In thinking through the various Instructional Design Models, my initial response is that many are similar to one another. In terms of similarities, it seems that opportunities for differentiation exist throughout the models. One key theme that resonates is the detailed mapping of a clear plan as part of the process. Although this may be an intuitive expectation for educational models, it is not necessarily the truth in all classrooms. It seems that being absolute in establishing purpose is essential especially when employing mobile learning as the risk of tangents could increase with the multitude of options online. Staying true to a plan might ensure learning outcomes are met.
To me, the most user friendly models are the ones that are the most succinct. As someone interested in the complexities of thought, in practice and with students in mind, less is more. I think compact plans are also likely to resonates with students, as too many steps or options can become confusing. More detailed design models, like the ADDIE Model, makes sense for a teaching brain that often does heavy thinking up front, yet may be over thinking or not allow for variation based on student voice, choice or need. Additionally, the Dick and Carey Model says “five steps” then walks through nine very detailed design steps. Finally, though I appreciate the Iterative Design in terms of rapid prototyping for engineering and maker project based instruction, I find that the idea of continuous improvement can be a challenge if a student’s passion for a project is not at the highest level. Even students invested in getting “it” right or working on a highly valued project have trouble with “revisions” as it indicates that this version he or she put heart and soul into is not done, not awesome, or just not enough. The project evolution brings up affective challenges and requires a high degree of resiliency on top of actual work.
Both the Backwards Design Model (Wiggins and McTighe) and the Criterion Referenced Instruction (Mager) include aspects that make the most sense to me as instructional design models. First, both include experiential or authentic outcome expectations, which I believe improves student investment. Second, both have ways to incorporate multiple means of instruction with student pace, choice and individualized needs in mind. These fit my goals for instruction well, along with purpose being set forth at the beginning. Purpose driven design may also help keep mobile learning on task.
In considering Gagne’s Learning Outcomes to practice an Instructional Design Model for mobile learning, I appreciate the five categories of learning as part of the whole student and hopefully whole classroom experience. However, I live in the land of intellectual skill and cognitive strategy and will always gravitate towards those skill areas. What is most interesting, however is the interweaving of learning as stated in the reading, “Different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be learned, there must be a chance to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner must be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.” (Gagne)
To me, this is learning. The details suit the complexity of the mind.
Putting it all into practice proved challenging, though. While I have in mind the learning goals and outcomes, I am essentially trying to map out the thinking for how to think in my instructional design for Critical Thinking Skills. I am up to my eyeballs in metacognition, and need to keep in mind simplicity in order to make learning accessible for my students.
To me, the most user friendly models are the ones that are the most succinct. As someone interested in the complexities of thought, in practice and with students in mind, less is more. I think compact plans are also likely to resonates with students, as too many steps or options can become confusing. More detailed design models, like the ADDIE Model, makes sense for a teaching brain that often does heavy thinking up front, yet may be over thinking or not allow for variation based on student voice, choice or need. Additionally, the Dick and Carey Model says “five steps” then walks through nine very detailed design steps. Finally, though I appreciate the Iterative Design in terms of rapid prototyping for engineering and maker project based instruction, I find that the idea of continuous improvement can be a challenge if a student’s passion for a project is not at the highest level. Even students invested in getting “it” right or working on a highly valued project have trouble with “revisions” as it indicates that this version he or she put heart and soul into is not done, not awesome, or just not enough. The project evolution brings up affective challenges and requires a high degree of resiliency on top of actual work.
Both the Backwards Design Model (Wiggins and McTighe) and the Criterion Referenced Instruction (Mager) include aspects that make the most sense to me as instructional design models. First, both include experiential or authentic outcome expectations, which I believe improves student investment. Second, both have ways to incorporate multiple means of instruction with student pace, choice and individualized needs in mind. These fit my goals for instruction well, along with purpose being set forth at the beginning. Purpose driven design may also help keep mobile learning on task.
In considering Gagne’s Learning Outcomes to practice an Instructional Design Model for mobile learning, I appreciate the five categories of learning as part of the whole student and hopefully whole classroom experience. However, I live in the land of intellectual skill and cognitive strategy and will always gravitate towards those skill areas. What is most interesting, however is the interweaving of learning as stated in the reading, “Different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be learned, there must be a chance to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner must be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.” (Gagne)
To me, this is learning. The details suit the complexity of the mind.
Putting it all into practice proved challenging, though. While I have in mind the learning goals and outcomes, I am essentially trying to map out the thinking for how to think in my instructional design for Critical Thinking Skills. I am up to my eyeballs in metacognition, and need to keep in mind simplicity in order to make learning accessible for my students.
This a wonderful connection between the readings on design and your work you demonstrated in your IDA 1. I love the way you layout the features of some of the ID models and winnow that list down to the framework that will best support your work. I do understand when you say "I live in the land of intellectual skill". the great thing about these models is that help on you in the direction to define what aspects of learning you are addressing and it is understood that your learning targets might not cover all areas of learning categories.
ReplyDelete