Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Kim Pinckney-Lewis_OvalHeadshot Instructional Design Conceptual Framework …

- - - - Rationale: Needs assessment & empathic design as technologies/integral to the design process
- - - - Influence: Learning cannot take place without explicit and empathetic focus on the learner, their needs, their strengths, and expectations regarding their performance.
    - - Current definition:"Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources," (AECT, 2007).
        
        Influence:This definition explicitly calls out a focus on improving performance, which is important to me as an HPT practitioner.
      - 1977 definition: "Educational technology is a complex, integrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices, and organization for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems involved in all aspects of human learning," (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 270)
        
        Influence: This definition demonstrates the evolution within the field placing value on the systems in which learners must perform. It values all of the "moving parts" that can affect learning and performance. It also shows an emphasis on the processes that designers/practitioners leverage.
      - 1994 definition: "Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning," (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 9)
        
        Influence: This definition really speaks to the management domain, which in my opinion includes needs assessment, and diffusion of innovations. I also appreciate the explicit mention of evaluation since this is how we, as practitioners can show our value added.
    - - Influence: This is all about performance. As a practitioner, I see measurable results as the ultimate way to show and provide added value. It also clearly gives a nod to general systems theory with its reference to systemic concepts.
  - - - Rationale: I approach design and research thinking about all the moving parts. Needs assessment is sometimes a forgotten piece of the puzzle.
    - - Rationale: I acknowledge and value the constraints placed on the system, which in turn, affect the design process.
    - - Rationale: There are a number of different stakeholders to any educational system that must be valued and integrated into the design process. They can become early adopters, champions, etc.
- - - - Rationale:Design should not be done in a vacuum. Instead it should consider its purpose and function within the larger system within which it is intended to be used. Hall and Fagen (1958) describe a system as being “the set of all objects a change in whose attributes affect the system and also those objects whose attributes are changed by the behavior of the system” (p. 20). Taking a systemic view requires practitioners to recognize the subsystems within every organization such that implementing a change in one area will inevitably affect other areas (ISPI, 2013). All design is done with constraints, and it is the system that determines the constraints that will affect the design process. Constraints can be visualized in terms of how feasible, desirable, and viable a design is within a particular system (Brown, 2009).
    - - Rationale: What is learned, the rate at which it is learned, and how that learning is stored into schema is an individual process based on who the learner is. Each learner has various characteristics, including their background, cognitive entry behaviors (Bloom, 1976), and predisposition (Bruner, 1966) that help to shape how they approach and are receptive to the learning process. Norman (2003) would consider this to be a component of human centered design, which constitutes the design philosophy that puts “human needs, capabilities, and behavior first, then designs to accommodate those needs, capabilities, and ways of behaving,” (p.8). Specifically, we need to design for the learners as they are and not how we imagine them to be (Norman, 2003). From a learning standpoint, Cennamo and Kalk’s (2005) Layers of Negotiation Model of instructional design, focus on learners as whole people, moving beyond the demographics to analyze who they are in terms of their individual differences, hopes, dreams, and fears. Each of these aspects contribute to, if not constitute, the learning that will occur.
    - - Rationale:Relative advantage refers to “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea that it supersedes,” (Rogers, 2003, p. 212). This also aligns with the HPT standard to add value; practitioners must deliver interventions that noticeably and measurably shows an improvement in performance. Specifically, a range of solutions and their implications should be considered before being selected to allow the client to weigh their options based on the impact, cost, and risks associated (ISPI, 2013).