Dick, Walter, Carey, Lou, & Carey, James. (2008). The Systematic Design of instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Instructional Design
As the title suggests, this model shows how to design instruction. I had never thought of it before, but lesson and unit planning are basically the same thing as designing instruction. Seeing this model made the whole concept of Instructional Design suddenly seem not so intimidating.
The authors give examples regarding a home HVAC system and Type 1 Diabetes. The point that they are making is that both are examples of systems. Systems require interrelated parts to work together to achieve a desired outcome. By themselves, the individual parts may be unrelated.
After they present the Systems Approach Model, the authors acknowledge that the model is meant to be a living document. Master teacher, trainers, and designers can and should modify the model to fit their relative needs and expertise.
Reigeluth, Charles, & Carr-Chellman, Alison. (2009).Instructional-design theories and models. Taylor & Francis.
Chapter 1: Understanding Instructional Theory
The authors begin by defining instruction as “anything that is done purposely to facilitate learning.” They include constructivism in this definition, because if students are constructing their own knowledge about a subject, and a teacher provided the scaffolds, then they have been instructed. It’s a simple argument—about syntax really.
Instructional Design Theory is composed of 6 theories: Instructional-Event Theory, Instructional-Analysis Theory, Instructional-Planning Theory, Instructional-Building Theory, Instructional-Implementation Theory, and Instructional-Evaluation Theory.
Next, the authors mention four seemingly unrelated theories: Student-Assessment Design Theory, Curriculum-Design Theory, Learning Theory, and Learning Sciences. The most interesting of the four is Learning Sciences. Learning Scientists are interested “in the use of certain kinds of instructional methods to shed light on certain kinds of learning processes.” I think this is a really cool idea. These people research the effectiveness of certain instructional methods on learning. I can totally see how this field is dependent on other fields (e.g. Student-Assessment Design Theory, how else would we know how to assess what was learned in the first place?), but wow—this just sounds more interesting to me!
The authors argue that a new paradigm is needed in American schools today. They call the status quo the “industrial-age paradigm.” All students of a certain age are grouped together, take the same classes, and are promoted after a set amount of time (usually a semester or school year). I have agreed with them for some time that this whole concept seems outdated. I would love to see high school more tailored to the individual. If a student just “gets a subject” really well, and can show mastery of the required content, why not promote that student? Why make them sit through an extra 10 weeks of class? At the same time, what if a student struggles in a certain area? At the present time, we will move them along as long as they can achieve a 70% average (or 60%, depending on the state). Is a 60 or 70% really mastering anything? If a student needs 25 weeks instead of 18 to really master something, why is that not better?
When the authors argue that we need to develop advanced technologies to track student progression on the educational continuum, marking their progress, I agree. They lose me when they fail to mention factors other than academic achievement. If a really smart third grade boy reads at a seventh grade reading level, and is promoted to seventh grade, the results could be disastrous. Not only might he not be ready emotionally and based on his maturity, but his new peers might not be either. I would love to see something like the authors suggest piloted in a high school setting. I really hope they keep elementary schools the way they are—at least for now.
