Bill Osterholt

EDU-657

Dr. Jayme Linton

August 3, 2017                                               

Revised Compare and Contrast two ID Models

Instructional Design provides models for the systematic development of learning plans. In these models, designers address goals, needs, and the process for instruction. Each of these structures approaches this challenge differently. The models I feel most aligned with my teaching plans are ADDIE and Understand by Design. This paper will compare and contrast these two models.                                                                                                                                               

The first step is to briefly define these two models. The ADDIE model was developed from an existing design plan utilized by the military. ADDIE uses a five step approach: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. During the Analysis phase, the instructor would identify the student’s needs, their existing knowledge, identify a learning problem, and set goals and objectives. Curriculum and time constraints would also be addressed. In the Design phase, objectives for the lessons are identified.  In the Development stage, the designer builds lesson plans based on the goals from the design phase. The next stage is to Implement the plan. At this point, in the ADDIE model, both the teacher and the learner are trained how to implement the curriculum. The effectiveness of the program or curriculum is addressed in the final step Evaluation.

Understanding by Design is my second instructional design model. UbD Is also referred to as “backward design”. In this model, the designer first focuses on the desired learning outcomes or goals. So UbD begins with the end in mind. The concept is that if an instructor or teacher has their goals in mind it will enable them to structure lessons to meet those goals. The second step in this model is the plan to illustrate what evidence or assessment demonstrates the student’s understanding and mastery of the subject. The final stage is the development of the curriculum to meet both the goals and the stated assessments.

In comparing the two models, UbD takes a big picture approach. It is theoretical and emphasizes learning for the long term and transferring of knowledge to other subjects. Backward design lessons are structured in ways that help lead students to the desired end result. UbD also utilizes the WHERETO template:

●     Where the lesson is going

●     Hooking and Holding interest

●     Equipping students so to enable a positive learning experience

●     Providing changes to Rethink and Revise

●     Encouraging Self-Evaluation

●     Tailoring to individual Needs

●     Organization both by instructor and student

          In contrast, ADDIE is a more systematic approach. ADDIE Is more detailed, especially in the analysis stage where many questions about a student’s capabilities are asked. It can be implemented in many settings, including business structure. Evaluation of the plan and program is encouraged throughout all the steps in ADDIE, including an overall evaluation of the success of the delivery of the program, as well as achieving desired outcomes.

          Most teachers use one of these models of instructional design in their class planning. As a martial art’s instructor, I use both of these processes which I am comparing in this paper. The backward design model is - how many martial art programs are designed?  The goals and objectives are obtaining a certain level of proficiency. The Next Step would be to design assessments that would demonstrate these levels.In the martial arts, this would be a proficiency test to demonstrate a skill set. 

The final step in UbD is to build the curriculum or class plans that would enable the students to meet their goals.

Although this is clearly a plan for successful instruction, individualizing the program also needs to be addressed. The ADDIE model provides a structure to address these concerns. In the analysis step, an instructor would identify students’ needs, prior knowledge,  learning limitations, and personal goals. The design and development phases are the same as in Understanding by Design.  The implementation step provides instructors and students practical understanding of how the curriculum Is working in real time. Evaluating instruction and modifying and refining for age consideration, students ranging in age from 5 to 85 typically attend martial art classes. Physical limitations and various motivations require constant updating and refinement in class content.

References

Forest, E. (2014). ADDIE Model: Instructional Design, Educational Technology 2017,                 retrieved from http://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/

Wiggins,G. (2005) Understanding By Design: Overview ofUbD &the DesignTemplate,                  Lenoir-Rhyne Canvas, retrieved from https://canvas.lr.edu/courses/5431/pages/understanding-by-design?module_item_id=76981

Images

   ADDIE,2017),Spitzig.com  

  UbD, (2017), Brianclassplan.wordpress.com

  Belts and Class, (2017), Martialartsguy.com

KALEB a Mashup

Bill Osterholt

EDU 657

Dr. Jayme Linton

August 1, 2017 

KALEB a Mashup

   The two models of instructional design I have chosen are ADDIE and Understanding by Design.  UbD is essentially a streamlined version of ADDIE.  The interpretation I have of ADDIE is that it is more of a model for the design of the program itself where as other models including UbD is a model for the success of the outcome of the student in a program. This is the direction I took on the Mashup.

     UbD starts with goals and desired results. This is addressed in ADDIE as well but comes after the discovery of prior knowledge and student needs.

     Assessments are an integral part of the design in both models. ADDIE elaborates and defines this under several steps: Analysis, Design, and Development, whereas UbD streamlines this under the Assessment Evidence step.

     The models are very close and UbD uses the basic plan of ADDIE as the foundation of the model. An example of this is that UbD incorporates the exploration of a student’s prior knowledge and needs as an essential process for the Learning Plan stage. UbD by definition is a backward design. The planning stage is left for last after the goals and assessments have been determined.

            My mash of these two models is KALEB.

·         K         Know your goals

·         A         Analyze the uniqueness of your students

·         L         Learn and construct suitable assessments to utilize.

            Learning Plans

·         E         Evaluate Process and Results

·         B         Betterment – Build in a process for continuing improvement.

Know Big Ideas, What should the student understand at the end of class in other words what are the desired results. Know and be prepared for possible misunderstandings about subjects or the scope of the curriculum. What should the student be able to do with this new knowledge?

Analyze Students' background, needs, and requirements.

Learn

            Design Assessments

            What performance skills will result from the class?

            What are the criteria to measure this?

                        From ADDIE

                                    How do you Determine Achievement

                                    What is the Feedback-Mechanism so you know the students are on                                                             the right track?

                                    How is differentiation built into the program?

                                    Develop tools such as media, PowerPoint, video, and audio                                                             presentations.

                                    Implement program and class plans

                                    Implement audit and evaluation of the ongoing program.

Learn

            Learning plans designed to meet stated goals.

            Daily lesson plans

            Unit Overview

            Multi-Media enhancement

Evaluate

            Audit the entire program , student engagement and retention.

            Time allotments and result in the context of the week, month, and academic year.

            Value of Assessment

Betterment

            How and what can be done to improve all aspects of the program.

Reference

Forest, E. (2014). ADDIE Model: Instructional Design, Educational Technology 2017,               retrieved from http://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/

 Wiggins, G. (2005) UnderstandingBy Design: Overview ofUbD &the DesignTemplate, Lenoir-Rhyne Canvas, retrieved from https://canvas.lr.edu/courses/5431/pages/understanding- by-design?module_item_id=76981

Literature Review

Bill Osterholt

EDU 657

Dr. Jayme Linton

July 31, 2017

       This is a review of education articles based on principles and strategies for guidance in Instructional Design.  The three articles I selected for the literature review are: Applying Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction: Practical Methods Based on a Review of the Literature by Joel Gardner, Utah State University.  An award-winning teacher, Dr. Gardner has taught and currently leads graduate students in Master of Instructional Design and Performance Technology at Franklin University. His professional mission is to discover and share knowledge that inspires, empowers and equips others to succeed in their careers and lives. The second article is Increase Online Student Retention with Universal Design for Learning by Thomas J. Tobin, Coordinator of Learning Technologies, Center for Teaching and Learning, Northeastern Illinois University, and the last article is Using the ADDIE Model for Teaching Online, by Kaye Shelton, Director of Online Education at Dallas Baptist University and George Saltsman, Director of Education Technologies at Abilene Christian University. The authors use extensive references to support their claims.  All three writers address educators, while Increase Online is directed specifically at higher education.                                    Gardner’s paper was written when he was a doctoral student at USU in 2010. In the introduction, he points out that transferring theory into teaching practice is often discussed, but teachers do not effectively use First Principles of Instruction in their teaching strategy (Garner 2010). I can relate to this concept as I see a marked difference from educational theory to practical application. Tobin’s paper states, “Well-designed online courses keep students engaged with each other and the professor” (Tobin 2014). Although his paper is on Universal Design for Learning, he concentrates on the current trend of students to use mobile devices. Shelton and Saltsman describe how the use of ADDIE model, “provides an organized process for developing instructional materials” (Shelton 2006). Even though the main purpose of these articles differs, there are similarities in the approaches to teaching they describe.                              

      Beginning with the stated difference between theory and educational practice, Gardner asserts “principles are often included in instructional theory, which ‘offer explicit guidance on how to better help people learn and develop’”(Reigeluth, 1999). He continues to quote Merrill that ‘instructional design theory should address what actions to take and how and why we should take those actions’ (Gardner 2010). Shelton takes this a step further and states that the best instructors may feel intimidated but ADDIE may provide tools for ePedagogy, and sharing success stories is a good way to build confidence, prepare instructors and create successful outcomes in the online classroom (Shelton 2006).                                                                                                 

     Important points in lesson development also draw attention to similarities in these articles.  Gardner lays out the First Foundational Principles of Instruction: context of real world problems, demonstration of skills, application of new knowledge, and integrate knowledge (Gardner 2010).  Shelton and Tobin point to necessary steps to achieve these goals in an online environment. Shelton lists ten items of importance; these are a clearly defined syllabus, contact information, course objectives, attendance requirements, late work policy, course schedule, orientation aids, rubrics, communication practices, technology policy and course design (Shelton 2006).  Tobin whose thesis is to increase retention in online classes specifically aimed at the use of mobile devices includes some items which are specific to use of this type of technology. Tobin’s list includes: start with text, build multiple paths based on text foundation, create alternatives, let them do it their way, go step by step, and set content free. Although these approaches seem to be very diverse, there are similarities. Both Shelton and Tobin are using the Merrill’s Five Foundational Principles to structure their advice on Instructional Design. Their individual analysis goes into detail on each point they use to develop strategies.The end results can be linked back to these principles of education.
      For the past seven years, I have experienced classes both online and traditional which followed these steps. As explained, clear syllabuses and rubrics are essential. Different structures of class work and assignments were used by the many different professors who led the classes. The classes I was most successful and engaged in followed many of these guidelines.                  

      In conclusion, it is not the adaptation of one type of educational strategy which enables one to be a proficient educator but the knowledge of the different approaches. This information will allow choices in order to instruct the individual to their fullest potential by selecting the strategy which is best suited for each personality and learning style. 

References

                Gardner, J. (2010). Applying Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction: Practical Methods                             Based on a Review of the Literature, Educational Technology Magazine, 50(2),                             pp. 20-25.

            Shelton K, and Saltsman, G. (2006). Using the ADDIE Model for Teaching Online.                                  International Journal of Information and Communication, 2, 14-26.

            Tobin, T.J., Increase Online Student Retention with Universal Design for Learning, The                            Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13-24.

    

Compare two models of instructional design

     The two models of instructional design I have chosen are ADDIE and UbD.  UbD is essentially a streamlined version of ADDIE.  All the elements of ADDIE are incorporated in UbD, the main difference is the planning stage is left to the end of the process after all the information needed for the plan is researched.

     UbD starts with goals and desired results. This is addressed in ADDIE as well but comes after the discovery of prior knowledge and student needs.

     Assessments are an integral part of the design in both models. ADDIE elaborates and defines this under several steps: Analysis, Design, and Development, whereas UbD streamlines this under the Determine Evidence step.

     The models are very close and UbD uses the basic plan of ADDIE as the foundation of the model. UbD incorporates the exploration of a student’s prior knowledge and needs as an essential process for the design stage. UbD by definition is a backward design. The planning stage is left for last after the goals and assessments have been determined. 

UDL blog

Bill Osterholt                                                                                                                                     

EDU 657

            My personal use of a structure like Universal Design Learning is to continue to analyze and evaluate the models on which I structure the class plans. This includes differentiation in presenting content or as stated in UDL - Multiple Means of Representation.  Without trying to “reinvent the wheel”, I continue to incorporate my cooperating teacher’s plans which include use of media: PowerPoints, audio files, and primary sources. Warm-ups begin class by reinforcing previous information as well as introducing new subjects and vocabulary.  Class discussions activate prior knowledge and guided notes aid in processing the PowerPoint presentation.  

          The implementation of individual choice, the use of goals and objectives as in the 3D game lab, and facilitating personal strategies, is my plan for instructional design modifications to my cooperating teacher, Mr. Davis’s curriculum.  This is the principle of UDL - Multiple Means of Engagement.                                                                                                                

          Personally, I need to be more intentional about feedback and individualized strategy development – Multiple Means of Expression. By structuring the implementing of more student driven choices and computer-based assessment grading, I am planning to use the time saved to address these issues.

Essentials of Instructional Design Ch 1 &2

Bill Osterholt

EDU 657

Dr. Jayme Linton

June 15, 2017

            Abbie Brown and Timothy Green, the authors of The Essentials of Instructional Design, define the intention of their thought as:

            According to Smith and Regan (2005), instructional design may be currently defined as “the systematic                               reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for

                 instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation” (p. 4).

And then the chapter evolves into the different models of instructional design. In practical application, quality instructional design covers how people think, learn, what tools are available, and the method for the work to be assessed. Ever progressing current literature provides constructive critique:

                Hokanson and Gibbons (2014) observe, “Design involves dealing with uncertainties, and designers must not only learn to deal with uncertainty but embrace and use uncertainty as a tool to propel optimal design solutions” (p. 11).

                The process involves three steps:

·         Analyze

·         Produce

·         Evaluate

            Kemp, Morrison, and Ross expand on these ideas and further define the processes to best enable your students to learn. Those include learning characteristics, subject content, objectives, sequence, and strategies toward mastery.

ADDIE – provides five actions to facilitate understanding of the five components of many models:

·         Analyze

·         Design

·         Develop

·         Implement

·         Evaluate                                                                                                                     

            I thought the authors’ comment, “no educational theory is universally accepted, and no one knows the ‘absolute truth’ about instruction and learning environments,” drives home the necessity of personal use of a structure like ADDIE to continue to analyze and evaluate the models on which one structures the class. ADDIE focuses on how the learner thinks, what he knows prior to the instructional event, what are the motivations to learn, how the teacher teaches, and what are the consequences of evaluation.

            In the most of the twentieth century, the learner was overlooked because the model was based on a system. The idea of rapid prototyping a model for education models addresses this point.

            Rapid prototyping is explained by comparing it to the development of a stage play. I thought this made the concept very clear. The idea is to arrive at a final product through the creation of a number of prototypes. In a stage play, this would take you through writing, rehearsal, performance, while modifications are continuously made for improvements.

            Understanding how people think helps to understand how they learn. Understanding how they learn will help instructional designers assist in developing effective designs.

            The behaviorist perspective, known as behaviorism, dominated psychology for the first half of the 20th century (Brandt & Perkins, 2000).

                According to behaviorists, mental processes are invisible and therefore cannot be studied scientifically.        What can be observed is outward behavior; therefore, rather than speculating on internal causes for why things take place, the focus should be placed on how organisms respond to different stimuli (Brandt & Perkins,          2000; Brunning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011; Ormrod, 2007; Woolfolk, 2004).

Behavior, or modified behavior, becomes a measure of success.

Psychologists began to move toward a different perspective of the mind and how people think. This perspective was distinguished as cognitivism.

            With this perspective, internal mental processes were considered important and capable of being identified and studied (Brandt & Perkins, 2000; Ormrod, 2011). From a cognitivist perspective, the human mind is considered to be highly complex. A metaphor typically used by cognitivists to describe the mind is a computer. Like a computer, the mind processes information through a series of different processes that work together as a complete system.

The authors condense the thought into “the human mind does not simply take in the world but makes it up in an active way."

Instructional designers tend to look at thinking from a pragmatic point of view, asking themselves, what do we need to know about thinking and the studies done on thinking that will help develop efficient and effective instructional interventions? The majority of instructional designers borrow from different perspectives.

If learning is defined as “being a relatively permanent change in either behavior or in mental representations or associations brought about by experience” (Ormrod, 2011), then instructional designers must have the ability to identify different types of learning in order to design efficient and effective instructional models.

Bill Osterholt

Final Blog

EDU 654 - Dr. Linton

May 1, 2017

     The input from my classmates was very interesting.  Reading their blogs and interpretation of the literature reviews was helpful in understanding the concepts. In reading the comments on each blog, I was able to better understand the subject as well.                                                          

     The student- conducted classes, including ours on Communication and Feedback, were very informative. I absorbed a lot from my peers' lessons. I feel all of this learning will apply to my classrooms and the class plans I formulate.

     Over the years of my collegiate career, I have been in both synchronous and asynchronous classes.  Online classes, such as those conducted on WebEx, are the most valuable to me. As I stated in one of my blog comments, I felt more engaged and involved with the hybrid-type of classes. I have also participated in gamification-type classes. This includes everything from a Sociological class, where the whole class was inside the game Fiesta, to Dr. Linton’s class on technology in 3D GameLab. I also took a Statistics class in Math Lab. These classes varied on the amount of feedback from instructors. In Fiesta, the feedback was from the game itself, very little from the professor. Dr. Linton’s feedback was immediate. In Math Lab if I struggled with a concept, the platform provided video instruction. I feel old fashioned, but the asynchronous learning is difficult for me: I need the interaction.

     Because of my personal illness, I really struggled with getting started. I feel I let my Literature Review group down.  Nonetheless, I feel the course and the subjects covered in the course were extremely valuable.  I recovered and feel that I made significant progress on the learning objectives.