Week 10 Reading Reflection

Considering chapters 18, 21, and 22, dealing with ID in the three different areas, I see a lot of similarities between the three.  One that really sticks out is basically teamwork, but this happens in very different ways at each of the three levels, which has been interesting to decipher.  It seems that in all three arenas, teamwork plays an important part of bringing the whole concept together, but it seems in business there is still a hierarchy or chain of command, in the schools it is kind of a hierarchy but everyone is still mainly focused on the same type of level, and everyone is considered a "subject matter expert" of education, and in higher education it seems that everyone is put on a level playing ground, but strategies are developed based on the true subject matter experts in various subject areas.  In any of the above, the team must work together to reach the desired end result, but this would have to happen in different ways.

Another similarity I see between the three is the process.  Basically, though they are all described a little differently in terms of the area they reference, they all have a process that begins with identifying a need, then how that need can be met, then how to meet the need, then implementation, and finally evaluating if the need was met and what desired changes would be.   I found it very interesting that the "lingo" used was different terminology, but seemed to have a similar expression in the end.  For instance, in business, you "identify the client and the client's need" where in education you already know the client, but you have to identify the level of the client, and what the desired level of the client will be.   Also, "prototyping" in business is similar to the implementation/ tracking phases in education.  It's basically another way of saying evaluation, but uses the lingo of the specific area.

One difference (or so it seemed in the book) that I found was how in business and in higher education, the biggest job is development of "new" and better things, where in P-12 it seemed like the most common job is a piecemeal, or revision of already implemented strategies.  It's not that these things don't happen in all three areas, but as far as Instructional Development goes as it is written, it seems that the largest of the jobs is different in P-12 than in the other two areas. (A lot of this could be driven by the issue of state standards that must be met vs. pleasing a customer with various needs)

I definitely think that I could learn some things from the other context, and in fact my opinions have already slightly changed as far as the P-12 area goes.  I feel that if you could combine the ideologies of the business and higher education processes, and work them into a format to fit the various levels in the P-12 educational system (reaching everyone from superintendent to classroom teachers), things could be more effectively done.   I personally have always liked the perception higher educational processes have given me in that they use teamwork in a very efficient manner to get the job done.  Using the true subject matter experts and listening to the person that really knows, then implementing their ideas with what you really know is an effective way of doing things.  Afterall, if someone else knows something and can tell me the need, why should I be guessing at the need if it's not my area of expertise?   At times I think people that are out of the loop tend to take the driver's seat because they feel they are correct (often times because of job title) instead of listening to those who are at the level of the needs.