Eureka!

Image from morguefile.com

Weeks four and five were the first weeks we really started to look specifically at the history and structure of instructional designs. I was a little nervous. I knew we would start the process of designing our own instructional design with information technology, and I was finding much of the course material overwhelming. Messages started to fly back and forth with the other group members as we started brainstorming our model. As I tried to understand what were some of the essential components of ID, I decided I needed a visual. I was about to take a large sheet of paper and start making comparisons, when I decided to do it, low and behold, in Google Drive. So I created a chart during week five to compare and contrast the models. This chart started to calm me down because I could easily see where there were some common characteristics between models.

An “eureka” moment for me came when I discussed in my weekly posting the article "Revisioning Models of Instruction Design.” I argued that rapid prototyping is something that happens in most classrooms everyday, and it is called reflection. Teachers reflect on lessons before, during and after, especially involved lessons that would include constructivism and/or cognitive flexibility. I wondered at the time if I was oversimplifying the Rapid Prototyping model, and in some ways I suppose I was. However, it was a connection that made the design of an ID model real and practical to me. Moreover, other students in the discussion group made similar observations.

In week five my argument about reflection was confirmed in the article “Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Strategy.” This article made reference to the idea of reflection and, quoting from Schon (1988), called it “reflection-in-action.” I had an even bigger eureka moment! Suddenly, I was a bit more comfortable with ID models, and the idea of creating one did not seem as intimidating. I knew I wanted the characteristics of rapid prototyping in our group model, and I also knew I was drawn to the holistic qualities of the Jerrold-Kemp model, and how it addresses constraints. To me this was a very important component since most teachers have to first address what they can and cannot do with technology, usually as a result of poorly constructed visionless technology policies that are dictated to them. My chart comparisons were coming in handy, not only for my posting, but also for generating ideas for our model. As I discussed this with two of the other group members, we soon discovered we had much in common when it came to what components should be included our design. And then, suddenly, the fourth group member shared the following with us in Google Drive:

So we were on our way, and the prospect of creating an ID with IT model was not intimidating anymore but actually kind of exciting and certainly challenging. 

I would be remiss if I also did not mention how first impressions are not always reliable. When I first looked over the two articles mentioned above, both written back in 1990 and 1997, I was skeptical to what they would offer me in the year 2013. It is ironic that one of them became a print version always handy beside my home computer, and the other one became a vault of notes on my iPad for future guidance and reference!

Linear design makes me comfortable, and while the rapid prototyping is cyclical in nature, I kept seeing our model in a linear design. Strange, I know. Maybe it is a characteristic of human nature. As a media studies teacher, I sometimes will make reference to film and television when discussing concepts and ideas in class. My whole fixation with linear designs made me think of Commander Benjamin Sisko in Star Trek’s Deep Space Nine when he was first confronted with the “(non-corporeal) wormhole aliens” who regarded his “linear thinking” as limited and wondered how human beings were able to exist and survive. Sometime as I looked at ID models with lots of curved arrows and circular shapes, I thought of poor Sisko with the aliens. No wonder my chart, which helped to break down the components of different ID models (many with cyclical features), was helpful. I had a step by step linear view of cyclical models. Whatever the reason, developing a deeper understanding of cyclical design did not surface until later in the course.

I think this experience will help when any of my students display confusion or uncertainty over interpreting information from diagrams, charts, and visuals. I will certainly have a greater sense of empathy! I will try to determine other ways for them to view the information to help understand the design. Ultimately, is not understanding data from visuals first require an understanding of the design? In this case the medium is the message! I know in Memorial University’s course Research Design and Methods in Education, we spent time exploring different visuals that are used to represent data. I was excited when I finally had a deeper understanding of scatter plots! Understanding the design and purpose of a specific visual form is the first step teachers should explore with students before introducing the form to interpret the data. Visuals that represent data are becoming more and more popular, particularly online, such as the use of infographics. Of course, for students to fully appreciate and develop a deeper understanding of visual representations, a constructivist approach should be implemented, allowing them to use data that is relevant to them as they consider their audience, decide on a proper format and construct their own visual representation. The use of visual representations are extremely common in many science classes. In fact, the study “Using students’ visual representations as a window to designing learning tools,” concluded that visual tools were valuable as students learned about biological complex systems. The authors argue that educators need to consider computer-based visual tools to help students develop deeper understanding of content material.

As my group started to work on an instructional design model, we had for inspiration the initial ideas and the first visual that was created by one of the group members. I decided to take the components we agreed on and, using the beta of an online tool at www.easel.ly, I came up with the following:

The reaction from my group members was mixed. That was not a surprise as my reaction was mixed too. It still had a linear feel, but it was an evolutionary process. My version was maybe Neanderthal in nature, but it had its purpose. Fortunately, one of our group members had a rich experience in design work, so the final draft for our ID was this:

I think a healthy dynamic of group work requires the ability to let members utilize the strong skills they possess while allowing everyone the opportunity to exercise skills they may seldom use. I felt our group did that well. Sometimes I get stressed over the prospect of creating a group in a digital environment where we will never get together face to face to collaborate. I sometimes initially wonder if the instructor should just assign students to groups. But I am glad that has not happened to me yet. I seldom assign groups in my class when students do group work. I may make suggestions, and sometimes I may intervene if personality conflicts seem like they will never be resolved. But I think teachers who always feel it necessary to assign students to certain groups take away a sense of ownership that students should have of their learning. The selection of group members, I think, is the first and is important stage of the group work experience.

Next...Chaotic?