{"id":182,"date":"2018-01-10T11:19:01","date_gmt":"2018-01-10T19:19:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/?p=182"},"modified":"2018-01-10T11:19:01","modified_gmt":"2018-01-10T19:19:01","slug":"creation-of-an-isd-model-unit-3-reflections-on-readings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/creation-of-an-isd-model-unit-3-reflections-on-readings\/","title":{"rendered":"Creation of an ISD model – Unit 3 (Reflections on Readings)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Figure
Figure. McKenney and Reeves (2012) Generic Model for Design Research. Reprinted from Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) Special Issue 2015 – Call for Papers by Z. Merchant, 12 January 2015, retrieved from http:\/\/aect.site-ym.com\/blogpost\/855115\/206324\/Australasian-Journal-of-Educational-Technology-AJET–Special-Issue-2015–Call-for-Papers Copyright 2015 by Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I believe investigating and understanding new instructional design processes and the way they are developed can only help instructional designers in their implementation of instructional design.\u00a0 \u201cInstructional design practitioners should select a design model that enables them to reach a desired goal\u201d (Moore, 2016, p.\u00a0 426).\u00a0 Moore (2016) presents both a new instructional design process and the process that he used to develop it.\u00a0 When describing the process of creating TAPPA, Moore (2016) states, \u201cBy engaging in design-based research, one can create an intervention, which Shattuck and Anderson (2013) define as an object, activity or process that is designed as a possible solution to address the identified problem (p. 187). \u00a0Sharing this intervention in the form of a process or theory can make it a resource for other ID practitioners\u201d (p. 427).\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

The TAPPA process developed by Moore (2016, p. 426) encourages the practice of iterative prototyping, producing mock-ups and storyboards for review early in the design process.\u00a0 It \u201cstarts with the \u2018target\u2019 stage \u2013 to anticipate the desired outcomes and then work backwards to determine what would be needed to reach those learning objectives\u201d (Moore, 2016, p. 427).\u00a0 Similar to pretty much all models, an analysis of the learner and required objectives comes first.\u00a0 The second step, Accomplishment, determines how to assess learning (Moore, 2016, p. 430).\u00a0 The third step, Past, incorporates lessons learned from previous courses (Moore, 2016, p. 430) and the fourth step, Prototype, involves creating, sharing and receiving feedback on a prototype solution (Moore, 2016, pp. 430-431).\u00a0 \u00a0The final step is Artifact (Moore, 2016, p. 431) which is the implementation of the solution.\u00a0 \u00a0Based on the description provided, it appeared that the TAPPA process was very similar to other instructional design processes. I would be interested to see a complete example of an instructional design process using TAPPA to better understand the differences between this model and other ISD models. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Design and construction followed the\u00a0Generic\u00a0Model for Design\u00a0Research as\u00a0depicted in Figure.\u00a0 The\u00a0descriptions of the process were a bit confusing as it seems like the process was evaluated during the design phase before it was created in the construction phase.\u00a0 When describing activity completed during the design phase, Moore (2016) only discusses analysis of feedback from webinars designed using the TAPPA Process (pp. 427-428).\u00a0 Then Moore (2016) states, \u201cThus, the author used the results from the design part of this phase and created the five-step TAPPA Process\u201d (p. 428).\u00a0 Based on the flow of this design process, it seems only appropriate for something that is already prototyped and being used. Perhaps the idea of the TAPPA process was conceived outside of the process described and then the process was used to improve upon it. <\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the parts of the article I found particularly interesting was Moore\u2019s description of microlearning which is a different application of the term than I am familiar with. \u00a0\u201cThe TAPPA Process is ideally suited for micro-learning tasks that together comprise a macro-learning task, such as a full program of study.\u201d (Moore, 2016, p. 431).\u00a0 This description to me indicates that you are using micro-learning as building blocks to create a complete course or program. This lead me to further explore how microlearning is defined by other researchers and whether or not it is normally approached this way. \u201cWhen it comes to mircrolearning, there is one thing Learning professionals can agree upon:\u00a0 There is no definition consensus or agreement about the application of the term\u201d (Tipton, 2017, p. 58).\u00a0 Hug (2010) also describes many definitions of microlearning (p. 49) and four models explaining how components of microlearning can relate (p. 53).\u00a0 Standalone microlearning content such as Flocbulary (Hug, 2010, p. 50-51) is cited as well as examples of integrated microlearning and gamified microlearning (Hug, 2010, p. 51).\u00a0 Moore (2016) could be considering microlearning elements to be loosely coupled together as described according to Luhmann\u2019s medium\/form distinction model (Hug, 2010, p. 53). In this case, the loosely coupled elements together combine to form a course or program. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Another thing that I would have liked to see in the article is a more clear comparison of TAPPA with other ISD processes. The author compares student feedback from webinars produced with the final version of TAPPA with webinars produced with initial versions of TAPPA and shows and improvement.\u00a0 However, no comparisons are made to student feedback from webinars produced using other methods.\u00a0 Other metrics such as the time to produce the webinar are also not provided.\u00a0 From this, it is unclear why the author believes that the TAPPA method is superior for this application. It makes it difficult to argue that it is in fact superior as this is not substantiated.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Overall, I found it interesting to read the article and see how they used design-based research as well as learn about a different ISD model.\u00a0 I would be interested in more information about the ISD model itself. Has anyone found any other sources describing the TAPPA model or use of it? <\/strong><\/p>\n

References:\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Hug, T. (2010). Mobile learning as\u2019 microlearning\u2019: Conceptual considerations towards enhancements of didactic thinking. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 2(4), 47-57.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Merchant, Z. (2015, January 12). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) Special Issue 2015 – Call for Papers. [weblog]. Retrieved from http:\/\/aect.site-ym.com\/blogpost\/855115\/206324\/Australasian-Journal-of-Educational-Technology-AJET–Special-Issue-2015–Call-for-Papers<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425-432.<\/strong>Tipton, S. (2017). Maximizing microlearning. Training,<\/em> 54<\/em>(3), 58-58.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tipton, S. (2017). Maximizing microlearning.\u00a0 Training, 54 <\/em>(3), p. 58.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I believe investigating and understanding new instructional design processes and the way they are developed can only help instructional designers in their implementation of instructional design.\u00a0 \u201cInstructional design practitioners should select a design model that enables them to reach a desired goal\u201d (Moore, 2016, p.\u00a0 426).\u00a0 Moore (2016) presents both a new instructional design process […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[54,53,50],"class_list":["post-182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt524","tag-generic-model-for-design-research","tag-instructional-design-process","tag-microlearning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":184,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182\/revisions\/184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0037\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}