Week 7-8 Post

Hi all,
Here are my thoughts for this week. All comments welcome, Ryan.

1. What are the essential components of Instructional Design?

Gustafson and Branch (1997) state that Instructional Design has been grounded in the following components: Analysis, Design, Development, Evaluation, and Revision. It is the process of determining what learning goals are to be met and then designing and developing instructional resources that can meet these goals, considering students’ needs and learning styles. Feedback (preferably from the user/student) and revision must be part of the process in developing a proper Instructional Design. This is a continual process that will change depending on students experience, beliefs, and past knowledge. Revisions will be generated from both the front end (changes in learning objectives) and the back end (feedback and student evaluation).

2. Which of the essential components from question number 1 need to address issues concerning Information Technology?

I believe that of the five components listed above, the ones that will have the greatest effect from Information Technology will be Design and Development. Analysis of the learning goals will probably not be overly affected by the abundance or lack of available technology. However, as a teacher designs and develops an instructional plan to meet these objectives, the availability of Information Technology will impact the resources and plans that are created. Evaluation of the technological resources, student success with these resources, and the continued availability of these technological resources will be reflected in the Revision component of the Instructional Design.

3. From the models that you have read, which one(s) take IT into consideration? Discuss how the model(s) may be doing this.

I found that all of the readings took IT into consideration in varying degrees. However, I thought that the ADDIE, ASSURE and Gagne models specifically outline how IT can improve an Instructional Design. Gagne outlines how his nine-step Instructional Events can be tailored to e-learning through the use of multimedia and training simulators. The ADDIE model specifically describes synchronous and asynchronous methods of course delivery as well as a CBT and WBT course format. The ASSURE model has the selection and utilization of media right in its acronym. ASSURE mentions how technology should be integrated into the instruction and that students should be “encouraged to participate, engage and construct” (UMDNJ/Douglas College, 2003) by using various media and IT resources.

4. Do you need to use only one model?

Just as there is no one learning theory (e.g., behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, etc.) that can be used for all instruction, I believe that there is not just one model that should be used for Instructional Design. A teacher must be cognizant of the specific student learning styles, desired learning objectives, and available technological resources at his / her disposal. As each of these variables change, so must the Instructional Design. The model must be flexible enough to accommodate these ever-changing revisions. Therefore, I believe that teachers must pick and choose different components from different models in order to customize the Instructional Design to best suit the specific learning conditions and environment.

5. Is it possible for one “Super ID Model” to be used in all educational contexts? If yes, discuss the overall nature and structure of this model. If no, explain why not.

I feel that the ASSURE and ADDIE models take care to be broad enough and flexible enough to be used in most classrooms. However, as I mentioned above, I believe that the complexity and uniqueness of the classroom prevents the implementation of a one- size-fits-all approach to Instructional Design. It is the responsibility and talent of the teacher to determine what aspects of any model are relevant to their classroom. If delivering the curriculum were as simple as following a single step-by-step Instructional Design, we would all be out of a job! I do believe that models like ASSURE and ADDIE can assist teachers in developing resources, analysing student needs and determining appropriate evaluations and revisions. But at the end of the day, even the best, most super ID model is still just a tool to be used at the discretion of the teacher.

6. Do you have a model from above that you believe would work best for your educational context? If so, list it and explain why.

The most common question that I ask myself at the end of a class is “did that lesson meet the objectives that I set out at the start of the day”? For that reason, I believe that components of the ADDIE model would best suit my educational context. Objectives from this model are measurable and sequential. This model helps the teacher keep focus by relating each step of the process back to the objective and goal. In my classroom, I often use student feedback to assess how my lesson meets their needs. Important components of the ADDIE model also rely on feedback, testing and review to assess and revise the plan.

Week 6 Post

Hi all,
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

Week 5 Post

Hi everyone,
Please see below my posting for the week. All comments are welcome.
Ryan

1. What do you understand about how the concepts of Mindtools or Cognitive Tools (Jonassen et al) and Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro) can be tied together.

According to Jonassen and Reeves (1996), “Cognitive tools allow learners to function as designers using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others”. These tools (spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems, etc.,) facilitate the development of critical thinking skills. Students learn more by creating, constructing and designing their knowledge than by being spoon fed information from a textbook. Cognitive tools help this process.

Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations.
I feel that the two theories can be tied together in that Cognitive Tools can be used as a means to an end, whereas Cognitive Flexibility is the actual desired end. Or said in a different way, Cognitive Tools are the tools that teachers can use to help students obtain cognitive flexibility. Students can use the cognitive tool applications to better transfer or apply prior knowledge to a new setting.

2. Are these theories compatible or are they really talking of different ideas?

I believe that the two theories are compatible but not identical. As mentioned in the Jonassen article, Cognitive Tools can be used in any type of learning environment but have their greatest effectiveness when applied within a constructivist environment. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach. Therefore, both theories are best suited to constructivist environments but each can be used independently and not necessarily in a constructivist setting.
Reference:
Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://142.12.6.6:8900/SCRIPT/EDUC533_91_2008FW/scripts/serve_home