here is my response to this week’s readings. All comments are welcome, Ryan
1. Briefly summarize the taxonomy found in Table 1 of the Gustafson and Branch article.
Gustafson (1997, p.80) states that Instructional Design (ID) can be broken into models that are designed for:
- a classroom (to be used for one or two hours)
- a product (an application or program that is instructor-delivered or self-instructional and would be used for several days)
- a system (a long-term and comprehensive instruction such as an entire course or curriculum)
The taxonomy table (p. 81) compares and qualifies these three models according to characteristics such as the amount of time and resources required to implement the models, the necessity for an experienced team or less experienced individual to conduct the model, and the amount of front-end analysis, tryout, revision and dissemination required. In a nutshell, the table seems to indicate that as an ID model moves from classroom to system the analysis, design, development, evaluation and revision requirements move from low to high.
2. ID has its basis in behaviorism. After reading both articles, how can the seemingly conflicting learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism co-exist in Instructional Design?
The idea that behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism can co-exist in ID lies in the fact that there is no one perfect learning theory and that they must be interchanged and overlapped. Dick is quoted by Gustafson (1997, p.88) as stating that the best situation would be one where behaviorism and constructivism can be blended together. Mergel (1998) states that the three learning theories can work together as the learner progresses through their cognitive development.
The behaviorist approach works well in measuring and observing knowledge that might be new to the learner. Cognitivism acts as a bridge between behaviorism and constructivism by allowing learners to use higher-order thinking processes to manipulate and build on the knowledge learned with the behaviorist approach. Constructivism allows learners to use problem solving skills and critical thinking based on the experiences and knowledge gained through the previous two learning theories. A properly designed ID must allow for all three learning theories, and must allow the learners to transfer seamlessly from one theory to another.
3. Briefly explain Rapid Prototyping (found in Gustafson and Branch). Is Rapid Prototyping used in the classroom?
Rapid prototyping is an alternative development process that reduces the time and money required for traditional ID. Rapid prototyping requires less time and money for the front-end work but the number of tryouts and revisions will be much higher. The high number of revisions allow users to have greater input into the final design. In this way the final result might be quite different than the original specification. In traditional ID the final result would look very similar to the original specification.
Rapid prototyping is definitely used in the classroom. Most teachers rely on feedback from the students (users) to guide and revise their lesson plans and activities. Although the original specification (curriculum outcomes) might be the same the means by which they are accomplished might be quite different than what was originally conceived in the textbook or curriculum guide.
4. Explain what Dick is saying in the fourth last paragraph of the Gustafson and Branch article (found on page 5 of Part 2). 'Dick (1996) summarized this perspective well when commenting on the possible obsolescence of the ID model he and Lou Carey have made so popular when he concluded, "There is, in the best of situations, a blending of the analysis and evaluation of the objectivist approach with the simulation and individualized progress of constructivists approaches(p . 62).'
I believe that Dick is saying ID, like Behaviorism, can be observed, measured, planned and evaluated in reliable ways. (Gustafson, 1997) This connects ID to a more traditional learning theory (behaviorism) that may become obsolete as constructivism becomes more prominent. However, if the analysis and revisions that are part of the ID process can be integrated with the scaffolding and individuality of constructivism, there may be a place for ID in the modern classroom.
5. Is Information Technology changing ID? Explain your answer with respect to learning theory.
I believe that Information Technology is definitely changing ID. Curricula are being rewritten to include the advances and changes that technology creates in students’ lives. A major component of constructivism deals with creating new knowledge based on prior experiences and knowledge. Today’s students live in a very technology rich world. Much of their prior knowledge and experiences are created by, or influenced through, Information Technology. The advantage to both teacher and student is the limitless resources now available on the Internet. Materials and information can be gathered from the Web that can be integrated into any teacher’s teaching style or learning theory. Of course, the Internet has also introduced a great deal of misinformation. Teachers and students dealing with Information Technology resources must be aware of what information is relevant and reliable.
References:
Gustafson, K. and Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development. Educational Technology Research and Development. Vol. 45, No. 3, pp 73-89.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved October 13, 2008, form the World Wide Web: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment