What was the model?

Gerlach and Ely Design Model

What is the point of the model?

It appears that they wanted to create a simpler model that focused on group work and can be combined easily with other models. This model pretty much jumps into the design process where most instructors already are – ready for development. Often times, schools will do the analysis phase and some of the design phase of ADDIE before bringing instructors in. So this design model appears more practical for the average instructor.

How is the model different from what you already know? How is it the same?

The focus on group work is different than models that I am used to. Group work is possible in other design models, but is usually just one of many possible design solutions. There is also a focus on pre/post learner assessment that you often don’t see written into many design models.

It is similar in that it is iterative and that it has several steps that are not linear. While ADDIE and others can be linear, they are often designed to not be strictly linear.

Is this model something you may use? Why or why not?

It may be something I can use parts of, but seeing that I will be teaching University professors, I won’t be using the pre/post assessment too much. Professors seem to hate taking those even if they give them. I like the process for creating group work and allocating resources. That could be a very useful method to use when designing group work.

How is an ID model different from a theoretical model (i.e. social constructivism)? Why is this distinction important?

Theoretical models often address how learning happens, where do we find truth, and other larger questions along those lines. ID models look at the practical side of how to create instruction and activities for learners. The distinction is important because theoretical models tell you how learners will learn, and ID models help you to create instruction that can make that learning occur utilizing content, activities, assessments, and other educational materials.

Do you think such a differentiation will matter for a client?

Well, when referring to clients, possibly not. They will usually know what they want to see happen with a course, but they may not see the difference between the two. However, as a designer, we need to know the differences and be able to address them in our design. Our clients will probably have some kind of idea of how they think learning occurs, and we don’t want to create something in a different direction without interacting with the client first and bringing them on board with the theoretical and ID models they need.

Based upon your experience revising your instructional design document this week, reflect on what you learned from your peer’s feedback. What did you learn about your work? What did you change as a result? What did you not change? Why?

It looks like we will still have a week or two added to the schedule for updating our design documents, so I think this will be more about me predicting what I will change or not change.  I knew coming into this that I would be a bit rusty on these more formal parts of instructional design. Its really been over a decade since I had my last Master’s course that covered this more formal method. My Master’s Degree focused more on a wide variety of instructional design methods, so we kind of did one intro course on ADDIE and Dick & Carey and then off down the rabbit hole of connectivism and open learning. Many of the classes that I have designed at UTA over the years are also more open in design, in that we tend to collect various open resources to teach with, rather than recreating things that are already on YouTube. So the biggest thing I have learned is that I will have to dig deep back into my schooling to probably finish this course. That may not technically result in a class that I can actually use at UTA, but I may not have to worry about that going forward.

I will be changing some of the areas and places where the language was not clear what I was working on. Technically, I only used words that some one with an ID background should know, but some were flagged and so better safe than sorry. There were also some suggestions on changing the order of content that I may take or leave – I will basically see what the instructor feedback is and if he agrees, then I will go with it. But if not, I will stick with the order that was given in the instructions 🙂

Probably what I won’t change are the objectives, at least not as radically as was suggested. I went for a more connectivist / performance-oriented set of objectives, and it was recommended that I switch back to simpler behaviorist lists of actions to accomplish. I feel that objectives are much easier to evaluate if you include the criteria and conditions along with the behaviors.  This just makes it easier to connect the goal and topic with the assessments and outcomes.

Of course, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with the idea in general, so we’ll see if I can accomplish the transition I want to make in less than 45 hours of instruction.