Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

IDCL AECT Concurrent Presentation


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

IDCL AECT Concurrent Presentation

  1. 1. A Case Study inDesigning OnlineInstruction using vanMerriënboers Ten Stepsto Complex LearningCarol Watson, Colin Gray, Xiaokai Jia,Jiyoon Jung, Yurong Wang, Ted FrickIndiana University
  2. 2. session objectives- Provide background information on the design project- Present an overview of the 4C/ID model and Ten Steps- Discuss challenges and solutions encountered during our design process- Answer questions
  3. 3. background information- Need for project- Why this reading course was selected- Why the model was selected
  4. 4. original course goals- Develop an understanding of key issues and concepts within IST- Develop the ability to critically analyze and synthesize IST-related publications from a variety of perspectives- Develop a literature review for a topic of interest within IST.
  5. 5. (van Merriënboer, 1997)
  6. 6. 4C/ID comparedto Ten StepsLearning Tasks 1. Design Learning Tasks 2. Sequence Task Classes 3. Set Performance ObjectivesSupportive Information 4. Design Supportive Information 5. Analyze Cognitive Strategies 6. Analyze Mental ModelsProcedural Information 7. Design Procedural Information 8. Analyze Cognitive Rules 9. Analyze Prerequisite KnowledgePart-task Practice 10.Design Part-task Practice(van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2007)
  7. 7. academic yeardesign process- Weekly research team meetings- Shared notes taken each week- Fall 2010 - IRB Approval, Data Collection- Spring 2011 - Identification of authentic, whole task - Knowledge claims
  8. 8. knowledge claim chart
  9. 9. summer design process- We addressed multiple "steps" at once - learning tasks and task classes - supportive and procedural information- Development tasks: - Planned a schedule: analysis of development tasks - Consolidated some of the tabled decisions - Defined the learning tasks - Updated the reading list - Changed the sequence - Developed supports: markups of key claims
  10. 10. sample task class
  11. 11. sample article markup
  12. 12. key features- Kept the current goals of the course, but more intentionally designed based on collaborative design discussions - Task-based: Four simple-to-complex, elaborative task classes - Fading levels of supports within a task class - Part-task practice on citing in APA style & searching credible resources - More flexible and modular weekly design- Course is still in development, with target online date of Fall 2012
  13. 13. challenges- Defining the audience and learning goals- Defining/designing Learning Tasks- Sequencing task classes- Identifying knowledge claims
  14. 14. residential implementation- Knowledge claims as a main unit of discussion- Additional/updated readings- Streamlined deliverables for the course - Annotated Bibliography - Major Literature Review- Use of knowledge claim template for readings - Knowledge claims made by the author - Support for each claim listed - Two additional references that support the reading
  15. 15. looking forward- Primacy of critique - Individual - Group- Public presentations via YouTube- Video annotations to encourage discussion
  16. 16. referencesBooth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (1995). The craft of research. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.Frick, T. W. (2011). The theory of totally integrated education: TIE. [Unpublished manuscript] Retrievedfrom, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations to improveinstruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 58(2), 115-136. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9131-zMaccia, G. S. (1987). Genetic epistemology of intelligent natural systems. Systems Research, 4(3), 213-218.Maccia, G. S. (1988). Genetic epistemology of intelligent natural systems: Propositional, proceduraland performative intelligence. Paper presented at Hangzhou University, China. Retrieved July17, 2011, from, C. S. (1932). Collected papers, Vol. II, Elements of logic (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improvingdesign theories. In Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory.(pp. 633-51).Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Steiner, E. (1988). Methodology of theory building. Sydney, Australia: Educology Research Associates.van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructionaldesign model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational TechnologyPublications.van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematicapproach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  17. 17. questions
  18. 18. original designof the course- Weekly reading list- In-class discussions (both instructor- and student-led)- Written critique of readings (weekly)- Literature Review on a topic in the field (selected by student)
  19. 19. use of “ten steps" 1. Design Learning Tasks --> "most daunting" what does it mean by "authentic"; differs individually:: decided what the authentic task for- class is, and then found TIE to be useful to inform the design process. however, "a conflict" was found. 2. Sequence Task Classes --> a time factor; 3. Set Performance Objectives --> n/a 4. Design Supportive Information --> brainstorming mostly complete; only one type (eg. highlight) were actually developed by the project end but not implemented in FA11 onsite R711; instead a worksheet was used. 5. Analyze Cognitive Strategies --> n/a 6. Analyze Mental Models --> n/a 7. Design Procedural Information --> brainstormed 8. Analyze Cognitive Rules --> n/a 9. Analyze Prerequisite Knowledge --> thought of... but not completely 10. Design Part-task Practice --> brainstormed; APA practice were implemented==> would this sound too "evaluative"===> sequentially address the challenges?