{"id":478,"date":"2018-11-18T14:20:36","date_gmt":"2018-11-18T19:20:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0055\/?p=478"},"modified":"2018-11-18T14:59:03","modified_gmt":"2018-11-18T19:59:03","slug":"u1a1-addie-it-is-what-you-make-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0055\/u1a1-addie-it-is-what-you-make-it\/","title":{"rendered":"U1(A1). ADDIE: It is what you make it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since the focus of this week’s activities is designing learning, it is important to distinguish learning design from instructional design. George Veletsianos in LRNT 523 commented in one of my assignments that “learning is not something to design, but it is a process that happens at the learner level as a result of a variety of activities”. Regarding this observation, instructional design (ID) models\u00a0are used when designing a training program which is comprised of learning activities; this\u00a0is where learning design makes more sense to be applied, meaning designing activities geared towards learning. The argument I’m making find Thomas (2010) in agreement\u00a0who states that all ID models include the notion of “classroom” setting at the delivery level. Specifically, Thomas argues that educators take into consideration the best conditions under which learning happens and focus on the needs and abilities of the individual learner by developing\u00a0effective learning activities. However, both Thomas (2010) and Bates (2014) criticize the traditional design models (such as the ADDIE) for being prescriptive and rigid by disregarding learner differences in the way they learn, especially in the digital age, where technology-mediated\u00a0learning requires a constructivist rather than an objectivist learning approach. For me, this raises the main question:<\/p>\n