Found this interesting infographic via Adam Menter…the open education model has a big hand in the unbundling, I believe.
Tag Archives: Educational Technology
Having come up through the K-12 ranks in education, my course design background has been, until recently, almost entirely based upon face-to-face educational theory models like Madeline Hunter’s ITIP and Grant Wiggin’s Understanding by Design (UBD). These methods of course design and lesson planning have served me well, even as I transitioned to hybrid teaching and, finally, fully online.
Now, as my teaching (and OpenPhD studying) has branched out into online professional development and educational technology, I am working with many trainers, corporate instructional designers, as well as teachers, and I’ve repeatedly been exposed to the ADDIE model used by instructional systems designers. At first glance, ITIP and ADDIE appear to be different models for different purposes, but the more I compare and use them – the more they seem two sides of the same coin.
1. (Learning Objective) Select an objective at an appropriate level of difficulty and complexity, as determined through a task analysis, diagnostic testing, and/or congruence with Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. 2. (Anticipatory Set) Motivate instruction by focusing the learning task, its importance, or the prior knowledge/experience of the learners. 3. State the lesson objective(s) to the students. 4. (Input) Identify and teach main concepts and skills, emphasizing clear explanations, frequent use of examples and/or diagrams, and invite active student participation.(Includes Modeling). >5. Check for understanding by observing and interpreting student reactions (active interest, boredom) and by frequent formative evaluations with immediate feedback. Adjust instruction as needed and reteach if necessary.(Can be Closure at the end of lesson as well). 6. Provide guided practice following instruction by having students answer questions, discuss with one another, demonstrate skills, or solve problems. Give immediate feedback and reteach if necessary. 7. Assign independent practice to solidify skills and knowledge when students have demonstrated understanding.
When designing lessons, the teacher needs to consider the seven elements in a certain order since each element is derived from and has a relationship to previous elements. Also a decision must be made about inclusion or exclusion of each element in the final design–NOT ALL ELEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN EVERY LESSON. It may take several lessons before students are ready for guided and/or independent practice. When this design framework is implemented in teaching, the sequence of the elements a teacher includes is determined by his/her professional judgment.
“Planning for Effective Instruction: Lesson Design” in Enhancing Teaching by Madeline Hunter, 1994, pp. 87-95.
I found this simple explanation of ADDIE to be most useful in comparison. The five phases of ADDIE are as follows – with the ITIP comparable added in blue:
- During analysis, the designer identifies the learning problem, the goals and objectives, the audience’s needs, existing knowledge, and any other relevant characteristics. Analysis also considers the learning environment, any constraints, the delivery options, and the timeline for the project.
1. (Learning Objective) Select an objective at an appropriate level of difficulty and complexity, as determined through a task analysis, diagnostic testing, and/or congruence with Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy.
2. (Anticipatory Set) Motivate instruction by focusing the learning task, its importance, or the prior knowledge/experience of the learners.
- A systematic process of specifying learning objectives. Detailed storyboards and prototypes are often made, and the look and feel, graphic design, user-interface and content is determined here.
- The actual creation (production) of the content and learning materials based on the Design phase.
- During implementation, the plan is put into action and a procedure for training the learner and teacher is developed. Materials are delivered or distributed to the student group. After delivery, the effectiveness of the training materials is evaluated.
3. State the lesson objective(s) to the students.
4. (Input) Identify and teach main concepts and skills, emphasizing clear explanations, frequent use of examples and/or diagrams, and invite active student participation. (Includes Modeling).
6. Provide guided practice following instruction by having students answer questions, discuss with one another, demonstrate skills, or solve problems. Give immediate feedback and reteach if necessary.
7. Assign independent practice to solidify skills and knowledge when students have demonstrated understanding.
- This phase consists of (1) formative and (2) summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users. Revisions are made as necessary.
5. Check for understanding by observing and interpreting student reactions (active interest, boredom) and by frequent formative evaluations with immediate feedback. Adjust instruction as needed and reteach if necessary (can be Closure at the end of lesson as well).
As I see it, the real differences between ADDIE and ITIP are 1)semantics and 2) a slight shift in focus. ITIP’s focus is on the instruction and ADDIE’s is more on design. While a designer (course or training) could use ADDIE to create the training/lesson, ITIP can be used like an outline to actually teach the course/training. These models are more complementary than competing, and online course developers, trainers, OER authors, should look into both models to better improve their teaching and opportunities for student engagement and learning – face-to-face or online.
As always, I look forward to your perspectives and commentary!
As this project is taking shape, and is being shaped by suggestions from my learned colleagues on the blogosphere, Twittersphere, and by email, I have the occasional moment to reflect on the comments I have received so far, and my own observations (limited as they are in these beginning stages). My ruminations are in no particular order:
- Science (engineering, in particular), math, and technology courses seem to be the most readily available courses in OCW…is this because they are already in an extended classroom/hybrid/online mode so offering them OCW doesn’t take much more effort, or are those subjects areas more on the cutting edge of the open access movement? (Disclaimer: Their availability is just an impression I have from my completely non-scientific approach to wading through the course offerings of most of the major universities’ OCW, trying to meet my own particular Open PhD needs)
- Things I can do with an Open PhD:
- Point people to a really great blog of my experience
- Provide leadership in the field of OCW, Open Access, and Open Education
- Discuss the topics I’ve learned intelligently
- Discuss the process of being a student of OCW with graduate level courses
- Share my research and dissertation
- Publish my dissertation somewhere
- Write a book about my experience
- Posit the theory that there may be more than one way to approach the doctoral tree of knowledge
- Present at conferences on open education/open access on the topic
- Continue teaching as an adjunct (that’s my M.Ed talking).
- Things I can NOT do with an Open PhD (to my Friendfeed friends – I hope this answers your concerns):
- Put “Dr.” before my name or “PhD” after my name – (these are titles conferred by an accredited institution, and while the “University of OCW-Independent Study” might just provide me with the knowledge I need, I would never try to imply or mislead anyone that I took the same path as those with the papered credentials).
- Receive tenure or a full time academic appointment† to a university teaching position – well, I specialize in teaching online…this pretty much wasn’t going to happen anytime soon anyway.
- I am seeing at least three prongs to approach my learning/research:† 1) The technological one – simply getting the information in the hands of the learners in the most effective way – both technically and pedagogically/andragogically; 2) a sociological/political approach – how does the digital access to education change the landscape? and 3) and economical approach – while it may be a wonderfully Utopian idea to provide free access to all knowledge, the producers of said knowledge (i.e. book writers, course creators, instructors, researchers, etc.,) all also need to eat and pay bills – how does the “business” survive, if they give the “product” away for free?
- We have charter public K12 schools to explore new ways of doing things, and they are fully accredited.† Why don’t we have charter institutions of higher learning for the same idea?† Especially in the digital age!† For instance, here is one of my ideas for a “Charter University” – a school that simply is a credit clearing house and testing body. For example, if a student wanted a degree in English, “Charter University” would list course descriptions and number of credits required for a standard BA in English – the student could collect these credits from any and all accredited universities/community colleges across the country – submitting transcripts along the way. Once all the course work was completed, the student would sit for a comprehensive exam in the major. If passed, the degree and the accumulated credits/gpa would be awarded.† No “in house” residency rule required. If proving a student has the knowledge is what matters, does it really matter from where they got the knowledge?
- 20 something doctoral students who have never left school have a hard time relating to the concerns of 40-something individuals with a career, mortgage, working spouse, kids of their own in college, etc., who would like to complete their last degree but can’t uproot to live a life of academic poverty for three-four years.
As always, your comments and feedback are welcome!
One reader posted this comment and I thought it was an interesting way to suggest the conferring of¬† “credentials”¬† for an Open PhD (I’ve reposted it along with my reply for your scrolling convenience):
This is a very nice initiative. I am sure it you are going to inspire many people who have thought of doing a PhD, but lacked the resources.
As for credentials, I wonder if they can be crowdsourced. What if you maintain a blog and wiki as you make progress in the PhD. Some sort of rating system (and comments) on the blog posts, maybe podcasts of what would traditionally be presentations, and a real project which is visible to everyone on the Internet, may all accumulate towards crowdcourced credentials. It may not be conferred by a university but it will be conferred by the ‚Äúwise crowd‚ÄĚ
This is precisely where I was going with my idea – I am hoping to shape and refine it over time with helpful suggestions from those already in possession of the knowledge I seek.¬† I’m sure there are plenty of things I haven’t yet considered, and plenty of naysayers who feel doctoral study/research can only be done in its traditional box.¬† I just don’t happen to be one of them.¬† As for what my final specific research will be…who knows?¬† Do traditional brick and mortar students know what their PhD dissertation research will be as soon as they earn their masters – especially in the education field?¬† I highly doubt it.¬† I came up through the public school teaching ranks and moved into higher education as an adjunct.¬† I completed my M.Ed in 1994.¬† This 2009.¬† What I was passionate about researching in the mid 90s would probably make me chuckle with my knowledge base and hard-won experience now.¬† I have a lot of interests in the area of educational technology – I will whittle my interests down to a very specific area of research and a good research question with the help of my committee of (how many readers will I have by that time??? – lol) as this project develops and the program takes shape.¬† In the meantime – look at the background material I am gathering and learning from already: open education, open courseware availability, advanced Twitter skills (archiving here I come) , and the fact that this topic is definitely touching a nerve in the edusphere if my blog stats are to be believed.¬† But in a general sense – I know my area of inquiry already – can this be done?
As a writer, I do know we write from what we know.¬† And I know this.¬† The gap between those who can afford college easily and those who cannot is real.¬† It has little to do with intelligence, initiative, gpa, or the student’s neighborhood school.¬† I want my PhD.¬† But I am 43.¬† I have two kids and a stepson in college right now.¬† I am place-bound by my husband’s job as a contractor with the military.¬† Does that mean I am less interested in my academic career? No.¬† It means I have a real life that I am bound to support along side my academic one.¬† They are equally important to me.
I do have one luxury.¬† My academic career has evolved to an online one.¬† Now, so has my education.¬† It is no longer place-bound or even institutionally-bound.¬† And finally, due to this flash of an idea, the last educational hurdle will not be financially-bound any longer either.
The first step in figuring out my Open Ph.D. program seems like it needs to be figuring out how many courses (can’t say credits, now can I?) to take, and what topics they should cover.¬† I did a quick check at some of the more well-known, accredited online universities offering Ph.D.’s in Educational Technology and here’s what I found:
- Walden – 87 Semester credits (130 quarter credits) – residency requirement
- Capella – 80 Semester credits (120 quarter credits)- residency requirement
- Northcentral University – 51 Semester credits (76.5 quarter credits)- no residency requirement
- University of Phoenix – 59 Semester credits(89 quarter credits) – residency requirement
Most of the courses averaged 3 semester credits/5 quarter credits, with the occasional seminar offered as a 1 or 2 credit course.¬† Doing a little basic math, I work that out to mean I should find 20 open courses of the 3 semester credit variety (60 credits) , 4 courses worth 2 semester credits (8 credits), and 2 courses worth 1 semester credit each (2 credits).¬† That will equal 70 semester credits which is roughly the average between the four schools listed above.
So far, so good.
The next step is to look at the individual classes within all these programs . What courses do they have in common? And will I be able to find them in the world of open courseware?¬† The first question I will worry about now – the second I will worry about as this project progresses.
I created a chart that includes all of the classes in the PhD programs listed above for the Educational Technology specialization.¬† You can find that chart page here or by clicking the words Course Chart in the upper right hand corner of this blog.
I need a couple of days to digest it all – and then I should be able to start formulating my program and looking for courses throughout the open education “edusphere”.
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.