The 3rd Unit of LRNT 524 focuses on applying innovation within our own context. This post will provide a few comments on some of the readings.
Back in Unit 1, we were prompted to read portions of Crichton and Carter’s (2017) toolkit, and for this Unit, I dove into the remainder. I have an appreciation for the easy, yet rich, digestible nature of the content. The abundant links took me down the rabbit hole on several occasions, getting the cogs turning in my head.
The entire document touched on too much for me to cover every topic here. The overall feel was one of creativity, exploration, problem-finding, empathizing, learning-by-doing, rogue design-thinking situated in a human-centered, socially-conscious context. I was especially fond of the exposition on Carol Dweck’s growth mindset – the embracing of learning and innovation through trials and mistakes (p. 17). The categories of assessment also caught my attention. Crichton & Carter distinguished between assessment of learning (such as grading at the end of a unit or course); assessment as learning (ongoing, informal modifications like coaching); and assessment for learning (teachers use ongoing evaluation and adjust their techniques and activities to support learning), (p.28). I judge the explanation to be a neat-and-tidy discernment which I had never thought of before – a welcome, breath-of-fresh-air when juxtaposed next to more complex and convoluted concepts that are sometimes encountered in heavy learning environments.
After Thomas’s (2010) overwhelming overview of dozens of instructional design models (a Unit 1 reading), Moore (2016) gifted us with some focused clarity on one model – the TAPPA process (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact). While teaching the readers about the TAPPA model, Moore touched on the ADDIE and Dick and Carey models to describe the borrowed aspects from these earlier, grandparent models, which paved the way for the making of TAPPA. The author’s stated intention for TAPPA is to serve as a resource for other instructional designers, a tool with an adaptive process of varying complexity and flexibility. Moore depicted the TAPPA process on a non-linear, double-helix continuum.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) also made use of the concept of a continuum by placing three theoretical frameworks on a spectrum alongside a low-to-high-knowledge continuum. The authors familiarized the readers with comparisons of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism utilizing a delightfully organized and intelligible 7-question format to facilitate understanding through differentiation.
For me, understanding is facilitated when I have the opportunity to apply learning, try out new skills, exercise empathy, and spread my innovation wings within my own context.
References
Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013 Online). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).