Instructional Design Model (week two)

by megantaylor05

In the article “Instructional Design in Education: New Model”, Dr. Aytekin Isman proposes a new model for instructional design that combines theory from behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Instructional design from a behaviorist approach typically includes five areas or phases according to Dr. Isman– analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation; this approach is also called ADDIE (as in our courses). Cognitivist-based instructional design focuses on motivation, the learning process (cognitive), learners’ experiences, and the content being presented. From the constructivist view, the key to instruction and student learning is active learning. Dr. Isman places emphasis on student motivation, appropriate instructional technology, and moving information to students’ long-term memory.

The new Isman model for instructional design consists of five steps: (1) input, (2) process, (3) output, (4) feedback, and (5) learning. The input stage requires the designer to identify the needs, content, goals and objectives, teaching methods, and instructional media. In the process stage he or she tests prototypes, evaluates and redesigns, and develops learning activities. The output stage requires the teacher to assess instruction and student learning, analyze results, and make adjustments; then the instructional designer evaluates and revises instruction. Feedback provided to the designer also informs revisions to be made in design. The final stage is referred to as “learning” and is focused on ensuring students are able to move knowledge to long-term memory stores. If it is determined this does not occur, the design should once more evaluated and revised (Isman, 2011).

Before finding this article, I had never heard of the Isman Model. It seems to me that it is basically similar to ADDIE while also taking into consideration the foundational learning theories. I don’t think, however, that I will be likely to utilize this approach when designing/developing instruction. In my opinion, it is some what “jumbled” and lacks sufficient research backing. I do not think that the author describes his purpose for integrating the three theoretical foundations or how they are utilized in the design process.

The instructional design model and learning theories are distinct yet they are both necessary to create a functional course. As I have worked on my design, I have found that it is important to consult the foundational learning theory (for my design, Constructivism) as I develop my goals and objectives, activities, and the content/media I use. I don’t think, though, that it is as important for the client to fully grasp the difference in the two, or even the in depth design process. However, it is critical that the teacher have a clear understanding and acceptance of the learning theory that drives the instruction. One of the biggest points I gained from feedback on my initial design draft was to consider my learning theory in more depth. Based on feedback I expanded from just “constructivism” to the more specific “project-based learning” approach that still falls under constructivist ideas, but has helped me to develop learning activities.

Isman, A. (2011). Instructional design in education: New model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 136-142. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ926562.pdf

 

Advertisements