Assignment 2 (Instructional Design)

8/10/2019 Assignment 2 (Instructional Design)

1/20

INTRODUCTION

Instructional Design is a construct referring to the step-by-step prescriptive procedure for

creating instructional materials in a consistent and reliable fashion in order to facilitate learning

most effectively. Meanwhile, Instructional system design (ISD) is a problem-solving process that

has been applied to the creation of training since the !"#. $ccording to %ruse (#") during the

last si'ty or so years more than ## instructional design models have emerged each based on one

or more learning theories. ach instructional design model is rooted in what is called the $DDI

model. his fundamental model consists of the five steps found in almost all ISD models*

analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation ($SD, !!+, p.").

he goal of instructional design is to create successful learning e'periences and to

engender transfer of training. ISD provides a road map to guide designers and instructors through

analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation to the goal. he ISD road map

(the science) provides a route to many different destinations depending on the turns (the art) one

chooses to tae. $t its most basic level, instructional design focuses on three fundamental

concerns* identifying the goals selecting the strategy and, evaluating success. (Moore, ates /

0rundling, #&, p.+).

Many instructional design models, when diagrammed, appear to be linear and rigid. In

practice most are .iterative, moving bacwards and forwards between the activities. (Moore,

ates / 0rundling, #&). Most are also fle'ible leaving it to the e'perienced designer to

decide how much detail is re1uired at each step. his fle'ibility and imperativeness2 may e'plain

why ISD has survived and flourished for so long largely unchanged. Most model creators

subscribe to one or more learning theories which shape their model. If the creator is a

behaviourist, a cognitive, or a constructivist the model will reflect that theoretical belief.

hus, this report reviews on three instructional design models based on the bacground of

the models, and also e'planation of each models as well as comment of the model in relation

with instructional design. he three models are* Dic and 3arey 4aterfall and, Seels and

0lasgow.


2/20

BACKGROUND OF MODELS

Dick & Carey Model

he Dic and 3arey systems approach model is one of the most influential ID system

oriented models. 5ie most models, the Dic and 3arey system bears the conventional core

elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation also nown as the

$DDI model (see diagram " as attached in appendices). he model was originally published in

!+6 by 4alter Dic and 5ou 3arey in their boo entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction

(Dic, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, #9).

3hronology from Dic and 3arey model began with 4alter Dic was received his

undergraduate from :rinceton, then his :hD from :enn state ;niversity in ducational

:sychology before teaching at The Conditions of Learning?

published in !@9. Aowever continue with 5ou 3arey was a graduate student of 4alter Dic and

later was co-author with Dic to >The Systematic Design of Instruction? published in !+6.Aer

husband, 7ames, Boined in the effort to help write this boo due to his e'pertise in educational

technology and new media technologies. $fter that, together Dic and 3arey developed a model

of Instructional Design described as the >Systems $pproach Model? which was presented within>The Systematic Design of Instruction?. his model has simply become nown and the >Dic /

3arey Model? (Dic, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, #9).

Waterall Model

he waterfall model is a se1uentialdesignprocess, often used in software development

processes, in which progress is seen as flowing steadily downwards (lie a waterfall). he

waterfall development model originates in the manufacturingand constructionindustries highly

structured physical environments in which after-the-fact changes are prohibitively costly, if not

impossible. Since no formal software development methodologies e'isted at the time, this

hardware oriented model was simply adapted for software development (enington, Aerbert D.,

!6C).

&
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a0gdmLZwI8IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq=The+Systematic+Design+of+Instructionhttp://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Robert_Gagne's_Nine_Learning_Events:_Instructional_Design_for_Dummieshttp://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Instructional_Designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a0gdmLZwI8IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq=The+Systematic+Design+of+Instructionhttp://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Robert_Gagne's_Nine_Learning_Events:_Instructional_Design_for_Dummieshttp://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Instructional_Designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction


3/20

he first formal description of the waterfall model is often cited as a !+# article by

4inston 4. =oyce, although =oyce did not use the term waterfall in this article. =oyce

presented this model as an e'ample of a flawed, non-woring model (=oyce, 4inston, !+#).

his, in fact, is how the term is generally used in writing about software development to describe

a critical view of a commonly used software development practice (=oyce, 4inston, !+#).

Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model

he Seels and 0lasgow Model is a product-oriented model. It is often used when the goal

involves creating the learning materials themselves as part of the overall learning pacage. he

Seels and 0lasgow model may seem similar to the $DDI and other models, but what

differentiates it is that it is meant to be used in aproBect managementenvironment.

$s the Aerrige article mentions his model recogniEes that instructional designers are

often ased to manage a proBect or wor within as established proBect management framewor

(0ustafson / ranch, #&). $ proBect management environment for a learning materials

proBect could consist of a team of individuals including the instructional designer, software

developers, sound and video e'perts, storyboard specialists, and others. his model taes into

account that a team is liely to be involved (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6 ).

E%LANATIONS OF MODELS

Dick & Carey Model

he systems oriented Dic and 3arey model details an iterative process that is applicable

across a range of conte't areas (see diagram 1 in model diagram part).his model is perhaps the

most well nown of the systematic design models and is .the standard to which all other ID

models (and alternative approaches to design and development of instruction) are compared.

(0ustafson and ranch, #&, p. 9!).

Meanwhile, according to Dic and 3arey, 3omponents such as the instructor, learners,

materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments

C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_W._Roycehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE_Modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_W._Roycehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE_Modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management


4/20

interact with each other and wor together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes?

(Dic, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, #9).

he Systems $pproach model is based on an instructional theory that says .there is a

predictable and reliable lin between a stimulus (instructional materials) and the response that it

produces in a learner (learning of the materials). (Mc0riff, #, p.&). he model views

instruction as* a systematic process in which every component (i.e. teacher, students, materials,

and learning environment) is crucial to successful learning. system is technically a set of

interrelated parts, all of which wor! together toward a defined goal. The parts of the system

depend on each other for input and output, and the entire system uses feed"ac! to determine if its

desired goal has "een reached(Dic and 3arey, !!#, p.C).

It means that, each model component is critical. Gone can be sipped. Some steps can be

completed concurrently but all must be completed. ecause of its systematic and se1uenced

nature, this model allows for the standardiEation of proBect design efforts maing them tas

specific. It also implies a proBect management framewor to allow for planning of re1uired

resources ($ndrews and 0oodson, !6#, p. ").

his model focuses the designer on the goal of the instruction by re1uiring a needs

assessment and the documentation of clear and measurable learning obBectives (0ustafson andranch, #&, p. @). y viewing the development of instruction as a systematic process one

considers the role of each component and, through formative and summative evaluation,

identifies what corrections must be made to ensure the instructional goal is met.

he components for the model, stated by Dic, 3arey, and 3arey (#) (model shown as

in model diagram #) consist of nine procedural steps or linear se1uences. ach of these

components is dependent upon one another indicated by direction of solid arrow lines. Dotted

lines representing formative evaluations points to instructional revisions that originates from

ree'amination of the instructional analysis2 validity and entry behaviors of learners. Aowever,

Summative evaluation is the culminating evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction it

generally is not a part of the design process (Dic and 3arey, !!#, p.@).

"


5/20

he se1uential steps for the design in Dic and 3arey Models as follows* (a) assess needs

to helps identify learning goals, (b) conduct instructional analysis and analyEe learners and

conte'ts, (c) write performance obBectives, (d) develop assessment instruments, (e) develop

instructional strategies, (f) develop and select instructional material, (g) design and conduct

formative evaluations, (h) revise instruction based from formative evaluations, (i) design and

conduct summative evaluation (not a mandatory step) (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, # 0ustafson /

ranch, #&).

0oals are clear statements of behaviors that learners

are to demonstrate as a result of instruction? (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, # p.C#) here, means that

instructional goals must be created before the implementing the ID process (Dic, 3arey, /

3arey, # 0ustafson / ranch, #&).

Second Step* Conduct instructional analysis. efore proceeding with the instruction

implementation, designers must conduct the process of instructional analysis to find out prior

learner2s sills, nowledge and attitudes. hey must also carefully e'amine and create step by

step tas description to help learners achieve instructional goals (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, #).

hird step* naly$e learners and conte%ts. his step aligned with the process of

instructional analysis, involves the collection of information on learners2 entry behavior,

characteristics, prior nowledge, sills and attitude, academic motivation, and learning

preferences. $n instructional design can then proceed to the selection of an environment that can

support learning. he performance conte't for learning application and sills is important for the

building of instructional strategies (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, #).


6/20


7/20

Ginth Step* evise instruction "ased from formative evaluations. =evise Instruction

indicates that the data from a formative evaluation are not simply used to revise the instruction

itself, but are used to ree'amine the validity of the instructional analysis and the assumptions

about the entry behaviors and characteristics of learners. It is necessary to ree'amine statements

of performance obBectives and test items in light of collected data. he instructional strategy is

reviewed and finally all this is incorporated into revisions of the instruction to mae it a more

effective instructional tool. his is final step of the design process but also functions as the first

step for the interaction process (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, #).

enth step* Design and conduct summative. Dic, 3arey, / 3arey (#) state the

summative evaluation though is considered a culminating evaluation for e'amining instructional

effectiveness is not part of the nine basic stems of the systems approach model. It is also not an

integral part because the designer of instructor in not involved in this process.

he underlying approach and methods

The systems approach* Dic and 3arey (!!@) pointed out the systematic characteristics of their

model*

. 0oal-directed* all the components in the system wor together toward a defined goal

&. Interdependencies* all the components in the system depend on each other for input andoutput.

C.


8/20

". Information gathering is important* the methods include interviews, 1uestionnaires,

observations, documents, group discussions

*agne+s (#-) domains of learning

. he domains include psychomotor sills, intellectual sills, verbal information, attitude

and cognitive strategies

&. Dic and 3arey deliberately omitted cognitive strategies from the te't* the least

understood part these can be treated lie intellectual sills and taught as such.

/ager (#0) model for o"'ectives* three maBor components* descriptions of the sill or

behavior, descriptions of the conditions that the behavior is performed, and description of the

criteria that will be used to evaluate learner performance.

esier and *agne+s (#-1) /edia Selection* it is necessary to select a medium for a cluster of

similar obBectives in the same domain, and attempt to mi' compatible media for a various

obBectives. he factors in media selections include

. he proBected availability of various media

&. he ability of the teacher and the students to manage the media

C. he ability of the designer or an available e'pert to produce the materials in a particular

media format".


9/20

ne't phase can begin and there is no overlapping in the phases. 4aterfall model is the earliest

SD53 approach that was used for software development. he waterfall Model illustrates the

software development process in a linear se1uential flow hence it is also referred to as a linear-

se1uential life cycle model. his means that any phase on the development process begins only

has if the previous phase is complete. In waterfall model phases do not overlap.

ssentially, the 4aterfall model comprises si' phases* re1uirement and analysis, design,

implementation, testing, deployment and maintenance (oussef assil, ). etween all

phases the documents have to pass a 1uality chec, this approach is referred to as a stage-gate

model. $ccording to %ai :etersen et. al. (#!) e'plains that the different phases and provide a

selection of checlist-items to show what type of 1uality checs are made in order to decide

whether the software artifact developed in a specific development phase can be passed on to the

adBacent phase (%ai :etersen et. al., #!).


10/20

concept design, graphical user interface design, and data structure definition (oussef assil,

).

.

hird :hase*Implementation.

It refers to the realiEation of business re1uirements and design specifications into a

concrete e'ecutable program, database, website, or software component through programming

and deployment. his phase is where the real code is written and compiled into an operational

application, and where the database and te't files are created. In other words, it is the process of

converting the whole re1uirements and blueprints into a production environment (oussef assil,

).


11/20

Si'th :hases*/aintenance.

It is the process of modifying a software solution after delivery and deployment to refine

output, correct errors, and improve performance and 1uality. $dditional maintenance activities

can be performed in this phase including adapting software to its environment, accommodating

new user re1uirements, and increasing software reliability (8H=eilly Media, #9; oussef

assil, ).

Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model

he Instructional systems design (ISD) process presented in the Seels and 0lasgow is

based on the assumption that design happens in a conte't of proBect management (see diagram 3

in model diagram part).$ proBect management plan is formulated and revised as necessary. hisplan establishes roles, tass, timelines, budget, and supervisory procedures. he steps are

undertaen within the parameters of a proBect management plan divided into three phases*

a. Geeds analysis management

b. Instructional design management

c. Implementation and evaluation management

Diffusion, or promoting the adoption and maintenance of the proBect, is an ongoing

process. Members of the design team may change depending on the phase in process. ach of the

components of this model will be discuss separately (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6).

he first phase of the proBect management is to find the solution using needs analysis. his

phase encompasses all of the decisions prompted by the 1uestions associated with conducting

needs analysis and formulating a management plan.

he second phase of the proBect management includes all the steps related to design,

development, and formative evaluation. hese steps are doe in order or, in some cases,

concurrently, but the process is iterative. he steps can be returned to again and again, and

decisions changed or adBusted as current data warrants. he designer can proceed to the ne't step


12/20

before a step is finished and then return when ready. ach decision is followed by data collection

and interaction with other members of the team. 3onse1uently, changes are made as problems

are revealed. here is fle'ibility to do tas analysis at the same time instructional strategy

decisions are considered and to do tas analysis, instructional analysis, and writing obBectives

and tests concurrently. Similarly, obBectives and assessment strategies can be evaluated

formatively as they developed (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6).

he third phase of proBect management, implementation and evaluation management,

involves transferring the program or product to a real life setting for continued use.


13/20

I.


14/20

Dick a"d Carey Model Dia#ra'

Dia#ra' (* Dic $nd 3arey ISD Model, adapted from Dic and 3arey, !!#.

Waterall Model Dia#ra'

Dia#ra' )* 4aterfall ISD model, adapted from =oyce, 4inston (!+#).

"


15/20

Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model Dia#ra'

Dia#ra' ** he Seels / 0lasgow ISD Model (!!+)

DISCUSSION +COMMENTS,

a, Dick & Carey Model

ach process cannot function as a stand-alone. Dic and 3arey claims to say that the

systematic approach of the model is an effective and successful approach because of its focus on

learners2 obBective and final achievement prior to the planning and implementation stage. Ge't,

there is a careful linage between instructional strategy (targeted sills and nowledge) and

desired learning outcomes (appropriate conditions must be supplied by instruction). he final and

most important reason is the replicable and pragmatic design process where the product is usable

for many learners and different occasions time and effort revising the design product during the

evaluation and revision process is recommended.

9


16/20

-, Waterall Model

Ad.a"ta#e!

he waterfall model, as described above, offers numerous advantages for software

developers.


17/20

8ften, designs that loo feasible on paper turn out to be e'pensive or difficult in practice,

re1uiring a re-design and hence destroying the clear distinctions between phases of the

traditional waterfall model. Some criticisms also centre on the fact that the waterfall model

implies a clear division of labour between, say, designers, programmers and testers in

reality, such a division of labour in most software firms is neither realistic nor efficient.

C/!to'er "eed!

4hile the model does have critics, it still remains useful for certain types of proBects and

can, when properly implemented, produce significant cost and time savings. 4hether you should

use it or not depends largely on how well you believe you understand your customerHs needs, and

how much volatility you e'pect in those needs as the proBect progresses. ItHs worth noting that for

more volatile proBects, other framewors e'ists for thining about proBect management, notably

the so-called spiral model.

c, Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model

his model is based on the constructivist theory. >3ollaborating 8nline* 5earning

ogether in 3ommunity? by :alloff and :ratt emphasiEes that constructivist theory and online

collaboration wal hand in hand. hey tal about how people, shared sense of purpose,guidelines, technology, collaborative learning, and reflective practices (:alloff and :ratt, pg. 6)

are some considerations for building an online community. he Seels and 0lasgow model is

rooted in this type of approach of forming the learning environment through the learning

materials or end-product. 4e can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems

philosophy epitomiEed in $DDI 1uite will, while acnowledging the needs and limitations of

the practical application of instructional design

AENDICES

+


18/20

Dia#ra' 01$DDI model

REFERENCE

6


19/20

enington, Aerbert D. ( 8ctober !6C). :roduction of 5arge 3omputer :rograms.I444

nnals of the 5istory of Computing (I ducational $ctivities Department) 2 (")*

C9#LC@. doi*#.#!M$A3.!6C.##&. =etrieved -#C-&.

ra'ton, S., ronico, %., 5ooms, . (n.d.).Instructional Design /ethodologies and Techni2ues.

=etrieved May !, #&, from 0eorge 4ashington ;niversity,3omputer Science

Department 4eb site* http*www.student.seas.gwu.eduNtloomsISDisdOhomepage.html.

3hen, I. (#+) Instructional Design Methodologies. In* %idd, . / Song, A. (ds.).5and"oo!

of esearch on Instructional Systems and Technology. I0I 0lobal

Dic, 4alter, and 3arey, 5ou. (!!#). The systematic design of instruction. 0lenview, Illinois*

Scott,


20/20

=oyce, 4inston (!+#),/anaging the Development of Large Software Systems8,

:roceedings of I 4S38G )3($ugust)* L!

Moore, Dermot, ates, $nnemarie, and 0rundling, 7ean. (#&). Instructional design. In Mishra,

$run %. and artram, 7ohn (d.) S!ills development through distance education QonlineR.

$vailable* http*www.col.orgsills .

Mc3onnell, =apid Development* aming 4ild Software Schedules (!!@), pp. "C-"+,

describes three modified waterfalls* Sashimi (4aterfall with 8verlapping :hases).

=eiser, =.$., / 0agne, 3. =. M. (!6C). Selecting media for instruction.nglewood 3liffs, G7*

ducational echnology :ublications.

Seels, . / 0lasgow, F. (!!#).4%ercises in instructional Technology. 3olumbus 8A* Merrill

:ublishing 3o.

Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F. (!!6)./a!ing Instructional Design Decisions. (&nd ed.) ;pper Saddle

=iver, G7* Merrill.

oussef assil, (). Simulation /odel for the &aterfall Software Development Life Cycle .

International 7ournal of ngineering / echnology (i7), ISSG* "!-C""", Jol. &, Go.

9, &.
http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdfhttp://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdfhttp://www.col.org/skills/http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdfhttp://www.col.org/skills/

Assignment 2 (Instructional Design)

Documents

Transcript of Assignment 2 (Instructional Design)