Conclusions

 A few things that jumped out at me reading chapters 23, 24, 25 are some of the common themes that have appeared throughout the textbook. 

1. The profession of Instructional Design has to define itself and set itself apart as a profession and not a cottage industry that anyone can jump into.
2. It is at risk of, and actively experiencing, encroachment from theories developed in industries with different intents and goals than education typically has taking over the guiding ethos of how the technology is designed and implemented.
3. The educational system as it is (particularly at the K-12 level) has significant issues that cannot be solved with layering more things on top. Some feel that this can be overcome with enough intention, time, and careful implementation. Some feel that it is not realistic to approach it as a problem to be solved, but a reality to be designed in conversation with to try and improve what is where it can be improved.

  What I see in these chapters is a more targeted grappling with the way pursuit of profit is manipulating the field and the threats this poses to what those with education at the heart of their purpose tend to see and want to design for. Yip points to one of these threats in their response to Gibbons (p. 191) that time becomes an enemy when "commercial enterprises often have deadlines and end goals that focus more on market forces. However, LS researchers' commitments to understanding deep learning requires lengthy time and theoretical commitments to understanding deep learning....(Sawyer, 2006)." With the understanding being that ET needs the LS approach over capitulating to commercial enterprises who are more likely to have and provide funding for designers.

This is particularly interesting as Yip is the main author of the next chapter in which Reeves responds to Yip's chapter on Participatory Design. Reeves backs up Yip by expanding the points of industry pressure can be seen in how the airlines eschew better designed seats in favor of capacity and profits saying, "Similarly, the potential of systematic instructional design to maximize the effectiveness of learning environments is rarely realized because of numerous external factors such as budget, time, and the reluctance of [stakeholders] ... to stray very far from traditional approaches." Concluding that Yip's call for including stakeholders (PD methodology) in the development of process is one Reeves supports (p. 206-207).

My perspective on all of this is to concur that to let 'industry' continue to push into public education (because let's face it, there are not many schools that have not turned to for-profit programs to provide curriculum and technology) is detrimental to the integrity of the instructional design field. Profit will also continue to hold a riff between our field and the field of Learning Sciences, if only because IT is linked to tech and tech (for the foreseeable future) attracts people with money, while research and theory of education does not.

What I think is an overlooked self-reflection and criticism to Yip is that PD just becomes another item on educator/stakeholder to-do lists without just as much enthusiasm and support to keep industry out of schools and get them appropriately funded through non-corporate sources ... or (again, maybe these days) corporate sources that are so large and flush that they have allowed themselves the privilege of values and could fund a school without imposing the classic signatures of for-profit endeavors (this is both a wildly optimistic and pessimistic take on my part ... I am not interested in a feudal system, but it sometimes feels as though we are re-creating it). 

The IDEA of PD is great. IF teachers had time either to participate themselves, or take on the management of student participants and how that could be organized. PD could work if participants were compensated. Not just in excused time (how I have observed public schools generally 'incentivize' teachers to go above and beyond their job functions) but in actual dollars equivalent to value they bring to such an endeavor. But even then, what would also need funding would be their replacements in the classroom (teachers) or make-up time for lost learning time (students).

Something I also found frustrating is that this book is now deeply out of date in regard to just far industry and corporate 'solutions' have pushed into the educational atmosphere at every level. At WMU we use Elearning, a tool that is designed for learning, but that in my position I see every day is not intuitive and is largely re-creating a handful of static educational methods in an interactive digital space that are not customizable in ways that work with a student to meet them where they are at. It takes a very mindful instructor to do that. Somewhat regularly at my job we have instructors coming in to work with our ID team to setup their course. Even there though, the ID team has a template for course organization they recommend. Best practices for instructors, but the student input is severely lacking. Elearning is provided by a for-profit company, D2L. D2L was originally successful because it was designed as a platform that championed student autonomy in self-directed learning portfolio building, as well as having accessibility strengths for those who are blind or low-vision. However, the implementation of it in an atmosphere driven by corporate interest (because money reigns supreme) is that it is being under utilized in its strengths and heavily utilized to recreate 'tradition.' This exacerbates how it is then built out, what features get prioritized, and how it evolves as an instructional tool. 

It feels like in relation to these chapters, I see our own team of IDs in WMUX working very hard to straddle the divide of corporate interest and learning sciences. Also, balancing What Is with what their research and knowledge allows them understand as more effective. I think this also underscores the difficulty of how it is not easy nor is there much room anymore for any institutions to have an identity outside of what brings in the most money most efficiently. What maintains a reputation so that as many people will come with their money as possible. What maintains an image of university as a place of nostalgia learning, but can also ensure that it's students successfully exit it into the hands of industry. Seem to be how Universities have to make choices about their identities. But I think something that PDs - who are compensated and provided for adequately - could also bring to the table would be perspectives that helped us not slip into ideas that ultimately monetize our K-12 kids' futures and hence treat their learning - and specifically how they learn - as a free market entity to be exploited or mined or hoarded behind pay walls.