J+&+R+Paper+Rough

= Saturday, March 26, 2011 = = Hi Jeannette! = = Did you see that I put the paper into Google Docs? Check your shaw email for the link - I think it may alleviate editing headaches!! =  //**Tentative Title:**// Instructional Design: Embracing Multiple Literacies? Hmm? OR  Embracing Multiple Literacies for Inquiry, Exploration, and Understanding ? OR

Embracing Multiple Literacies for Inquiry, Exploration, Understanding, and Creation of Ideas

Fri 25th PAPER SO FAR

 Instructional design (ID) is “a systematic application of learning theory and instructional theory to create effective and efficient learning environments and outcomes for a designated target population” (Kopp, 2011, EDER 673, Session One, Task Five). Instructional design models and principles, based in part on the "psychology of learning and what is known about effective communications" (Spector, 2007, p. 25), are developed to facilitate and support learning and performance. The instructional design model presented in this paper is informed primarily through the lens of constructivist learning theory, although a variety of learning theories are reflected in the various components, as the authors have come to recognize that different instructional methods and strategies, based on different learning theories, may be more effective and appropriate in particular learning circumstances (Spector, 2007). As noted by Jonassen (1999), "to impose a single belief or perspective is decidedly nonconstructivist ... some of the best environments use combinations of methods" (p. 217). Central to constructivist theory is the belief that knowledge is socially constructed and that learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience (Jonassen, 1991).
 * Introduction **

Several powerful theories, that fall under the umbrella of a constructivist philosophy toward teaching and learning, influence the overall direction and shaping of our ideas for this instructional design model. Activity theory encourages us to think carefully about the complex relationship between the learner(s), learning goal(s), the social-cultural context(s), and the tools or resources available as part of the learning landscape: Shaping and realizing a worthy goal(s), intention(s), or purpose(s) is substantially influenced by the affordances of resources that can be accessed and/or created (Kaptelinin, as cited by Nardi, 1996). These become integral in informing students' ideas as "activity theorists consider social and cultural properties of the environment to be as objective as physical, chemical, or biological ones" and "tools are thus the carriers of cultural knowledge and social experience" (p. 55).

 The influence of constructivism and other learning theories will be discussed further as components of the model are described in the following paragraphs. In addition to various learning theories, the authors have drawn upon cognitive processing theories; instructional design theories and models; as well as a number of instructional strategy theories, such as Keller’s ARCS and Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction when and where their incorporation supports the learning context and particular learning goal(s).

=Components of the Model =

===**Identify **C **urricular Objectives **=== With a mandated provincial curriculum, the starting point in planning instruction is the Alberta Program of Studies appropriate for the grade level being taught. As Winn (as cited by Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) stated, goals, objectives and prescribed content are set by the associated curriculum designers and hence are imposed on both teacher and student from the outside, therefore inconsistent with a constructivist approach. However, the teacher can maintain a facilitative approach that encourages, guides, and supports learners as the need arises (p. 178). It is important to emphasize that the mandated curriculum is only a starting point, and that learner characteristics as well as situational considerations (e.g. current events, authentic learning) will have a great influence on the development and direction of instruction. In determining curricular objectives, teachers will identify an instructional goal as well as essential understandings that they would like students to develop as a result of instruction, each of which is detailed in the following paragraphs. In essence, teachers begin to determine the ‘So what?’ of instruction.

In this stage of the design, it is necessary to identify where you are in terms of your long-range plans and determine the learning goal(s) that you are going to address. Although derived from the mandated curriculum, this will incorporate associated and relevant "big" ideas or conceptual understandings, which may be formulated from the visions, rationales and philosophies driving various programs of study and curriculum guides. Are there central overarching concepts or ideas that will shape the entire unit? Are there understandings from other curriculum disciplines/ programs of study that can be handily, authentically and realistically integrated as part of this study?
 * Identify an instructional Goal(s). **

Typically, teachers progress through the curriculum in a sequential, often pre-determined fashion, as indicated by long-range plans devised at the beginning of the school year. However, the instructor purposely seeks opportune connections, where possibilities of deeper conceptual or procedural understandings and/or skills that can embrace several identified and mandated aspects of the curriculum are identified--within or across disciplines--and are carefully noted. The instructional intent is to ensure a richer and deeper teaching and learning experience. Incorporating a cross-curricular approach capitalizes on ideas gleaned from cognitive flexibility theory: Avoid oversimplifying instruction by stressing conceptual interrelatedness and providing multiple representations or perspectives on the content (Jonassen in Reigeluth, 1999, pp. 224-225). As Spiro et al. emphasized, "knowledge that has to be used in many ways has to be represented in many ways. Whenever one sees a complex situation with a different conceptual 'lens' or from a different perspective, new and important features of the situation are revealed" (2004). Identifying the goals or learning problems that need to be addressed is the intent of this stage of the model as teachers define the essence of what it is they want students to understand. Associated at this stage in the design process will be deliberate consideration regarding the creation of an learning environment in which students can create their own understandings and knowledge in a social context, consistent with constructivist theory, within and despite the confines of mandated goals and expectations:

//It is from the views of other group members that alternative perspectives most often are to be realized. Thus, sharing a workload or coming to a consensus is not the goal of collaboration; rather, it is to develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue. (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy,& Perry, in Duffy & Jonassen, 1992, p. 28) //

Before designing instruction, it is important to know where you are going: the direction you are heading in. What are the associated essential components for students to understand about this concept(s) or discipline(s) related study? In the end, what are the most important understandings that students should have developed as a result of the instruction and this design choice? As noted by Dick, Carey, & Carey (2009) "perhaps the most critical event in the instructional design process is identifying the instructional goal" (p. 15). Wiggins & McTighe (2005), with their "backwards design", also emphasized the importance of identifying 'enduring understandings', similar to our 'essential understandings', which "go beyond discrete facts or skills to focus on larger concepts, principles, or processes. These are applicable to new situations within or beyond the subject" (p. 339). However, in a constructivist context, whilst essential understandings may well be incorporated, the journey may reveal unexpected or novel understandings and perspectives for the students and possibly generate new knowledge for the learning community. In addition, the end point of the study may well be an approximation--a shifting destination for each learner. This may seem to belie the contention that this model leans toward a constructivist stance: However although knowledge building theorists say that "Identifying the frontier should be part of their [learners] research, not something preordained" (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003, p. 1374), other constructivists stated,
 * Identify associated essential understandings . **

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The situation as a whole must be examined and understood in order to understand the learning. Rather than the // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">content domain sitting as central, with activity and the "rest" of the context serving a supporting role, the entire // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">gestalt is integral to what is learned....(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">acquiring knowledge, and (2) instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">knowledge. (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, pp. 171-172) //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">In addition to attending to any pertinent affective and psychomotor domain learning, embedded within this model is the assumption that cognitive instruction should promote--in addition to basic recall of information--the acquisition of higher level thinking and intellectual skills along a continuum, as well as the development of metacognitive awareness. Although there are various types of cognitive taxonomies available, we advocate the general utilization of the revised Bloom's taxonomy, due to its practical applicability and its transferability to teaching and learning contexts (Reigeluth & Moore, in Reigeluth, 1999, p. 52). An important corollary, as emphasized in cognitive flexibility theory, is the need to address conceptual misunderstandings, oversimplification of concepts, and durable misconceptions which may impede progress in learning. Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobsen, & Coulson (in Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) stress, "any single explanation of a complex concept or case will miss important knowledge facets that would be more salient in a different context or from a different intentional point of view" (p. 65) and they emphasizes the use of multiple approaches, such as varying the ways of presenting material and varied representations of knowledge (p. 66).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Seels & Richey (1994) describe learner characteristics as “those facets of the learner’s experiential background that impact the effectiveness of a learning process” (p. 32). Learner characteristics influence the selection and implementation of instructional plans and resources (Earle, 2001; Seels & Richey, 1994); they interact with the instructional strategies that have been selected, the learning situation, and the nature of the content (Earle, 2001). Defining learner characteristics is therefore a crucial step that must be undertaken early on in the instructional design process (Dick, et al., 2009; Rothwell & Kazanas, 2008). For the purpose of our ID model, we are employing three categories of learner characteristics suggested by Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino (1999), including General Characteristics, Specific Entry Competencies, and Learning Styles, a description of which is presented in the following paragraphs.
 * Assess L earner Characteristics **

**General Characteristics.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Broad identifying characteristics such as gender, age, grade level, education, language proficiency, special needs (such as learning disabilities), and ethnicity are examples of general learner characteristics that should be considered when designing instruction (Heinich et al., 1999). Ethnicity and cultural characteristics go hand in hand (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993) and designers need to be aware of the particular cultures represented in their learners (McAnany, 2009; Richey, Fields, & Foxon, 2001).

**Specific Entry Competencies.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Specific Entry Competencies refer to the prerequisite skills and attitudes students must possess in order to benefit from instruction (Heinich et al, 1999; Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). Knowledge of students’ entry competencies allows designers to determine an appropriate level of difficulty for instruction (Morrison et al., 2011). When planning instruction, a basic assumption that many teachers make is that learners lack the knowledge or skills that are going to be taught and that learners have the requisite knowledge and skills to learn from the instruction (Heinich et al., 1999). However, as Heinich et al. (1999) noted, “these assumptions are often mistaken” (p. 34). A key skill that is often overlooked is the reading level of students (Cohen & Cowen, 2008), yet, as researchers have demonstrated, students are more consistently on task when they are reading material that is at their instructional level, rather than at a frustration or independent level (Treptow, Burns, & McComas, 2007). With the trend towards inclusive education (Alberta Education, 2009) and increasingly mixed ability classrooms, teachers cannot idly assume that all students have the necessary skills to benefit from instruction. Some students will need remedial help before they will benefit from a particular unit of study (Heinich et al., 1999).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">A student’s prior knowledge may be considered an entry competency and the richness of that knowledge influences how and what they will learn (Dick & Carey, 1996). Knowledge of learners’ existing understandings will allow teachers/designers to select appropriate methods and media and also ensure that the teacher is not designing instruction for content that students have already mastered (Heinich et al., 1999). Building on prior knowledge falls under cognitive theory, which posits that the memory is an active, organized processor of information and that prior knowledge plays an important role in learning (wikipedia, cognitivism).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Motivation relates to attitudes (Keller & Suzuki, 2004) and is another specific entry competency that should be considered when designing instruction. Indeed, “many instructors consider the motivation level of learners the most important factor in successful instruction” (Dick et al., 2009, p. 93). Keller’s (1987) ARCS model (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) provides ideas on how to incorporate motivational factors in the design of instruction and is considered at this stage of the model.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">In addition, designing instruction that presents an achievable goal for students [i.e. the reading level is not too difficult] allows them to experience success and behaviour problems are reduced when students experience success (Morgan, Farkas, & Tufis, 2008). Success also relates to Keller’s (1987) ARCS model and Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy in that learners who feel successful, have greater confidence, and are more motivated to learn and have enhanced feelings of self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2004).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Another area that is important for primary educators to consider is the developmental level of learners (Cohen & Cowen, 2008). Within any primary classroom, a range of developmental levels will be represented and children will vary greatly in their developmental readiness for approaching tasks (Cohen & Cowen). Teachers will be faced with variations in skills such as children’s ability to sustain attention, to work independently, as well as the specific skills involved in reading and writing. By ensuring that instruction is at an appropriate level, teachers will be better able to scaffold student learning. This relates to Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, where students are in the zone of proximal development for a particular task and providing appropriate assistance or scaffolding will give them enough of a "boost" to achieve the task (Jonassen, in Reigeluth, 1999, p. 235).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">At the other end of the spectrum we find adult learners, and, in support of Adult Learning Theory, experiential backgrounds must also be considered and capitalized upon. If designing for adult learners, personal variables, such as age and life phase, as well as situational principles must also be considered (Cross, 2004).

**Learning Styles.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">For a number of reasons, as outlined in the 'Model Rationale' section below, Learning Styles Theory has not been incorporated into our design, however we remain cognizant of the need to provide balanced instruction. As researchers (Baldwin, & Sabry, 2003; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; McLoughlin, 1999) have recommended, instead of attempting to cater to particular learning styles, teachers should try to balance learning activities and presentation such that a range of learning styles is accommodated. Felder & Spurlin (2005) aptly state, “the point of identifying learning styles is not to label individual students and modify instruction to fit their labels” (p. 105). Rather, while having opportunities to learn in a preferred manner, learners should also be challenged to learn in less preferred manners, thus developing a range of skills and providing practice in ways of thinking and learning with which they may not be initially comfortable (Felder, 2010; Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Variability in approach is considered good teaching practice and motivational research suggests an added benefit to variability is increased interest and attention (Keller, 1987; Keller & Suzuki, 2004; Riener & Willingham, 2010).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 11pt;">We define multiple literacies as, the many ways we look at, think about, interpret, understand and share ideas about the world. This, together with an inquiry disposition, is the overarching guide for our instructional design model. Inquiry can be defined as “a search for knowledge, solving a problem, an instance of questioning, or a systematic investigation” ([]). We agree with Wells (2001) as he expands on this definition in considering the creation of effective instructional environments, where classroom communities evince an aura of curiosity and willingness to ‘find out!’ He stated:
 * Plan for I nquiry Through Multiple Literacies **

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Inquiry is as much about being open to wondering and puzzlement and trying to construct and test explanations of the phenomena that evoked those feelings as it is about mastering any particular body of information although, of course, the two facets of inquiry are ultimately interdependent. (Wells, 2001, p. 17) //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Several principles from anchored instruction theory are applicable to our model as they support our focus on actualizing a social constructivist educational context for optimum student learning. Anchored instruction/learning advocates small groups working and exploring together attempting to solve realistic and authentic problems whilst ensuring that necessary information, data, and related tools, are available or reasonably accessible. We also support that embedding such problems and investigations into a ‘big picture story’-- made up of smaller, but equally engaging, promising, and intriguing component ‘stories’-- serves to provide an appropriate and intriguing anchor for the learning and teaching activities. These stories or macro and micro-contexts are used to situate the application of knowledge and include small chunks or embedded data to scaffold solving the problem or moving the inquiry along (Bransford et al., 1990). Interesting, enticing, and realistic contexts will promote active construction of knowledge by learners. This theory mutually engages situated cognition theory and some aspects of case-based learning as integral to our model. The stories or storied contexts are a form of situated learning, in that, “stories can function as a substitute for direct experience, which novice problem solvers do not possess. Supporting learning with stories can help students to gain experience vicariously” (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002, p. 69); and may involve examination of cases or problem situations that can be added to the students’ ‘case files’ to help in future, similar scenarios: “Their prior experiences serve as a basis for interpreting current and future stories, forewarning us of potential problems, realizing what to avoid, and foreseeing the consequences of our decisions or actions” (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002, p. 69).

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 11pt;">The major goal of anchored instruction is to overcome the inert knowledge problem. We attempt to do so by creating environments that permit sustained exploration by students and teachers and enable them to understand the kinds of problems and opportunities that experts in various areas encounter and the knowledge that these experts use as tools. We also attempt to help students experience the value of exploring the same setting from multiple perspectives (e.g., as a scientist or historian), (Bransford et al., 1990 p. 2) //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Our challenge and hope for this model is that it can, however, embrace and offer opportunities for knowledge building --despite the initial framing of these storied situations and investigations and their relationship to mandated objectives—because “one important product of knowledge creation is concepts and tools that enable further knowledge creation” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2010, p.1). As we referred to earlier, end points can, and preferably will, become approximations—a guide if you will. Our desire for this instructional model is that it will promote educational experiences where “what were marginally understood concepts start to become productive knowledge. While such understanding does not advance the frontiers of the discipline, it is a creative contribution to the local community, in form accessible to all members” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2010, p.9).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 10pt;">The rationale for identifying a guiding problem comes in part from Jonassen (1999) who notes, "the focus of any CLE [constructivist learning environment] is the question or issue, the case, the problem, or the project that learners attempt to solve or resolve" (p. 218). In addition, as explained by Wiggins & McTighe (1998), organizing instruction around questions provides teachers and students with a "sharper focus and better direction for inquiry" (p. 27). Questions call for students to "make meaning of more carefully selected activities, and they call for teachers to devise assessment tasks related to answering them" (p. 27). They add, "only by framing our teaching around valued questions and worthy performances can we overcome activity-based and coverage-oriented instruction, and the resulting rote learning that produces formulaic answers and surface level knowledge" (p. 27).

Hence this focus will be the driver for the long-term unit direction and suggest an approximated end point. At this stage in the planning, teachers have begun to tap into learner characteristics and will ensure that 'room' is made to accommodate student interests, passions, and questions that arise from related short and long-term learning activities and reflections. Meaningful learning is promoted when students have ownership of the problem or learning goal, therefore the problems or stories that are identified should be engaging, relevant, interesting, provoking, and inviting to students (Jonassen, 1999; Keller, 1987). Involving students in generating general and critical inquiry questions allows for their interests and passions to be incorporated into the design of instruction.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This model promotes the creation of collaborative groups of learners who, to some extent, will come to rely and depend upon each other to help shape, develop, and share growing understandings; generate solutions and further questions; explain and illuminate different perspectives; and together with available resources—physical, environmental, and human—generate understandings beyond what each learner could construct or realize by themselves. Distributed cognition theory supports such practices because human learning “occurs as the ‘internalization’ of socially distributed cognitive processes in a ‘zone of proximal development,’ toward autonomous performance” (Pea, 1993, p. 61). In addition through the affordances of such resources, inquiry within a multiple literacies framework allows for growing acceptance of the reality that much in the real world is not tidily separated into subject areas but, in fact, often involves the sharing of ideas and solutions from a variety of perspectives and different ways of thinking. As Pea elaborates:

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> In the world outside school, part of knowing how to learn and solve complex problems involves knowing how to create and exploit social networks and the expertise of others, and to deftly use the features of the physical and media environments to one’s advantage. (Pea, 1993, p. 75) //

In essence then, the teacher seeks integrative possibilities, essential components, and informing connections to support authentic inquiry in a collaborative setting as:

// Students should have a range of curriculum experiences that reflects both a discipline-field and an interdisciplinary orientation…. Interdisciplinary curriculum experiences provide an opportunity for a more relevant, less fragmented, and stimulating experience for students. (Jacobs, 1989, pp. 9 &10) //

=<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Determine/Gather Resources = <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">After establishing your instructional goals and before planning instruction, it is necessary to determine and gather the resources that are available to support your instructional plan. The following resources should be considered in this phase of the model: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Experts and Community Resources** Are there any experts from the field of study with whom you could connect? Connecting with experts can be accomplished through a number of methods such as classroom visits, visits to the expert, Skype, email, and twitter. In addition, are you able to draw upon previous class or student work as newly made 'experts'? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Technology.** At this stage, teachers consider what technology can be used to support student learning. Possible technology usages include the Internet, Skype, email, twitter, D2L, Blogs, wikis, Google Docs, digital cameras, italk, video cameras or Flip cameras, and so on. Use of such technologies is intended to support learning NOT to teach content per se. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Manipulatives.** Depending on your learning goals, there may be a number of manipulatives that can be used to support student learning. For example, when learning about structures, it would make sense to gather building materials, such as pieces of wood, cardboard, or ready-made materials such as building blocks, multi-link cubes, or Lego. (Theory?? ... distributed intelligence? - or put theory in a paragraph at the end of this section - referring to all??) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Teacher/Student Created Resources**?wikis, Googledocs, VoiceThread, D2l or other Learning management Systems, Concept mapping, advance organizers, scaffolding for thinking etc.?? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">class constructed/shared resources - perhaps this would come more out of your instructional plan? e.g. using a wiki, creating a web page/site, making a class book? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Student collaboration and knowledge sharing, knowledge building. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Venue visits**. There may be specific venues that can contribute to your students’ developing understandings of content. For example, a study of animal life cycles would be enriched with a visit to the zoo, or perhaps the Science Centre. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Print resources.** A rich source of information can be found in both fiction and nonfiction books, magazines, and various printed publications that can support classroom work. A search of the Public Library or school library is bound to unearth valuable resources to support student learning. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Accessing expert opinions and making venue visits allow students to learn authentically from those who work within the discipline. These practices are supported by situated cognition theory, which encourages educators to immerse learners in an environment that approximates as closely as possible the context in which their new ideas and behaviours will be applied; in other words, authentic contexts and authentic activities (Brown, Collins, & Duguid). As Brown et al. (2001) have noted, “authentic activities then, are most simply defined as the ordinary practices of the culture” (p. 35), which are effectively taught by those who work within the discipline and learned in natural environments. The theory of distributed cognition is capitalized upon as well, as teachers and students “rely on the affordances of their surrounding environment, i.e., other people, tools, and artifacts, to carry out or perform tasks” (Angeli, 2008, p. 272).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Supporting Theory for Determine/Gather Resources **

Ely & Plomp - check Kozma & Clark Chapters - re: learning with media these speak to authenticity, engagement, academic rigor, variety, differentiation, individualization/personalization, collaboration ..., social construction of knowledge Do we neeed to comment here on e.g. cognitive load, situated cognition, Include choices of say simulations, virtual worlds, problem-solving, project orientation etc. Galileo, OI, TC2, Teachers Domain etc

** Plan ** ** Instruction ** (Tell students general goals and expectations for participation and success??; Pre and Post student present?) (Models to choose from Case Study, Problem-based Learning, Critical Inquiry, ) ( which elements are objectivist?) ** Instructor/Teacher: Framing the Study **//** (Macro Component) **// 1. Identify significant curricular understandings from programs of study that have: · significance to the subjects or disciplines · connections within or across disciplines · significance in the local or global community · meaning and relevance to the learners · opportunities for various and shifting end points · thematic relationships, enduring understandings, discipline(s) knowledge, multiple ways of thinking 2. Determine the scope of the study · Will this be a short, medium, or long unit? · How much time is available for execution? (Long term, daily?) · Will this involve inter-disciplinary or intra-disciplinary connections? · What literacies may be embraced? · Are there possibilities for students to build on or create new knowledge for the community 3. Generate questions, problems, issues, curiosities, explorations that: · involve student input · hold promise for authentic and critical inquiry · require essential understandings · may provide opportunities to create or contribute knowledge · provoke, intrigue, tantalize, and engage the learners 4. Create a tentative ‘Big Picture Story’ which: · anchors or situates learning activities · contains mini ‘stories’ or cases that scaffold the progression of the study and move the inquiry along · presents realistic contexts for active construction of knowledge · attends to students’ interest, choice, and related questions · can accommodate alternatives or changes of focus base on student need and/or direction - (Models to choose from Case Study, Problem-based Learning, Critical Inquiry, ) 5. Include meaningful and varied activities that allow for individual and group exploration of  · an opening ‘hook’ to motivate students to engage in the learning quest · initial introductory and necessary theme content and skills from which to build increasing understandings and cognitive abilities together with any related metacognitive skills.(This will serve as the onset of ongoing formative assessment and may include exposure to related glossary, early understandings of central concepts  and initial exposure to interrelated ideas and varying perspectives) · various roles, diverse perspectives, and multiple literacies · methods that promote deep understanding, higher level thinking, metacognitive skills, and the building of disciplinary knowledge
 * How will that technology be made available to students and when? - in instructional plan **


 * Instructor/Teacher: Assessment **

· Include ongoing formative assessment opportunities as part of the study and use to guide future instruction · Include opportunities for peer and self assessment · Include guiding rubrics for particular activities · Consider the use of portfolios or e-portfolios to aid in reflection and improved metacognitive skills · Provide plenty of opportunities for distributed intelligence through group differentiated tasks and public presentations · Plan for a summative assessment activity that demonstrates learners’ conceptual understandings, cognitive growth, multi-disciplinary as well as discipline specific knowledge and reflections on the study and their part in it. Growth can be assessed against initial understandings and opening exploratory tasks and reflections.


 * Instructor/Teacher: Classroom Instruction //(Micro Components)//**

**Enactment/Sharing** Empowerment for action. Meaningful tasks and processes. Honoring each learner. Collaboration? Personalization? • Publicizing of learning • Enactment/reflection of/on social action • Celebration - engagement, motivation, authenticity ... ARCS, -Knowledge building Chunking/scaffolding/advance organisers/ concept builders/

Remember to include those aspects of various tasks that will require a more behaviorist/objectivist approach as in essential info. vocabulary, understandings and the like.(Willis?) In addition, the use of scaffolds, highlighted info, timelines, concept mapping etc. which comes from the cognitive strand but also supports students in construction of new knowledge and coaches them in strategies to incorporate and follow their own line of thought.

Note here: p. 219 Reigeluth - if students don't feel ownership of the problem or learning goal, they will be "less motivated to solve or resolve it" Perhaps we can talk in general terms about the types of supports and cognitive tools we will use as needed or required to further plans and reach particular learner goals and needs. This would be a corollary to the instructional planning Note here: p. 219 Reigeluth - if students don't feel ownership of the problem or learning goal, they will be "less motivated to solve or resolve it" According to experiential learning, "significant learning occurs when the subject matter is relevant to personal interests" and "self-initiated learning is the most lasting and pervasive" (Rogers - []). In addition, experiential learning emphasizes the importance of addressing the needs and wants of the learner, which is addressed in our model during the 'Plan Instruction' stage

Also - add in motivational effect of questions - inquiry arousal - stimulate curiosity by posting questions or problems to solve (Keller, 1987 Strategies - ARCS) cognitive apprenticeship" Activity/Knowledge Build again? Disributed cognition/intelligence and the affordances of various resources or tools.( PEA) Artifacts and tools, networks of communiation, virtual world, simulations, social s networks etc.  **..** <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">.ARCS/Merrill/Gagne <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Who? Teacher/Resource Person/Expert/ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> What? Content - learning problem/goal and associated questions; Resources - what will you use? <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Why? Curriculum, eduring understandings, <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Where? Classroom/lab/venue <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> When? Timeframe/ individual lessons <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> How? Theory - methodology - casebased? PBL? Project based? Inquiry based? Cross-curricular study? Demonstrations, simulations, practice, application, integration; balanced, appropriate to learners and curriculum; Instructional hook/design activities; assessment - formative, summative - micro, macro Portfolios/eportfolios/self and peer assessment/ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> TC2? Critical Inquiry <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Also - page 221 Reigeluth - discusses Authentic problems - <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Elaboration Theory: Decide--From complex to simple or simple to complex (Whole to parts, parts to whole?) (Elaboration theory? <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Cognitive Apprenticeship? <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Encourage Bloom and Metacognition <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Reigeluth examples <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> How to account for entry points for each learner,

School, cultural, community, and global events Consider example: For example, in a social studies class, a teacher may be at the beginning of a unit on ‘My Community’. Identification of a learning problem may be, “What is a community?” (Do we need community? Why? = critical inquiry, involves judgement by defined criteria from students, Theory?) (Are all communities the same? Why? Why not?) (Is community important? Why/Why not? Also consider:  What are the essential questions that must be asked in order to develop understanding of the concepts? For example, to continue with the concept of ‘community’, an essential question may be, “What are the important parts of my community?” or, “What makes a community a community?” To contextualize these questions, teachers may look more carefully at the community in which their school is situated. What issues and/or problems are current? For example, in a small downtown school in Calgary, classrooms face the south side of 7th Avenue. The south side of 7th Avenue is far different from the north side of 7th Avenue -- so different in fact that often pedestrians will go out of their way to avoid it. A current, engaging question could be posed about this situation (e.g. What makes a healthy community? Why don't people want to walk on the south side of the street? What makes a community welcoming? Is the south side of 7th Avenue welcoming/friendly/safe? Why? Why not? What could be done to make it welcoming? and so on - may need some help here ...) Throughout this stage of the design process, teachers need to bear in mind that learner characteristics will determine the direction of inquiry. Students who already have a solid understanding of the concept of ‘community’ may follow a very different path from those who are faced with the term as a novel , social considerations such as experienced in collaboration, group work, sharing of responsibilities etc. Tools, technologial applications: familiarity wth, eg D2L, Wikis, google dos?social networks for learning and sharing (Voicethresd)

**Reflection** · Summative Evaluation - of the plan · What worked? · What didn't work? · Why? Why not? · What gaps remain? · Where do we need to go?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">My initial instructional design model is reflective of constructivist learning theory, which holds the ontological position that there are multiple representations of reality and the epistemological position that knowledge is constructed by the learner (Jonassen, 2001). In my initial model, the student is placed at the centre, as it is with the learner that the planning begins. As a public school teacher, I am required to meet a number of mandated curricular goals, however the way in which I address those goals is a matter of choice. For that reason, student input is required for the effective planning of engaging instruction. Early on in the instructional process, students and teachers dialogue about the content and pose intriguing questions. These questions or ‘I wonders’ are arrived at through a dialogic process involving the teacher and the students and directly inform the direction of learning. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">In addition, when determining the ‘who, what, when, how, where’ (why has already been determined at the beginning of the instructional plan), student input is also important. Within a range of possibilities, which is the result of being obligated to a mandated curriculum, students are invited to explore and develop their topic interests and passions. The model that I have developed is also largely informed by inquiry based learning, in which students investigate essential ‘big ideas’ in a variety of ways and then create to reflect their understandings.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Model Rationale: Personal relevance, influencing ideologies, rationale for models or parts of models that did not influence **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> Robin - intital: **


 * JEANNETTE T O DO HERE RE INITIAL MODEL **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Learning styles theory. Heinich et al. suggest a third category of Learner Characteristics, Learning Styles, that we did not incorporate in our model for a number reasons. Learning styles refer to the ways in which learners approach learning tasks and process information (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Morrison et al., 2011). The claim at the centre of learning styles theory is that individual students have different learning styles or modes of learning and “their learning could be improved by matching one’s teaching with that preferred learning mode” (Riener & Willingham, 2010, p. 33). However, opponents of learning styles theory challenge the validity of learning style models and question their utility in designing instruction (Landrum & McDuffie, 2010; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009; Riener & Willingham, 2010). Some opponents go so far as to assert, “there is no credible evidence that learning styles exist” (Riener & Willingham, 2010) and “there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice” (Pashler et al., 2009, p. 105). Landrum & McDuffie (2010) concur as they conclude, “there is insufficient evidence … to support learning styles as an instructionally useful concept when planning and delivering appropriately individualized and differentiated instruction” (p. 6). According to Riener & Willingham (2010), the claim that modes of presentation should match preferred modes of learning “subsumes several other claims” (p. 33) that reflect the underlying reasons for student differences in learning. These claims include the fact that students differ in terms of their talent, ability, intelligence, interests, and background knowledge, and these differences influence their learning (Riener & Willingham, 2010). The danger in focusing on learning styles is in diverting teachers’ attention from these underlying reasons for student differences in learning (Riener & Willingham, 2010), which are far more complex than simply preferred modes of learning. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Agreement is also lacking as to whether or not a preferred learning style is necessarily a student’s optimum learning style, that is, the preferred style may not lead to the greatest gains in learning (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Research indicates that although learning styles can be identified, they may be more of a reflection of a personal preference for learning, rather than a prediction of the best method of learning (Dick et al., 2009). Merrill (2000) argues that rather than matching instruction to individual learning styles, the content and expected outcomes of learning must be used to make decisions about instructional strategies. (Will probably need to cut lots from learning styles writing!) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Behaviorism. Behaviorism has not influenced our model as it ignores the role of the mind as an information processor in learning. For a behaviorist, knowledge is external and knowable, whereas our model values the constructivist belief that knowledge is internal, multiple, and socially constructed (Willis, 2007). In our model, consistent with constructivist theory, knowledge acquisition involves active learners exploring, presenting, collaborating on real-world problems, and developing personal interpretations through interactions with others and with aspects of their learning tasks and explorations (Li et al., 2010).
 * Theories/Models that did NOT Influence our Model **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Model Strengths <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Model Weaknesses and Limitations <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Model Influences: Reference to books, articles, URLs that informed the model **Model - Evolution - Combination, Changes Influenced by Theories:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The first changes to our models occurred when we combined our individual models into a common design, a process that went smoothly as there were many similarities in our initial designs. One plan's strengths served to balance gaps in the other and together we feel the initial plan is even stronger. The first iteration of the 'CLIR-PLAN_ER' was represented by a list (see Appendix 1). The next changes in our model included a move to a linear graphical representation, then a circular graphical model to reflect the iterative nature of the design process. As we examined an early version of our model, we decided to move 'pose essential questions' and 'learning problem' to the 'plan instruction' phase as it would open up our model to different approaches, as opposed to being exclusively an 'inquiry' or 'problem based' model. At the 'plan instruction' phase, designers/teachers make a decision as to the best instructional approach to reach the particular goals identified for their students. The best approach will be very much dependent on the goals of learning and, to that end, a number of different instructional approaches may be utilized in the planning of instruction. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> In addition, we have reconsidered the importance of multiple intelligences in our model. Having researched the foundational assumptions of MI theory, we learned that they are unfounded. According to Gardner, each of the identified intelligences operates independently from the others, yet research data have consistently shown that performances on intellectual tasks are correlated -- that there is some kind of general intelligence or central operating system. (Willingham, 2004). As well, we were uncomfortable with Gardner's process for identifying intelligences and were dismayed by the lack of direction provided by the theory for the development of the various intelligences. Collins (1998 - TIME Reports, October 19, 1998 - Seven Kinds of Smart) notes, "evidence for the specifics of Gardner's theory is weak, and there is no firm research showing that its practical applications have been effective." Rather than incorporate 'MI' as a theory in our model, we aim to provide balanced instruction, drawing on multiple literacies, that span curricular areas and offer multiple opportunities to students, a practice that is supported by a number of theories such as Cognitive Flexibility and providing multiple representations (Spiro et al., 1988); and Constructivism and "providing a variety of experiences" (Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus). As Geake (2008) noted, "a school curriculum which offers multiple opportunities is commendable, but this does not necessarily depend on there being multiple intelligences within each child which fortuitously map on to the various areas of curriculum" (p. 124). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Although we were tempted to centralize and/or expand our stage for resources to emphasize the modern technologies for the modern student, we realized during this course and several other related ones, and much reading, that we agreed that tools are what they afford for users and become another albeit powerful aspect of the teaching learning environment: this does not change the need for sensible and creative thinking when utilizing any available resources. Each new innovation provides a chance to capitalize on its potential for teaching and learning. Learners remain central and teachers remain guides. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> (DID use activity theory, knowledge building and distributed cognition, cognitive flexibility) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> (So many existing and valuable learning models or theories, humbled to attempt to bring what really comes down to incorporating those ideas that we feel are most valuable and practical for inclusion in our model, There seems to be nothing new per se…but different amalgamations. So our model really attempts to discern what we think are the most viable principles that can be acted upon.)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">supported by empirical research that guides pedagogy (and aligns with constructivist learning theory)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">can be applied across curricular subjects
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">spans a range of ages - from beginning learners to adults
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">has overarching guide or principles
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">time consuming
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">cannot all be laid out in advance as this type of instructional design relies on student input
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">can not be well organized in advance as will be revised as new aspects present themselves as a natural part of the design
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">gathering resources will need to respond to emerging contexts and learner direction (somewhat)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Theory into practice website: []
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2011). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Ely & Plomp - Classic Writings on Instructional Technology, Volume 2
 * Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. New York, NY: Routledge
 * Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York, NY: The Free Press
 * Audet, R. H., & Jordan, L. K. (2005). Integrating Inquiry Across the Curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
 * National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.Washington, DC: National Academy Press
 * Explanation of Model’s Evolution (informed by the development of instructional package) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">as we learned more from readings, class activites, research, our own discussions and questions
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Difficulties in trying to be everything to every instructional situation, every sound learning theory and existing instructional models
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">realization that our model should inform particular leaning situation but that could be replicated across several criteria, otherwise what purpose does it serve?
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">attempting to be all things to all teachers and preferences...not feasible!

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Conclusion **
<span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">HERE IS A NEAT ENDING QUOTE: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> “Whether we elect to exercise our option to rely mainly on one theory to guide our design of instruction or to use some combination of theories for the diverse characteristics of our students and the different facets of our learning situations, our ultimate goal should be to select those principles and ideas that can enhance the quality of instruction provided to our clients” (Snelbecker in Reigeluth, 1999, p. 46)

**References** (Bold titles are questions or need to be filled in - need to check which of the two 1987 Kellers we are using, or both)
Alberta Education. (2009). //Setting the directions framework//. Edmonton, AB: Author. Retrieved from [] _framework.pdf

Angeli, C. (2008). Distributed cognition: A framework for understanding the role of computers in classroom teaching and learning. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40//(3), 271-279. Retrieved from []

Baldwin, L., & Sabry, K. (2003). Learning styles for interactive learning systems. //Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40//(4), 325-340. doi:10.1080/1470329032000128 369

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. //Psychological Review//, //84(//2), 191-215. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191//

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). //Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy, & D.H. Jonassen// (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? //Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36//(1). Retrieved from []

// Betancourt, H., & López, S. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. //American Psychologist//,// 48//(6), 629-637. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.629//

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (2001). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In D. P. Ely, & T. Plomp (Eds.), //Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 31-52).// Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Bransford, J. et al., Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition//. Educational Researcher, 19//(6), 2-10. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X019006002

//Cohen, V., & Cowen, J. (2008). Literacy for children in an information age: Teaching reading, writing, and thinking. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.//

//Collins, J. (2001). Seven kinds of smart.// **Time magazine, Sunday, June 24, 2001. //Retrieved from//** [|**//http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,140234,00.html//**]

Cross, K. P., & Galicia-Castillo, M. C. (2004). //Adult learning theory: Control of learning.// Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University. Retrieved from @http://www.odu.edu/oduhome/search/cse.html

//Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996).// The systematic design of instruction //(4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.//

//Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2009).// The systematic design of instruction //(7th ed.)//. //Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.//

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). //Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction.// In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), //Context// (Vol. 171, pp. 170-198). Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Retrieved from [|http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/edtech] [|/07/index.html] **DOI:** [|10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00994_9.x]

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation.New york, NY: Routledge. // Earle, R. (Ed.). (2001). //Standards for the accreditation of programs in educational communications and instructional technology //(4th Ed.). Bloomington, IN: AECT.//

// Felder, R. M. (2010). Are learning styles invalid? (Hint: no!). Retrieved from // [|//http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS_Validity(On-Course).pdf//]

// Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. //International Journal of Engineering Education, 21//(1), 103-112. Retrieved from// [|//http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ILS_Validation(IJEE).pdf//]

// Gardner, H. //

//Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education.// **Educational Research, 50//(2), 123-133.//** //doi: 10.1080/00131880802082518//

//Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1999). Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.//

Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving//. Educational technology research and development [1042-1629], 50//(2), 65-77. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504994

Jacobs, H., (Ed.), (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

//Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),// Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II //(pp. 217-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.//

//Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?// Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3)//, 5-14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434//

**//Jonassen, D. H. (1992)???//**

Kaptelinin, V. (1996). //Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction//. //In Nardi, B.,// Context and consciousness: Acivity theory and human-computer interacion, pp. 103-116. Retrieved from [|http://www.citeulike.org/gro/616/article/392008?citation_format=apsrev#]

**//Keller, J. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design.//** **Journal of Instructional Development, 10//(3), 2-10. doi:10.1007/BF02905780 ??//**

**// Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. //Performance & Instruction, 27//(8), 1-7.//** **//doi:10.1002/pfi.4160260802 ??//**

// Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process. //Journal of Educational Media, 29//(3), 229-239. doi:10.1080/ 1358t65042000283084//

// Landrum, T., & McDuffie, K. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. //Exceptionality, 18//(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/09362830903462441//

**//Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift?//** **British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), //403-419. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00954.x//**

//McAnany, D. (2009). Monkeys on the screen?: Multicultural issues in instructional message design.// Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35//(1), 1-14. Retrieved from// [|//http://madlib.athabascau.ca/cjlt/index.php/cjlt/rt/printer//]// Friendly/512/242 //

//McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material.// Australian Journal of Educational Technology//,// 15//(3), 222–241. Retrieved from// [|//http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15//] // /mcloughlin.html //

//Merrill, M. D. (2000). Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence? In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.),// Trends and issues in instructional technology //(pp. 99–106). New York: Prentice Hall.//

//Morgan, P., Farkas, G., & Tufis, P. (2008). Are reading and behavior problems risk factors for each other?// Journal of Learning Disabilities//,// 41//(5), 417-436. doi:10.1177/0022219408 321123//

// Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. (2011). //Designing effective instruction. //Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.//

// Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. //Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 9//(3), 105-119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x//)

Pea, R., (1988). //Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),// Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-73). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999//). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),// Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II //(pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.//

//Richey, R. C. Fields, D. C. & Foxon, M. (2001).// Instructional design competencies: The standards //(3rd ed.)//. //Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.//

// Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. //Change, 42//(5), 32-35. doi:10.1080/00091383.2010.503139//

//Rothwell, William J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2008).// Mastering the instructional design process: a systematic approach //(4th ed.). Retrieved from// [|http://common.books24x7.com]. ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/book/id_27248/book.asp

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education. (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Retrieved from www.ikit.org/fulltext/inpressKB.pdf

//Schunk, D., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.),// Big theories revisited //(pp. 115-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.//

//Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology:// The definition and domains of the field//. Washington, DC: AECT.//

Snelbecker, G. (1999//). Some thoughts about theories, perfection, and instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),// Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II //(pp. 31-47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.//

// Spector, J. M. (2007). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll// //(Eds.),// Handbook of research on educational communications and technology //(pp. 21-28). New York: Lawrence//

//Erlbaum. Retrieved from// [|//http://www. aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C042.fm.pdf//]

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobsen, M. J., Coulson, R. L. (1992). //Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. I////n T. M. Duffy, & D.H. Jonassen// (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, (pp. 57- 75). New York, NY: Routledge.

Spiro, R.J., Collins, B.P., Thota, J.J. & Feltovich, P.J. (2004). Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Hypermedia for Complex Learning, Adaptive Knowledge Application, and Experience Acceleration Retrieved from [|https://www.msu.edu/~colli239/researchdawson.htm]

// Treptow, M., Burns, M., & McComas, J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. //School Psychology Review//,// 36//(1), 159-166. Retrieved from// [|//http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index.aspx?vol=36&issue=1//]

Wells, G. (2001). //Action, talk, and text: the case for dialogic inquiry.// University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved from [|http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Papers_Folder/Index Papers.html]

Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2005). //Understanding by design//. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Winn, W. (1992). //The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design//. //In T. M. Duffy, & D.H. Jonassen// (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, (pp. 177-182). New York, NY: Routledge.

NOT SIURE IF THESE ARE NEEDED? Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. New York, NY: Routledge Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. National Science Foundation. (2000). Foundations. Inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, Author. Retrieved from [|**http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/pdf/nsf99148.pdf**]

Cut from above…not sure what it connects to:
 * [] ||