I particularly liked this class period's discussion of rationales for use of ISD: the process being timeless, the fact that ISD has no opinions/the idea that ISD has no bias toward any specific delivery system, and the help that ISD identifies design problems. I enjoyed presenting and found Reigeluth's Elaboration Theory interesting--my group was great.  As for the other ISD models, I enjoyed hearing of varying methods, but I think that the ADDIE model does take the best from all of the models--Merrill's, Kirkpatrick's, the Dick and Carey Model, Gagne's, Wiggins and McTigge's, the Smith and Ragan Model, Rapid Prototyping, and Kemp's Instructional Design Model.  Whereas many of the models overlapped, and many were cyclical in process involving many steps of evaluation, I appreciate that we are sticking with one model throughout the class rather than trying to incorporate many ISD models into varying projects.  I appreciated hearing about other models, but, again, feel happy we are sticking with one, and the clearest one at that.  Hooray!

Incorporating this week's reading with last week's class, I think that analysis is, in fact, the most important step of the ISD process.  Models that focused less on analysis (such as the prototype model)  seemed to lack the power that models that embraced analysis (such as the ADDIE model) have.  As I mentioned in my response to the readings, applying an ISD model without analysis is like doing an AP calculus problem without writing out every step, and then, when something goes wrong, not being able to see the logic that occurred in the first place.  I think Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction adequately addresses analysis, and I also think that Reigeluth's Elaboration Theory adequately analyzes a project while producing--the analysis happens simultaneously with the aspects of performing the ISD: as the learner zooms in and out on a problem, the learner becomes the designer through analysis of the problem.  Great class!    

Leave a Reply.