Making It Personal
Much
of what is being written highlights the need for instructors to personalize
instruction. This is not surprising given the individualism that pervades
American culture. As the nation has moved away from the "assembly line model"
and towards services that are tailored to specific needs and convenience,
education has followed somewhat reluctantly behind. A study published by
Educational Media International (Ausbern, 2004) demonstrated that adult students, in
particular, preferred classes that allowed for a fair amount of
"individualization" and self-directed learning. As Peggy Hannon and
her colleagues found in their comparison of two popular instructional design
models by Gagne and Laurillard (Hannon, 2002), such learning is promoted by instructors who
set the context and mechanisms for dialogue. This was shown to be true in both
online and face-to-face teaching and learning as well as across disciplines.
As
online instruction has grown exponentially in recent years in further response
to individual student schedules and sagging enrollment at some higher learning
institutions, research into Internet-based environments has abounded. Online
learning literature, such as a 2014 article by Thomas Tobin in The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, emphasizes how critical it is that instructors
personalize learning as much as possible. Other writers, such as Max Cropper
(2009) and his associates lament how difficult it is to "account for
individual differences in conceptual understanding". Possible routes to a
solution include tapping into students' prior knowledge more effectively and
consistently when planning instruction (Tallikari et al., 2008) as well as
utilizing technology that students have access to and prefer (Elias, 2011;
Savenye, W. et al., 1991; Shibley, et al. 2011; Kulasekara et al., 2011).
Multiple Designs for Success
Instructional design models abound, among the most popular being ADDIE,
Universal Design for Learning, Understanding by Design, Merrill's First
Principles of Instruction, ARCS, Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, and a
framework based on Bloom's Revised Technology. Ask researchers and teachers
which model is best and they will defend their turf with the same tenacity that
Trekkies argue whether it was the Klingons or the Romulans who ruined the galactic neighborhood. Fortunately for those
designing teaching and learning, the data that attenuates each model is now
substantive enough to provide some help.
There is much in the literature that supplies specific instructions for how to implement any model a teacher uses. If you are a fan of the Merrill approach, then some particularly helpful advice is offered by Joel Gardner. The ADDIE model has also garnered a fair amount of admirers because of the flexibility that it offers and its applications across subject areas (Davis, 2013; Shelton & Saltsman, 2006; Soto, 2013). I am glad to know that the venerable Bloom's model, which was "revised" to make it more palatable to the technology generation, continues to age well and still has its staunch advocates.
Still, many researchers have concluded
that depth, breadth, and ease of learning are actually achieved by a combination
of theoretical approaches melded together according to student learning styles
and the specific goals of instruction (Lee & Chang, 2014; Cropper et al.,
2009; Hannon, 2002; Parra, 1012; Soto, 2013)) and guided by careful reflection
and collaboration (Tracey, M. et al., 2014; Kanuka, 2006). The beginning point is a sober consideration of specifically what will be taught and the pedagogy that is appropriate for achieving those ends. Teachers sometimes draw criticism for trying to force technology or particular rigid models into areas of instruction where they are not appropriate. Given the pressure that they are under from administrators and the state board to "integrate technology" and implement curriculum approaches that they know little about and had no say in deciding upon, such a transgression becomes more understandable. Indeed, this stress is best summarized, and perhaps caused, by statements such as: "The challenge for educators and producers of pedagogical materials is how to progress along the same continuum as the new paradigm of digital learning affordances and deliveries" (Ashbaugh, 2013). I do not believe that pedagogical materials are "produced" (they are fashioned), and I get nervous when instruction is lashed to "paradigms" and "continuums". It does seem clear, however, that the tired cliche "form fits function" remains applicable. Instruction is an art, and the models of instruction, like an artist's paints, should be mixed and applied according to need and vision.
The grass may not be greener on the other side, but it certainly isn't purple.
References
Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical to global practices and quality online learning designs. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 14(2).
Ausbern. (2004). Course
design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education
environments: An American perspective. Education Media International. 41(4).
Cropper, M., Bentley,
J., & Schroder, K. (2009). How well do high-quality online courses employ
Merrill's First Principles of Instruction? Educational Media and Technology
Yearbook.
Davis, A. (2013). Using instructional design principles to develop effective information literacy instruction. Association of College and Research Libraries. 74(4).
Elias, T. (2011).
Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 12(2).
Hannon, P. (2002), Gagne
and Laurillard's models of instruction applied to distance education: A
theoretically driven evaluation of online curriculum in public health, The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). 3(2).
Kanuka, H. (2006).
Instructional design and e-learning: A discussion of pedagogical content
knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal
of Instructional Science and Technology. 9(2).
Kulasekata, Jayatilleka
& Coomaraswamy. (2011). Learner perceptions on instructional design of
multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning. 26(2).
Lee, J. & Jang, J.
(2014). A methodological framework for instructional design model development:
Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures. Educational Technology
Research and Development. Volume 62.
Parra, S. (2012).
Component display theory design in a foreign language unit. Journal of
Applied Learning Technology. 2(3).
Savenye, W. (1991).
Teaching instructional design in a computer literacy course. Educational
Technology Research and Development. 39(3).
Shibley, I., Amaral, K.,
& Shibley, L. (2011). Designing a blended course: Using ADDIE to guide
instructional design. Journal of College Science Teaching. 40(6).
Shelton, K. & Saltsman, G. (2006). Using the ADDIE model for online teaching. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 2(3).
Soto, V. (2013). Which
instructional models are educators using to design virtual world instruction? Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching. 9(3).
Tracey, M., Hutchinson,
T. & Grzebyk, T. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective
practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Association for Educational Communication
and Technology. Volume 62.
