If you have done any work with instructional design models, you likely know Merrill's First Principles of Instruction:
 | |
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 |
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
I am inspired by the way you have taken the best of both models and tucked what was missing, assessment, into a surrounding state. I, too, believe that noticing the process of a students ability to integrate is the most crucial element of long-term effectiveness in any type of training. Being able to shape the learning process is a style that develops through customization and respecting the individual's myriad of learning cues.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the visuals you created for your model and respect the elements of sacred geometry sure to affect curriculum design at a core level. Thank you for this element, be it intended or naturally surfacing. #lrutech #draw4ward