LTEC

Kali, Levin-Peled, & Dori (2007) argues that complementing face to face with online learning supports student centered teaching and learning. I am familiar with student centered learning, but in this discussion, it is interesting to read about student centered teaching. According to the author, student entered teaching or instruction involves the promotion of “higher order thinking skills, collaboration, product construction, and reflection” (p. 1).  Instructors should take into consideration, designing activities that engage students through peer learning and collaborative learning. However, having considered the goals and needs of the target audience for the instructional design, the following design principles are employed.

• Engage learner in peer decision

This involves a situation where the students have the opportunity to play the role of the instructor of their peers. The students collaborate and form small groups and engage in activities that foster self-directed learning, and indirectly helps them take responsibility of their learning. They also have opportunity to brainstorm and reflect on their learning experiences.

• Involve learners in assessment process

This process tends to avail the students the opportunity to contribute to the development of resources, assessments and grading criteria for a course. This is a very useful approach as it tends to improve student understanding of concepts and acquire concrete skills required to succeed.

• Reuse student artifacts as resource for further learning.

In this principle students develop resources collectively, which are shared among other groups of learners. Artifacts developed in the process are reserved for other learners to have similar learning experience.

The overarching framework behind these principles is the constructivist theory. I am more interested in the instructional design that would involve learners in assessment process. This gives them inclusive pedagogy and a sense of responsibility. The experiences they gather could evolve to greater knowledge and development of skills for complex processes.

 

Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2007, October). How can hybrid courses designed with socio-constructivist design-principles promote learning in higher education. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 6071-6078).

What do you understand about instructional design from what you have read so far? What model will you present for class? Why? What interests you about it?

The idea of instructional design is becoming clearer to me while following the lectures and reading for the class.

First, instructional design provides the means through which institutions could profitable development of their human capacity (Piskurich, 2006). This has always been a goal inspired effort which leads to the following questions from a learning perspective:

1. What will the trainees accomplish
2. Which method best facilitates the learning

The focus of Instructional design is behavioral outcomes.

By definitions, ID is a process of helping creating training in an effective and efficient manner, and this is achieved by asking the right questions.

Some useful principles for instructional design is to know your audience. This leads to the analysis of the target audience as well as the ways to deliver the training. These include:

1. Classroom training
2. On-the-job training
3. Self-instruction
4. Technology-based training

Having identified the delivery methods, the designer has to create engaging and relevant lessons for delivery, which is subject to the following evaluation questions:

1. Did the learning objectives align with the instructional process
2. Was the content over your head or too basic
3. Wat the content relevant to the learner experience

Instructional design therefore is seen as both an Art and a Science. This follows a set of rules for creating training.

The instructional designer develops or follows a prefunded model for designing instruction. The popular model is the ADDIE model.

A designer may not necessarily be an expert in subject area, but is responsible for putting the training together for instructors, trainers or facilitators.

For the class, the instructional model of interest will be Spiderweb model of the ADDIE schema. I have chosen this model because it is similar to the ADDIE model, but with interacting and interrelated components. This presents ADDIE in a cyclic and networked model which could inform design and redesign of instruction for formative and desirable summative evaluation.

 

Piskurich, G. M (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID Fast and Right. Wiley, CA

Instructional design is relatively new to me, and what comes to mind when I think about the concept include: authoring tools, skills, curriculum, multimedia, and research. The organization and interactions among these components constitute my imagination of instructional design for the purpose of teaching and learning.

I have come to realize as a learner, that there are models, principles and best practices which ought to be considered while engaging in instructional design. I was privileged to register for the Graduate Student Teaching Excellence Program (GSTEP) in UNT, which I hope to complete this semester. Part of the components of the program reflect the key elements which informs instructional design. These include: creating engaging discussions, interacting with students, making learning relevant and fostering group activities and collaborative learning among others. Putting these components together in a design involves a systematic process where proper analysis of the instructional goal and learner needs are done. In addition, it is also important to identify a learning theory which will be used as a basis for the instructional design to be developed and implemented on a particular group of individuals. Although I have not actively engaged in instructional design, but I have had the privilege to implement a predesigned curriculum as a teacher, and also reviewed the feedback and evaluation on the design. This gives me an idea of instructional design from an instructor perspective as well as learner perspective. I would love to develop more skills, and possibly engage in a certification course in instructional design in the course of my PhD. research, and become a certified instructional designer. It is therefore difficult to talk about Learning Technologies without talking about instructional design, and particularly, technology enhanced instructional design. There has been a lot of research in recent times on this subject matter, and I would like to use this opportunity to delve deep into the best practices and processes required to effectively design and implement a curriculum.

In my opinion, distinguishing between basic and advanced instructional design depends on the complexity of the instructional needs, goals, or problem situation. According to Jonassen (1997), the solution of a problem represents the goal of the problem solver” (p. 67). As a result, the goal or problem situation is critical to the designer, and thus, influences the approach and models adopted to solve the problem. Therefore, advanced instructional design takes into consideration the initial analysis of the problem situation, which requires a robust system of problem solving. This may require developing a customized model for peculiar situations, based on the initial analysis. More important in advanced instructional design is implementing the principles of the instructional design in a real world situation, which is followed by evaluation and fidelity of implementation studies (Spector & Alan, 2015).

On the other hand, basic instructional design requires already established models and approaches for relatively similar problem situations. A popular design approach is the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) model.

———————————————————————

 

 

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.

Spector J. M & Allan, H. K (2016). Educational Technology Program and Project Evaluation. Routledge.

Of making many books, there is no end