Saturday 14 September 2013

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment