What an eye-opening week this was in terms of knowledge gained from readings! I feel like so much information was provided regarding Instructional Design, that I really did not have a true understanding of previously. As a former elementary educator and now lecturer to pre-service teachers, I ignorantly equated instructional design to those working primarily with tech. ID isn't really a term used for curriculum development, lesson planning, etc. although the steps are identical.
My favorite reading from the week was Morrison's (2007) Chapter One, mainly because of how easy it was to relate to, as well as how simple he broke things down (the catchy titles didn't hurt either ;) -shout out Friends fans!) All of the readings gave a similar (if not the same) definition of ID, but Morrison's article included practitioner examples and questions, which were really helpful when envisioning ID in action.
I did find interesting the discussion of the ADDIE model in three readings, Branch & Merrill (2012), Zemke & Rossett (2002), and Dick et al. (2001) (although Dick et al. do not actually use the acronym of ADDIE, but the steps in sequential order), and then to finish up with Morrison (2007) who dissects the ADDIE model by explaining it's "a colloquial label for systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD)" (p. 13). So even if ADDIE is the "stripped to its shorts" (Zemke & Rossett, 2002, p. 30) ISD equivalent and has no true creator (Morrison, 2007), this seems to be the model that the majority of ID researchers use.
I do appreciate the humanistic and student-centered value of ID, with "authentic assessment technique[s]" (Branch & Merrill, 2012, p. 11). It's always nice when a methodology isn't focused around standardized assessments. Dick et al. (2001) had a really helpful diagram, The Role of the Dick and Carey Model in the Broader Curriculum Development Process: Figure 1.1 (p. 8) that showcases the systematic approach, while also prioritizing the student's goals and needs. Although Dick et al. (2001) do go on to discuss how ID is not to be used on a day-to-day basis by educators for all lessons, it is a great tool for the foundation and understanding behind planning.
*I now realize I read the wrong Branch chapter-oops!
Branch, R.M. & Merrill, M.D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 8-16). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 2-14). New York: Longman.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Introduction to the instructional design process. Designing effective instruction. (5th ed.) (pp. xviii-26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34.
Hey Rebecca,
I too read Morrison’s (2007) Chapter One and it was my favorite because of how easy it was to read and how insightful it was for someone interested in different corporate settings. I enjoyed the example about how AT&T was able to save millions by cutting the hours of training.
It is interesting that you suggest that ADDIE and Dick and Carey model would have some resemblance? (One just has more steps listed in sequential order?) When I first started my master’s program I was not familiar with any id model and so because everyone in class talked about the ADDIE model, I thought that is the one I was using. I mentioned to another peer that for…
Hi Rebecca...It is ok to read the wrong Rob Branch article. It likely says some of the same things. Smile. I appreciate the honesty that shines thru in your blog post.
You clearly picked up many insights this week like this one: "ISD equivalent and has no true creator (Morrison, 2007), this seems to be the model that the majority of ID researchers use."
Hi Mark,
Great perspective about "not being afraid to venture away" from more traditional/well-known models. I have heard of ADDIE previously, but it sounded as its own, original model, whereas Morrison (2007) makes it seem like the traditional approach that everyone is using with a fancy name. So much to learn!
Hi Rebecca,
I agree - I feel like I gained a more clear understanding of the foundations of the field this week through my readings. I also enjoyed the Morrison reading, for many of the same reasons that you and Mark have mentioned. I didn't include it in my own blog, but one of my favorite quotes in the chapter was, "The goal of instructional design is to make learning more efficient and effective and to make learning less difficult" (p. 2). I feel like this is exactly what I was hoping to gain by joining this class, so I think I'm in the right place! :)
I appreciate your connection to curriculum and lesson planning. This was one kin…
Rebecca,
Though I did not talk about it in my blog, I also enjoyed the reading from Morrison (2007) for many of the same reasons as you did. I appreciated the examples and how they were not all education-related. These examples allowed me to connect with the reading. Additionally, how Morrison broke down ID into premises made it easy to understand.
Your point regarding the ADDIE model is intriguing. When I first learned about the IST from my mentors, they described ADDIE and its foundational system structure for IST. However, Branch & Merrill (2012) showcased various other methods. These methods are systematic, but I think they get less attention because they challenge the ADDIE model. I believe it is crucial…