CYNTHIA SARVER: RATIONALE PAPER

INTRODUCTION
Hello. My name is Cynthia Sarver, and this is the Rationale Paper for my Boise State University Masters of Educational Technology portfolio. The paper is organized around the Association for Education and Communications Technology (AECT)s learning standards for educational and communications and instructional technologies (ECIT). As such, this paper expands upon and annotates the list of artifacts that you will find mapped on the standards matrix of my MET portfolio. For each standard, you will find discussed at least two artifacts that demonstrate my understanding of and competencies in the standard. Happy reading!

Standard 1: Design
Standard 1 pertains to Design, or the ability to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to design conditions for learning by applying principles of instructional system design, message design, instructional strategies, and learner characteristics (Standards).

Standard 1.1: Instructional Systems Design (ISD)

Seels & Richey (1994) explain Instructional Systems Design (ISD) as an organized procedure that includes the steps of analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating instruction (p. 31). My Instructional Design Project for EdTech 503 and my Online Course for EdTech 512 best illustrate my competencies in this area. The former, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit , was a semester-long project during which I learned and fully utilized the ADDIE instructional design process. First I Analyzed the learners (undergraduate preservice teachers in English) and the learning context. Then I Designed instruction, focusing on objectives, assessments, instructional strategies and media. Next, I Developed instructional content and course materials from the plans I drew up during the design phase. Though I did not actually Implement the instruction that I designed during the course, I have plans to do so next semester, when I teach the course again. Similarly, I designed an Evaluation plan for the project, which I was only partially able to implement during the design semester.

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

Overall, I greatly appreciated spending a semester learning and practicing this process, the systematic and structured nature of which has now is woven into my approach to all instructional design situations. My task in EdTech 512 to build an online course (in which I am presently engaged in doing) has been much easier than 501, given this experiences basis in the ADDIE with which I am already familiar. Seeing the benefits of the ADDIE model, I have also begun using it to help my students (pre- and inservice teachers) to organize instructional design assignments in the courses I teach. This semester, I have adapted the Instructional Strategies and Motivation templates from Davidson-Shivers, G. V. & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006, p. 208 & pp. 230-231) to help my students more systematically design lesson and unit plans. Before my EdTech 503 experience, I usually had students begin at the development phase (as I had also done!), so I am happy to have these tools to help them, just as they have helped me, enrich the learning experiences we design for students.

Standard 1.2 Message Design

Message Design relates to planning for the physical form of the message Seels & Richey, 1994, p.31) and is embedded within learning theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended to communicate with the learner (Standards). My final Graphic Design Project for EdTech 506 and my digital story, It Came Out in the Wash, for EdTech 513 best represent my competencies in this area. In my digital story, I employ what Clark & Mayer call the Personalization Principle or the notion that using colloquial language and a friendly tone will better engage learners than anything more The Graphic Design Project was designed with an understanding in mind of principles of graphic design for learning such as CARP (Contrast, Alignment, Repetition, and Proximity), Selection, Color and Space, Color and Depth, and the Use of Shape.

Standard 1.3: Instructional Strategies

Instructional Strategies concern specifications for selecting and sequencing events and activities within a lesson (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31) and the selection of specific instructional strategies and models based on the learning situation. My Instructional Design project for EdTech 503 and my final paper for EdTech 504 are illustrative of my competencies in this area. For the EdTech 503 Instructional Design Project, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit , I used Kellers ARCS model of motivation to plan instruction that would get learners attention, establish relevance, inspire confidence, and render the learner satisfied with his or her learning experience. In my research essay for EdTech 504, I propose networked communities of practice as an instructional strategy for promoting constructivist, situated learning experiences for teachers that then might help teachers develop the dispositions and competencies to better integrate technology into their classrooms.

Standard 1.4: Learner Characteristics

Learner Characteristics are those facets of the learner's experiential background that impact the effectiveness of a learning process. My EdTech 501 Digital Inequality Assignment and my EdTech 502 Page 2

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

Concept Map Assignment are examples of my understanding of how important it is to design instruction with specific learners in mind. For the Digital Inequality Assignment, my colleagues and I considered how to plan for technology integration in order best to benefit economically disadvantaged learners by addressing in our plan the ways that this group tended to approach digital learning and tools. And in the Interactive Concept Map that I designed for EdTech 502, the language, discourse, and content I employ, are all chosen with the adult learners who populate the undergraduate and graduate courses I teach in mind.

Standard 2: Development
Development covers the ability to translate design specifications into print, audiovisual, computer-based and integrated technologies.

Standard 2.1: Print Technologies

For Development Standard 2.1 Print Technologies, I submit my final Instructional Design Project for my EdTech 503 course, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit . I focused on developing a document for an instructor of the course I designed, which used principles of Contrast, Alignment, Repetition and Proximity (CARP) to organize the text for readability (see Instructor Guide, pp. 22-29, and Student Handouts and Rubrics, pp. 50-64). Similarly, for EdTech 505, my final Evaluation Project, Evaluation of the Social Media Integration Program For the UCBHSSPs Summer Institutes was to produce a document that included graphs that would communicate data from an evaluation survey to the client.

Standard 2.2: Audiovisual Technologies

For Development Standard 2.2: Audiovisual Technologies, I submit my PowerPoint Tutorial from EdTech 513, Locating and Downloading Music from Freeplaymusic.com, which was designed for students in secondary adolescent literacy classes who might be using Freeplaymusic to create multimedia presentations. My PowerPoint lesson first orients learners to the English Language Arts concept of tone (which applies in music as well as prose), then helps them understand copyright, and finally walks them through the process of finding and downloading an appropriate piece of music. To optimize learners experience of my presentation, I employ in it the multimedia principle (or the notion that learners learn better from images and words combined, rather than from print-text alone), as well as the contiguity principle (that words should appear close to relevant graphics in order to optimize learning) (Clark & Meyer, 2003). Along the same lines, my EdTech 506 Unit Plan on Unit Planning for ELA teachers uses several principles of graphic design for learning. The selection principle can be seen in the way the Topical Essential Questions page uses color and lightness and darkness to indicate foreground and background and to help users determine what information is most important (and, using shading, I tried to show the hierarchy of information on the page). The Homepage follows Lohrs (2003) instructions about how to use whitespace to support learners experience of a visual and about how to chunk information to enhance Page 3

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

readability. The Task Analysis page also follows Lohrs (2003) recommendation for using color and depth of shapes to create meaning for users. And finally, the Essential Questions page follows Lohrs (2003) recommendations for using shape and repetition of shapes to enhance learning.

Standard 2.3: Computer-Based Technologies

Computer-Based Technologies represent electronically stored information in the form of digital data. Examples include computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), computermanaged instruction (CMI), telecommunications, electronic communications, and global resource/reference access. Since, according to Seels & Richey (1994), digital tutorials, where primary instruction is presented, is one type of CBI, numerous of my projects from the EdTech program fall under this category. The two that I am most pleased with would be my WebQuest on Personal Learning Networks and my Copyright Scavenger Hunt, both of which I created in EdTech 502. By presenting the learner with several discrete learning tasks, along with the option to access them through the sites universal navigation menu, the WebQuest allows learners to engage learning materials in random or nonsequential, as well as linear ways (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 39). On the other hand, the principles of cognitive science are applied during development in that the learning task can also be approached in a more linear and scaffolded way by providing learners first with the big picture (on the Home and Start pages), advancing them then to descriptions the Task and Process, and finally landing them on the Conclusion and related Rubric pages. My Copyright Scavenger Hunt similarly leads learners through various hunts on issues of fair use for educators. Learners can choose to pursue learning tasks sequentially or to jump around to explore the items that interest them most. I have implemented this assignment in my classroom, and students report that they enjoy and learn a great deal from it. Of course, this is a great relief to me, since I can rest assured that, after students have successfully completed this tutorial, their digital creations in the course thereafter will abide by the guidelines for fair use.

Standard 2.4: Integrated Technologies

Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer in which ideas are often presented realistically in the context of the learners experiences, according to what is relevant to the learner, and under the control of the learner (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 40). My Worked Example Screencast Project from EdTech 513 and my Virtual Tour from EdTech 502 are the best examples that I have of my work in this category. My Worked Screencast Example, Getting Started with your WordPress.com Blog, is designed to show undergraduate and graduate students how to set up a blog. In it, I integrate PowerPoint slides, a narrated voiceover, and instructions at various junctures for users to pause the video in order to work on their own projects (cf. Clark & Mayers segmenting principle). Alternatively, my Virtual Tour of Vintage Downtown Page 4

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

Los Angeles integrates computer-based instruction with interactive elements such as video, hyperlinks, and a blog that learners engage with after their tour to reflective upon their learning.

Standard 3: Utilization
Utilization is the act of using processes and resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 46). This domain involves matching learners with specific materials and activities, preparing learners for interacting with those materials, providing guidance during engagement, providing assessment of the results, and incorporating this usage into the continuing procedures of the organization.

Standard 3.1: Media Utilization

Media utilization is the systematic use of resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 46). Utilization is the decision-making process of implementation based on instructional design specifications. The Tech Trends assignment from EdTech 501 asked us to read the New Media Consortiums 2012 Horizon Report to create a lesson plan based on one of the emergent technologies covered in the report. I chose to create a lesson plan on QR codes, in which undergraduate English students apply their understanding of QR codes to simulate in their own environments the experience of augmented reality described in M. T. Andersons 2002 novel, Feed. This assignment fulfills this standard by using new media to extend students understanding of Feeds literary themes. Another of my projects, the Copyright Scavenger Hunt assignment from EdTech 502, also demonstrates media utilization. The media listed on this assignment page are explicitly selected and presented so that teachers can understand and relate to them.

Standard 3.2: Diffusion of Innovations

Diffusion of innovations is the process of communicating through planned strategies for the purpose of gaining adoption (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 46). With an ultimate goal of bringing about change, the process includes stages such as awareness, interest, trial, and adoption. The School Evaluation Summary Report that I created for EdTech 501 is a great example of a project that is intended to communicate information to a specific audience (i.e., the persons to whom the fictitious report is addressed) in order to promote the innovations suggested therein (Summary Recommendations, p. 10). Similarly, the research essay that I wrote for EdTech 504, Digitally networked communities of practice: st Using social media to foster educators 21 -century learning, is scholarship that is intended to communicate what research has already been done in this area. I am currently revising the essay for publication as an annotated bibliography and also as the research foundation for a future study.

Standard 3.3: Implementation and Institutionalization

Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated) settings. Institutionalization is the continuing, routine use of the instructional innovation in the structure and culture of an organization. Implementation is to ensure proper use by individuals (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47) and that is precisely what my unit plan for EdTech 503, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study

Page 5

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit , does. The plan is written for a subject matter expert (SME) in this case another teacher educator in secondary English -- to implement. To this end, an SMEs feedback was solicited to best ensure that the plan would work. To even further support implementation, an Instructor Guide was included (p. 22), as well as a plan for multiple stages of formative evaluation. I will be implementing the instruction in my course next semester. On the other hand, Institutionalization means integrat[ing] the innovation in the structure and life of the organization (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47). My Evaluation Project for EdTech 505, Evaluation of the Social Media Integration Program For the UCBHSSPs Summer Institutes, was designed around a project to integrate technology into UC-Berkeleys History and Social Science Projects Summer Institutes. The evaluation studies the effectiveness of those efforts and of several related goals; I am currently in the process of communicating with the project director about the report and next steps.

Standard 3.4: Policies and Regulations

Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47). This includes such areas as web based instruction, instructional and community television, copyright law, standards for equipment and programs, use policies, and the creation of a system which supports the effective and ethical utilization of instructional technology products and processes. My Fair Use Scavenger Hunt for EdTech 502 demonstrates this standard because it is concerned with the ways that Copyright Laws apply to new media use in schools and student projects. My students (preservice and inservice teachers) are all very grateful to have this information. Similarly, the Web Accessibility Evaluation Links page that I created for EdTech 502 deals with the ways in which web pages and hyperlinks must be formatted in order to be accessible to people with disabilities. This project responds to section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires that all federal agencies make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities.

Standard 4: Management
Management involves controlling Instructional Technology through planning, organizing, coordinating, and supervising (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 49). The domain of management includes four subdomains of theory and practice: Project Management, Resource Management, Delivery System Management, and Information Management. Within each of these subdomains there is a common set of tasks to be accomplished: organization must be assured, personnel hired and supervised, funds planned and accounted for, facilities developed and maintained, and short- and long-term goals established. A manager is a leader who motivates, directs, coaches, supports, monitors performance, delegates, and communicates.

Standard 4.1: Project Management

Project management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional design and development projects (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 50). Project managers negotiate, budget, install information Page 6

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

monitoring systems, and evaluate progress. The School Evaluation Summary Report that I created for EdTech 501 exemplifies a part of the project management process the analysis stage of the instructional design process. The analysis rubric (found in Appendix A) covers all aspects of Project Management, including budget, information monitoring systems, and evaluation processes. My Evaluation Project for EdTech 505, Evaluation of the Social Media Integration Program For the UCBHSSPs Summer Institutes, demonstrates a fuller range along this same spectrum, beginning with a Program Description, moving on to Evaluation, Results, Discussion, and Budgets. While I have not been engaged in any large-scale projects since completing these, my concurrent work in EdTech 512 to design AugmentED, a MOOC (Massively Open Online Course), does entail my facility with these skills. I would imagine that in the future this skill set will continue to come in handy as I implement the MOOC and branch out to become engaged in other, similar ventures.

Standard 4.2: Resource Management

Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling resource support systems and services (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes documentation of cost effectiveness and justification of effectiveness or efficiency for learning as well as the resources of personnel, budget, supplies, time, facilities, and instructional resources. My EdTech 501 Digital Inequality Assignment works with an existent (albeit fictitious) budget situation in order to address digital inequality in the State of Idaho. Our group was tasked with exploring the cost effectiveness and efficiency of different technology solutions and ultimately recommended installing computers with internet access in public libraries as the most economical and effective technology solution to the digital divide and inequality problem in Idaho. Similarly, my School Evaluation Summary Report for EdTech 501 shows concern with the resource, administrative, and support-staff side of the technological maturity of an institution. Being asked to consider technology from a systems viewpoint was key in opening my eyes to the significance of infrastructural and contextual factors in technology decision-making.

Standard 4.3: Delivery System Management

Delivery system management involves planning, monitoring and controlling the method by which distribution of instructional materials is organized . . . [It is] a combination of medium and method of usage that is employed to present instructional information to a learner (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes attention to hardware and software requirements, technical support for the users and developers, and process issues such as guidelines for designers, instructors, and Educational communications and instructional technology support personnel. My project for EdTech 503, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit , was attentive to the actual system of delivery in that I was originally intending to create my unit as an online one, but then I realized that the computer-enhanced instruction in the face-to-face classroom was a better way to go. Along the same lines, in EdTech 522, I created an online unit of instruction using Moodle, Whatever happened to books? ELA and Multimodality in the 21st Century. The specifications of the Moodle delivery system were very much at the forefront of the planning and instructional design process, since I am more accustomed to using Blackboard, but felt that Moodle was a superior product Page 7

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

and wanted to try designing with it. I have since integrated this module into my course on educational technology for pre- and inservice English teachers, where I have adapted it to Blackboard. Unfortunately, the original course created in Moodle Sandbox no longer exists, but you can view the nearly identical one I am currently teaching here.

Standard 4.4: Information Management

Information management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling the storage, transfer, or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). Information is available in many formats and candidates must be able to access and utilize a variety of information sources for their professional benefit and the benefit of their future learners. The Zotero Library Assignment for EdTech 501 involved learning to manage scholarly resources and research items culled during the instructional design process. Similarly, the Diigo assignment (and class group) in the same course suggested an alternative and collaborative way to research, share resources, and construct knowledge electronically. While I was already using Zotero and Diigo for my own work by the time I was re-introduced to them in EdTech 501, these refreshers helped me see ways to utilize both tools more fully. I have subsequently revised my assignment for using Diigo in my own classes to be more like the one in EdTech 501.

Standard 5: Evaluation
Evaluation is the process of determining the adequacy of instruction and learning (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 54). Educational communications and instructional technology (ECIT) candidates demonstrate their understanding of the domain of evaluation through a variety of activities including problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation.

Standard 5.1: Problem Analysis

Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by using information gathering and decision-making strategies (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). Educational communications and instructional technology (ECIT) candidates exhibit technology competencies defined in the knowledge base. Candidates collect, analyze, and interpret data to modify and improve instruction and ECIT projects. My evaluation project for EdTech 505 began with a problem how to improve my clients reach to its constituency by integrating technology into its summer institutes, on one hand, and teachers comfortability with various Web 2.0 tools, on the other. After examining the problem, alongside the agencys goals and priorities, mission, infrastructure, resources, and constraints, we designed a technological solution that involved integrating social media into the summer institutes. Another instance of my use of problem analysis to determine the appropriateness of an instructional-technology solution would be my problem analysis for my Online Course Design in EdTech 512.

Standard 5.2: Criterion-Referenced Measurement

Page 8

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

Criterion-referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery of pre-specified content (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). Criterion-referenced assessment determines learners mastery of specified learning goals relative to those goals (not to other learners, which would be norm-referenced measurement). I demonstrate my abilities in designing criterion-referenced measurement in my EdTech 503 project, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit, where the rubric I designed measures the learners performance relative to criteria specified on the rubric (which correspond to the units learning objectives). While I was developing this rubric for the EdTech program, I was also creating a criterion-based assessment for the actual courses that I was teaching. As you can see, the rubric for the reflective essay in my undergraduate Writing Methods Course measures learners performance on the writing task against the criteria/objectives that were the focus of the instruction during the unit. In both cases, I use these rubrics as tools for formative and summative assessment of student learning: early on, I will develop a self- or peer- assessment activity in which students assess their own or their peers work using the criteria of the rubric (formative); and at the very end of the unit, I also use the rubric to determine students performance on the final assessment in the unit (summative).

Standard 5.3: Formative and Summative Evaluation

Formative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information as a basi s for further development. Summative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 57). In EdTech 503, Making Radio Show Bumpers: A Genre Study and Hands-On Pedagogy Unit, I invoked the expertise of a Subject Matter Expert (SME) during the Expert Review part of the evaluation plan. And just as I reflected upon how to further develop the unit after receiving feedback from the SME, I would plan for similar reflection and development after the One-to-One, Small Group, and Field Trial evaluations, which are the other parts of the ID Projects formative evaluation plan. The scope of my evaluation project for EdTech 505, Evaluation of the Social Media Integration Program For the UCBHSSPs Summer Institutes, however, extended beyond that of a unit of instruction to encompass an entire program. And while the plan was indeed to use the data gathered from the survey of participants that we administered at the end of the institute for future program improvements (making it somewhat formative), this evaluation was mainly summative in that it determined the value added by the technology integration program. As I mention above, I am in the process of discussing with the program director next steps based on this evaluation.

Standard 5.4: Long-Range Planning

Certo, et al, write that Long-range planning that focuses on the organization as a whole is strategic planning....Long-range is usually defined as a future period of about three to five years or longer. During strategic planning, managers are trying to decide in the present what must be done to ensure organizational success in the future. (as quoted in Standards). My Tech Use Plan Overview assignment from EdTech 501 gave me the opportunity to familiarize myself with the value of long-range planning by requiring us to examime several long-range technology use

Page 9

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

plans,. During this process, I also learned about some of the debates surrounding this aspect of technology evaluation, including the argument that some, such as J. See (1992), make that long-term planning is inappropriate for educational technology, given the rapid pace at which new technologies are always emerging. Nonetheless, I did engage in some long-range planning around technology use in the EdTech 501 Digital Inequality Assignment, in which a group of students collaborated to help a municipality or state address issues of inequity and access through technology solutions. In this case, it only makes sense that our plan would be a multi-stage and long-term, strategic one. Similarly, my School Evaluation Summary Report for EdTech 501 makes long-term recommendations based on the evaluation of different aspects of technology maturity in administrative, curricular, support, connectivity, and innovation domains. The benchmarks for the different stages of technology maturity ranging from the Emergent Systems, through Islands of Technology, to Integrated Systems, to Intelligent Systems stages indicate a long-range orientation to this type of planning, which I was very grateful to have realized. Having bookended my EdTech experience with this type of evaluation at the very beginning and the EdTech 505 Evaluation Summary toward the very end, really helped me to see the reciprocal ways in which long-range planning and evaluation constitute and mutually reinforce the iterative process of instructional design.

CONCLUSION

When I began the EdTech program over a year ago, I believed that -- as a teacher educator who was entering the M.E.T. program with an already highly developed specialization in technology integration -- I knew a good deal of what there was to know about educational technology and pedagogy. However, I am pleased to say that I was wrong. I may have known quite a bit at the time, but I have been pleasantly surprised in the meantime to discover how much more there has been to learn. As a result of my M.E.T. experience, today I am able to say with great confidence and humility that not only do I better know how to teach with technology, but I also understand the resonances of that statement. If I entered the program with a strong sense of my subject matter and how to teach it or what Shulman (1987) calls Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) I am leavlng it with an even more solid sense of TPCK, or what Koehler & Mishra (2009) call Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Given the well designed, researchbased, collaborative, authentic, hands-on, and reflective qualities of Boise States M.E.T. program, I feel that my knowledge in these areas has become thoroughly integrated over the past year and a half. I could not have asked for (or imagined) a better outcome. As much as I have gone deep with my knowledge and skills, I feel that I have also gone wide. Which is to say that I was perhaps most surprised to discover the significance of the contextualizing issues surrounding instructional technology and design. My design and evaluation experiences in the EdTech

Page 10

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

program have taught me that the first (and perhaps most important) step that a designer makes is a backwards one. Only through the perspective gained from analyzing the problem -- be it tomorrows lesson or of an entire organizations desire to work toward a certain long -term goal designer see how to move forward. Based on that wide view, informed by analysis contextualizing perspective, solutions can be designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated, on, and so on.

usually one of does a and a and so

I hope that this essay and portfolio give some indication of the scope and depth of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that I have developed through my experience in the M.E.T. program and of the depth of my gratitude for the quality instructors and learning experiences that it has been my pleasure and privilege to enjoy these past five semesters.

Page 11

 Cynthia Sarver Rationale Paper

REFERENCES
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Davidson-Shivers, G. V. & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10 (3), 2-10. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9 (1), 60-70. Lohr, L. (2008). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Molenda, M. 2004. The ADDIE Model. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 7-9). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio. See, J. 1992/2001. Developing effective technology plans. The computing teacher, 9 (8). Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm. Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of a field . Washington, D. C.: AECT. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57, 122. Standards. Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.aect.org/standards/initstand.html.

Page 12