Part III Design for Educational Technology
8.3 Instructional Systems Design
8.3.2 Extended Reading
8.3.1.5 Evaluate
Evaluate is the fifth phase of the ADDIE instructional design process, with the purpose to assess the quality of learning materials before and after implementation and to evaluate the instructional design procedures used to generate the instruc- tional products.
Evaluation of instructional design focuses on measuring the student’s ability to perform her or his newly constructed knowledge and skills in an authentic work environment.
The standard procedures and typical deliverable associated with the evaluation phase are shown in the Table8.7.
(1) Determine evaluation criteria.
The aim of this step is to identify perception, learning, and performance as the three main levels of evaluation associated with the instructional design. The ADDIE approach to instructional design in this book promotes three levels of evaluation.
Level 1 measures such things as the students’ perceptions of the course content, resources used throughout the course, the comfort of the physical classroom environment, or the ease of navigation in a virtual classroom environment and the teacher’s facilitation style. Level 2 evaluation measures learning that the student’s ability to perform the tasks indicated in each of the goals and objectives. Level 3 evaluation measures job performance that student’s knowledge and skill as they are actually applied in an authentic work environment.
(2) Select evaluation tools.
There are a variety of measurement tools that are available to instructional designers. Each measurement tool has the attributes that render its effective for certain types of evaluation. A sample of evaluation tools includes but is not limited to questionnaire, interview, Likert scale, open-ended questions, survey, examina- tions, role-plays, observations, practice, simulations, authentic work tasks, perfor- mance checklists, supervisor assessments, peer reviews, and observations.
based on what designers actually do and reflects the dynamic and complex nature of instructional design. In addition, new models are emerging that highlight the role of collaboration, co-construction of understanding, and team problem solving.
8.3.2.1 The Four-Component Instructional Design Model
The four-component instructional design model (4C/ID) developed by van Mer- riënboer (1997). The 4C/ID instructional model is characterized by four compo- nents: (1) learning tasks, (2) supportive information, (3) procedural information, and (4) part-task practice. Tasks are ordered by task difficulty, and each task is offered at the beginning a lot of scaffolding which will be reduced as the learner progresses.
Table8.8shows the relationship of the four basic components to the associated steps involved in complex learning (van Merriënboer & Kirschner,2007).
According to van Merriënboer et al. (2002), the 4C/ID model addresses at least three deficits in previous instructional design models.
• First, the 4C/ID model focuses on the integration and coordinated performance of task-specific constituent skills rather than on knowledge types, context, or presentation-delivery media.
• Second, the model makes a critical distinction between supportive information and required just-in-time information (the latter specifies the performance required, not only the type of knowledge required).
• Third, traditional models use either part-task or whole-task practice; the 4C/ID model recommends a mixture where part-task practice supports very complex,
“whole-task”learning.
8.3.2.2 Tennyson’s Fourth-Generation ISD Model
The complexity of instructional design is evident in the Fourth-Generation Instructional Systems Design (ISD-4) model developed by Tennyson (Tennyson, 1993). Tennyson’s ISD-4 model is based on a synthesis of what instructional designers actually do.
Table 8.8 Components of
4C/ID Components Steps to complex learning
Leaning tasks 1. Design learning tasks 2. Sequence task classes 3. Set performance objectives Supportive information 4. Design supportive information
5. Analyze cognitive strategies 6. Analyze mental models Procedural information 7. Design procedural information
8. Analyze cognitive rules 9. Analyze prerequisite knowledge Part-task practice 10. Design part-task practice
Thefirst component in ISD-4 is the situational evaluation. The purpose of this evaluation is twofold: Assess the learning problem/need (an interface between the ID author and the problem/need) and construct ID solution plan (a plan that pro- poses an instructional development process with an appropriate set of ISD activities).
It emphasizes the notions of a situational evaluation and the fact that instruc- tional designers do not always start with analysis; the specific situation and cir- cumstances determine to a large extent what designers actually do (Spector,2016).
8.3.2.3 Emerging Models
Social networking and collaborative learning bring new aspects to the traditional instructional design models presented above. While the models elaborated above are well-established and can be modified to accommodate new communication technologies, it is worth noting that among the new models that are appearing in computer-supported collaborative learning, problem-based learning approaches, MOOCs, and other recent developments, one stillfinds the need to understand the nature of what is to be learned, who the learners are, and how progress will be determined. One exception is perhaps in the case of informal learning in which there may not be a well-defined learning goal.
Key Points in This Chapter
(1) A learning activity is an interaction between a learner and an environment (optionally involving other learners, practitioners, resources, tools, and ser- vices) to achieve a planned learning outcome
(2) Bloom’s taxonomy that attempts to cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Cognitive domain represents the intel- lectual skills and knowledge processing, which is the primary focus of most traditional education and is frequently used to structure curriculum learning objectives, assessments, and activities. Affective domain represents objectives that are concerned with attitudes and feelings. Psychomotor domain concerns what students might do physically.
(3) The ADDIE model is a framework that displays generic processes that instructional designers and training developers do, which describes a process applied to instructional design to generate episodes of intentional learning.
Learning Resources
• Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Gagné, R. M., & Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in learning research. In R.
M. Gagné(Ed.), Instructional technology foundations (pp. 49–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview.
Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–264
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
• Tennyson, R. D. (1993). A framework for automating instructional design.
In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida (Eds.), Automating instruc- tional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 191–214). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Edu- cational Technology Publications.
• For more information about Tennyson’s Fourth-Generation ISD model, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pfi.4140380607/pdf
• For more information about 4C/ID model, see http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/
4C-ID)
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. In P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich, J. Raths, & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.),A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory(Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York:
Academic Press.
Beetham. H, (2004) Review: developing e-learning Models for the JISC Practitioner Communities.
Retrieved from http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Review__developing_e_Learning_
Models_for_the_JISC.pdf?paperid=1725131.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals;
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.),Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Branch, R. M. (2009).Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York: Springer.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
Dave, R. H. (1970). Psychomotor levels. In R. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Developing and writing behavioral objectives(pp. 20–21). Tucson: AZ: Educational Innovators Press.
Davydov, V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching.Soviet Education, 30(10), 3–41.
Gagné, R. M. (1987).Instructional technology foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hedegaard, M., & Lompscher, J. (1999). Introduction. In M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds.), Learning activity and development(pp. 10–21). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Huang R., Kinshuk, & Spector J. M. (2013).Reshaping learning: New frontiers of educational research. Berlin: Springer.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview.Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212–218.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals (Affective domain, Vol. Handbook II). New York:
David McKay.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405–412.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297–313.
Mayer, R. E. (2009).Multimedia learning(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education.Medical Education, 44,543–549.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2_Research_Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design.Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2010).Designing effective instruction (6th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Paivio, A. (1971).Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411–436.
Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Illinois.
Journal of Home Economics., 10(4), 110–144.
Spector, J. M. (2015).The Encyclopedia of educational technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, J. M. (2016). Foundations of educational technology: integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science., 12(2), 257–285.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.
Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Tennyson, R. D. (1993). A framework for automating instructional design. In J. M. Spector, M.
C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 191–214). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007).Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504993.
9
Chapter Outline:
• Definition of learning space
• PST framework
• Principles for learning space design
• Smart learning environment.
By the End of This Chapter, You Should Be Able To
• Recognize differences in informal and formal learning
• Define a learning space
• Understanding Pedagogy-Space-Technology design and evaluation framework
• Recall the principles of learning space design
• Clarify the element and technique features of smart learning environment
• Elaborate on two examples of learning space design.
Main Learning Activities
1. Take a few minutes to describe a particular learning space with which you are familiar. What pedagogical approach is used in that space? What technologies are involved? Is the space suitable for that pedagogical approach and those technologies? Explain why or why not.
2. Create a concept map that depicts the key features of a learning space. Describe a specific learning space for a formal learning situation and also one for an informal learning space. State what is needed to make each example a smart learning space.
©Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019
R. Huang et al.,Educational Technology, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6643-7_9
149