Reflecting on the Field of Instructional Design

Debra-Dreana Marshall-Stuart
Walden University
Professor: Dr. Shirley Weaver
EIDT-6100-3 Instructional Design
June, 2010

Reflections Bud Blake © 2 .

O. Morrison. but also designing it to fit the needs of their class.Reflections Reflecting on the Field of Instructional Design Technology is quickly taking over many aspects of our lives and the educational setting is not an exception. L. and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching” gave me clarity of what instructional designing should be about. Dick. “The Systematic Design of Instruction”. Carey. Gagne’s (1987) definition of ID as the “systematic way of designing. 3 . New York: Longman. 2001) as shown in Figure 1. carrying out. J. 5th Ed. I believe that the model which best exemplified each of these and other definitions of the ISD process is the Dick and Carey model (Dick & Carey. Instructional design/development theories provide a guideline for teachers (IDs) to follow when preparing their own educational materials. Figure 1: Dick and Carey Model (Systems-oriented) 1 Figure 1: W. Ross and Kemp (2004) stated that “instructional design is a systematic method of implementing the instructional design process” (p. 5) and provided me with an idea of what ID models are. Carey. However. Teachers are becoming responsible for not only integrating technology in their classroom. 2001..

These characteristics of instruction deal more with the design and evaluation phases of the instructional design process. and revision have been used in several instructional design/development models. (7) formative evaluation. (3) identification of entry behaviors and learner characteristics. and (9) summative evaluation. When designers create they should first analyze the learner problem. The three overall instructional design models I would use more in designing courses are (1) Morrison. the five elements of analysis. Keller’s model deals with attending to the Attention-gaining function of instructional content. Dick and Carey’s (1990) model provides a framework for the systematic design of instruction. (6) development of materials. Ross and Kemp’s Designing Effective Instruction (2004). For example. then 4 . but a strategy that can and should be integrated into all instructional design strategies. its Relevance to the learner. so I choose not to include it in this lists. ARCS is not really a learning theory. All of these models are based on the elements of ADDIE. development. and as such I see ARCS being applied to any of the models. (5) determination of an instructional strategy. We completed our instructional design model based on elements from the ADDIE model. (8) revision. the Confidence the learner has that they can learn from the material. as well as the Dick and Carey model. and the Satisfaction the learner has upon completion of the learning experience. (2) Dick and Carey’s The Systematic Design of Instruction (2001) and Smith and Ragan’s Instructional Design (2005). (4) development of performance objectives and test items. then generate ideas and create a design. I believe that an effective Instructional Plan would follow a systematic process as that put forward by ADDIE. evaluation. Our Instructional Plan made use of all of these elements. design. Historically.Reflections There are many different models for instructional design that have been used throughout this course. I do not see Keller’s (1983) ARCS’s model as describing the process of instructional design. (2) instructional analysis. The following steps are involved: (1) identification of instructional goals.

The ADDIE acronym represents this process and it clearly demonstrates a linear and systematic approach to instructional designing. I prefer to use the Dick and Cary model. revisions. it should not matter if you are using the Dick & Carey Model. analyse goals. and content as well as produce learning materials. The ADDIE model is a generic and systematic approach to the instructional design process which provides instructional designers with a framework in order to make sure that their instructional products are effective and that their creative processes are as efficient as they can possibly be (Dick & Carey. The steps are define instructions goals. develop instructional strategy. the ASSURE model.Reflections develop the design (instruction) fully. instructional analysis. performance objectives. The design phase allows the ID to determine specific learning objectives. existing knowledge and any other relevant characteristics. To me. During the phase of analysis. then test or implement the instruction. select instructional method. I find that of all the models Dick and Carey’s model is closest to the ADDIE process. and then evaluate the instruction and the design process. assessment instruments. summative evaluation. formative evaluation. First Event of Instruction—Gaining the attention of the learner captured my attention as I know I need to pay closer attention to my pre-instructional activities 5 . write objectives. After delivery the effectiveness of the learning materials is evaluated. 2001). develop assessments. the instructional plan and learning materials are delivered to the learners. and summative evaluation. in a similar approach provided eight steps to instructional design (instead of Dick’s nine). For instance. Each step has an outcome that feeds the subsequent step. formative evaluation. the designer identifies the learning problem. learner analysis. assemble materials. develop instructional materials. there is something in there that each ID can use at the appropriate time. Gagne’s (1992). In evaluating the Instructional Plans of other groups I noticed the Dick and Carey Model being used most. Gagne (1992). the learners’ needs. the goals and objectives. analyze learners and contexts. which is based on the behaviorist model. or Gange’s. During implementation. It has nine steps which are determine instructional goals.

As part of my reflection I had to step back for a moment and ask. This event I can also tie in with the Attention in the ARCS model to capture learners’ interest and stimulate an attitude of inquiry.What is the problem we are asked to solve? What do they need to learn? Who is the audience? What are their learning styles? What are the delivery options? What constraints exist? to be answered before we can even consider writing the course. and self-motivation. irrespective of which ID model is used. as a teacher. and making changes based on subsequent evaluations. Taking this course and through our various readings. as well as on current models of instruction I observed while teaching and writing online courses. what are the major components of a Web course? In designing my courses--whether face-to-face or online I have come to realize that this cannot be done effectively.Reflections in order to grasp my face-to-face students attention in a more meaningful way. I have come to realize that we all approach teaching and learning very differently. unless a detailed analysis phase is conducted. Understanding learning theories is an essential component in the comprehension of how children learn and cognitively develop. In my future as a designer I plan to use these models to work through a comprehensive plan for determining needs. These models would be used to make learning more effective by taking into account learner styles and on appropriate occasions use models such as the ARCS and Gagne’s models to fine-tune the instruction. I teach ICT and if I walked into another ICT classroom at my school. the instructor would have a different approach to teaching and learning. By understanding this. The first discussion on Instructional Design caused me to reflect on my methods for planning instruction. developing the instructional training. assignments and discussion forums. active engagement in learning. Learning how to develop tutorials and online courses will enable me to share this source of power of the information. I can create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction. 6 . We need to have questions such as .

I have come to the realization that my objective is teaching software should not be just to introduce students to the various software and capabilities (direct instructions) of the programs but to give them real application of how the software can be used in everyday life (constructivist approach) and in other courses (cross curricular). I am now looking at ways how the software can used during the term of the course can be applied to practical uses in school and business since the main purpose of the Samuel Jackman Prescod Polytechnic is to prepare students for the world of work. Bandura. Rapid prototyping (Piskurich. PowerPoint…).e. Excel. A critical step from Gagne’s (1992) Nine Events of Instruction which I would have to consider in the instructional design will deal with gaining the attention and motivating the student to learn by provoking curiosity. as well as how many applications can work together. 7 . 1977) addresses how social and personal competencies can evolve out of the social conditions within which learning occurs. I have already began redeveloping my course to teach the software using a direct approach .Reflections Social learning theory (e. At this point in my Masters program. I have some indication of how better go about analyzing my students multiple intelligences in terms of helping me place the learners into groups so weaker students can work with stronger students. I plan to do this should be done by taking the practical aspects of the software and applying how it is used daily in the world around the students. 2000) may take place depending on the class size and various abilities of the students. I am an instructor in the use of application software (MS Word..g. through tutorials and then applying their knowledge to tasks.i. Access. teach the basics and then move towards a constructivist approach taking into consideration the various multiple intelligences of the students and the changing needs of the work environment. A thorough analysis and understanding of the learner’s social context is an important component of creating instruction that promotes and sustains behavioral change. From reading more on Social Learning Theory.

On the other hand. each model has its own recommendations for designing instruction for particular types of content. The Smith and Ragan model is also focused on K-12 audiences but have a more cognitive orientation. you must redesign it. was actually something the theories alluded to and this is: even if your content is the same as a face-to-face course. the Morrison. & Ross. Morrison. the content presentation. Because of the number of similarities it is difficult to say that all three models are distinct and separate. There I hope to continue to take a constructivist approach to education and design my courses with the ADDIE/Dick & Carey Model.Reflections It was great to discover what I considered a mantra of mine with my colleagues. The models have the same basic steps such as analysis. I am sure at some fundamental levels they are not exactly the same since the Dick and Carey model is more behaviorist and can be more readily adapted to instructional designing at high school level (Dick & Carey. In the future. Cave Hill Campus where I would be required to write and design online courses for the region at preuniversity and university level. I hope to be able to perform a collaborative role where I will be able to advocate the use of instructional design models based on ADDIE . 8 . I hope to secure a full-time position as an Instructional Designer at the University of the West Indies. I will use this information to assist teams in developing training on the review of instructional models since we are constantly trying designing our online courses as closely as possible to its corresponding face-to-face course. as a Course Writer at the Samuel Jackman Prescod Polytechnic. and the assessment methods. Ross and Kemp model is more constructivist and business related (Kemp. 1990). If I had to argue for the pros and cons of these models it may become difficult since they all bear some similarity being based on the ADDIE model. 1998). with the ADDIE model possibly being the original model. this way. I will be helping teachers with instructional design and development. The interactions or learning activities will be different as will the length of time for each activity. As well. I believe that these models are modification of a single model.

Each model also takes you step by step through the creation process. For me to learn best. I would surely use the ADDIE model because it is more comprehensive. and is better understood at this point in my training. offer flexibility. I had generally understood that people have different learning styles. consideration of other theoretical frameworks to guide instructional design may also be required to achieve this goal. Technology has opened up a world of information all available at my finger tips. take into consideration the learners. However. I believe that no one model fits all situations and a determination of which model to use or what combination to use should be assessed for particular situations. I would want the instructor to make an effort to address each multiple learning styles and to incorporate active learning into their courses.Reflections implementation and evaluation. making the learning possibilities not only endless. Each model only has a few slight differences that separate the two. but easier to acquire. 9 . I learn more and retain longer if I am not being taught traditional lecture courses – the online environment works best for me.

(1992). S. M. Gagne. New York: Harper & Row. E. 38 (1). San Francsico: Jossey. Hillsdale. Designing effective instruction (5th edition). Piskurich.. R. M. & Quinn. & Merrill. J. G. Gagne. R.Reflections References Bandura.. (2005).. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. P.. 10 . E. Englewood Cliffs. (1983). J. L.. M. Social learning theory. & Carey. Motivational design of instruction. (1977).P. (2000) Rapid Instructional Design. M. Retrieved from http://www. M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Siemens. & Ragan. Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. E. R. W. Principles of Instructional Design (4th edition). Ross. Keller. Dick. In C. (2007). New York.elearnspace.. NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. G. (2000). Ross. (2003). Upper Saddle River. R. Educational Technology Research & Development. & Kemp. & Kemp.. Orlando. (1990). Instructional Design (3rd edition). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (2nd edition). The instructional design process. Designing effective instruction( 4th edition). Learning ID fast and Integrative goals for instructional design. Dick. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. New York. A. J. Kemp. Boston: Pearson A and B Ertmer. D. Morrison. Reigeluth (6th edition). NJ: Prentice Hall. G. Inc. Morrison. NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc. J. W. NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Carey. (1985). George M. S. M. & Carey. L. (2001).. The Systematic Design of Instruction (5th edition). T. The systematic design of instruction (5th edition). J. 23-30.htm Smith. (2004).

Reflections 11 .