Case 7

Streamlined ID	Case no.7
Identify stakeholders and their expectations (Streamlined ID, p24)	WWW: Maya questions Ruth-Ann, the students from the previous year, those from the year coming, looks at scores and groups the students accordingly before interviewing, she interviews the AP, She identifies the parents. EBI: Did she speak to the Maths teachers from the year before or the SME for Maths? She finds out what lessons were like; could she have asked the students what they wanted their lessons to be like? Do they have favourite lessons/subjects/ teachers? Why? What do the parents think? (Maya relies on the comments from the students)
Identify project roles and their responsibilities (Streamlined ID, p25-26)	Who is the client? Whilst the learners are the ones affected by the intervention, Ruth-Ann, the Maths department and the school are the client. Maya seems to identify Ruth-Ann as the client but I believe it is the Maths Faculty that should be the client. Who has funding/approval authority? Maya does not identify this. The AP alludes to their being little money to support the purchase of of materials for the students Who will be impacted by the instruction? Students/teacher the year after? The intervention effects all the Maths, not just this one teacher.
Defining the problems and analysing the needs (Streamlined ID, p26/29)	p76: Maya seems to identify that the problem, in some cases is due to the culture of the parents not valuing education which affects the motivation of the students to learn. She also points out the expectation that the education of the parents will have an affect on the students' performances. (Streamlined ID, p51) points out that "prior knowledge, motivational goals, and intelligence have shown to have a significant impact on the design and future success of the instruction" (Clark & Feldon, 2005) EBI: From the interviews and Ruth-Ann's comments, the students are not at the appropriate standard when they come to her; prior knowlege in an issue therefore the previous teacher needs to be interviewed and their teaching investigated. Ruth-Ann does not have confidence in her own ability and has not recognised issues with the tects in relation to the Core Standards (p76/77) Streamlind ID. p57: Level 1 reaction; what interests do the students have outside of class; try to apply instruction toward this. Show students and parents that their lives are affected by maths and do activities to match.
Gathering data on needs, resources and constraints (Streamlined ID, p29/33)	Maya does this quite well. She interviews Ruth-Ann, students of differing ability and age. She interviews the AP and some other teachers (these teacher's comments are not listed) Constraints are identified: money by AP p75, p76 the education of parents and their cultural attitudes to education. EBI: Gather data on other Maths teachers, is the problem systemic or is it just Ruth-Ann! What tech is available on the computers? Are there constraints on running after school activities? Are there constraints on releasing a teacher to visit another school? Could cover be done internally? Learning walks?
Refining and translating needs into goals (Streamlined ID, p33/37)	Maya does not seem to do this. If the learner is the most important stakeholder, Maya needs to redefine the goasl to work beyond Ruth-Ann. The problem is applicable to the Maths department, the whole school and community
Seeking approval of the project scope and plan (Streamlined ID, 37/38)	Maya does not seem to do this. She reports back to the instigator of the intervention and offers to assist. She does not report back to the AP or the SME for Maths.

Article Analysis

Being able to write well requires that you know what good writing looks like, and what it doesn't. It the embedded doc is an analysis of an article on blogging that was posted online; it is linked within the doc. My analysis is thorough and I nit-pick somewhat, but that was the point!

ID model

After feedback and evaluation of my model, I updated it to incorporate returns to sections from all other sections during the process.

Reflection on Fracken Model

I created a linear ID Model as it closely respresents how I work and how the teams that I am part of function. I understand the ADDIE model and the pathway through it and my model is based upon it. I have structured the model to step down from left to right to visualize the progression toward the end of the project; this also associates with Gantt Charts as the bars that represent time on a task move towards the right. I have placed a definite evaluation subphase after each of Analyse, Design, Develop and Implement as I believe that they shouldn't be optional nor should the evaluation be left to the last phase. If a good sub-evaluation is carried out, the need to jump back several phases is removed. I was inspired by the Casebook task to place the evaluation after the Analysis and include identifications of "culture" and "how people work" in the Analysis. From my own recent experience where I built an instant feedback quizzing system in Google Docs for my new Y12 students I found that each step required me to have the other Biology teachers I work with look at what I had produced and evaluate it. I produced a successful system the students have found value in using and the teachers also value. I have found that if the teachers don't value a system I build, they don't use it, which turns out to be a waste of my time. If teachers don't value a new piece of bought software then it won't be used and that will be a waste of money.

I am aware that the text I have added mixes classroom teaching/lesson design with systems development; I do both.

I aimed to construct the model based on the readings from the first module assignment (Gustafson & Branch, 2002, and Streamlined ID, 2013) but without looking back at the images. I wanted to represent how I believed my ID model would look and not be biased by any of the models in the books. After drawing it and subsequently looking back at the texts I can see similarities to several of the linear models.

My reflections from our first discussion posts have inflenced my design as I have assimilated some of the concepts/processes from those models; "I am comfortable with Gerlach & Ely’s (1980) “mix of linear and concurrent” (p39); this is generally how I work but this model needs to include elements of the other models particularly when assessing the students’ current knowledge.

Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino’s (p42) ASSURE model makes a lot of sense and I appreciate how they focus on the selection of resources as opposed to the creation of new ones. They also place the analysis of the learners first which I think is appropriate; I don’t start a semester with a new class without knowing everything I can about my students. As the semester progresses I tend to consider the characters, personalities and learning styles of my students more as I get to know them so an evaluation of the students must to be on-going if I am to design activities and materials that works best for them.

I aim to make my lessons learner centred so the PIE model by Newby, Stepich, Lehman and Russell (p45) had elements I liked. Their matrix of questions concept intrigued me as I have been moving my lesson design and objectives toward a Why, How, What model. The question “How will you know they are learning?” is one I have been paying attention to."

I had thought Gerlach and Ely's Model was most similar to how I work but on reflection the concurrent nature of their design doesn't suit my style. After reviewing the models in Survey of Instructional Models I see that my style is much more similar to the heavily critcised rectilinear models and that of The Diamond Model and The Smith and Ragan Model. I prefer the logic and organisation of the linear models; they are clear and make sense unlike The Gentry Instructional Product Development and Management model, Boehm's Spiral Model or some of the other models that seem to have no start or end. I cannot afford the time to maintain every system I have ever built so I am likely to always prefer a model that has a clear endpoint. In the model I have built the final evaluation is the endpoint unless the evaluation uncovers that the designed object does not produce the desired outcomes.

With regards to activities in each phase I have taken mostly from Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino’s (p42) ASSURE model and the matrix of questions Newby, Stepich, Lehman and Russell (p45) have designed. I also found myself drawn to the rigid structures of the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development Model.

As a teacher, if I build a scheme of work other teachers need to be able to use it. As a Learning Technology systems developer, I am answerable to the Head teacher who requested the system. In both these situations I believe it is important to get the people I am answerable to to sign off that they are happy with the way projects are developing and moving. This is the reason for the split decisions on the sub-phase evaluations. If after the Design evaluation the client isn't pleased, I can go back and revise the design based on the critiques. Only after they are completely happy do I feel the project should move ahead.

Case 20 review

When Ross writes “With the exception of a couple of students in 503 who are working outside the U.S., my guess is that the elements of the case are sufficiently outside people's realm of experience to allow them to look at it objectively.” I can appreciate why he has chosen this case.

Having taught in England, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Malaysia, I have come into contact with students, teachers, parents and administrators of many cultural backgrounds and upbringings including North Americans. Attitudes to teaching, learning and even how to speak in public are very different in different countries and in a place like Malaysia that is made up of  Malay, Chinese and Indian populations these attitudes can be evident in the same room!

Interestingly, the Head of Physics in my current post is French and his attitude and approach to teaching is very grounded in his French upbringing and the French educational system; as I read the case I could see him in my mind; I will be as objective as possible!

After reading the case once through I got the impression that the consortium had not done the Analysis phase of the ADDIE model. Why had the French team been permitted to build a prototype design without them considering the expectations of the other consortium member’s expectations and needs? After reading the case again I stepped back and considered that this is exactly what they needed, to do a project together and analyse each other’s styles of working and thinking to better understand each other. Had this analysis been part of their original analysis design plan then that would have been great planning by the consortium. It is clear from the case study that this “getting to know you” phase wasn’t part of the plan and should have been. The delay in the production of design requirements was inevitable as this meeting was more about analysing the various consortium and designer’s ways of working.

The culture of the consortium members i.e. the behaviours and beliefs characteristic of the different groups, are evident in the comments in the case regarding of how the French and US Americans approached meetings and what educational strategies they considered appropriate. Without researching or directly experiencing how another culture does a task there is likely going to be frustration. Since Jim Huggins had this experience from his previous trips the year before, I believe he could have avoided most of the issues that were encountered by Iris had he met with her to consider the French style before she left. Iris could have prepared herself better by seeking advice before the trip; having the humility to ask for help and the awareness to know that one doesn’t know everything is the lesson here!

The different purpose of a meeting between the two groups causes some interesting issues; the French report back on a plan, the US Americans use the meeting for the plan. Due to this lack of awareness Iris feels Jacqueline is taking credit for the discussions they have in private whilst Jacqueline is innocently reporting back what they had decided together. The differences in meeting culture begins to affect the social interactions between the individuals and groups.

Attitudes to what constitutes good education is grounded in each country’s governmental policies and the educational institutions. The case shows that the French designers clearly value content and theory and were likely subjected to a didactic style of teaching in the classroom; “this is what you need to, learn it, do the exam”. The US style of scaffolding and modelling is much more hands on and constructive, focusing on skill acquisition that can be subsequently applied to other situations. It is good that Iris and Jacqueline come to a middle ground and that the prototype developed by the US team incorporates the theory that the French learners expect in their education. The observations made by Dieter on the second meeting day made me consider that the US instructional designers  with their background in educational theories and systems design made them much more prepared as individuals to consider the whole project. The French designers were probably specialists in their fields and were challenged to see the big picture of learning theories combined with attractive and functional design.

Where the technology is concerned I have some sympathy for the French team. An agreement is made by the consortium that the constraints of the development tools available to build what the Americans want would “work themselves out”. Designing strictly in HTML, CSS3 and Javascript may have been a huge challenge for the French team when asked to produce interaction without plugins like Flash and Shockwave. That being said, the French team don’t take any risks whereas the US Americans are happy to design what they want as an end product and work out the technical requirements as they go. This attitude is another example of how the analysis phase did not happen as the French team designed what they were capable of at the time and not what they could build had their been no restraints on the technical side of the project.

Writing Style Evaluation

Using the guidance provided, I have analysed a document I wrote previously for ease of reading and appropriateness to the audience.