Over the last few months I’ve conducted extensive research into instructional design models used in the process of course design. I’ve researched the history of instructional design [also known as ‘instructional systems design’] and its applications from the 1930’s to present. I’m writing, or least attempting to write, a book for educators that describes how to develop effective, relevant courses in our digital age using a dynamic instructional design model. The first chapter covers the history of instructional design with a focus on education learning environments as opposed to business or military settings. And though I’ve found considerable literature about design principles, methods and models applicable to higher education, there is dearth of published writings on instructional design models specific to K-12.
K-12 Educators Need Instructional Design Skills
Even in current literature there appears to be few resources for K-12 educators that provide instructional design models with accompanying principles to guide the development or re-design of courses for K-12 learning environments – whether it be for blended, face-to-face or online courses. However, the gap is justified by the fact that teachers for the most part, have access to already developed curriculum materials either via textbooks for specific subjects created by the publisher, materials created by instructional designers within a school district, or lesson plans/curriculum available via various platforms, i.e. Open Education Resources, Open Connexions, Discovery Education, museums for education, etc. However, I suggest that there is a need for K-12 educators to be equipped with skills in instructional design. Teachers need this skill set to adapt curriculum in order to provide relevant learning experiences for their students. Furthermore, with the proliferation of technology tools and applications that teachers have access to and are even encouraged to use, i.e. the flipped classroom method, or iPads, suggests that teachers need to know how to use these tools effectively—to be able to assess if, and how a given education tool supports the desired learning objectives. And if it does, how to incorporate the tool using a sound pedagogical strategy. I’ve encountered several examples of instructional design advice for K-12 teachers that are well-meaning, but fall short on pedagogy and instructive guidelines for implementation.
The lack of a current instructional design model for K-12 and higher education is partly what has motivated me to create one – however the purpose of this post is to review existing models specific to K-12 and examine the principles of each to identify what may be useful in today’s learning contexts. I also encourage readers to share any design experience or advice that might be helpful to other readers.
Instructional Design Models Defined
Before reviewing details of the models, I’ll share a definition – what a course design model is, and why a design model is even worth considering.
“Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world. Whether derived from whim or from serious research, a model offers its user a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem. An instructional design model gives structure and meaning to an I.D. [instructional design] problem, enabling the would-be designer to negotiate her design task with a semblance of conscious understanding. Models help us to visualize the problem, to break it down into discrete, manageable units.” – Martin Ryder, University of Colorado Denver, School of Education
Design Models Frequently Referenced for K-12 Learning
Though the definition and application of course design models vary widely, some educators have classified models into different types as the following article, Comparison of Alternative Instructional Design Models does:
“Instructional Design models are classified into three types, classroom, product and system (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Classroom models are of interest to, and are usually designed for, professional teachers from K-12, community colleges, vocational schools, and other related areas. These models take into consideration the environment of teachers… The output of these models is small, a unit or module of instruction used within the school year.” – Marlene Fauser, Kirk Henry, and David Kent Norman
In principle I disagree with this classification and description. Instructional design models should be flexible enough to be applied to all learning environments – K-12, face-to-face, blended environments, higher education, etc. However, there is value in analyzing the models, and identifying previous and current applications in various settings—in this instance K-12.
Gerlach/Ely Model
In 1971 Vernom S. Gerlach and Donald P. Ely developed the Gerlach & Ely instructional model; a prescriptive model that is most suitable to instructional planning/designing when the learning objectives and instructional content are predetermined. Its key feature is that the steps of content selection and specification of objectives are completed synchronously (diagram below), making it applicable to a K-12 environment.
Gerlach and Ely Instructional Design Model
ASSURE
The ASSURE model developed by Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smaldino uses an acronym to describe its fundamental principles: Analyze Learners, State Objectives, Select media and materials, Utilize media and materials, Require learner participation, and Evaluate and revise. Sharon Smaldino’s following statement [teacher and one of the model’s creators] describes the philosophy of the model, “To ASSURE good learning, I believe it is not one single thing that a teacher or designer should consider, but I do believe that there are areas of emphasis“. instructional Design.org
ASSURE-Model
Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model This model is the most flexible. The circular nature suggests that design is fluid, with no specific beginning point, which the authors describe as adaptable. There are nine core elements that make up the model, and the diagram indicates that each element is mutually supporting. The textbook, Designing Effective Instruction written by the developers of the model (Morrison, Ross & Kemp) indicates that the focus of the model is for classroom instruction. The most recent edition of the book [now in its sixth], discusses the role of technology in the classroom and describes how to incorporate technological tools in instructional planning.
One of the benefits touted for this model is its flexibility due to the circular nature and lack of starting point, though I view this as a significant flaw in the design as it ignores key principles of creating effective instruction which does require at least a logical sequence based on how people learn.
Kemp, Morrison and Ross Model of Instructional Design
Closing
I realize that I have only included a few of the many models, however the ones I’ve mentioned appear to be referred to, and implemented widely. Stay tuned for more posts about instructional design as I work through the research and writing of my book.
References:
Comparing Instructional Design Models, Slideshare by Michael Grant
Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas by Seymour Papert is a brilliant book. It’s as relevant today as it was when first published in 1980. Its applications to learning and teaching in 2013 are no less than startling. Mindstorms ranks in the top ten education books I’ve read. It describes not just how children develop intellectually, but frames the role that educational technology plays in teaching and learning.
Background
In Mindstorms, Papert shares his experience and research with the program Logo, a program he designed with a team at MIT to teach children how to write computer code. Quite a feat, considering that learning to code at that time was reserved for computer science, undergraduate students.
But the book is not about the tactics used to teach children a new type of language—computer code, nor is it about using a structured linear framework to teach children how to think, but rather it is about learning; how children approach learning in a novel way. It provides a window into the cognitive processes of children through the lens of their phases of development as theorized by Jean Piaget. The four stages of a child’s development are a hallmark of Piaget’s work—Piaget’s influence on Papert’s’ work was significant. Deeply interested in learning theories, Papert worked closely with Piaget at the University of Geneva between 1958 and 1963 conducting epistemological studies with children.
The turtle in logo, controlled by the student’s programmed instruction, operates a pen mechanism that creates drawings on paper
Cognitive Development
Papert moved to MIT as a research associate in 1963, and it’s during that time he developed Logo. It uses a turtle as the object that the student controls through a series of instructions he or she writes that drives a pen mechanism allowing the child [programmer] to create a design on a sheet of paper. The results from Logo are quite extraordinary. Through learning to code, children connect with mathematical concepts by experiencing math through everyday movements (instructing the ‘turtle’ to move left and right) and by drawing upon what they already know (the book explains this idea far more completely and succinctly than I do here).
Turtle geometry, is a kind of geometry that is easily learnable and an effective carrier of very general mathematical ideas. The other kind of knowledge is mathetic: knowledge and learning. (page 63)
Though it’s Papert’s exploration into the process of ‘debugging’ that demonstrates how Logo served as a tool to develop skills leading to critical thinking. Debugging is essentially fixing a mistake, which students identify, not the teacher. And students learn with logos to expect mistakes, known as ‘bugs’, and are eager to fix their mistakes or ‘debug’. Debugging entails students’ analyzing their code, their work, determining where they went wrong. Papert describes the process as student driven, but where the teacher is there to give feedback, direct and support the students (pg. 101 – 102).
This skill, debugging—analysis or problem solving or whatever we call it, is crucial to learning, and is transferable to real life leading to critical thinking. In the second edition published in 1993, Papert describes in the preface, the procedure of debugging ‘as the essence of intellectual activity’ (pg. xvii).
The question to ask about a program is not whether it is right or wrong, but whether it is fixable. (pg. 23)
Highlights
The book is an essential read for educators, especially teachers of elementary students, parents and administrators. I say essential because Papert touches on and explores numerous issues that educators are dealing with today. Mathophobia for instance that turns students away from math and science (pg. 38 − 54). Also, how culture affects learning. Papert is heavily influenced by Piaget on this issue—Papert believes that a culture’s materials influence a child’s development, specifically when it comes to building logic and math skills (pg. 20 − 24).
Thus we are brought back to seeing the necessity for the educator to be an anthropologist. Educational innovators must be aware than in order to be successful they must be sensitive to what is happening in surrounding culture and use dynamic cultural trends as a medium to carry their educational interventions. (pg. 181)
Papert also addresses the fears of the negative effects of computers; fears held today by parents and educators. Papert makes it clear, the computer is a tool, as is logo for teaching and learning. The teacher is not replaced, but supports learning through feedback and direction.
People often fear that using computer models for people will lead to mechanical or linear thinking: They worry about people losing respect for their institutions, sense of values, powers of judgement…I take these fears seriously but do not see them as fears about computers themselves but rather as fears about how culture will assimilate the computer presence. (pg. 155)
Closing
This book is full of insights and perspectives on learning that are thought-provoking, and applicable to the learning challenges facing educators today. The themes and takeaways of Mindstorms are just as applicable today as they were thirty years ago, perhaps even more so now. And my favorite takeaway, is that technology whether hardware or software, such as logo, is a tool for learning, not the solution.
I close with this one minute clip of Papert speaking, about one laptop per child program. Even in one minute, one can see Papert’s passion for educating children.
