Prior to week 5, I had completed and had submitted my project outline of the my final ID project on creating an online course on teaching and learning using the Moodle LMS for the teaching staffs at the University of the South Pacific.
Module 2 was on Analysis phase of ID process. A very important and eye opening moment for me.
Analysis phase which includes needs assessment, learner and context analysis and learning outcomes are critical for developing a learner centred course. Interesting points were raised on the need for constructive alignment of learning outcomes, content and assessment of a course. While at my place the content was driving the outcomes – totally wrong.
This module allowed me to make some very informative and interesting readings. I managed to read about Multiple intelligence which was conceived by Howard Gardner which looked at the seven different ways of intellectual abilities – visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, bodily/kinesthetic, music/rhythmic and inter/a personal intelligence. Another interesting reading I made was by Lisle (1997) which did a literature finding on the problems with the ADDIE approach to ID. These were:
- Need to distinguish between rational and creative approaches to ID. (Rowland et. al, 1994) and
- Need to shift from industrial to information age thinking and ID. (Reigeluth, 1997)
Leng (2002)’s article on considering the affective domains of learners in instructional designing was a very eye opening experience. He tried to raise the importance of considering affective goals of the learners in ID which prior to this I had never considered while at work or even in this study. Leng (2002) described that most ID considers learners’ cognitive objectives instead of affective goals because affective characteristics are “hidden”, not easily expressed, subjective, imprecise developed slowly and private. He further suggested that analyzing learners’ affective characteristics is an on-going process through interacting with learners prior to, during and after instruction. Another interesting paper I read during this module was by Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005) which looked at translating the constructivism theory into the instructional design process.
All in all, here is a list of readings (in addition to the readings given by Sirley) which I found very interesting while engaging and immersing in Module 2:
Gregore, A. F. & Ward, H. B. (1977). ‘Implications for learning and teaching: A new definition for individual’, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 61, pp. 20-26.
Hood, K. (1995). ‘Exploring learning styles and instruction’,
Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). ‘Translating constructivism into instructional designing: Potential and limitattions’, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 8 (1), pp. 17-27.
Leng, Y. (2002). ‘Learner analysis in instrcutioanl design: The affective domain’, CDTLink, National University of Singapore, pp. 14-15.
Lisle, P. (1997). ‘What is instructional design theory?’, Retrieved
Martin, F., Klein, J. & Sullivan, H. (2007). ‘The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction’, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 38 (4), pp. 623-636.
Merill, D., Li, Z. & Jones, M. (1991). ‘Second generation instructional design’, Educational Technology, Vol. 30(1), pp. 7-11 and Vol. 30(2), pp. 7-14.
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C. & Foxon, M. (eds.) (2000). ‘Instructional design competencies: The standards’, (3rd eds.)
Spector, M. & Edmonds, G. (2002). ‘Knowledge management in instructional design’, ERIC Digest, Retrieved 26 March, 2008 from http://www.ericdigest.org/2003-1/design.html