Activity 2: Exploring Design Models

The formal use (or study) of instructional design models is new to me in an educational context which includes BC public schools and the college system. I have been in I recognize structures and frameworks based on what I now know as instructional design, but as a teacher I have never worked specifically with an instructional designer. I have been involved at times with curriculum development which is more of a mechanical task to update courses. It is in hindsight that I am beginning to see instances in my career where instructional design has been implemented for course work, inadvertently at times, purposefully in others. In the 1980’s and 1990’s I now recognize the emphasis on behaviourist approaches involving a focus on subject content, standardization, and quantitative evaluation. Later in my career (up to to 2019) I have seen the shift to more constructive, open ended, holistic approaches (CMTN, 2020) at least in areas that I am familiar with—the social sciences. However, the principles of behaviourism relevant to ID presented by Ertmer and Newby (2013) are still being used in self-paced courses at Coast Mountain College (CMTN).

It is only recently that “the critical link” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 44) between theory and design for instruction, has been made apparent in the designs for instruction of Experiential Place-based Learning (EPBL). Additionally, an introduction to Team-based Learning (TBL) in 2017 was a gamechanger in my effort to become a better instructor. TBL has roots in constructivist theory including Vygotsky’s theory of learning, specifically his zone of proximal development (Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2014).

I was interested to read Ertmers’ & Newbys’ (2013) position that when deciding on a design model it is important to consider the instructors’ role, the type of learners who will receive it, and the learning problems that may be evident (p. 43-44). My initial thinking is that these decisions are contained in the analysis and evaluation sections of the ADDIE process. If ADDIE “forms the basic underlying process” (Dousay, 2017) could TBL which is framed as a methodology by Sibley & Ostafichuk (2014) also be considered a model? The focus is on constructivism so perhaps it would better fall into LD. The structure ensures reproducibility, yet learning outcomes are open ended. In terms of innovation. TBL has recently been proven efficacious in an online environment (Guest Blogger, 2019) due to considerable technological improvements in online communication systems.

References

Coast Mountain College. (2020). Why choose CMTN. https://www.coastmountaincollege.ca/admissions/future-students/why-choose-cmtn

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.) https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspectivePerformance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Guest Bogger. (2019, May 6). Meet CognaLearn: Physical and online team-based learning classrooms. LearnLaunch. https://learnlaunch.com/meet-cognalearn-physical-and-online-team-based-learning-classrooms/

Sibley, J., Ostafichuk, P. (2014). Getting started with team-based learning. Sterling Virginia, Stylus Publishing.