Worksheet Zombies - Can Curiosity Kill the Cat(atonic)?

Zombies Wander Among Us

So Halloween has come and gone, but as the ghosts and goblins put their costumes away for another year, I am reminded of a personal nightmare.  I write curriculum for high school students in a manufacturing apprenticeship program.  The work is all cross-content and activity-based.  At a recent staff meeting, I had a teacher ask if we could just go back to worksheets.  “That is what the students really want!” she pleaded.  Worksheet zombies.  I shudder at the thought.  Our schools are pushing out students who want to fill in little bubbles instead of think and create.  What kind of monsters have we created?

Obsolete, Not Broken

In his 2013 TED Talk “The Future of Learning”, educational researcher Sugata Mitra assured those listening that our schools aren’t broken, they are just obsolete.  Our schools, Mitra asserted were created to meet needs of a different time.  Those needs have changed and so now our schools must also change.

Guide on the Side

Mitra suggested a new role for teachers:

“The teacher stands back and watches in awe as learning happens.”

Mitra filled his TED Talk with anecdotal evidence from his research where he provided resources and gave minor prompting to young children.  Mitra shared the unexpected results - children learned as a result of exploration, not instruction.  In Mitra’s research,  the only time an instructor performed as a “sage on the stage” was when practice and skill refinement proved necessary.  Mitra challenged his audience with the idea that “knowing” is an obsolete skill.  In a monologue on the state of learning, he alluded to the idea that curiosity is now king.

Will Curiosity Kill the Cat(atonic)?

In a suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, embedded in the Kettle Moraine High School - a public high school - exists not one, but two competency-based, project-driven charter schools.  The class sizes aren’t smaller.  The student to teacher ratio isn’t lower.  The school day isn’t shorter.  The students also aren’t doing worksheets.

With a list of competencies, multi-disciplinary teachers, open space and computers, students in KM Global and KM Perform let curiosity guide them through experiences only limited by their creativity.  

Kettle Moraine High School Routinely hosts visitors eager to learn about the magic.  The school is routinely honored as one of the greatest in the nation.  All the while, in the same halls as these cutting edge charter schools, teachers and students from traditional classes taught with traditional methods respond to bells and clocks, open and close their textbooks for traditional classes, and march the march of the last century of education.  I’ll stop short of calling the students of KM worksheet zombies - the school is just too progressive, but I will point out that the reason this traditional environment remains is that school leadership acknowledged that there are students who aren’t comfortable learning outside of “the system”.

So is curiosity the sword to remove the zombie’s head?  Worksheet Zombies are a cultural paradigm.  No one swipe of sword will secure our future.  But time, willingness to change and educational leaders - like Pat Deklotz, Superintendent of Kettle Moraine march us one step closer to Mitra’s vision of learning as a by-product of curiosity.

Blended, Flipped or Personalized

The world of education is awash in cutting-edge practices designed to amplify student engagement and learning. From methods that are technology driven - like “Blended” learning and “Flipped” classrooms to ideologies that describe how to best meet a student’s needs - like “Personalized” learning and “Individualized” learning; teachers are bombarded with “best practices”.   How is a teacher to know which direction to move for his/her classroom?

For what my 15 years of experience in education, youth development, and curriculum and instructional design might be worth, I would tell teachers that methodologies and ideologies are like tools in a toolbelt.  You aren’t limited to the choice of one, but you will be most effective if you choose the tool best designed for your goal.

Quick Aside: In my last post, I encouraged educators to explore the possibilities of ed tech tools; to experiment bravely in order to better know the tool.  For those who may feel that the previous paragraph contradicts bravely experimenting, please know that I would consider experimentation to be a prerequisite of the ability to “choose the tool best designed…”.

Blended

Blended learning offers students the opportunity to engage with educational technology.  The technology tools can be used to assess, practice, explore and expand understanding of concepts.  Teachers may want to consider using this tool if they have students who learn best independently, have a large class and could use help reducing the size of a group receiving instruction, and/or if they have limited access to manipulatives/hands-on activities to reinforce learning.  Clearly, blended learning can be a challenge for teachers with limited access to computers and/or the Internet.

Flipped

Flipped learning opens the door for classroom time to be used for activity and practice instead of direct instruction.  Flipped learning environments typically require students to watch videos of instructional material.  This content is then reinforced and further explored through hands-on activities in the classroom.  Teachers who wish to have more class time for interaction, practice, and observation of student performance would do well to flip their classroom.  Teachers of students who struggle to regularly attend school and/or who have little support at home with homework may also find that the flipped classroom better supports their students.  However, teachers need to be prepared for the student unable to access the video due to inaccessibility of computers/phones and/or the Internet.

Personalized

Personalized learning refers to curriculum and instructional design that allows for student choice of time, place, path and pace.  It is a methodology that allows for students to learn, practice and demonstrate understanding through avenues that meet personal interests and learning styles/needs.  Teachers looking to add student input to assignments, who wish to amplify student creativity, and who want students to take responsibility for their learning could find happiness with personalized learning.  Teachers looking for a quick fix to student engagement may feel disappointed with personalized learning as creating a personalized learning environment is a journey, not a final destination.  Adding elements of personalized learning will take time, experimentation, and piece-meal implementation.

Tools in a Toolbelt

Just as a house isn’t built with only a hammer, increasing student learning and engagement will likely require more than one tool and methodology.  In looking at Personalization, Blended learning, and Flipped classrooms as tools, you might decide to use elements of all three.  Consider adding student choice (Personalization) to how a skill is practiced by offering online learning material that a student can use as evidence of learning.  If you open a center in your classroom where they can do this, that is technically Blended learning.  If you create or use curated videos to explain the skill in question, then you could offer student choice (Personalization) for whether they practice at home and get direct instruction at school or they could watch the video at home (Flipped)  and practice online in the classroom (Blended).

“But where do I start?”

The idea that one tool and/or one methodology isn’t a panacea, may leave teachers panicked about how to get started.  I would suggest that the first step is to start with a method or idea that resonates.  Find one small way to adjust instructional practices based on this learning.  Keep what works.  Drop what doesn’t.  Then keep learning and experimenting in order to fill the toolbelt.  Every journey, whether a walk in the park or a mountain trek, is completed one step at a time.

Recommended Resources:

1. Able, Natalie (February 17, 2016). What is Personalized Learning [Blog Post]. Retrieved from: https://www.inacol.org/news/what-is-personalized-learning/
2. Blended Learning: Blended Learning (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/blogs/tag/blended-learning
3. Flipped Classroom (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/blogs/tag/flipped-classroom

"You aren't doing it right" - A Call for Defiance in the Use of Digital Technologies

“Necessity is the mother of invention.” Richard Franck

The TPACK framework identifies a collection of competencies necessary for mastery of technology use in the classroom. One element of this Venn diagram includes competencies related to technical knowledge - or the knowledge of and ability to use digital technologies. Practitioners of TPACK might suggest that mastery of technology skills would enable an instructor to choose a tool to best accomplish his/her goals.

By Matthew Koehler [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest alternately, that mastery of technology skills would enable an instructor to critically evaluate a digital technology in terms of what it might be capable of. Where would be if the creators of Google Docs only set out to re-create the overdone wheel of a word processing tool? Thankfully, they envisioned collaboration, citation, use of web resources, etc.

Scientists have proven that humans are inclined to stick with tools that are familiar, regardless of the original intentions of the tool and regardless of options for more effective tools. But, when I think about my four-year-old son’s passion for the phrase, “You’re doing it wrong”, a little oppositional defiance is sparked. My go-to response for him is, “No, I’m just doing it differently.”


So, while those of us in educational technology and instructional design might have “intended” uses for tools and applications; I salute those brave souls who are willing to experiment to see what awesomeness they can elicit.

(Seriously, the instructional designer in me hesitated with this post. Have you had the client who kept trying to get a tool to work in a way NEVER intended and then swore the tool was “broken”? But, in the spirit of encouraging learn-through-play, I hope educators will read this and not feel restricted to only using technology they “know.”)

Re-framing Digital Citizenship as Global Citizenship

A Fad or a Fundamental

In K-12 education, it feels as if there is a new “save-our-students” (SOS) curriculum each year. From whole language to phonics, project-based math to skill-and-drill basics, educators are always subjected to the ebb and flow of curriculum.  In the recent tidal shift, digital citizenship has made a resurgence.

Image from MaxPixel.
 Available through Creative Commons Zero - CC0

In 2002, as a program director for a Boys and Girls Club, I taught Internet safety to students through online game modules intended to teach participants to protect their personal information.  Last year, while attending the 2016 iNACOL Symposium, I found myself experiencing deja vu in a workshop on digital citizenship by one of many vendors of the new wave of curricula.

All educational cynicism aside, I am forced to evaluate whether digital citizenship is a fad or is it the rewriting of 100+ years of traditional citizenship classes.  Is digital citizenship a set of technology competencies or is it truly a set of lessons on safe, productive, and effective global interaction?

Defining Citizenship

After months of studying for naturalization as an American citizen, the individuals in this video have thoughts on how to define citizenship:

As citizenship is not a concept unique to America, I am particularly fond of these definitions provided by the Citizenship Foundation of the United Kingdom:

Citizens are members of a state or a nation. Citizenship is the process of being such a member. It is how we make society work, together.Citizenship education gives people the knowledge and skills to understand, challenge and engage with the main pillars of our democracy: politics, the economy and the law. (Citizenship Foundation 2017)

Defining Digital Citizenship

I took a moment to compare the digital citizenship outlines of several frameworks (ISTE Digital Citizenship Standards for Students, Google For Education Digital Citizenship Curriculum, and Common Sense Education Digital Citizenship Curriculum).  They share these tenets:

• Maintaining digital identity and reputation
• Positive, safe, legal and ethical online behavior
• Ethical and legal use of intellectual property
• Maintenance of personal digital privacy and security
• Information literacy/research skills

By GDJ [CC0],
via Wikimedia Commons

The knowledge and skills represented by these frameworks identify necessary competencies for safe and effective interactions in a global, online environment.  These competencies promote legal and ethical behavior, rights and responsibilities, and even personal and professional relationships. This is starting to sound like a global citizenship class and not merely a computer class.

So What?

The more I compare digital citizenship to traditional citizenship, I feel fairly confident that we are muting the importance of the digital citizenship curricula by framing it as technology skills.

The role of a teacher is to promote the development of knowledge and skills necessary for success as a productive adult.  As such, I feel teachers need to lead the charge by taking a closer look at the global skills our students will need when they leave our care.

Let’s move from teaching about digital identity as a way to stay employable toward lessons on how technology is the new historical recorder.  In history as young as the 20th century, newspapers, encyclopedias, and books only recorded the activity of famous citizens - those noteworthy for music, acting, scientific feats, or politics.  With the internet, there is no more bias toward fame/fortune.  When a picture is posted or a comment made, it becomes a permanent part of history.  The question isn’t “Would you want your boss to see that” it is “Is that the historical record you want people to judge you by”.

Safe online behavior isn’t just taught to prevent cyberbullying or becoming prey to criminals.  It is a course in legal rights and responsibilities.  It is the online version of reminders to walk in a group at night, lock your doors, let the law help you with harassment issues, etc.  It is knowing how freedom of speech extends to Internet posts.

"Bill of Rights" by Nick Youngson.
Available through CC BY-SA 3.0

On a final thought related to reframing our digital citizenship curricula, in traditional citizenship classes in America, immigrants and school-age students learn the history and events that shaped our culture.  Perhaps we ought to add that to our digital citizenship curricula.  I’m not suggesting students learn the history of the Internet, but rather, to learn a little more about the global cultures they could encounter on the web.  In America, it could be very powerful to know that our freedom of speech gives us greater access to information and more liberty in our posts than nearly any other country in the world.  Teaching this concept as means of understanding the perspective of others they may meet online and as a way of encouraging awareness of personal liberties would give more heft to classes that largely feel like a computer course.

Now What?

Whether you are a parent, teacher, coach or random Internet surfer who came unwittingly across this blog, I challenge you to consider whether you have the skills to engage globally, in a society that will largely interact online.  Digital citizenship classes may not be posed to get to you there yet, but hopefully, this post will open your eyes to what is missing and encourage you to think bigger.

References
Citizenship Foundation (2017). What is Citizenship? Retrieved from: http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/page.php?427

Conversation - the Gaping Hole in Social Media Learning Networks

I can't believe I'm saying this - me - a type D personality on the DiSC Personality test - a "do-er".  Well here you go world - I'll even put it in writing.

I need a little more conversation over here.

Tasked with building a personal learning network through social media, I have to tell you - I was psyched.  I LOVE Twitter chats.  Sitting on my couch in my pjs, while the husband watches 1970 sci-fi flicks, I can engage in dialogue around educational leadership (#DLNchat). I love surfing Twitter to catch up on emerging "awesomeness" reading posts from @Getting_Smart. I couldn't wait to see what else was waiting for me in LinkedIn, Google+, and Facebook.

Google+
Prior to searching out a personal learning network, I used Google+ to share class photos with families and colleagues.  As the ugly step-sister in the social networking world, Google+ served as a quiet media outlet where all of the other important posts of the day wouldn't bury the fun images of my students engaged in project-based learning.

I'm sad to say my reluctance was only reinforced when the first group I joined turned out to be a middle-eastern sales ploy with posts on obscure technology devices.  The group had 34 thousand members.  How could that be a scam?

So, I decided to look for people instead of groups.  Again, disappointment loomed.  These really amazing people I found could be sorted into two groups.  One group made a big splash of posts never to be heard from again.  The other group is full of people on their soap boxes.  No one asked provocative questions to spark conversation.  No one posted looking for ideas.  Google+ was a real minus in my book.

LinkedIn
"Look at me!"  If I remind myself that PLN is personal - LEARNING-network not personal SOCIAL network, I am able to engage with the interesting reads that land on my LinkedIn feed. TeachThought posts regularly and the content is outstanding.  I get excited when I see their logo appear on my screen.

Just in the last week, I decided to branch out and post articles that I found on other sites instead of only "liking" and "sharing".  This "bold" move brought a few more connections my way, but it left me feeling like something was missing.  It was great for the ego that others like my ideas, but where are those who want to have a conversation about the post?

Facebook
With more than one BILLION Facebook pages, I was confident that I would find people willing to talk in this venue.  I am a member of a group called "Teacher Idea Sharing", but it has been quiet since last year - seriously, not a single post since October of 2016.  It generated a few good conversations, but I guess like all non-essentials: out of sight, out of mind.  So, I sought new groups and sent join requests to two (Teachers Helping Teachers Grow and Instructional Designers in Education).  As of the writing of this blog, however, I haven't been accepted Instructional Designers, but I have fallen in love with Teachers Helping Teachers...

What, So What, Now What
In short, after a week or two of trying to make new friends, I'm going back to my old hang-out: Twitter. Folks who tweet are friendly, frequently willing to engage in discussion, adept at maintaining momentum and darn it, they just plain like me.  For anyone reading this blog hoping to glean guidance on building his/her own PLN, my advice is to think about your learning style.  If you just want to read and process on your own, LinkedIn and Twitter offer current and relevant reading material.  If you want to socialize and are willing to be patient to find the right group (Goldilocks style), Facebook has great potential.  For those who are social learners and need to talk to process content, come hang out with me on Twitter (@outofboxed), we can learn together!

Hungry for the Truth

"Reeses Peanut Butter Cups to Be Discontinued by Hershey's Before..."

Have you seen a headline like that recently?  Not only did I see it in my Facebook feed, I heard morning show DJs talking about the issue.  That makes it real right?!

As a teacher, I have spent countless hours coaching students to validate information.  Look at the website address.  Investigate the author.  Beware of adds.  Research the mission of the of the website.   In short - do your research.

When the delicious chocolate, peanut butter treat was threatened in headlines and when challenged to determine "real or fake" by Dan Russell's November 2015 blog post, "Fake or real?  How do you know?", I followed my own advice.  I let Google do the interrogation.

Szerelmi gyilkosságok (3. évad) by Lwp Kommunikacio.
Made available by CC by 2.0

I read blogs of others on the search to answer the challenge posted by Russell (2015).  I opened web search results to determine whether I could trust the source.  I researched authors.  I dug and read and researched.  And in the end, I fell back on my math/science background (you can't prove theories true you can only prove them to be false).  I determined that all signs supported the artifacts as fakes.

A healthy dose of skepticism a day keeps the frauds away.

In fair disclosure, I incorrectly surmised that a quote attribution to Thomas Jefferson was fake.  In a numbers game, however, 7 out of 8 is a decent rating when tallying the number of times I was misled by online content.

So my takeaway to share?  HURRY - go buy those Reese's Peanut Butter Cups!  Not because they are going to disappear from shelves, but because in this world of fake news and Photoshop, you are going to need some sustenance to fuel you while you research to uncover the truth.

A Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, Big Cup. by Evan-Amos.
Made available by Wikimedia Commons CC0 1.0

References:

Russell, Dan (2001.November, 11) Fake or real?  How do you know? [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://searchresearch1.blogspot.com/2015/11/search-challenge-111115-fake-or-real.html

SAMR’s "Teach Above the Line" Goal Misses the Mark

Disclaimer: While this post starts with a heading that seems to bash the ed tech model SAMR, read on to see that it is not the tool, but the use of the tool that is evaluated.

Welcome to take three of the writing of this blog - a critique of SAMR.  

Round one was soapbox slam on the tendency of this model to be used as a challenge for teachers to “Teach above the line.”  (I have a hard time with any educational challenge that doesn’t start with learning.)  

Round two, I became so buried in research trying to uncover the impetus and intent of SAMR that my work sounded more like a research paper than a blog.

Take 3 - SAMR Uncovered

With a teacher’s drive to transform education, Dr. Ruben Puentedura developed the SAMR model to help teachers understand the applications and effect of technology use in the classroom.  A relatively simple four tier system, SAMR is further divided into two levels.  

The first level of SAMR is where technology is used to adapt manual tasks (Substitution - Tier 1) and to improve upon manual tasks (Augmentation - Tier 2).  The effect size (amount of learning and growth that can be attributed to a teaching technique) is relatively low for these two uses of technology.  

The second level is where Puentedura feels real transformation exists.  Modification (Tier 3) is the opportunity for technology to totally change the way typical tasks are executed (Think blogs where peer and public commentary drives editing and revision instead of teacher-centered instruction of a hand written or even typed journal).  Redefinition, the highest tier in the second level, describes a scenario where technology opens the door for entirely new learning tasks not previously possible with textbooks and research based Internet use.

By Lefflerd (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The Value of SAMR

I mentioned that research has been done to measure effect size on learning of each tier of SAMR. While this research isn’t easy to find and is not explicitly revealed in the infographic by Dr. Puentedura, the effect size increases through the progression of Substitution up through Redefinition. Effect size research can help an instructor create lessons and identify resources that will maximize student learning, and SAMR, in turn, could be used as a reminder of these effect sizes when a teacher evaluates an ed tech tool.

As a clear example of the applications of technology in instruction, SAMR can also be used to help create professional development opportunities for teachers.  The trend of micro-credentialing could occur at each tier of SAMR.  This could support the development of technology pedagogy as described in the TPACK model.  (I’ll refrain from diving into TPACK, but here is a link to a video on the topic created by educator Travis Bohon.)

The Shortfalls of SAMR

Too often, it seems that professional development in the area of ed tech leans toward how to use specific technology tools (totally an opinion, I have done no research on this). I think this tendency overshadows tools like SAMR and causes a parallax where viewers overly concerned with HOW to use ed tech tools instead of WHY to use ed tech tools see SAMR as a way to determine the worthiness of an app instead of the appropriateness of an app.  

At risk of offending the author, I’ll illustrate this shortfall with a post from Getting Smart - a website I value as a professional.  In her 2013 piece, "Using SAMR to Teach Above the Line", ed tech guru Susan Oxnevad shares her experience attempting to find a model for technology integration that would stick. Enthusiastic about Apple's adoption of SAMR, Oxnevad describes examples of her personal exploration of lesson design and technology integration using Dr. Puentedura's model. At the close of her article, Oxnevad celebrates the SAMR model and applauds a Chicago-area instructional coach who challenged educators in her district to "Teach above the line." The "line" referred to by the instructional coach and Oxnevad is the division between the Substitution/Augmentation levels of SAMR and Modification/Redefinition.  The line that delineates useful technology applications from transformative technology applications.

Teaching “above the line” ignores pedagogy which would have teachers choose tools that best support a learner.  Instead, this mantra pushes teachers to find good tools instead of finding good strategies.

Even Dr.Puentedura writes:

It is important to note that no particular "quality" label should be attached to any of the tiers. Thus, the introduction of a Tier I tool rather than a Tier IV tool may be perfectly appropriate, if it best suits the pedagogical goals at hand. (Puedentera 2003)

I’ll use the words of Associate Professor of Library & Information Science Lucy Santos Green to sum up my thoughts on this shortfall:

If the misuse of technological models hurts our ability to be effective technology leaders, then the emphasis we place on technology over pedagogy may negate our influence altogether. (Santos Green 2014)

In closing, SAMR is reference tool not an evaluation tool and learning needs to be the focus of instructional planning. I’ll leave you with a video where students explain SAMR, but leave viewers with the very important reminder, “...the ultimate outcome for integrating technology should be simple: maximizing student success.”  

References:
Puentedura, Ruben (2003). A Matrix Model for Designing and Assessing Network-Enhanced Courses. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/index.html

Santos Green, Lucy (2014). Through the Looking Glass - Examining Technology Integration in School Librarianship. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36-43. Retrieved from: http://www.lucysantosgreen.com/uploads/6/8/3/3/6833178/through_the_looking_glass.pdf

Integrated Design - A Model Mash-Up

Old-School Instructional Design
If you have done any work with instructional design models, you likely know Merrill's First Principles of Instruction:

Merrill's First Principles of Instruction by Bailey, L. (2016, May 27)

And, in the event that you didn't read my previous blog, you should know that Merrill came about these five guideposts looking to uncover similarities among a plethora of instructional design models (Merrill 2002). One of of the most accessible models, in term of simplicity without sacrificing valuable instructional concepts, Merrill's principles lack one, major detail - assessment. 

Not included in Merrill's work is the design model first introduced by Jerrod Kemp (Kemp, 1985). Like a tasty, chocolate-coated treat, this model was later updated to include a candy coating of assessment (Kemp, Morrison & Ross, 1994).

(Papadakis, 2014)

By J.J. at the English language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

What might happen if we combined the work of Merrill and Kemp into a model that can be adapted for a single-subject classroom or a multi-subject program? (insert evil laugh here)

The Mash Up

Kemp had a thorough design with his nine elements in the inner circle of his instructional design model. It would feel negligent to take away this guidance, so at a low-elevation examination of this mash-up - the nine core components remain as a security blanket around Merrill's first step: Task.

With this new model, designers are encouraged to take a comprehensive look at the desired task. Using the nine elements, the task can be thoroughly evaluated and dissected to prepare for the instructional delivery.

As provided for in Merrill's model, the instructional delivery (as opposed to the planning/design at the "Task" stage) starts with Activation of prior knowledge.  Included for designers is the suggestion that a formative assessment might be helpful to ensure students have the prerequisite knowledge

After delivery of Activation another formative assessment may be need to ensure successful "activation".

This pattern repeats through the Demonstration phase, again including formative assessment to ensure development of knowledge and skill is accurate.  

I'll take a moment to quote a college professor, "Only perfect practice makes for perfect."  This professor asserted that it is easy to inadvertently practice a skill wrong and develop at best bad habits and at worst erroneous neural paths that would make it difficult to re-learn the correct way.

My favorite phase of Merrill's design is that which teenage and adult learners beg for Application.  "Application" is where learning becomes relevant and answers the famous question, "When will I ever use this outside of high school?!"

It is by intentional design that Kemp's nine elements of instructional "planning" (my word, not his) are left out of the Activation, Demonstration and Application phases.  These phases and their elements are all planned for in the "Task" phase.  Merrill's stages are pulled out of the Task phase in order to suggest timing for formative assessment.

However, Merrill's final stage, Integration, comes back to engage with Kemp's nine elements because truly understanding how a task integrates with other subjects and/or tasks can take careful review and collaboration.

This collaboration element is revealed at the highest elevation of my mash-up model:

Trends in education are emphasizing collaboration and integration.  Competency-based education, place-based education, and project-based education are just examples of educational models that push teachers and students to identify connections in curriculum.

With my mash-up, the "Integration" phase intentionally hangs over the capsule of the phases for a particular task.  Integration serves as the attachment point for other concepts (on a micro scale), other course work, and even other content areas (on a macro scale).  Surrounded by summative evaluation, this outer layer encourages educators and instructional designers to consider how the concepts relate before designing a final assessment of mastery.

Critical Review

By "Chris" at "Friends in the Freezer"

It would be easy to cite failed combinations in the world, as clearly we can't all be the mixologists that work for Ben and Jerry's.  So, I'll take these final moments of your attention span for a critical comparison of my mash-up against the model's tested and touted by Kemp and Merrill.

References:

Bailey, L (2016, May 27). Digital Natives, Media and Learning: Implications for the Future of Army Training. www.armyupress.army.mi. Retrieved from http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Digital-Natives-Media-and-Learning/

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper and Row.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (1994). Design effective instruction, New York: Macmillan.

Merrill, David M. (2002) First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 50, (Number 3), 43-59

Papadakis, Jenny (2014) The Kemp Model of Instructional Design. Retrieved from: http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/The_Kemp_Model_of_Instructional_Design

Toe-may-toe or Toe-mah-to - Are the creators of instructional design models just being persnickety?

In homage to my classroom mantra, "Fake it 'till you make it", when I was recruited by my employer to turn our entire two year, multi-subject curriculum into a curriculum that could be delivered through online modules, I embarked on research to learn as much as I could about instructional design.

What did Google reward my efforts with? Instructional Design, a website compiled by Greg Kearsley and Richard Culatta, both are education gurus working to bring innovation to education.  To be honest, I wasn't sure if I had found a gold mine or a land mine.

Twenty-four models of design philosophy later and my mind was spinning.  Could there really be more than two dozen unique models of instructional design?  Apparently my questioning was as redundant as the instructional design models.  Published in 2002, 13 years before my quandary, in the journal Educational Technology Research and Development, M. David Merrill questioned, "Are all of these design theories and models merely alternative ways to approach design?" (Merrill, 2002)

Seventeen pages and 40 referenced authors later, Merrill concludes, with a handful of exceptions which he lists for further research, "No theory or model reviewed includes principles or prescriptions that are contrary to those described in this paper." (Merrill, 2002)

In the scientific model of proving the validity of a theory by trying to disprove it, let's compare Merrill's identified commonalities to the instructional design model offered by Lev Landa: Algo-heuristic theory. Proposed nearly twenty years prior to any other constructivist theory reviewed by Merrill, Landa suggests that true learning occurs when students piece together concepts of a process to better understand how to apply knowledge. (Culatta, 2015).

Training Cartoon - Image of Sloth and Froth - Perspectives on Algo Heuristic Theory. by Shafali Anand

Created for a page of her website that is dedicated to algo-heuristic theory, Shafali Anand illustrates the seemingly antagonist components of the method which compel instructors to help students uncover learning through experiences (heuristic means to learn for one's self...I had to look it up too) and then to solidify this learning through the establishment of rules, or an algorithm (hence, "algo") that help students replicate the process in the future without having to re-learn through experience.

I offer the explanation of the model below:

Did you catch it?  Are you mind blown?

Shouts Shock Sing According To Cry Call Sing by Max Pixel
 is licensed by CCO Public Domain

If you missed the overlap between Landa's theory and Merrill's, let's review Merrill's principles to help you achieve a "light bulb moment".

If you will recall, Merrill spent his free time reviewing a surplus of instructional design models in an attempt to "identify and articulate the prescriptive design principles on which these various design theories and models are in essential agreement" (Merrill, 2002). The info-graphic below summarizes his findings.

Merrill's First Principles of Instruction by Bailey, L. (2016, May 27)

Now, let's compare Merrill's common elements of instructional design with Landa's algo-heuristic model:

1. Merrill asserts that a commonality among instructional design models is a task; and this is clearly illustrated in Landa's work.
2. While you can assume students would have to activate prior learning - at least subconsciously - in order to complete the task, Merrill's second phase of "activation" is not overtly present in Landa's algo-heuritic theory.
3. The models reconnect with a demonstration and then application of the desired skill.
4. Merrill does not include any mention of reflection in his findings, but thankfully, Landa reminds instructors of the value of reflection as a metacognative skill that reinforces learning.
5. Finally, just as Merrill's instructional principles predict, Landa's model ends in integration - or the opportunity for student to use their learning as it applies in a new context.

Merrill never reviewed Landa, but clearly Merrill had Landa's number.  The real questions, that Merrill didn't examine is the "completeness" of any of the models.  He identiified the commonalities, but he did not take any time to identify gaps outside of his principles.

Before I leave you with the words of Merrill, let me leave you with a cautionary evalatuation of the both Merrill's principles and Landa's algo-heuristic model.  Both models of instructional design focus on making learning meaningful for the learn.  With a focus on learning toward the higher end of Bloom's Taxonomy and student centered approaches, both gentlemen describe ideal experiences with no room for error.

The gaping hole in both models comes when an instructor looks for the data trail to indicate student understanding and accurate formation of a mental model for the lesson.  Neither structure provides for formative or summative evaluations.  While Landa does carve a role for the teacher in demonstrating a method for achieving desired results, neither takes into account the responsiveness a teacher can provide through casual monitoring and assessment.

So, if you are on an epic journey to find the holy grail of instructional design models; the short cut to the journey is to spend some time with my friend, M. David Merrill.  Just remember, even as Indiana Jones encountered booby traps on his quest for holy grail, you also will fail if you fall into the trap of thinking Merrill has captured a complete picture of instruction.

His work is a terrific start, though:


References:
Bailey, L (2016, May 27). Digital Natives, Media and Learning: Implications for the Future of Army Training. www.armyupress.army.mi. Retrieved from http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Digital-Natives-Media-and-Learning/

Culatta, Richard (2015). Algo-Heuristic Theory (L.Landa). Retrieved from: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/algo-heuristic.html

Merrill, David M. (2002) First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 50, (Number 3), 43-59