Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Assessment and Revision Assignment

Educ 5103 Week 6 Group Assignment

Submitted by: Group BMHP

Byron Butt, Ellen Hicks, Karen Power, and Jennie MacDougall

A group research paper

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the Diploma of Education (Technology)

Cape Breton University

June 24, 2014

1

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Introduction

Instructional design is recognized in the educational field as a “system of planning, implementing

and evaluating instruction” (Summerville & Reid­Griffin, 2008, p. 45) as well as being “...a systematic

approach to planning and producing effective instructional materials. It is similar to lesson planning, but

more elaborate and detailed” (Siemens, 2002, p. 1). The end goal being effective and efficient learning

(Summerville & Reid­Griffin, 2008, p. 45). There are many models of instructional design that are

accepted within the field. All of these models provide a systematic process to use for the development

and design of learning and instructional activities.

The BMHP group identified five main components of instructional design to include in our

design – analyze, design, produce, implement, and evaluate. We placed the student at the center of our

design since all decisions in the process should be made with the best interest of the student in mind.

Each step of the process also takes into consideration a technology component as we strive to develop

a plan for instruction that encourages learning in a constructivist environment using technology as a vital

component.

A key step in an instructional design model is evaluation and revision. This is a process that is

applied in many different aspects of education as it encourages growth and development. The BMHP

instructional design model is not an exception to this process. Peer and instructor review of the model

provided feedback and suggestions that can be applied to develop an improved model. After reviewing

the suggestions provided our group decided that our model could be improved with the addition of a

section that deals specifically with technology and a second section that compliments the evaluation and

revision component by defining a final product.

2

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Evaluation of the BHMP Instructional Design Model

The Instructional Design model created by BMHP is an effective method for classroom teachers

to use when planning lessons and units that integrate information technology. However, there are some

areas which could be improved. Feedback was collected through self­evaluation, comparison of the

model to existing models, further research and through Educ 5103 peer and instructor feedback.

According to the peer feedback, the instructional design model’s strengths lie in its simplicity,

attention to detail, the analysis section, visual appeal of the circular design, and the student centered

feature (MacKinnon, 2014; Bisson, 2014; Whitty, 2014; Starratt, 2014; Chisholm, 2014; Olabisi,

2014; Spurrell, 2014).

Many of the peer reviews referred to the simple design and language. Reviewers seemed to

agree that developing a straightforward Instructional Design Process was important. Therese Boudreau

MacKinnon (2014) noted that she liked “how it is a very simple model that has a lot of details” (para.1).

Words such as simplistic, colorful, clear and easy were used repeatedly by other course participants

(Bisson, 2014, para.1; Whitty, 2014, para.1; Starratt, 2014, para.1; Chisholm, 2014, para.1; Olabisi,

2014, para.1; Spurrell, 2014, para.1).

As well, it was mentioned that the Analysis section was particularly strong. Robert Bisson

(2014) commented that he liked that this section “provided for potential problems, the audience needs

and measuring for existing knowledge” (para.1).

Several reviewers noted that the circular design symbolized the process of Instructional Design

as ongoing and dynamic. One reviewer stated, “The circular graphic adds to the reinforcement of the

idea that the ID process is continual and its components are inter­dependent, not just "stages"”

3

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

(Chisholm, 2014, para.1). As well, feedback indicated that having the student at the center of the

graphic emphasized the importance of developing student centered instruction (Olabisi, 2014).

Details that focused on inclusive education such as Universal Design for Learning, Bloom’s

Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences were appreciated (Olabisi, 2014). The technology and constructivist

aspects of the Produce and Implement sections were also considered strong. Antonini (2014) noted that

these two sections were “highly technology focused” (para.1).

Constructive feedback indicated that the model could be improved by drawing attention to the

use of technology as cognitive tools (Antonini, 2014), broadening the scope of the model to include

both cognitivism and behaviourism (Brooks, 2014), combining the design and production phases

(Brooks, 2014), and that the design of the assessment materials could be moved to the design phase

(Brooks, 2014).

The course instructor provided feedback on the original graphic model and on the explanation

and defense of the model (Lloyd, 2014). Lloyd concurred with the peer feedback regarding the

simplicity of the model and that the circular design supports instruction as an “ongoing process and does

not always have a recognized starting point (para.1). As well, he appreciated the placement of

“Student” in the center of the model (para.1) and the acknowledgement to existing models that

influenced the design (para. 2).

Lloyd (2014) also provided suggestions for improvement which included the incorporation of

technology integration as an essential element and the inclusion of additional details in the graphic model

and with “activities, approaches etc. based on IT tools” (para.5).

Self­evaluation data was collected from the discussion forum. One of the assignments, which

followed a reading of the iNtegrating Technology for InQuiry (NTeQ design model) (Morrison,

4

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Lowther, & DeMeulle, 1999), required participants to suggest components that would improve the

group’s Instructional Design model. A common theme among group members emerged regarding the

importance of matching goals and outcomes to computer function (Hicks, 2014, para.7­11; Butt, 2014,

para.5; MacDougall, 2014, para.9). Other suggestions included devoting a section to information

technology integration (Power, 2014); developing behavioural and cognitive goals, a Think Sheet in the

Produce Phase, and the addition of a final product in the Assessment Phase (Hicks, 2014); and

specifically planning pre and post computer activities as well as the computer tasks (MacDougall,

2014).

The group met, online in Google Drive, to formally discuss the revision assignment and evaluate

the submitted model, explanation and defense. The original graphic model submitted for class feedback

contained much more information than the model submitted in the Explanation and Defense assignment

(Butt, Hicks, MacDougall, & Power, 2014). It was a conscious decision not to include the original

explanations as part of the graphic model as the group decided that information would be elaborated on

within the Explanation and Defense assignment. The feedback collected suggests that this information

should be included as part of the graphic model so that it may stand on its own as an instructional design

tool. The self­evaluation process also identified the need to elaborate on the integration of information

technology within the instructional design process and to plan for a final product that takes into account

learning theories, student learning profiles, the goals and outcomes devised and available technology

platforms.

5

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

ID Model Revision: Additional Technology Section

Diagram 1: Revised Instructional Design Model by BMHP

After receiving peer and instructor feedback on our group’s draft model, and investigating the

iNtegrating Technology for InQuiry (NTeQ) Model for Instructional Design (Morrison, et al.,

1999), we agreed that we could improve the discussion of technology integration in our model. In our

original plan, we intended for discussions on technology to be integrated into each of the five steps in

our draft model. However, in our revision assignment we decided upon an additional section dedicated

to technology (see Diagram 1 above and Appendix A). For this new section, we borrow ideas from the

NTeQ Model (Morrison et al., 2000) focussing on the “match computer functions” (Morrison et al.,

6

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

2000, p. 53) “activities before okay.computer use”, “activities during computer use” and “activities after

computer use” steps of the NTeQ Model (Morrison et al., 2000, pp. 64­66).

It is helpful to plan which specific computer functions will be required to complete a task or an

objective. The instructor should determine what needs to be done (editing, graphic design, calculations,

organization, web searches, e­mailing, presenting) and match these computer functions with the

appropriate software (word processor, spreadsheet, database, drawing, e­mail, browser) (Dewitt,

2005). For example, in order for students to achieve an objective of analyzing some data, the teacher

could suggest to “use a spreadsheet to determine the…” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.51), or “create a

chart to show…” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.51).

Determining ahead of time the activities students will do before, during, and after computer use

will create an efficient and organized learning environment. What sorts of activities will the students do

before they use the computers? Perhaps they will create a bank of key words to help in searching when

using the browser, or maybe they need to do some data collecting or interviewing classmates (Morrison

et al., 2000). What activities will the students do while they are using the computers? Will they enter

data and manipulate it? Will they conduct research using the web browser, type up a report, or prepare

a presentation (Morrison et al., 2000)? The activities students complete while using the computers will

depend on which computer functions and software programs the instructor has pre­matched. What

activities will the students do after they use the computers? How will they “use the information

generated from the computer activity” (Morrison et al., 2000, p.66)? These questions will guide the

instructional designer through the decisions associated with technology. Adding this technology section,

allows for elaboration on the inclusion of technology in the instructional design process.

7

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Technology and the Final Product of Instructional Design

Educators are increasingly confronted with a broad mix of new and old school based

technologies. They range from wifi enabled tablets and Smartphones, social media online, and portable

gaming devices. There are now more multi­functional, multi­purpose, wireless and mobile devices and

online web 2.0 tools in the 21st Century wired schools than ever before.

This inundation of technology can muddle the waters of instructional design as teachers cope

with understanding how to utilize new technologies in the instructional process. This has been an

ongoing area of change in education. In the early days of slate chalkboards and one room school

houses, educators adapted to the invention of electricity, paper, the pencil and the pen. In the mid

twentieth century electronic devices such as calculators and early computers came on the scene. And

today, in the 21st Century, the internet and portable electronics have revolutionized the means to which

learners are able to access information, communicate and collaborate and inform. As Anderson &

Dron (2012) note: “distance education evolved from a Gutenberg­era print and mail system to one that

supports low­cost, highly interactive learning activities that span both time and distance with equal

facility” (p.1) and Traxler (2009 as cited in Elias, 2011) “mobile learning exploits both handheld

computers and mobile telephones and other devices that draw on the same set of functionalities...it

draws on the theory and practice of pedagogies used in technology enhanced learning and others used

in the classroom and the community” (pp. 11­12). As a result of technological change, we have

educators who work hard to learn how to utilize the technology while trying to embed its use within the

framework of their own classroom practice.

Our group’s assertion is that the use of technology in instructional design is based on the

designer’s personal educational philosophy and pedagogy. We are, after all, driven by those beliefs that

8

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

guide our practice. According to Gustafson & Branch (1997), “The greater the compatibility between

an ID model and its contextual, theoretical, and philosophical origins, the greater the potential to

generate effective instruction” (p. 77). We believe this to be an absolute truth. As no two people are

alike, neither will the final product of an instructional design process generated by two differing schools

of learning theory. For example, a person who subscribes to the traditional Piagetian developmental

theory of learning and thinking would have a different view of technology integration into the ID process

as one who subscribes to the newly developed connectivist theory. A connectivity theorist would

expect the learners to have the technological competency to utilize software and hardware to research,

evaluate, filter, create, communicate, and publish on the internet (Anderson & Dron, 2012) whereas the

developmental theorist would expect the learner to only have the competency available at the stage of

learning and development that they are in.

The number of learning theories and subsets of these theories can be staggering. Some float to

the surface and become mainstream, others are more ephemeral and lost to but a few researchers who

keep the research alive. Theories such as Behaviorist Theory and Cognitive Theories form the basis of

many of the traditional methods of teaching and learning and may be found today in aspects of direct

teaching. Constructivist Theory is more recent and has been the backbone for many paradigm shifts in

education. It has subsets such as Social Constructivist Theory, Cognitive Flexibility Theory and

Connectivist Theory that inform new ideas such as computers as “Mindtools”. “Mindtools are

computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engage

them in critical thinking about the content they are studying” (Jonassen, 1996 as cited in Jonassen, Carr,

and Yueh, 1998, p. 24).

9

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

With 21st Century skills sets being touted by organizations and educators as important in

today’s work environment; constructivist practices that involve inquiry based learning, research,

collaboration and communication are seen as extremely important. We assert that most modern

application types of computer software and tablet applications are constructivist in nature. They provide

the student with opportunities to explore, manipulate, collaborate, communicate, and finally to create.

“Learners themselves function as designers using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing

information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to

others” (Reeves & Jonassen, 1996, p. 694). The level at which the software allows the student to

engage in their own construction of knowledge differs based on the type of application software being

utilized (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Forms of Learning Application Software

Productivity – any software that may be used as a tool for student use. Word processors,

spreadsheet programs, multimedia presentation software, calculators, and other examples, allow the

user to digitally recreate what was traditionally done on pencil and paper. They are constructivist in

nature, as tools utilized by the learner. Direct teaching occurs when the instructor demonstrates how

to use the tools to accomplish the outcome. This software at any grade level or subject area but only

as a tool to engaging students in the learning process. Student age and ability would be considered

for some more complex features of software such as Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, and Excel.

Problem Solving – Computer software, tablet applications or web tools where students are

required to provide input and utilize strategy. “Where in the World is Carmen Santiago” was a

popular software title in the 1990’s that utilized student prior knowledge of geography to solve a

mystery. They are constructivist in nature in that students have to synthesize new information with

prior knowledge and current research to determine a course of action. Student age and ability would

10

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

be considered due to the level of reading and complexity of problems provided within such software

or tablet applications. An effective tool in science and social studies where a real life situation is

provided for the student to solve using previous knowledge and deductive/inductive reasoning.

Demonstration and Presentation – Visual presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint,

Apple Keynote, iMovie, HaikuDeck, PicCollage, etc., allow the user to create unique information

delivery media that may incorporate images, film, sound, and a host of special effects. Students come

to use such computer programs through experimentation and/or direct instruction by the teacher. The

product of the use of such a medium however is a creative, constructivist endeavor. The student

utilizes their own prior knowledge, experiences and skills to create a new product as a synthesis of

the learning process. Any grade or subject. Student age and ability may be a factor due to the

complexity of the more advanced features on these programs. Some programs such as HaikuDeck

app for the iPad could be utilized at any age. Such programs are fantastic for allowing students

creative licence to tell what they know and understand in an interactive, multimedia medium.

Drill and Practice – Students manipulate a software program for the purpose of learning

a skill or concept. Students are able to utilize the examples and direct instruction provided by such

programs to scaffold their learning. Most programs are level based, with learners moving from one

level of understanding to a high level with a greater degree of difficulty, but one that builds upon the

knowledge, skills and understanding of the previous level. An essential piece of these programs is

that they provide feedback to the student. Whether the answer is right or wrong and what the correct

response would be, helps the student to reflect on their work and make changes to move ahead.

These forms of software have been around for a long time. They allow students of any age and ability

the opportunity to learn a skill through practice. The website IXL.com is an example of a “drill and

practice” site that gives a student an example and then provides opportunities to practice that math

skill. Through positive reinforcement and the ability to choose the grade level with which to start,

students gain confidence as they work from level to level.

Tutorials – Students are presented with a concept and are able to practice the specific skill.

Tutorials often make use of both direct teaching, guided instruction, and constructivist practices. The

11

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

learner is given information to learn and understand and then provided with problems to solve based

on the information. Teaching a skill requires practice and support. For example, learning to type

using the program “Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing.” Students of all abilities learn to type at their own

pace with immediate feedback from the program. Students scaffold their knowledge/skill level as

they progress through the program. The computer becomes a learning partner.

Simulation and Modelling – Software or tablet applications that allow students to manipulate,

explore, plan, design, and discover all within a simulation. A popular gaming series “Civilization” is

based on this premise. Here “the learner interacts with the computer as if it were part of the real

world: it provides a virtual world” (Bostock, 1995, para.12). The exploration of a virtual world is, of

itself, a constructivist approach. The student uses their prior knowledge and the experience within the

new virtual environment to construct new knowledge and understandings. Students would have to

have some computer readiness skills and reading ability. Simulations often require a lot of reading

and time to complete. As such, they may be fostered as an after school or lunch hour activity.

Gaming: Educational games provide a fun, safe and motivational environment that incorporates drill

and practice and simulations. The difference is that games tend to have incentives or rewards built

into them. Win the level and get a special power or skill or item. It is the carrot that keeps the

learner engaged in the game.

Groupware – Software that allows for groups of students to collaborate on solving a problem. The

key word “collaborate”. When we give students an opportunity to research and develop further

understanding of a concept or problem, we are providing the basis for the construction of new

knowledge, skills, and ideas. This is part of the constructivist paradigm. Moodle wiki

(collaboration), spiderscribe.net (group mindmapping), Google docs / hangout / Drive (group word

processing and document storage), VIA (video conferencing) and other web tools give students

opportunities to share and collaborate in both synchronous (one to one) and asynchronous (offline)

environments.

Computer as Tool – According to Bostock (1995) “The most complete tool is a computer

programming language” (para.7). With the ability to code, students have a tremendous ability to

12

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

create new knowledge, new ways of doing. They are synthesizing prior knowledge and abilities to

create completely novel virtual environments. However, in order to code, you must have guidance

either directly through teacher led training or self taught through online tutorials. In either case direct

teaching practices provide for an opportunity to build upon existing knowledge to create something

unique. The freedom to utilize those skills is one of the basic tenets of constructivist theory.

Computer Assisted Learning – Tools that provide all learners with the capacity to manipulate and

create no matter what the student circumstance. Special needs students now may use such software

to communicate and achieve research tasks online. (Bostock & Seifert, 1986 as cited in Bostock,

1995). Another example of software that allows the learner to perform a task or function but only

when the learner has been taught how to use it! Direct teaching leads to the potential for

constructivist practices. We have students in our schools who have difficulties with the everyday

tasks of speaking and reading that most students take for granted. We have other students with

executive processing issues and still others with physical / mental challenges. Assistive technology

programs have developed greatly over the past number of years that allow these students the

opportunity to participate in a learning environment. Software and applications allow such

traditionally disadvantaged individuals to participate with their peers and teachers in meaningful ways.

Computer Mediated Communications (CMC) – Synchronous (real time) and asynchronous

(email, message board) ways in which students may collaborate on problem solving. The ability to

collaborate with your peers is a tenet of constructivist or 21st Learning practices. The use of the

software must be learned however. In such cases, direct instruction may be required. Special needs

students may take advantage of such programs, particularly those who work better in the autonomous

asynchronous medium of text messaging, email, and message boards. It can be a liberating media for

some students. (Bostock, 1996). In my experience, from the typewriter, to the electronic “Writer”,

to the speech to text function of the iPad; technology has evolved greatly in the span of two decades

to provide a medium for every student to be able to communicate their understanding to the world

about them. Today’s students are able to speak to a device which types it for them. Twenty years

ago we were ecstatic with the advent of the electronic dictionary and “spell check”! Today’s word

processors also provide grammar checks.

13

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Web 2.0 – Web 2.0 sites provide students with the ability to create, share, collaborate, and

communicate. All aspects of the theory of constructivism. They are often characterized by being

easy to use. Students can create timelines (tiki­toki.com), post to a website (padlet.com), develop

mind maps (Gliffy.com), create a slideshow (Haikudeck.com) and create websites (weebly.com) as

examples.

Social Media – A discussion of online learning tools for the classroom must cover the expanding

role of social media in research (Twitter), communication (Facebook, Whisper, Tumbler), flipped

classroom (YouTube), and collaboration (Facebook Group Page). A medium which is changing

rapidly, has become a clearinghouse for constructivist practices. Teachers can tweet homework

assignment / links to activities via Twitter. Schools are taking advantage of Facebook to inform

parents and students. Videos are uploaded to YouTube daily by students for viewing and

commentary / feedback with schools linking videos to their school websites. Students use Facetime,

Skype, or other to communicate with community members, family and even with other schools in

other parts of the world. The opportunity to expand the knowledge, understanding, and world view

of the individual has never been greater.

Some of the above mentioned computer programs and applications do involve some direct

instruction as well. Programs that may be categorized as “drill and practice” or “tutorials” for example,

have the computer teaching knowledge or model a skill for the student to mimic. The student then is

exposed to novel problems to solve. Math programs and apps have traditionally been drill and practice

(ex: IXL.com). The learner then has the opportunity to practice and explore on their own. In this way it

utilizes direct instruction and constructivism in the learning process.

So, based on educational pedagogy and a look at the educational technologies available today,

what should the final product of instructional design include? Through a study of educational research,

we believe that learning mechanisms for practice, feedback/reward, reflection, use of a student’s prior

14

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

knowledge, collaboration, communication, research, creation, interaction, differentiated instruction, and

assessment are some of the important aspects which educators today would choose to have embedded

within the final product of the ID process. Which aspects are utilized would be a function of the the

philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of the instructional designers (see table 2).

Table 2: Functional Aspects of the Final Product of ID Design Based on Learning Theory

Practice

Behavioural learning theory is based on the notion that learning occurs when learners adopt

new behaviours or demonstrate a change in behaviour. This understanding led to an outlook of

the instructional designer as being “a professional who designed learning activities that would be

enacted by students alone, or with an instructor, at a time, and/or place apart from the designer as

the result of an individual’s response to stimuli” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 2). In the education

field, we use direct teaching types of computer programs and tablet applications. These apps

push information out or inform in a variety of ways but are static in nature and do not give the

learner the opportunity to be anything other than a purveyor of information or be an assessment

taker. We think of the iPad apps: Edmodo, NearPod, PDF reader, Socrative, Ask3, iBooks,

and Google Earth; and social media sites such as YouTube. Think of the Web 2.0 tools such as

sciencewriter.cast.org, movieclips.com, remind101.com, noredink.com, and exitticket.org that

allow the teacher to provide assessments or learning activities in a direct instruction format.

Feedback/Reward

Behavioural learning theory follows the premise that a stimulus is provided, the student

responds and this response can be “observed quantitatively, totally ignoring the possibility of

thought process occurring in the mind” (Mergel, 1998, p.3). Computer Assisted Instruction

(CAI), virtual reality programs, and “teaching machines” are three forms of technology that Black

(1995, para. 16) felt would fit with the tenets of this theory of learning. Apps and software

programs based on this theory expect the student to answer a question or give a response

followed by a reward or feedback to indicate a correct or incorrect response usually in the form

15

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

of an audio (a positive or negative sounding tone) or visual cue (checkmark or an “X” ).

Earobics, Essential Skills, Lexia, Raz­Kids, ToDo K­2 Math App, Cambugs, and many more.

Reflection

Constructivist theorists say that a necessary component of learning is combining action and

reflection (thought) together to build meaning (Adams & Burns, 1999).

Prior Knowledge

According to Cognitivist theorists, any instructional means should have a basis in the prior

knowledge and understandings of the learner. New information is easier to understand and store

when the learner can connect it to a past experience or knowledge (Adams & Burns, 1999). A

new version of Constructivist Theory called Cognitive Flexibility Theory tells us that

“...comprehension involves the construction of meaning: the text is a preliminary blueprint for

constructing an understanding. The information contained in the text must be combined with

information outside of the text, including most prominently the prior knowledge of the learner, to

form a complete and adequate representation of the text's meaning” (Spiro, 2007). This theory

espouses the flexible use (through revisitation in differing environments, situations, and

phenomenon) of prior knowledge being necessary in the creation of new knowledge, ideas, skills,

and understandings.

Collaboration

According to Adams & Burns (1999) constructivist theorists believe that “Social interaction

introduces multiple perspectives through reflection, collaboration, negotiation, and shared

meaning. In many situations, learning is enhanced by verbal representation of thoughts­­it helps to

speak about an idea, to clarify procedures, or float a theory to an audience. The exchange of

different perceptions between learners enriches an individual's insight” (p. 3).

“Social constructivist pedagogies are focused on groups of learners, learning together with and

from one another” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 5).

16

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Communication

Phone conferencing in the early 21st Century has evolved into internet based video conferencing,

social media networking, and threaded discussion groups used today. Although the technology

has changed, the importance of communication between peers has not. Social constructivist

theory states that learning occurs between individuals in a group when ideas are shared. As

Anderson and Dron (2012) explain “social­constructivist models only began to gain a foothold in

distance education when the technologies of many­to­many communication became widely

available, enabled first by email and bulletin boards, and later through synchronous technologies,

the World Wide Web and mobile technologies. While such models had been waiting in the wings

for distance education since Dewey or earlier, their widespread use and adoption was dependent

on the widespread availability of robust supporting technologies.” (p. 5)

Research

Connectivist Theory assumes that “information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to

memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find, filter and apply

knowledge when and where it is needed.” (Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 8)

Creation

An essential characteristic that defines connectivist pedagogy “is the focus on creation, as

opposed to consumption, of information and knowledge resources.” (Anderson & Dron, 2012,

p. 8) There are many computer programs and tablet applications that are amazing at allowing

students to develop new knowledge through creative expression and/or productivity:

ExplainEverything, Educreations, My Wikia, Croakit, Lucidchart, Notability, Book Creator,

Comic Maker, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote; and computer software such as Skype,

Minecraft, Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint and Word. Educational Web 2.0 tools such as

spiderscribe.net, scratch.mit.edu, geogebra.org, piktochart.com, and timetoast.com. All of these

products have one thing in common, they provide learners the tools that allow them to use their

knowledge and imagination to create new and innovative products and new knowledge. As such

they also fit into the context of Piagets’ Developmental Theory of Learning and Thinking

“A central component of Piaget's developmental theory of learning and thinking is that both

17

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

involve the participation of the learner. Knowledge is not merely transmitted verbally but must be

constructed and reconstructed by the learner” (Ginn, 1995). There are also strong parallels with

Constructionist approaches that emphasize creation as playing a central role in the construction

of knowledge (Papert & Harel, 1991 as cited in Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 8).

Interactive

Students interacting with the computer software or tablet apps or web 2.0 tools as a part of the

learning process. “The technologies that encourage interactivity such as multimedia , hypermedia

and virtual reality fit in with Piagetian thought. Computer software that is strictly drill and practice

does not fit in with an active discovery environment.” (Ginn, 1995, para. 6). We often hear of

doctors and airplane pilots who learn their craft through simulations. The computer takes the

place of an actual situation. Mistakes made within this environment would not have an impact on

human life but would contribute to better knowledge acquisition and a solid foundation of

understanding in the field of study.

Differentiated Instruction

A cognitivist educator would say that the instruction must be at the developmental level of the

learner. As Sosulski (2007 as cited in Simonson, 2007) stated “Each learner interacting with the

same educational software program could have different experiences based upon individual

learning characteristics. For example, information could be presented in a different format to

visual learners and a different format for verbal learners. These characteristics distinguished the

computer from any other media­based technology such as film or television that lacked interactive

and customizable for options for learning.” (p. 280) The Piagetian scholar would also agree with

the above statements. Piagets’ Developmental Theory of Learning and Thinking

emphasizes that children cannot learn something until they mature enough to have the prerequisite

brain development to allow them to process the information (Brainerd, 1978 as cited in Ginn,

1995, para. 3)

18

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Assessment

Cognitive learning theory models of instructional design are based on an understanding of the

functions of the brain. Computer models are used to describe and test learning and thinking.

(Anderson & Dron, 2012, p. 2)

Note: This is not a comprehensive listing of all learning theories nor is it meant to demonstrate how

each learning theory fits into all of the functional aspects. To do so would be to write an entire paper

dedicated to the topic. It is meant to be a reflection of the diversity of learning theories and how they

might impact various functional components of a learning strategy or technology within the ID design.

Conclusion

We have explored, and taken into consideration, a number of instructional design models and

learning theories as we developed our own model. The revisions we have included will make our

model stronger when it is used for curriculum planning in the classroom. A key point to ensuring our

model is used effectively lies in the ability to revise and adapt as well as learn more of the process. As

with all parts of teaching, changing and adjusting may be necessary based on particular courses, classes

and students. Our instructional design model gives us a well developed plan to use so we can ensure

that our outcomes, methods, materials, and technology are the absolute best we can offer our students.

Due to the circular nature of our model we ensure that we are constantly evaluating and revising based

on the changing needs of our students and the growing field of educational technology.

19

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Appendix A

BMHP Instructional Design Model

Note: If time permitted, the complete graphic display of the model would include descriptions of each category as well as a summary of the expanded technology component that is provided in the written portion of this paper.

20

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

References

Antonini, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=187903

Adams, S. & Burns, M. (1999). Connecting student learning & technology. Retrieved

from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/flash.html

Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three generations of

technology enhanced distance education pedagogy. Revista Mexicana de

Bachillerato a Distancia. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ992485.pdf

Bisson, R. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.

cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188615

Black, E. (1995, June 13). Behaviorism as a learning theory. Retrieved from http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fbehaviorism.html

Bostock, S. (1995). Classifications of educational software. Retrieved from:

http://www.keele.org.uk/docs/atcbttyp.htm

Brooks, T. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.

cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188804

Butt, B. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion ­ group B. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca/

moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php? d=18725&parent=188955

21

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Chisholm, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.

cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188236

Dewitt, Kristen L. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom using the NTeQ

model [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%

2F672%2F NTeQ.pdf

Elias, T. (2011, February). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning.

International review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [PDF document].

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ920738.pdf

Gustafson, K. & Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), pp. 73­89 [PDF document].

Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fgust_ branch.pdf

Ginn, W. (1995, July 10). Jean Piaget – intellectual development. Retrieved from

http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2Fpiaget.html

Hicks, E. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion ­ group A. Message posted to: http://courseware.

cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php ?d=18724&parent=188770

Isert, C. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca

/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188558

22

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Jonassen D.H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging

learners in critical thinking [PDF document]. TechTrends, v43 n2 p24­32. Retrieved from

http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FMindTools.pdf

Lloyd, D. (2014, June). BHMP group project/paper feedback [PDF document]. Retrieved from

http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/assignment/view.php?id=28188

MacDougall, J. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion ­ group A. Message posted to:

http://courseware.cbu.ca /moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18724&parent=188682

MacKinnon, T.B. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=187954

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design & learning theory. Retrieved from http://etad.usask.

ca/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Morrison, Gary R., Lowther, Deborah L., and DeMeulle, Lisa (2000). NTeQ 2000 [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved from http://www.nteq.com/?p=present

Morrison, G.R. et al. (1999). Teacher as designer. Integrating Computer Technology into the

Classroom, pp. 37­60 [PDF document]. New Jersey: Prentice­Hall. (Chapter 3). Retrieved

from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FChapter3.pdf

Olabisi, M. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188059

23

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Power, K. (2014, June). Week 6 discussion ­ group A. Message posted to: http://courseware.

cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18724&parent=188926

Reeves, T. C. & Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as

cognitive tools. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational

Communications and Technology (pp. 693­719). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster

Macmillan.

Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. Elearnspace: Everything Elearning.

Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm

Simonson, M., Ed. (2007). Proceedings from AECT: Annual Proceedings of Selected

Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Volume 1. Anaheim,

California. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=technology+instructional +design&ft=on&

id=ED499889

Simsek, A. (2010). Interview with M. David Merrill: half a century of experience in

the field of educational technology and instructional design. Contemporary Educational

Technology, 2010, 1(2), pp. 186 – 195. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=

technology+instructional+design&ft=on&id=ED542979

24

Running Head: Assessment and Revision Assignment by Group BMHP

Spiro, Feltovitch, Jacobson, & Coulson. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and

hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in

ill­structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology

of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from

http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F672%2FCognitiveFlexibility.pdf

Spurell, L. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188360

Starratt, J. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware.cbu.ca/

moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723 &parent=188343

Summerville, J. & Reid­Griffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design.

TechTrends, 52(5), 45­51.

Whitty, H. (2014, June). Submit draft model. Message posted to: http://courseware

.cbu.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=18723&parent=188422

25