Month: November 2017

This week’s readings dug a little deeper in terms of instructional design and what designers should being keeping in mind when doing so. Crichton and Carter (2017) mention how the mindset of the student is extremely important and reference the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s suggestions on the factors that learning environments should incorporate. They are that learning environments need to be 1) learner-centred, 2) structured and well-designed, 3) profoundly personalized, 4) inclusive, and 5) social (p. 18). These factors in my mind are straightforward and build upon what I know previously to be aspects to what a successful learning environment (whether it be online or not) should look like. The introduction of empathic design by Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen (2014) on the other hand throws me a curveball.

As a researcher I should be quite comfortable with learning theories. In reality though, I feel most grounded with concepts that can be practically seen. The ideas behind problem-based learning or inquiry-based learning have the core concept of trying to find a solution to a problem. Simple enough. Empathic design looks at human behaviour and tries to map learning to those actions (at least in my understanding). Through the reading I realize that it is much more complicated than that. “Empathic designers studied how people make sense of emotions, talk about them, and share them” (Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014, p. 68). Perhaps it is the abstract nature of empathic design that eludes me. I recognize that everyone is different and personalized learning leads to successful learning (as mentioned above). Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen talk a lot about the research into empathic design, but I guess I would like to see a practical example of how it is incorporated. I feel empathic design is always at the back of our minds when we think about learning environments, but to put my finger down on an aspect that is clearly empathy influenced is a challenge that I need to overcome.

 

References

Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.

Coming into the course LRNT524 – Innovation, Design and Learning Environments, I had my apprehensions as someone who had no experience with instructional design. As a researcher by day (and sometimes at night), I dealt with more of the evaluative piece at the end of a course. I’ve had little contact with the instructional designers who develop said courses. I suppose I’m at the E stage (Evaluate) for the ADDIE model as described by Bates (2014).

It’s definitely interesting to see the whole process from beginning to end. While I had known that there were a multitude of methods in designing instruction, the sheer of amount of theories and approaches have been overwhelming. The ADDIE model seems straightforward enough, where you Analyze what’s needed, Design learning objectives to meet the needs, Develop content that achieve the learning objectives, Implement the delivery of the content, and finally Evaluate whether the design is successful or not. The methodology is simple, but may not apply to every situation. Thomas (2010) introduces other methods such as the universal systems model, rapid prototyping, Gagné’s nine events of instruction, the Dick and Carey model, Smith and Ragan’s model, Merill’s Models of Instructional Design, and the Dynamic ID model among others. All of these models have some form of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, but vary in the way and order that these processes are enacted.

The universal systems model has an iterative process which gathers feedback from the output and continues to allow altered input. Gagné’s nine events of instruction splits up different events (e.g., stimulation of past learning, providing opportunity for students to show learning, etc.) into pre-instructional, instructional, and post-instructional phases. These methods very greatly in specificity and only the designer can determine which method would work best for their design challenge. I believe a challenge for myself will be to see what are the advantages to each model and under what scenario would each work best. As Bates (2014) points out, ADDIE “does not provide guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose between different technologies, or what assessment strategies to use”. I would ask a question from one step back and wonder what are the guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose an instructional design model? Luckily we are at the beginning of the course, so hopefully as we progress (and with more reading) the answer will become clearer.

 

References

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/

Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Botswana). Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/04Chap%203_Learning%20and%20instructional%20systems%20design.pdf