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

—