Today, I went back to Surya Dutta's blog and decided to reread her notions about the dichotomy within instructional design:
"I have always wondered about the two aspects of instructional design: the theoretical side and the application side. I see how each time application tends to fall behind on going research. By the time you build a system to add in the most current trend, there is already something new. I believe this is the way it works in other domains as well, but the question that keeps running in my mind, is how does one reduce this gap? The smaller the gap, the more connected research will be with application. For example, if someone researches and writes about the ADDIE theory and I have to implement it in my organization, it is most common that I will not able to implement it as it is defined in books. What will likely happen, is that the way I work through it in my work place, gets driven by actual events that occur, functioning of other departments associated with the completion of my task and so on. I personally feel that research should not just run parallel to application. There has to be a means to constantly go back and forth between the two, take into account dependencies when writing a theory, and finally define more realistic theories and processes. It is important not to look at each domain in isolation and imagine it implemented in a running organization with real-time challenges."
Of course, this had me scratching my head and wondering who ADDIE is. She sounds like my great aunt. In the lower right side of Surya's blog, she has posted favorite links. The link named "Designing Instruction" looked promising and so I was off.
This brought me to Renssalaer University's Course Development page entitled "Designing Instruction." I clicked on the overview to read more. Listed here were about 38 different directions in which I could go under the categories Instructional Design, Course Development, Models and Theories, and Tools. There was an extensive bibliography at the bottom and I recognized none of the names. Why is it, I wondered, that the educational researchers and theorists I do know don't seem to show up on a page like this. Where are people in the field like Robert Marzano, Wiggins and McTighe, or Anne Davies -- people I've come to respect.
I scrolled down to Models and Theories and saw a Wikipedia entry that answered my earlier question about Great Aunt Addie.
There are many good instructional design models that are customized to meet specific needs. The ADDIE model is a commonly used approach that can be effective in almost every learning or teaching situation. The ADDIE model is the generic process traditionally used by instructional designers and training developers. The five phases—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation—represent a dynamic, flexible guideline.
Most of the current instructional design models are spin-offs or variations of the ADDIE model; other models include the Dick & Carey and Kemp ISD models. One commonly accepted improvement to this model is the use of rapid prototyping. This is the idea of receiving continual or formative feedback while instructional materials are being created. This model attempts to save time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. Instructional theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.
I skimmed the rest of the page recognizing some of the tools, Inspiration for one, which now has a spinoff Web 2.0 Tool called Webspiration. Thy probably need to stay in competition with Mindmeister, another tool we have a little experience with.
Enough for today's exploring. Great Aunt Addie turns out to be an acronym and I'm sure just one of the relatives we'll learn about in the days ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment