IDE632. Summarize of Module 10 Class on 04/07/09

1st Session

The first session of the class was Guest Lecture, Dr. Phil Doughty. He discussed couple of important things:

First, he posed a question “Where in the model you would want to start to solve the problem?” Answers were varies; Front-End Analysis, Conceptual Framework (the how, what, who, and why), Evaluation (Rear-End), and Instruction (which he confirmed as the usual place to start, because this is where ID-ers were recruited). However, he also stated that in the real world, we can start anywhere.
Second, he discussed about the various labels people have toward people who try to solve instructional problems. Various answers came up; Instructional Designers, Learning Facilitator, Technology Writer, Information Architect, Educational Engineers (posited by Dr.Romi), Instructional Psychologist, Teachers/Coach/Mentor/Tutor, Communicator, and for this course the label is Instructional Developer. To quote Dr. Phil, he said that if anyone ask him about what his job is, he would answer “my job is to make learning occur”.
Third, he shared about what he’s been working on since two years ago, “Open Educational Resources (OER) for Vietnam Project” (detail information can be found in handouts he handed in class). He emphasized one part of the model that were used for this project, that one part/ steps are “Three Classes of Interventions” : Professional/Personal Development (PD) – Instructional Development (ID) – Organizational Development (OD). He discussed how PD-ID-OD became an important element in the ID model for this context, might be for our context too. This point is very related to the readings (Module 10).

2nd Session
The second session was Ashley’s presentation of Rapid Prototyping (RP). From what I noted, RP is an iterative design. Ashley gave example of RP; making paper airplane. Another points about RP are:

• Not for a huge scale → unit level
• For experienced ID/ expert
• Not so much FEA (expert already has the scheme/ information about FEA on his head)
• Save time/budget
• The context: should be in environment that is flexible, certain level of trust to the environment.
  

Jerry added about “prototype” vs. “products” → how people would be more tolerance and ‘open’ to a “prototype”, since it means people can keep revising. Vice versa, people tend to be less tolerance, and easier to complain if a “product” do not meet their expectation.

3rd Session
The third session was Yan Suo’s presentation of Gerlach and Ely’s model (1980). This model can be found in Gustafson’s Survey of Instructional Development Models book, page 20. It falls under Classroom-Oriented category. Some information about this model would be:

• In this model, teacher works as a coordinator, rather than presenter
• This model was designed for the teacher
• the five steps (determination of strategy, organization of groups, allocation of time, allocation of space, selection of resources) are interactive, can happen simultaneously.
  

Yan Suo’s references for this presentation were:

1. Gustafson, K.L. & Branch, R.M. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models, 4th Edition. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse.
2. Chen, Kuan-Chung (2004). Classroom Instructional Development Model – The Gerlach and Ely Model. Retrieved from http://siderali.myweb.uga.edu/EDIT6200/UPDATE%20Model%20Critique__KUAN_CHUNG_CHEN.pdf
3. Gerald S.E., Robert C. B., Prachee M. , (1994), A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Models. ETR&D, Vol 42. No.4, pp. 55-72.

Module 10
Organization and Management of ID Centers
Research and Development on ID
Some important information can be found from the readings (Module 10). I will not put everything here, however I will put some notes/ excerpt from each article in Module 10.

• “Studies of faculty development programs indicate how vital it is to have an individual with the commitment, and talent to take the lead in developing, maintaining and evaluating services. Faculty do serve as directors of teaching centers, and they play other roles as well, such as rotating through as an affiliate (e.g., a faculty associate), serving on a center’s advisory board, or sharing their own expertise at center-sponsored programs. But critical to the success of many teaching centers is a high-quality staff of instructional developers who may or may not come from faculty ranks but are able to position their efforts within the context of the campus culture.” (Excerpt from POD Network in Higher Education article)
• Durzo, J article review topics on: 1) The nature of Instructional Development, 2) The Instructional Development Movement, 3) The role of Instructional Development, 4) Characteristics of Instructional Development Agencies, 5) Approaches to Instructional Development, 6) The Scope of Instructional Development Projects, 7) Project Generation and Selection, and 8) Implications for Implementing Instructional Development Programs.
• Sell & Chism (1990) article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different staffing options, the search process, and the “need” to prepare future staff. The term “Faculty Development” is used here as a general descriptor to encompass not only organized efforts to develop the knowledge and skills of faculty, but also systematic activities aimed at improving instruction through developing courses and curricula (“instructional development”) and institutional policies and practices (“organizational development”)
• Locatis and Park (1982) compared Authoring Systems (which allow course developers to build displays, specify inputs, and branch students, focus on how such course ingredients are realized in specific lessons) with ID Expert Systems (part of a family of software tools for automating course development). The major difference between the two is, Authoring Systems are meant for building the final product, while Automated ID tools are intended for planning it.