Instructional Design & Technology Connections: July 2006

Friday, July 28, 2006

A Taxonomy of ID Models

“Why should we have models? Models help us conceptualize representations of reality. A model is a simple representation of more complex forms, processes, and functions of physical phenomena or ideas” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 17).

ID models are useful for ID professionals to guide their practice. However, with the proliferation of variations in ID theories, applications, and related models since the sixties, how does one select a specific model for a particular instructional situation? There have been many attempts to compare and classify various ID models. Notably, Gustafson and Branch (1997) proposed a taxonomy of ID models with three categories: (1) classroom orientation ID models, (2) product orientation ID models, and (3) system orientation ID models. The taxonomy is based on the following characteristics/assumptions (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 29) associated with each model:

Typical output in terms of amount of instruction prepared
Resources committed to the development effort
Whether it is a team or individual effort
ID skill and experience of the individual or team
Whether most instructional materials will be selected from existing resources or represent original design and production
Amount of preliminary (front-end) analysis conducted
Anticipated technological complexity of the learning environment
Amount of tryout and revision conducted, and
Amount of dissemination and follow-up occurring after development

Classroom Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

Typical output - One or a few hours of instruction
Resources committed to the development - Very low
Team or individual effort - Individual
ID skill/experience - Low
Emphasis on development or selection - Select
Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment - Low
Technological complexity - Low
Amount of tryout and revision – Low to medium
Amount of distribution/dissemination - None

Examples:

The Gerlach and Ely Model (1980)
The Kemp, Morrison and Ross Model (1994)
The Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino Model (1996) (i.e., The ASSURE Model: Analyze learners, State objectives, Select media and Materials, Utilize materials, Require learner participation, and Evaluation/review).
The Reiser and Dick Model (1996)

Product Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

Typical output - Self instructional or instructor delivered package
Resources committed to the development - High
Team or individual effort – Usually a team
ID skill/experience - High
Emphasis on development or selection - Develop
Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment – Low to medium
Technological complexity - Medium to high
Amount of tryout and revision – Very high
Amount of distribution/dissemination - High

Examples:

The Van Patten Model (1989)
The Leshin, Pollock and Reigeluth Model (1990)
The Bergman and Moore Model (1990)

System Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

Typical output - Course or entire curriculum
Resources committed to the development - High
Team or individual effort – Team
ID skill/experience - High/very high
Emphasis on development or selection - Develop
Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment – Very high
Technological complexity - Medium to high
Amount of tryout and revision – Medium to high
Amount of distribution/dissemination - Medium to high

Examples:

The IDI (Instructional Development Institute) Model (National Special Media Institute, 1971)
The IPISD Model (Branson, 1975, Interservices Procedures for Instructional Systems Development)
The Diamond Model (Robert Diamond, 1989, 1997). Designing and improving courses and curricula: A practical guide
The Smith and Ragan Model (1993)
The Gentry IPDM Model (Gentry, 1994, Instructional Project Development and Management Model)
The Dick and Carey Model (1996). The systematic design of instruction

As suggested by Gustafson and Branch, “A taxonomy of ID models can help clarify the underlying assumptions of each model, and help identify the conditions under which each might be most appropriately applied” (p. 27). A summary of Gustafson and Branch’s taxonomy and relevant references can be found in this ERIC report: Survey of Instructional Development Models. ERIC Digest.

Reference: Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models, third edition. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

What is Design?

What is Design?
According to Webster...

de·sign (d-zn)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs.
v. tr.

To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent.
To formulate a plan for; devise.
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect.
To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.
A plan; a project. A reasoned purpose; an intent.

What exactly is an instructional designer?

Sugar and Betrus (2002) stated “To tell you the truth, even we as instructors ask ourselves this question, and often encounter the same question from our colleagues, and even from our families” (p. 45). To better understand what it means to be an “instructional designer,” they proposed five instructional designer archetypes in the design of a card game: The Many Hats of an Instructional Designer (Prototype). You can play this game online - let me know what you think.

References: Sugar, W. & Betrus, A. (2002). The many hats of an instructional designer: The development of an instructional card game. Educational Technology, 42(1), 45-51.

What skills are necessary to be considered competent in the instructional design field?

There are various types of positions, roles, or competency areas within the ID profession. Some of these roles* include:

A project director who is responsible for managing through leadership and guidance;
Client representatives who present the client’s desires and requirements;
An instructional designer who performs the analysis and design of the project, then supervises the implementation of the field test;
A subject matter expert (SME) who provides content support;
An instructional developer who is in charge of developing the product;
A quality control expert who reviews each of the products throughout the project;
A teacher or trainer who presents the instructional material;
Support staff who help in each of the areas; and
An evaluator who evaluates the product.

* References: Reiser R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2002), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

In addition to the instructional design team, the following roles* are typically included in the production team of mediated instruction (e.g., CBI, multimedia, etc.):

Technical Writers. In some teams, the instructional designer is responsible for the higher-level design issues, whereas the content is produced by a technical writer. This person writes well and is familiar with the issues surrounding computer delivery of content. Technical writers are involved in the creation and use of storyboards and scripts, the latter being text that will be spoken in audio or video segments.
Programmers. The programmer is responsible for taking the design document/storyboard and implementing it on the computer, typically using an authoring system, such as Authorware or ToolBook, or a programming language, such as Java, HTML, or C++. It is common to have more than one programmer on a project taking care of different aspects of the program, such as displays, interactions, databases, and data collection. Programmers require access to the most detailed versions of storyboards, flowcharts, and prototypes.
Graphic Artists. The graphic artist is an essential person on most production teams and is responsible for creating the overall look and feel of the project, as well as the production of individual backgrounds, buttons, graphics, and most visual information other than the text. They need access to, and are often the creators of storyboards and prototypes.

* References: Alessi, S. M. & Trollip S. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
The Many Hats of an Instructional Designer