Instructional Design: Baggio, Clark, and Dervin ~~ S.I.T.E. & A.R.C.S. Models
(1) Note key ideas you drew from each author and why they were significant to your thinking about where to go next. How might these ideas influence your journey to addressing your driving question.
"A-ha" thoughts: (1) If I want my students to remember whatever is being taught, they need to see it--especially with course notes so they can refer to them outside of the classroom and whenever I am unavailable! However, I still want them to construct their own ideas and have choices about how/what to learn and to present their understanding. (2) Although I thought my dominant learning style was kinesthetic, through Baggio I have recognized I am more a visual learner than a kinesthetic learner.
(2) What do you think your big driving question is now?
The original title/driving question of my Spring 2016 action research was "How Managed, Threaded Discussion Affects Reading Engagement of Fourth Graders During Sustained Silent Reading" and now it might change to "How does technology sustain learning for English Language Learners?" However, I am concerned about changing my big driving question in the middle of my Master program for these three major reasons:
(a) Do I need to completely redo my research?
(b) Is it too late to radically change the focus of my research?
(c) What would that research entail?
(3) What are your new “need-to-knows”?
Because I want to be sure to address the needs of students with limited English proficiency (LEP), I should review my research to see how I can create an IDS based on all of this new information, especially for the training aspect of how to use the technology I suggest (Edmodo for electronic threaded discussion) for future student use as well as to demonstrate to parents and colleagues its use.
Most importantly, I need to know if I should radically change the focus of my research with the new big driving question. I need to speak with my instructors about this possible change.
Finally, I must use the SITE Model and ARCS Instructional Design model to analyze how best to maximize the learning experience of my project's users/audience!
- Baggio: Chapters 3 through 5 ~ Focus on the learner/user!
- Trilogy of the Mind: (1) most important is the AFFECTIVE (feelings, personality, ego, beauty, emotions, esthetics, caring, mood, motivation); (2) COGNITIVE (knowing skills, thinking, decisions, imagine, reason, solve problems; (3) CONATIVE (acting, performing, talent, volition, ethics, doing, behaving) (p. 32). The brain allows the mind to operate, but they are not the same thing; the mind includes all elements of our conscious and unconscious experiences, is subjective in nature, and is our awareness or stream of consciousness; while the brain, a physical thing, is the center of the nervous system in humans (p. 28).
- Impactful learning: Because the brain works in patterns: prior knowledge, context (especially if it is relevant and authentic), and expectations impact the connections for learning; and, by doing something new, the brain sustains growth and flexible-mindedness aka neuroplasticity. Simple visuals are usually most effective for connecting to prior knowledge to new experiences. Expectations are what we imagine might be true or what we think is likely to happen; and, imagination is powerful in learning.
- Visual learning style: By identifying an individual's learning style, it will be possible to design a method of instruction best suited to that learning style because one's experience is influenced by the way one takes information in, mainly through the senses; therefore, that sensory intake influences the cognitive processing. The VAKOG model is sensory based: visual, auditory, kinesthethic, olfactory, and gustatory.
- Clark: Chapters 1 and 2 ~ Focus on the learner/user!
- Instructional methods of content displays and practice exercises are based on training five specific content types: facts, concepts, processes, procedures, and principles.
- It is the instructional methods not media that impact learning.
- Learners do not learn best from taking copius notes; instead, they need application-level practice.
- By using a systematic process to develop the training, learning outcomes are maximized -- or "guaranteed," according to Clark (p. 5).
- Instructional Systems Design (ISD) consists of the following stages with evaluation as a part of each phase and stage:
- Analysis and Design: needs analysis, task analysis, definition of learning objectives, and development of assessment
- Development: development of learning materials, try-out with revision
- Implementation of the final product.
- All training consists of four major ingredients: training information, performance outcomes, instructional methods, and instructional media.
- Technical lessons should include: an introduction, supporting information, the key lesson task, and a summary.
- Research shows improved learning outcomes result from providing learners with a detailed set of course notes as suggested by Clark.
- Pedagogy (the teacher's toolkit of how to deliver information) is equally important as content knowledge for effective classroom instruction.
- Dervin ~ Focus on the learner/user!
- Her approach about the human use of information and information systems caused me to think critically about developing my user-prototype. It must be created for sense-making by the user. Sense-making (how one makes sense/understands information) is constructed, defined, and contextualized by the user internally (comparing, categorizing, liking, disliking, stereotyping, etc.) and externally (agreeing, disagreeing, attending, listening, shouting, ignoring, etc.). My IDS must be user-friendly (relatable and relevant).
- Time-line interviews with potential users should be conducted at each step of creating the IDS to assure sense-making occurs.
- Sense-making is individualistic, holistic, and situational; to bridge the user's gap of knowledge, the help should be based on what the user needs (culture, there are no "average" persons, what were the barriers encountered, what successes have been experienced, etc.)
"A-ha" thoughts: (1) If I want my students to remember whatever is being taught, they need to see it--especially with course notes so they can refer to them outside of the classroom and whenever I am unavailable! However, I still want them to construct their own ideas and have choices about how/what to learn and to present their understanding. (2) Although I thought my dominant learning style was kinesthetic, through Baggio I have recognized I am more a visual learner than a kinesthetic learner.
(2) What do you think your big driving question is now?
The original title/driving question of my Spring 2016 action research was "How Managed, Threaded Discussion Affects Reading Engagement of Fourth Graders During Sustained Silent Reading" and now it might change to "How does technology sustain learning for English Language Learners?" However, I am concerned about changing my big driving question in the middle of my Master program for these three major reasons:
(a) Do I need to completely redo my research?
(b) Is it too late to radically change the focus of my research?
(c) What would that research entail?
(3) What are your new “need-to-knows”?
Because I want to be sure to address the needs of students with limited English proficiency (LEP), I should review my research to see how I can create an IDS based on all of this new information, especially for the training aspect of how to use the technology I suggest (Edmodo for electronic threaded discussion) for future student use as well as to demonstrate to parents and colleagues its use.
Most importantly, I need to know if I should radically change the focus of my research with the new big driving question. I need to speak with my instructors about this possible change.
Finally, I must use the SITE Model and ARCS Instructional Design model to analyze how best to maximize the learning experience of my project's users/audience!
The following graphic is the BEST infographic I have ever seen about INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN! It was discussed during the third session of our class, capturing the ideas of Dr. Brenda Dervin (sense-making from the perspective of the user), Dr. Ruth Colvin Clark (developing a structured approach for classroom and computer-based instructional materials), and Dr. Bobbee Baggio (best practices for making learning visual).