Unit Three The Basics of Instructional Design and Within Contextual Settings Topic Assignment Context Unit Objectives Introduction: Instructional Design ADDIE Model Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation Specific Instructional Design Models Dick and Carey Model Hannafin and Peck Design Model Knirk and Gustafson Design Model Kemp Design Model Gerlach and Ely Design Model Rapid Prototyping Design Model Other Informative Instructional Design Delineations • Prescriptive Models • Phenomenological Models • Comparative Summaries: Behaviorism versus Cognitivism versus Constructivism Summary Reading: • Reiser & Dempsey, pgs. 195-278 • Through out the unit of instruction, as designated. Activities • Bulletin Board: Instructional Design Assignment #3: The basic aspects of instructional design are extensive, yet can easily fall within the underlying philosophical realms of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. As such, a reflective, comparative research paper offers a conceptual understanding and delineation of learning within this unit of instruction. Please address the following components within your research paper: • Clearly delineate your understanding of instructional design • State your definition of instructional design • What is your opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with three instructional design models you fully investigated (eg, Kaufman’s Organizational Elements Model, Rapid Prototyping Model, Cognitive Flexibility Theory as a Pedagogy for Web-Based Course Design, Mager’s Criterion Referenced Instruction, Merrill’s Component Display, Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction, Reigeluth’s Elaboration, Gagne’s Instructional Design Theory, Hall, Watkins and Eller’s Model of Web-Based Design for Learning, Willis’ Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model) • Focused upon comparative summaries (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism), delineate definitions to describe the following philosophies o Behaviorism o Cognitivism o Constructivism and state your opinion concerning: o which philosophy you find most attractive (which aligns most appropriately within your personal underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world) o why this philosophy is most attractive to you (aligns most appropriately within your personal underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world) • Finally, if you were to develop an instructional product, which instructional design model might you implement? Emphasize the reasoning behind why this is the model you would choose to implement. An emphasis upon research (with appropriate references) to support your statements is stressed.
Transcript
Unit Three The Basics of Instructional Design and Within Contextual Settings
Topic Assignment
Context Unit Objectives Introduction: Instructional Design ADDIE Model
Analysis Design Development
Implementation Evaluation
Specific Instructional Design Models
Dick and Carey Model Hannafin and Peck Design Model Knirk and Gustafson Design Model Kemp Design Model Gerlach and Ely Design Model Rapid Prototyping Design Model
Other Informative Instructional Design Delineations
Behaviorism versus Cognitivism versus Constructivism
Summary
Reading:
• Reiser & Dempsey, pgs. 195-278 • Through out the unit of instruction, as designated.
Activities
• Bulletin Board: Instructional Design Assignment #3: The basic aspects of instructional design are extensive, yet can easily fall within the underlying philosophical realms of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. As such, a reflective, comparative research paper offers a conceptual understanding and delineation of learning within this unit of instruction. Please address the following components within your research paper:
• Clearly delineate your understanding of instructional design
• State your definition of instructional design • What is your opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared
with three instructional design models you fully investigated (eg, Kaufman’s Organizational Elements Model, Rapid Prototyping Model, Cognitive Flexibility Theory as a Pedagogy for Web-Based Course Design, Mager’s Criterion Referenced Instruction, Merrill’s Component Display, Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction, Reigeluth’s Elaboration, Gagne’s Instructional Design Theory, Hall, Watkins and Eller’s Model of Web-Based Design for Learning, Willis’ Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model)
• Focused upon comparative summaries (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism), delineate definitions to describe the following philosophies
o Behaviorism o Cognitivism o Constructivism
and state your opinion concerning: o which philosophy you find most attractive (which
aligns most appropriately within your personal underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world)
o why this philosophy is most attractive to you (aligns most appropriately within your personal underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world)
• Finally, if you were to develop an instructional product, which instructional design model might you implement? Emphasize the reasoning behind why this is the model you would choose to implement.
An emphasis upon research (with appropriate references) to support your statements is stressed.
CONTEXT
The process of creating useful instructional materials is one that has concerned professionals for many years. One of the basics associated with the design and development of superior instructional products is the process referred to as instructional design. A basic model from which instructional designers work is referred to as the ADDIE model because the instructional design process is inherent within the name’s structure (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation). This unit will delve into the instructional design process through the implementation of the ADDIE model. Therefore, this unit of instruction will begin with a clear understanding of instructional design, move towards the general overview of the ID process through the presentation and discussion of the ADDIE Model.
UNIT OBJECTIVES
At the conclusion of the unit, the students will be able to:
• relate the current instructional design models to appropriate technological environments; • relate the current instructional design models and theories to appropriate design concepts and design basics,
as designated within the ADDIE model;
• use a variety of strategies to acquire information from a variety of formats, such as electronic resources; • use higher order problem-solving skills and strategies including task analysis and evaluation; and, • use a variety of conceptual theories to solve problems and create mental models pertaining to design
concepts and design basics;
• use technology applications to facilitate evaluation of communication and of work, both process and product; • participate in student -directed learning focusing on individual educational goals, research, and presentation of
knowledge; • create products to include in a portfolio demonstrating accomplishments as related to this course.
INTRODUCTION: INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Instructional design (ID) is a theoretical hodgepodge that has been discussed, defined, refined and manipulated over several decades. The importance of the instructional design process can not be overestimated, as the learning objectives and goals of each instructional opportunity must be carefully designed, developed and implemented. Definitions of instructional design are varied; however, the basics associated with the ID process are solidly structured within the conceptual framework of the ID landscape. Following is a short explanation of instructional design, as understood by those closely associated with the ID process. After all, what is instructional design?
Definitions of Instructional Design
Instructional Design is the systematic process of translating general principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials and learning.
Thinking About Instructional Design Instructional Design as a Process: Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities. Instructional Design as a Discipline: Instructional Design is that branch of knowledge concerned with research and theory about instructional strategies and the process for developing and implementing those strategies.
Instructional Design as a Science: Instructional Design is the science of creating detailed specifications for the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of situations that facilitate the learning of both large and small units of subject matter at all levels of complexity. Instructional Design as Reality: Instructional Design can start at any point in the design process. Often a glimmer of an idea is developed to give the core of an instruction situation. By the time the entire process is done the designer looks back and she or he checks to see that all parts of the "science" have been taken into account. Then the entire process is written up as if it occurred in a systematic fashion.
Instructional System: An instructional system is an arrangement of resources and procedures to promote learning. Instructional design is the systematic process of developing instructional systems and instructional development is the process of implementing the system or plan. Instructional Technology: Instructional technology is the systemic and systematic application of strategies and techniques derived from behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist theories to the solution of instructional problems. Instructional Technology = Instructional Design + Instructional Development Instructional technology is the systematic application of theory and other organized knowledge to the task of instructional design and development. Instructional Development: The process of implementing the design plans. (Carl Berger or Rosalind Kam, 1996, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html, paragraphs 1-8; Adapted from "Training and Instructional Design", Applied Research Laboratory, Penn State University, http://quark.arl.psu.edu/)
One question you may ask is, who makes up these definitions of instructional design? Very good question! These definitions come from numerous researchers and theorists within the world of instructional design and technology. Following are references that support the above definitions of instructional design:
• Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (1991). Computer-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc..
• Anglin, G. (Ed.). (1991). Instructional technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
• Gentry, C. (1994). Introduction to instructional development. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
• Kemp, J., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Designing effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc..
• Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
• Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
• Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (1993). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Venezky, R. & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction. New York: Longman. (McNeil, S. (2001). What is instructional design? Retrieved from the World Wide Web on July 9, 2001: http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/whatisid.html)
A basic understanding of instructional design is imperative before further delving into a general model of the ID process. Therefore, following are several Web sites that begin to frame and understanding, and further the discussion, that surrounds instructional design.
• Reclaiming Instructional Design by Dr. M. David Merrill, Leston Drake, Mark J. Lacy, Jean Pratt and the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University. Previously published in Educational Technology, 1996, 36 (5), p. 5-7. www.coe.usu.edu/it/id2/reclaim.html
• Instructional Design and Training www.usernomics.com/ind.html
• Using Instructional Design Principles To Amplify Learning On The WWW http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/DCD/WWWInstrdesign/WWWInstrDesign.html
• Why ID? The Benefits of Instructional Design Models http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/thompson.htm
• Instructional Design Methodologies And Techniques http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/isd_homepage.html
• Leaning Model Home Page http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/learning_models/Learning_Model.htm
As we address instructional design models, it would be useful to review the web sites that help us address the following basic questions:
• What is design? o Bilton, http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/trinity/watdes.html
• What is Instructional Design? o Berger and Kam, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html o McNeil, http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/whatisid.html o Leigh, http://www.pignc-ispi.com/articles/education/brief history.htm
• History of Instructional Design o Douglas Leigh, http://www.pignc-ispi.com/articles/education/brief history.htm o Sara McNeil, http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html
o de Lisle, http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/peterdl/ID Theory.htm • What is technology?
o Bilton, http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/trinity/watistec.html o Theory of Technology, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/tech_theory.html
• What is educational technology? o Ely, http://www.ericit.org/digests/EDO-IR-2000-01.shtml o Rowntree, http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsjcc/Presentation3/sld002.htm
• What is Instructional Technology?
o Seels & Richey, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/seels.html o USU, http://it.usu.edu/program/description.html o Christopher, http://www.gsu.edu/~mstswh/courses/it7000/papers/whatis.htm o Ely, http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed387117.html o RSVP, http://www.rsvp.rpi.edu/services/id/itsup_whatis.html
Ryder, M. (2003). Instructional design models. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 24, 2003: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html
The following links may also be of interest:
• Clyde Bassett's annotated summary of Ryder’s http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html page. http://www.adams.net/~cbassett/models.htm
• InTRO (Harmon, Jones and Surry) http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/
• Sarah McNeil A Hypertext History of Instrcutional Design http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/credits.html
• Charles Reigeluth o The Green Book
http://www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/ o The Yellow Book
http://www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/yellow.html • Susan Colaric's Model Depicting the Instructional Systems Process
http://www.soe.ecu.edu/ltdi/colaric/KB/index.html • Conway (1997) Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction
http://udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm • Great Ideas in Education (Sebastian Foti)
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/webtech/GreatIdeas/index.htm • Teaching and Learning with Internet Tools ID models overview from Daniel Schneider (University of
• Choosing an Instructional Design Approach: Is There a Best Method? (William Hunter) http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~edtech/688/conclude.htm
• Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (2000) Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning http://cw.prenhall.com/heinich/
• Greg Kearsley Theory Into Practice (TIP) Database (Descriptions of 48 theories related to learning and instruction) http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/ (Ryder, 2003, paragraph 44, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html)
Corrolary Links concerning Instructional Design, as offered by Martin Ryder : http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/reflect/idmodels.html
A review of the above Web sites has begun the creation of a conceptual framework of understanding, a knowledge base if you like, that begins to define the depth and breadth of the instructional design process. Of further interest is the number of instructional design models that are available within today’s ever-broadening scope. Following are
links to a wealth of instructional design models. Please review several of the following ID models to further understand the expectations associated with the ID process, as is delineated within today’s ID world of design, development, and theoretical research.
(Graphic created by Dr. Robert Branch, retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 25, 2003, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/design_models.html) However, while reviewing the ID models and parallel theories associated with the ID models, please keep the realization that all the ID models and theories associated with instructional design are just that … theories. Within the business and industry, real-world process of instructional design, rarely are the time and money available to fully follow an ID model. As is the saying in the real-world of instructional design:
The customer can choose two of the three choices listed below:
Quality Time Money
The customer can either receive a product:
1. that is quality within a short period of time, but the cost will be exorbitant; or, 2. with a lesser cost associated with the product in a decent amount of time, but the quality will
significantly suffer; or, There is no “getting around” the three elements associated with the instructional design product deliverable. Two of the three elements can be met, but with a severe strain upon the third element. Quality, time and money are the three elements of significance when discussing the ID process and deliverables associated with the process. When discussing the inclusion of multimedia as the deliverable, the elements become even more constrained.
ADDIE MODEL Instructional design emphasizes the systematic design and development of deliverables associated with the learning outcomes and goal structures of education. Although numerous ID models are available in today’s ID world, the basic elements of the ID models can be summarized within the ADDIE Model. Following is a brief explanation of the ADDIE Model of instructional design, wherein there are five simplistic phases of the ID process delineated. To obtain an understanding of the instructional design process from within a general practitioner’s understanding, a review of the ADDIE model is appropriate. Please either review the Web site links below or review the following phases within our PDF document.
• Analyze Phase http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/analyze.html ”The Analyze phase is the foundation for all other phases of instructional design. During this phase, you must define the problem, identify the source of the problem and determine possible solutions. The phase may include specific research techniques such as needs analysis, job analysis and task analysis. The outputs of this phase often include the instructional goals, and a list of tasks to be instructed. These outputs will be the inputs for the Design phase” (Braxton, 2003, paragraphs 1-2, http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/analyze.html).
• Design Phase http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/design.html ”The Design phase involves using the outputs from the Analyze phase to plan a strategy for developing the instruction. During this phase, you must outline how to reach the instructional goals determined during the Analyze phase and expand the instructional foundation. Some of the elements of the Design Phase may include writing a target population description, conducting a learning analysis, writing objectives and test items, selecting a delivery system, and sequencing the instruction. The outputs of the Design phase will be the inputs for the Develop phase” (Braxton, 2003, paragraphs 1-2, http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/design.html).
• Develop Phase http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/develop.html ”The Develop phase builds on both the Analyze and Design phases. The purpose of this phase is to generate the lesson plans and lesson materials. During this phase you will develop the instruction, all media that will be used in the instruction, and any supporting documentation. This may include hardware (e.g., simulation equipment) and software (e.g., computer-based instruction)” (Braxton, 2003, paragraph 1, http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/develop.html).
• Implement Phase http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/implement.html ”The Implementation phase refers to the actual delivery of the instruction, whether it's classroom-based, lab-based, or computer-based. The purpose of this phase is the effective and efficient delivery of instruction. This phase must promote the students' understanding of material, support the students' mastery of objectives, and ensure the students' transfer of knowledge from the instructional setting to the job” (Braxton, 2003, paragraph 1, , http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/implement.html).
• Evaluate Phase http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/evaluate.html ”This phase measures the effectiveness and efficiency of the instruction. Evaluation should actually occur throughout the entire instructional design process - within phases, between phases, and after implementation. Evaluation may be Formative or Summative. Formative Evaluation is ongoing during and between phases. The purpose of this type of evaluation is to improve the instruction before the final version is implemented. Summative Evaluation usually occurs after the final version of instruction is implemented. This type of evaluation assesses the overall effectiveness of the instruction. Data from the Summative Evaluation is often used to make a decision about the instruction (such as whether to purchase an
instructional package or continue/discontinue instruction)” (Braxton, 2003, paragraphs 1-3, http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/evaluate.html).
The ADDIE Model offers five general phases through which to follow the instructional design process. Based upon these basic ADDIE Model components are numerous instructional design models.
REFERENCE
Braxton, S. (2003). General Instructional Design Phases . Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 24, 2003: http://www.futureu.com/publications/braxton/general_phases.html
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS As previously stated, following is a list of instructional design models. Please carefully review several of the following ID models to further understand the expectations associated with the ID process, as well as the significant similarities and differences between the ID models.
Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world. Whether it is derived from whim or from serious research, a model offers its user a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem. An instructional design model gives structure and meaning to an I.D. problem, enabling the would-be designer to negotiate her design task with a semblance of conscious understanding. Models help us to visualize the problem, to break it down into discrete, manageable units. The value of a specific model is determined within the context of use. Like any other instrument, a model assumes a specific intention of its user. A model should be judged by how it mediates the designer's intention, how well it can share a work load, and how effectively it shifts focus away from itself toward the object of the design activity. Models, like other tools, shape the consciousness of those who use them. The tool molds the wielder who molds the tool, ad infinitum. Our models frame the reality we impose on the world and the experience that is forged out of their use brings us to higher levels of understanding about the design problem, but only within the framework of the specific models we adopt. (Ryder, 2003, paragraphs 1-4, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html)
REFERENCE
Ryder, M. (2003). Instructional design models. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 24, 2003: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html
As well, specific instructional design models (ID models) will offer you a basic knowledge and overview of the instructional design process. As such, the following ID models are offered:
• Dick and Carey Model • Hannafin and Peck Design Model
• Knirk and Gustafson Design Model • Kemp Design Model • Gerlach and Ely Design Model • Rapid Prototyping Design Model
Dick and Carey Model of Instructional Design: The Systematic Design of Instruction One of the primary behavioral instructional design models in use today is the Dick and Carey Model. As such, you will obtain a detailed orientation to this model within another core course; however, it is a good idea to become comfortable with the basics related to the Dick and Carey Model. “The Dick and Carey Design Model uses a systems approach for designing instruction. One of the best known models, its approach to designing instruction is similar to that of software engineering. The design model describes all the phases of an iterative process that starts by identifying instructional goals and ends with summative evaluation. This model is applicable across a range of context areas (e.g., K-12 to business to government) and users (novice to expert)” (USMA, 2003, paragraph 1, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/dc_design.html). As such, following is a brief overview of the Dick and Carey Model:
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Strickland, 1999, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/dc_design.html)
Stage 1. Instructional Goals * Instructional Goal: Desirable state of affairs by instruction * Needs Analysis : Analysis of a discrepancy between an instructional goal and the present state of affairs or a personal perception of needs.
Stage 2. Instructional Analysis * Purpose : To determine the skills involved in reaching a goal * Task Analysis (procedural analysis) : about the product of which would be a list of steps and the skills used at each step in the procedure
* Information-Processing Analysis : about the mental operations used by a person who has learned a complex skills * Learning-Task Analysis : about the objectives of instruction that involve intellectual skills
Stage 3. Entry Behaviors and Learner Characteristics * Purpose : To determine which of the required enabling skills the learners bring to the learning task * Intellectual skills * Abilities such as verbal comprehension and spatial orientation * Traits of personality
Stage 4. Performance Objectives * Purpose : To translate the needs and goals into specific and detailed objectives * Functions : Determining whether the instruction related to its goals. Focusing the lesson planning upon appropriate conditions of learning Guiding the development of measures of learner performance Assisting learners in their study efforts.
Stage 5. Criterion-Referenced Test Items *To diagnose an individual possessions of the necessary prerequisites for learning new skills *To check the results of student learning during the process of a lesson *To provide document of students progress for parents or administrators *Useful in evaluating the instructional system itself (Formative/ Summative evaluation) *Early determination of performance measures before development of lesson plan and instructional materials
Stage 6. Instructional Strategy * Purpose : To outline how instructional activities will relate to the accomplishment of the objectives *The best lesson design : Demonstrating knowledge about the learners, tasks reflected in the objectives, and effectiveness of teaching strategies e.g. Choice of delivering system. Teacher-led, Group-paced vs. Learner-centered, Learner-paced
Stage 7. Instructional Meterials * Purpose : To select printed or other media intended to convey events of instruction. * Use of existing materials when it is possible * Need for development of new materials, otherwise * Role of teacher : It depends on the choice of delivery system
Stage 8. Formative Evaluation * Purpose : To provide data for revising and improving instructional materials * To revise the instruction so as to make it as effective as possible for larger number of students * One on One : One evaluator sitting with one learner to interview * Small Group * Field Trial
Stage 9. Summative Evaluation Purpose : To study the effectiveness of system as a whole * Conducted after the system has passed through its formative stage * Small scale/ Large Scale * Short period/ Long period
(Lee & Lee, paragraphs 2-10, Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 25, 2003, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html)
DICK & CAREY MODEL REFERENCE
Dick, Walter, Carey, Lou, and James O. Carey. (2001). The Systematic Design of Instruction, 5th ed. New York: Longman,
Hannafin and Peck Design Model The next model presented is the Hannafin and Peck Model. This is a more recursive style model than the clearly delineated Dick and Carey Model previously presented. “The Hannafin Peck Design Model is a three phase process. In the first phase, a needs assessment is performed. This phase is followed by a design phase. In the third phase, instruction is developed and implemented. In this model, all of the phases involve a process of evaluation and revision” (Strickland, 1999, paragraph 1, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/hp_design.html).
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Pryor, 2003, http://mathcs.wilkes.edu/~rpryor/ed589/hpdesign.html)
Knirk and Gustafson Design Model Following is a more detailed analysis of a simplistic three-step approach to design, as designated by the Knirk and Gustafson Design Model. “The Knirk and Gustafson Design Model is a three stage process which includes problem determination, design and development. The problem determination stage involves identifying the problem and setting instructional goals. The design stage includes developing objectives and specifying strategies. Finally, in the development stage, materials are developed” (Strickland, 1999, paragraphs 1-2, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/kg_design.html).
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Strickland, 1999, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/kg_design_gif.htm)
Kemp Design Model The Kemp Design Model offers a distinct recursive presentation of the instructional design process, wherein all components occur simultaneously, or as necessary. “The Jerrold Kemp Design Model takes a holistic approach to instructional design. Virtually all factors in the learning environment are taken into consideration including subject analysis, learner characteristics, learning objectives, teaching activities, resources (computers, books, etc.), support services and evaluation. The process is iterative and the design is subject to constant revision” (Strickland, 1999, paragraph 1, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/jk_design.html).
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Strickland, 1999, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/jk_design_gif.htm)
As a point of interest, it is noted that, in one author’s opinion, there are significant “pros” and “cons” to the Kemp Model:
There are pros and cons to this repetition and revision in the Jerrold Kemp ISD Model. Revi sion could be disruptive for some teachers and confusing for students. There is formative evaluation at the beginning of a course and summative evaluation at the end. This would be extra work and formative evaluation may not be warranted in some courses. A variety of proponents surround and are considered when dealing with the core of instruction (namely learner needs, goals, priorities and constraints). Many teachers would rather deal with the core and forget some of the many components (pretesting, learner characteristics, jobs, outcomes, purpose, subject task analysis, learning objectives, teaching activities, instructional resources, support services, learning evaluation) surrounding the core repeatedly. These are all taken into account at the same time (this all sounds like a big headache to many instructors). Incorporated into the design at any point are all matters at hand (possibly more than those named) that are subject to revision and repetition at a moment's notice.
The Jerrold Kemp ISD Model may seem a bit chaotic to a linear thinker and far too much for the instructor wishing a simple approach. However, I find logic and sense to the many, many factors under consideration in a normal teaching situation. The Jerrold Kemp ISD Model has captured my reality of a teaching situation. It may seem overwhelming with so much to consider, but I teach more effectively when absorbing as much as I can and using as many possible angles as I can to reach the many needs of my many students. Plus, most students need repetition when learning. The Jerrold Kemp ISD Model provides for this iteration. (2003, paragraphs 26-27, http://webhome.crk.umn.edu/~aschultz/summerinstitute/ITC520/ITC520ProjectA.htm)
Gerlach and Ely Design Model “The Gerlach-Ely Design Model is a prescriptive model that is well suited to K-12 and higher education. It is meant for novice instructional designers who have knowledge and expertise in a specific context. The model includes strategies for selecting and including media within instruction. It also handles the allocation of resources” (Strickland, 1999, paragraph 1, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/ge_design.html).
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Strickland, 1999, http://mathcs.wilkes.edu/~rpryor/ed589/gedesign.html) Specification of Content and Objectives Define objectives (reason for teaching content) then content (medium to achieve objective). Objectives should include conditions under which behavior should occur and criterion level for acceptable performance. Must be stated propositionally (i.e. Can be verified to be true or untrue.) A good objective exhibits four distinguishing characteristics:
• It describes something which the learner does or produces. Who is the subject (implied or listed) in the objective? -- Answer must be: the learner.
• It states a behavior or a product of the learner's behavior. Is it an observable or a measurable product? -- Answer must be: yes.
• It states the conditions under which the behavior is to occur. Could you describe the circumstances? (Time, materials, etc.) -- Answer must be: yes.
• It states the standard which defines whether or not the objective has been attained. (Nothing listed presumes 100%)
Often the language of objectives doesn't literally meet all of the standards which allows for teacher discretion. "Creative deviance."
(paragraphs 1-2, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_oc.htm) Measurement of Entering Behaviors Essentially, you need to determine students' present skills and if they need the instruction. Pre-existing records or teacher designed pre-test would be two mechanisms for determining this. Note: This would be impossible if we did not have a clear objective. (paragraphs 1-2, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_eb.htm)
Determination of Strategy In determining an instructional approach, or approaches, the teacher decides how to use information, selects resources and defines the role of student. Expository
• Lecture • Teacher uses discussion to accommodate predetermined goal • Students demonstrate that they acquire this information
Inquiry
• Students raise question • Organize information • Formulate hypothesis
Techniques might include lecture, discussion, audiovisual presentation, verbal written reports. Note: The key is to determine which strategies will best allow the students to meet their objectives.
(paragraphs 1-5, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_st.htm) Organization of Groups Which objectives can be met by:
• students on their own? • interaction among students? • formal presentation with interaction among teacher and students?
Note: Gerlach and Ely also emphasize the need to accommodate individual learning rates via "individual student prescriptions" based upon 1) well-ordered behavioral objectives and 2) appropriate materials to get there. (paragraphs 1-3, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_gr.htm) Allocation of Time Analyze objectives and space availability first. Look back to three questions of grouping as they also affect the issue of time planning. Plan for this if you have control. (paragraph 1, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_ti.htm) Allocation of Space Revisit your objectives and strategies. Do you need space for...
• students working alone? • interaction among students? • formal presentation: interaction among teacher and students?
Consider the needs of large groups versus small groups. How can a space be flexible? (e.g. Moving partitions, tables, carrels.) (paragraphs 1-2, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_sp.htm) Selection of Resources Select resources based on the learner objectives. (No media for media's sake.) Select in terms of reponse expected from learner -- not just the stimuli itself. Gerlach and Ely differentiate between Learning Resources and Instructional Materials. Materials do not become resources until there is a meaningful context for their use.
These resources might include: still pictures, audio (voice of teacher), motion pictures, television, 'real things and people', models and simulations, programmed and computer-assisted instruction. (paragraphs 1-3, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_re.htm) Evaluation of Performance
• What did the students learn? (i.e. What observable/measurable changes occured in the students?)
• And can you attribute this to the instruction? (i.e. Is there a functional relationship between the means of instruction and the instructional objectives?)
(paragraph 1, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_pe.htm) Analysis of Feedback Using the information gained from performance evaluation, what can be said about the quality of student behavior and the effectiveness of instructional techniques? Note: Gerlach and Ely say that feedback is at the heart of the design process. (paragraph 1, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_fe.htm)
Rapid Prototyping Design Model “Tripp and Bichelmeyer's Rapid Prototyping Design Model is a four level process that is intended to create instruction for lessons as opposed to entire curricula. The process stages include performing a needs analysis, constructing a prototype, utilizing the prototype to perform research and installing the final system. This model relies on expert instructional designers to utilize heuristics as well as their past experience and intuition to guide the design” (Strickland, 1999, paragraph 1, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/rp_design.html). Further, it has been stated that, “The Tripp and Bichelmeyer's Rapid Prototyping ISD model has four phases (1. performing a needs analysis, 2. developing a prototype, 3. using the prototype for research, and finally 4. installing the system) used mainly to create lessons rather than creating an entire curriculum. This time consuming and advanced ISD model is used mainly for research” (paragraph 22, http://webhome.crk.umn.edu/~aschultz/summerinstitute/ITC520/ITC520ProjectA.htm).
(Graphic obtained on October 25, 2003, Strickland, 1999, http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/activities/cape/Instructional_Models/rp_design_gif.htm) This graphic display of the Model may also be presented as follows:
(http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/rpmodel.html ) Taken from Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmayer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44
An interesting review of rapid prototyping is offered in a literature review, as follows:
Wilson, Jonassen, & Cole (1993) introduce rapid prototyping and automated design systems as some innovative methods for doing formative evaluation during the instructional design (ID) process. They point out that rapid prototyping could be used in a design process, by providing early development of a small-scale prototype to be used to test out certain key features of the design. They also note that rapid prototyping is most useful for large-scale projects. Instructional design (ID) shares much in common with computer science, particularly the sub-area called "systems design." The traditional wisdom of computer systems designers has been to design systems in linear fashion based on defined needs goals, almost parallel to ID processes (Maher & Ingram, 1989). However, systems designers also face the problems of cost and rigidity. Recently, systems designers have developed a method for developing large-scale systems (Whitten, Bentley, & Barlow, 1989). At very early stages of planning, a small-scale prototype is built that exhibits key features of the intended system. This prototype is explored and tested in an effort to get a better handle on the requirements of the larger system. The prototype is then scrapped as designers start over and build the larger-scale system. This process is called rapid prototyping. Its advantage is that it allows for tryout of key concepts at early stages when costs are small and changes more easily made (Wilson, Jonassen, & Cole, 1993). Rapid prototyping applied to ID is a technology intended to allow greater flexibility in defining the goals and form of instruction at early stages (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). Prototypes may be shallow or narrow: shallow in the sense that the entire look of a product is replicated minus some functionality, or narrow in the sense that a small segment is completed with all functionality, leaving other whole portions of the final product undeveloped. Tripp & Bichelmeyer's (1990) Rapid Prototype model (Figure 3) is an example of how the core elements of instructional development can overlap in a highly interactive series of design and test cycles, especially when the goals are formative, and immediate products are required (cited by Gustafson & Brach, 1997). Prototyping can be relevant to all kinds of training development projects, but its value is most apparent in the design of computer-based systems. Some software used to do rapid prototype are, Easy-to-use authoring programs such as HyperCard, SuperCard, or ToolBook which are commonly used as prototyping tools because of their power and flexibility. Wilson, Jonassen, & Cole (1993) argue that rapid prototyping may be done for a variety of reasons, including: 1. to test out a user interface; 2. to test the database structure and flow of information in a training system; 3. to test the effectiveness and appeal of a particular instructional strategy; 4. to develop a model case or practice exercise that can serve as a template for others; 5. to give clients and sponsors a more concrete model of the intended instructional product; 6. to get user feedback and reactions to two competing approaches. It should be clear that rapid prototyping can help designers break out of the linear approach to design. Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990) also argue that rapid prototyping is more in line with how people actually solve problems in other domains, which is far from a linear process. (paragraphs 8-13, http://www.unm.edu/~stars/Y1Chap1Part6.html)
OTHER INFORMATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN DELINEATIONS Following are the models delineated by Ryder (Ryder, 2003, paragraphs 6-42, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html). Carefully review the models, so as to obtain an overview of the world of instructional design models.
PRESCRIPTIVE MODELS Behaviorist, Prescribed Methodologies, Modern Approaches
(Objectivist, Behaviorist, and Modern Models)
Algo-Heuristic Theory (Lev Landa)
• Algo-Heuristic Theory (Greg Kearsley) • Algo-Heuristic Theory (C.E. Brooks) • Landamatics (Michael Savoy)
• ADDIE Based Five-Step Method Towards Instructional Design (Michael J. Malachowski) • Getting Started (Univ of Wisconsin at Madison Web CT) • Continuous Process Improvement (Don Clark) • see ISD • see Front End Analysis
Behaviorism
• see Comparative Summaries • Behaviorism (Gary DeMar) • Behaviorism (Petrina Quinn) • Behaviorism (Yu Ching Chen) • Behaviorism (Doug Grier) • Behaviorism (On Purpose Associates) • Ivan Pavlov (courtesy Andy Blunden) • Classical Conditioning (Björn Brembs) • Operant Conditioning (Björn Brembs) • Edward Thorndike
o Edward Thorndike (Erika Reinemeyer) o Thorndike profile (Heffner Media Group) o Thorndike profile (Leilani Carbonell) o Thorndike profile (Lynn Morin) o Thorndike profile (Psi Cafe) o Thorndike profile (Doug Grier) o Thorndike: puzzle-boxes and the law of effect (Sara McNeil) o Thorndike: Education, A First Book (Sara McNeil) o The Contribution of Psychology to Education (1910) (courtesy Christopher Green) o Animal Intelligence (1911) (courtesy Christopher Green) o Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) The Influence of Improvement in One Mental
Function Upon the Efficiency of Other Functions (1) (2) (3) (courtesy Christopher Green)
• John Watson o Waqtson profile (Emily Watson) o Watson profile (Leilani Carbonell) o Watson profile (WGBH) o Watson launches behaviorist school of psychology (WGBH) o Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it (Courtesy, Christopher Green)
o Commentary on Watson's Behaviorist Views (Robert Wozniak, Courtesy Christopher Green)
• B. F. Skinner o Skinner profile (Sebastian Foti) o Skinner profile (George Boeree) o Skinner profile (Leilani Carbonell) o Skinner profile (Doug Grier) o Contributions to the History of Instructional Development (Leilani Carbonell) o Skinner Box (R.W.Kentridge)
Criterion Referenced Instruction (Robert Mager)
• Mager profile (David Maier) • Criterion Referenced Instruction (Greg Kearsley) • How to Write Learning Objectives (Univ of Washington) • How to Write Great Learning Objectives (Kevin Kruse)
Component Display Theory (Dave Merrill)
• Component Display Theory (Greg Kearsley) • Component Display Theory (Mindy Jacobs) • Component Display Theory (C.E. Brooks) • CDT example (Braxton, Bronico and Looms)
Dick and Carey
• Walt Dick bio • the Dick and Carey Model (Robertta H. Barba) • Dick and Carey Model (Lee and Lee)
Elaboration Theory (Charles Reigeluth)
• Summary (Greg Kearsley) • Elaboration Theory (C.E. Brooks) • Reigeluth What Is the New Paradigm of Instructional Theory?
• ISD summary (François Lachance) • What is ISD? (Don Clark) • Big Dog's ISD Page (Don Clark) • Instructional Systems Development (Wallace Hannum) • Reflection on ISD (Thomas Reeves response in IT Forum, July '95) • Blanchette and Kanuka Constructivist-iSD Debate • see ADDIE • see Front End Analysis
Objective Taxonomies
• Cognitive Domain (Benjamin Bloom) o Bloom profile (David Maier) o Bloom's Taxonomy
§ Tom Allen § Günter Krumme § Distance Learning Resource Network
• Affective Domain (David Krathwohl) o Krathwohl's Taxonomy of the Affective Domain
§ Julie Little § George Mason University § Fox Valley Technical School
o Lee Affective Domain Resources (examples of explicit consideration of the affective domain in three different educational settings)
o McLeod (1991) The Affective Domain and the Writing Process: Working Definitions • Psycho-motor Domain (Elizabeth Jane Simpson)
o Simpson's Taxonomy (Univ of Mississippi) o Psychomotor Domain (Julie Scott) o Pcychomotor Domain (Yvette Sossi) o Psychomotor Domain (Univ of Mississippi) o Teaching in the Psychomotor Domain (Massey University)
Organizational Elements Model (Roger Kaufman)
• Kaufman profile • Kaufman's Organizational Elements Model (Mindy Jacobs) • the OEM Model (Brigham Young Univ) • see Needs Assessment
Rapid Prototyping (Tripp & Bichelmeyer)
• What is Rapid Prototyping? general definition (André Dolenc) • Rapid Prototyping Model (Gus Prestera) • Rapid Prototyping (Lloyd Rieber's seminar notes)
Hoffman and Margerum-Leys Rapid Prototyping as an instructional design
PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODELS Cognitivist, Constructivist and Postmodern Models
Action Research (Participatory Design Models)
Activity Theory (artifact-mediated and object-oriented action)
Anchored Instruction (John Bransford)
• Bransford profile (Sebastian Foti) • Anchored Instruction (Greg Kearsley) (mirror) • Anchored Instruction (Roxanne Ruzic and Kathy O'Connell) • Anchored Instruction (Barbara Grabowski and Marianne McCarthy) • Anchored Instruction (Open Learning Technology Corp) • Anchored Instruction (Tony Brown) • Anchored Instruction (Julie Barbadillo) • Learning and Technology Center Vanderbilt University • Jasper Woodbury (LTC, Vanderbilt) • Who is Jasper Woodburry? (Debra Viadero) • Glaser and Prestidge (1995) Technological Support for Anchored Instruction
Andrgogy (Malcom Knowles)
• Knowles profile (by Robert Carlson, courtesy of David Maier) • andragogy (PatricK Mendelsohn) • andragogy (Camargo, Hyde and Whigham) • Andragogy summarized (Stephen Brookfield) • Andragogy + Pedagogy (Learnativity) • Knowles? Andragogy (James Atherton) • Fidishun Andragogy and Technology: Integrating Adult Learning Theory As We Teach With
Technology • Adult Learning: An Overview (Stephen Brookfield)
Cognitivism
• Cognitive approach (Judith Conway) • Cognitivism (Yu Ching Chen) • Cognitivism (Craig Reed) • Cognitivism (Sonja Wilhelmsen, Stein Inge Åsmul & Øyvind Meistad,) • Cognitive Theories of Learning: Bruner, Ausubel, and Gagne (Charles Sturt Univ) • Against cognitivism: the discursive construction of cognitive mechanisms (Andrew Lock) • Advanced Organizers (David Ausubel)
o Ausubel profile (Barbara Bowen) o Ausabel profile (Sebastian Foti) o Ausubel profile (Doug Grier)
• Cone of Experience (Edgar Dale) o Dale profile (David Maier) o Cone of Experience (Leilani Carbonell) o Cone of Experience (Florida State Univ) o Cone of Learning (North Carolina State Univ)
• Information Processing o see George Miller o Cognitive Information Processing (David Perry) o Information Processing (Greg Kearsley) o Information Processing (Open Learning Technology Corporation Ltd.) o Information Processing (Petrina Quinn) o Information Processing (Doug Grier) o Information Process Theory of Learning (Univ of Missouri Tech Town)
• Concept Mapping (Joseph Novak) o Concept Mapping (Jan Lanzing) o Concept Mapping (Steven Hale)
o Concept Mapping (Cassidy, Griffiths, and Nakonechny) o Introduction to Concept Maps (University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign) o Concept Map FAQ (Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Univ of W. Fla) o Anderson-Inman (1996) Computer-based Concept Mapping: Promoting Meaningful
Learning in Science for Students with Disabilities o Cicognani (2000) Concept Mapping as a Collaborative Tool for Enhanced Online
Learning o Gains and Shaw (1995) Concept Maps as Hypermedia Components o Gains and Shaw (1995) Collaborationthrough Concept Maps o Novak (1992) The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How To Construct Them o Øhrstrøm (1996) C. S. Peirce and the Quest for Gamma Graphs o Plotnick (1997) Concept Mapping: A Graphical System for Understanding the
Relationship Between Concepts o Crandell, Kleid, & Soderston (1996) Empirical evaluation of concept mapping: A
job performance aid for writers. Technical Communications (review by Lorraine Sherry)
o Novak Home Page
Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins, Brown and Newman)
• Collins, Brown, and Hulum (1991) Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible (review by Dan Watola)
• Cognitive Apprenticeship (Judith Conway) • Berryman (1994) Cognitive Apprenticeship Models • summary (Univ of Massachusetts) • summary (Univ of Nevada) • summary (Ray Jones, Poppy Pickard) • Informatique et transformation de la pédagogie (Collins, Brown and Newman) • Snyder, Farrell and Baker (2000) Online Mentoring: A Case Study Involving Cognitive
Apprenticeship and a Technology-Enabled Learning Environment • Wilson and Cole (1996) Cognitive Teaching Models • Duncan (1996) Cognitive Apprenticeship in Classroom Instruction: Implications for
Industrial and Technical Teacher Education • Conway (1997) Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction • Casey ((2000) Using Case-Based Reasoning and Cognitive Apprenticeship to Teach
Criminal Profiling and Internet Crime Investigation • Resnick (1987) Learning In School and Out (Review by Belinda Aboshanab)
Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Rand Spiro)
• Spiro profile (Sebastian Foti) • Spiro profile (Michigan State Univ) • Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Greg Kearseley) • Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Gladys Swindler) • Ryder (1996) Modern to Postmodern • Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson (1991) Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and
Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains mirror mirror
• Boger-Mehall (1997) Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education • Cunningham (1994) Teacher Knowledge, Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Case-Based
Learning and Teacher Education • Pioneering a New Way of Learning in a Complex and Complicated World (Michigan State
Univ: New Educator) • Rand Spiro Taps Technology for New Learning (MSU Educational Briefings, 2001) • Graddy (2000) Cognitive Flexibility Theory as a Pedagogy for Web-Based Course Design
Generative Learning
• Merlin C. Wittrock home page (UCLA) • Generative Learning (David Jonassen) • Generative Learning (Doug Furey) • Generative Learning (East Carolina Univ / Beaufort County PS) • Generative process of the brain (Summary by Kay Wijekumar) • Grabowski Mathemagenic and Generative Learning Theory: A Comparison and
Implications for Designers (notes by Antonia Palmer) • Generative Learning and Web Development (Martin Ryder) • Generative Teaching of Comprehension (Gillian Scalzo) • Schaverien and Cosgrove (1999) A Biological Basis for Generative Learning in Science • Schaverien (2000) Towards research based designing for understanding fundamental
concepts: The case of the web delivered generative virtual classroom for teacher education
CSCL Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
• Gifford and Enyedy (1999) Activity Centered Design: Towards a Theoretical Framework for CSCL
CSILE Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (Scardamalia and Bereiter)
• Scardamalia and Bereiter • CSILE (Jón Erlendsson) • Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities
Conversa tion Theory (Gordon Pask)
• Pask links • Definition (Martin Ryder) • Overview (Greg Kearsley) • Pask's Words and What We Want From Them (Paul Pangaro) • Ryder (1995) Usenet: a Constructivist Learning Environment • Non-linear Sequencing (Sara McNeil)
Discovery Learning (Jerome Bruner)
• Discovery Learning (Judith Conway) • Discovery Learning (Ken Martin) • Discovery Learning (Don Clark) • Discovery Learning (Lawrence Tomei) • Discovery Learning (Skip Bardin) • Discovery Learning (Penn State Univ) • Jerome Bruner and Discovery Learning (Jack Hassard) • Discovery Learning (Skip Bardin) • Bruner's Constructivist Theory (Peter Patsula) • Perry Making Sense of Bruner's Theory of Cognitive Development in College Instruction
(1996) Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains • Tuovinen (1995) Cognitive Load and Discovery Learning • Lewis, Bishay, McArthur, and Chou (1992) Supporting Discovery Learning in Mathematics:
Design and Analysis of an Exploration Environment and Inquiry Activities • Discovery Learning Resource Page Bubb, Guy, and Hansler • Conway (1997) Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction
Inquiry Teaching
• A Cognitive Theory of Inquiry Teaching (C.E. Brooks) • Haury (1993) Teaching Science through Inquiry. mirror
Interpretation Construction (ICON) Design Model (Black and McClintock)
• Black and McClintock (1995) An Interpretation Construction Approach to Constructivist Design abstract
• John Black • Robbie McClintock • Black, Thalheimer, Wilder, de Soto, and Picard (1994) Constructivist Design of Graphic
Computer Simulations • Black, McClintock, and Hill (1994) Assessing Student Understanding and Learning in
Constructivist Study Environments • Smith (1999) Constructivist Theory in Instructional Design: Evaluating the Role of the
Learner • Three Constructivist Design Models (Disney Learning Partnership)
Mind Tools (David Jonassen)
• Jonassen profile (Sebastian Foti) • Jonassen Technology as Cognitive Tools: Learners as Designers • Mindtool Resource Page (Gary Lewallen)
The Minimalist Model (John Carroll)
Maria Montessori
• Montessori profile (Mark Smith) • Montessori profile (David Maier) • Montessori profile (Tarraugh Flaherty) • Montessori profile (Linda Woolf) • Montessori profile (the Ottawa Montessori School) • Montessori profile (The International Montessori Index) • Montessori Education (Marsha Enright and Doris Cox, 1997) • The Montessori Apporach (Association Montessori Internationale) • Original works by Maria Montessori
Problem-Based Learning
• PBL Overview (Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction) • PBL Overview (Wheeling Jesuit University) • PBL Overview (Jee Park) • Ambury (1992) Beginning to Tutor Problem-Based Learning (CASAE paper) • Savery and Duffy (1995) Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework (review by Chuck Ferguson) • Duffy (1996) Problem Based Learning: Research and Practice (Course Description) • Lewis (1997) Distributed Course Delivery for Problem Based Learning • Camp (1996) Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad? • White (1996) Dan Tries Problem-Based Learning: A Case Study • Nowskowski et.al (1996) Learner-Centered Classrooms, Problem-Based Learning, and the
Construction of Understanding and Meaning by Students • Scott (1994) Problem-based Learning in Dental Education • Shanley (1996) Why Problem-based Learning? • Sample PBL Problems (University of Deleware)
The Project Method (Kilpatrick and Dewey) Self-initiated, wholistic, purposeful activity
• Of Chickens and Projects (Henry Olds) • Bazilian The Project Method • Grégoire and Laferrière(1999) Project Based Collaborative Learing with Networked
Computers • Knoll (1997) The Project Method: Its Vocational Education Origin and International
Development • Hirsch (1996) The Schools We Need: And Why We Don’t Have Them • Holt (1994) Dewey and the "Cult of Efficiency": Competing Ideologies in Collaborative
Pedagogies of the 1920s • Hermle (1998) Projekt:"Schreibwerkstatt"
Role Play
• Choi (2000) Let's Play: Children with Autism and Their Play Partners Together • Geier (2001) Role-playing in Educational Environments • Hume and Wells (1992) Making Lives Meaningful: Extending Perspectives Through Role
Play • Ip, Linser and Jasinski (2002) The Zen Of Being An Effective Moderator In Online Role-
Play Simulations • Ip, Linser, and Naidu (2001) Simulated Worlds: Rapid Generation Of Web-Based Role-
Play • Naidu, Ip, and Linser (2000) Dynamic Goal-Based Role-Play Simulation on the Web: A
Case Study • Rieber (1996) Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments
based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games
Roger Schank
• Goal-based Scenarios (Virginia Tech) • A radical look at education and goal-based scenarios review (by Kellie McGovern) • Linser, Naidu and Ip (1999) Pedagogical Foundations of Web-based Simulations in
Political Science. • Schank Ten Mistakes in Education
Schema Theory
• see Fredrick Bartlett • Schema Theory (Greg Kearsley) • Schema Theory (Sharon Widmayer) • Schema Theory (David Perry) • Schema Theory (Erwin Segal) mirror more • Norman, Gentner and Stevens (1976) Comments on learning schemata and memory
representation (review by Brent Wilson) • Recker (1999) Schema theory & mental models • Schank E.D. Hirsch and Schema Theory • Suzuki (1987) Schema Theory: A Basis for Domain Information Design Cultural Schema
Theory • Chandler (1997) Schema Theory and the Interpretation of Television Programmes • Sanes (1999) Schemas and Stories
SER Model (Gerhart Fisher)
• Fisher (1996) Making Learning a Part of Life: Beyond the Giftwraping Approach to Technology
Situated Cognition
• Brown, Collins & Duguid • Bredo (1994) Cognitivism, Situated Cognition, and Deweyan Pragmatism • Lave (Greg Kearsley) • Lemke (1995) Cognition, Context, and Learning: a social semiotic perspective • William Clancey • Learning in Context (Laura Martin) • Wilson (1995) Situated instructional design: Blurring the distinctions between theory and
practice, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction • Hansman and Wilson (1998) Cognition and Practice: Adult Learning Situated in Everyday
Activity • Wilson and Myers (1999) Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context
Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura)
• see Socio-Cultural Theory • Bandura profile (Sebastian Foti) • Bandura profile (Summer Pierce) • Bandura profile (Francis Marion Univ) • Bandura profile (George Boeree) • Bandura profile (Frank Pagres) • Bandura profile (Muskingum College) • Bandura Home Page (Stanford) • Bandura Web Site (Frank Pagres) • Bandura Links (Frank Pagares) • Social Learning Theory (Greg Kearsley) • Social Learning Theory (Margaret Isom) • Social Learning Theory (Em Griffin) mirror • Social Learning Theory (Peter J. Patsula) • From Behaviorism to Social Cognition (Frank Pagares)
Structural Knowledge (David Jonassen)
• Plotnick (1997) Concept Mapping: A Graphical System for Understanding the Relationship Between Concepts
• Gaines and Shaw Concept Maps as Hypermedia Components • Structural Knowledge (Chris Mueller)
The numerous ID models, and theories associated with the models, may have begun to create a sense of the varied levels of significance for each phase denoted. Further, although the ID models vary tremendously, the basic phases associated with the ID models remain similar. The ADDIE model, a generalist viewpoint of the ID process, offers a simplistic yet refined and distinguished view of the ID process.
COMPARATIVE SUMMARIES
Behaviorism versus Cognitivism versus Constructivism With the overview of numerous types of instructional design models, it is important to have a clear delineation between the different underlying philosophies that instruct the instructional design models. For example, a Behaviorist (or Objectivist) holds true the following underlying philosophy:
Holds that meaning exists in the world separate from personal experience. The goal of understanding is to come to know the entities, attributes, and relations that exist in this objective reality. Frames instructional goals in specific, behavioral, observable terms. The behavioral approach is concerned with immediate, recognizable changes in behavior. (University of Washington, Seattle, paragraph 3, http://depts.washington.edu/eproject/Instructional%20Design%20Approaches.htm)
Yet Cognitivists and Constructivists hold true a distinctly different underlying philosophy:
Holds that learners impose meaning on the world, and so "construct" their own understanding based on their unique experiences. Frames instructional goals in experiential terms: specifying the kinds of learner problems addressed; the kinds of control learners exercise over the learning environment; the activities in which they engage and the ways those activities could be shaped by leaders or instructors; and the ways in which learners reflect on the results of their activity together. (University of Washington, Seattle, paragraph 4, http://depts.washington.edu/eproject/Instructional%20Design%20Approaches.htm)
A further delineation between Cognitivists and Constructivists creates a more tangible understanding of instructional design models. As such, Cognitivists emphasize the thought processes that underlie the student’s learning, and these cognitive processes must be carefully created so as to appropriately and successfully create the learner’s understanding of the knowledge through cognitive processe s. On the other hand, the Constructivists emphasize the learner’s prior knowledge (conceptual framework of understanding) within their own world and the instructional design emphasizes creating an appropriate learning environment through which the learner’s further understanding and conceptualization of the knowledge (integration of this knowledge into the learner’s conceptual framework of understanding) appropriately and successfully occurs. As such, please carefully review the following Web sites for important delineations between different types of instructional design models:
After reviewing the above information, questions and comments are sure to arise. In order to address the conceptual framework development and further clarify any knowledge-level thoughts, a bulletin board discussion list is available to continue thought patterns and clarify questions associated with the instructional design process. Further, questions and comments may arise concerning the ADDIE Model of instructional design; therefore, these concerns will also be addressed within the instructional design bulletin board discussion list.
ASSIGNMENT THREE: ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION
Assignment Three Description: The basic aspects of instructional design are extensive, yet can easily fall within the underlying philosophical realms of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. As such, a reflective, comparative research paper offers a conceptual understanding and delineation of learning within this unit of instruction. Please address the following components within your research paper:
• Clearly delineate your understanding of instructional design • State your definition of instructional design • What is your opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with three instructional design models you fully
investigated (eg, Kaufman’s Organizational Elements Model, Rapid Prototyping Model, Cognitive Flexibility Theory as a Pedagogy for Web-Based Course Design, Mager’s Criterion Referenced Instruction, Merrill’s Component Display, Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction, Reigeluth’s Elaboration, Gagne’s Instructional Design Theory, Hall, Watkins and Eller’s Model of Web-Based Design for Learning, Willis’ Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model)
• Focused upon comparative summaries (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism), delineate definitions to describe the following philosophies
o Behaviorism o Cognitivism o Constructivism
and state your opinion concerning: o which philosophy you find most attractive (which aligns most appropriately within your personal
underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world) o why this philosophy is most attractive to you (aligns most appropriately within your personal
underlying philosophy of learning and/or the world) • Finally, if you were to develop an instructional product, which instructional design model might you
implement? Emphasize the reasoning behind why this is the model you would choose to implement. An emphasis upon research (with appropriate references) to support your statements is stressed.
ASSIGNMENT THREE: ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
ASSIGNMENT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC ASSIGNMENT THREE
0 2 6 10
Understanding of Instructional
Design
No understanding of instructional design was addressed
Confusing delineation of understanding of instructional design
Somewhat delineated understanding of instructional design
Clearly delineated your understanding of instructional design
Definition of Instructional
Design
No articulation of definition of instructional design
Confusing articulation of definition of instructional design
Somewhat articulated definition of instructional design
Clearly articulated definition of instructional design
Comparison of ADDIE Model with
Other Models
No delineated opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with two or more instructional design models
Somewhat delineated opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with two or more instructional design models
Somewhat delineated opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with three or more instructional design models
Clearly delineated opinion of the ADDIE Model, as compared with three or more instructional design models
Comparative Summaries: Behaviorism, Cognitivism,
Constructivism
Focused comparative summary (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism) that includes: o No definitions
for each philosophy
o No explanation as to which philosophy you find most attractive
o No explanation as to why this philosophy is most attractive to you
Focused comparative summary (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism) that includes: o Unclear
definitions for each philosophy
o Unclear explanation as to which philosophy you find most attractive
o Unclear explanation as to why this philosophy is most attractive to you
Focused comparative summary (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism) that includes: o Somewhat
succinct definitions for each philosophy
o Somewhat clear explanation as to which philosophy you find most attractive
o Somewhat clear explanation as to why this philosophy is most attractive to you
Focused comparative summary (of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism) that includes: o Clear, succinct
definitions for each philosophy
o Clear explanation as to which philosophy you find most attractive
o Clear explanation as to why this philosophy is most attractive to you
Alignment of Instructional
Design Model(s) with Personal Philosophies
No delineation of opinion responding to which instructional design model might you implement. No emphasis upon reasoning and
Unclear delineation opinion responding to which instructional design model might you implement. Unclear reasoning and references.
Somewhat delineated opinion responding to which instructional design model might you implement. Unclear emphasis upon reasoning and references.
Clearly delineated opinion responding to which instructional design model might you implement. Emphasis upon reasoning and references.
references.
APA Publications Guidelines
Assignment has three or more reference errors.
Assignment has two or fewer reference errors.
Assignment has one reference error.
Assignment has no reference errors.
Spelling
Assignment contains five or more spelling errors.
Assignment contains three or four spelling errors.
Assignment contains one or two spelling errors.
Assignment contains no misspellings.
Grammar
Assignment contains five or more grammatical errors.
Assignment contains three or four grammatical errors.
Assignment contains one or two grammatical errors.
Assignment contains no grammatical errors.
EXTENSION CONSIDERATION
Many learners have extensive abilities that go far beyond the assignment expectations. To address such levels of quality and effort that the learner puts forth during the completion of the assignment, an extra level of evaluation must be addressed. Therefore, if the learner feels that their assignment goes beyond stated expectations, please include an explanation (when submitting the assignment) as to why the extra credit (ten points) should be allocated towards the submitted assignment.
Point Allocation Total
0 - 10 Points
Sometimes there are aspects of type that do not "fit" into the design structure; if this is true for your project, please mail the instructor at [email protected] to explain why you have not included/addressed one of the above rubric categories in your assignment.
SUMMARY The process of creating useful instructional multimedia materials is one that has concerned educators for many years. One of the basics associated with the design and development of superior instructional products is the process of instructional design. A basic model from which instructional designers work is referred to as the ADDIE model because the instructional design process is inherent within the name’s structure (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation). Therefore, this unit of instruction focused upon a clear understanding of instructional design, moved towards the general overview of the ID process through the presentation and discussion of the ADDIE Model, and then refocused the learner’s efforts upon a clear delineation between the different underlying philosophies that instruct the instructional design models.
