This is a copy of my Advanced Instructional Design blog from Dr. Resta's Spring 2009 course.

Reflection #12 - Christensen

The problem with Modularity is that, as with the lightbulb and socket, it requires certain controlling aspects of a system to remain unchangeable (i.e.

Reflection #11 - Tyler

“An educational program is not effective if so much is attempted that little is accomplished” (33).  I liked this statement a lot.  I really liked the emphasis on making objectives few in number, but I couldn’t help but shudder at the overal behavioristic tones of this dated article.  This does raise questions for me, however, on whether or not objectives need be behavioristic in nature and, if not, what other basis of evaluation can be used (there seems to be none)?  Beyond these questions, the article provoked very little for me that was evocative.  I’ve been really interested lately in t

Reflection #10 - Boettcher

This article was a bit disappointing for me for two reasons.  First, there really wasn’t anything new in it.  Virtually every one of the ten learning principles seems to be common knowledge within teacher preparation and instructional design programs.  Second, though the purpose of the article is to build upon brain research in order to reveal new learning principles, it fails to do this time and time again.  Only a few of the principles even reference the citations on brain research.  Principle #6 on the Zone of Proximal Development, for instance, merely talks about Vygotsky which, though

Reflection #9 - Schank et al.

To start, I agreed with much of what the authors had to say about the pedagogical value of goal-based scenarios (GBS’s).  However, I do not feel that the authors were justified in pigeonholing the educational experience to a theory that only recognizes the validity of situated, experiential learning.  It would have been fine if the authors had said that GBS’s are an effective way for teaching skills, etc., but the fact that they situated the entire discussion into a limited view that goal-based scenarios are the only way that we naturally learn is simply wrong and very limiting for

Reflection #8 - Ryan & Deci

This article actually related very well to what I studied for my Master’s action research project.  The fact of the matter is that you cannot create intrinsic motivation out of thin air, and extrinsic motivators lose their value as time goes on.  Often, educators act under the mistaken conception that extrinsic motivators somehow translate into intrinsic motivation over time, but this is not the case.  Intrinsic motivation cannot be spontaneously created, either directly or indirectly, but as the article suggests, an educator can only support internalization and instrinsic motivation by pro

Reflection #7 - Paz Dennen

I must say that I started reading this article with deeply supportive feelings toward apprenticeship learning and mentoring, but it seems to me now that there is at least one major issue associated with this type of learning that the article is silent upon: the limits of mimicked learning in creative design.  Let me illustrate.  There’s a story I’ve heard about a kindegartner whose teacher asked her to draw a flower.  Doing her best, the kindegartner scribbled something on a piece of paper with a combination of orange, blue, and purple crayons.  When the teacher saw it, she put her arm arou

Reflection #6 - Snelbecker

Ahh … this begins to take me back to my undergrad days of studying philosophy (the philosophy of science was of particular interest to me), and I was elated to see Snelbecker quote Popper: “Every scientific theory must remain tentative for ever” (43).  But, Snelbecker stops short.  Essentially, he is saying that theories are tools for ‘making things better’ and not necessarily ‘making things,’ but he doesn’t go into the process of deciding between two (or even a multitude of) theories for a particular instance.  The state of disequilibrium between theories he is suggesting is nothing new, b

Reflection #5 - Reigeluth

Overall, I thought that Reigeluth’s approach to ID was insteresting and educational in the sense that it helped me to understand better the underlying notions of many in the field today whose theoretical foundations I couldn’t really nail down.  I find it very interesting that Reigeluth’s approach is clearly counter-ISD (focus on the ‘S’), which makes it a seemingly odd match for an AISD course.  The notion of being ‘anti-system’ in the sense of standardization and determinism makes sense and reflects current trends in pedagogy throughout C&I and other fields.  A question

Reflection #4 - RWID Ch. 10-12

One realization that I had while reading today was that I have been trying (albeit unconsciously) to neatly fit everything that Cennamo and Kalk talk about into the Dick, Carrey, and Carrey model.   I don’t know why, but up to this point, I had just been translating every concept back into DickandCarreyish in order to understand.  But then, while reading today, I realized “Wait a second, this isn’t just an abridgement of DCC with a few euphemisms here and there, this is an entirely different model, with different theories, practices, and assumptions.”  Call me dense, but I had been approach

Reflection #3 - RWID Ch. 7-9

After reading chapter 9, I revisited our draft design document and attempted to put it into more of a structure similar to that expressed in the book.  I found that although we tended to address all of the concepts contained in the book’s design document, ours tended to be difficult to break up into discrete sections.  For instance, we talked about learners, but that was included in the definition (executive summary) of the document.  As such, some of the sections seemed repetitive and writing in this form was more akin to filling out a form than actually writing for meaning.  So, a questio

Reflection #2 - RWID Ch. 5-6

Two key questions arose in my mind while completing this reading:

Reflection #1 - RWID Ch. 3-4

I found these chapters to be a good overview of what we studied in ISD, and they forced me to ask myself a few times “why did we even bother with Dick, Carrey, & Carrey?”  One piece that I found interesting was the bit on “objectives” versus “outcomes,” because, coming from teaching, I was unaware of the emergent distaste of focusing so heavily upon objectives, but it makes sense and forces me to consider how heavily I am indoctrinated in an “objectives for everything” mindset.

Syndicate content