1.        In the text, the ADDIE model was mentioned briefly.  It is the model traditionally used by designers and developers of instruction.  It is also the model for which others were modeled.  It consists of five phases:  Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.  Throughout the phases, there is formative evaluation with the summative evaluation coming in the end phase of Evaluation.

 

In the Analysis phase, the audience is identified, goals are set, and options for delivery of lessons are considered.  Along with these important considerations, the time for the project is considered as well as the prior knowledge of the students.  In the Design phase, the content of the lesson is considered, lesson plans are created, and the assessment of the learning objectives is designed or chosen. 

 

The Development phase is where everything that was created in the Design phase is put into place as well as any inclusion of technology to enhance instruction. Everything is reviewed in this phase to try and work out any kinks that may come into play in the next phase.

 

During Implementation, all necessary instruments (books, equipment, etc) are in place.  The curriculum of the lesson is covered and delivered along with assessment. 

 

In the Evaluation phase, summative evaluation is in the form of feedback from participants as well as tests designed to evaluate what was presented and the manner of presentation.

 

                A second design model that is actually a spinoff of the ADDIE Model is Dick and Carey’s Model.                 

This model is easier to understand because the steps are broken into nine components and are specific in nature.  This is also a work in progress where the authors of the model (W. Dick and L. Carey) have made minor adjustments as the needs of the classroom change and technology develops.  They are changing the model as the philosophies of instructional design change.

 

The nine components are as follows:

1.       Needs assessment- determine what learners should be able to do following instruction.

2.       Analysis of instruction- what will occur as learners try to reach the goal outcome and what is required. (Step by step instruction)

3.       Analyze- What are the background knowledge and skills of the learners? Where will the lesson take place?

4.       Write out objectives- What specifically should be learned and what is the criteria?

5.       Assessment development- should be consistent with the objectives specified in previous step.

6.       Strategy development- What should the learner do prior to instruction, during instruction, and during and post assessment?

7.       Choose instruction strategies

8.       Formative evaluation- collect data to see where improvements may be made.

9.       Revision- after collection of data and formative evaluation put necessary changes for improvement in place.

The last step in the process is summative evaluation to evaluate the process of instruction as a whole.

 

Both the ADDIE model and Dick and Carey’s Model are similar and are beneficial to use inconsideration of the means that curriculum is presented to students.  I understand that formative evaluation is valuable in both to determine how well the process of a lesson is progressing and to make improvements, but would love concrete examples for a typical teacher to use when implementing a new lesson or curriculum.  Applying these strategies in the classroom is necessary for quality design.  It seems that many, if not most, implement a lesson and improve through trial and error.  This is probably not the best method for formative evaluations but seem to be what is prevalent among my colleagues and me. 

Our department planning meetings employ these strategies in deciding what and how we will instruct our students.  As curriculum standards change and the new EOC testing is in its second year, it has become more important than ever to provide meaningful instruction to our students that they can apply both outside the classroom and in a testing environment.  We may not follow a precise model, but when thinking of both of the aforementioned methods, we utilize many of the steps or components.

2.        While it is imperative that designers of instruction consider the amounts of learning taking place as well as learner satisfaction, we must also consider the types of learners we have in our classrooms.  There is mention of the background knowledge in these models, but emphasis should also be placed as importantly on HOW our student best learn.  Are they visual, kinesthetic, auditory, etc. learners?  How can we best reach them all through the intended instruction?  I guess this would fall under the formative evaluation process where you can make changes to suit the learners as you go.

 

3.       As with any public school system today, there are limited resources and less Federal help where cutbacks have been prevalent, so  you could say that today’s climate would be one of economic decline.  If I were assigned to develop a series of professional development sessions focusing on technology, I would first determine what technology currently existed in the classrooms.  This would allow informative sessions on existing equipment instead of what would be “pie in the sky” sessions for the staff at present.  Determining what would be the best type of instruction that teacher’s could truly benefit from would be the first order of business.  There are too many times where teachers are required to sit through trainings or information sessions in my district for technology we do not have and then teachers are not trained on technology that is being placed in our classrooms (i.e. smartboards).  If the training necessary was not obvious, polling teachers and actually asking them what training would be beneficial to them would be the place to start.  Once that is established, finding the proper “trainers” would be the next step.  There are always some teachers or staff members who are more than proficient in current technologies.  I would ask them to be the facilitators of the sessions so that what is being taught would be immediately relevant to those in attendance.  Using staff instead of hiring a trainer or trainers would be not only cost effective but provide training that current staff can use since teachers of the campus or district already are familiar with the climate and needs of the campus or district.  Providing training for technology that MIGHT be in a teacher’s classroom in the future is a waste of time especially if the climate is one in  economic decline.  Providing something teachers can utilize immediately would not only be appreciated by staff in the training but something they would actually listen to and implement in their learning environments because it IS already at their fingertips and may be something they do not know how to best utilize.