1. Basic Assumptions of Instructional Design
1.1. aimed at aiding the learning of the individual
1.2. can be both immediate & long-range
1.3. systematically designed instructions can greatly affect individual human development
1.4. should be conducted by means of a systems approach
1.5. based on knowledge of how human beings learn
2. What is Instructional Design (I.D.)?
2.1. (Ely, 1963, p.38)
2.1.1. 'the design and use of messages which control the learning process'
2.2. (Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970, p.21)
2.2.1. '... it [instructional techonology] means the media born of the communications revolution which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook, and blackboard...'
2.3. (Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977, p. 1)
2.3.1. '...is a complex, intgrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning.'
2.4. (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 1)
2.4.1. 'Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning.'
2.5. (Reiser, & Dempsey, 2007, p. 11)
2.5.1. 'is a systematic process that is empolyed to develop education and training programs in a consistent and reliale fashion.'
3. Learning Theories
3.1. Classify Learning as to Types
3.1.1. Behaviourism
3.1.1.1. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849–1936)
3.1.1.1.1. Classical Conditioning
3.1.1.2. Edward Thorndike (1874–1949)
3.1.1.3. John Broadus Watson (1878–1958)
3.1.1.4. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904 – 1990)
3.1.1.4.1. Reinforcement Theory
3.1.1.5. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
3.1.1.5.1. use experiments to measure the learners' observable changes in behaviors
3.1.1.5.2. one-dimensional approach to measure human behaviors, do not measure learners' feeling, thoughts...
3.1.2. Cognitivism
3.1.2.1. Edgar Dale (1900–1985)
3.1.2.1.1. Cone of Experience
3.1.2.2. Benjamin Samuel Bloom (1913 – 1999)
3.1.2.2.1. Bloom's Taxonomy
3.1.2.3. Robert Mills Gagné (1916 – 2002)
3.1.2.3.1. Nine Events of Instruction
3.1.2.3.2. Five Categories of Learned Capabilities
3.1.2.4. Allan Paivio (1925–)
3.1.2.5. Howard Earl Gardner (1943–)
3.1.2.5.1. Theory of Multiple Intelligences
3.1.3. Constructivism
3.1.3.1. Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (1896–1934)
3.1.3.1.1. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
3.1.3.2. Jean Piaget (1896–1980)
3.1.3.2.1. Cognitive Learning Theory
3.1.3.2.2. More...
3.1.3.3. John Dewey (1859–1952)
3.1.4. Social Learning
3.1.4.1. Attention
3.1.4.1.1. modeled events
3.1.4.1.2. observer characteristics
3.1.4.2. Retention
3.1.4.2.1. symbolic coding
3.1.4.2.2. cognitive organization
3.1.4.2.3. symbolic rehearsal
3.1.4.2.4. motor rehearsal
3.1.4.3. Reproduction
3.1.4.3.1. physical capabilities
3.1.4.3.2. self-observation of reproduction
3.1.4.3.3. accuracy of feedback
3.1.4.4. Motivation
4. History of Instructional Design
4.1. 1939-1945
4.1.1. World War II
4.1.1.1. FACTS
4.1.1.1.1. Film Training (US)
4.1.1.1.2. Reflection (German)
4.1.1.2. THEORIES
4.1.1.2.1. Robert Gagne, Leslie Briggs, John Flanagan...work on instructional principles, learning & human behavior
4.1.1.2.2. Robert B. Miller developed detailed task analysis methodology
4.2. Early 1950
4.2.1. Post World War II
4.2.1.1. FACTS
4.2.1.1.1. Instructional Television
4.2.1.2. THEORIES
4.2.1.2.1. Theories of Communication
4.3. 1950-1995
4.3.1. FACTS
4.3.1.1. Computer
4.3.1.1.1. 1950s
4.3.1.1.2. 1960s
4.3.1.1.3. 1983
4.3.2. THEORIES
4.3.2.1. 1956
4.3.2.1.1. Benjamin Bloom & colleagues published "Taxonomy of Eudcational Objectives" to indicate the cognitive domain of learning objectives
4.3.2.2. 1960
4.3.2.2.1. B. F. Skinner stated that the instruction should be resented in small steps in "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching"
4.3.2.3. 1962
4.3.2.3.1. Robert Mager recognized the need to teach educators now to write objectives in "Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction"
4.3.2.4. 1965
4.3.2.4.1. Robert Gagne described 5 domains or learning outcomes in "The Conditions of Learning"
4.3.2.5. 1967
4.3.2.5.1. Michael Scriven coined formative evaluation & summative evaluation in "Perspectives of curriculum evaluation"
5. Instructional Design Models
5.1. First Principles of Instruction
5.1.1. PROBLEM/TASK_CENTERED
5.1.1.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.1.1.1. learners are engaged in solving real-word problems
5.1.1.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.1.2.1. Does the instruction involve authentic real-world problems / tasks?
5.1.1.2.2. In place of a formal objective, does the instruction show the learners the whole task they will be able to solve as a result of completing the instruction?
5.1.1.2.3. Does the instruction teach the component tasks of the problem/ task and then help the learner use these components in solving the whole problem or doing the whole task?
5.1.1.2.4. Does the instruction involve a progression of problems, not just a single application?
5.1.1.3. EXAMPLE
5.1.1.3.1. (My Example) I want to learn the steps of how to fix my computer.
5.1.2. ACTICATE
5.1.2.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.2.1.1. existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge
5.1.2.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.2.2.1. Does the instruction teach the component tasks of the problem/ task and then help the learner use these components in solving the whole problem or doing the whole task?
5.1.2.2.2. Does the instruction involve a progression of problems, not just a single application?
5.1.2.3. EXAMPLE
5.1.2.3.1. (My Example) Fix a computer is a new experience for me, but I have experience of how to switch on the computer.
5.1.3. DEMONSTRATE
5.1.3.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.3.1.1. new knowledge is demonstrated to the learners
5.1.3.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.3.2.1. Does the instruction demonstrate (show examples of) what is to be learned, rather than merely telling information about what is to be learned?
5.1.3.2.2. Are the instructional media relevant to the content and used to enhance learning?
5.1.3.2.3. Are there any learner guidance techniques employed?
5.1.3.2.4. Are the demonstrations (examples) consistent with the content being taught?
5.1.3.3. EXAMPLE
5.1.3.3.1. (My Example) I will ask the IT technician to help me fix the comuter and I will observe how he does it
5.1.4. APPLY
5.1.4.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.4.1.1. new knowledge is applied by the learners
5.1.4.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.4.2.1. Are the application (practice) and assessment (tests) consistent with the stated or implied objectives?
5.1.4.2.2. Is the practice followed by corrective feedback and an indication of progress, not just by right-wrong feedback?
5.1.4.2.3. Does the application or practice enable learners to access context sensitive help to provide coaching when they are having difficulty is solving the problem or doing the task?
5.1.4.2.4. Is coaching gradually diminished with each subsequent task until learners are performing on their own?
5.1.4.2.5. Does the instruction require learners t use their new knowledge or skill to solve a varied sequence of problems or complete a varied sequence of tasks?
5.1.4.2.6. Do learners have an opportunity to practice and apply their newly acquired knowledge or skill?
5.1.4.3. EXAMPLE
5.1.4.3.1. (My Example) I will try to fix the computer on my own with the IT technician's instructions
5.1.5. INTEGRATE
5.1.5.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.5.1.1. new knowledge is integrated into the learner's world
5.1.5.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.5.2.1. Does the instruction provide techniques that encourage learners to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life?
5.1.5.2.2. Does the instruction provide an opportunity for learners to publicly demonstrate their new knowledge or skill?
5.1.5.2.3. Does the instruction provide an opportunity for learners to reflect on, discuss, and defend their new knowledge or skill?
5.1.5.2.4. Does the instruction provide an opportunity for learners to create, invent, or explore new and personal ways to use their new knowledge or skill?
5.1.5.3. EXAMPLE
5.1.5.3.1. (My Example) Now I can fix the computer by myself
5.1.6. IMPLEMENTATION
5.1.6.1. DESCTIPTION
5.1.6.1.1. additional information
5.1.6.2. QUESTIONS
5.1.6.2.1. Does the instruction facilitate learner navigation through the learning task?
5.1.6.2.2. Is the degree of learner control appropriate for the learning goals and your learners?
5.1.6.2.3. Is collaboration used effectively?
5.1.6.2.4. Is the instruction personalized?
5.2. ADDIE Model
5.2.1. ANALYZE (WHY TEACH WHAT WE TEACH?)
5.2.1.1. Needs Assessment
5.2.1.1.1. Internal Needs Assessment
5.2.1.1.2. External Needs Assessment
5.2.1.2. Performance Analysis
5.2.1.2.1. David Wile
5.2.1.2.2. Robert Frank Mager (1923 - )
5.2.1.3. Task Analysis
5.2.1.3.1. Hierarchical Task Diagram
5.2.1.4. Learner Analysis
5.2.1.4.1. Abraham Harold Maslow (1908 – 1970)
5.2.2. DESIGN (WHAT TO TEACH?)
5.2.2.1. Write Objectives in Measurable Terms
5.2.2.1.1. The ABCD Approach of Writing Objectives
5.2.2.1.2. Rubrics
5.2.3. DEVELOP (HOW TO TEACH?)
5.2.3.1. Prepare Student & Instructional Materials
5.2.3.1.1. printed
5.2.3.1.2. nonprint
5.2.4. IMPLEMENT (LET' TEACH!)
5.2.4.1. Deliver the instruction in the settings for which it designed
5.2.4.1.1. Group Instruction
5.2.4.1.2. Individualizaed Instruction
5.2.4.1.3. Evaluating Instruction
5.2.5. EVALUATE (HOW WELL DID WE TEACH?)
5.2.5.1. Formative Evaluation
5.2.5.1.1. PURPOSE
5.2.5.2. Summative Evaluation
5.2.5.2.1. PURPOSE
5.2.5.3. Revision
5.2.5.3.1. PURPOSE
5.2.5.4. Donald Kirkpatrick (1924 – 2014)
5.2.5.4.1. Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Model of Training Evaluation
5.2.6. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.2.6.1. well-structured model for planning & implementation
5.2.6.2. easy to follow (for beginners)
5.2.6.3. learner-centered approach
5.2.6.4. not in a linear manner (step-by-step) move back and forth among stages
5.2.6.5. fail to identify behavioral changes
5.2.6.6. lack of creativity
5.2.6.7. not applicable for multi-problem situations
5.2.7. More...
5.2.7.1. Theory
5.2.7.1.1. http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html
5.2.7.1.2. http://raleighway.com/addie/
5.2.7.1.3. http://www.businessperform.com/workplace-training/addie_model.html
5.3. Dick and Carey's Model
5.3.1. STAGE 1: INSTRCTIONAL GOALS
5.3.1.1. Identify an Instructional Goal
5.3.1.1.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.1.1.2. EXAMPLE
5.3.1.2. Conduct a Needs Analysis
5.3.1.2.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.1.2.2. CLASSIFCATION
5.3.2. STAGE 2: INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS
5.3.2.1. Conduct Instructional Analysis
5.3.2.1.1. Task Analysis / Procedural Analysis
5.3.2.1.2. Information-processing Analysis
5.3.2.1.3. Task Classification
5.3.2.1.4. Learning-task Analysis
5.3.3. STAGE 3: ENTRY BEHAVIORS & LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS
5.3.3.1. Identify entry behaviors
5.3.3.1.1. PURPOSE
5.3.4. STAGE 4: PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
5.3.4.1. Write Performance Objectives
5.3.4.1.1. PURPOSE
5.3.4.1.2. DESCIPTION
5.3.5. STAGE 5: CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST ITEMS
5.3.5.1. Develop Criterion Referenced Test Items
5.3.5.1.1. PURPOSE
5.3.5.1.2. EVALUATIONS
5.3.6. STAGE 6: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY
5.3.6.1. Develop Instructional Strategy
5.3.6.1.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.6.1.2. PURPOSE
5.3.7. STAGE 7: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
5.3.7.1. Develop & Select Instructional Materials
5.3.7.1.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.8. STAGE 8: FORMATIVE EVALUATION
5.3.8.1. Develop & Conduct Formative Evaluation
5.3.8.1.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.8.1.2. PURPOSE
5.3.8.1.3. WAYS TO DO+DATA CAN BE COLLECTED
5.3.9. STAGE 9: SUMMATIVE EVALUATION
5.3.9.1. Develop & Conduct Summative Evaluation
5.3.9.1.1. DESCIPTION
5.3.9.1.2. PURPOSE
5.3.9.1.3. MEASURES OF OUTCOMES
5.3.10. STAGE 10: REVISE INSTRUCTION
5.3.10.1. Revise Instruction
5.3.11. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.3.11.1. provide detailed steps for instructional design
5.3.11.2. learner-centered approach
5.3.11.3. lack of flexibility
5.3.11.4. too focus on the objectives rather than the learning process
5.4. Smith & Ragan Model
5.4.1. ANALYSIS
5.4.1.1. Learning Contexts
5.4.1.1.1. Needs Assessment
5.4.1.1.2. Description of Environment
5.4.1.2. Learning Goal/ Tasks
5.4.1.2.1. 1. Write a learning goal
5.4.1.2.2. 2. Determine the types of learning in the goal
5.4.1.2.3. 3. Conduct an information processing analysis of that goal
5.4.1.2.4. 4. Conduct a prerequisite analysis and determine the type of learning of the prerequisites
5.4.1.2.5. 5. Write learning objectives for the learning goal and each of the prerequisites
5.4.1.2.6. 6. Write test specifications
5.4.1.3. Learners
5.4.1.3.1. Types of Learner Characteristics
5.4.1.3.2. Cognitive Characteristics
5.4.1.4. OBJECTIVES ASSESSMENT
5.4.2. STRATEGY
5.4.2.1. ORGANIZATIONAL DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
5.4.2.1.1. 1. Organizational Strategies
5.4.2.1.2. 2. Delivery Strategies
5.4.2.1.3. 3. Management Strategies
5.4.2.2. LEARNING ACTIVITIES
5.4.2.2.1. Write & produce instruction
5.4.3. EVALUATION
5.4.3.1. Formative Evaluation
5.4.3.1.1. Tryouts of the instructional materials
5.4.3.2. REVISION
5.4.3.2.1. Revise Instruction
5.4.4. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.4.4.1. provide baisc steps for instructional design
5.4.4.2. focus on learning strategies
5.4.4.3. one-way design
5.4.4.4. too simple while compare to other instructional design models
5.4.5. More...
5.4.5.1. Author
5.4.5.1.1. Patricia L. Smith
5.4.5.1.2. http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/545531.Tillman_J_Ragan
5.4.5.1.3. Tillman J. Ragan
5.4.5.2. Theory
5.4.5.2.1. http://www.angelachristopher.net/uploads/8/3/2/4/832462/model_resourceassignment.pdf
5.4.5.2.2. https://prezi.com/ajyeev4prwia/instructional-design-the-smith-and-regan-model/
5.5. Objectives-Resources-Activities (OAR) Model
5.5.1. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.5.1.1. suitable for distance education
5.5.1.2. suitable for higher education
5.5.2. More...
5.5.2.1. Author
5.5.2.1.1. http://georgejoeckel.blogspot.hk/2009/07/oar-model.html
5.5.2.2. Theory
5.5.2.2.1. Joeckel III, G.L.; Jeon, T.; Gardner, J. (2009). Instructional Challenges in Higher Education Online Courses Delivered Through A Learning Management System By Subject Matter Experts. In H. Song (Ed.), Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow, Idea Group Publishing, New York.
5.6. Wiggins Theory of Backwards Design
5.6.1. think about assessment before deciding what & how teachers will teach
5.6.2. STAGE 1: Identify Desired results
5.6.2.1. PURPOSE
5.6.2.1.1. examine established content standard (national, state district)
5.6.2.1.2. review curriculum expectations
5.6.2.1.3. make choices about priorities
5.6.2.2. QUESTIONS
5.6.2.2.1. What hould students know, understand, and be able to do?
5.6.2.2.2. What content is worthy of understanding?
5.6.2.2.3. What enduring understandings are desired?
5.6.3. STAGE 2: Determine Acceptable Evidence
5.6.3.1. PURPOSE
5.6.3.2. QUESTIONS
5.6.3.2.1. How will we know if students have achieved the desired results?
5.6.3.2.2. What will we accept as evidence of student understanding & proficiency?
5.6.4. STAGE 3: Plan Learning Experiences & Instruction
5.6.4.1. PURPOSE
5.6.4.1.1. fully think about what are the most appropriate instructional actiities
5.6.4.2. QUESTIONS
5.6.4.2.1. What enabine knowledge & skills will students need in order to preform effectively & achieve desired results?
5.6.4.2.2. What activities wil equip students with the needed knowledge & skills?
5.6.4.2.3. What will need to be taught & coached?
5.6.4.2.4. How should it best be taught, in light of performance goals?
5.6.4.2.5. What materials & resources are best suited to accomplish these goals
5.6.5. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.6.5.1. non-traditional instructional design
5.6.5.2. teacher-centered approach
5.6.5.3. lack of detailed guidelines
5.6.5.4. too simple while compare to other models
5.6.6. More...
5.6.6.1. Author
5.6.6.1.1. Ralph W. Tyler (1902–1994)
5.6.6.1.2. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/94/940228Arc4425.html
5.6.6.2. Theory
5.6.6.2.1. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded second edition). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
5.6.6.2.2. http://www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/books/mctighe2004_intro.pdf
5.6.6.2.3. Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5.7. Rapid Prototyping Design Model
5.7.1. PROS & CONS (My Comments)
5.7.1.1. good for e-learning/ collaborative design
5.7.1.2. non-linear approach, accept revision & amendments
5.7.1.3. reduce instructional development time & cost
5.7.1.4. suitable for project which specific deadline, content, requirements and goals are provided by managers/ supervisor
5.7.1.5. suitable for computer-based insutrctional design
5.7.1.6. lack of detailed guidelines
5.7.1.7. not applicable in the real world for complicated instructional design
5.7.1.8. not applicable for new creations for instructional designer beginners
5.7.2. More...
5.7.2.1. Author
5.7.2.1.1. Barbara Anne Bichelmeyer
5.7.2.1.2. http://eppley.org/barbara-anne-bichelmeyer/
5.7.2.1.3. Steven D Tripp
5.7.2.2. Theory
5.7.2.2.1. Piskurich, George M. (2000) Rapid Instructional Design. Learning ID fast and Right. San Francsico: Jossey.
5.7.2.2.2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emS4mAYBw3g
5.7.2.2.3. Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (n.d.). Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 31-44.
5.7.2.3. Usage
5.7.2.3.1. http://www.guyboulet.net/site/docs/Rapid_prototyping.pdf
5.7.2.3.2. Stokes, Jones Toni and Richey, Rita C. (2000) Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology and Development, 48(2), 63-80.