Re: Intentional vs. Unintentional Learning & Technics

A response to Chapter 27, “E-Learning and Instructional Design,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

Assume you have been told to design a “Twenty-First Century Learning Course” that incorporates the full range of technics and technologies that are used today (social networking, collaboration, Facebook, etc.). What are the key characteristics for which you would design, and how would you design for intentional versus unintentional learning?

Answer

Instructional technics are “the activities or tactics that use technology designed or selected to attain specific learning activities” (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2017, pp. 232-233). For example, students might participate in class discussion by posting responses to the instructor’s question via Twitter, using the class or chapter hashtag. Or students might take photos of trees in their neighborhood—posting them to Instagram or Pinterest with text that identifies the family, genus, and species—in order to learn and share about plant taxonomy. Obviously, the use of technics can contribute tremendously to a rich learning experience for students. However, Quinn says designers should stay focused on “finding the right balance between what we have people do and what we have technology do” (Quinn, 2017, p. 248).

With that in mind, technics should be selected to meet the needs of the learner and in order to “create a rich, flexible [learning] environments that reflect elemental outcomes, support necessary synthetic outcomes, provide connections to the world outside the e-learning environment” (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2017, p. 234). Elemental outcomes are associated with the real-life outcomes, in terms of actual tasks, required by the learning environment or situation. Synthetic outcomes are the higher order, more internal outcomes such as “decontextualized procedures, concepts, and knowledge” (Dempsey & Litchfield, 2011, p. 26).

In designing learning experiences, it is important to determine if the desired learning outcomes require interaction, collaboration, and interaction with real-world environments. Synchronous web conferences and in-person presentations, which are re-corded and can be shared later “via Web, iPod, or cell phone playback,” support outcomes necessitating learner interactions (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2017, p. 234). On the other hand, collaboration outcomes are supported by other activities associated with group work, where group members can “self-select from a variety of tools such as instant messaging, texting, wikis, and conferencing technology” (p. 234). When interactions with real-world environments is necessary, “secure Web-conferencing tools and virtual worlds should be valuable for discussion, meetings where presences is desirable, or role-playing” (p. 234).

For the instructional designer, there are many systematic models available for designing intentional learning outcomes. Fink’s Significant learning model strikes me as the most intentional of models—targeting various aspects of the learning process such as foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn (Litchfield, 2017, pp. 186-190). Beginning with the significant learning objectives in mind, the designer can progress through Fink’s twelve steps of design. In steps four (select effective teaching and learning activities), five (make sure the primary components are integrated), seven (select or create a teaching strategy), and eight (integrate course structure and the instructional strategy to create an overall scheme of learning activities), the designer can incorporating the appropriate technics into the overall learning strategy to address the desired outcomes (p. 188).

“Pedagogical philosophies such as constructivism, connectionism, and situated learning address incidental learning” and use of e-learning environments such as the Internet allows for “serendipity in acquiring or expanding knowledge” (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2017, p. 231). Keeping these principles in mind, the designer works from the mindset of arranging the learning experience rather than the learning. It seems best to arrange for a combination of both intentional and unintentional by coordinating technics (learning activities using technologies to achieve desired change in the learner) with effective, systematic design, balancing both elemental and synthetic outcomes whenever possible.


Dempsey, J.V. & Litchfield, B. C. (2011). Elemental and synthetic e-learning. [PDF File] International Journal of Innovation, Management, and Technology, 2(1), pp. 25-30. Retrieved from: http://www.ijimt.org/papers/98-E00160.pdf

Dempsey, J. V. & Van Eck, R. N. (2017). E-Learning and Instructional Design. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.229-236). New York, NY: Pearson.

Litchfield, B. C. (2017). Instructional design in higher education. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 185-191). New York, NY: Pearson.

Quinn, C. (2017). Mobile Learning. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 244-249). New York, NY: Pearson.

What’s an Educational Wiki?

Education wikis are used in both traditional and online classes from elementary school through graduate school and into the workplace. Wikis are used for group or collaborative authoring, building courseware, developing and documenting work on papers or research projects for peer review, tracking and streamlining group projects, reviewing classes and teachers, and building critical skills for similar application in the workplace (Robinson, M., 2006, p. 108; Duffy, Peter and Bruns, Axel, 2006).

The individual and collaborative work developed using Wikis is transforming how people learn in many ways. For example, wikis are contributing to the shift from instructor-centered teaching to student-centered learning (Bold, 2006, p. 12). In this way, the use of the technological platform is a reflection of the theories of Constructivism (knowledge is developed internally, by learners, as they encounter and solve real world problems) and Social Constructivism where collaboration is integral for the group construction of knowledge (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, pp. 72-73). Brown explains “knowledge has two dimensions, the explicit and tacit. The explicit dimension deals with concepts…[whereas] tacit knowledge is best displayed in terms of performance and skills” (Brown, J. S., 2010, p. 15). Both explicit and tacit knowledge increase when learners collaborate in a constructivist “community of practice,” dealing with real problems. (Brown, J. S., 2010, p. 15). The real world applications serve to connect knowledge to situations where the purpose is clear—this is both Situated Cognition and Anchored Instruction (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 70).

Educational use of online sharing platforms is actually changing both learning and technology. In the past, technology was used to facilitate learning. Today, new technologies, like Wikis, continue to facilitate learning activities, but now the learning activities are also changing the face of technology (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 69). This dynamic relationship between technology and learning points to Pea’s concept of distributed knowledge. He explains that learners develop intelligence when “interacting with [cognitive tools] distributed across minds, persons, and the symbolic and physical environments, both natural and artificial” (1993, p. 47-48). Pea defines cognitive tools as any practice or medium (including the use of computer, online, and social technologies) “that helps transcend the limitations of the mind, such as memory, in activities of thinking, learning, and problem solving” (Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R., 2014, p. 9). Cognitive tools like wikis create the opportunity to transcend traditional educational limitations by “allowing learners to externalize their internal representations” and to participate in the construction of both technology and learning (Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R., 2014, p.10).

Classmates, have you realized you are participating in the growth and change of both knowledge and technology? I hadn’t really considered this until now. What do you think about the idea of distributed intelligence—that anything in your environment can be a cognitive tool to grow intelligence?

 

References

Bold, M. (2006) Use of Wikis in Graduate Course Work Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 5-14. Retrieved from: https://www.learntechlib.org/d/6033/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Brown, J. S. (2010). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. [PDF file] Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20. Retrieved from: http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Growing_up_digital.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Duffy, P. & Bruns, A. (2006). The Use of Blogs, Wikis and RSS in Education: A Conversation of Possibilities. [PDF file] In Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006 (pp. 31-38). Brisbane. Retrieved from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/5398/1/5398.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., and Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’ engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 83–96. doi:10.1111/bjet.12001 Retrieved from: http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile117094.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. [PDF file] In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/190571/filename/A67_Pea_93_DI_CUP.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Robinson, M. (2006) Wikis in Education: Social Construction as Learning. Community College Enterprise, 12(2), 107-109. Retrieved from: https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1167542181/wikis-in-education-social-construction-as-learning (Links to an external site.)

Re: Performance Supports

A response to Chapter 15, “Performance Support,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

Imagine you are an instructional designer in the not-too distant future, where the use of performance support is commonplace. How might these tools be used outside formal course instruction to enhance learning?  How might these tools be integrated into a formal course design to enhance learning?  How might performance support be used before or after the formal leaning?  Provide an example of each.

Answer

Performance support is “a tool or other resource, from print to technology supports, which provides the just right amount of task guidance, support, and productivity benefits to the user—precisely at the moment of need” (Rosenberg, 2017, p. 133). As an instructional designer, performance support creates a bridge from the classroom to the workplace. These tools can be used outside formal course instruction to enhance learning, saving precious employee hours that might be lost in training classes (p. 133). For example, in lieu of some classroom courses, we have inserted the multi-device app, Skillpill, into the overall instructional design plan for management training at Waltech, Walmart’s big box technology offering.[1] Skillpill is a microlearning app that provides customized content via “learning videos, sophisticated learning apps, support templates, gamified techniques, or social learning tools” in order to improve learners’ engagement and increase desired behavior by up to 10-20% (“Skillpill Digital Tour”, n.d). This Inventory Sidekick is an example of an embedded resource—employees don’t have to try to fit training into their scheduled because the device shows them how to do their work (p. 133).

All Waltech, employees must complete a yearly, half-day team training designed to improve communication, make the workplace more enjoyable, set personal and store goals, and help employees understand their own strengths and weaknesses (University of Minnesota Publishing, 2016). The class consists of some lecture and group discussions, augmented by gamified scenarios dealing with interpersonal skills, plus online personality quizzes, where the performance support tools are supplied through our partnership with Skillpill. Group discussions are facilitated by the instructor after participants utilize the gamified scenarios and personality tests. These technological supports are essential to engaging the learners within the classroom setting. Since much of the instructional technology is outsourced through our partnership with Skillpill, these classes are cost-effective, easy to update due to the myriad numbers of course options, and instruction is scalable to the number of participants who rotate weekly through the program (Rosenberg, 2017, p. 135). Student acceptance of this blended model of teaching is very high (p. 137).

At Waltech, employees use an Inventory Side-kick performance support device as they stock the shelves (Rosenberg, 2017, p. 134). As part of our learning design plan, this performance support tool is integrated into their “New-Hire Hello” course, which takes place in the classroom, during the first week of employment. Then, after training, the Inventory Side-kick aids in the management of store inventory, which though complex, is a “clear and repetitive task” (p. 136). This device is helpful because maintaining inventory requires a “standardized and reliable output” and necessitates good record keeping and monitoring of employee work (p. 136).

[1] FYI: I totally made that store up.


Rosenberg, M.J. (2017). Performance Support. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.52-60). New York, NY: Pearson.

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016, March 22). Types of Training. Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://open.lib.umn.edu/humanresourcemanagement/chapter/8-2-types-of-training-2/. This resource is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License.

Re: Time Continuum Model of Motivation vs. ARCS Model

A response to Chapter 9, “Motivation, Volition, and Performance,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

Do additional research on Wlodkowski’s Time Continuum Model of Motivation and then describe two or more situations in which his model would provide useful guidance.  When it is time to prepare a list of specific motivational tactics to use in a given situation, how would the decision-making process be different with the ARCS model than with Wlodkowski’s time-continuum model.  Hint: With the ARCS model, what is the process for determining what motivational tactics are appropriate.

Answer

In Wlodkowski’s Time Continuum Model of Motivation, planning is essential in order to select the best motivational tactics for a lecture or learning activity. To have the greatest impact, instruction must be designed with consideration of three particular points in a learning sequence—the beginning, middle, and end. At these times in a lecture or learning activity, specific strategies for motivation are employed to have the most impact: “attitude and needs strategies are most relevant at the beginning of an activity, stimulation and affect strategies during the activity, and competence and reinforcement strategies when ending the activity” (Hodges, 2004, p. 3). In order to design the most beneficial learning experience, the appropriate motivational strategies should be selected and planned in advance to ensure variety, good preparation, and timing (Lowery, 1992, p. 34).

The Time Continuum Model is focused on meeting the needs of the learner during each particular phase of an instructional event—the beginning, during, and end (Hodges, 2004, p. 3). Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivational Design, where ARCS is an acronym for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, is a contrast to the Time Continuum Model. ARCS is based on analysis of the situation—the course, the teacher, and the students—and number and types of motivational strategies are selected to address the needs of the audience (Keller & Deimann, 2017, p. 82). “The primary difference in the application of Keller’s and Wlodkowski’s strategies is that Keller performs the analysis of his audience before designing motivation…[so it can have] a better fit for the learners. On the other hand, Wlodkowski does not require an implicit stage of audience analysis, thus allowing the motivation to fit the instruction” (Lowery & Young, 1992, p. 41).

Time Continuum Model of Motivation, Example 1: It is the purpose of dental hygiene education to educate learner’s, who have little to no background in the field of healthcare, so that after two years of specialized training, they will be equipped to enter the dental hygiene profession as caregivers. One important concept that all dental professionals must grasp is the nature of the chain of infection. During every instance of patient care, the potential for cross contamination of the dental operatory and for contamination of the dental operator is extremely high. At the beginning of their first semester, long before they enter the clinical facilities, first year dental hygiene students are given a lecture on the chain of asepsis, the measures needed to protect themselves and patients from contamination. Because there is little to no margin for error in implementing the chain of asepsis, students often shown a particular video at the beginning of instruction, called, “If Saliva Were Red” (O’Keefe, 2015). In this film, a patient is given a medication to stain the saliva in the mouth. As the dentist and his assistant provide routine dental care, the film captures the red liquid being carried throughout the operatory—on various surfaces, on the patient, and on both dental professionals. This short film is legendary in dental hygiene education for its shock value. Students are repulsed and revolted, which creates a very memorable message about the significance of proper aseptic technique. This important lecture is typically considered to be a very boring topic, but showing this video at the beginning makes students much more attentive to the minute details of infection control.

The placement of this film in the lecture, and in the curriculum, is an application of the Time Continuum Model of Motivation, by Wlodkowski, who advocates using the time continuum of instruction as a guide for selection of particular motivational strategies. In this case, placement of the film at the beginning is a strategy to create a positive attitude toward an unpopular topic. In addition, this is an appeal to the feelings of the learner in order to create a positive attitude toward the instruction and to demonstrate the value of learning the material (Lowery & Young, 1992, p. 32; Brophy, 2010).

Time Continuum Model of Motivation, Example 2: Dental hygiene students receive hundreds of hours of instruction pertaining to various disciplines within the field of dentistry. The dental radiology course is both didactic and clinical in nature. Students are more apt to attend to the clinical instruction since they see direct application to patient care. The didactic portion can be more difficult in terms of engaging learners, but the content is extremely important in relation to passing the Dental Hygiene National Board examination, which allows students to apply for a state or regional license to practice dental hygiene.

The following is an real-life example of the use of a stimulation strategy to engage waning attention, in the middle of a lecture full of complicated and difficult concepts: During a particularly tedious lesson on the principles of shadow casting, Dr. Sean Hubar, a dead-wringer for Woody Allen, unexpectedly injected humor with a prop in order to explain the concept “penumbra” and “object to film distance.” Dr. Hubar retrieved a gigantic foam cowboy hat from below the slide carousel and placed it on his head. As he marched toward the screen, amidst uproarious laughter, the shadow that he and his cowboy hat cast became both smaller and darker, with more distinct edges. The lesson was, the shorter the distance between the object (hat) and the screen (or between the tooth and the x-ray film), the more accurate and clear the shadow (or dental radiograph) becomes. Since the middle of a lecture can be a time when students disengage and lose motivation, Wlodkowski suggests that this is the optimal time to employ a stimulation strategy such as using humor, spontaneity, and props (Brophy, 2010, p. 384).


Brophy, J. E. (2010). Motivating students to learn. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/104334427/motivating-students-to-learn

Francom, G., & Reeves T.C. (2010) John M. Keller: Significant contributor to the field of educational technology. [PDF file]. Educational Technology 50(3), 56-58. Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8596b6_52421b72d50c08350906269932a6f36c.pdf

Hodges, C. (2004). Designing to motivate: Motivational techniques to incorporate in e-learning experiences. [PDF file]. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/2.3.1.pdf

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. [PDF file]. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10. Retrieved from http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/8620/mod_resource/content/1/Keller%20Development%20%20Use%20of%20ARCS.pdf

Keller, J. M. (n.d.). ARCS Design Process. Retrieved September 07, 2017, from https://www.arcsmodel.com/arcs-design-process?utm_campaign=elearningindustry.com&utm_medium=link&utm_source=%2Farcs-model-of-motivation.

Keller, J.M. & Deimann, M. (2017). Motivation, volition and performance. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 259-228). New York, NY: Pearson.

Longfield, J. (2015). Integrate motivation planning into lesson planning. Teaching Academy, 34. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/teaching-academy/34

Lowery, B., & Young, D. (1992). Designing motivational instruction for developmental education. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 9(1), 29-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42801846

O’Keefe, J. [Dr. John O’Keefe]. (2015, March 4). If Saliva Were Red from OSAP [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/eZnuqBc-NfI

 

Re: Simple vs. Complex Learning Outcomes

A response to Chapter 6, “Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

Select two instructional goals that represent simple versus complex learning outcomes. How would the learning theories discussed in this chapter be employed to develop instruction to teach the goals you have selected?  How would the instruction differ in each case?  Would one or another theory be more applicable to one goal versus the other?  Why?

Answer

When designing instruction for students, it is important to begin with the end in mind. Setting instructional goals points to the path that the learners and teachers should follow. Examining those goals provides a window into the learning processes and theories that instructional designers are utilizing to elicit learning outcomes. In fact, the theories and the learning processes are the path to get learners to that end point. In the following paragraphs, two instructional goals for dental hygiene education, one simple and one complex, will be examined and the underlying principles of instruction and learning will be highlighted.

The Simple Instructional Goal: By the end of the first month of school, first-year dental hygiene students can label intraoral landmarks on a diagram and properly describe the normal anatomy found there.

One of the underlying principles at work in this simple instructional goal is the Behavioral Learning Theory, where knowledge exists outside of the learner and must be pursued (Driscoll, 2017, pp. 53-54). In this case the student must memorize a discrete set of intraoral landmarks and their location in the mouth along with the standard descriptors of healthy, normal anatomy. The memorization is a criterion-reference activity, a matter of learning a defined set of terms and relating that information to a fixed standard (the intraoral cavity), where multiple choice and fill in the blank quizzes test recall and students’ answered are compared to the specified standard (Reiser, 2017, p. 14). Instructors, as the experts assign readings with diagrams, then give lectures with slides, then give quizzes to test learning, and finally allow students’ the opportunity to practice in the pre-clinical setting, providing feedback (formative evaluation) as necessary. Students’ correct answers are reinforced by the stimuli of high scores on quizzes and positive verbal feedback in pre-clinical setting. Students repeat the same identification/labeling exercises, either in written or verbal form, multiple times, until it they are well versed in this basic, yet critical skill for the profession of dental hygiene (Driscoll, 2017, p. 54).

The influence of the Cognitive Information Processing Theory on this instructional goal is readily apparent, as well. Here the information exists outside of the learner and is the stimulus, or input, that triggers internal processing required for learning to occur (Driscoll, 2017, p. 54). The activities first appeal to the learner through sensory memory, and as the input progresses (visually) from diagrams to slides to live patients. Then the information moves to the short-term memory and finally to the long-term memory (p. 54). As an aside, this is where the Schema Theory is also applied in that schemas develop as learners increase in familiarity from repeated visual exposures to the material until what was foreign becomes commonplace. Schemas are also used as learners move from learning vocabulary to classifying tissues (e.g. soft vs. hard tissues, keratinized vs. non-keratinized) and categorizing anatomical structures in terms of their purposes (e.g. the different salivary glands, the assorted tissues that compose the periodontium, and the various types of papillae on the tongue) (p. 55). Returning to Cognitivism, the dental hygiene students receive feedback at multiple intervals during the learning process to allow them to ascertain the correctness of their answers and to modify their performance if necessary (p. 54). Finally, information processing is facilitated for learners due to practice in a variety of settings (p.54).

The Complex Instructional Goal: By the end of the first semester, first-year dental hygiene students will use information gathered in the initial oral exam and medical history to develop a dental hygiene treatment plan for a patient requiring quadrant scaling and root planning.

Once again, the instructional goal is sustained by practices associated with Cognitive theory. This goal draws on all previously learned information where leaners must retrieve encoded knowledge about health and disease and then use critical thinking skills to develop a plan and schedule appropriate treatment (Driscoll, 2017, p. 54). The clinical environment requires the highest level of problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, which are higher order cognitive skills (pp. 57, 62).

In addition, Constructivist influences are woven into this learning process in that these are live patients, people with real health concerns and dental disease; this is “authentic performance in a realistic setting” (Driscoll, 2017, p. 63). Students are practicing the profession of dental hygiene, as novices under the “cognitive apprenticeship” of their professional dental hygienist instructors (pp. 62, 73). In the clinical environment, instructors move from their classroom position of “sage on the stage” to a more collaborative relationship of “guide on the side” (pp. 57, 61). This shift also demonstrates Situated Learning Theory where the dental hygiene student moves to the place of performing the same tasks and skills that the experts in the subject matter do, where learners “participate in the practices of the community” (p. 55). Creation of a treatment plan for patients is authentic to the discipline of dental hygiene and allows learners to “reflect on what and how they are learning,” another aspect of constructivism (pp. 57, 63). Assessment of the instructional goal is indeed complex because patient care, in a clinical setting, is unlikely to reveal “uniform level of accomplishment among learners.” The subject of learners’ study and work is the patient, who cannot be standardized. This means, for a learner, every patient (learning experience) is different due to variances in terms of level of difficulty (pertaining to deposit removal), degree of disease, and complication of management (pain, physical limitations, psychosocial factors). For the same reason, it is impossible to standardize the learning experience in the clinical setting from one student to another (p. 57). Obstacles such as these are considered in the planning of instruction, and the solution to this problem is the multiplicity of learning experiences.


Driscoll, M. P. (2017). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.52-60). New York, NY: Pearson.

Reiser, R. A.  (2017). A history of instructional design and technology. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.8-22). New York, NY: Pearson.

A Comprehensive Evaluation Model

Evaluation is an essential element in the process of designing and implementing educational and training programs. The analysis of a program’s successes or failures allows for improvement in the learning and performance of individuals as well as greater efficiency for the organization (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, pp. 87, 91). Models should assess both formative and summative evaluation (p.87). With this in mind, what follows is a proposal for a new order for evaluation, which borrows from Stufflebeams’ influential CIPP model, Rossi’s question-based Five-Domain Evaluation Model, and Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation, Levels 3 and 4 (pp. 88, 92).

In this, The Comprehensive Evaluation Model, there are three stages: Foundational Considerations, Procedural Concerns, and Outcomes Valuations. The three stages provide opportunities for both formative assessment, which evaluates the process of the program and implements improvements as needed, and summative assessment, which is concerned with evaluation in any area other than development (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 87).

The first stage of the Comprehensive Evaluation Model is Foundational Considerations, which begins with context evaluation, derived from CIPP and Rossi’s Five-Domains; this is a needs assessment to determine if the program is necessary (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p.88). The second step, like CIPP’s Input Evaluation, is concerned with whether the available resources and support are adequate to implement the program (p. 88). And the third and final step considers the concept of the program, like Rossi’s Theory Assessment, analyzing the potential success of the overall program concept in an effort to avoid theory failure (p.88).

The Procedural Concerns portion of this new model deals primarily with formative evaluation where the development of the program and the process of implementation are deliberated, looking for measures that might improve effectiveness (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 88).

Finally, the Outcomes Valuation is a summative evaluation focusing on the overall success of the product (i.e. the program). Considerations here include an implementation assessment, asking Rossi’s question, “Was the program implemented properly, according to the program plan?” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 88). What follows is an impact study, evaluating whether or not the learner behavior was changed, as intended by the program. This evaluation investigates using Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model, Levels 3 and 4. At this point, evaluators must determine (1) if learners can apply learned concepts to the necessary arena (workplace or classroom) and (2) if the program implemented change that improved the performance of the organization (p.92.). All of these factors must be weighed on the balance with an efficiency assessment, like Rossi’s, to determine the return on investment or the cost effectiveness of the program (pp. 88-89).

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Re: The Seven Characteristics of Instructional Design

A response to Chapter 3, “Characteristics of Foundational Instructional Design Models,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

According to chapter 3, Instructional Design:

  1. is a student-centered process
  2. is a goal-oriented process
  3. is a creative process
  4. focuses on meaningful experiences
  5. assumes outcomes are measurable. reliable, and valid
  6. is an empirical, iterative, and self-correcting process
  7. typically is a team effort

You have recently been hired by a large plumbing company to design a course to train recent high school graduates how to perform some basic plumbing skills. Describe how you might use each of the seven characteristics of instructional design that were described in chapter 3 to help you design an effective course.

Answer

For the group of recent high school graduates in need of basic plumbing skills, the program of training must be student centered. Students will come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. Baseline knowledge of plumbing and hardware should be assessed to determine how familiar students are with the subject. In order to develop this evaluation, the instructional design team will consult with subject matter experts. Using this preliminary assessment, student groups can be formed so that students who are less knowledgeable may be paired with those who are more knowledgeable. A collaborative environment will encourage learning and personal development in students, with some leading or teaching and others growing their knowledge and developing trust in the team.

Teams of students will have very specific goals and be given measurable standards of performance. Though the teams will work apart from one another, the teams will be encouraged to help one another in a spirit of general cooperation. This sort of setting is meant to create a sense of community, as might be found in a workplace setting or a neighborhood. The skills, in terms of plumbing knowledge and teamwork, are meaningful life skills that students can share with others in the future. Individually, students must be able to perform proficiently to the given standards, repeatedly demonstrating the correct procedures according to the rubric specified in the course syllabus. Smaller, more frequent skill evaluations, both formal and informal, will be given throughout the course.

The design of the course will rely on the expertise of subject matter experts, technicians, and technology developers. Subject matter experts, the professional plumbers, will help determine the order of instruction, creation of learning experiences, and specifications of the learning objectives. Technicians will be instrumental in providing practical resources by constructing a series of sinks and toilets in the classroom to allow students to work simultaneously, in real-world situations, with immediate feedback from instructors and other students. Technology developers will create content-rich modules, using recorded lectures from experts, computer simulations of skills, and live close-up video demonstrations so all the students can watch in real-time as the on-site instructor performs important tasks.

The initial drafts of the course outline and the construction of classroom will be reviewed by subject matter experts at each phase of production. A small cohort, three teams of students, will test the modules of the training, providing feedback and allowing for correction, before the course is finalized and a full class of students is accepted. Each course will end with student and teacher evaluation of the course so that changes can be made to improve shortcomings before beginning a new class.


Branch, R. M. (2017). Characteristics of foundational instructional design models. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.8-22). New York, NY: Pearson.

Re: ADDIE, SAM, and Pebble-in-the-Pond Models

A response to Chapter 4, “SAM and Pebble-in-the-Pond: Two Alternatives to the ADDIE Model,” in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

Question

Compare and contrast the ADDIE, SAM, and Pebble-in-the-Pond models. Discuss strengths and weaknesses of each model. You are encouraged to utilize texts as well as graphs to share your information.

Answer

Unfortunately, some of ADDIE’s strengths are connected to its weaknesses. Because of the sequential order, an error or misjudgment at the beginning is often carried through the process. The documentation for this model is laborious and produces a written plan that is essentially an abstract concept until it the implementation phase, at which point major revisions of the project could be costly, if not impossible. The written plans of the instructional designer are subject to misinterpretation by others and the proposal is a description of what to do, but not necessarily how to do it. In all of this, it is easy to lose sight of the learner in lieu of focusing on the instruction (Branch, 2017, p. 24).

SAM (Successive Approximation Model) is one of the instructional design alternatives to the ADDIE model. It is a process model that relies on successive throwaway prototypes to communicate suggestions visually and provide opportunities for early and frequent formative testing of functionality (with live learners). As opposed to ADDIE’s document-heavy, abstract process, SAM’s use of prototypes throughout the project allows troubleshooting from the very beginning and makes for clearer communication of ideas and feedback between the designer and the stakeholders. SAM also develops preliminary plans for all of the content, from the beginning. Operating in this manner makes the SAM model very time-efficient, and therefore more cost-effective, in comparison to ADDIE (Allen & Merrill, 2017, pp. 33-35).

Above is the more basic SAM, which is a two-phased approach for simpler projects. The three-phased approach, for more complex projects, breaks the second phase into design and development phases. A key strength of the SAM approach is the Savvy Start where the design team meets (including stakeholders) to brainstorm the initial prototypes, constantly analyzing for weaknesses by asking themselves, “Why shouldn’t we do this?” From the outset, the team is committed to flexibility by generating multiple disposable iterations. Obviously SAM is a very creative process that keeps the end in mind from the beginning. The weakness of SAM is the possibility of getting stuck in the cycle of revision and having trouble finalizing the product (Allen & Merrill, 2017, pp. 33-35).

PEBBLE IN THE POND is another design alternative to ADDIE that is a problem-centered approach where the problem, something learners must solve, is the catalyst for instructional design. This model begins with the assumption that some initial evaluation and analysis has occurred and that the solution to the problem is instruction instead of some other option (Allen & Merrill, 2017, p. 35).

In this illustration, each concentric ring represents a step in the process of instructional design, where the problem initiates the process. The “pebble” represents the problem the student must be able to solve. The pebble is thrown into the “instructional pond,” causing a ripple that begins the design process.

  • The first ripple is the development of a prototype that illustrates the problem and how students can solve it (Merrill, 2013).
  • The second ripple is the creation and demonstration of a progressive series of prototypes that illustrate increasingly complex problem solving for students (Merrill, 2013).
  • Ripple number three is comprised of determination and demonstration of the specific skills required to respond to the problems as seen in the progression of prototypes (Merrill, 2002).
  • The fourth ripple is development of a structural framework for the problems in the progression using specific, task-centered instructional strategies and peer collaboration (Allen & Merrill, 2017, p. 35).
  • Ripple five is finalization of the prototype. Necessary components include design of “interface, navigation, and supplemental instructional materials” (Allen & Merrill, 2017, p. 35; Merrill, 2009).
  • The sixth ripple is the evaluation phase where data is collected to evaluate the course (formative evaluation) in order to make revisions to the prototype (Allen & Merrill, 2017, p. 35).

Unlike ADDIE, the Pebble model is very student-centered and learning-focused because it begins with the problem that the student must solve and demonstrates the skills necessary for students to succeed. Use of prototypes throughout the process avoids some other pitfalls of ADDIE such as inefficient use of time due to laborious documentation and miscommunication within the design team due to the abstract nature of a written plan. On the other hand, the Pebble model is limited since it lacks “the important steps of production, implementation, and summative evaluation” that are essential to the overall instructional design process (Allen & Merrill, 2017, p. 35).


Allen, M. W. & Merrill, M. D.  (2017). SAM and Pebble-in-the-Pond: Two alternatives to the ADDIE model. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.31-41). New York, NY: Pearson.

Branch, R. M. (2017). Characteristics of foundational instructional design models. In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp.23-30). New York, NY: Pearson.