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.