h t t p : / / a e s t h e t e c h . w e e b l y . c o m / b l o g . h t m l

AngelaChristopherTheSmithandRaganmodelforinstructionaldesignisrootedinthelearningtheoryworkofRobert Gagné. It is valuable for its prescriptive structure and detailed attention toinstructionalstrategiesforparticulartypesoflearning.

Fall11

ModelResource

MODELRESOURCE 2

A.Christopher

TTTHHHEEESSSMMMIIITTTHHH&&&RRRAAAGGGAAANNNMMMOOODDDEEELLL

OverviewGustafsonandBranch(2002),classifytheSmithandRaganmodelassystems‐oriented.Theclassification signifies the model may be best suited for developing large amounts ofinstruction such as an entire course or curriculum. Other characteristics of systems‐orientedmodelsincludethefollowing;theavailabilityofsignificantresourcestoatraineddesign team, high front‐end analysis, emphasis on try‐out and revision, widespreaddissemination,andinstructionaldeliveryoccurswithoutthedesignteam.IntheirSurveyofInstructionalDevelopmentModels(2002),GustafsonandBranchsuggestthismodelmaybeparticularlyusefulforthoseinterestedinthepsychologyofinstructionaldesign.Intheirpositionstatement,SmithandRaganclaimthattheydonotencouragetheuseofanyoneinstructionaldesignmodeloveranother.Instead,theyrecommendunderstandingthe principles that guide design. A solid foundation in theory, models, and designprinciplesprovidesonewiththeknowledgebasenecessarytoselectandtweakelementsfromvariousmodels. Theyrecommendusingthismodeltodevelopamental frameworkthatwillguidetheprocessof“buildingyourownmodel,”(Smith&Ragan,2005,p.11).

HistoryandKeyIndividualsSmithandRagancreditRobertM.Gagné,M.D.Merril,andC.M.Reigeluthfortheirworkinlearning theory and significant contributions to the development of instructional theory.They recognize that Gangé clarified the relationship between instructional events, thelearningprocess, and learningoutcomes. Hisworkprovideda foundation for conditionsbased models of instruction (Smith & Ragan, 1996). Implications of Gagne’s work canclearlybeidentifiedinSmithandRagan’sphilosophyandcondition’sbasedmodel.Inthethird edition of Instructional Design, Smith and Ragan expand Gagne’s Nine Events ofInstructiontoprovidegenerativeandsupplantiveinstructionalstrategies.Intheirarticle,OpeningtheBlackBox:InstructionalStrategiesExamined(1994),SmithandRaganexplorethe balance between instructional strategies and learner strategies in relation to thevariablesofcontext, learner,andtask. Theyoffer thepropositionthat there isa “middleground” connecting supplantive instruction and learner‐initiated actions in which thedesignfacilitatestherequiredcognitiveprocessing(SmithandRagan,2001).SmithandRaganhaveutilizedawidearrayofliteratureandstrategiesforthedevelopmentof a highly prescriptive model. They credit Reigeluth and Jonassen for the foundationalwork of their instructional theory. In a review of the philosophical perspectives ofinstructionaldesign,theauthorssharethepossiblehazardsoftheconstructivisttheoryashavingthepotentialof“slippingintotheactivityforactivity’ssakemode,(Smith&Ragan,2005,p.21).”

MODELRESOURCE 3

A.Christopher

Until the Black Box paper (Ragan & Smith, 1994), there was little design guidance forinstructional activities and sequences. Smith and Ragan scrutinized the literature andcreated a synthesis of instructional strategies as related to the expanded events ofinstruction.Theresultingpaperprovidedastrategyforeachtypeoflearning;declarativeknowledge, concepts, relational rules, procedural rules, problem solving, cognitivestrategies,attitudes,andpsychomotorskills.Uponreadingthe4theditionof InstructionalDesign (2005), and related writings, it has become apparent that the authors are quitethoroughintheirresearchandsynthesisofrelatedandapplicabletheoriesandstrategies.In their publications, Smith and Ragan share the development of a conditions‐basedapproach that includes micro‐level instructional organization strategies. Their analysisandstrategyphasesarebuilton theories fromGagné, Jonassen,Mager,Merril,Reigeluth,andmanyothers.SmithandRagandescribetheConcerns‐BasedAdoptionModel,(CBAM)fromHallandHord,forimplementation.

TheModelSmithandRagandonotproposethattheirdesignmodelisunique.Infact,theysuggestitis“ACommonModelof InstructionalDesign,(Smith&Ragan, InstructionalDesign,2005,p.10).” The three major activities of analysis, strategy development, and evaluation areindeedpartofmanyinstructionaldesignmodels.Theprimarydistinctionbetweenthisand

other models is the detailedtreatmentofinstructionalstrategies.Careful attention and thoughtfulprescription of instructionalstrategiesisnotoftenfoundinotherdesign models(Gustafson & Branch,2002).AvisualrepresentationoftheSmithand Ragan model can be seen inFigure1.2,(Smith&Ragan,2005,p.

MODELRESOURCE 4

A.Christopher

10).Intheirtext,SmithandRagandiscussthenaturalyetmistaken,tendencytoviewthevisual and assume the design process is linear in nature. The authors explain that thevisual in figure1.2 isameans to simplifyandorganize thediscussionaround thedesignprocesses. The authors describe the activities associated with the development ofinstruction as frequently being concurrent. The steps within each phase are ofteninterwoven insuchawaythatchanges inonestepcause thedesignerordesignteam, tomakechangesinothersteps(seefigure1.3).GeneraldescriptionsforeachphaseoftheSmithandRaganmodelhavebeensummarizedfromtheirtext,InstructionalDesign(2005),andcanbefoundonthenextfewpages.Theyareorganizedasfollows:(1)Analysisandassessment,(2)Instructionalstrategies,and(3)Implementation,management,andevaluation.AllfiguresinthispaperareavailablefromtheInstructorCompanionWebsiteandareduplicatesofthefiguresfoundintheSmithandRagantext.

ANALYSISANDASSESSMENTThe analysis and assessment phase occurs prior to the development of instruction andinvolvesfourcomponents:contextualanalysis,learneranalysis,taskanalysis,andplanningforassessmentofthelearning. Inanefforttosavetime,designersoftenoverlookorskipfront‐endanalysis.SmithandRaganarguethatinthelongterm,focusedattentiononearlyanalysiswillsavetime,money,andfrustration.

ContextAnalysis

This investmentallowsonetodesignanddevelopinstructionalmaterialsthatsupportlearningwhatistrulycritical,inawaythatthematerialscanactuallybeusedbytheintendedlearnersintheirlearningenvironment(p42).

The analysis of the learning context involves two major components: (1)substantiationofaneed for instruction tohelp learners reach learninggoalsand(2)adescriptionofthelearningenvironmentinwhichtheinstructionwillbeused(p43).

NeedsAssessmentThe first component of a contextualanalysis involves conducting a needsassessment. Instructional designers useneeds assessments to determine if thedevelopmentofinstructionandsubsequentlearning will result in the desiredperformance. Since desired performanceand need should be examined in parallel,Smith and Ragan advise planning for thesummative evaluation in conjunction withthisphase(seefigure3.1).

MODELRESOURCE 5

A.Christopher

Theauthorsdiscussthreetypesofneedsassessmentmodels:• ProblemModel‐thereisaproblemtobecorrected.• InnovationModel‐theremaybesomethingnewtolearn.• DiscrepancyModel‐anevaluationofprogramisnecessaryorrequired.

Aneedsassessmentshouldresultinalistoflearnergoalsthatwillpointtowardwhatthelearnersshouldbeabletodoafterinstruction.

DescriptionofEnvironmentThesecondcomponentofacontextualanalysisshoulddescribetheenvironmentinwhichthe instruction will be implemented. Smith and Ragan argue that a thoroughunderstandingof the learningenvironmentwillhelpguaranteethat thenewlydevelopedinstructionwillactuallybeused.Theauthorsprovidethereaderwithsixquestionsaimedat gathering informationabout the learningenvironment.Thequestions focuson factorssuch as teachers, existing curricula, equipment, facilities, organization, and the largersystem.

AnalyzingtheLearnerSmithandRaganassert that careful identificationanddescriptionofa targetaudience iscrucial to the success of instructional design efforts. A thorough understanding of thelearner provides the designer with the necessary information to build effective andappealinginstruction.

TypesofLearnerCharacteristicsLearnercharacteristicscanbeclassifiedintofourmajorcategories:cognitive,physiological,affective,andsocial. Theauthorsprovideadetailedlistoftheprimarycharacteristicstoconsider within each category (pp.69‐70). Furthermore, every factor may not benecessaryforthelearninganalysisofsomeprojects.

CognitiveCharacteristicsCognitive characteristics can be further divided into four subgroups (dimensions) ofsimilaritiesanddifferencesthatchangeovertimeorremainthesame.Designerscanbegingathering cognitiveinformation about theirlearners within these fourcategories; stablesimilarities, stabledifferences, changingsimilarities, and changingdifferences(seefigure4.1).Smith and Ragan point outthat each of the fourdimensions of cognitivecharacteristics have varyingimplications forinstructional designers.According to Smith and

MODELRESOURCE 6

A.Christopher

Ragan,priorknowledgeisthemostimportantcharacteristicoflearnercognition.Theyalsonote thatmanyeducatorshaveapropensity to focusononlyoneof the fourdimensionsand advise that careful study of learners, as presented in their text, will provide thedesignerwithathoroughunderstandingofthetargetedlearners.

AnalyzingtheLearningTaskTheneedsassessmentprovides thedesignerwithanunderstandingofwhat learnersareunabletodo.Learnerneedsdrivetheinstructionalgoalsandpreparethedesignertobeginanalyzingthelearningtask.Theprimarystepsinperformingalearningtaskanalysisareasfollows:

1. Writealearninggoal.2. Determinethetypesoflearninginthegoal.3. Conductaninformation­processinganalysisofthatgoal.4. Conduct a prerequisite analysis and determine the type of learning of

theprerequisites.5. Write learning objectives for the learning goal and each of the

prerequisites.6. Writetestspecifications.

Thefinalproductofthe learningtaskanalysis isa listofgoals,amplifiedwithtestspecifications,thatdescribewhatthelearnersshouldknoworbeabletodoatthecompletionofinstructionandtheprerequisiteskillsandknowledgethatlearnerswillneedinordertoachievethosegoals.(Smith&Ragan,2005,p.76).

AssessingLearningfromInstructionLearning assessments provide information about student performance. In other words,does the instruction have the desired effect on learners’ knowledge and skills? “A gooddesigner generally begins to think about assessment instruments as she develops thelearning objectives, (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 104).” Smith and Ragan recommendconcurrent development of objectives and assessments because the result is criterion‐referenced assessment items. According to the authors, quality assessment instrumentsstem from high quality objectives. The following list is an abbreviated version of thesequencerecommendedfordesigningassessmentsintheSmithandRaganmodel(p.105).1. Identifytheassessment’spurposeandthetypeofdevelopmentmodelthatwillbeused.2. Determinewhatkindsofassessmentsarenecessaryandwheretheyshouldoccurinthe

instruction.3. Determinewhatformstheitemsshouldtake(essay,multiplechoice,etc.)4. Writetestitemsanddirections.5. Determinehowmanyitemsareneeded.6. Writeaninstructionalblueprint.

INSTRUCTIONALSTRATEGIESSmith and Ragan credit Reigeluth (1983) for describing instructional strategies ascomprisedofthethreefollowingcharacteristics:

MODELRESOURCE 7

A.Christopher

In chapter seven of Instructional Design (2005), Smith and Ragan explain that thestrategiesabovecanbeplannedat thecourse level (macro)or lesson level (micro). Thefollowingbriefdescriptionssummarizeinstructionalstrategiesatthemicrolevel.

OrganizationalStrategiesIndividuals learn throughmentaloperations, aprocess called selectiveperception. Smithand Ragan recommend carefully considering the type and amount of scaffolding to beprovidedby the instruction and/orby the learner. Adesigner’s organizational strategyshouldanswerthefollowingthreequestions:(1)whatcontentisneeded?(2)howshouldthe content be presented? (3) how should it be sequenced? The authors share theirexpanded version of Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction to provide generative andsupplantive instructionalstrategies organizedaround the generalinstructionalcharacteristics whichseemtopromotelearning:introduction, body,conclusion, andassessment (see figure7.1). The expanded nineevents can be used as aninstructional frameworkfor sequencing events atthelessonlevel.SmithandRagan write, “Instructionat both ends of thegenerative‐supplantivecontinuumcanbelearner‐centered, active, andmeaningful (Smith &Ragan,2005,p.131).”

DeliveryStrategiesInchapters8through12ofInstructionalDesign(2005),SmithandRaganprovidedetailedexamples and suggestions for developing knowledge specific delivery of instruction.According to Gustafson and Branch (2002), the detailed and prescriptive nature of

OrganizationalStrategy

• Howwilltheinstructionbesequenced?

DeliveryStrategy

• Whatinstructionalmediumwillbeused?

• Howwilllearnersbegrouped?

ManagementStrategy

•  Schedulingandallocationofresources.

MODELRESOURCE 8

A.Christopher

instructional strategies provided by Smith and Ragan are unique to their model. Asummarizationofthosestrategiesfollows.Generalsequenceofinstructionaldelivery

Introduction • Deployattention/arouseinterestandmotivation• Establishinstructionalpurpose• Previewthelesson

Body • Recallpriorknowledge• Processinformationandexamples• Focusattention• Employlearningstrategies• Practice• Evaluatefeedback• Employlearningstrategies

Closure • Summarizeandreview• TransferKnowledge• Re‐motivateandclose• Assessmentofconceptlearning• Evaluatefeedbackandseekremediation

Declarative Knowledge­ knowing something: labels and names, facts and lists, andorganizeddiscourse.• Theoryofpropositionalnetworks• Deliverystrategies:

LinkingwithexistingknowledgeOrganizing(chunking)ElaboratingClassificationConceptmappingAdvancedorganizersMetaphorictechniquesRehearsalstrategiesMnemonicsImagery

• Sequenceofdelivery:PreviewthelessonBody‐stimulatingrecallofrelevantpriorknowledgeProcessinformationFocusAttentionEmploylearningstrategiesPracticeFeedbackConclusion‐summarizeandreview

MODELRESOURCE 9

A.Christopher

ConceptLearning‐applyingknowledgeacrossavarietyofinstances:recognizepatternsandgeneralize.• Deliverystrategies:

Inquiryapproach(generative)Expositoryapproach(supplantive)

LearningProcedures­proceduresareusuallyunambiguous.Theynotvaryandtheymayrequiremakingdecisions. “The learningof aprocedure involves the ability to apply thatprocedure in a variety of previously unencountered situations (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p.189).”Proceduresrequireconceptrecognitionanda“bottom‐up”sequencingisnecessaryforteachingthem.• Conceptsareaprerequisitetolearningprocedures• Proceduralrules• Relationalrules• Informationprocessanalysis

o Recognizeaprocedureisappropriateo Recalltheprocedureo Applythestepso Makedecisionswhenneededo Choosethecorrectbrancheswhennecessaryo Completethebranchstepso Determineiftheprocedurehasbeenappliedappropriately

• Designdecisionso Writingtheprocedureo Simpleversuscomplexo Expositoryordiscoverystrategy

LearningPrinciples­therelationshipbetweentwomoreconcepts.Therelationshipsareusuallycause/effectinnature.• Mentaloperationsarecalled“productions”• Principlesareaprerequisitetoproblem‐solving• Meaningfullearning• Priorknowledgeofrepresentedconceptsisneeded• Instructionaldelivery(conditionstosupportlearningprinciples)

o Share a perplexing situation depicting a relationship between variables(demonstrationordescription).

o Learnersaskquestionstogatherdata(computeranswersmaybeyes/no).o By the end, learners should be able to state a principle or rule about the

relationshipbetweentheconceptspresented.o Discusstheinquiryprocess.Whatworkedandwhatdidnotwork?

Learning Problem Solving­ involves combining learned principles, procedures,declarative knowledge, and/or cognitive strategies in a new way with the purpose ofsolvingaproblem.

MODELRESOURCE 10

A.Christopher

• Choosing,combining,andutilizingmultipleprinciplesuntiltheproblemissolved• Complexorsimple(fewerprinciples,clearproblem)• Well‐defined(singlesolution)orill‐defined(multiplecorrectsolutions)• Cognitiveprocessesrequired–theabilitytoapplyprinciplesisaprerequisite

o Problemrepresentationo Solutionplanningo Solutionimplementationo Solutionevaluation

• Taskanalysiso 1.Clarifythegivenstate(includeobstaclesandconstraints)o 2.Clarifythegoalo 3.Searchforrelevantpriorknowledge,principles,andcognitivestrategieso 4.Determineifconditionsandgoalimplyaknownproblemo 5.Unpacktheproblemintosubproblemsandsubgoalso 6.Developaplanforaddressingtheproblemso 7.Thinkaboutsolutions(paths)forsubproblemso 8.Selectasolutionpathandapplyproductionknowledgeinthecorrectordero 9.Evaluateforgoalaccomplishment,ifnonethenrepeat1‐9.

LearningCognitiveStrategies‐techniqueslearnersusetothinkandlearn.• Learningstrategies:learnerswhoguidetheirownlearning

o Designersshouldaskhowmuchcognitiveprocessingcouldthelearnerprovide?o Cognitivedomainstrategiessupportinformationprocessingo Affectivedomainstrategies(supportstrategies)areself‐motivationalskills

• Divergentthinkingstrategies:guidelearnersthroughthinkingaboutproblemsandgeneratingnewideas

• Cognitiverequirementso Analyzethelearningtaskandrequirementso Analyzeabilitytocompletethetasko Selectansuitablestrategyo Applythestrategyo Evaluatetheusefulnessofthestrategyo Reviseasneeded

• Instructionaldeliveryo Discovery/guideddiscoveryo Observationo Guidedparticipationo Strategyinstructiono Directexplanationo Dyadicinstructiono Self‐instructionaltraining

• Impedimentso Lowlevelstrategyskillso Lowmotivationo Lowself‐efficacy

MODELRESOURCE 11

A.Christopher

o Lackawarenessofownmemoryandprocessingcharacteristicso Lackknowledgeoftaskcharacteristicso Insufficienttimeo Insufficientknowledge

• Assessmentscanresembleproblem‐solvingassessmentsLearning Attitudes­ learning for transformation or change in attitude (choosing to dosomething).• Affectivedomain• Cognitive and Psychomotor domains have affective components, designers can

integratethethreedomains• Componentsofattitudelearning

o Cognitivecomponent:knowinghowo Behavioralcomponent:needtoapplytheattitudeo Affectivecomponent:knowingwhy

• Instructionaldeliveryo Demonstratedesiredbehavior(byarespectedrolemodel)o Practicethedesiredbehavior(roleplay)o Providereinforcement

• Assessmento Examinevaluesorinterestso Directself‐report,indirectself‐report,andobservation

LearningPsychomotorSkills­requirescoordinatedmuscularmovementsthatarenewtothelearner.Smoothmovementsandprecisetimingcharacterizesuccessfullearning.• Typesofpsychomotorskills

o Discreteskills–singleorfewstepswithspecificbeginningandendo Continuousskills–subtlebeginningandendo Closedskills–noactiveinfluencefromenvironmento Openskills–theenvironmentcausesthelearnertomakeadjustmentso Personandobjectmotion‐personorobjectmayormaynotbeinmotion

• Elementsofpsychomotorskillso Executivesubroutineso Temporalpatterning

• Practiceo Massedorspacedo Wholeorpart

Progressivepartmethod Backwardschaining

o Feedbackiscriticalbecauselearnerdoesnotknowwhatitfeelsliketocompletethetasksuccessfully

Product Process

• Tasksanalysis

MODELRESOURCE 12

A.Christopher

o Cognitivephase–learningthevocabularyandverbalinformationaswellasproceduralrules

o Associativephase–learninghowtophysicallyperformtheskillo Autonomousphase–practiceandfeedbackguidelearnertosmooth,precise

movements.Successmayappeareffortless.MacroStrategies­largerunitsofinstructionorcurriculumdevelopment• Curriculumsequencingstructures

o World‐relatedo Inquiry‐relatedo Utilization‐relatedo Learning‐relatedo Concept‐relatedo Elaborationmodel

• Toolsandconceptso Scopeandsequenceo Object‐orientedcurriculumarchitectureo Articulation

IMPLEMENTATION,MANAGEMENT,ANDEVALUATIONInthevisualrepresentationoftheSmithandRaganmodel,theevaluationphaseappearstobe separate from the strategies for instruction, implementation, and management. Inreality,thesesectionsareinterwovenandthethreetopicsaremingledwithevaluationandrevision.

ImplementationImplementation is the act of “putting designs into use in the context forwhich they areintended,(SmithandRagan,2005.p.305).”Theauthorsadvocateearlyconversationsanddecisions regarding the four key concepts of implementation: diffusion, dissemination,adoption, and stakeholders. Chapter 17 illustrates principles for encouragingimplementation through the stages of the adoption process: awareness, interest,evaluation,trial,adoption,andintegration.TheauthorspresentHallandHord’sConcerns‐BasedAdoptionModel(CBAM)asamethodtofacilitateimplementation.TheCBAMhasauserfocusandaddressestheviewpointsofpotentialuserstowardtheimplementationofanew design. Themodel’s general purpose is to support users within an organization inaccordancewith their needs and interests. The CBAM is useful for instanceswhere theimplementation desired is complex and will result in high levels of change for theorganizationandusers.

ManagementofInstructionProjectmanagers facilitate theworkof adesign team.Design teamsandmanagersmustfunction efficiently within the following interdependent restraints of a project:quality/performance, cost, time, and scope. In addition to being a skilled instructionaldesigner, aprojectmanager shouldalsobeadept at communication,meeting facilitation,presentation, learning, revision, ethics, evaluation, budgets, etc (Smith and Ragan, 2005.p.315). Themanager keeps all of the components of a project coordinated and ensures

MODELRESOURCE 13

A.Christopher

deadlines aremet. Management practices vary based on the culture and context of theworkandrelyoneffectivedocumentationforplanningandtrackingthedevelopmentofadesignproject.Ingeneral,thelargerthescopeofaproject,themoredocumentationwillbeessentialtothesuccessoftheproject.SmithandRaganlistthefollowingsevendocumentsascriticaltomanagement:

o Proposalo ResourceAnalysiso Scheduleo Budgeto RiskAnalysis/TroubleshootingPlano AssessmentandEvaluationo ProjectReport/Summary

FormativeandSummativeEvaluationEvaluationoccursduringandafterdesigndevelopmentandinformsthedesignerandthelearnerifthedesiredlearninghastakenplace.Inotherwords,evaluationdeterminesiftheinstructional strategies andmaterials function as intended. Formative evaluation aids indetermining flaws within the instruction so that revisions can be made to improve thematerials and strategies of the project. Summative evaluation occurs after projectdevelopmentandverifiestheoveralleffectivenessoftheinstructionalmaterials.SmithandRagansuggestbothformativeandsummativeevaluationsshouldbeplannedintheinitialphasesofthedesignprocessinaccordancewiththetypesandlearningandstrategiesfordelivery. SmithandRaganprovidedetailedguidelines for formativeevaluation(Willis&Wrigth,2000).Formative evaluation involves tryouts of the instructional materials with the intendedaudience. Although such tryouts usually produce more efficient materials, formativeevaluation isoftenpassedoverbecauseoftheexpenserequired. SmithandRaganarguethat effective training results from quality formative evaluation and therefore creates amoreprofitableproduct.The instruction should be formatively tested with members of the intended learningpopulation.One‐to‐oneevaluationsresultinidentificationofoverarchingproblemswithintheinstruction.Small‐groupevaluationsenablethedesignertotestouttherevisionmadeasaresultofdatacollected fromone‐to‐oneevaluation. Performance,attitude,and timedata should be collected during small‐group evaluations and used to revise instructionpriortofieldtrials.Fieldtrialsevaluatethechangesmadeaftersmall‐groupevaluationandareusedtodeterminepotentialproblemsthatcouldoccurduringtheadministrationoftheinstructionwithinthe intendedcontext. Finally, fieldtrialsenabletodesignertotest theinstructionwitha largersampleof thetargetpopulationandmakepredictionsabouttheeffectivenessoftheproduct.Summativeevaluationscollectandsummarizedata inregard to theoveralleffectiveness,appeal, and efficiencyof the instruction. Smith andRagan suggest the following specificquestionstoguidesummativeevaluation(SmithandRagan,2005.p.343):

MODELRESOURCE 14

A.Christopher

o Dothelearnersachievethegoalsoftheinstruction?o Howdothelearnersfeelabouttheinstruction?o Whatarethecostsoftheinstruction?o Howmuchtimedoesittakeforlearnerstocompletetheinstruction?o Istheinstructionimplementedasitwasdesigned?o Whatunexpectedoutcomesresultfromtheinstruction?

The authors suggest summative evaluation should not take place during the firstimplementationoftheprogram.Theycautionthattrainersandteachersareoftenlearninghowto implement the instructionduring the firstadministration. Summativeevaluationproceduresincludethefollowing:

o Determinegoalsofevaluationo Selectindicatorsofsuccesso Selectorientationofevaluationo Selectdesignofevaluationo Designorselectevaluationmeasureso Collectdatao Analyzedatao Reportresults

DifferentiationandConclusionsIn the Survey of InstructionalDesignModels (2002), Gustafson andBranchdescribe theuniquedetailedandprescriptivenatureof instructionalstrategiesprovidedbySmithandRagan. In fact, the entire model is prescriptive in nature and provides thoroughdescriptionsandrecommendationsfornotonlyeachphaseofthedesignprocessbutalsofor the type of learning and learners involved. Other systemsmodels such as the IPISDmodelmayprovideexplicitanddetailedprocessesfordesignbutaresospecificthattheycanonlybeusedforonetypeofaudience(inthiscasethemilitary).TheDick,Carey,andCarey model provides detailed processes for analysis and evaluation but more generaldescriptionsforinstructionalstrategies.In the Handbook for Educational Communications and Technology (2001), Smith andRagan review conditions‐basedmodels fromLanda, Tennyson andRasch,Merril, Li, andJones.TheyfurtherdescribehownotablescholarssuchasJonassen,Grabinger,andHarris,Horn,West,Farmer,andWolf,andE.Gagnéhaveusedconditions‐basedmodelsintheirwork. Smith and Ragan’s work is built on the conditions‐based theory that learningoutcomes can be categorized and the different outcome categories require differentinternalcognitive‐processingactivities.Furthermore,learningoutcomesaredependantonlearninghierarchiesanddifferentlearningoutcomesrequiredifferentexternalconditions.Jonassen(1997,p.66),reportsthatSmithandRaganrecommendtheexpandedeventsofinstruction,althoughnotentirelysufficient,forproblem‐basedlearningwhenthemajorityofinstructionaldesignliteraturehasnottackledthetask. Themodelcanalsobeadaptedfor scaffoldingofWeb‐based instruction, (Dabbagh, 2002). In conclusion, the Smith andRagan Model places a strong emphasis on specific instructional strategies designed for

MODELRESOURCE 15

A.Christopher

particular types of learning and learners. (Smith & Ragan, Conditions‐based models fordesigninginstruction,2001)

BBBIIIBBBLLLIIIOOOGGGRRRAAAPPPHHHYYYDabbagh,N.(2002).Scaffolding:AnImportantTeacherCompetencyinOnlineLearning.

TechTrends,47(2),39‐44.Gustafson,K.L.,&Branch,R.M.(2002).Surveyofinstructionaldevelopmentmodels.(Fourth

Editioned.).Syracuse,NewYork,SyracuseUniversity.Jonassen,D.H.(1997).InstructionalDesignModelsforWell‐StructuredandIll‐Structured

Problem‐SolvingLearningOutcomes.EducationalTechnologyResearchandDesign,45,65‐94.

Ragan,T.J.,&Smith,P.L.(1994).Openingtheblackbox:instructionalstrategiesexamined.AssocationforEducatonalCommunicationsandTechnology.

Smith,P.L.,&Ragan,T.J.(2001).Conditions‐basedmodelsfordesigninginstruction.(Jonassen,Ed.)TheHandbookforEducationalCommunicationsandTechnology,623‐644.

Smith,P.L.,&Ragan,T.J.(1996).ImpactofR.M.Gagne'sworkoninstrctionaltheory.AssocationforEducatonalCommunicationsandTechnology.

Smith,P.L.,&Ragan,T.J.(2005).InstructionalDesign(Thirded.).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.

Willis,J.,&Wrigth,K.E.(2000,March‐April).AGeneralSetofProceduresforConstructivistInstructionalDesign.EducationalTechnology,5‐20.

WWWEEEBBBRRREEESSSOOOUUURRRCCCEEESSSIDEAS:InstructionalDesignforElearningApproaches,Bloghttp://ideas.blogs.com/lo/instructional_design/“Reflections and insights on elearning strategies and instructional technology design byFerdinandKrauss.”InstructionalAnalysis,AnalyzingtheLearners,studentsummarieshttp://www.angelfire.com/la2/learners/learners.htmlThiswebpageprovidessummariesforchapterfourofSmithandRagan’stext:InstructionalAnalysis, Analyzing the learners. Tables provide easy to understand organization of thekeycomponentsdescribedintheSmithandRagantext.InstructionalDesign,3rdedition,InstructorCompanionSite

MODELRESOURCE 16

A.Christopher

http://bcs.wiley.com/he‐bcs/Books?action=index&bcsId=2112&itemId=0471393533SmithandRaganprovideanextendedexampleforthedesigncomponentsoftheirmodel,textillustrations,PowerPointpresentations,andJobAidsinthisinstructorcompanionsite.InstructionalDesign,ComponentDisplayTheoryhttp://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/component‐display.htmlTheSmithandRaganmodelhasroots inMerril’swork,ComponentDisplayTheory. ThiswebsiteprovidesthereaderwithadditionalbackgroundinformationCDTnotdiscussedinthispaper.InstructionalDesignKnowledgeBasehttp://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/evaluation.htmThiswebsiteprovidesamatrixforidentifyingscholarlyworkandresourcesforformativeandsummativeevaluation.InstructionalDesign–ILIPG,PowerPointPresentationhttp://www.ilipg.org/sites/ilipg.org/files/bo/instructional_design.pptThis presentation provides background information on instructional design and acomparisonofmodels.Robert Gagne’s Instructional Design Model, The Nine Events of Instruction, onSlideSharehttp://www.slideshare.net/CPappasOnline/robert‐gagnes‐instruction‐design‐model‐the‐nine‐events‐of‐instructionsThe Smith and Ragan Model is built on their expanded events of instruction, thispresentationprovidesathoroughdescriptionofGagne’soriginalnineevents.TenTrendsAffectingtheFieldofInstructionalDesignandTechnology,Bloghttp://drajphd.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/ten‐trends‐affecting‐the‐field‐of‐instructional‐design‐and‐technology/ThisblogpresentsnotesfromRobertReiser’spresentationatCreatedescribingthecurrenttrends(andbenefitsandchallenges)ininstructionaldesignandtechnology.