My group chose the social-cultural theory that I presented in class. A lot of that is because I started recruiting people to my theory because I kind of liked a lot of what it said. I chose social-cultural theory mainly because I would like to see if it is possible to design a lesson using it as a model, and if so then what would that be like. Social interactions and cultural interactions are both areas of interest for me. Before I had a kid (and hopefully soon when he gets old enough), I loved to travel. I have been to India, Morocco, France, London, Spain, Jordan, Mexico, Belgium, and a few other places. Sometimes we just showed up with little plans and made our way around with a Lonely Planet book in hand. So seeing how those cultures interacted and formed social structures was an interesting thing to observe once you got off the tourist path. Seeing how those may apply to learning is interesting to me.

So how are we going to approach it? That is a bit more unclear. We are going to look at how to take advantage of social connections that can be formed inside of the existing culture of the Learning Technologies program. The “more knowledgeable others” of current students and faculty will serve as guides to take new students through the zone of proximal development. I know that sounds a little generic, but that is our goal so far. We are thinking that there will be a need for a place to have new students self-reflect, ask questions, see examples, and interact with others in the program. So I am assuming there will be a blogging piece, a social network, a set of webpages, and other tools of that nature. We may even have to look at how students could be placed in loose “cohorts” each semester they begin for peer support. Much of this is up for change since we are just tapping into this idea.

Work division seems to not be happening as well as it needs to. I keep bringing up different ideas for work division, but then everyone points out “I want to contribute to that part, too.” Well, of course we all will contribute to every part, but we need to divide and conquer the initial writing to get something going. Hopefully this issue will resolve itself as we get a clearer idea of what the exact training will look like.

Timeline for completion would seem to follow along with the calendar in class. Are there other options? I like to stay on the schedule that is suggested personally, but I hope that other students want to also. That was a problem I had a lot last semester – always asking my partner to get something done, but he would always say “it’s not big deal.” Well, it was to me to stay on schedule. But the goal I am trying to set is to get the rough draft finished by Monday to get to the peer review group, then get those changes finished in time to get the document turned in for professor review. And then there will be much fear and trembling.

Reading Notes:

Click here to read my notes for this week on Evernote

—

From this week’s presentations, the one I was most baffled with was the Summerville Integrated Model. Even after reading about it online some more, I didn’t really find a good description of how the layers worked. It seems like there is maybe a class out there that teaches this process more in depth. If it is a circular model that goes from the outside in, then you basically have an analysis layer, a design/develop layer, and evaluation layer, and then an implementation layer. Sounds familiar right? I have to wonder if the creators of this method realize that ADDIE is no longer considered a linear model and that evaluation can come before implementation (and during, and after). Even if you were to lay out all of the sub-steps to each layer, you would have something that looks a lot like Dick & Carey. So, basically, we see that most new ID methods are just a remix of ADDIE.

Behaviorism makes sense to me (at least the basics of it), but Heather did share some very good examples and explanations that helped me to clarify my understanding more. Since I lean towards constructivism myself, most of my problems with behaviorism have been covered by a billion constructivists. But I do try to pull myself more towards the pragmatic side and Heather’s presentation helped me to see the need for that, as there are many important ideas in behaviorism theory. Still, as a new parent I do get a bit tired of the ultra-behaviorist parenting methods that get lobbed my way. “You can tell exactly what a child is thinking at any time by how they are acting.” If that was true ALL the time, parenting would be so much easier.

The Problem Based Learning model was a good presentation, and I am not just saying that because Beth had food. Or maybe I am, but I still have always liked Problem Based Learning because it provides opportunities for exploring real life problems. I think in the overall scheme of design, Problem Based Learning is part of the larger process (say, the Design/Develop stages of ADDIE) and not necessarily a complete design model. But maybe I don’t know enough about the literature on it. Since not every educational problem would best be solved with Problem Based Learning, it seems like at least part of the analysis part of ID would be outside of the Problem Based Learning approach. But that kind of goes back to what Chris and I have discussed – are we labeling advanced instructional design as something that is a “better” model to replace basic ones like ADDIE all the time, or we labeling something an advanced design because we use it in situations where we need a more advanced educational solution? Also, if Analysis has to happen before any design, does that mean we assume that it will always happen and therefore things like Problem Based Learning are advanced instructional design because they solve advanced educational problems where the analysis identifies them? But then again, we all know that in education you can never assume that something will happen just because it is obvious.

I am not sure if I am totally clear what specific ID model Susan was presenting on, mainly because I didn’t have time to read through the articles before the class started (but I will solve that today). I enjoyed the activity where we brainstormed about what we thought advanced instruction design could be, even if we didn’t have time to finish the activity and come to a conclusion. What we did as an activity made sense, and it would be a method I would use in group setting where constructing a meaning or set of ideas for each other is needed. As with other models we are looking at, I am still not sure that TPCK is a design method. It still fits more into a theoretical framework for how we think and learn more than a design method.

Inquiry Based Learning gave us a bit of a challenge since we did not really know what the Scratch programming language was capable of. But maybe this was part of the IBL approach – an ill-structured problem to solve? Or maybe it was just that we were supposed to have that background in a real class. I like the basic ideas of IBL, especially how it is student centered and that students share what they learn. Kashieka gave a good overview of the problems and criticisms of her design model – something we all seem to have been forgetting. I think we all get it in our mind that since we are presenting something, then we have to defend it. Not necessarily true, though.

What really got me thinking this week was the Lee and Kolodner article. It seems to me, and maybe I am missing something, but it really seemed like they were advocating having the learners actually do the instructional design through the ADDIE model as they are learning. Well, through a simpler model mapped on to ADDIE to Be more accurate. Even if that is not what they were exactly advocating, that made me really think about this reversed idea. What would be the ultimate in learner-centered teaching? Have the students analyze what they need to learn. Then have them develop a map of the activities they are going to go through. Then have them develop those activities – maybe for each other as they are in groups trying to challenge each other. Then have them implement the lessons, evaluating themselves as they go through their own lessons. Of course, at the end they would also evaluate their whole process. In a lot of ways, this sounds much like some of the GT classes I was enrolled in during grade school. But it seems like there was always some attempt to “trick” us into learning while directing ourselves. But I like the idea of involving students in their learning and being transparent about it from the beginning. I also wonder how much more time it takes to plan for an effective lesson that allows students to design their own lesson. It could go very poorly if not planned well. Maybe that will be my evolving definition of advanced instructional design: the more students are involved in their own learning, the more advanced the design method is.

Reading Notes:

Click here to read my notes for this week on Evernote

—