RESEARCH ACTION PLAN [an e-poster presentation]

1. RESEARCH ACTION PLAN[an e-poster presentation] By: Myrene A. Magabo mam89@psu.edu Working title Research problem III. What to prove IV. Research framework Relevance of the Study

2. Instruction = Communication This study proposes that the process of Instruction (teaching) is Communication and hopes to illumine the vague treatment of communication within the entire process of instruction. Initial research conducted and works [Click on its list to view online presentation material] as bases for the theoretical framework include: • A PDF version of the Computer Based Training (CBT) material on Instruction = Communication • Berlo’s Communication Theory operating within Henson’s work • Berlo’s Communication Theory operating within the Universal Design for Learning • The Use of Instructional Design (ID) Model Across Curriculum introduces Instruction = Communication as part of its theoretical foundation. • Click for References

3. Research Questions This study aims to prove: • That instruction (teaching) is in its entirety, is a highly purposeful communication. • That communication theories and models operate within the theories used in instruction from planning, design, implementation, assessments, and evaluation. • This study will underscore the value of understanding instruction as a highly purposeful communication in enhancing strategies and approaches in instruction. • How does the process of instruction (teaching), in its entirety, differ from any other forms of highly purposeful communication? • How do contemporary theories in instruction reflect theories or models of communication from planning, design, to implementation, assessments, and evaluation? • How could the understanding of instruction as a highly purposeful communication enhance strategies and approaches instruction?

4. Methodology A Highly Qualitative Study The confirmatory and qualitative nature of the study involves the use of data gathered from existing literature, participant observations (within the past 5 years of teaching experience), view points from experts to be gathered from an online colloquium and followed by the Delphi method (10 to 20 experts in the field of Communication and Education). Check http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/kinds_of_research.htm for research methodology discussion

5. The Study Framework Instruction = Communication

6. Relevance • The results from this study shall benefit both the fields of Communication and Education. • The results of the study could illumine, give a clear and definite distinction to communication within the entire process of instruction (teaching). • Understanding the whole process of instruction as a highly purposeful communication could strengthen strategies and approaches to effective instruction.

7. References Berlo, David K. (1960) The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Brown-ASCD. Observing Dimensions of Learning in Classrooms and Schools Bonnie Johns Center Teacher Resource Library (301-386-1605). CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) at www.cast.org. Communication Process Model. Berlo’sCommuication Model. Retrieved from http://www.managementstudyguide.com/berlo-model-of-communication.htm Communication Models at: http://pirate.shu.edu/~yatesdan/Tutorial.htm Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York, NY: Free Press.  Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16-20. Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.  Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: WLC Books. (Original work published 1916) Ehninger, Gronbeck and Monroe: “The simplest and most influential message-centered model of our time came from David Berlo (Simplified from David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960):” Fishman, S. & McCarthy, L. (2007). John Dewey and the Philosophy and Practice of Hope. University of Illinois Press. Gagne, R. (1987). Instructional Technology Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Gagne, R. & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of Learning for Instruction (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Langer, Ellen J. (2004). The Power of Mindful Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Instructional Styles at http://www.csn.edu/pages/2358.asp Martone, A., & Sereci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332–1361. doi:10.3102/0034654309341375 Meyer, A. & Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership 58(3) 39-43. Universal Design Center at http://www.udlcenter.org/resource_library. Universal Design to Support Access to the General Education Curriculum Retrieved from: http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/UniversalDesign.asp Spring 2002 Theory Instructional Workbook. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/instructional/