Date and Time: Wednesday, 4:40-730pm
Jerry Willis, 111F
578-1356 (0ffice), 769-4035 (home)
Several hundred universities in the
There are three major “flavors” of the standard ID course.
This course uses the ID Alternatives model and it covers both pedagogy and process but the emphasis is on process. Over the semester you will explore six major topics:
We will devote some time to the families of pedagogy that are most commonly associated with instructional design. These include Gagne’s Conditions of Learning theory as well as several models of constructivist learning.
Each of the major topics in the course has a set of readings associated with it. The reading lists are available on the course web site (http://blackboard.lsu.edu) and each student registered for the class should be automatically registered with Blackboard so that you can go to the LSU Blackboard site (http://blackboard.lsu.edu), sign in using your LSU email ID and password, and then go to the course web site.
Our class meetings will emphasize discussions of the readings. You will be expected to come to class ready to participate in informed discussions of the readings as well as small group activities.. Some reading assignments will be for one week. Others will be for two weeks. For two week assignments, you will be expected to come to the first class session with basic or fundamental questions about the readings – what you did not understand, what seems unclear or contradictory. Raise those questions in class and we will discuss them. For the second week, you will be expected to come to class ready to discuss the implications of the readings – what they mean for your area(s) of interest. For that second class period you should:
· Find and read two resources relevant to the topic that deal specifically with your area of interest. For example, if you are very interested in distance education and we are reading papers on instructional design, you might read two resources on the design of distance education such as the University of Illinois’ web site on Instructional Design for Online Courses at http://www.online.uillinois.edu/oakley/presentations/instructional_design.html or Jeff Boulton’s 2002 paper, Web Based Distance Education: Pedagogy, Epistemology, and Instructional Design (http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/boulton/).
· Write a one to two page summary of the article and place it on the web site at least a day before the class meets. Start the summary with a correct APA citation of the article/resource/book/whatever. Then on a separate line put “Summarized by yourfirst&lastname”. Then, after a blank line, write your summary. When you place it on the course web site make the heading for the message the title of the article (or an abbreviated version if it is very long).
Your only other Big assignment for the semester is a 10 to 25 page paper (12 point type, 1 inch margins, single spaced) on instructional design in an area that interests you. Your paper can analyze the current literature on a type of ID theory of model such as Rapid Prototyping, constructivist design, Spiral Design, or ISD. Or, you could focus on a type of design work such as teacher as instructional designer or creating distance learning environments. Or, you could emphasize one aspect of ID such as building collaborative teams, iterative or recursive design procedures, evaluation, needs assessment, or diffusion and support. Or?
Final grades will be based on the following:
A course outline is generally treated as the absolute and final guide for how a course will be conducted. I do not want this outline to be treated that way. Instead, please consider the outline as a starting point for discussions and negotiations of what we will do in the course. You may, for example, find that your paper becomes a much more important part of your work in the course and prefer that it count for more of your grade. You could, for example, find that the readings are not as appropriate to your interests as they might be. You can propose alternative readings for yourself or for the class as a whole. Thus, while I have taken the responsibility for initially structuring this course, I expect you to participate in that process as well across the semester.
There are six sets of readings, with some suggestions about what to look for, think about, and consider as you do your readings. We will discuss in class how I will evaluate your work in this area, but what I generally want you to do is:
The Spiral Nature of
There is a good deal of overlap across the readings. You will, for example, run into models such as Rapid Prototyping several times. You will also run into frameworks such as cognitivism as well as procedures such as iteration, in more than one idea. The readings have been organized using Bruner’s concept of a spiral curriculum. In his 1960 book, The Process of Education, Bruner explained the idea this way:
A curriculum as it develops should revisit this basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them' (Bruner, 1960, p.13)
Sólrún B. Kristinsdóttir (2001, http://starfsfolk.khi.is/solrunb/jbruner.htm_3.htm) succinctly describes the use of Bruner’s concept in educational technology and instructional design:
It was in the 1980s, that a body of literature had accumulated in support of individual components of a spiral curriculum model. Reigeluth and Stein (1983) published the seminal work on “The Elaboration Theory of Instruction”. It proposes that when structuring a course, it should be organised in a simple-to-complex, general-to-detailed, abstract-to-concrete manner. Another principle is that one should follow learning prerequisite sequence, it is applied to individual lessons within a course. In order for a student to develop from simple to more complex lessons, certain prerequisite knowledge and skills must first be mastered. This prerequisite sequencing provides linkages between each lesson as student spirals upwards in a course of a study. As new knowledge and skills are introduced in subsequent lessons, they reinforce what is already learnt and become related to previously learned information. What the student gradually achieves is a rich breadth and depth of information that is not normally developed in curricula where each topic is discrete and disconnected from each other (Dowding, T.J. 1993).
The readings for this course are roughly organized in a spiral so that you visit the same ideas many times over the semester. In some cases you read simpler and less detailed content first, then approach more sophisticated material later in the semester. In other cases, the initial exposure to the material is relatively complex and sophisticated but you will probably not understand it fully until you spiral through several more exposures to the ideas and concepts discussed.
We can trace the history of design back thousands of years. In fact, archaeologists often determine what civilization built and occupied a certain ancient site by the design of common items such as pottery and by the shape of things like spear points and arrow heads. Instructional design does not have such a long history (although related fields like educational psychology and pedagogy do). However, it does have a set of complex relationships with a diverse set of fields that include everything from psychology to philosophy. Gus Prestera’s (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/g/e/gep111/html/M4/L2%20-%20Theories/M4L2P4.htm) graphic of the theoretical landscape illustrates just how complex ID’s relations with other fields are.
As you read the material for this first assignment I would like you to think about the issues of how these areas interact. What, for example, is the relationship between learning theories and instructional design theories? Even more basic, what are learning theories and instructional design theories? How are they different? This same set of questions can be asked about any of the fields depicted in Prestera’s graphic.
Several of the readings also deal with historical
influences. Did great intellectual
This set of readings also illustrates two aspects of the framework in which ID is practiced. One has already been mentioned. ID as a field interacts with and is influenced by many different disciplines and by many historical patterns. Also, within virtually every discipline that touches ID there are contradictory and competing lines of influence. Within learning theory, for example, theories based on behaviorism, constructivism, and many other foundations, have influenced educational technology and ID. The result is that ideological and theoretical positions that are not always compatible have been the foundation for different approaches to ID. What are the major influences today? Historically, how did they emerge and develop? Are there historical antecedents to the current influences? For example, can we see modern expressions of the efficiency movement and Taylorism in today’s debates about education and ID? Is Dewey’s progressive education movement alive and well today in ID?
Another question, which should perhaps be considered first, concerns the meaning of the term Instructional Design. What is ID? Is this a unified concept? Or do different people define it differently? If they do, what are the reasons? Are they theoretical? Practical? You will find, for example, that some people use the term ID broadly, so that it includes pedagogy issues. Others use it narrowly to mean the process of designing without a heavy focus on pedagogy.
Why do we have such different approaches? What position to you take on the meaning of the term ID? Finally, these readings will illustrate some of the issues that are at the core of decisions about ID. Ann Shortridge, for example, talks about “three challenges” that face designers. Each of these challenges involves choices about crucial issues related to both ID and learning. These readings should help you develop an understanding of the current issues and you should begin to develop your own understanding and interpretation of those issues.
Sara McNeil. (2003). A Hypertext History of Instructional Design. Available: http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html
Karin M. Wiburg. (1995). An Historical Perspective on Instructional Design: Is it Time to Exchange Skinner's Teaching Machine for Dewey's Toolbox? Available: http://www.internettime.com/itimegroup/Is%20it%20Time%20to%20Exchange%20Skinner's%20Teaching%20Machine%20for%20Dewey's.htm
Robert Reiser. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology. Part II: A History of Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67. Available: http://www.aect.org/pdf/etr&d/4902/4902-04.pdf
Douglas Leigh. (no date). A Brief History of Instructional Design. Available: http://www.pignc-ispi.com/articles/education/brief%20history.htm
Michael Molenda, Charles Reigeluth and Laurie Nelson.
(2003). L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (Vol.
2, pp. 574-578).
Ann Marie Shortridge. (2003). Instructional Design Paradigms. Available: http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/anscmatr/shortam/page1.htm Note: Be sure to follow the links in the text as they are also assigned readings (except for the link on Vygotsky).
Carl Berger and Rosalind Kam. (no date). Definitions of Instructional Design. Available: http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html
Barbara Bichelmeyer. (2003). Instructional Theory and Instructional Design Theory: What’s the Difference and Why Should We Care? IDT Record. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html
(2003). Clearing the Muddy Waters:
A Response to Barbara Bichelmeyer. IDT Record. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eidt/articles/documents/Reigeluth_response_to_Bichelmeyer.htm
A few years ago the field of ID was rather simple: ID was based on a behavioral theory of learning and hard systems theory. It was a linear process that relied on direct instruction models, and the process of design was focused on experts who developed materials according to models that all followed what some have referred to as the “waterfall” approach. That is, the output of one step (such as developing behavioral objectives) was the input required to start the next step (e.g., designing assessment procedures). Today, the monolithic nature of ID has been broken. None of the assumptions or foundations mentioned above remains unchallenged. Alternative theories, alternative models, and alternative procedures abound, and the literature is filled with proposals and approaches that reject or radically modify canonical positions from just a few years ago.
Many of these readings are about instructional theories, models, and strategies. The focus of this courses is instructional design models, but any instructional design project must of necessity deal with instructional strategies. You cannot design instructional material without selecting and incorporating instructional strategies. And, of course, instructional strategies and models are often based on instructional theories which are based on theories of learning. In this set of readings you will study both the traditional foundations and the emerging alternatives of ID as well as instruction. I have included one very long reading – chapters 2,3, and 4 of Dr. Mary Ruth De Villiers’ dissertation at the University of Pretoria – because it does such a good job of laying out the foundations of ID and the foundations of instruction. Please pay particular attention to the material on the three learning theories that influence ID today: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Likewise, look at the way these broad theories generate instructional theories and procedures such as Gagne’s events of instruction and anchored instruction. And, consider the influence of broader theories such as systems theory and chaos theory on both the way we think about learning and about ID.
As you read the foundations literature, continue to work on your understanding of the basic issues involved in ID (and educational technology) and what is behind those issues from a conceptual and theoretical perspective. Why are principles of instruction from behaviorists different from the principles of cognitivists and constructivists? Why are the principles of ID from these three perspectives different? And, how are they different?
You will also be reading papers about different foundations for ID such as postmodernism, constructivism, and cognitive science. Please be sure you understand these paradigms. You should be able to link the foundational assumptions of the paradigms to the practices of ID within that tradition.
By the time you finish this set of readings you should be starting to develop your own ideas about how you would approach ID and also be able to explain why.
Mary Ruth De Villiers.
(2002). The Dynamics of Theory and Practice in Instructional Design.
(Chapters 2, 3, and 4 only). Ph.D.
Thesis submitted to the Department of Teaching and Training Studies of the
Faculty of Education,
Brenda Mergel. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Available: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Comparison of Behaviorism / Cognitivism / Constructivism. Available: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/x/txl166/kb/theory/compar.html
Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby. (1993). Behaviorism , Cognitivism,
Constructivism: Comparing Critical
Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
Note: There are five sections to this article; please be sure to read all five sections. They are at different addresses (…ertnew2.htm, ertnew3.htm, etc, ect) and there is a link at the bottom of each piece that takes you to the next piece.
Peter de Lisle (1997). What Is Instructional Design Theory? Available: http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/peterdl/ID%20Theory.htm
Doreen Clough. (no date). Postmodern Instructional Design. Available: http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/postmodern/index.htm
Maureen Tam. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2). Available: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html
Brent Wilson, David Jonassen, and Peggy Cole. (1993).
Cognitive Approaches to Instructional Design. In G. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology.
In this set of readings we will begin to explore in some detail the process of creating instructional materials. You will read several overview articles/chapters, such as Chapter 7 from Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow’s book. Consider each of the ID models presented individually, then look at how one model is similar, and different, from another. Other readings in this set deal with one specific model or group of models. By the end of the readings you should start to see families of instructional design models that have so many similarities that they form a cohesive group in spite of the fact they have many differences as well. And, an idea should be forming of different families of ID models that, as a group, are so different from models in other families that they constitute a fundamentally different approach to ID.
*Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow. (1998). Making
Instructional Design Decisions, 2nd ed.
Chapter 7. Using Models and Paradigms. (pp. 165-194.
NOTE: The * indicates this is a reading that is not available online. We will discuss in class how each student can get copies of the readings that are available only in print.
Martin Ryder. (2004) Instructional Design Models. Available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html
Note: This is a large site and I do not expect you to become familiar with all the material. Instead, study the material on instructional design models you are not familiar with.
Occupational and Technical Studies. (2001). ISD: Instructional Systems Design.
Donald Clark. (2004). ADDIE -1975. Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html
ISD Overview. Available: http://www.soe.unc.edu/ISD/About/ISD_Overview/isd_overview.html
The Multimedia Development Process. Available: http://www.oten.edu.au/id/Bank/IDOnline_Development_process.pdf
This set of readings takes a contemporary look at what is happening in the field of ID today. What are the issues? The transitions? The problems? The emerging concepts and solutions? As you read this material I would like you to develop ideas about the basic issues that are being discussed, the reasons those issues have arisen, and your informed view of how they can be resolved. Several of these articles are criticisms of, or responses to criticisms of particular ID models or approaches. You should understand not only the criticisms but also the lines of defense against criticisms.
Brent Wilson. (1997
). Reflections on Constructivist ID. In C. R. Dills and A. A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional
Diane Gayeski. (April, 1997). Out of the Box Instructional Design: Moving from Assembly Line to Non-Linear Models. Training and Development, Draft Available: http://www.omnicomassociates.com/t&disd.html
Donald Clark. (2004). The Attack on ISD – 2000. Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/attack.html
Donald Clark. (2004). A Hard Look at IST – 2004. Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/look.html
Ruth Colvin Clark. (August, 2002). The New ISD: Applying Cognitive Strategies to Instructional Design. Performance Improvement, 41(7). Available: http://www.clarktraining.com/CogStrat.pdf
M. David Merrill. (2002). A Pebble-in-the-Pond Model for Instructional Design. Performance and Improvement, 41(7). Available: http://www.ispi.org/pdf/Merrill.pdf
M. David Merrill, Leston Drake, Mark J. Lacy, Jean Pratt
& the ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7. Available: http://www.ittheory.com/reclaim.htm
Brent Wilson. (2005). The Future of Instructional Design and Technology. In M. David Merrill and Brent G. Wilson. R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (2nd ed.). Draft available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/ChoosingOurFuture.html
ADDIE. Available http://www.managersforum.com/astd/2001-2002/ISD-ADDIE.htm
Jared Carman. (2003). Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients. Available: http://www.knowledgenet.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design_1028.PDF
*Jerry Willis. (June, 1998). Alternative Instructional Design Paradigms: What’s Worth Discussing and What Isn’t. Educational Technology, 5-16.
Barbara Schindelka. (2000). Lessons Learned from the Real World: Reflections on a Journey. Available: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/schindelka/schindelka.pdf
Thomas Reeves. (2000). Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through “Design Experiments” and Other Development Research Strategies. Available: http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/AERA2000Reeves.pdf
Special Issue of Educational Researcher, January/February, 2003. Read at least four of the papers in this issue. We will discuss in class which articles each person will be responsible for. Available: http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/toc/er3201.htm
Marc Prensky. (2001).
Digital Game-Based Learning.
Chapter 3. Why Education and Training Have Not Changed. Available: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Ch3-Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning.pdf
Rick Kenny. (2004). Instructional designers in search of
identity and community. Abstract of a
paper to be presented at Section 6b of the Distance Education Technology
Symposium – 2004 at
Don Clark. (2000). Developing Instruction or Instructional Design. Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/development.html
Note: Read the material on Gagne, Keller, Merrill, and Reigeluth; the stuff on constructivism isn’t that great.
(2002). Chapter 1. Teacher-Designers:
How Teachers Use Instructional Design in Real Classrooms. In Patricia Rogers, Designing Instruction for Technology-Enhanced Learning.
*Roberts Braden. (1996). The Case for Linear Instructional Design and Development: A Commentary on Models, Challenges, and Myths. Educational Technology 36(2), 5-23.
Darryl Sink. (2002). ISD: Faster, Better, Easier. Performance and Improvement, 41(7), 16-22. Available: http://www.dsink.com/news/ISD-faster-better-easier.pdf
*Walter Dick. (July/August, 1995). Instructional Design and Creativity: A Response to Critics. Educational Technology, 5-11.
*Walter Dick. (1996). The Dick and Carey Model: Will It Survive the Decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.
*Jerry Willis. (1995). A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory. Educational Technology, 36(6), 5-23.
Guy Wallace, Peter Hybert, Kelly Smith, and Brian Blecke. (2002). Lean-ISD: Designing for the Life-cycle. Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7). Available: http://hobsongroup.com/pdf/lean-ISD%20Designing%20for%20the%20Life-cycle.pdf
*M. David Merrill. (May-June, 2000). A Response to Jerry Willis. Educational Technology, 40, 61.
In this set of readings you will explore current work within four different paradigms. The last set of readings is about work within the dominant paradigm in the field – behavioral/information processing/cognitive science. The first set introduces you to systems theory, particularly soft systems theory. The second set covers chaos theory and the third is about constructivist ID. As you read these four sets of articles make the link between the underlying theoretical models and the practice of ID. Make sure you understand what difference approaches to ID actually involve and begin to develop your own ideas about how you would approach ID.
A. Systems Theory
Systems theory is traditionally thought of in the Newell and Simon model which is “hard” systems theory – the model that has dominated ID for several decades. These readings introduce you to “soft” systems theory. You should understand the difference between these two approaches to system theory and be able to link those differences to practices in ID.
*Ahn-Sook Hwang. (1995). Two Traditions of Systems Thinking in Instructional Development. Educational Technology, 35(2), 40-42.
In-Sook Lee. (2003). Retrospective and Prospective Images on the Relationship Between Educational Technology and Systems Science. Educational Technology International, 5(1), 3-29. Available: http://dasan.sejong.ac.kr/~inlee/set/articles/2003_KSET_RETROSPECTIVE_AND_PROSPECTIVE_IMAGES.pdf
B. Chaos Theory
Chaos theory is a relatively recent development that is
still finding its place in both the natural sciences and the social
sciences. Some see it as a revolutionary
concept that is as important as
*Yeongmahn You. (1993). What Can We Learn from Chaos Theory? An Alternative Approach to Instructional Systems Design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 43(3), 17-32.
Charles Reigeluth. (2004). Chaos Theory and the Sciences of Complexity: Foundations for Transforming Education. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~syschang/decatur/documents/chaos_reigeluth_s2004.pdf
William Hunter and Garth Benson. (1997). Arrows in Time: The Misapplication of Chaos Theory to Education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 87-100.
Joseph M. Conte. (Winter, 1996). "Design and Debris": John Hawkes's Travesty, Chaos Theory, and the Swerve. CRITIQUE: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 37(2), 120-138.
C. Constructivist Perspectives
By this point you have already read several papers on constructivist ID. In this set you will go into more detail on both the foundations of Constructivist ID (C-ID) and approaches to practice. Some of the practice articles present entire models, such as R2D2, and others focus on a particular strategy or approach such as participatory design. When you finish reading these articles you should understand the foundational assumptions of C-ID at both the epistemological and psychological level, be familiar with the different models of C-ID and be able to distinguish them from one another on the basis of practical and foundational differences, and know about the different strategies and approaches to implementing C-ID.
(1995). Beyond Machinery:
Considering the Epistemologies of Wittgenstein, Dewey, and Rorty as
Potential Foundations for IT Research and Development. Paper delivered at the First Annual ITTE
Nirod Kumer Dash. (no date). Implications of Constructivism for Instructional Design in Open and Distance Learning. Available: http://www.ignou.ac.in/Theme-2/Nirod%20Kumar%20Dash.htm
Charalambos Vrasidas. (2000). Constructivism versus Objectivism: Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6(4), 339-362. Available: http://www.cait.org/vrasidas/continuum.pdf
(2003). Constructivism Across the
Joan Grudin and John Pruitt. (no date). Personas, Participatory Design, and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement. Available: http://research.microsoft.com/research/coet/Grudin/Personas/Grudin-Pruitt.pdf
Michael Muller. Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. Available: http://domino.research.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/0/56844f3de38f806285256aaf005a45ab/$FILE/muller%20Chapter%20v1-2.pdf
Lisa D. Young (2003). Bridging Theory and Practice: Developing Guidelines to Facilitate the Design of Computer-based Learning Environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3). Available: http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol29.3/cjlt29-3_art4.html
Debate in an ID class at the U of Alberta on constructivism versus ISD. Available: http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/AHE/ae404/debate.htm
Stephen Gance. (May, 2002). Are constructivism and computer-based learning environments incompatible? Journal of the Association for History and Computing, 5(1). Available: http://mcel.pacificu.edu/JAHC/JAHCV1/K-12/gance.html
*Reigeluth, C. (1996). A New Paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(5), 11-20.
*Reigeluth, C. (1996). Of Paradigms Lost and Gained? Educational Technology, 36(6), 58-61.
*Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16.
*Willis, J., & Wright, K. E. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5-20.
*Fred Nickols. (July-August, 2000). Letter to the Editor. Comments on R2D2 and ISD. Educational Technology, 40.
Paula Vincini. (no
date). The Use of Participatory Design
Methods in a Learner-Centered Design Process.
Rod Sims and Deborah Jones. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: REconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf
Karen Norum. (2002). Appreciative Instructional Design (AiD): A New Model. Avilable: http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/research/bibPapersDetail.cfm?coid=201
*Katherine Cennamo, Sandra Abell, and Mi-Lee Chung. (1996). A “Layers of Negotiation” Model for Designing Constructivist Learning Materials. Educational Technology, 36, 39-48.
Brandie Colon, Kay Ann Taylor, and Jerry Willis. (May, 2000). Constructivist Instructional Design: Creating a Multimedia Package for Teaching Critical Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 5(1/2), 2000. Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-1/colon.html
D. Behavioral, Information Processing, and Cognitive Science Perspectives
This final set of readings looks at current developments within the main path of ID development. That path was originally based on behavioral theory but expanded in the sixties and seventies to include information processing theory as well as other cognitive theories of learning. Later, cognitive science theories were added to the mix and today the result is a very active and energetic field of work on ID, but one that increasingly has to respond to developments within other paradigms. As you read these articles consider questions such as whether the positions taken reflect current research and scholarship, whether the solutions and approaches have broad appeal, and whether the work within this stream of development remains separate from the work in alternative paradigms. Or, can it be integrated into a broader, more inclusive paradigm that encompasses advances from other paradigms as well?
*Walter Dick. (1995). Instructional Design and Creativity: A Response to the Critics. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-11.
*M. David Merrill. (1996). What New Paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(6), 57-58.
*Steven Tripp and Barbara Bichelmeyer (1990). Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Insructional Design Strategy. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 38(1), 31-44.
(2000). Spiral Development: Experience, Principles, Refinements.
Barry Boehm and Wilfred Hansen. (May, 2001). The Spiral Model As A Tool for Evolutionary Acquisition. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. Available: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2001/05/boehm.html
Thiagarajan, Sivasailam (1993). Just-in-time instructional
design. In Piskurich, G. (Ed.) The ASTD
Handbook of Instructional Technology.
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to
cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive.
Walter Wagner. (no date). Information Processing: Man Overboard. Available: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper23/paper23.html
James Taylor. (no date). Novex Analysis: A Cognitive Science Approach To Instructional Design. Available: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/readings/novex/novex.htm