Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Assessment and Revision Assignment
Educ 5103 Week 6 Group Assignment
Submitted by: Group BMHP
Byron Butt, Ellen Hicks, Karen Power, and Jennie MacDougall
A group research paper
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Diploma of Education (Technology)
Cape Breton University
June 24, 2014
1
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Introduction
Instructional design is recognized in the educational field as a “system of planning, implementing
and evaluating instruction” (Summerville & ReidGriffin, 2008, p. 45) as well as being “...a systematic
approach to planning and producing effective instructional materials. It is similar to lesson planning, but
more elaborate and detailed” (Siemens, 2002, p. 1). The end goal being effective and efficient learning
(Summerville & ReidGriffin, 2008, p. 45). There are many models of instructional design that are
accepted within the field. All of these models provide a systematic process to use for the development
and design of learning and instructional activities.
The BMHP group identified five main components of instructional design to include in our
design – analyze, design, produce, implement, and evaluate. We placed the student at the center of our
design since all decisions in the process should be made with the best interest of the student in mind.
Each step of the process also takes into consideration a technology component as we strive to develop
a plan for instruction that encourages learning in a constructivist environment using technology as a vital
component.
A key step in an instructional design model is evaluation and revision. This is a process that is
applied in many different aspects of education as it encourages growth and development. The BMHP
instructional design model is not an exception to this process. Peer and instructor review of the model
provided feedback and suggestions that can be applied to develop an improved model. After reviewing
the suggestions provided our group decided that our model could be improved with the addition of a
section that deals specifically with technology and a second section that compliments the evaluation and
revision component by defining a final product.
2
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Evaluation of the BHMP Instructional Design Model
The Instructional Design model created by BMHP is an effective method for classroom teachers
to use when planning lessons and units that integrate information technology. However, there are some
areas which could be improved. Feedback was collected through selfevaluation, comparison of the
model to existing models, further research and through Educ 5103 peer and instructor feedback.
According to the peer feedback, the instructional design model’s strengths lie in its simplicity,
attention to detail, the analysis section, visual appeal of the circular design, and the student centered
feature (MacKinnon, 2014; Bisson, 2014; Whitty, 2014; Starratt, 2014; Chisholm, 2014; Olabisi,
2014; Spurrell, 2014).
Many of the peer reviews referred to the simple design and language. Reviewers seemed to
agree that developing a straightforward Instructional Design Process was important. Therese Boudreau
MacKinnon (2014) noted that she liked “how it is a very simple model that has a lot of details” (para.1).
Words such as simplistic, colorful, clear and easy were used repeatedly by other course participants
(Bisson, 2014, para.1; Whitty, 2014, para.1; Starratt, 2014, para.1; Chisholm, 2014, para.1; Olabisi,
2014, para.1; Spurrell, 2014, para.1).
As well, it was mentioned that the Analysis section was particularly strong. Robert Bisson
(2014) commented that he liked that this section “provided for potential problems, the audience needs
and measuring for existing knowledge” (para.1).
Several reviewers noted that the circular design symbolized the process of Instructional Design
as ongoing and dynamic. One reviewer stated, “The circular graphic adds to the reinforcement of the
idea that the ID process is continual and its components are interdependent, not just "stages"”
3
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
(Chisholm, 2014, para.1). As well, feedback indicated that having the student at the center of the
graphic emphasized the importance of developing student centered instruction (Olabisi, 2014).
Details that focused on inclusive education such as Universal Design for Learning, Bloom’s
Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences were appreciated (Olabisi, 2014). The technology and constructivist
aspects of the Produce and Implement sections were also considered strong. Antonini (2014) noted that
these two sections were “highly technology focused” (para.1).
Constructive feedback indicated that the model could be improved by drawing attention to the
use of technology as cognitive tools (Antonini, 2014), broadening the scope of the model to include
both cognitivism and behaviourism (Brooks, 2014), combining the design and production phases
(Brooks, 2014), and that the design of the assessment materials could be moved to the design phase
(Brooks, 2014).
The course instructor provided feedback on the original graphic model and on the explanation
and defense of the model (Lloyd, 2014). Lloyd concurred with the peer feedback regarding the
simplicity of the model and that the circular design supports instruction as an “ongoing process and does
not always have a recognized starting point (para.1). As well, he appreciated the placement of
“Student” in the center of the model (para.1) and the acknowledgement to existing models that
influenced the design (para. 2).
Lloyd (2014) also provided suggestions for improvement which included the incorporation of
technology integration as an essential element and the inclusion of additional details in the graphic model
and with “activities, approaches etc. based on IT tools” (para.5).
Selfevaluation data was collected from the discussion forum. One of the assignments, which
followed a reading of the iNtegrating Technology for InQuiry (NTeQ design model) (Morrison,
4
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Lowther, & DeMeulle, 1999), required participants to suggest components that would improve the
group’s Instructional Design model. A common theme among group members emerged regarding the
importance of matching goals and outcomes to computer function (Hicks, 2014, para.711; Butt, 2014,
para.5; MacDougall, 2014, para.9). Other suggestions included devoting a section to information
technology integration (Power, 2014); developing behavioural and cognitive goals, a Think Sheet in the
Produce Phase, and the addition of a final product in the Assessment Phase (Hicks, 2014); and
specifically planning pre and post computer activities as well as the computer tasks (MacDougall,
2014).
The group met, online in Google Drive, to formally discuss the revision assignment and evaluate
the submitted model, explanation and defense. The original graphic model submitted for class feedback
contained much more information than the model submitted in the Explanation and Defense assignment
(Butt, Hicks, MacDougall, & Power, 2014). It was a conscious decision not to include the original
explanations as part of the graphic model as the group decided that information would be elaborated on
within the Explanation and Defense assignment. The feedback collected suggests that this information
should be included as part of the graphic model so that it may stand on its own as an instructional design
tool. The selfevaluation process also identified the need to elaborate on the integration of information
technology within the instructional design process and to plan for a final product that takes into account
learning theories, student learning profiles, the goals and outcomes devised and available technology
platforms.
5
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
ID Model Revision: Additional Technology Section
Diagram 1: Revised Instructional Design Model by BMHP
After receiving peer and instructor feedback on our group’s draft model, and investigating the
iNtegrating Technology for InQuiry (NTeQ) Model for Instructional Design (Morrison, et al.,
1999), we agreed that we could improve the discussion of technology integration in our model. In our
original plan, we intended for discussions on technology to be integrated into each of the five steps in
our draft model. However, in our revision assignment we decided upon an additional section dedicated
to technology (see Diagram 1 above and Appendix A). For this new section, we borrow ideas from the
NTeQ Model (Morrison et al., 2000) focussing on the “match computer functions” (Morrison et al.,
6
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
2000, p. 53) “activities before okay.computer use”, “activities during computer use” and “activities after
computer use” steps of the NTeQ Model (Morrison et al., 2000, pp. 6466).
It is helpful to plan which specific computer functions will be required to complete a task or an
objective. The instructor should determine what needs to be done (editing, graphic design, calculations,
organization, web searches, emailing, presenting) and match these computer functions with the
appropriate software (word processor, spreadsheet, database, drawing, email, browser) (Dewitt,
2005). For example, in order for students to achieve an objective of analyzing some data, the teacher
could suggest to “use a spreadsheet to determine the…” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.51), or “create a
chart to show…” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.51).
Determining ahead of time the activities students will do before, during, and after computer use
will create an efficient and organized learning environment. What sorts of activities will the students do
before they use the computers? Perhaps they will create a bank of key words to help in searching when
using the browser, or maybe they need to do some data collecting or interviewing classmates (Morrison
et al., 2000). What activities will the students do while they are using the computers? Will they enter
data and manipulate it? Will they conduct research using the web browser, type up a report, or prepare
a presentation (Morrison et al., 2000)? The activities students complete while using the computers will
depend on which computer functions and software programs the instructor has prematched. What
activities will the students do after they use the computers? How will they “use the information
generated from the computer activity” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.66)? These questions will guide the
instructional designer through the decisions associated with technology. Adding this technology section,
allows for elaboration on the inclusion of technology in the instructional design process.
7
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Technology and the Final Product of Instructional Design
Educators are increasingly confronted with a broad mix of new and old school based
technologies. They range from wifi enabled tablets and Smartphones, social media online, and portable
gaming devices. There are now more multifunctional, multipurpose, wireless and mobile devices and
online web 2.0 tools in the 21st Century wired schools than ever before.
This inundation of technology can muddle the waters of instructional design as teachers cope
with understanding how to utilize new technologies in the instructional process. This has been an
ongoing area of change in education. In the early days of slate chalkboards and one room school
houses, educators adapted to the invention of electricity, paper, the pencil and the pen. In the mid
twentieth century electronic devices such as calculators and early computers came on the scene. And
today, in the 21st Century, the internet and portable electronics have revolutionized the means to which
learners are able to access information, communicate and collaborate and inform. As Anderson &
Dron (2012) note: “distance education evolved from a Gutenbergera print and mail system to one that
supports lowcost, highly interactive learning activities that span both time and distance with equal
facility” (p.1) and Traxler (2009 as cited in Elias, 2011) “mobile learning exploits both handheld
computers and mobile telephones and other devices that draw on the same set of functionalities...it
draws on the theory and practice of pedagogies used in technology enhanced learning and others used
in the classroom and the community” (pp. 1112). As a result of technological change, we have
educators who work hard to learn how to utilize the technology while trying to embed its use within the
framework of their own classroom practice.
Our group’s assertion is that the use of technology in instructional design is based on the
designer’s personal educational philosophy and pedagogy. We are, after all, driven by those beliefs that
8
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
guide our practice. According to Gustafson & Branch (1997), “The greater the compatibility between
an ID model and its contextual, theoretical, and philosophical origins, the greater the potential to
generate effective instruction” (p. 77). We believe this to be an absolute truth. As no two people are
alike, neither will the final product of an instructional design process generated by two differing schools
of learning theory. For example, a person who subscribes to the traditional Piagetian developmental
theory of learning and thinking would have a different view of technology integration into the ID process
as one who subscribes to the newly developed connectivist theory. A connectivity theorist would
expect the learners to have the technological competency to utilize software and hardware to research,
evaluate, filter, create, communicate, and publish on the internet (Anderson & Dron, 2012) whereas the
developmental theorist would expect the learner to only have the competency available at the stage of
learning and development that they are in.
The number of learning theories and subsets of these theories can be staggering. Some float to
the surface and become mainstream, others are more ephemeral and lost to but a few researchers who
keep the research alive. Theories such as Behaviorist Theory and Cognitive Theories form the basis of
many of the traditional methods of teaching and learning and may be found today in aspects of direct
teaching. Constructivist Theory is more recent and has been the backbone for many paradigm shifts in
education. It has subsets such as Social Constructivist Theory, Cognitive Flexibility Theory and
Connectivist Theory that inform new ideas such as computers as “Mindtools”. “Mindtools are
computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engage
them in critical thinking about the content they are studying” (Jonassen, 1996 as cited in Jonassen, Carr,
and Yueh, 1998, p. 24).
9
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
With 21st Century skills sets being touted by organizations and educators as important in
today’s work environment; constructivist practices that involve inquiry based learning, research,
collaboration and communication are seen as extremely important. We assert that most modern
application types of computer software and tablet applications are constructivist in nature. They provide
the student with opportunities to explore, manipulate, collaborate, communicate, and finally to create.
“Learners themselves function as designers using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing
information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to
others” (Reeves & Jonassen, 1996, p. 694). The level at which the software allows the student to
engage in their own construction of knowledge differs based on the type of application software being
utilized (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: Forms of Learning Application Software
Productivity – any software that may be used as a tool for student use. Word processors,
spreadsheet programs, multimedia presentation software, calculators, and other examples, allow the
user to digitally recreate what was traditionally done on pencil and paper. They are constructivist in
nature, as tools utilized by the learner. Direct teaching occurs when the instructor demonstrates how
to use the tools to accomplish the outcome. This software at any grade level or subject area but only
as a tool to engaging students in the learning process. Student age and ability would be considered
for some more complex features of software such as Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, and Excel.
Problem Solving – Computer software, tablet applications or web tools where students are
required to provide input and utilize strategy. “Where in the World is Carmen Santiago” was a
popular software title in the 1990’s that utilized student prior knowledge of geography to solve a
mystery. They are constructivist in nature in that students have to synthesize new information with
prior knowledge and current research to determine a course of action. Student age and ability would
10
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
be considered due to the level of reading and complexity of problems provided within such software
or tablet applications. An effective tool in science and social studies where a real life situation is
provided for the student to solve using previous knowledge and deductive/inductive reasoning.
Demonstration and Presentation – Visual presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint,
Apple Keynote, iMovie, HaikuDeck, PicCollage, etc., allow the user to create unique information
delivery media that may incorporate images, film, sound, and a host of special effects. Students come
to use such computer programs through experimentation and/or direct instruction by the teacher. The
product of the use of such a medium however is a creative, constructivist endeavor. The student
utilizes their own prior knowledge, experiences and skills to create a new product as a synthesis of
the learning process. Any grade or subject. Student age and ability may be a factor due to the
complexity of the more advanced features on these programs. Some programs such as HaikuDeck
app for the iPad could be utilized at any age. Such programs are fantastic for allowing students
creative licence to tell what they know and understand in an interactive, multimedia medium.
Drill and Practice – Students manipulate a software program for the purpose of learning
a skill or concept. Students are able to utilize the examples and direct instruction provided by such
programs to scaffold their learning. Most programs are level based, with learners moving from one
level of understanding to a high level with a greater degree of difficulty, but one that builds upon the
knowledge, skills and understanding of the previous level. An essential piece of these programs is
that they provide feedback to the student. Whether the answer is right or wrong and what the correct
response would be, helps the student to reflect on their work and make changes to move ahead.
These forms of software have been around for a long time. They allow students of any age and ability
the opportunity to learn a skill through practice. The website IXL.com is an example of a “drill and
practice” site that gives a student an example and then provides opportunities to practice that math
skill. Through positive reinforcement and the ability to choose the grade level with which to start,
students gain confidence as they work from level to level.
Tutorials – Students are presented with a concept and are able to practice the specific skill.
Tutorials often make use of both direct teaching, guided instruction, and constructivist practices. The
11
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
learner is given information to learn and understand and then provided with problems to solve based
on the information. Teaching a skill requires practice and support. For example, learning to type
using the program “Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing.” Students of all abilities learn to type at their own
pace with immediate feedback from the program. Students scaffold their knowledge/skill level as
they progress through the program. The computer becomes a learning partner.
Simulation and Modelling – Software or tablet applications that allow students to manipulate,
explore, plan, design, and discover all within a simulation. A popular gaming series “Civilization” is
based on this premise. Here “the learner interacts with the computer as if it were part of the real
world: it provides a virtual world” (Bostock, 1995, para.12). The exploration of a virtual world is, of
itself, a constructivist approach. The student uses their prior knowledge and the experience within the
new virtual environment to construct new knowledge and understandings. Students would have to
have some computer readiness skills and reading ability. Simulations often require a lot of reading
and time to complete. As such, they may be fostered as an after school or lunch hour activity.
Gaming: Educational games provide a fun, safe and motivational environment that incorporates drill
and practice and simulations. The difference is that games tend to have incentives or rewards built
into them. Win the level and get a special power or skill or item. It is the carrot that keeps the
learner engaged in the game.
Groupware – Software that allows for groups of students to collaborate on solving a problem. The
key word “collaborate”. When we give students an opportunity to research and develop further
understanding of a concept or problem, we are providing the basis for the construction of new
knowledge, skills, and ideas. This is part of the constructivist paradigm. Moodle wiki
(collaboration), spiderscribe.net (group mindmapping), Google docs / hangout / Drive (group word
processing and document storage), VIA (video conferencing) and other web tools give students
opportunities to share and collaborate in both synchronous (one to one) and asynchronous (offline)
environments.
Computer as Tool – According to Bostock (1995) “The most complete tool is a computer
programming language” (para.7). With the ability to code, students have a tremendous ability to
12
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
create new knowledge, new ways of doing. They are synthesizing prior knowledge and abilities to
create completely novel virtual environments. However, in order to code, you must have guidance
either directly through teacher led training or self taught through online tutorials. In either case direct
teaching practices provide for an opportunity to build upon existing knowledge to create something
unique. The freedom to utilize those skills is one of the basic tenets of constructivist theory.
Computer Assisted Learning – Tools that provide all learners with the capacity to manipulate and
create no matter what the student circumstance. Special needs students now may use such software
to communicate and achieve research tasks online. (Bostock & Seifert, 1986 as cited in Bostock,
1995). Another example of software that allows the learner to perform a task or function but only
when the learner has been taught how to use it! Direct teaching leads to the potential for
constructivist practices. We have students in our schools who have difficulties with the everyday
tasks of speaking and reading that most students take for granted. We have other students with
executive processing issues and still others with physical / mental challenges. Assistive technology
programs have developed greatly over the past number of years that allow these students the
opportunity to participate in a learning environment. Software and applications allow such
traditionally disadvantaged individuals to participate with their peers and teachers in meaningful ways.
Computer Mediated Communications (CMC) – Synchronous (real time) and asynchronous
(email, message board) ways in which students may collaborate on problem solving. The ability to
collaborate with your peers is a tenet of constructivist or 21st Learning practices. The use of the
software must be learned however. In such cases, direct instruction may be required. Special needs
students may take advantage of such programs, particularly those who work better in the autonomous
asynchronous medium of text messaging, email, and message boards. It can be a liberating media for
some students. (Bostock, 1996). In my experience, from the typewriter, to the electronic “Writer”,
to the speech to text function of the iPad; technology has evolved greatly in the span of two decades
to provide a medium for every student to be able to communicate their understanding to the world
about them. Today’s students are able to speak to a device which types it for them. Twenty years
ago we were ecstatic with the advent of the electronic dictionary and “spell check”! Today’s word
processors also provide grammar checks.
13
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Web 2.0 – Web 2.0 sites provide students with the ability to create, share, collaborate, and
communicate. All aspects of the theory of constructivism. They are often characterized by being
easy to use. Students can create timelines (tikitoki.com), post to a website (padlet.com), develop
mind maps (Gliffy.com), create a slideshow (Haikudeck.com) and create websites (weebly.com) as
examples.
Social Media – A discussion of online learning tools for the classroom must cover the expanding
role of social media in research (Twitter), communication (Facebook, Whisper, Tumbler), flipped
classroom (YouTube), and collaboration (Facebook Group Page). A medium which is changing
rapidly, has become a clearinghouse for constructivist practices. Teachers can tweet homework
assignment / links to activities via Twitter. Schools are taking advantage of Facebook to inform
parents and students. Videos are uploaded to YouTube daily by students for viewing and
commentary / feedback with schools linking videos to their school websites. Students use Facetime,
Skype, or other to communicate with community members, family and even with other schools in
other parts of the world. The opportunity to expand the knowledge, understanding, and world view
of the individual has never been greater.
Some of the above mentioned computer programs and applications do involve some direct
instruction as well. Programs that may be categorized as “drill and practice” or “tutorials” for example,
have the computer teaching knowledge or model a skill for the student to mimic. The student then is
exposed to novel problems to solve. Math programs and apps have traditionally been drill and practice
(ex: IXL.com). The learner then has the opportunity to practice and explore on their own. In this way it
utilizes direct instruction and constructivism in the learning process.
So, based on educational pedagogy and a look at the educational technologies available today,
what should the final product of instructional design include? Through a study of educational research,
we believe that learning mechanisms for practice, feedback/reward, reflection, use of a student’s prior
14
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
knowledge, collaboration, communication, research, creation, interaction, differentiated instruction, and
assessment are some of the important aspects which educators today would choose to have embedded
within the final product of the ID process. Which aspects are utilized would be a function of the the
philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of the instructional designers (see table 2).
Table 2: Functional Aspects of the Final Product of ID Design Based on Learning Theory
Practice
Behavioural learning theory is based on the notion that learning occurs when learners adopt
new behaviours or demonstrate a change in behaviour. This understanding led to an outlook of
the instructional designer as being “a professional who designed learning activities that would be
enacted by students alone, or with an instructor, at a time, and/or place apart from the designer as
the result of an individual’s response to stimuli” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 2). In the education
field, we use direct teaching types of computer programs and tablet applications. These apps
push information out or inform in a variety of ways but are static in nature and do not give the
learner the opportunity to be anything other than a purveyor of information or be an assessment
taker. We think of the iPad apps: Edmodo, NearPod, PDF reader, Socrative, Ask3, iBooks,
and Google Earth; and social media sites such as YouTube. Think of the Web 2.0 tools such as
sciencewriter.cast.org, movieclips.com, remind101.com, noredink.com, and exitticket.org that
allow the teacher to provide assessments or learning activities in a direct instruction format.
Feedback/Reward
Behavioural learning theory follows the premise that a stimulus is provided, the student
responds and this response can be “observed quantitatively, totally ignoring the possibility of
thought process occurring in the mind” (Mergel, 1998, p.3). Computer Assisted Instruction
(CAI), virtual reality programs, and “teaching machines” are three forms of technology that Black
(1995, para. 16) felt would fit with the tenets of this theory of learning. Apps and software
programs based on this theory expect the student to answer a question or give a response
followed by a reward or feedback to indicate a correct or incorrect response usually in the form
15
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
of an audio (a positive or negative sounding tone) or visual cue (checkmark or an “X” ).
Earobics, Essential Skills, Lexia, RazKids, ToDo K2 Math App, Cambugs, and many more.
Reflection
Constructivist theorists say that a necessary component of learning is combining action and
reflection (thought) together to build meaning (Adams & Burns, 1999).
Prior Knowledge
According to Cognitivist theorists, any instructional means should have a basis in the prior
knowledge and understandings of the learner. New information is easier to understand and store
when the learner can connect it to a past experience or knowledge (Adams & Burns, 1999). A
new version of Constructivist Theory called Cognitive Flexibility Theory tells us that
“...comprehension involves the construction of meaning: the text is a preliminary blueprint for
constructing an understanding. The information contained in the text must be combined with
information outside of the text, including most prominently the prior knowledge of the learner, to
form a complete and adequate representation of the text's meaning” (Spiro, 2007). This theory
espouses the flexible use (through revisitation in differing environments, situations, and
phenomenon) of prior knowledge being necessary in the creation of new knowledge, ideas, skills,
and understandings.
Collaboration
According to Adams & Burns (1999) constructivist theorists believe that “Social interaction
introduces multiple perspectives through reflection, collaboration, negotiation, and shared
meaning. In many situations, learning is enhanced by verbal representation of thoughtsit helps to
speak about an idea, to clarify procedures, or float a theory to an audience. The exchange of
different perceptions between learners enriches an individual's insight” (p. 3).
“Social constructivist pedagogies are focused on groups of learners, learning together with and
from one another” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 5).
16
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Communication
Phone conferencing in the early 21st Century has evolved into internet based video conferencing,
social media networking, and threaded discussion groups used today. Although the technology
has changed, the importance of communication between peers has not. Social constructivist
theory states that learning occurs between individuals in a group when ideas are shared. As
Anderson and Dron (2012) explain “socialconstructivist models only began to gain a foothold in
distance education when the technologies of manytomany communication became widely
available, enabled first by email and bulletin boards, and later through synchronous technologies,
the World Wide Web and mobile technologies. While such models had been waiting in the wings
for distance education since Dewey or earlier, their widespread use and adoption was dependent
on the widespread availability of robust supporting technologies.” (p. 5)
Research
Connectivist Theory assumes that “information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to
memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find, filter and apply
knowledge when and where it is needed.” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 8)
Creation
An essential characteristic that defines connectivist pedagogy “is the focus on creation, as
opposed to consumption, of information and knowledge resources.” (Anderson & Dron, 2012,
p. 8) There are many computer programs and tablet applications that are amazing at allowing
students to develop new knowledge through creative expression and/or productivity:
ExplainEverything, Educreations, My Wikia, Croakit, Lucidchart, Notability, Book Creator,
Comic Maker, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote; and computer software such as Skype,
Minecraft, Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint and Word. Educational Web 2.0 tools such as
spiderscribe.net, scratch.mit.edu, geogebra.org, piktochart.com, and timetoast.com. All of these
products have one thing in common, they provide learners the tools that allow them to use their
knowledge and imagination to create new and innovative products and new knowledge. As such
they also fit into the context of Piagets’ Developmental Theory of Learning and Thinking
“A central component of Piaget's developmental theory of learning and thinking is that both
17
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
involve the participation of the learner. Knowledge is not merely transmitted verbally but must be
constructed and reconstructed by the learner” (Ginn, 1995). There are also strong parallels with
Constructionist approaches that emphasize creation as playing a central role in the construction
of knowledge (Papert & Harel, 1991 as cited in Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 8).
Interactive
Students interacting with the computer software or tablet apps or web 2.0 tools as a part of the
learning process. “The technologies that encourage interactivity such as multimedia , hypermedia
and virtual reality fit in with Piagetian thought. Computer software that is strictly drill and practice
does not fit in with an active discovery environment.” (Ginn, 1995, para. 6). We often hear of
doctors and airplane pilots who learn their craft through simulations. The computer takes the
place of an actual situation. Mistakes made within this environment would not have an impact on
human life but would contribute to better knowledge acquisition and a solid foundation of
understanding in the field of study.
Differentiated Instruction
A cognitivist educator would say that the instruction must be at the developmental level of the
learner. As Sosulski (2007 as cited in Simonson, 2007) stated “Each learner interacting with the
same educational software program could have different experiences based upon individual
learning characteristics. For example, information could be presented in a different format to
visual learners and a different format for verbal learners. These characteristics distinguished the
computer from any other mediabased technology such as film or television that lacked interactive
and customizable for options for learning.” (p. 280) The Piagetian scholar would also agree with
the above statements. Piagets’ Developmental Theory of Learning and Thinking
emphasizes that children cannot learn something until they mature enough to have the prerequisite
brain development to allow them to process the information (Brainerd, 1978 as cited in Ginn,
1995, para. 3)
18
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Assessment
Cognitive learning theory models of instructional design are based on an understanding of the
functions of the brain. Computer models are used to describe and test learning and thinking.
(Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 2)
Note: This is not a comprehensive listing of all learning theories nor is it meant to demonstrate how
each learning theory fits into all of the functional aspects. To do so would be to write an entire paper
dedicated to the topic. It is meant to be a reflection of the diversity of learning theories and how they
might impact various functional components of a learning strategy or technology within the ID design.
Conclusion
We have explored, and taken into consideration, a number of instructional design models and
learning theories as we developed our own model. The revisions we have included will make our
model stronger when it is used for curriculum planning in the classroom. A key point to ensuring our
model is used effectively lies in the ability to revise and adapt as well as learn more of the process. As
with all parts of teaching, changing and adjusting may be necessary based on particular courses, classes
and students. Our instructional design model gives us a well developed plan to use so we can ensure
that our outcomes, methods, materials, and technology are the absolute best we can offer our students.
Due to the circular nature of our model we ensure that we are constantly evaluating and revising based
on the changing needs of our students and the growing field of educational technology.
19
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Appendix A
BMHP Instructional Design Model
Note: If time permitted, the complete graphic display of the model would include descriptions of each category as well as a summary of the expanded technology component that is provided in the written portion of this paper.
20
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
References
Antonini, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=187903
Adams, S. & Burns, M. (1999). Connecting student learning & technology. Retrieved
from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/flash.html
Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three generations of
technology enhanced distance education pedagogy. Revista Mexicana de
Bachillerato a Distancia. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ992485.pdf
Bisson, R. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.
cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188615
Black, E. (1995, June 13). Behaviorism as a learning theory. Retrieved from http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fbehaviorism.html
Bostock, S. (1995). Classifications of educational software. Retrieved from:
http://www.keele.org.uk/docs/atcbttyp.htm
Brooks, T. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.
cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188804
Butt, B. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion group B. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca/
moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php? d=18725&parent=188955
21
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Chisholm, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.
cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188236
Dewitt, Kristen L. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom using the NTeQ
model [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%
2F672%2F NTeQ.pdf
Elias, T. (2011, February). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning.
International review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [PDF document].
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ920738.pdf
Gustafson, K. & Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), pp. 7389 [PDF document].
Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fgust_ branch.pdf
Ginn, W. (1995, July 10). Jean Piaget – intellectual development. Retrieved from
http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fpiaget.html
Hicks, E. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion group A. Message posted to: http://courseware.
cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php ?d=18724&parent=188770
Isert, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca
/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188558
22
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Jonassen D.H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging
learners in critical thinking [PDF document]. TechTrends, v43 n2 p2432. Retrieved from
http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FMindTools.pdf
Lloyd, D. (2014, June). BHMP group project/paper feedback [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/assignment/view.php?id=28188
MacDougall, J. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion group A. Message posted to:
http://courseware.cbu.ca /moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18724&parent=188682
MacKinnon, T.B. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=187954
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design & learning theory. Retrieved from http://etad.usask.
ca/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Morrison, Gary R., Lowther, Deborah L., and DeMeulle, Lisa (2000). NTeQ 2000 [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from http://www.nteq.com/?p=present
Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating Computer Technology into the
Classroom, pp. 3760 [PDF document]. New Jersey: PrenticeHall. (Chapter 3). Retrieved
from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FChapter3.pdf
Olabisi, M. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188059
23
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Power, K. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion group A. Message posted to: http://courseware.
cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18724&parent=188926
Reeves, T. C. & Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as
cognitive tools. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 693719). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. Elearnspace: Everything Elearning.
Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm
Simonson, M., Ed. (2007). Proceedings from AECT: Annual Proceedings of Selected
Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Volume 1. Anaheim,
California. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=technology+instructional +design&ft=on&
id=ED499889
Simsek, A. (2010). Interview with M. David Merrill: half a century of experience in
the field of educational technology and instructional design. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 2010, 1(2), pp. 186 – 195. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=
technology+instructional+design&ft=on&id=ED542979
24
Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP
Spiro, Feltovitch, Jacobson, & Coulson. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and
hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in
illstructured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology
of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from
http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FCognitiveFlexibility.pdf
Spurell, L. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188360
Starratt, J. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca/
moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723 &parent=188343
Summerville, J. & ReidGriffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design.
TechTrends, 52(5), 4551.
Whitty, H. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware
.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188422
25