Final Project 35 of Fianl Grade

University of the West Indies Open Campus
MSc Instructional Design and Technology
EDID 6503: Instructional Design, Models and Strategies
Group Project
Group Name: The Strategists
Group Members:
Kwame Edwards - 03601544
Shane Grant - 20042846
Anderson Hinkson - 320022581
La Donna Howell - 03621575
TUTOR: Dr. Laura Gray

EDID 6503 - Final Project 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 3
INSTRUCTIONAL / WORK ENVIRONMENTS 4
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH INSTRUCTIONAL/WORK

ENVIRONMENT 11
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES - SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 15
NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL 16
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN 20
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES THAT WILL BE AFFORDED IN THE NEW MODEL 21
DISCREPANCY ANALYSIS 23
CONCLUSION 24
REFERENCES 25
REFLECTIONS 27
ABSTRACT
This paper was developed based on four (4) models which were initially created by the team
members. The models developed were as follows:
● ASSAE
● EWSS - LIT
● GEMS
● MOULD
The above mentioned models were developed based on the following models: ASSURE,
ADDIE, SAMR and Backward Design model. From the feedback from Assignment 3, the group
learned that Backward Design model and ADDIE model were not instructional models but rather
instructional design models.
In this group assignment, these four models were combined to create a new instructional model
to be used in the working environment. The new model, the MERGE model, was developed to
demonstrate how the model can be used in the four (4) different learning environments who all
cater to the educational needs of students. The MERGE model can be used in learning
institutions that have similar working environments as the four (4) discussed.
INSTRUCTIONAL / WORK ENVIRONMENTS
Kwame Edwards
The St. Philip’s Primary School is located in Church Village, St. Philip, Barbados. The school is
a community school, with most students living in the immediate vicinity. The communities
surrounding the school are small and that is reflected in the roll of the school which has 97
students: 52 girls and 45 boys. The school has a staff complement of 11 teachers who support the
8 classes. There is one principal and a senior teacher, who functions as a deputy principal. The
school has the following classes: Nursery, Reception, Infants A, Infants B, Class 1, Class 2,
Class 3 and Class 4. There are eight form teachers, along with three relief teachers, who teach
Physical Education and General Science, Information Technology and Music, as well as Special
Needs or Remedial English and Mathematics to learners who have learning challenges. The ages
of the staff range from 24 to the mid 50’s. All members of staff have completed professional
teaching qualifications, beginning with the Diploma in Education. All teachers have a University
Degree.
This school is owned and managed by the government of Barbados through the Ministry of
Education, Technological and Vocational Training. All instructions, guidelines, mandates and
reviews are outlined by the ministry. The education authority encourages the use of the Blooms
Taxonomy as the standard by which all schools are assessed. The school is supplied with current
technological equipment, such as computers, tablets and a smart board. There is a computer lab
that has recently been renovated with PCs, laptops and tablets. There has been a thrust by the
educational authorities, to bring technology closer to students, teachers and parents, so as to
attempt to get an improvement in student’s performances. The issue that presents itself is that
there is a lot of technology around the school - each teacher and class has been assigned a laptop.
However, there is a lack of a consistency in the use of the technology, as there has been no set
system put in place to facilitate the integration of the technology across the school system in
Barbados. Each school has been assigned an Information Technology Coordinator who is
responsible for implementing a plan that best suits the working environment, which can create
the challenge of a lack of cohesion and standardization amongst all of the constituents in the
school system.
In addition to the technology that has been supplied by the school, students and parents also have
their own personal tablets, phone and PCs. Students want to bring their devices to school and
use them. There is the hope that more could be done to integrate the personally owned
technology, to get students more involved. Hopefully, the use of these modern devices, will
result in improved students’ performances.
Shane Grant
The school was established to meet the needs of a growing number of maturing children with
disabilities. The school caters to students with varying disabilities, ages ranging from eleven (11)
to eighteen (18+) years old. The students are fed into the school primarily from the Special
Education Units, but some also come from other Primary and Secondary schools. The
disabilities/disorders currently present in the student population include:
(a) Autism Spectrum Disorders (e.g. Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome)
(b) Learning Disabilities (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
(c) Emotional and Behaviour Disorders
(d) Multiple Disabilities - physically disabled, intellectually challenged and sensory impairments
(e.g. Down’s Syndrome, cerebral palsy and visual impairment)
(e) Speech and Language Disorders (e.g. receptive & expressive difficulties)
(f) Other Health Impairments (e.g. diabetes, seizures and sickle cell anaemia).
The mission of the working environment is to help each student reach his or her full potential in
all areas- academically, socially, physically, psychologically and technologically; and to produce
students who can not only be self-sufficient but who can also be productive and contributing
citizens within their communities as noted in the school’s motto is “To Be the Best That We Can
Be”. The staff complement is 95% trained and attend courses on a continuous basis for
professional development.
La Donna Howell
East West Secondary School is a co-educational institution located in the outskirts of Port of
Spain. Founded in 1976, it was the first and only Comprehensive school to be constructed in the
capital city and welcomed its first batch of students in January 1977. The school’s student
population is approximately 900 ranging from Form 1 to 6 and the staff team comprises 104, a
combination of 84 teaching and 20 ancillary staff. At the helm of management are the Principal
and 2 Vice Principals supported by 8 Heads of Department, 6 Deans and 2 Safety Officers. 2
Guidance Officers and 1 Social Worker are also attached to the school.
During the period 2010-2012, East West Secondary was part of a single sex school pilot project
which saw an all-boys Form 1 intake of post-Secondary Entrance Examination (S.E.A.) students.
This intake was predominantly boys who scored between the 0-30 percentiles. In 2013, this
initiative was discontinued and the intake of both girls and boys resumed with students’ scores
averaging between 0-70 percent, with predominantly girls being ranked in the upper percentile.
Although the school reverted to co-ed, the classes were single-sex, a decision taken by
management. In September 2018 saw the resumption of mixed classes of incoming students. As
the school stands now, Form 1 classes are boys and girls, Forms 2 and 3 are single sex and the
upper school classes Forms 4 to 6 are mixed, via subject selection at the end of Form 3.
A high proportion of students entering the school have literacy and numeracy challenges. As a
result, teachers are faced with the task of addressing a plethora of individual learning needs in
each classroom. Some students have little to no interest in academics and often come under
disciplinary actions for behavioral issues. Some students view subjects and learning as boring
and often complain of having to do too much writing, especially in the all-boys classes. The
teaching members of staff often struggle to maintain the interest and control of students in their
classes. Although the majority are qualified and formally trained to varying extents, there is
minimal employment of strategies learnt into daily lesson planning, for example, technology
integration. Teachers often cite logistical limitations and time constraints as the reason for not
regularly integrating technology into their lessons and if and when they do, it is only done for
one or two classes per week. As a result, most teachers carry out instruction via the traditional
chalk and talk method which continues to contribute to the disinterest of students in academic
disciplines.
However, it has been admitted by members of staff that students’ engagement levels are
heightened when technology is used in a lesson. Teachers have observed an increase in attention,
participation, discipline and academic achievement when using PowerPoint to facilitate teaching,
various educational games and online learning activities. This has also been noted by myself in
the execution and findings of my Action Research Project.
Anderson Hinkson
Hindsbury Primary School (HPS), is a single sex Government Assisted Primary school which is
managed by the Ministry of Education Technology and Vocational Training. When there was
gender separation in 1896, the girls were removed to Hall’s Road and the new school was named
the Wright’s Girls’ School. This building, becoming too overcrowded demanded that a new
building be erected and so, in the year 1915, a new school building was erected at School Gap,
Hindsbury Road. The mission statement however remained the same.

“The Hindsbury Primary School is committed to creating a teaching-learning environment using
varied methodologies to develop the potential of each person resulting in the building of
“citizens of excellence.”
My workplace consists of a rich mix of qualified teachers both experienced and inexperienced,
the majority of whom are devoted and committed to the job. Management and coworkers enjoy a
friendly and supportive relationship which allows for coworkers to be supportive of each other.
This relationship is responsible for the level of job satisfaction felt by my coworkers who
willingly participate in activities that are in their purview. There is high staff morale which
ensures that members are well motivated. Staff members go above and beyond the call of duty to
ensure the successful attainment of the organization’s goals which emphasizes shared values.
In this environment the emphasis is also on good planning, efficacy and getting the job done.
Although there is a determined goal, all employees exhibit a sense of autonomy and, despite a
high work demand and time pressure, such situations do not overrun the job but cultivate
desirable habits instead. Rules and policies are communicated both verbally and in writing and
are agreed upon by staff. Hence there is a clarity of expectation in the daily routines. There is
emphasis on variety, change and new approaches.
The physical surroundings contribute to the making of a pleasant and well-organized work
environment in which members feel included. There is generally great scope for individual as
well as departmental development, inclusive of a spirit and culture of sharing and caring which
drives all members, even those who are the least experienced.
The student population is divided into twenty (20) classrooms consisting 25 students on average.
The age range of the students enrolled at (HPS) is four to eleven years. However, depending on a
student’s inability to reach the required standard she may be deferred from sitting the Barbados
Secondary School’s Entrance Examination at the required age of eleven but is allowed to sit the
examination the following year, at age twelve. School commences at 8:45 in the morning and
finishes at 3:00 in the evening. At (HPS) we strive for excellence and therefore expose our
students to a well-rounded curriculum enhanced by Testing, done bi-weekly and at the end of
each term so as to avail teachers of students’ progress. At the national level students are required
to sit the Criterion Referenced Test at ages six to seven and eight to nine years.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH INSTRUCTIONAL/WORK
ENVIRONMENT
Similarities:
1. All four work environments are educational institutions which are government funded.
The government is responsible for the financing of the schools and they are run by the
Ministry of Education. The environment’s main responsibility is for students to have
access to education as is the human right of each child.
2. None of the work environments currently use instructional models. In fact, the course
also revealed that the environments had no instructional models being used. Although
there was no set model, the work environments tend to follow the ASSURE model -
A- Analyse learners
S - State standards and objectives
S - Select strategies, technology, media and materials
U - Utilize technology, media and materials
R - Require learner participation
E - Evaluate and revise

3. The work environments have technology readily accessible. The work environments
have access to computer labs which are equipped with PCs, laptops and tablets. The
majority of the teachers in the environments are trained to use this equipment.
4. The Principal is the decision maker within the working environment. The Principal
operates under the guidance of the Ministry of Education and is governed by the
Education Act which allow them to make the decisions in the school. The Principal is
responsible for creating the timetables that guide both the teachers and students.
5. All environments are guided by the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum is
broken down into subject areas. It assists the teachers in knowing what is to be taught
and when it is to be taught.
Differences:
1. The age ranges of the students vary in the working environments. In Ladonna and
Shane’s working environment the students range in ages eleven and over, these
environments focus on the adolescent ages. Kwame and Anderson’s work environment
students ages range from four to eleven years of age.
2. One of the schools is a same sex school. Anderson’s school is a all girl school whilst the
other three environments are co-educational environments.

3. One of the environments caters to students specifically with special needs. Kwame’s
environment has a “pull out” programme for students who need remedial assistance but it
is not mainly a special needs school. On the other hand, Shane’s working environment
main focus is on those students who require access to special education curriculum.
4. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the working environments have fully trained teachers. At
Shane’s school only three teachers out of the nineteen on staff actually have a Masters in
Special Needs. Some of the teachers there would have completed the Diploma in
Education at the school; however, they hold no qualifications in Special Education. The
other work environments all have trained teachers.
Differences between each instructional/work environment
Differences Anderson Kwame La Donna Shane
Type of School Government Government Government Government

Assisted Primary Primary Secondary Special Education
School Singlesex (girls) / Co-ed / 97 Co-ed / 900 Co-ed/107

Population 400
Staff Qualified Qualified and Qualified, Trained and

experienced and trained unqualified, untrained, continuous
inexperienced trained and professional
untrained development
Instructional Direct Direct Direct Direct

Methods/Models Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction
/Strategies(most
prevalent)
No Model No Model No Model No Model
Assessment Bi-weekly tests, Bi-weekly Tests are given Teacher made tests,
end of term tests, tests, as determined Caribbean Vocational
Criterion Referenced end of term by teacher, end Qualifications
Test (National level) tests, of term tests, (CVQ), CSEC EDPM
Criterion National
Referenced Certificate of
Test (National Secondary
level) Education
Exam
Technological Computers, tablets, Computers, Limited Computers, laptops,

Amenities laptops, smartboard, tablets, laptops, resources (1 PCs, smartboard, Talk
modern computer lab smartboard, computer lab to Type Software,
modern with 12 Modern Computer
computer lab computers) Lab
Technology- Yes Yes No Yes

oriented school
Existence of IT Yes Yes No Yes

Coordinator
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES - SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Category Anderson Kwame La Donna Shane
Collaborative ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
Learning
Environment
Demonstration ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
Peer Coaching ✱ ✱
Direct Instruction ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
Drill and Practice ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
Hands on ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
learning
Expository ✱
Teaching
Problem Based ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱
Learning
Simulation ✱ ✱
Socratic Method ✱ ✱
NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
The name of the new model is called the MERGE model. This name was chosen as it is a
merger between the four instructional models.
A Diagrammatic Representation of the MERGE Model

The Processes of the MERGE model:
M- Meet with the stakeholders
It is important that all stakeholders meet to ascertain the needs of the learner. This step was
incorporated from the MOULD model which first step is to meet with the stakeholders. The
African Proverb, “it takes the village to raise a child”, clearly highlights the fact that a child’s
success is not only based on the child only but all key stakeholders in the child’s life (parents,
teachers, school counsellor, therapist). When this occurs, everyone is on the same page and has
clearly defined outcomes for the child.
E- Evaluate
This initial evaluation allows for the teacher to select objectives that are informed by the
discussion conducted with the stakeholders. The objectives derived allows for the teacher to
create lesson plans that assist the students in meeting the objectives outlined. Schwartz and
Pollishuke (2002) posits the lesson plans guides instruction as you approach the task of meeting
the needs and interests of your students on a daily basis. A formative assessment should be done
in order to ascertain the level of the student. Stiggins (2005) opines that “assessment for learning
consists of sharing a methodology for guiding teachers in the creation and use of formative
assessments ensuring that students can monitor and see their own progress and feel more in
control of their own learning, and providing data which can help realign instruction practices
with results”.
R- Recommend appropriate methods of instruction
It involves sharing methods for quality instruction that support the different learning styles.
These methods of instruction should incorporate strategies integrated with technology. Romrell,
D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014) quoted Traxler (2010) as stating that “mobile devices,
especially connected devices, enable students to consume— that is, to access and store—all sorts
of knowledge almost instantly and almost wherever they are, with little or no effort compared
with earlier technologies” (p. 154). In today’s society students are entering school with first
hand knowledge of the use of technology. Hap Aziz (1999), postulates that “In order to select
the best media and technology for the delivery of instructional content, it is essential to identify
and analyze the audience”. Games and tablets are readily available to students and capture their
attention. When learning is incorporated using what is known to the students the student is more
focussed on the tasks at hand since they see it as “fun” rather than learning.
G- Group and Implement Strategies
It is vital that these strategies be student centred as the student is the Captain of his/her learning
vessel. These strategies should be hands on so that the student has a hand in their learning.
Grouping allows for students with similar learning styles to collaborate because they have
common thinking practices. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2014) postulated that grouping leads
to a positive interdependence and it allows for learners to promote each other success. When
peers rely on each other it develops motivation especially when knowing the group is depending
on you.
E- Evaluate and Revise
Dixson and Worrell (2016) postulates “summative assessment uses data to assess about how
much a student knows or has retained at the completion of a learning sequence” (p. 153). These
summative assessments act as the post mortem stage of the model and determines if learning has
taken place. Dale (2006) cites Bellon et al as stating that “Academic feedback is more strongly
and consistently related to achievement than any other teaching behavior….This relationship is
consistent regardless of grade, socioeconomic status, race, or school setting….When feedback
and corrective procedures are used, most students can attain the same level of achievement as the
top 20% of students.” Feedback allows us to determine if the strategies were effective and met
the objectives. It also boosts the confidence of the students. This feedback is given back to the
stakeholders and the process restarts.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN
In today’s society, education is competing with the advances of the world. No longer are
students focussed on book work but they are into the technological era. In order to compete with
this era, instructional strategies must come to par with these technologies so as to grasp the
students attention.
The MERGE model is an incorporation of the four models which all used the ASSURE model as
the basis of their development. The ASSURE model is the acronym for:
1. Analyze the learner: This allows you to understand who the students are and assists in the
selecting of appropriate materials.
2. State objectives: These objectives will assist in lesson planning.
3. Select media and materials: The materials and media are selected based on the lesson and it
relates to the method for the delivery of instruction.
4. Utilize media and materials: These are chosen to meet the learning objectives.
5. Require learner participation: Is very important for it to be meaningful.
6. Evaluate and revise: Feedback is crucial to any plan.
Stošić (2015) opines that “Educational technology is a systematic and organized process of
applying modern technology to improve the quality of education (efficiency, optimal, true, etc.)”
(pg. 111). Stošić (2015) further went on to state that it includes instructional materials methods
and organization of work and relationships” (pg. 111).
The working environment needs to be technologically enriched so that the learner and the
facilitators work in unison to reach the goals. Learning goals are common which enforces
inclusion allowing this model to be suitable for working environments similar to these.
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES THAT WILL BE AFFORDED IN THE NEW MODEL
Modelling - In a journal written by Haston (2007) he noted that Gordon, Kohut and Suzuki “all
affirmed the efficiency of modelling and imitation when used appropriately. He further
postulated that in the United States of America modelling is used to teach in specific contexts
and “require little thought on the part of the students”.
Collaborative Learning - “Collaboration involves sharing, discussion, perhaps argument,
reflection, and often negotiation. “These learning environments can involve large or small
groups, or an organized community of practice” (Richey, 2010).
Scaffolding - “controlling those elements of the task that are initial beyond the learner's
capability, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are
within his range of competence” (Richey, 2010).
Problem Based Learning - “A student-centred instructional strategy where students
collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. They are encouraged to take
responsibility for their learning group and organize and direct the learning process with support
from a tutor or instructor” (Driscoll, 2005).

Authentic Learning - “Activities present the same cognitive experiences and challenges they
would face in the ‘real world’” (Driscoll, 2005).
Anchored Instruction - “Anchored instruction is a technology-based learning approach which
stresses the importance of placing learning within a meaningful, problem-solving context. A
form of situated learning, anchored instruction uses context-- stories or micro--- to situate the
learning and application of knowledge. In other words, the learning is contextualized to provide
students with realistic roles that serve to enhance the learning process” (Bransford, J.D. et al.
1990).
Object Based Learning - According to an article posted on Sheffield Hallam University it
referenced Freeman et al. (2014) as stating that objective based learning is a form of active
learning. Hannah et al (2013) postulates that while the teacher facilitates this session, the
students construct meaning for themselves through their interactions with each other centred on
the object.
Cognitive Flexibility Hypertexts - Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT) states that “learners
benefit from an information retrieval that is a "landscape-criss-crossing" rather than a linear
knowledge acquisition process. Hypertexts in context of CFT are viewed as adequate media to
go beyond certain information, to (re)visit certain facts at different times and in a different
context” (Zumbach, 2006).

DISCREPANCY ANALYSIS
MOULD ASSAE GEMS EWSS-LIT
Meet with This was the This model did This step was This step was not
stakeholders first step in the not allow a not done done.
MOULD meeting with
stakeholders.
Evaluate An evaluation Teacher assesses No assessment Learning style

was done with a students abilities done on learner. assessment,
pre-assessment Methods of quantitative and
before the lesson instruction were qualitative data
and a post selected. obtained.
mortem after However did not
show how they
were selected.
Recommend Methods of Substitute the Technologies Instruction was

appropriate instruction were technology for were chosen to advised to be
methods of recommended, other learning suit the technologically
instruction however with activities instructions based.
the MERGE chosen.
model
Group and Strategies were They were no No strategies No grouping

Implement highlighted but strategies chosen. done. Interactive
Strategies not defined strategies advised.
Evaluate and Evaluation was Evaluation and Evaluation and Evaluation and
Revise conducted but a revision iterative revision iterative revision iterative
revision was not cycle cycle. cycle.
made
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278848636_The_importance_of_educational_tech
nology_in_teaching
CONCLUSION
This group assignment allowed for the merger of four different models. These four models were
used to create a new instructional model that could be used in working environments similar to
the four used in this assignment.
The group had a clear understanding of each work environment and the similarities allowed for
the models to be easily merged. The group’s collaboration and sharing of knowledge learnt in
the course allowed for the development of a new model. In addition, the feedback from
Assignment 3, allowed for the reevaluation of the other models to have a clear understanding of
the task at hand. The MERGE model allows for the integration of technology which was lacking
in some of the other models.

REFERENCES
Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can
help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Dale, Kathy (2006) "Providing Students with Effective Feedback," Academic Leadership: The
Online Journal: Vol. 4 : Iss. 4 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol4/iss4/7
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and Summative Assessment in the Classroom.
Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
https://doi-org.library.open.uwi.edu/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative Assessment and Writing. Elementary
School Journal, 115(4), 523–547. https://doi-org.library.open.uwi.edu/10.1086/681947
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th
Ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology
Hannan L, Chatterjee H, Duhs R (2013). Object Based Learning: A powerful pedagogy for
higher education. Museums and Higher Education Working Together: Challenges and
Opportunities, 159–168. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Hap Aziz. (1999). Assure Learning Through the Use of the ASSURE Model. Office of
Information Technology, OIT. Valencia Community College.
Haston, W. (2007). Teacher Modeling as an Effective Teaching Strategy. Music Educators

Journal, 93(4), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/002743210709300414
Informally published Web document (no author, no date). Teaching and Assessment Essential
(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://blogs.shu.ac.uk/engagement/toolkit/breif/?doing_wp_cron=1543811094.06062293052673
33984375#
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the
university classroom (3rd edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base:
Theory, research, and practice. Routledge
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for
Evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 79–93.Retrieved
from
https://search-ebscohostcom.library.open.uwi.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=110128
385&site=ehostlive
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to

success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324-328.
Stošić, L., & Stošić, I. (2015). The Importance of Education Technology In Teaching (IJCRSEE),
3(1),111-113.Retrievedfrom
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278848636_The_importance_of_educational_technolo
gy_in_teaching
Thomas, Pelleth Yohannan (2010) Towards developing a web-based blended learning

environment at the University of Botswana, University of South Africa, Pretoria,
<http://hdl.handle.net/10500/4245>
Zumbach, J. (2006). Cognitive overhead in hypertext learning reexamined: Overcoming the

myths. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 411-432. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.ezproxygateway.sastudents.uwi.tt/docview/205852616?accountid=4
5039
REFLECTIONS
Kwame Edwards
The experience of creating an instructional model has been a challenging one. It was challenging
because it required a thorough understanding of instructional models and a knowledge of how to
apply them correctly. My first attempt at creating my own instructional model for my school, I
used Bloom’s Taxonomy with the ASSURE and the SAMR models. Using the Bloom’s
taxonomy was incorrect as it is a tool used to assess learning outcomes verbs. This required that
I reexamine how I got it wrong and what corrections were needed to remedy the problem. With
my group the Strategist, we all had a similar experience of having incorrect models, we
discussed and concluded that we used instructional design models rather than instruction models.
We recognized that these errors would impact the creation of our new group model and our
assignment. The group had a series of very informative discussions and we charted a path for
our new model. These groups discussions showed me how important it is to share and discuss
with peers, especially their perceptions about various concepts within instructional design.
There were certain things that I did not fully understand, then hearing and watching my peers
work in our Google docs was an unforgettable experience. This work was done with the final
write up of the group project and the Pecha Kutcha PowerPoint slideshow. This was
motivational, because we were able to work well together.

The experience that I plan to take with me from this exercise is to never underestimate the
importance of collaboration. Group work help students to grow and to thrash out various
concepts that were discussed in the learning setting. This allows the student to consolidate
various concepts through discussions.
Shane Grant
When I attempted Assignment 3, I was a bit skeptical about it. In the first instance, I thought I
was doing the wrong thing. The research revealed that my work environment currently has no
instructional model that guides it. I then used what I believed to be the best thing for my
working environment to be enhanced. The feedback allowed me to understand that I had a clear
understanding about instructional model.
When it came to merging our models, it was good to know that not only we all work in the
education sector but the ASSURE model was the intersect of the design of the four models
created and this made the process less challenging. Additionally, my group members are
awesome and between us we have a wealth of knowledge and we were able to bounce ideas off
each other. The late nights, the extended calls and the push allowed for us to form a good bond.
I could not ask for a better group.
To conclude, I must state that this assignment has shown me that I am one step closer to
achieving my goal from this course. My goal is to be able to enhance the special education
sector in Barbados so that these students can become viable members in society and have a fair
chance in today’s world.
Anderson Hinkson
Initially, as I read the assignment it appeared to be quite an overwhelming task and I wonder how
the team members would have put our puzzle pieces together to get that final picture. My team
members, Ladonna Howell working in a Trinidadian secondary school, Kwame Edwards
working in a Barbadian coed rural primary school, Shane Grant working in a Barbadian Special
Education school and myself in an urban Barbadian single sex primary school. I have been in
forums when these dynamic work environments meet it is always a tense situation because it is
always seen as the other does not understand what the others needs or experiences. However, this
did not obtain with the team, it actually give me a firsthand experience of how social
constructivism really works and creates, and it was a good experience. We learnt from one
another and got to appreciate the varying point of views in some cases.
The process of creating the Pecha Kucha presentation was a fun one and it allowed everyone to
show their personalities as we selected pictures to represent the points. This allowed the group to
bond further. However, the final project was a humbling process for me. My initial project to be
blended was incorrect through the use of instructional design model. I was worried that it would
have affect the team’s project, after consultation I was relieved and tried to find out where I went
wrong. Through peer reviews of the individual projects I got to see plenty of my downfalls and
learned from reading the different approaches taken. The discussions that took place in
developing the new model help widen my way of thinking and hopefully this new model will
reflect that.
La Donna Howell
At first, this group project seemed never ending. The four-page rubric was testament to the
amount of work required. This was the biggie - the culmination of all that was learnt throughout
the semester. The use of Google Docs was imperative as Assignment 3 information had to be
gleaned and sifted from all of the team members. This platform also proved beneficial for
assembling the PowerPoint via the Pecha Kucha method which I was exposed to for the first
time. I must say the process of searching for abstract pictures required some deep thinking as
these photos had to have an underlying connection and reflect what was being presented without
directly illustrating it. I found this very interesting and thought provoking. Deliberations on the
new model were very enlightening as we explored how best to extract the best features of our
individual models and combine them to create an entirely new model. Hence the name MERGE
which described the process and simultaneously acronymized the steps of the new model.
Overall, this process was memorable. I am not a big fan of group work but this collaborative
experience has changed my perspective. I really really have to recognize my team members
Andy, Kwame and Shane who were awesome throughout this process. We shared knowledge,
advice, criticisms, three-hour group calls, late nights and early mornings and they brought so
much more to the table with their unique personalities.
Looking forward, this process has provided motivation to continue experimenting with
instructional design models and strategies in my work environment. It has been an informative
experience indeed.

Final Project 35 of Fianl Grade

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Project 35 of Fianl Grade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the West Indies Open Campus

MSc Instructional Design and Technology

EDID 6503: Instructional Design, Models and Strategies

Group Name: The Strategists

TUTOR: Dr. Laura Gray

INSTRUCTIONAL / WORK ENVIRONMENTS 4

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH INSTRUCTIONAL/WORK

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES - SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 15

NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL 16

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN 20

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES THAT WILL BE AFFORDED IN THE NEW MODEL 21

members. The models developed were as follows:

instructional design models.

INSTRUCTIONAL / WORK ENVIRONMENTS

educational authorities, to bring technology closer to students, teachers and parents, so as to

result in improved students’ performances.

disabilities/disorders currently present in the student population include:

(a) Autism Spectrum Disorders (e.g. Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome)

(b) Learning Disabilities (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

(c) Emotional and Behaviour Disorders

(e.g. Down’s Syndrome, cerebral palsy and visual impairment)

the execution and findings of my Action Research Project.

Hindsbury Road. The mission statement however remained the same.

“The Hindsbury Primary School is committed to creating a teaching-learning environment using

emphasis on variety, change and new approaches.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH INSTRUCTIONAL/WORK

Ministry of Education. The environment’s main responsibility is for students to have

access to education as is the human right of each child.

S - State standards and objectives

S - Select strategies, technology, media and materials

U - Utilize technology, media and materials

R - Require learner participation

E - Evaluate and revise

and when it is to be taught.

students ages range from four to eleven years of age.

other three environments are co-educational environments.

other work environments all have trained teachers.

Differences between each instructional/work environment

Differences Anderson Kwame La Donna Shane

Type of School Government Government Government Government

School Singlesex (girls) / Co-ed / 97 Co-ed / 900 Co-ed/107

Staff Qualified Qualified and Qualified, Trained and

Instructional Direct Direct Direct Direct

Technological Computers, tablets, Computers, Limited Computers, laptops,

Technology- Yes Yes No Yes

Existence of IT Yes Yes No Yes

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES - SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Category Anderson Kwame La Donna Shane

Drill and Practice ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱

NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL

merger between the four instructional models.

A Diagrammatic Representation of the MERGE Model

M- Meet with the stakeholders

clearly defined outcomes for the child.

G- Group and Implement Strategies

E- Evaluate and Revise

consistent regardless of grade, socioeconomic status, race, or school setting….When feedback

stakeholders and the process restarts.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN

selecting of appropriate materials.

2. State objectives: These objectives will assist in lesson planning.

relates to the method for the delivery of instruction.

5. Require learner participation: Is very important for it to be meaningful.