Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Media Debate



TECHED 2007 CONCURRENT SESSIONS, March 28, 2007, 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM, Room 107B

Audio Podcast

Pocast Shownotes

This presentation focuses on the use of podcasting technology to revisit the debate on media and learning. Student projects and perspectives on the media debate will be showcased. Technical Level: All Technology LevelsAudience: All Educational Levels; All PositionsTopic: Cutting Edge: Web StrandsSub-topic: Digital Media & Resources: Harnessing the PowerReferences:

  • Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media will never influence learning: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 42. No. 2, 1994, pp. 21-29.

  • Kozma, Robert B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate: Educational Technology Research and Development Vol. 42. No. 2, 1994, pp. 7-19.

  • Clark, Richard E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445-459.

  • Kozma, Robert B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. (A major updating and reanalysis of media research from a cognitive perspective; written as a rebuttal to Clark (1983))

  • Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media and Method. Educational Technology Research & Development 42(3), 7-10. Note that the latter two issues of ETR&D–42(2) and 42(3)–are primarily devoted to the Media/Methods Debate.
Posted by at 50 comments:

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.

Posted by at 2 comments:

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.

  1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent.
  2. To formulate a plan for; devise.
  3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect.
  4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
  5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
  6. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
  7. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.
  8. 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:

  1. A project director who is responsible for managing through leadership and guidance;
  2. Client representatives who present the client’s desires and requirements;
  3. An instructional designer who performs the analysis and design of the project, then supervises the implementation of the field test;
  4. A subject matter expert (SME) who provides content support;
  5. An instructional developer who is in charge of developing the product;
  6. A quality control expert who reviews each of the products throughout the project;
  7. A teacher or trainer who presents the instructional material;
  8. Support staff who help in each of the areas; and
  9. 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.):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

One laptop per child? The $100 Laptop developed by the MIT Media Lab:

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, July 10, 2006

Instructional Technology Journals & Magazines

As an instructional designer/technologist, you should become familiar with the following journals:

Instructional Technology Magazines:

Posted by at 11 comments:

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Rapid Prototyping

The traditional (modern) ID process has been criticized for generating models that are tool complex to use effectively and for focusing too much on strictly observable (behavioral) outcomes without addressing the more subtle aspects of learning such as reflection, retention and motivation.


Rapid Prototyping, an example of a postmodernist approach, can be summarized as:

  • Final product is developed through the creation of a number of prototypes.
  • Each prototype is evaluated by some experts and end users.
  • Each successive prototype is more like the final product.

(Brown, A. & Green, T.D., (2006). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice. Pearson, Merrill/Prentice Hall.)

An illustration of the model can be found in this link: Rapid Prototyping as an instructional design

Suggested Readings:

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid protoyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.

Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD handbook of instructional technology (pp. 21.1-21.22). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Posted by at No comments:

What are Instructional Design Models?

ID models explain the instructional design process and provide guidelines and procedures that can be applied to a wide variety of situations. Every instructional designer should become familiar with two of the most famous models (Brown & Green, 2006):

1. The Dick & Carey Model is a classic example of performing an ID task systematically.

Here's an illustration of the model. This model includes 10 elements (scroll down to read "Elements of Dick & Carey.")

2. The Morrison, Ross & Kemp Model - There's no specific sequence in this model; each element may be addressed at any time during the ID process.

Here's an illustration of the model. This model includes 9 elements.

Resources:

Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, June 11, 2006

What is Instructional Design?

The purpose of any design activity is to devise optimal means to achieve desired ends. - Charles Reigeluth

Here's a four-part definition of instructional design(http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html):

Instructional Design as a Process:
Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.

Instructional Design as a Discipline:
Instructional Design is that branch of knowledge concerned with research and theory about instructional strategies and the process for developing and implementing those strategies.

Instructional Design as a Science:
Instructional design is the science of creating detailed specifications for the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of situations that facilitate the learning of both large and small units of subject matter at all levels of complexity.

Instructional Design as Reality:
Instructional design can start at any point in the design process. Often a glimmer of an idea is developed to give the core of an instruction situation. By the time the entire process is done the designer looks back and she or he checks to see that all parts of the "science" have been taken into account. Then the entire process is written up as if it occurred in a systematic fashion.

There are four major elements in the instructional design process:

  • For whom is the program developed? (characteristics of learners or trainees)
  • What do you want the learners or trainees to learn or demonstrate? (objectives)
  • How is the subject content or skill best learned? (instructional strategies)
  • How do you determine the extent to which learning is achieved? (evaluation procedures)

(Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing Effective Instruction (4th edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)

Or, ID can be summarized as a 3-step process:

  • Analyze the situation to determine what instruction is necessary and the steps that need to be taken to deliver the instruction.
  • Produce and implement the instructional design.
  • Evaluate the results of implementing the instructional design.

(Brown, A. & Green, T.D., (2006). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice. Pearson, Merrill/Prentice Hall.)


Posted by at No comments:

Instructional Technology Online Resources

Posted by at 12 comments:

Professional Organizations & Conferences

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
http://www.aace.org/ (There are many conferences associated with this organization. click on Conferences for conference info.)

Association for Educational Communications & Technology (AECT)
http://www.aect.org/ (click on Conferences for conference info.)

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
http://www.iste.org/ (click on NECC for conference info.)

National Educational Computing Association (NECA)
http://www.neccsite.org/

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE)
http://www.aace.org/site/

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD)
http://www.astd.org/

International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI)
http://www.ispi.org/

Society for Applied Learning Technology (SALT)
http://www.salt.org/

Computer-Using Educators (CUE)
http://www.cue.org/ (click on Conference for conference info.)

TechEd International Conference & Exposition (by The Community College Foundation): http://www.techedevents.org/

Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)