Making Models out of Molehills

Instructional Design Models

Introduction

While it’s important for educators to understand the various foundational beginnings of learning theories and practices, it is equally important that we know how the building of learning through various learning models can aid classroom instruction. As I have read and researched each instructional design model, I thought through the ones I practice in my elementary classroom and began to think which ones would benefit my content area and style of teaching most. While each model had its own strengths and weaknesses, by the end of my reading I favored one more than the others.

SAMR

The model that I found to be the least appealing and the most difficult to implement in my personal classroom, would be the SAMR Model. The SAMR model “includes four levels of technology integration (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) and provides a framework to support educators and instructional designers in creating optimal learning experiences…” (Romrell et al., 2014). The idea behind the model is innovative because it works to make technology a tool for transforming learning rather than just enhancing learning. However, the highest level of implementation for SAMR-redefinition-can be quite difficult to achieve depending on tools and training made available to the educator. I applaud the alignment of SAMR with Bloom’s Taxonomy, I’m just not sure the majority of classrooms are to the point where they can use this model well.

TPACK

Technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) is an interesting framework that encompasses the three major components of modern day teaching-content, pedagogy, and technology-all important to the ways in which learning occurs. “The interaction of these bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces the types of flexible knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching” (Koehler et al., 2013). The inclusion of all three components and then the combining of them, makes TPACK a great model for beefing up technology instruction and integration in the classroom. Individually, all three components are necessary, and combined, all three components are critical. Koehler et al., (2013) go on to say that “viewing any of these components in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching.” TPACK requires educators to be flexible in navigating each realm, paying careful attention to the weighty importance placed on technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge individually and separately.

ADDIE

Steven McGriff (2001) states that “instructional design aims for a learner-centered rather than the traditional teacher-centered approach to instruction, so that effective learning can take place.” McGriff goes on to explain that all elements of instructional design must be centered around the learning outcomes. Through this week’s research, I found that to be the common denominator of all learning models presented. We must know what we want our students to achieve before we can take any other steps in the preparation and planning process. The ADDIE Model provides a flexible design in instruction that allows teachers to analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate each phase of learning. “Though the model appears linear, it does not have to be followed rigidly or in a linear approach…” (Levesque, 2019). The component that I admired the most about ADDIE is that the first step requires educators to analyze their learners and understand their background knowledge and what they bring to the table before learning occurs. I found the entire ADDIE model to be incredibly learner driven and thoroughly centered around the steps that need to be taken to reach a learning goal. It was the approach that made the most sense to me, until I got to the ARCS design.

ARCS

As an elementary teacher, John Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation interested me the most and seemed to be the most relevant instructional design model that I came across. The four elements presented through this model are Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction to make up the ARCS acronym. The common goal of every educator is to engage students and “Keller’s ARCS Model of motivation can be perceived as a problem solving approach to learning that instructional designers can use to develop even more engaging eLearning activities (Pappas, 2015). The simple plan of motivating learners through relevant learning strategies is the best way to create confidence and foster self-growth and reflection is penetrated all throughout the design of ARCS. The idea that attention and relevancy must be established before any other learning occurs is incredibly accurate, especially in the elementary classroom. In my opinion, ARCS is the most natural and effective design model that would seem to yield the best results for my area of teaching.

Conclusion

When it comes to approaching the instructional design system within our classrooms, we must always remember that “learning occurs within a person, the experience is unique to the individual” (Kilgore et al., 2014). In our current world of constant networking, learning is absolutely a social process that is unique to each learner. By implementing strong knowledge of instructional design systems, we can become stronger educators that help produce stronger learners. Each one of these instructional designs works to establish learning objectives early and guide learners into facilitating their own knowledge and building on their own foundations. The world of teacher-centered learning is rapidly diminishing, and these models are proof that the learner-centered environments are effective and productive ways in which learning occurs. As an educator and life-long learner, I am eager to see what other designs are developed through the ever evolving world of technology and excited to play a role in bettering the world of education.

References

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02905780

‌

McGriff, S. J. (2001). Leadership in Higher Education: Instructional Designers in Faculty Development Programs.

Pappas, C. (2015, May 20). Instructional Design Models And Theories: Keller’s ARCS Model Of Motivation. ELearning Industry; eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/arcs-model-of-motivation

‌

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i2.435

‌