DaS16RlpiMW8/view
Tasks (Task #5 is individual; Task #6 is individual or team-based)
Task #5 Option
A: Displaying Understanding of IT and/or
HPT (30 points; completed individually)
task has three pages. On page one, using the terms below and at least 10-15
additional terms learned in this class, I want you to create a graphical
representation (e.g., Venn diagram, comparison and contrast chart, taxonomy,
timeline, flowchart, mindmap, concept map, etc.) to show how these terms relate
to each other. To explain this diagram, include a second page that lists your
own definitions for each term and a third page which contains a 2 or 3
paragraph summary explaining the ideas, connections, and relationships in your
visual design or diagram. If some of these terms overlap for you, feel free to
combine these or choose other more relevant terms or entirely new terms in your
diagram. Here are some starter terms: 1. Instructional Technology; 2.
Educational Technology; 3. Instructional Systems Technology; 4. Instructional
Systems Design; 5. Instructional Design; and 6 Human Performance Technology.
Please add additional terms of your own choosing.
visuals depictions will be graded on many aspects or dimensions. For instance,
I will look at their overall connectedness, macrostructure, micro linkages or
details, casual relations, descriptions and explanations or relationships made,
and formatting or organization. In addition, creativity and innovation in your design
and ideas will be assessed.
Task #5 Option B: Book Review: You might do a
3-4 single spaced page review of one of the two new books recommended for this
course. In such a book review, you might map out the strengths, weaknesses,
potential audiences and uses, key issues, etc. Just what key terms and concepts
did you learn from this book? What remains missing from the text and is a
potential opportunity for others? A mini-glossary of personal definitions for
20-25 key terms and concepts found in this book might be included in an
appendix at the end of the review. In addition, you might post a snippet of
your review to Amazon for a bonus point.
A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.) (2017). Issues
in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary
issues. NY: Routledge.
R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Task #6: Final
Project Options (50 points)
final project will exhibit your understanding of IT and HPT. There are four
options for this task which are listed below. You can work alone or in a team.
It is your choice.
Promotional Visual Material. Think of the project as an advertisement
or a promotional piece that presents the fields as you explain them to people
in your context. This promotional piece can be in whatever platform (e.g., a
website, a video, or 2-4 page brochure) you feel most appropriate as long as it
meets the requirements as expressed in the grading rubric. The visual or
graphic should answer the following questions for the intended audience: What
do IT and HPT fields mean to you? Where did IT and HPT come from? Who are the
influential people and what are the “big ideas”? How might you implement IT and
HPT in your organization? Remember, this is 30% of your grade and it also
serves as a capstone to what you have learned! A 1-2 page single spaced
reflection paper should be included with this assignment. First, that paper
should explain the conceptual aspects of your website design, brochure, or
similar type of promotional material. Second, it should include a recap of key
ideas that you have learned in the course in the context of your past, present,
and anticipated future plans in the field.
Task #6 Option A
Gina Howard and Michael Karlin, What is
Instructional Technology?, Fall 2014: http://mkarlin1.wix.com/r511final
Kendal Rasnake (Writing, Editing,
and Effects - Informational Parody - Is IT Right For You?), Spring 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ3GUDICIGw
Welcome to IST, April 26, 2015: http://troy-cockrum.com/instructional-systems-technology/
R511 Final Projects, April
2016, The World of IT and HPT (Website)
Geng (Roy) Niu, http://johnnydepp0.wix.com/r511foundation
R511 Final Projects, April
2016, Performance by Design (Prezi)
Greg Reuchel, https://prezi.com/oz7eskjihhrw/performance-by-design/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Projects, April 2016, IT and HPT Comparison (Website), December 13, 2016:
Doug Hsu, http://dougandindira.wix.com/r511finalproject
IU School of Medicine,
Medical Imaging Technology Online MRI Education, Kellie Cranfill, Debra
Patterson, Ashley Marshall: R511, Fall 2016, December 13, 2016: http://bonk511-mri.weebly.com/education-at-iupui.html
Where Did HPT and Ed
Tech Come From?, Sarah McDonough, R511, Fall 2016 (Timeglider): December
13, 2016: http://sarahmcdonoug1.wixsite.com/website/the-roots-of-both-fields
Instructional Technology, Latrice Booker, R511, Fall 2016, December 13, 2016, http://bookerlr2000.wixsite.com/librariansforit/cognitivism
10. Hoosier Instructional Technologists, R511, Fall 2016, December 13, 2016:
11. “IST Construction, Co.,” Rob Elliot, Patrick Walsh, Erin Milanese, R511,
Fall 2016, December 13, 2016, http://relliott.net/istconstruction/index.php
12. What is Instructional Technology (Website), Channelle Jones and Deb Cole
13. "Cousins but Not Twins: Instructional Technology and Human
Performance Technology,” Merve Basdogan and Brett Gary, R511, Fall 2016,
December 13, 2016:
Option B: Useful
Textual Material. In
this option, instead of a visual or graphical overview and reflection, I want students
to create a text-based summary. Such a text might be a wikibook, mobile book,
study guide, glossary, series of job aids, technical report, white paper,
research report, or something similar. This text material should explicate some
aspect of IT or HPT. You might attempt to publish it or make it available free
to the world community. A 1-2 page single spaced reflection paper should be
included with this assignment. First of all, that paper should explain the conceptual
aspects of your final project. Second, it should include a recap of key ideas
that you have learned in the course in the context of your past, present, and
anticipated future plans in the field.
Voluntary Services or Materials. This option involves using the content
of the course to help another person or an entire organization or entity out.
This could be helping a non-profit agency with a strategic plan involving IT or
HPT content. It might take the form of tutoring, mentoring, or teaching one or
more people about the field or IT or HPT. You might develop an instructional
module or one-to-one personal tutorial. You might also create a lecture or
speech that you deliver in a class, conference workshop, or some other training
event. A 1-2 page single spaced reflection paper should be included with this
assignment. First, that paper should explain the conceptual aspects of your
final project. Second, it should include a recap of key ideas that you have
learned in the course in the context of your past, present, and anticipated
future plans in the field.
of the final will depend, in part, on which option was selected. Be sure to
include references (in APA format), examples, and evidence where appropriate.
Key terms should be defined in a key or ending glossary. The final product or
design should display some sense of creativity as well as unity in the design.
Option D: Leader
in the Field Video Reviews and Reflections. Those selecting this option
should watch video interview reflections or presentations from at least 15 leaders
in the field of instructional and educational technology (e.g., Robert Reiser,
Mike Molenda, Charlie Reigeluth, David Merrill, Michael Spector, Mendel
Sherman, Marcy Driscoll, Robert Gagne, Rita Richey, Phil Harris, Robert Mayer,
David Jonassen, Tom Reeves, Mike Hannafin, Kay Persichitte, Kyle Peck, etc.). Many
video links listed below in this syllabus (see the “Course Readings and Videos”
section). More such video interviews of stars in the field are at the AECT
Legacies and Legends project (see http://aectlegends.org/#). If you select
this option, you are to write a 4-6 page single spaced reflection (perhaps
2,500-3,000 words or more) of the insights, concerns, commonalities,
disagreements, suggestions, trends, experiences, projects, and technologies
mentioned by these thought leaders. What are some the issues raised in these
videos that the field of instructional and educational technology needs to
address? What might the future hold for the field according to these experts?
Please include one or more tables with the themes which run through 2 or more
of the videos. You should also include a table with a list of questions that
might you want to ask one or more of them. Your paper should indicate which
person or people mentioned the particular issues, trends, and needs. In
addition, somewhere in your paper you should list the expert videos in which
you watched (i.e., a reference section).
Personal Choice or Design. This option allows you to design your own final
product that meets the goals of showing your knowledge growth within this
course. You will need to obtain approval from the course instructor by November
1st if you intend to select this option.
Task #6 Option F
1. IST Groove Song, Jeffrey Jenkins, R511, Spring 2015: https://soundcloud.com/jeffjenkins25/ist-groove
R511 Final Projects, April 2016, Blended Learning
and Career Readiness
Russell Ryan (voiceover slides)
of Weekly Course Readings and Videos
There are 3 to 6 articles assigned each week. You are required to read 3 or 4
of them. You can find the course articles as well as the narrated course
presentations at a link in Canvas as well as in an introductory email from the
you find interesting articles to read in one of the two recommended books above
(i.e., Januszewski and Molenda (2008) and Reiser and Dempsey (3rd
edition in 2012 or 4th edition in 2018)), you can substitute them at
any time without penalty. I also highly recommend that you watch the video
interviews with many of the highly well-known authors below so that you will be
better able to recognize these IT and HPT leaders and appreciate their decades
of commitment to the profession. Those who find similar highly informative
video interviews of other scholars in our reading list and share them with the
class will receive a bonus point. I have also included 4 of my 8 video
on learning theories which I produced back in September 2008. The whole 8-pack of talks is now
available via this easy-to-remember link: http://curtbonk.com/8-pack. You should also review the PowerPoint
slides posted for each week or module as well as the audio files from Dr. Mike
Molenda and Dr. Jim Pershing.
Week 1 (August 20).
Course Introductions and Open Explore Week
Open Week: I recommend that you download all of the articles and read through a few
of them (the link will be posted to Canvas as well as sent to you via email).
Please also post your personal introductions in the Week 1 discussion forum in
Canvas. You might also get started on Task #2. And you might post your article
reflections in Canvas.
Week 2 (August
27). Instructional Technology Overview
A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Chapter 1: Definition. In Educational Technology:
A Definition with Commentary (pp. 1-14). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. (see also video interview with Dr. Molenda on his definition of
educational technology for AECT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXSqkcwjCss).
A., & Perischitte, K. A. (2008). Chapter 10: A history of the AECT’s
definitions of educational technology. In Educational Technology: A
Definition with Commentary (pp. 259-282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
M., & Boling, E. (2008). Chapter 4: Creating. In Educational Technology:
A Definition with Commentary (pp. 81-139). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
R. A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our
field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-7). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V.
Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 21-28).
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. (see also video interview with Michael
Spector (40:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjI9eZPJfPs).
B., & Moonen, J. (2002). Flexible learning in a digital world. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance
Learning, 17(2). 217-230.
3 (September 3). Instructional Systems Design
R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design
models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 8-16). Boston, MA: Pearson
J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part
one: Developments based on behavioral and cognitive science foundations. Educational Technology, 51(1), 3-20.
W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 2-14). New York:
G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Introduction to the instructional
design process. Designing
effective instruction. (5th ed.) (pp. xviii-26). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34.
(September 10). Instructional Development Process
M., Pershing, J.A., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1996). Designing instructional
systems. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD Training and Development Handbook
4th ed. (pp. 266-280). New York:
M. P. (2000). Gagné’s theory of instruction. Ch. 10 in Psychology of Learning
for Instruction, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 341-372 (see
also a Tribute to Robert Gagne (57:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggJ1-AjlGeE).
M. David. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research & Development 50(3), 43-59 (see in 2012 video interview
with David Merrill (53:56): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7COb2aZDrcs).
C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence
decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp.
425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (see also video interview “Talking Reinventing
Public Schools with Dr. Charles Reigeluth” (19:36); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrT_s0Lk_WM
and Charles Reigeluth: What education could be – roles (4:23): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_3iy-O_03M and Charles
Reigeluth: Why systemic change is important (4:29) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVFiwRMywqM
Podcast – “Gagne's
and his theory of instruction,” Curt Bonk and Chris Essex (my former
podcast partner who is now deceased), March 28, 2006. Audio podcast (Length:
(September 17). Theories of Learning: Behaviorism
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of
learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review 24:1:
P. (1990c). Behaviorism and educational technology: 1950 - 1980. Ch. 10 in The
Evolution of American Educational Technology (pp. 286-317).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
M. P. (2005). Radical behaviorism. In Psychology of learning for instruction
(3rd ed.) (pp. 29-69). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
see: Gredler, M. (2001). B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning. In her book on
Learning and Instruction (4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
R (July 2001). Is Behaviorism dead? Should HPT care? ISPI News & Notes,
R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery
learning?. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
6. Video Lecture
Supplement: Curt Bonk on Behaviorism
(Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B. F. Skinner as well as Hermann Ebbinghaus and
Edward Thorndike). Archive URL (45 minutes): http://www.indiana.edu/~video/stream/launchflash.html?folder=istream&filename=fall08/EDUC-P_540_8832_20080905_1.mp4
(September 24). Cognitive and Constructivist Perspectives
K. H., & Foshay, W. R. (2006). Designing instructional strategies: A
cognitive perspective. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.)
(370-413). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
R., E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. (see
also video interview: “Talking multimedia learning with Dr. Richard Mayer”
and Research-based principles for multimedia learning (presentation at Harvard
May 5, 2014) (124:27): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ3wSf-ccXo
T. M., & Raymer, P. L. (2010). A practical guide and a constructivist
rationale for inquiry based learning. Educational Technology, 50(4),
Wilson, B. G. (2012). Constructivism in
practical and historical context. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp.
45-52). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design
theory of problem solving. ETR&D,
48(4), 63-85 (see also “An interview
with David Jonassen: Problem Solving in the humanities” (9:21): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCBXg_49gZw;
See also a more recent interview (35:19): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhnotpgru-4.
2013 AERA Fellow (37 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDFoD06BARM
Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich,
P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive
flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Technical Report No. 441.
J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001, June). Problem-based learning: An
instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report
No. 16-01, pp. 1-17. Indiana University Bloomington.
Also published in:
J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional
model and its constructivist framework. Educational
Technology, 35, (5), 31-38.
J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional
model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist
learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
7. Video Lecture
Supplement: Curt Bonk on the Cognitive
Information Processing (CIP) model. Archive URL (73 minutes): http://www.indiana.edu/~video/stream/launchflash.html?folder=istream&filename=fall08/EDUC-P_540_8832_20080910_4.mp4;
8. Video Lecture
Supplement: Curt Bonk on Cognitive and
Social Constructivism, including Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and
Robert Gagne. Archive URL (45 minutes): http://www.indiana.edu/~video/stream/launchflash.html?folder=istream&filename=fall08/EDUC-P_540_8832_20080905_3.mp4
7 (October 1). Authentic Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeship
1. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).
Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1),
2. CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt)
(1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3),
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Press (Note: pp. 29-43 only)
J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. ETR&D, 48(3), pp. 23-48 (see also their website
with Tom Reeves on authentic learning: http://authenticlearning.info/AuthenticLearning/Home.html)
J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for
authentic learning environments and tasks. In
proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education (E-Learn) 2006, October 13-27, 2006, Honolulu,
Hawaii. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5247/1/Authentic_e-learning(authors).pdf
6. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending
sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Ed.),
Adult learning and development:
Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Lawrence Erlbaum
7. Video Lecture
Supplement: Curt Bonk on Constructivism,
Social Constructivism, Learner-Centered Instruction, and PBL. Archive URL (41
; or: https://youtu.be/qJKofs2PuBU
Week 8 (October 8).
Theories of Learning: Comparison
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Learning. In L. Cantoni
& J. A. Danowski (Eds.), Communication and Technology: Handbook
of Communication Science (pp. 467-483). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (See also
interview of Dr. Tom Reeves, The University of Georgia (26:19): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU32W1oclnw)
M. P. (2012). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design
and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 35-44). Boston, MA: Pearson
P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Chapter 2: Searching
for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of
collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King
(Eds.), Electronic collaborators:
Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse
(pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ:
S. R. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology. NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1). 16-25.
7. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Week 9 (October 15).
History of IT
Y., Park, S., Jo, S. J., & Suh, S. (2013). The landscape of educational
technology viewed from the ETR&D journal. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(5). 677-694.
R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A.
Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (pp. 17-34). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall (see also video interview with Dr. Reiser (22:24): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8TKA7ta7gU).
M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V.
Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-20).
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. (see also video conference with Dr.
Molenda (53:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BigNdMiyHbI
M. (2008). Street gang: The complete history of Sesame Street (Prologue
& Epilogue). New York: Penguin Books.
“History Makers” Project and AECT Legends and Legacies” Videos; See index: http://aectlegends.org/:
Robert (Bob) Appelman (29:46): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TipGTRlJZg4
Ivor Davies (47:44): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_de5F-gf8t8
Malcolm Fleming (23:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZtzeeR_9R4
Mike Hannafin (24:11): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdo1h4zT1GE
Phil Harris (22:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBwBl2uyT4M
Robert Heinich (50:14): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw-8I09QdMk
Mary Herring (18:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1Jcw7ZjZk
Roger Kaufman (18:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0uxzkOmJnQ
Kyle Peck (26:11): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_jC0bhnQAI
Kay Persichitte (31:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalz555GB_w
Rita Richey (43:35), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kafjVHwQ8
Mendel Sherman (44:14): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROh41-P8a50
Walt Wittich (27:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2opzSlpcQMY
Leo P.K. Yam, Hong Kong AECT Founder (31:45): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynB3Epv6Iw
Week 10 (October
22). Trends and Issues in IT
L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011, May 13). Improved learning in a
large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862-864.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., &
Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of
educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.
E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser
& J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 358-366). Boston, MA: Pearson
R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2),
21- 29. (see video interview with Richard Clark (108:58): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR6IJrh6pxI).
R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D,
T.C. (2011) Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant? Educational Designer, 1(4). Retrieved from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue4/article13/index.htm
Week 11 (October
29). Human Performance Technology: Concepts and Process Models
A. (2007, December 10). The checklist. The New Yorker, 86-95.
J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook
of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco:
F., Hall, H. A. IV, Blakely, A., Gayford, M. C., & Gunter, E. (2009). The
HPT model applied to a kayak company’s registration process. Performance
Improvement, 48(3), 26-35.
F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models. In R. Watkins & D.
Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2:
Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver
Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance
technology - defined. In D. M. Van Tiem, J. L. Moseley, & J. C. Dessinger
(Eds.), Fundamentals of performance technology (pp. 2-20). Washington,
DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
J., Son, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Technology and knowledge management. In
M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), International
Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp.
381-391). Sage Publications.
(November 5). History, Trends, and Issues in HPT
Rummler, G. A. (2007). The past is
prologue: An eyewitness account of HPT. Performance Improvement, 46(10),
H. D., & Beresford, B. (2012). The development and evolution of human
performance improvement. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd
ed.) (pp. 135-146). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Y., Jo, S. J., Park, S., Kang, I., & Chen, Z. (2011). The current state of
human performance technology: A citation network analysis of Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 1988-2010. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
Pershing, J. A., Lee, J., & Cheng,
J. (2008). Current status, future trends, and issues in human performance
technology, part 1: Influential domains, current status, and recognition of
HPT. Performance Improvement, 47(1), 9-17.
K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Teng, Y.-T. (2009, August). The present state and future trends of
blended learning in workplace learning settings across five countries. Asia Pacific Education Review (APER), 10(3).
(or perhaps something
more specific: Teng, Y.-T., Bonk, C. J., & Kim,
K.-J. (2009, February). The trend of blended learning in Taiwan: Perceptions of
HRD practitioners and implications for emerging competencies. Human Resource Development International,
C. J., Lee. M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (in press). The
emergence and design of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In R. A. Reiser,
& J. V. Demsey (Eds.), Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp.?).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
(November 12). Professional Ethics
J. A. (2006). Standards and ethics in human performance technology. In J. A.
Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd
ed.) (pp. 1024-1046). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Smaldino, S. E., Donaldson, J. A., &
Herring, M. (2012). Professional ethics: Rules applied to practice. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design
and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 342-347). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc. (see also video interview with Dr. Smaldino (43:59): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOjhdH4dAE4
Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., &
Chugh, D. (2003, December). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12),
Week 14 (November
26). Career and Professional Development
T., & Waldroop, J. (1999). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best
people. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 144-152.
J. D., Rushby, N., & Su, Y. (2012). Professional organizations and
publications in instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J.
V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 273-282). Boston, MA: Pearson
Futures (2016, April). Instructional design in higher education: A report on
the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers.
C. M. (2010). How will you measure your life? Harvard Business Review, 88(7/8),
46-51; see also TEDx Boston, July 17, 2012, How will you measure your life?
G. K., & Branson, R. K. (2012). Getting a job in business and industry. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 263-272). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
L. (2013). ASTD’s 2013 state of the industry report: workplace learning remains
a key organizational investment. T+D, November, 40-45.
R. A. (2012). Getting an instructional design position: Lessons from a personal
history. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 256-262).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Week 15 (December 3). Self-Selection
Week, Personal Explorations, and Final Projects
can do anything you wish in Week 15. For instance, you might reflect on the
course in Canvas. You might explore some of the resources that you skipped
earlier in the course. You might find some new resources not listed. And you
might share your final projects in Week 15 in Canvas. I will also try to
arrange an optional synchronous chat session or two that week in Zoom to enable
you to share what you have discovered and to reflect on the course overall.