Order Description
Begin the response for Question #1 here, double-spaced, with the first line indented. Header will appear on second and subsequent pages. Insert name in header where indicated.
QUESTION 2
Tyner (2010, p. 1) provided a perspective about the disconnect between burgeoning media literacy skills in contemporary society and their restricted role in formal learning environments. Choose three current learning theories that are used when designing and developing online learning. Analyze whether the theories are able to encompass and bridge this disconnect. Propose how one of the theories could better when including social networking media, student creation of media, and/or gaming simulations in the design of online instruction at your institution.
Tyner, K. (Ed.) (2010). Media literacy: New agendas in communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
Begin the response for Question #2 here, double-spaced, with the first line indented. Header will appear on second and subsequent pages. Insert name in header where indicated.
QUESTION 3
Silber and Kearney (2010) were adamant that trainers and instructional design professionals must have “the ability to think effectively about an organization from a business point of view” (p. 3) and therefore need to be able to demonstrate bottom-line impacts of their training efforts to senior executives. Summarize recent (since 2005) research on theories, principles and best practices of designing training for adult learners, with an eye to ensuring desired organizational results. Drawing upon your own experience, identify an already implemented training solution that can benefit from revisions and outline a research proposal that is designed to improve the course’s quality and impact.
Silber, K.H. & Kearney, L. (2010). Organizational intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Begin the response for Question #3 here, double-spaced, with the first line indented. Header will appear on second and subsequent pages. Insert name in header where indicated.
References
Single space individual references using APA Style, and double space between references using a hanging indent. (The format is already set for the hanging indent on this line.)
Single space individual references using APA Style, and double space between references using a hanging indent. (The format is already set for the hanging indent on this line.)
_____________
revision feedback
Please review all the comments from the three reviewers (Q1, Q2 and Q3). Please highlight the changes in the paper to address the problems. Please fix all the typos and please be sure to address the reviewers concerns. Please have these revisions to me by December 11th.Responses to Question 1:Q1 Comment: This essay brings up topics that are particularly important to the distinction between experimental and quasi-experimental research designs, such as internal validity, costs, study environments, administration, and ethics. The organization of the writing seems clear. However, the essay has several issues that undercut its effectiveness. First, though not the most important issue, it is worth noting that if you consistently misspell a word that is central to your topic, you start out badly with reviewers. “Simulation” is not the same as “stimulation” and is never spelled correctly in this essay. Next, it is not clear to me that the writer understands a pretest-posttest control experimental design. Though the writer indicates that randomizing into groups is important, the graphic on p. 12 does not show two groups, and the explanatory paragraph suggests to me that the writer considers the pretest as the control. It should be noted that not only should there be two groups, the control group should also participate in the instruction without the treatment/intervention and the posttest should be taken by both groups at the same time. It should also be noted, and is never considered in the essay, that a pretest is not needed in a controlled experimental design because individual differences are accounted for by randomization, as opposed to a quasi-experimental design where a pretest can help account for individual differences. Another issue is that the writer seems to be incorrectly characterizing threats to validity in quasi-experimental designs. In several places, the writer refers to a high probability that groups are “non-uniform” (p. 8), that “other factors may have had consequential contribution to the results” (p. 9), that a study has “low internal validity” (p. 9). The problem with not randomizing and not controlling for all but the study variable(s) is that we do not know how much outside factors affect the data. We cannot say whether these factors are a high or low probability on affecting the outcomes of the study. Note that careful editing of writing should be done to ensure that sentences make sense (e.g., “design research developing tools of analysis as derived from the local instruction resources” (p. 2)), and that GUM issues are corrected. For GUM in particular, the writer should be careful about including articles (“a” and “the”) where appropriate. Generally APA format OK. Watch use of capitals in headings. References have a few inconsistent errors.Q2 Comment: This essay contains many interesting points in response to the question posted, particularly the point about the use of social media to help learners construct their own meaning. However, the purpose of a comprehensive exam is to allow a learner to demonstrate a professional knowledge of the field and to demonstrate the ability to use that knowledge. Thus, there are two critical issues that severely hamper the effectiveness of the writing. First, critical terms are not defined, leaving the reader wondering whether the writer fully understands the concepts discussed. For example, “media” is not defined. It appears that “media” is synonymous with a popular definition that would include social media (email, applications like Facebook, discussion forums, etc.); however, because this definition would not conform with most instructional designers’ definition (e.g., related to graphics, audio, and video materials), without a clear definition, the meaning of this writing’s assertions is not clear. In addition, the terms “cognitivism” and “behaviorism” are relegated to a single sentence each, and even these sentences are not really definitions. On the other hand, “social constructivism” is elaborated enough so that a reader can adequately discern the writer’s purpose. This leads to the next point. Second, theories of learning are oversimplified so that it is not clear that the writer fully understands what they are and how they relate to learning. This may partly be a result of lack of definition. Cognitivism appears to be relegated to just indicating that people have individual differences that should be accounted for in instruction, and behaviorism is reduced to giving instruction different levels for learners’ different skill levels. But these theories relate to much more. Cognitivism should explain about perception, information processing, and schema acquisition, and behaviorism should explain the process of stimulus and response, conditioning, reinforcement, and how these processes influence instruction. Generally the structure and logic of the essay is understandable. However, paragraphs should often be combined into longer paragraphs to show that a single point is being discussed. A paragraph of 4 to 5 sentences should most likely be combined with an adjacent paragraph. Be careful in the use of pronouns (this, it) to be sure the reader knows what they refer to. Incorrect use of English idioms (e.g., “account of” (p. 15),”emphasizes on” (p. 22)) and the lack or incorrect use of articles (a, the) really makes the reading difficult. There are occasional errors in APA guidelines.Q3 Comment: Adequate coverage of the literature, though discussion of theories should be more developed. Also, there are many assertions that should be supported by citations. The proposed research study is intriguing and the research seems innovative. However, it has several problems. First, the term “technology,” which seems to be a construct, is inadequately defined. There should at least be an operational definition that explains how the construct will be measured, which is not discernible with this proposed study. Also, the focus of the research is way too broad to be addressed in a single study, or probably even a series of large studies. It is also not clear how the results of the research will improve nursing training. To show this kind of impact, it would be helpful to link the theories discussed with the potential research results. Careful about the use of pronouns/demonstratives (this, it, its, this design). In many places, it is not possible to tell for sure what these pronouns are referring to. At times it feels as though the writer has consulted a thesaurus for a scholarly sounding word and has used an inappropriate word, instead of using a simpler word that would have been correct. Watch capitalization in headings. References are generally correct, but most have minor APA errors.Responses to Question 2:Q1 Comment: Perhaps it is me but I have no confidence the learner understands the topic or content. There are numerous major mistakes, unjustifiable statements.Q2 Comment: Much like Q1I have no confidence the learner understands the content areas. There are mny inaccurate statements, superficial logic or analyisis and overall a oonfusing answer.Q3 Comment: Huh, this was very difficult to follow. Weak ideas about learning theoris and application in online learning. Similar to Q1 & 2 I have no confidence in these answers. I coud not follow them due to the many superficial and only partially true statements some of which are quite datedResponses to Question 3:Q1 Comment: I found this section to be very well written. The two points that were apparent where a series of spelling errors and the existence of at least one run-on sentence that used multiple “ands”. The word “simulation” is spelled incorrectly countless times as “stimulation”. Spell checkers only flag spelling errors so it did not catch an otherwise legitimate word.Q2 Comment: I found this section to be very well written. The two points that were apparent where a series of spelling errors and the existence of at least one run-on sentence that used multiple “ands”. The word “simulation” is spelled incorrectly one time as “stimulation” in section 2.Q3 Comment: This sentence I thought revealed insight, ” Initially, organizational b
ehavior is always tied to the performance of the workers without considering the training advancement of the employees.” I found this section to be very well written. The two points that were apparent where a series of spelling errors and the existence of at least one run-on sentence that used multiple “ands”.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂