Jeannette+&+Robin+Planning

Thought we could check off our model against these elements: it also helped me to get focused on essentials...I hope!

Im just going to outline what Reigeluth outlines as the elements or major characteristics that distinguish Instructional Design:
 * Instructional Design**
 * is **Design oriented** --focus is on **means to attain given goals** for learning or development (e.g. to enhance learning for any performance we want to teach)
 * is NOT description oriented--as in focusing on the results of given events
 * provides direct guidance on how to achieve those goals
 * identifies **methods of instruction** (ways to facilitate /support learning)
 * identifies **situations** where/when methods should/should not be used
 * the **methods** of instruction can be broken into **more detailed component methods**: more guidance for instructors/educators
 * the **methods are probabilistic**, not deterministic: as in increase chance or probability of reaching goals, but not ensured attainment
 * includes what methods of instruction should be used, but not what process should be used to plan and prepare for the instruction

And so:
 * Design Oriented:**
 * equals **goal oriented**
 * are prescriptive in nature--offering **guidelines** as to what method(s) to use to best reach a given goal
 * does not mean that every detail has to be given, just general sense e.g. help learner to relate to prior knowledge to help long term retention means an **instructional method for an instructional goal**
 * is intended to give **direct guidance** to practitioners about what methods to use to attain different goals
 * **Prefer-ability**: which suits purpose--does this method reach your goals for the situation better than other known methods?

And so: And so:
 * Methods and Situations:**
 * are the two minimal components needed for I.D.
 * **Methods** as in for facilitating human learning and development (methods of instruction)
 * **Situations** as in indications as to when and when not to use those methods (those aspects of a context that influence the selection of methods)
 * The methods are **situational** not universal (one method best for one situation, another for a different one)
 * Instructional Situation: two major aspects =**
 * **conditions under which instruction will take place,** which include nature of what is to be learned(skills, understandings),nature of the learner (prior knowledge, learning strategies, motivations), nature of learning environment (at home, classroom of 30, small team), nature of any constraints (time, money for developing the plan) All will influence methods that will work best for desired outcomes //(NB Gagné's internal conditions for learning are under the nature of the learner, whilst his external condition of learning are really instructional methods...not conditions)//
 * **desired outcomes of the instruction**: **does not mean** learning goals, or specific learning desired but **does include** levels of effectiveness, efficiency, appeal that is wanted/needed. So, **level of effectiveness** = how well the instruction works, as in how well learning goals are attained not what they are e.g. solving 8 out of 10 real world problems using some formula etc. So, **level of efficiency** is effectiveness measure divided by time/cost of instruction??? E.g. how long it takes student to reach the criterion level. So, **level of appea**l is to what extent learners enjoy the instruction.


 * Component Methods and Probabilistic Methods**:
 * //**Parts**//: Methods are usually made up of several components or features e.g. PBL is a method of instruction which has many smaller methods s integral to it such as, presenting the problem, dscribe scenario, provide support etc. So, are parts of the general method
 * //**Kinds**//: Methods can be performed in many different ways, such as the problem presented in different ways would demo. Kinds of the general method.
 * //**Criteria**//: Specifications the method should meet e.g. realism might be required as part of the scenario
 * These components can be broken down to several levels of sub-components although don't need to o through every single, minor detail in the model!
 * More important too depending on the context of your ID model...school, industry etc.


 * Role of Learning Theories in ID**:
 * These **are descriptive**: describe how learning occurs, e.g. schema theory, situated learning theory etc
 * **Suppor**t for ID

Here is the definition of Instructional Design given by Gail Kopp in our first class: Instructional Design is a systematic application of learning theory and instructional theory to create effective and efficient learning environments and outcomes for a designated target population.

Interestingly, she continues: Notice from the above definition and questions, that we are making a distinction between instructional design and instructional development in this graduate program. Instructional development theories such as ADDIE and SAT, for example, deal more with the process of creating instruction rather than the instructional design theories behind learning and why you might develop instruction in a particular way.  Although you can embed instructional development as part of your model, please think about your model in terms of the definition and questions given above.

Just a quick updated PPT; Just getting going here!!!



Robin...this is so wonderful! Please don't take it all on! I WILL get on this soon! However, I'm for getting further clarification from Kopp, what do you think?

One question I have regards the macro, micro thing....here I think we have chosen the Macro, as it is a multilayered, expansive plan. Micro would relate more to a specific learning event, I think. Ours is more over-top, an all encompassing vision, I think. We need to talk about how large we need to go? Or, how we can bring this vision into practical actualization.

I have read through several texts which have helped me to still think "bigger" but, at the same time, gather components into a do-able format. For example, "Smart Schools" by David Perkins, "Inventing Better Schools" by Phillip Schlechty. Here, instead of strictly outlining an Instructional Design model, they give an image and direction for those models...Not sure if this makes sense. To me, it underscores our combined models and lends some examples which we can use to guide both the paper and the model. Then, as you have already started, we can plug in the various concepts, and ideas from the supporting or non-supporting learning theories ID models, thoughts on cognition and regarding the objective - subjective continuum.

February 25, 2011 Hi! I've been messing with the PP again - I added in pages after each section on the model and have started to take notes on them - I thought if I started to put some ideas down that it might help to clarify the directions. Take a look. Perhaps if we start by looking at each component of the model and the research that backs it things will crystallize ... wishful thinking? I'll keep plugging away and post any updates here.



February 21, 2011

Hi Jeannette, I took the 'linear looking' model and put it into a circular model in PowerPoint - do you think I am avoiding something??? I linked each of the components of the model to a page in PP that has the details on it. Take a look. I guess I'd better start reading Reigeluth ... hmmm.

Note added March 3rd: Although our model has been presented in a linear fashion, the intent is for it to be worked through in a fluid manner. As we reflected on our initial individual ID models, we noted that both were presented in a circle, which promoted a more flexible approach. When we first combined the models it made sense to create a list of the common elements as well as the unique elements form each model that we wanted to incorporate: the result was a linear looking model. However, as noted by You (as cited in Willis, 2007), "the conventional model of ISD takes the form of a straight line through a relatively linear sequence of procedures ... within the linear ISD model, the second step cannot be implemented without carrying out the first step because the first step is antecedent to the second. [This] is one of the major shortcomings of traditional ISD models ... A linear approach is not sufficiently flexible for working with environmental turbulence or sophisticated educational systems .... The linear ISD process imposed upon a dynamic system typically overlooks one or more "messy" variables that interfere at each stage of design and development" (p. 272). You suggests using non-linears model that are capable of representing "the dynamic interrelationship and interdependence among their components" (p. 273). Considering this information, we re-created our model in a circular fashion.

And, just for fun, and I am also obviously avoiding some other arduous task, in a movie format - although the hyperlinks don't work in this format.

media type="file" key="ID Circular PP February 22, 2011.mov" width="300" height="300"

February 14, 2011 Information on Participatory and Constructivist ID (From Willis, J. (2007). //Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

"Formalized ID has been around since the early 1960s, but most of the models of design have been based on the postpositivist research paradigm and behavioral psychology" (p. 271, citing Dick & Carey, 1996).

"That is the essence of participatory design: Involve the users in design as participants, not as observers from the sidelines and not as objects to be studied" (p. 272).

Quoting You (1994) "the conventional model of ISD takes the form of a straight line through a relatively linear sequence of procedures ... within the linear ISD model, the second step cannot be implemented without carrying out the first step because the first step is antecedent to the second. [This] is one of the major shortcomings of traditional ISD models ... A linear approach is not sufficiently flexible for working with environmental turbulence or sophisticated educational systems .... The linear ISD process imposed upon a dynamic system typically overlooks one or more "messy" variables that interfere at each stage of design and development."

"You (1994) proposes the use of nonlinear ID models because the "can represent the dynamic interrelationship and interdependence among their components" (p. 273).

"An aspect of nonlinear ID is recursion....The same issues are addressed over and over across the entire design and development process" (p. 273).

Also refers to the R2D2 model ... This website has information on R2D2 as well as Constructivist ID: = Recursive, Reflective Design and Development @http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-1/colon.html

February 13, 2011

Hi again Jeannette,

I took the list of the combined IDs and tried to make them more graphical. I used the graphics that I had on my design as I did not have access to yours ... this is just a starting point and ALL is subject to change - I'm looking forward to hearing your input because I know you bring a wealth of experience and a different perspective than mine. :-) Also, the way in which it is organized is just a starting point - I think that the important thing will be the research that we back it up with - i.e. the decisions as to what to include and not include. (I think I'm avoiding that part!!!) I tried to simplify the components of each step to key aspects and thought that the details would be laid out in the descriptions of each step. I incorporated 'Assessment' into the development of the instructional plan - some of the models out there (e.g. Dick & Carey) include the development of assessment strategies at this stage - I was also running out of room on the page so was motivated to shorten things up! Thoughts? Suggestions? Again, I understand that this is a difficult time for you so do not expect an answer within any time frame - don't worry. I also want to make sure that you don't think I'm taking it over ... I just have a need to move things along and am most willing to change - as I said, I'm looking forward to your input and think that the different perspective will add richness to our model.

So below is a .doc of the file, a pdf (so that if formatting is changed you can still see what I intended it to look like), and a jing of the plan.

Take care, see you/talk to you soon.

Robin





p.s. Maybe you can think of a better name!!

February 10, 2011 Hi Jeannette,

I thought it would be easier to list the components of the model, rather than combine two diagrams with different styles … then we can create a style. As I looked at the plans, it was clear that we have many components that are common. I appreciated the views that you brought that I hadn’t considered – such as clearly building in authenticity, and explicitly talking about multiple literacies (these things were in my head, but not on the paper!). Take a look and see if you think I’ve captured the essential elements from your ID – add/change as you see fit. Go ahead and take out components from my model that you do not agree with, but as I said, the plans were essentially similar.

I didn’t include the ‘Consult with teachers’ section – I need to understand it more within the context of the ID – I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be subsumed under ‘human experts’ & resources? Or, are you coming at it as someone who is supporting teachers in their instructional planning? It may be more straightforward to include them under ‘resources’ and place ourselves in the position of ‘planner’ – what do you think?

The next challenge will be to see how we can make it look good on paper … no sweat!

And then a name … hmmmm …

Hope things are going well … thinking about you. Hope you find this work helpful and not a hindrance. Let me know what you think when you get the chance. No rush. I’ll keep plugging along.

Take care,

Robin


 * Components of our ID Model (Not necessarily linear)**
 * Consider **learning theories** (or will this be embedded?/act as an umbrella that guides all of the instructional design?)
 * Map to **Curriculum/Specific Objective**s – Develop/Pose Essential Questions – what is worth investigating/knowing about this topic and why? Uncover essential understandings/big ideas as a result of instruction/learning (**So what**??)
 * **Learner Characteristics** – what do they know? What do they need to know? What do they want to know? What are their passions? – Discover student questions, curiosities, conundrums; Consider recent and current curriculum connections; E.A.L. cultural connections; readiness; differentiation – interest, product, process, content, other; Consider special needs; So What?
 * Plan for **integration** where possible – engage multiple literacies
 * **Authentic** learning experiences - Consider current realities, events, issues – school events, cultural/community events, social action, citizenship, current affairs/global events
 * Determine/Gather **resources** – human experts/resource people, technology, venue visits, manipulatives, print resources, audio-visual resources, other …
 * Develop **instructional plan**: Who? What? When? How? Where? – resources, projects/tasks, demonstrations, group work, practice, application, integration, simulations, determine/develop ‘hook’
 * **Assessment** – part of the instructional plan: formative & summative – pre-assessment, peer assessment, self-assessment, reflection/review/revise performance, product, portfolio additions/sketchbook journals, exemplars, rubrics, build in adjustments to instruction (check in, check out …?)
 * **Celebration/sharing**/publicizing of learning; enactment/reflection of/on social action
 * **End Reflection** – what worked? What didn’t work? Why? Why not? Where do we need to go? What gaps remain? (added this in … not sure why!)