(February 12)
Although it would be ideal for an educator to seek input from SME’s and students at every stage of the instructional design process, I do not believe it is a realistic expectation. Like Caroline mentioned, it often comes down to time.
Although it would be ideal for an educator to seek input from SME’s and students at every stage of the instructional design process, I do not believe it is a realistic expectation. Like Caroline mentioned, it often comes down to time.
From my understanding, an instructional designer is distinct from a teacher. The process they go through to create learning tasks is inevitably different from a classroom teacher’s approach because they have time and resources specifically devoted to the design process. Their time and energy is not consumed by additional routine, administrative, and management responsibilities as an educator’s would be. Working relatively “behind the scenes,” an instructional designer has more opportunities to engage in conversations with SME’s and the target audience throughout the process (and more specifically, at the completion of each phase in the model). A teacher is expecting and trusting that an instructional designer has already gone through this process when she selects a prescribed lesson/activity to implement. In the absence of an instructional designer with whom to collaborate or from whom to receive teaching materials, I feel it would be difficult for an educator to consult SME’s throughout each part of a design process. That is, unless either she a) somehow has a lot of extra time, b) is extremely unfamiliar with the subject matter she’s teaching, or c) is a veteran teacher whose main priority is to significantly revamp a lesson/module/course she’s been teaching for a long time. If anything, I think it would be most reasonable that the average teacher would consult a SME during the Design stage only. And in many cases, especially at the elementary level, Internet resources may take the role of SME.
Before this course I had never heard of instructional design (as a theory-based field of study). I have never worked with an instructional design team, and have never had the luxury (as I imagine it would be!) to have one with whom to collaborate in my school. Like many teachers, I believe I’ve been wearing the ID hat (amongst others, like the chap in Caps for Sale) throughout my ten very eclectic years of K-12 teaching. It has been my responsibility all along to take curricular objectives and sort through resources to create learning experiences, keeping in mind theories of educational psychology and “best practices” I’ve adopted along the way. Collaboration opportunities are not readily available, as I’ve always been the only teacher in my subject matter or age group. The design process is not formal or prescriptive, and rapid prototyping has often been the norm, but many elements of ADDIE are in there somewhere! For example, after designing and implementing a learning activity, I rely on my own and my students’ subjective reaction to and objective academic success with the formative and summative assessments I’ve administered. Debriefing isn’t constant, though, as I feel it would be distracting to continually “step outside the box”. Nevertheless my audience’s voice is valued, and I think it would be reasonable that an educator would seek feedback from her students during the Analysis, Implementation, and Evaluation phases only. Obviously, however, she would keep their background knowledge, ability levels, learning styles, and attitudes/interests in consideration throughout all stages of instructional design.
It would be wonderful for teachers to adhere to a systematic and iterative process of analysis, discussion, reflection, and revision at every stage of the design process, but at the end of the day, a large portion of an educator’s job (and time) involves motivating and managing the learners in her charge.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
(February 16)
Nora and Matt, thanks for encouraging us to think a bit more about the nature of evaluation. Matt, it helped me come to terms with the "science vs. art" debate how you contrasted "act of evaluation" with "creation of evaluation". Nora, I valued your proposal of evaluation tasks as being a creative endeavor. I like to see myself falling more on that side of the spectrum. However, I've been reflecting a lot lately on analytic and scientific evaluation as well, and would like to be more knowledgeable and active in my use of those tools. (I know this is an area in which I know I need to improve.)
As instructional designers, how are we meant to interpret our students' creative responses? Typically rubrics for open-ended/project-based assessments are valuable tools, but I feel they are hard to derive "scientific" results from. Although a well-designed rubric aligns directly to objectives and desired results, there is inherently going to be a bit more subjectivity and "creative interpretation" on the part of the teacher. Doesn't this throw off the "control" our our ID experiment? Do the results from a rubric-based evaluation from an Instructionally Designed task have enough merit on their own? Is an activity sound by ADDIE "standards" if we base our evaluation of the task on how well we think the students creatively responded to it? I suppose this depends on the objectives and the nature of the lesson. Nonetheless, I would feel uncomfortable basing my Instructional Design analysis on a lesson that was open-ended, "creative", and constructivist in style. Are there enough predictable and measurable parts in it?
At this point, I see the value of ID for directed instruction (which is quite scientific by nature), but wonder if there is a place for it in alignment with other teaching philosophies.
2)As a novice instructional designer, which aspects of developing instruction do you consider to be inherently artistic? Which aspects of developing instruction do you consider inherently scientific? (Brown & Green, 2011, p.18)
(February 12)
Just like the right-brain/left-brain theory of learning has been debunked, so too have the lines blurred between art and science. Both domains are inquisitive by nature: they seek to answer “What is true? Why does it matter? How can we move society forward?” (Maeda, 2013*) Leonardo de Vinci helped illustrate that they don’t have to exist dichotomously. Investigation and imagination can both lead to meaningful discoveries. As others before have mentioned, people can solve problems with artistic and scientific influences (some potentially weighing more heavily than others). Luckily instructional designers can be systematic as well as creative in all phases of their design process.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
(February 16)
Nora and Matt, thanks for encouraging us to think a bit more about the nature of evaluation. Matt, it helped me come to terms with the "science vs. art" debate how you contrasted "act of evaluation" with "creation of evaluation". Nora, I valued your proposal of evaluation tasks as being a creative endeavor. I like to see myself falling more on that side of the spectrum. However, I've been reflecting a lot lately on analytic and scientific evaluation as well, and would like to be more knowledgeable and active in my use of those tools. (I know this is an area in which I know I need to improve.)
As instructional designers, how are we meant to interpret our students' creative responses? Typically rubrics for open-ended/project-based assessments are valuable tools, but I feel they are hard to derive "scientific" results from. Although a well-designed rubric aligns directly to objectives and desired results, there is inherently going to be a bit more subjectivity and "creative interpretation" on the part of the teacher. Doesn't this throw off the "control" our our ID experiment? Do the results from a rubric-based evaluation from an Instructionally Designed task have enough merit on their own? Is an activity sound by ADDIE "standards" if we base our evaluation of the task on how well we think the students creatively responded to it? I suppose this depends on the objectives and the nature of the lesson. Nonetheless, I would feel uncomfortable basing my Instructional Design analysis on a lesson that was open-ended, "creative", and constructivist in style. Are there enough predictable and measurable parts in it?
At this point, I see the value of ID for directed instruction (which is quite scientific by nature), but wonder if there is a place for it in alignment with other teaching philosophies.
2)
(February 12)
Just like the right-brain/left-brain theory of learning has been debunked, so too have the lines blurred between art and science. Both domains are inquisitive by nature: they seek to answer “What is true? Why does it matter? How can we move society forward?” (Maeda, 2013*) Leonardo de Vinci helped illustrate that they don’t have to exist dichotomously. Investigation and imagination can both lead to meaningful discoveries. As others before have mentioned, people can solve problems with artistic and scientific influences (some potentially weighing more heavily than others). Luckily instructional designers can be systematic as well as creative in all phases of their design process.
Analyze: Mostly scientific: Defining specific problems, needs, and goals; Listing resources; Identifying constraints and priorities; Studying content; Considering prerequisites. Artistic (to a small degree): Coming up with exploratory questions to determine the problem; Describing (“painting a picture of”) learners and their contexts. For the most part this phase is like gathering background research and defining/framing the issue, which is mostly identified with scientific thinking.
Design: Mostly artistic: Creating activities and assessments in alignment with outcomes; Embedding diverse teaching strategies in information/skills transmission; Developing the media and/or specific delivery system for instruction; Collaborating with SME’s. Somewhat scientific: Planning the sequence of activities according to logic, time, resources, and other external factors; Weighing the pros/cons of different activities, media, and assessments; Planning the evaluation to be controlled and strictly correlated to objectives.
Develop: Mostly artistic: Creatively adapting or blending existing materials: Designing prototypes; Making the actual instruction materials (using technology, graphics, etc.); Project management tools (that are subjective or include “soft skills”) Somewhat scientific: Project management tools (objective); Following blueprints designed in the Design stage; Delineating implementation guidelines
Implement: Mostly scientific: Developing precise procedures to deliver instruction according to the prescribed plan; Ensuring materials and conditions are in place (that the “experiment” is controlled); Collecting feedback; Tracking evaluation. Somewhat artistic: Human interaction
Evaluate: Mostly scientific: Analyzing feedback and reviews; Engaging in formative and summative evaluation; Examining teamwork and the success of the ID process; Drawing conclusions. Somewhat artistic: Making revisions—creating alterations without deviating too drastically from the intended design; Observations and evaluations can be reflective or subjective (to some degree)
In general, the “creation” and “development” elements of the process are more open-ended and artistic than the “gathering evidence” and “analysis” components. Nonetheless, the presence of art and science in the design process ensures a problem-solving approach that is balanced (i.e. not too prescriptive/predictable, and not too detached/aesthetic).
*Although unrelated to this discussion’s topic, John Maeda’s article Artists and Scientists: More Alike Than Different brings up interesting connections between the two fields (art & science) in the realm of education.
* * * * * * * * * * * *(February 16)
Caroline, I completely agree and sympathize with you and your "teacher hat" -- I have one too, and I think it's gonna just have to stay stuck on! I think breaking down our lesson and unit planning through the Instructional Design process, even if we only adhere to its most general components and sequence, can only make us better instructors. I don't think we have to "lose" anything in the process. I hope not, at least, as I think looking at designing an instructional task through the eyes of a teacher is beneficial for making an effective and practical task. We already know how to take it from "teacher's guide" (ID) mode to execution. Working through the ADDIE sequence is a great metacognitive exercise in reflecting on best practice...and perhaps the idea is that these focused analytic techniques will become habit. At any rate, yes, proper Instructional Design is ideal, but it is not feasible that a full-time teacher will be able to engage in both activities to an acceptable degree. Reflecting on the design steps (and trying to incorporate them as much possible), engaging in target audience feedback, and inviting discussions with SME's is commendable effort, I think.
Now with regard to the issue of SME's, this is also a new term for me since delving into this course. As a (mostly) elementary teacher, I'm wondering what subject matter experts look like for this particular age group? Are these the same scientists and mathematicians that are consulted for high school and collegiate-level courses? Are SME's really necessary for the younger age groups? And if so, is their purpose quite different? (Perhaps a math SME is an expert more in HOW students best learn certain math skills rather than being expert "fraction-workers" or "arithmaticians". But if that is the case, aren't they overlapping with the instructional designer's role?) Also, teaching six or seven subject matters, with units of study changing so rapidly, I don't think it's feasible that an elementary teacher is going to be consulting SME's every step of the way. Thanks for letting me know what you think about this (or anyone else, too, for that matter!) I'm still struggling with the role/purpose of SME's in the younger grades. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment