Week Nine Blog

Write a reflection about the advanced instructional designs that were presented in class. Which ones made sense? Which would you use? Why? Which did you have problems with and what problems?

All four presentations about instructional design theories/models in week eight were informative. Cognitive apprenticeship and component display theory are the two I enjoyed the most. I also enjoyed the presentation on Bloom’s taxonomy and presenter’s analogy with ADDIE and 4C.

Cognitive apprenticeship emphasizes four building blocks that constitute any learning environment are content, method, sequencing, and sociology. In cognitive apprenticeship design principles, providing appropriate scaffolds to support the students’ own efforts is essentials.  Heuristic, control, learning strategies are three kinds of strategies knowledge. According to Collins et al (1987) here are six teaching methods-modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration. The presenter provided the research findings that support cognitive apprenticeship as an advanced instructional design model.

David Merrill’s component display theory (CDT) is about component. Learning is classified in content (fact, concept, procedure, principle) and performance (remember, use, find) dimensions.

Primary presentation forms (PPFs), secondary presentation forms (SPFs), and interdisplay relationships (IDRs) are instructional strategy components. CDT framework is learner centered which provides individualized learning experiences to meet their learning styles and preferences. CDT is also an advanced instructional design framework. David Merrill himself mentioned some limitations of this theory.

I would like to know more about cognitive apprenticeship theory in practice in the future.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN Laboratories, Cambridge, MA. Centre for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. January, 1987.

Week Seven Blog

There are four advanced instructional design models that were presented in week seven synchronous class meeting. These are Learning and Teaching as Communicative Actions (LTCA), Student-Centered Instructional Design, Award-based design and 4C-ID.

I personally believe that the instructional design principles of LTCA theory provide opportunities for the designer to use it as an advanced instructional design model. Bringing interpersonal communicative actions is important for constructing socially produced knowledge.  I think LTCA model is an advanced model because LTCA instructional design principles will provide the guidelines to design and implement student learning activities that will give the opportunities for students to work individually and in groups to construct knowledge. Also, there are researches that support it as an advanced instructional design. “Learning constructs in LTCA theory comes from Habermas’ four communicative actions: normative, strategic, constative, and dramaturgical actions (Warren, et al., 2010).” Warren and Wakefield (2011) stated that “LTCA theory help to augment student learning experience through more active communication and increased content sharing among students to build a social learning community.”  An appropriate design for Peer-instruction activities can encourage students to deepen their understanding of contents, taking ownership of their own learning, enhance meta-cognitive skills, and increase motivation (Topping, 2003).

4C-ID is an instructional design model developed by Merriënboer and others that is characterized by four components: (1) Learning Tasks, (2) Supportive Information, (3) Procedural Information or just-in-time information and (4) Part-Task Practice. According to Merriënboer et al. (2002), this model addresses on the integration and coordinated performance of task-specific skills rather than on knowledge types. And traditional models use either part-task or whole-task practice; the 4C/ID model recommends a mixture where part-task practice supports very complex, “whole-task” learning.” Merrill considers this model as problem-based learning model. My personal thought is that this model might be specifically good for technical curriculum such as vocational training.

Award-based instructional design was also interesting to me. It is great to know that providing plus(+) as reward and exchange or trade more pluses motivated students to learn new language or information. I think any strategy that enhances learning can be used for teaching and learning. But I would connect the activity to an underlying theory or framework in a PhD level discussion.

Learner/student-centered instructional design is also a good advanced ID because it’s design principles require continuous assessment of learning, understanding of different learning styles, students’ interest, and participation of students as “active partners” in their leaning process. Webber (2006) stated that “The Learner centered model of education argues that the control of the learning should be exactly the opposite of the recent trend, and should reside primarily on the learner him or herself, with the teacher serving as a facilitator for the constructivist learning process.”

I would choose Student-centered instructional design if I was not doing the LTCA.

References

Topping, K.J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility. In Segers, M. Dochy, F & Cascallar, E. (Eds.).Kluwe Academic Publishers.

Warren, S. J. and Wakefield, J. S. (2011). Instructional design frameworks for Second Life virtual learning. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 4, 115–163.

van Merriënboer, J.G, Clark, R, E. & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50 (2),39-64.