The readings in unit 3 really intrigued me. Specifically, the article by Ertmer and Newby prompted me to recall the foundation of my introduction to instructional design and how revisiting theoretical approaches could help to underpin my design intentions moving forward. In particular, Ertmer and Newby\u2019s concise explanation of each approach (behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism) and examples of a situational application is nicely summarized here.
\n\u2026a behavioral approach can e\ufb00ectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where de\ufb01ned facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-de\ufb01ned problems through re\ufb02ection-in-action. (2013, p. 60)<\/p>\n
The Moore article, about the Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact (TAPPA) process further expanded on my experience of the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation (ADDIE) model that I\u2019ve used over the years. Despite its limitations, the ADDIE model has enabled me to maintain a sense of consistency and structure in my instructional design approach. I\u2019ve always used it in a non-prescriptive, and non-linear fashion. Instead, I\u2019ve concentrated on the importance of the analysis and evaluation phases to anchor my approach while incorporating the design, development and implementation phases as moving pieces of the overall puzzle. The TAPPA process also maintains a structured approach, but in a more modernistic, fluid,\u00a0 and iterative manner. As Moore (2016) states, \u201cThe TAPPA Process is adaptive and responsive and provides the basic structure a novice instructional design practitioner or instructor needs and the complexity and flexibility an experienced practitioner seeks\u201d (p. 431).<\/p>\n
So, I\u2019m curious if either of these articles resonated with any of you? Or if you had other ideas that you wanted to share and explore in this blog post? I would love to hear them!<\/p>\n
References
\nErtmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. doi:10.1002\/piq.21143<\/p>\n
Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process.
\nTechTrends, 60(5), 425-432. Retrieved from https:\/\/link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca\/article\/10.1007\/s11528-016-0094-8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The readings in unit 3 really intrigued me. Specifically, the article by Ertmer and Newby prompted me to recall the foundation of my introduction to instructional design and how revisiting theoretical approaches could help to underpin my design intentions moving forward. In particular, Ertmer and Newby\u2019s concise explanation of each approach (behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism) … <\/p>\n