Comparing Instructional Design Models

Comparing Instructional Design Models Designing Interactive Learning Environments

Michael M. Grant 2013

Image from http://mrg.bz/EYiC2s

Image from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/books.html

from InstructionalDesign.org

Selected Characteristics Classroom Orientation Product Orientation System Orientation

Typical output One or a few hours of instruction

Self-instructional or instructor-delivered package

Course or entire curriculum

Resources committed to development

Very low High High

Team or Individual Individual Usually a team Team

ID skill/experience Low High High/very high

Emphasis on development or selection

Select Develop Develop

Amount of analysis Low Low to medium Very high

Technological complexity Low Medium to high Medium to high

Amount of revision Low to medium Very high Medium to high

Amount of distribution None High Medium to high

Elements of ID Models

from Branch & Gustafson (1997)

Selected ID Models

Image from http://mrg.bz/dEOBDJ

Dick & Carey

¤ Now, (Walt) Dick, (Lou) Carey & (James) Carey

¤ Systems orientation

¤ Widespread use in corporate & military

Image from http://vig-fp.pearsoned.co.uk/bigcovers/0205585566.jpg

Images from http://insys.fsu.edu/assets/faculty_pics/dick.jpg & http://gminks.edublogs.org/files/2008/11/dickandcareymodel.gif

A voice from the field… Dr. Walter Dick

I would say that they should remain novices for as short a period of time as possible — by taking every opportunity to practice design in many different settings.

Be confident and respectful with your client and subject-matter expert.

“

”

Dr. Walter Dick —

Image from http://mrg.bz/BoNNJk

ASSURE

¤  Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smaldino

¤  Now, Smaldino, Lowther, Russell (2008)

¤  Classroom orientation

¤  Note the selection of materials instead of development

Image from http://vig-fp.prenhall.com/bigcovers/0137132395.jpg

A — Analyze learners

S — State standards & objectives

S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials

U — Utilize technology, media & materials

R — Require learner participation

E — Evaluate & revise

Images from http://www.performancexpress.org/0205/images/JimRussell2.JPG, http://www.intime.uni.edu/Photo_album/new/management_individuals.htm & http://www.memphis.edu/releases/may09/firsttnprofessors.htm

A voice from the field… Dr. Sharon Smaldino

To ASSURE good learning, I believe it is not one single thing that a teacher or designer should consider, but I do believe that there are areas of emphasis. First, ASSURE starts with looking at the learner in detail. Nothing you plan or design is effective unless you have taken the time to look at the learners. In Illinois, for example, it is now state law that ALL teachers must assess their students' knowledge and skills prior to instruction to ensure that they differentiate instruction. That means that by understanding where the learners are at the start of instruction, a teacher will make every effort to assist all learners to be successful in their learning endeavors. This new direction supports my position about knowing the learner. I feel that knowing as much as possible about your learners is critical to design and implementation of instruction.

“

”

Dr. Sharon Smaldino —


Second, the second letter in ASSURE, S, refers to knowing the intended outcomes or expectations. No instruction should begin without everyone having a clear understanding of what is supposed to happen in the instruction. This does not preclude the possibility of additional learning taking place, but without a road map, some of your learners may well be "lost."

And, especially in the schools today, as we edge closer to the 100% of all students meeting or exceeding expectations, I believe that students need to know what is expected of them. I do believe that there is more than one "right way" to achieve those expectations and more than one "right medium" to use, because it's not a one-size fits all world. BUT, as NCLB is still a mandate, we need to find ways to make it possible for our diverse learning population fit into the "mold" that has been outlined for us. Learners need to know what they are to do.

“

”



And, I add that you cannot assess learning without knowing what was expected. NOW, because I opened that can of worms, let me quickly state that assessment can be formative and summative and can take multiple formats. But, that is another cup of tea for sure. “

”



My final area of importance in the design and implementation process to ASSURE good learning is the reflection component of evaluation. Once you have completed the design and instruction and gathered the data about the outcomes and impressions from your learners, you need to take the time to consider what went well and what could be changed in that particular instructional event. This information will help you re-design that instructional event for future opportunities. But, this information also guides you on how to better address your learners in instruction beyond this particular instructional event. We often do not put enough emphasis on reflection as teachers and designers, but I do consider that it is not time wasted. Oh, my goodness, it appears I've nearly written the chapter on the ASSURE model. I will close with the idea that it's not about the technology and media. It's about the learners and the important decisions we make as designers and instructors to ensure successful learning opportunities.

“

”



Smith & Ragan

¤  Patricia Smith & Tim Ragan

¤  Systems orientation

¤  Emphasis on cognitive psychology and instructional strategies

Image from http://i5.ebayimg.com/01/c/02/d1/cb/80_8.JPG

Image © Tillman Ragan at http://www.flickr.com/photos/tandpragan/25103076/sizes/l/ & http://www.flickr.com/photos/tandpragan/25102775/sizes/m/

¤ Analyzing the learning context

¤ Analyzing the learners

¤ Analyzing the learning task

¤ Assessing learner performance

¤ Develop instructional strategies

¤ Produce instruction

¤ Conduct evaluations

¤ Revise instruction

Morrison, Ross & Kemp

¤  Classroom orientation

¤  It has been modified over time

Images from http://www.borders.com.au/book/designing-effective-instruction/337124/

Images from http://www.odu.edu/~gmorriso/, http://www.edvantia.org/about/faculty/graph/Ross100.jpg, http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_09/3kemp.php & http://tomdorgan.com/images/model_images/kemp_morrison_ross.jpg

A voice from the field… Dr. Gary Morrison

I think there are two things that are taken for granted by designers (the first of which I just observed yesterday in an email). First, you must define the instructional problem. I have seen designers jump in when management has stated there is a problem without a) confirming the problem exists or b) at least doing a goal analysis to obtain agreement on the outcomes which can also disrupt the plans.

For example, I observed a case yesterday where the company was pushing very frequent training to their financial advisors and the advisors were resisting the training. The rationale I received was that the products are continually changing. I am not sure any type of analysis was done. It appears they were doing training because training was probably needed. In reality, a job aid or simply a bulletin might have been more effective and time and resource smart. Part of the problem may have been related the second issue.

“

”

Dr. Gary Morrison —


Second, when I asked me students at the end of the design class which step of the process had little impact on their design and they might skip in future projects, it is almost always the learner analysis step. If you look at what we know about learner analysis and then how we treat the analysis in the strategy design it is weak.

We have found that learning styles have no research foundation and do not have a role in the design of instruction. The aptitude-treatment interaction studies of the past century produced no useful heuristics. Basically, learner (and environmental analysis) tend to limit our designs. Thus, learner analysis has not worked out the way we thought it would, or at least the way my professors projected in the 1970’s.

“

”



Today, the learner analysis limits our design such as two hours of instruction starting one hour before work rather than 40 hours of instruction in one week. Or, not all students have access to that application or a laptop computer. Then, there are specific learner characteristics that can limit instruction such as eye sight, reading level, and prior knowledge (e.g., students with all levels of background knowledge). All these characteristics are important and must be accounted for when we design instruction. I have seen too many examples of inappropriate designs that failed to account for the learner.

“

”



One of the classics stories of bad learner analysis was from a federal grant some 40 years ago. The design team created audio tapes for teachers of the deaf. Once they tried to implement the materials, they learned that a large number of the teachers were also deaf. Thus, learner analysis may not be as exciting as say a needs assessment or task analysis, we must still do a learner analysis even though it may limit what we can do, or to look at it in a positive way, it can create some great challenges for creative designs to address the instructional problem.

“

”



A voice from the field… Dr. Steve Ross

The most significant implication, in my view, is that instructional design is not a linear or predefined process, but rather, is dynamic and variable due to unique features of the design task and context.

For example, although learning and instructional theories may suggest reliance on particular design methods or components, the success of the particular project will likely necessitate variations due to available resources, user characteristics, client preferences, policy changes, and other situational conditions that are predetermined or, often, unexpected. So, an effective designer must not only be expert in the field, but needs to be creative, flexible, and sensitive to the unique aspects and requirements of each project. So, it’s certainly good to have a textbook like MRK at hand (and please spread that word around!), but a “textbook” approach, by itself, is likely to be limited in the real world.

“

”

Dr. Steve Ross —


ADDIE

¤  Been around a long time

¤  Beyond just instructional design — design process in general

¤  Model or framework?

Image from http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/31zEaGNTdpL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Image from http://technoscribe.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/addie.jpg, http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC700/ETP/images/addie.jpg, http://www.ivyvilos.com/images/addiemodel.gif & http://gramconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/addie_model.jpg

A voice from the field… Dr. Robert M. Branch

For what it is worth … designers should not overlook the the need to practice all five phases of ADDIE concurrently for most of the instructional design process.

“

”

Dr. Rob M. Branch—


Concurrent Design

Image from http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/19453/media/image2.jpeg

Rapid Prototyping

¤  Originated in manufacturing

¤  ID hijacked from software development

¤  Focused on development primarily

¤  Types of prototypes §  Look-and-feel: colors,

effects, gross screen layouts

§  Media: use of sound effects, narration, 3D illustrations, video, etc.

§  Navigation: move through sections, access support (glossary, calculator, etc.)

§  Interactivity: content, activities, feedback

Process Design (product specs &

treatment)

Develop prototype Review

from Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990)

A common confusion …

¤ Rapid prototyping

should not be

confused with

rapid elearning

development!

DACUM

¤  Developing A CurriculUM

¤  Began in Canada

¤  A single sheet profile is used to present the skills of an entire occupation (Finch & Crunkilton, 1993)

¤  Creates the task analysis

¤  Typically, uses a committee of 10-12 experts

1.  Written description of the occupation

2.  Identify general areas of competence

3.  Identify specific skills

4.  Structure skills into learning sequence

5.  Establish levels of competence for each skills

Image from http://geoinfo.sdsu.edu/hightech/Images/dacumchart.jpg

Delphi Technique Ruins of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece

Image from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/The_Temple_of_Apollo_at_Delphi.jpg

Delphi Technique

¤  Developed by the RAND Corporation

¤  Enables experts to speculate individually then reach consensus collectively regarding the content needed

¤  Uses successive rounds

1.  Initial questionnaire requests list of content each expert feels should be included

2.  All lists are compiled, sent back out and each experts rates each item.

3.  The ratings are analyzed, ranked and sent back out.

4.  Repeat.

Image from feuillu at http://www.flickr.com/photos/feuilllu/154786300/sizes/o/

References & Acknolwedgements ¤  Finch, C.R., & Crunkilton, J.R. (1997). Curriculum development in vocational and

technical education (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

¤  Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

¤  Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy [image]. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44.

¤  Special thanks to Drs. Rob Branch, Gary Morrison, and Sharon Smaldino for contributing to this presentation.

Michael M. Grant 2013

Comparing Instructional Design Models

Education

Transcript of Comparing Instructional Design Models