nsenioruwi.weebly.comnsenioruwi.weebly.com/.../inspirative,_inc_edid6503_fi… · web viewgroup...

Running head: INSPIRATIVE, INC. GROUP PROJECT 1

Group Project

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of

EDID 6503 Instructional Design Theories, Models and Strategies

Trimester 1 – January, 2015

Group Members:

Shanica Robin - 308206773

Brehaniea Wight - 309101654

Nickesha Senior - 308003276

Donnette Ferdinand – 308003507

University: University of the West Indies Open Campus

Group Facilitator: Dr. Laura Gray

Course Coordinator:Dr. Camille Dickson-Deane

Submission Date: April 25, 2015

INSPIRATIVE, INC. GROUP PROJECT 2

Table of Contents

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Instructional Environments

(a) Description of each Member’s Instructional/Work Environment …………………. 5

(b) Differences between each Instructional/Work Environment …………………….... 7

(c) Similarities between each Instructional/Work Environment ………………………. 7

(d) Instructional Strategies that are Common or Different …………………………….. 8

Combined Instructional Model

(a) Description of New Model …………………………………………………………. 10

(b) Justification for the Design ………………………………………………………… 15

(c) Instructional Strategies Afforded in the New Model ………………………………. 16

(d) Discrepancy Analysis ………………………………………………………………. 17

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Reflections …………………………………………………………………………………. 24


Abstract

A few weeks ago, a team of four trainee instructional designers were charged with the task of

individually creating instructional models for application to their unique work environments.

This assignment is a follow up to that activity. These same trainees work as a team to bring their

individual papers under scrutiny, and work together on the creation of a new instructional model.

This paper presents two broad areas. Firstly, an overview of the instructional environments is

done, where they are described and critically analyzed for possible similarities and differences.

The instructional strategies that are employed in each environment are also identified and

compared.

In the second section, the information that was gathered and analyzed is used in creating a new

instructional model that will be relevant to a hypothetical combined instructional environment.

This model is contextualized, with justifications given and instructional strategies applied.

Additionally, references are made to the original individually created models, as they are

compared to the newly created model.

Throughout the process, the principles and theories of instructional design are incorporated and

used in informing all of the decisions that are made in the conceptualization of the model and its

application to the instructional environment.

Conclusions are drawn, and individual members of the team reflect on the process.


Introduction

Smith and Ragan (1999) compares the work of an instructional designer to the work of an

engineer. Like the engineer, posit the authors, the instructional designer makes plans that are

based on principles that have been effective in the past. They are also involved in “designing

solutions that are not only functional, but attractive and appealing to the end user” (p. 2). The

process that was engaged in conceptualizing creating the instructional design model for this

project closely mimics Smith and Ragan’s analogy, as the designers were involved in an

extended period of planning, designing, evaluating and reflecting in order to create the final

product. Principles of learning and instruction, as well as the theories and best practices related

to the field of instructional design were carefully considered and applied.


(a) Description of each Member’s Instructional/Work Environment

An overview of the four instructional work environments is looked at. In particular, the

aspects highlighted are the type of institution; the persons of interest within each institution; the

education, qualifications and skills of these persons and the nature of the instructional/work

environment that will become the focus of this paper.

The Fairhall Government School (F.G.S) is a modern educational institution comprising

of both an Early Childhood Center and primary school. The student population ages range

between three and twelve years old (Pre-K to Grade 6). The teachers’ ages range from early

twenties to mid fifties. Teacher qualification and professional training range from CSEC or

CAPE qualifications; to formal training in teacher education, to undergraduate and graduate

degrees. The school is equipped with technological tools for ICT integration across the

curriculum. Through the government’s recent “One Laptop per Child Initiative” there is need to

provide training to infuse technology into the curriculum in order to improve student

performance. Although teachers are computer literate and have attended ICT infusion

workshops they identify ICT integration as their greatest challenge.

Scotiabank is a leading bank in the English Caribbean Region, with operations in

eighteen countries, including affiliates with over 5700 employees. Scotiabank relies on the

talents, ideas, diversity and commitment of its thousands of employees around the world to

deliver outstanding service to its customers and achieve its corporate goals. The bank strives to

build strong relationships with its employees by providing them with enriched work experiences

in an environment where they are respected, engaged and rewarded for their contributions.

Scotiabank’s global learning strategy is to equip employees in becoming strong leaders. Training


and designing curriculum are critical as the bank seeks to maintain a competitive advantage in

the global financial marketplace.

100% Math is a tutoring company as part of a community outreach venture that offers

one-on-one and small group tutoring. It comprises four teachers and sixty students. All teachers

are undergraduates and students seek tuition for elementary to undergraduate studies. The

philosophy of 100% Math states that knowledge is constructed from experience. It believes that

learning and social development are intertwined. Therefore, its tutorial program focuses on

improving academic skills in Mathematics, English and Sciences and social skills such as

confidence, critical inquiry, self regulation and logical thinking. There are attempts to

incorporate technology in all operations. There is great camaraderie among teachers and

management of the company. 100% Math is regularly assessing its performance and developing

strategies and methods to deal with constant changes in the educational system. Management is

keen on continuous training for teachers.

Siparia West Secondary School (SWSS) consists of 85 teachers and over 650 students. It

is a coeducational institute with mainly boys. The student intake is based on the School

Examination Assessment (SEA) taken at primary school. Students are placed based on 1) two

examination attempts with no improvements in score; 2) the child scored 0 – 30 percent and 3)

the child is too old (16+) to remain at the primary school. Students enter Form 1 between the

ages 11 – 16 years old where they are expected to be enrolled for five years. Remedial classes

are set up for students who performed the worst based on SEA results. At Forms 1 – 3 students

are exposed to Mathematics, English Language, Social Studies, Sciences, Visual and Performing

Arts, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Spanish and Health and Family Life

Education. At Forms 4 – 5 students specialize in areas such as ICT, Sciences, Modern Studies,


Business and Technical Vocational as they prepare for the Caribbean Examination Council

CSEC and CVQ exams in the related subjects. General issues include high student absenteeism,

student transfers out of the school, increasing dropout rates, poor examination results, criminal

activities, and tarnished school image and discipline problems. Teacher absenteeism is a trending

problem. However, there are teachers who are committed to improving student learning and

there are students who are willing to learn.

(b) Differences among each Instructional/Work Environment

The most significant difference among the four instructional/work environments

described above is that the Scotiabank environment is a corporate one, while those which exist at

the Fairhall Government School, 100% Math and Siparia West Secondary School are educational

in nature. Scotiabank also has the largest workforce of the four environments under scrutiny.

Among the three educational institutions’ work environments, the following differences

are observable:

The Fairhall Government School is an elementary institution (Pre K to Grade 6); hence it

is the only environment where children are central.

100% Math, which is a small tutoring company which caters to a wide range of learners -

elementary to adult.

Siparia West Secondary School has the largest student and staff populations of the three

educational environments. It is also located in a rural community, while the other

institutions are either urban or suburban.

(c) Similarities among each Instructional/Work Environment

Educators - imparting knowledge is a passion for all of the instructional designers who

make up this group. Three of the designers are more involved in pedagogical learning being


education administrators at primary and secondary school levels (K-12). One designer work is

more heavily influenced by the adult learning principles and the theory of andragogy. The

instructional principles of pedagogy can be utilized in some aspects of adult learning.

Curriculum-based learning - A system oriented instructional model is common to all

work environments. In the primary and secondary school environments learning is based on pre-

determined goals set out by government (e.g. National Certificate Secondary Exam, School

Examination Assessment,) or educational bodies such as CSEC, CVQ, CAPE, CXC curricula

and syllabi. In the corporate training environment, curricula have been established to help the

organization increase leadership capabilities to boost succession planning and to create a

competitive advantage in the market place. The leadership curriculum includes five programs

cover all people managers and leadership talent identified within the organization to enroll in the

programs making up the curriculum.

Classroom model environment - All instructors facilitate training (instructor-led) in a

classroom environment whether some aspect of the learning is covered in virtual

classroom or traditional “brick and mortar” classroom.

ICT integrated in learning environment - This allows facilitators to use information

technology to further enhance the instructional methods and strategies. All environments

are equipped with computers, internet access, and multi-purpose rooms.

(d) Instructional Strategies that are Common or Different

The four models for integration, comparison and contrast are the FGS-ICT Instructional

Model, Moore-SAM Business Model, Pepperpot Model and the Management-AIM Model. Each

model has a set of unique strategies well chosen and best suited to meet the needs of its learners.

All four did not entail any similar strategy, however two or three entailed similarities.


The FGS-ICT, Moore-SAM and Pepperpot entailed the discussion strategy, allowing

students to express themselves on given topics. The Management-AIM model had a strategy for

identifying similarities and differences. A discussion can be used in finding these; however it

was a more open strategy.

FGS-ICT, Moore-SAM and Management-AIM had some similarities in learners

collaborating. Even though each of them used different terms to represent it such as peer

collaboration, group discussion and cooperative learning, all the methods encouraged students’

interaction with each other and learning from each other.

FGS-ICT and the Moore-SAM models both entailed problem solving strategies.

Each model entailed at least one strategy not mentioned in the other models. For the FGS-ICT

Instructional Model, strategies such as guided and independent practice, peer and self

assessment, journal writing and reflection were unique to that model. These strategies are

consistent with the andragogical principles of adult learning.

The Moore-SAM Business Model entailed additional strategies such as case methods,

simulation exercises, games and role play.

The Pepperpot Model entailed direct instruction and experiential learning.

The Management-AIM Model included strategies such as summarizing and note taking,

nonlinguistic representations, cues, questions and advanced organizers, the KWL method and the

concept attainment process.

Although some of the strategies are not stated in the original documents of the each

model it does not necessarily mean that at some point some of these same strategies may not be

used by the other models stated.


New Combined Model: Inspirative Design Model (IDM)

Link to the Model Design: http://www.webspirationpro.com/view/1577070a30397

Description of New Model

This new model is designed for an environment which offers learning solutions to

businesses and schools. It will be employed in identifying skills, knowledge, information and

aptitudes of learners, while equipping them in becoming strong leaders through adult corporate

teaching and learning activities. It caters for learners of varying social and academic

backgrounds, competencies, cultures and languages. It is designed based on an andragogical

basis and can be used in both the educational and corporate sectors. Teaching and corporate

training can both be facilitated by this model.

The model is adaptable and can be classified as classroom oriented; product oriented or

system oriented. As a classroom oriented model, it can be used by teachers, community

colleges, vocational schools and training centers where lessons/training occurs in a classroom


setting and can be used by small groups. It will provide a guide for instructors and focus can be

placed on the existing materials and resources they possess. As a product oriented model, it can

be prescriptive and will be handed over as a final packaged product to the owners to be worked

on by their personal team. As a system oriented model, it can be used to develop large amounts

of instructions, such as curricula or a course. It may include development of new materials or

the repurposing of existing materials.

The model was influenced by several models, including ASSURE, ADDIE, Welliver’s

Instructional Transformation, Donald Kirkpatrick (1994) Levels 1-4, Jack Phillips’s (1997) Level

5 ROI methodology and the Dick and Carey model. However, the main aspects of our new

combined model are a judicious culmination of ideas and designs of our new individual models -

The FGS-ICT Model, The Sam-Moore Business Model, The Pepperpot Model and The

Management Approach Instructional Model. The new combined model also focuses on the

integration of ICT in designing effective instructions.

Phases of the Model

The new instructional design model facilitates system orientation, classroom orientation

and product orientation models design elements and can be used for curriculum designs for

larger, more complex instructions; creating instructor guides for teachers to follow; and can be

implemented by the user versus the developer with emphasis on tryouts and revisions. The model

starts with the identification of learning goals and outcomes, followed by an analysis phase.

Learning is then structured in the design phase, applied and implemented in the ‘real world’

environment. Evaluations are incorporated in the design at each phase as a measure of

effectiveness. The phases of the model are iterative in that validations (risk management and


quality assurance checks) happens throughout the model and the learning resulting from the

evaluation phase are fed back into the next project. The main tenets of each phase are as follows:

Phase I: Identify Goals and outcomes

Learning goals are a measure of success for the design instruction, as it helps identify

whether the final results to be achieved at the end of the lesson or instruction. Not only

the instructor knows the desired result but it should also be clearly understood by the

learner the facilities where the learning will occur, and identification of any limitations of

the setting that might affect the design of instruction.

Phase II: Analysis

Analyze learning context to determine factors and related design considerations.

Consideration include: identifying project, delivery, design and implementation

parameters and constraints

Population analysis includes identifying human factors that affect the ability to learn and

allows developers to design learning programs appropriate to current abilities, capacity

and attitude.

Concrete description of learners

Identify factors affecting ability of learners, handling diverse populations

Develop project plan highlighting who will do what, when.

Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the cost of the solution can

be justified.

Brainstorm and gain input from Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and key

stakeholders to create mock up of learning plan.

Analyze competencies - Education, qualifications, skills


Evaluation - Assessment of what is known and what is required

Mock up learning plan - Present learning plan to owner. If not approved re-work

Phase III: Design

Create mapping to learning by refining learning scope based on learning

priorities and constraints identified in Phase II.

Anticipated duration of learning program (single or multiple instruction)

Determine instructional strategy and media to be used

Media used will be based on what will support discussion, organize information,

focus attention, clarify ideas and aid in retention of key learning.

Organize content and concept. Formulate content that is relevant within the context of

the lesson. the right amount and right activities,

Familiarization: Learning tools, strategies and technique, utilize subject matter experts

Learning plan: Media, design test, sequence learning, interaction. Have brainstorming

events, facilitate technology integration.

Evaluate: Subject matter experts, facilitators, stakeholder come together to review

learning plan and make necessary changes if needed.

Phase IV: Application

Develop and test learning materials for course, modules, lessons, and learning

interactions.

Prototypes or set sample of deliverables are particularly important for cross

functional or multi-dimensional projects, projects with multiple developers, or

projects involving expensive production (e.g. videos, simulations, e-learning)

The developer also complete the evaluation instruments in this phase


The prototype will demonstrate exactly what the designer’s work will look like;

clarify expectations; and can act as a model if a team of developers is to be used.

Job aids are developed which includes reference cards, instructor materials

(facilitator’s guides) and learner guides (determine whether learner guides will be

used mainly as a memory aid or workbook.)

Phase V: Implementation

Product release to ‘real world’ environment

Train-the-Trainers conducted with users (facilitators)

Feedback collected from facilitators to aid in improving course/lesson instruction

Phase VI: Evaluation

Summative and formative evaluations utilized which serve as a basis for making

changes and improvement for future participants and clients:

Collect formative evaluations conducted throughout the process -

evaluating learning materials, student learning and achievements, teacher

effectiveness etc.

Conduct a summative evaluation which focuses on the outcome of the

learning process, evaluating the worth of the program, examples include

questionnaires, surveys, interviews, etc

Final evaluations provide feedback for the improvement of the entire

model in itself.

Donald Kirkpatrick (1994) Levels and Jack Phillips (1997) ROI Level 5

methodology incorporated in evaluation to stakeholders.

The six major process components of the Inspirative Design Model


(a) Justification for the Design

This design came about as a result of combining the similarities of the individual models.

We sought to create a model that will meet the needs of all our individual clients in keeping with

the conclusion drawn by Ryder (2014) that “an instructional design model gives structure and

meaning to an ID problem, enabling the would-be designer to negotiate her design task with a

semblance of conscious understanding”. Across the board, the aim of each of the individual

models was to educate and evaluate learning. We therefore saw the ADDIE model as the most

efficient model to base our model from. This new model is capable of being used by any client

from primary school to the adult learner.

Inspirative design model will support the work environment by firstly creating an avenue

through which training needs can be effectively and efficiently addressed, since it has been

tailored to the particular context, that is, the newly created work environment – Inspirative

Training and Development Institute (ITID). It presents an alternative to the more generic models

that are often used in similar learning environments, such as the ADDIE model.

The Inspirative design model can be considered an instructional systems design, because

by definition a system’s elements are dynamic and the actions of any one element affects one or

more of the other elements. The model is both a conceptual and an application process, thus

different groups will apply the process differently, although the fundamental components of the

process remain the same. In our institute, many clients will come for our intervention in

assisting their business or school. Each has his or her own needs; therefore the model will be

tailored to suit the specific needs. The Inspirative Design Model follows an orderly but flexible

sequence. The same stages will be used however at each stage more work might to done than

another based on these needs.


The IDM is both descriptive and prescriptive. It is descriptive as it “shows relationships,

indicates sequences that occur during the creative process, fosters interactivity, explains,

describes phenomena, highlights if-then (conditional)”. It is prescriptive because “it assigns

rules and guidelines for achieving an outcome and identifies models, methods, procedures and

strategies” (Branch, 2009).

(b) Instructional Strategies Afforded in the New Model

The variation in instructional strategies has changed with technology, and terminology can vary.

The following framework can be used to help choose the most appropriate strategies for each

situation. It is based answering the four questions:

Can learners work independently of each other?

Should there be someone guiding the learning (an instructor, facilitator, or coach)?

Will the learners and facilitators (if applicable) be together in the same place, or will they

be in several different locations?

The model will incorporate strategies such as those listed below, as delineated by Reigeluth,

(1983):

Cooperative Learning - This encourages a group of learners to work together as a team in

accomplishing an activity, project or task.

Discussion - Learners are given the opportunity to engage in open conversations to

express what they know (previous knowledge) and how their knowledge has changed on

tasks, activities and problems.

Problem Solving - Instruction is organized to aid students in arriving at solutions to

problems.


Instructional Simulations - This method imitates real-life situations and gives

approximations as to the skills to be learned or understood.

Instructional games - these are designed to focus on learners acquiring skills, knowledge

and abilities.

Role play - In this strategy the learners will illustrate or practice of key ideas in situations

similar to real-life situations

Peer and self assessment - Learners will be allowed to evaluate each other and

themselves.

Experiential learning - the learners will be engaged in learning through experience.

Nonlinguistic representations - This includes the use of graphic organizers, flowcharts,

physical models and pictographic representations.

KWL method - This is an advanced organizer that speaks to what you know, what you

want to know and ultimately learn.

Discrepancy Analysis

Moore-SAM Business Model

The Moore-SAM Business Model was created to optimize corporate learning solutions at

Scotiabank. The model is an agile approach to development of instructional design products that

addressing the performance need of the work environment (Scotiabank English Caribbean

Region) needs through iterations and challenges the notion of moving through a linear process

like ADDIE as an effective strategy for designing learning events. The main tenets of the Moore-

SAM Business Model included a Design, Development, and Implementation phase.


Linear Roots:

Al the positive effort with the Inspirative Design methodology, it still “suffers” from its

linear roots as influential models that formed the basis of the design were the ADDIE generic

process and its shares some similarities to the Dick and Carey methodology. The linear nature of

the model is very apparent when the phases are read together as one phase leads to another. It

should be noted that the AGILE is made up of iterative sequence of processes that are also met in

ADDIE and Inspirative Design Model. To note, after a high level planning the process consists

in the iteration of the following sequences: analysis, design, application and implementation of

the product. The differences is that the Moore-SAM model turns the potential learners and

beneficiaries into active participants throughout the designing process by sharing with them

mock-up, prototypes and early suggestions, allowing the final design outcome from the very first

attempt to match the needs of the beneficiaries. The AGILE instructional design concentrates on

speed, flexibility and collaboration as the progress pace is in accordance with the feedback

received from the potential beneficiaries who are constantly test driving the training design;

“flexible response to a changing picture of what the situation on the ground is really like”; the

development happens gradually, in steps, concomitant with the collection of the analysis from

the ground.

The next iteration of instructional design requires lower costs, faster implementation of

new technologies and media resources, less ritual and greater learner involvement. Making the

Inspirative model into a more AGILE instructional design methodology would meet the needs of

the next iteration along with applying current learning theories more effectively, and will combat

the criticisms that follow other linear (waterfall) models such as:

Real projects rarely follow the sequential flow that the model proposes


At the beginning of most projects there is often a great deal of uncertainty about

requirements and goals, and is therefore difficult for customers to identify these

criteria on a detailed level. The model does not accommodate this natural

uncertainty well.

Developing a system using the waterfall model can be a long, painstaking process that

does not yield a working version of the system until late in the process. (Center for Technology

in Government, 2003)

Non-Training Solution

The Inspirative Design model does not take into consideration in the front end of the

design doing a training needs analysis which answers the question “train or not to train”. The

question to be answered is, “When is learning part of the solution?” If lack of skills and

knowledge is a contributing factor, learning is part of the solution. If attitude is a contributing

factor, learning may be part of the solution. Considerations should be given to only move on

with planning the project if learning is required as part of the solution. This step should be

incorporated into the Inspirative model to prevent designers from developing a training solution

for the business problems that require non-training solutions.

Collaborative Process:

The Inspirative model begins with the identification of learner goals and outcomes and

does not bring whilst the Moore-SAM Business model begins its design methodology at the

Design stage. The Moore-SAM Business model design elements include a brainstorming

element using cognitive graphic organizers to link all aspects of the instructional event. This is

done with the aid of subject matter experts and key stakeholders to create a prototype. The

Moore-SAM Business Model brings the application of the learning materials to the forefront of


the design to capitalize on the opportunity of re-work earlier on the project eliminating delays

further down.

Pepperpot Model

One of the main differences between these two models is that the Pepperpot Model is

directly related to the instruction from a school perspective however the Inspirative

Design Model entails both instruction and business.

The Pepperpot Model is more of a classroom orientation model as it is directly related to

helping the teachers of 100% Math to think and plan for effective instruction. The

Inspirative Design Model on the other hand incorporates the systems orientation model,

the classroom orientation model and the product orientation model.

The Pepperpot Model is greatly related to the ADDIE and ASSURE models whereas the

Inspirative Design Model has its tenets in all our individual models, Donald Kirkpatrick’s

model, Welliver’s Instructional transformation model, Jack Phillip’s Level 5 ROI and

functions of management.

The Pepperpot model entails four major stages which we would classify as being a

waterfall model where one stage is dependent on the other whereas the Inspirative design

model is of an iterative orientation with six stages and sub-stages.

The Inspirative Design Model is a more detailed model to the Pepperpot Model.

The Pepperpot model has one evaluation phase which follows all the other stages

(summative evaluation) however after each stage of the Inspirative design model

evaluation is done (both summative and formative).

The Inspirational Design Model incorporates the use of named instructional strategies

whereas the Pepperpot model is not limited to any strategy.


FGS-ICT

Inspirative Design Model (IDM) is significantly broader in scope, in that it is classified as

systems, classroom and products oriented. FGS-ICT, though also catering to adults, is

classified only as classroom oriented.

IDM presents an iterative approach to instructional design, while FGS-ICT follows a

waterfall approach with limited iteration between the analysis and evaluation phases.

FGS-ICT has at its base the ASSURE and Welliver’s Instructional Transformation

models, which worked well in accommodating a model that was specific to addressing

ICT integrated concerns. IDM is derived from several models, namely, the Donald

Kirkpatrick, ADDIE and Jack Phillips Level 5 ROI, as well as the individual models of

its designers.

FGS-ICT is designed specifically for application to ICT integration, while IDM was

designed to be applied to wide range of disciplines.

The evaluation phase of IDM is significantly more comprehensive, as it is includes

summative (external) evaluation. The evaluation phase of FGS-ICT is formative in

nature.

As a consequence of the limited use of FGS-ICT, the instructional strategies afforded are

not as comprehensive as those afforded in IDM.

Management Approach Instructional Model

The Management-AIM model takes less time to reach desired results as greater focus is

placed on completing the goals in least possible time unlike the Inspirative Design Model

where each phase may requires more development time in its iterative approach


In the IDM model the owner is asked to evaluate and provide feedback in every phase

making evaluation the central focus unlike the Management-AIM model where the goals

and learning outcomes are central

The Management-AIM model only provides what is needed to achieve the outcome and

focuses on the learning rather than the teaching unlike IDM which utilizes a great deal of

resources (especially if rework is required) before moving on to the next phase.

The IDM model is more detailed and provides greater guidance throughout the process as

each phase is further broken down into smaller stages to follow unlike the Management-

AIM model which is more general in nature

The Management-AIM model is more cyclical in nature whilst the IDM model

demonstrates a more iterative approach

The IDM model produces a prototype along the way which provides the opportunity to

identify and clear up any misunderstandings with all stakeholder before the end of the

process unlike Management-AIM

Conclusion

The Inspirative Design Model is considered as an instructional system design approach to

the designing of instruction, whether the design is accomplished by an instructor or the design

team. The theory of design presented can be employed in a wide array of setting by individual

users be it teachers, instructors, facilitators, subject matter experts who select instructional

materials or by teams that develop such materials. “The main aim of most of the instructional

design models has usually been to describe the major elements of an instructional environment.

There is, however, no agreement in the field of learning research on what the important variables

are” (Hakkinen, 2002; p.463). There is no single ID model that is equipped to satisfy the vast


range of instructional design approaches (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2005; Gustafson & Branch,

2002; Irlbeck, et al., 2006; Molenda, 2003 in Royal, 2007).

The creation of this new Instructional System Design process serves as a helpful

reminder of what people go through internally when they are working at mastering something

which is new to them. W.S. Howell (1982) describes the four stages of learning succinctly in this

way: “Unconscious incompetence is the stage where you are not even aware that you do not have

a particular competence. Conscious incompetence is when you know that you want to learn how

to do something but you are incompetent at doing it. Conscious competence is when you can

achieve this particular task but you are very conscious about everything you do. Unconscious

competence is when you finally master it and you do not even think about what you have to do,

such as when you have learned to ride a bike very successfully”(Pike, 1989).We have gone

through all of the stages of learning and exiting this assignment with a comprehensive view of

the conceptual framework of Instructional Design Models.

Several conclusions relating to instructional design and the creation of an instructional

model were drawn from the completion of this project.

Having an understanding of the key elements of instructional design, the theories of

learning and the principles which govern the design process is essential in successfully

creating an instructional model.

The creation of the design model followed a systematic approach, that is, there were

several phases through which the designers had to move. This required much

organization and reflective thinking in order to eliminate chaos.

The skill of problem solving is of paramount importance, as attempting to design a model

which accurately matches the new environment was quite complex. Cherry (n.d.) posits


that “the ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution

that best resolves the issue”. Solutions had to be sought for “problems” as they occurred

throughout the design process.

The designing process reinforced the centrality of learners in the process. Their needs,

aptitudes and the context in which they will learn were carefully considered and planned

for. Thomas (2010) notes that the effectiveness of an instructional model depends heavily

on the context in which it is applied, since instructional design methods are situational

and not universal.

The creation of the design was an analytic process. Jonassen et al (1999) establish that the

analysis of the task under scrutiny is the single most important component in the

instructional design process.

Reflections

Shanica’s Reflection:

It is always said that when you reflect back on things the meanings become clearer as

hindsight is always 20/20 vision. I will take this opportunity to share the key learning from this

assignment and how it has helped me to fully integrate the concepts learned during the 10 weeks

of this course in order to complete this assignment. First and foremost, the intricacies of working

in a virtual group was a scheduling challenge for me personally as the demands from my work

environment left me with short time periods to meet with group members. I was concerned that I

would not be able to contribute meaningfully to the group assignment and must say that I am

very fortunate to have such supportive group members, who understood the importance of

teamwork.


The major challenge of this group work from my perspective was the creation of a

merged environment. As noted in the assignment, group members worked in diverse work

environments spanning across the English Caribbean Region. Instructional models used in these

work environments encompassed products orientation, system orientation and classroom

orientation models as their base for designing instructional events. There are numerous models of

instructional design process that have been developed for different settings. The instructional

methods Martin Ryder stated in his work on instructional models that “models are like myths and

metaphors [that] help us to make sense of our world”. They ‘offer its users a means of

comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem”. An instructional design model “gives

structure and meaning to a problem, enabling the would-be designer to negotiate the design task

using a process or systematic approach method. Models help to visualize the problem, to break it

down into discrete, manageable units. The true value of a model can only be determined within

the context of use. A model should be judged by how it mediates the designer intention, how

well it can share the workload, and how effectively it shifts focus away from itself toward the

object of the deign activity” (Ryder, 1995).

Through this learning process I understood that there is no one best instructional design

model. In some instances in order to achieve the best outcome a merging of instructional models

with instructional system design methodology can create a more minimize the shortcomings of

the individual models and gives robustness to the merged model. The instructional system model

will become more of a “plug and play model as the designer would add other components to it on

an as-needed-basis. An example of which would be extending the ADDIE to include some aspect

of action mapping, 4CI/ID and rapid prototyping plugged into it for designing a robust learning

environment for training complex skills.


Gustafson (1981) “concluded that there were only a few fundamental differences among

the models although they often used different terminology to describe the same activities. The

principal differences focused on: (a) where the model was to be applied [work environments;

Scotiabank, 100% Math, Fairhall Government School, Siparia West Secondary School], (b)

whether the outcome was expected to be a product for distribution and use by people other than

the designers [ in most work environments the instructors (teachers) are required to regurgitate

set content to students based on set curriculum or syllabuses], (c) whether design and

development re to be an individual or a team effort, and (d) whether the emphasis was primarily

on designing new materials or selecting from among those that already exists.” (Briggs,

Gustafon, & Tillman, 1991)

Each of the individual models created by the team members from assignment three were

applicable to their work environment. This view into the classroom and systems oriented models

application afforded me the opportunity to learn how the different models can be used

successfully in different environments to achieve similar results – a learning event. “ Underneath

these differences[that is, of the individual models created], the models all specified; analyzing

what was to be learned, specifying who was to learn, describing in detail how the learning was to

occur, conducting a formative evaluation, and finally conducting summative evaluation of the

effectiveness of the instruction” (Briggs, Gustafon, & Tillman, 1991).

In applying the above to learning theory, I have come up with this conclusion and use the

analogy of my dog, Nuri. From the age of three months when I brought Nuri home, I would

always allow him to run up the staircase to the upper bedrooms and in turn would carry him

down when it was time. Fast forward to 15 months later Nuri has no difficulties running up the

stairs, but will refuse to come down although he has no physical limitations preventing him from


doing so. In saying this, from my introduction to instructional design elements two years ago

[which was heavily based on the ADDIE generic process as this was what my work environment

required] I became heavily reliant on designing content using only the ADDIE model and was

ignorant of the other models and design methodology that could be used to expand my designer

toolkit. Like Nuri, I created a handicap with my reliance on ADDIE and will now have to ensure

that aspects of other models are integrated into designing future instructions creating a more

‘plug and play” model suitable for my work environment. I am of the belief that learning is not

complete until it can be implemented in a real world setting that is theory versus practical.

The goal of this assignment in my view was to allow me as a learner to build my personal

interpretation of the instructional design methodologies based on experiences and interaction in

this group setting; assemble knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand,

which allowed the flexible use of knowledge, linking prior learning to new discoveries.

Nickesha’s Reflection

I started to view this assignment from the first week it was posted and I said to myself I

do not think this course is for me. Honestly I was clueless and was very unsure as to what I could

contribute to this group assignment. Then we were asked to join a group. I joined the group with

initial members Donnette, Shanica and Denis with an excellent addition later on, Brehaniea. This

group project started out from our first weekly discussion and from those initial stages we

bonded. I could not have made a better choice at a group. We worked tirelessly on our weekly

discussions and posts ensuring that we followed each guideline. We travelled a long hard journey

of late night meetings, laughter, fun, hard work and even tears, but we supported each other

through it all. Denis decided to quit but the rest of us decided to carry on. Throughout these


weeks we got to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses thus making it easy to assign

sections of the project.

On this group project I was blessed with the opportunity of working with three wonderful

ladies who have been a tower of strength for me. Days when I felt like giving up there was

always a word of encouragement to continue. We firstly met to discuss our understanding of

requirements of the group project. Then clarification was sought from the e-tutor for any section

we were unsure of. After we were clear on what was to be done we choose different sections that

we wanted to cover. Support was never lacking in the group and where one person was not clear

another member was always there to assist. Google docs was used as a way of integrating our

sections and our ideas for the new model. We interacted on mediums such as Skype and

Whatsapp. Section one of the assignment required us to compare our individual environments,

models and strategies used. We saw that we had a few similarities but many differences, which

made it a little challenging for us to quickly integrate the environments. Once we got the main

ideas together the other parts fell into place. We spent long hours preparing for our Pecha Kucha

presentation. As we were a bit unsure of what to expect but we ensured we covered all the bases.

The meeting with Dr. Deane and Dr. Gray gave us a better understanding of the criteria and this

made it easier to formulate our model.

The Pecha Kucha in my opinion was a success for our group we worked together and we

got the presentation done. The areas that were highlighted in the presentation as needing

adjustment were discussed and changed. The presentation was of great help in doing the write up

of the final project. The write up did not take as long as the preparation for the Pecha Kucha as

we had all the necessary ideas and information at hand. This was a great learning experience for


me as I was exposed to various methods and strategies. I became more proficient in the use of

PowerPoint and Google docs.

Donnette’s Reflection

Our group was formed following an invitation that was extended in the learning exchange

forum. First to respond was Denis Jones, who unfortunately discontinued the course. Nickesha

and Shanica later joined, and Brehaniea was added to our group by the course facilitators.

Despite the fact that Brehaniea had not voluntarily joined the group from its inception, the

members of the group instantly bonded, and what ensued in the months following can only be

compared to the functioning of a well-oiled machine. The group was then named following one

of our earliest discussions, and the name Inspirative, Inc., a word that was coined from

suggestions of “creative” and “inspiration” by two of the group’s members.

Inspirative, Inc. met regularly via Skype, most often late into the night and on a few

occasions into the wee hours of the morning, as some of our members worked late. Perhaps as

important as those meetings were our daily conversations in our Whatsapp group. We were able

to complete all of our assigned weekly discussions in this manner, and it was through these

regular conversations that friendships were formed. The relationships that evolved helped us to

maturely deal with Denis’ departure, he being the one who ensured that we were highly

motivated at all times with his words of encouragement. Following that challenge, the four

remaining ladies worked together, and I experienced teamwork as I never had before. We

worked hard, capitalizing on each other’s strengths, while actively mitigating against our

weaknesses and deficiencies. This camaraderie extended beyond the group project and even

beyond EDID 6503, as we leaned on each other for support in our other course.


The days leading up to the Pecha Kucha presentation was particularly hectic, but

especially rewarding, and for me, a profound learning experience. I learned much about the

process of designing an instructional model, not only from my reading, but from my teammates

who shared what they knew willingly. I became more and more familiar with the jargon of the

discipline and many of the concepts that I had only previously read about actually came to life

during our many discussions. I was proud of our final product, and indeed of the presentation,

despite some technological glitches.

On reflecting on the overall experience of the group project, I am reminded of a quote by

Helen Keller: “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much”. It is evident to me that

the strides that we have all made would not have been possible had we worked alone.

Brehaniea’s Reflection

This learning experience has been more than a study but a practice for me. I feel

enlightened by the knowledge I gained even though I know there is so much more to learn. When

I look back at my initial concept map and compare it with the most current one I really see how

much more my knowledge has expanded. I appreciate that this course went beyond a reading

program but afforded students the opportunity to gain practice and develop relevant skills needed

in the field.

There are two experiences that stood out for me in this assignment. Firstly, my colleagues

and I used our “HOTS”, that is, higher order thinking skills. We analyzed and evaluated our

individual assignments to create a new combined instructional design model, Inspirative Design

Model, in a new merged environment. I never saw myself as a designer, far less to produce a

finished product. This course tested my abilities and brought out the creativity in me.


Secondly, usually working with persons of different nationalities, different cultures,

different backgrounds, and different personalities will present a challenge for most teams.

However, in our group, those differences did not present a barrier but worked to our advantage. I

felt as though we were always in the same place, thinking alike and really working hard to

achieve our common goal. If I am to use a description from one of the team members, we were

more like a “pepperpot”, different ingredients combined to make a flavorful dish. We were able

to capitalize on each others’ strengths and work together to produce excellent work. I am

grateful and really appreciate the collaborative and cooperative efforts of each member that made

our group successful. I will say after another colleague, “Thank God, I’m in this group!”

No longer am I confused as to what is expected of me. The first-hand experience of the

role of the instructional designer though challenging became rewarding and enjoyable. I do not

consider myself proficient in the field but I do believe my competency level has somewhat

increased. I can leisurely read Reigeluth’s, “Instructional-Design Theories and Models” without

being thrown off by the unfamiliar terms and concepts. I am more confident in what I am doing

along this journey.


References

Benefitof.net,. Benefits of Iterative Development | Benefits Of. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from

http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-iterative-development

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design; The ADDIE Approach. New York: Springer.

Briggs, L. J., Gustafon, K. L., & Tillman, M. H. (1991). Instructional Design: Principles and

Applications. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Center for Technology in Government. (2003). A Survey of System Development Process

Models. Retrieved from www.ctg.albany.edu: www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports

/survey_of_sysdev?chapter=5&PrintVersion=2

Cherry, K. (n.d.). What is problem-solving? Retrieved April 25, 2015 from

www.psychology.about.com

Ctl.curtin.edu.au,. Authentic learning. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from

http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/student_centred/authentic.cfm

Jonassen, D.H, Tessmer, M. & Wallace, H.H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional

design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pike, R. W. (1989). Creative Training Techniques Handbook. MA: HRD Press, Inc.

Reigeluth, C. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Royal, C. (2007). Exploring the Use of Instructional Design Models for Web-based Instruction in

Higher Education: A Modified Delphi Study. Capella University.

Ryder, M. (1995). Instructional Design Models. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from University of

Colorado at Denver, School Education site:

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc/idmodels.html


http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/student_centred/authentic.cfm

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports

http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-iterative-development


Ryder, M. (2014). Instructional Design Models. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from


Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Retrieved April 25, 2015 from www.steinhardt.apps.es.its.nyu.edu

Thomas, P.Y. (2010). Chapter 3: Learning and instructional systems design. Retrieved March

22, 2015 from www.uir.unisa.ac.za

http://www.learningsolutionsmmag.com/articles/1235/get-in-gear-with-launch-of-agile-

instructional-design-course Retrieved April 25, 2015.

http://www.learningsolutionsmmag.com/articles/1235/get-in-gear-with-launch-of-agile-instructional-design-course%20Retrieved%20April%2025

http://www.learningsolutionsmmag.com/articles/1235/get-in-gear-with-launch-of-agile-instructional-design-course%20Retrieved%20April%2025


nsenioruwi.weebly.comnsenioruwi.weebly.com/.../inspirative,_inc_edid6503_fi… · web viewgroup...

Documents