Jessica Sender

EdTech592
Reflection Paper
Navigating a Winding Road: Educational Technology and Librarianship
Introduction
Obtaining my Masters degree in Educational Technology has been a goal as well as an
ongoing journey for me-one that actually began while working towards my Masters degree in
Library and Information Science. While a library student, I was working three jobs, one as a
reference assistant, the second as an instruction assistant, and the third in the digital user
experience department. I was struck by how much overlap there was between what was designed
for the library website, and what I used in my day to day interactions with the students, faculty,
and staff. After graduating from library school, I began working as an Instructional Technology
Librarian at a small college library, where I managed the Learning Management System for the
entire institution. This position solidified my desire to obtain a Masters in Educational
Technology, as I was fascinated by how we design (or poorly design) for an online environment,
and how instructors incorporate technology in a face to face, online, or hybrid setting. I was also
particularly struck by different topics and concepts like the digital divide, the concept of the
digital native and how college students are navigating a world of varying LMS usage, ebooks,
rising textbook costs, and instructors who loved or hated using technology in the classroom.
Additionally, as a librarian, I often find myself at the crossroads between faculty and
students, and the issues they face through online course, library websites, databases, online
journals, and a host of other issues. The MET program has helped me think through a number of
these issues, and provided a solid background on how librarians can better position themselves as
leaders in the world of educational technology in the college and university environment.
Lesson One: Backwards Design Is Forward Thinking

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
One of the lessons that most resonated with me is the critical importance of backwards
design in a learning environment. Wiggins and McTighes (2005) work on backward design has
significantly impacted my day to day work as the librarian for the College of Nursing. The idea
that working backwards, starting with what I want students to take from the instruction and work
towards a model that encourages holistic questioning and thinking has encouraged me to start
designing my instruction differently (Wiggins & McTighe, 2012). Wiggins and McTighe identify
two areas of traditional design that fail the student. These include designing activities that
leverage the learning that is intended, and teaching content as opposed to teaching for the
learning experience. As Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner (2007) write, the most common
approach that instructors use is creation of a list of topics, then develop lectures that follow the
trajectory of learning those topics. However, backwards design is a way to combat this sage on
the stage model of learning. For college courses, like the ones I teach, backwards design
presents options for creating course that scaffold within a discipline (Reynolds & Kearns, 2016).
Backwards design is a way to identify learning intentions, determine how to best assess learning,
and then subsequently developing learning activities that meet those intentions (Whitehouse,
2014).
Wiggins and McTighes focus on big ideas-that is, looking beyond the standards and
outlines for the larger overall ideas that we want students to take, and this has had a major impact
on my teaching (Wiggins & McTighe, 2012). When I design courses now, instead of thinking, I
want to make sure that the students know x and y database, and know searching strategies, my
thinking has evolved to design in a way that addresses larger order thinking. That is, why is it
important that students know about library databases? How can I teach in a way that teaches not
only how to search these databases, but how searching and developing a research strategy is
2

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
critical beyond the one paper or assignment they have to do? For EdTech 512, I designed a
course using backward design. This course, focusing on Ancient Roman Women, started first
with what I wanted students to take away from the course, and designed the course from there. In
my real life professional world, I have used the idea of backward design in courses and classes
I have designed, and found that it makes the course much more effective, and students are
retaining more.
Lesson Two: Respond to a Need, Dont Create a Problem: Using Technology for
Technologys Sake
Another lesson I learned from this program is the importance of responding to a need as
opposing to using technology that ends up creating a problem. I actually think this is one of the
best lessons learned, because it encouraged me to think broadly about how technology can serve
my students, and how it could hinder their educational experience. Technology has, and often is,
a necessary tool for educators-most education would be almost impossible without the ubiquity
of technology (Amemado, 2014). However, not all tools are effective for flexible learning
environments that can facilitate the adoption of new teaching approaches (Amemado, 2014).
This lesson manifested in two ways. First, in many of the online discussion forums, my
fellow students were lamenting how they were given an iPad without training, or there was a
new technology implemented district-wide without any guidance as to how to use it. As Iriti et.al
(2015) write, a recent study published by the non-profit Education Superhighway found that
72% of the public schools in America still lack the Internet speeds for todays economy (p.
246). They go on to say that ..with the proliferation of educational technology products
educational technology and decision makers have faced new challenges in understanding how to
choose among the myriad of options available to them and how to incorporate these into their
3

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
existing practice (Iriti et.al, 2015, p. 247). This myriad can create problems in a district or
classroom ill-equipped to deal with new technologies and the requirements that go with them.
Additionally, there is a very real digital divide in our educational system, and this has an
impact at all levels of education. As Ritzhaupt et. al (Ritzhaupt, Feng, Dawson, & Barron, 2013)
write, poor and minority families in the United States are less likely to have access to a
computer and broadband Internet connection at home and less likely to have the necessary skills
and knowledge to meaningfully use these resource (p. 291-292). They go on to say that fiftyfour percent of schools with the highest poverty concentration had computers with internet
access available to students before school, compared with 82 percent and 80 percent of schools
with the two lowest categories of poverty concentration (Ritzhaupt, 2013, p. 292). Balancing the
ability to be creative with new technologies and manage those same technologies is a challenge
for todays teachers (Henriksen, Mishra, & Fisser, 2016).
This divide is often on display very acutely at my institution, on a number of levels.
Students of all socio-economic statuses go to college, and when faced with online courses,
learning management systems, and online assignment submission and grading, they are at a
disadvantage if navigating or using technology has not been something readily available at their
homes or in schools. Merely by being aware of this divide that happens in the K-12 system, it has
made me more cognizant of designing resources and instruction that provides a level playing
field for all students.
Lesson Three: Know Your Community
Knowing who your students are- and their background- has been a profoundly important
lesson for me. As I have progressed through the program, my professional life has changed as
well. I went from being an information literacy librarian, primarily serving first year students to
4

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
the librarian for the College of Nursing, serving students from all levels and programs. I have
created resources for first year college students, returning DNP and PhD students, and fellow
librarian colleagues. As Michael Pickett (2015) writes, In higher education, much focus has
been placed on the adult learner and their specific learning styles in non-traditional modalities
and pedagogies (p.97). Exposure to conducting a learner analysis, needs analysis, and the
associated processes in EdTech 512 and EdTech 505 has been valuable as I design resources and
assessments in my work today.
For libraries especially, knowing how and why students are accessing your online
resources-whether databases, instructional videos, ebooks or other resources-is critical to
libraries successes and failures. Libraries are often early adopters of new technologies, and
flipping the classroom for library instruction has been a trend that many libraries and librarians
have tried (Obradovich, Canuel, & Duffy, 2015). In a survey done of instructional videos
intended to be watched prior to attending a library workshop or instruction session, less than 2%
of the videos produced provide instructions that the video is intended to be watched prior to the
class (Obradovich et al., 2015). This type of user experience deters the student from using the
library in the future- a prime example of how libraries can leverage good educational technology
practices to expand our reach and impact.
Lesson Four: Theory is Important!
Theory is a big deal in the library world, but I never found it applicable to my teaching
or really understood the theoretical underpinnings of information literacy. However, the MET
program brought theory to the forefront of my practice, and I have found it valuable in my work.
As Jaffer (2010) writes, learning theories explain how individuals learn (p. 273). In my

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
paper for EdTech 504 , I explored learning theories and pedagogies, and looked at constructivism
as a learning theory. Finding a theory that could guide my practice was significant, as I felt it
gave my practice grounding. As Antoneko (2015) writes, according to the instrumental view of
theory, a theory should serve as a tool to structure inquiry, a map that connects your point of
departure on the quest for research (i.e. the problem) and the potential destination or solution to
your problem- with all the stops on your journey (key concepts, research questions, data
collection, and analysis methods) (p. 57). Approaching theory in this way-as a quest, and
finding a theory that work for my teaching style-constructivism-made me feel as though as my
teaching and instructional design was more well-rounded and developed.
Lesson Five: Lifelong Learning and Professional Development
Lastly, the MET program has taught me that lifelong learning and inquiry is important to
developing as a professional. When I started the program, I was working as an instructional
technology and information literacy librarian, and I saw my career path as strictly instructional or
educational technology. However, the opportunity arose to be the librarian for the College of
Nursing, and in a way, my foundational grounding instructional technology has made my liaison
work significantly better. Nita Matzen and Julie Edmunds (2007) write that the use of
technology can have a transformative power on teaching and learning (p. 417). This has been
particularly evident in the modules I have designed for nursing programs that are hybrid or
entirely online, as well as my growing integration in the DNP and PhD programs, which are
largely online or distance students.
Matzen and Edmunds (2007) also discuss that technology connecting with pedagogy and
content of curriculum is critical. They also state that researchershave suggested that
6

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
technology could be the catalyst for transforming teachers instructional practices in the direction
of a more constructivist approach (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007, p. 418). As I previously
discussed, discovering constructivism as a theory during this program was transformative for my
teaching, and has allowed me to develop further as a professional. They even go on to say that
When teachers become comfortable with technology to the point where they can integrate it
more effectively, they use it in ways that emphasize a more constructivst, learner-centered
approach (Matzen & Edumends, 2007, p. 419). For all of my instruction-from first year nursing
students to DNP and PhD students, my ability to better leverage technological tools has made me
a better teacher and librarian.
As part of EdTech 505, I assessed the DNP and PhD instruction that was currently being
done as part of the intensives. I have built on this assessment, including proposing posters and
presentations at professional conferences on the idea of incorporating better instruction to our
DNP and PhD students. I am presenting at the Michigan Health Sciences Librarian Association
conference about DNP and PhD education focusing on in class and technologically enhanced
teaching strategies.
Additionally, this program helped me connect deeply with my work as a librarian. In fact,
I have talked about the merits of the program to a number of other librarians, and discussed with
them how I feel it has made me a better librarian overall. I understand now not only the needs of
our students, but also how faculty and our community interacts with library resources. I also
have found that my instructional design process and products are much more effective for
students. Overall, it has been a way to rediscover what I have always loved about librarianship,
but connect it to a 21st century model of education and learning.
7

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
Conclusion
The MET program has given me a theoretical foundation for the work I do, while also
providing ample opportunities to put theory into practice. Going forward, I anticipate that I will
be able to be a source of knowledge for my colleagues, and work collaboratively to incorporate
good instructional design, sound technological decision making, and incorporate technology
more effectively into the curriculum and courses librarians teach. The MET program has given
me, as a librarian, a way to approach librarianship in a new and innovative way. Prior to the MET
program, I knew that educational technology and librarianship were two disciplines that could
and often do work together to achieve curricular goals and create the best and most successful
environments for students to succeed. After finishing the MET program, I feel that I now better
understand educational and instructional technologies, and how libraries and librarians can
leverage them to create libraries that meet the needs of todays students, faculty, and staff. It has
been invaluable to my growth as a librarian and a professional, and I am looking forward to the
many paths down which it will take me.

Works Referenced

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2007). Putting the horse back in front of the cart: Using visions and
decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 6(2), 85-89. doi:10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017
Amemado, D. (2014). Integrating technologies in higher education: the issue of recommended
educational features still making headline news. Open Learning, 29(1), 15-30.
doi:10.1080/02680513.2014.908700
Antonenko, P. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational
technology research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(1), 53-71.
doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
Davies, R., Dean, D., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology
integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
Emanuel, J. (2013). Digital native librarians, technology skills, and their relationship with
technology. Information Technology & Libraries, 32(3), 20-33.
Harvey-Buschel, P. A Quantitative Examination of Factors that Impact Technology Integration
in Urban Public Secondary Mathematics Classrooms. Retrieved from ERIC database:
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305156670?
accountid=12598 .
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century
education: A systemic View for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
19(3), 27-37. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1814443622?
accountid=12598.
Iriti, J., Bickel, W., Schunn, C., & Stein, M. (2016). Maximizing research and development
resources: Identifying and testing 'load-bearing conditions' for educational technology
innovations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(2), 245-262.
doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9409-2
Jaffer, S. (2010). Educational technology pedagogy: A looseness of fit between learning theories
and pedagogy. Education as Change, 14(2), 273-287.
doi:10.1080/16823206.2010.522066
Joan Petit, M. S. T. M., Hayman, R., & Smith, E. E. (2015). Sustainable decision making for
emerging educational technologies in libraries. Reference Services Review, 43(1), 7-18.
doi:10.1108/rsr-08-2014-0037
Kaushik, A., & Kumar, A. (2016). MOOC-ing through the libraries: Some opportunities and
challenges. International Journal of Information Dissemination & Technology, 6(1), 2126. Retrieved from http://www.ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/305.
Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2016). Students' perceptions of the value of using videos as a
pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroom. TechTrends: Linking Research &
Practice to Improve Learning, 60(3), 245-252. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0045-4
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
(International Society for Technology in Education), 39(4), 417-430. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/274710635?accountid=12598
.
9

Jessica Sender
EdTech592
Reflection Paper
Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1),
66-69.
Obradovich, A., Canuel, R., & Duffy, E. P. (2015). A survey of online library tutorials: Guiding
instructional video creation to use in flipped classrooms. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 41(6), 751-757. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.006
Pickett, M. C. (2015). Integrating complexity and creativity in adult online learning
environments. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 15(7), 97-104.
Reynolds, H. L., & Kearns, K. D. (2016). A planning tool for incorporating backward design,
active learning, and authentic assessment in the college classroom. College Teaching, 111. doi:10.1080/87567555.2016.1222575
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Feng, L., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student
information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status,
ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in florida schools. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 45(4),
291-307. doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607.
Whitehouse, M. (2014). Using a backward design approach to embed assessment in teaching.
School Science Review, 95(352).
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed). Alexandria,
VA: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2012). The Understanding by Design Guide to Advanced
Concepts in Creating and Reviewing Units. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.

10