1A-Students will write a needs assessment: The assessment will be a rubric that contains an element for each component that should be included in a needs assessment report, with 3 levels of performance for each element (Excellent, Adequate, Needs Improvement). Each of the elements will contain criteria based on thoroughness, clarity, and that the needed information was represented. Other elements included would rate grammer, spelling, correct formatting, etc.
1B-Students will conduct a needs assessment: The assessment will be a combination of a checklist and a rubric. The checklist will identify whether specific tasks were performed or not. The rubric will rate how well the student performed the tasks that could be performed at various levels of quality (such as, did they ask the right questions, did they collect data in the most efficient manner, did they process the data to answer the questions it was intended to, etc.)
1C-Students will plan a needs assessment: The assessment will be an oral presentation of the plan. The student(s) will present the plan in a "proposal" format to the instructor. The student will be required to clearly explain how their plan is suited to their specific situation, and how their methods of data collection and analysis are appropriate and are the best choices. Then the instructor will ask the a series of questions to challenge their plan. The students will have to explain why the choices in their plan were the best choices.
2A-Students will write a research paper on Romeo and Juliet: A rubric will be used to assess the research paper. Students will be assessed on the following:
- did the paper answer the research question?
- did the paper make the points that needed to be made?
- did the paper adequately communicate the research found, why it's relevant, how it relates to the other research sources, etc.?
- did the paper follow the correct format, was grammatically correct, etc.?
2B-Students will research Romeo and Juliet: This assessment will be an observation checklist with additional comments to evaluate how the student(s) perform their research. The checklist will identify if the students developed a solid research question, sought information that is relevant to the research question, sought for information in the most appropriate locations, etc.
2C-Students will analyze Romeo and Juliet: This assessment would be an essay exam. The students will have been a series of points to consider. The essay questions will require that the student explain in their own words based on the analysis they had performed. The student responses will be graded on depth, breadth, and clarity.
3A-Students will reduce fractions: students will solve a set of problems on paper, providing all steps on paper. The responses will be graded on the steps taken to solve the problem as well as the final solution.
3B-Students will demonstrate how to reduce fractions: Students will individually work a fraction problem on the board, and verbally explain each step as they go. Students will be graded how clearly, thoroughly, and accurately they perform the task.
3C-Students will list the steps to reduce fractions: The students will be given a set of fractions, and then will document each step necessary to completely reduce each fraction. The instructor will read the list, then question the student on why they chose the order of steps that they did. The student will be graded on the initial list as well as their "defense" of the list.
3D-Students will identify reduced fractions: This assessment will be a worksheet that present the students with a series of fractions at various stages of being reduced. The student will circle the fractions that are completely reduced.
Students will UNDERSTAND cell division
4A-Students will MODEL cell division: a checklist will identify that each step is represented as the students demonstrate cell division using yarn and paper plates.
4B-Students will IDENTIFY stages of cell division: Students will match images of real cells to the appropriate stage.
4C-Students will EXPLAIN cell division: the students will be assessed with a checklist/rubric. The checklist will identify that the student mentioned the steps and in the correct order, the rubric will rate the quality of explanation (throroughness, clarity, etc.).
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sorbet for the brain?
My wife and I went to The Rancher's Club for our 6th anniversary dinner last weekend. This was my first restaurant experience to be given something to "cleanse my palette" before the main dish, in this case a small bowl of raspberry sorbet. So for some reason, during church the next morning I found myself pondering this whole cleansing the palette concept and an analogy to learning psychology donned on me. I've always found that I transition from working on stuff for one class to another class easier if I spend some time on a meaningless mental activity in between, like watching a reality TV show or something. I used to think I was procrastinating, but from now on I'm going to say that I'm "cleansing my cognitive palette"!
ID Research Precis 3
Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Smith and Ragan ID Model
ID Model
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Component Display Theory
ID Theory
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
David Merrill Biography
Biography
EDTC 5753
Mark Jones
M. David Merrill, PhD
Dr. David Merrill is one of the most influential names in the field of Instructional Design. For over four decades, Merrill has provided many contributions to Instructional Design. This is a brief summary of his background and accomplishments.
Dr. Merrill’s interest in instruction began while on his mission for the Mormon Church in 1959. The range of teaching abilities of the missionaries that he observed intrigued him. When he returned from his mission, he decided to pursue his interest in how to best teach people.
Merrill earned his bachelor’s in secondary education from BYU in 1961, and he earned his master’s and PhD from the University of Illinois in 1964. Throughout his preparation, however, he still felt that no one was directly addressing the issue of how to design effective instructional materials. This fact inspired his research and development that today qualifies him as a pathfinder in the field of Instructional Design.
Throughout his career, Dr. Merrill has developed or co-developed several Instructional Design theories, including Component Display Theory, Elaboration Theory (with Charles Reigeluth), and Instructional Transaction Theory (with the ID2 Research group). Component Display Theory is considered by Merrill to be a first generation ID theory and was based on Gagne’s conditions for learning. Instructional Transaction Theory, a second generation ID theory, is intended to provide the specificity lacking in CDT that is necessary to develop the components needed for creating instructional design expert systems, such as an instructional design algorithm and the construction of knowledge objects.
Merrill has also been a pioneer in the development of computer-based instruction. He led the team that developed an instructional authoring system known as TICCIT (Time-shared Interactive Computer Controlled Information Television), which was funded by the NSF. TICCIT has served as a benchmark in many ways to the development of CAI systems today.
Merrill has provided his knowledge and expertise to several academic institutions and corporations. Merrill has been a faculty member for Utah State University since 1987 where he is now an emeritus professor. Other academic institutions he has worked with include the University of Southern California, Brigham Young University, and George Peabody College for Teachers. He has also taught in several institutions internationally, such as Twente University in The Netherlands, and the University of Indonesia. Corporately, Merrill has provided leadership for educational technology companies, including being founder, director, and president of Microteacher, Inc., as well as being founder, director, and Vice President for Research for Courseware, Inc.
Today, Dr. Merrill independently contracts himself as an instructional effectiveness consultant. He has held many major instructional consulting contracts throughout his career, including Arthur Anderson & Company, IBM, the US Air Force Human Resources Lab, and United Airlines Services Corporation. His major research contracts have included the National Science Foundation, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, US Air Force, US Department of Defense, Apple Computer Corporation, and others.
As stated earlier, Dr. Merrill has been a pathfinder in Instructional Design. This is exemplified by the fact that he founded and directed the Instructional Science Department as well as the Division of Instructional Research, Development, and Evaluation at BYU. Merrill has been a prolific author on topics related to Instructional Design. His publications include 12 books, 65 journal articles, 16 book chapters, 123 technical reports, and more. He has also performed work on 18 instructional computer products and expert system prototypes.
Merrill is widely considered one of the founding fathers to the field of instructional design. Just as a father laments seeing his child go astray, Merrill has expressed his disappointment in how the field has moved towards a philosophical base. Merrill firmly believes that designing instruction should rely on scientifically proven methods and procedures. These feelings were outlined clearly in one of the most often quoted instructional design articles, “Reclaiming Instructional Design”, which “threw down the gauntlet” on what Instructional Design should and should not be. He best summarizes his thoughts with the statement. “It is possible to know where we are going. We still have a long way to go, but abandoning the path of scientific method and following the uncertain wilderness of philosophical relativism will distract us from our goal and unnecessarily delay our journey” (Merrill, 1996).
Dr. Merrill now resides in Kahuku, Hawaii with his wife Dixie where he works with BYU Hawaii. They have 6 children and 24 grandchildren. His birthday is March 27th (which is 4 days after mine).
References:
Merrill, D., Drake L., Lacy M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Merrill, D. (n.d.). M. david merrill resume. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/resume.htm.
Morad, O. A. (1997). Research project. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm.
Instructional Technology Global Resource Network, (n.d.). Merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, From
http://www.ittheory.com/merrill.htm.
Amazon, (n.d.). Profile for m. david merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
From http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A32KC62XUJ7YW6/104-2486362-5056749.
EDTC 5753
Mark Jones
M. David Merrill, PhD
Dr. David Merrill is one of the most influential names in the field of Instructional Design. For over four decades, Merrill has provided many contributions to Instructional Design. This is a brief summary of his background and accomplishments.
Dr. Merrill’s interest in instruction began while on his mission for the Mormon Church in 1959. The range of teaching abilities of the missionaries that he observed intrigued him. When he returned from his mission, he decided to pursue his interest in how to best teach people.
Merrill earned his bachelor’s in secondary education from BYU in 1961, and he earned his master’s and PhD from the University of Illinois in 1964. Throughout his preparation, however, he still felt that no one was directly addressing the issue of how to design effective instructional materials. This fact inspired his research and development that today qualifies him as a pathfinder in the field of Instructional Design.
Throughout his career, Dr. Merrill has developed or co-developed several Instructional Design theories, including Component Display Theory, Elaboration Theory (with Charles Reigeluth), and Instructional Transaction Theory (with the ID2 Research group). Component Display Theory is considered by Merrill to be a first generation ID theory and was based on Gagne’s conditions for learning. Instructional Transaction Theory, a second generation ID theory, is intended to provide the specificity lacking in CDT that is necessary to develop the components needed for creating instructional design expert systems, such as an instructional design algorithm and the construction of knowledge objects.
Merrill has also been a pioneer in the development of computer-based instruction. He led the team that developed an instructional authoring system known as TICCIT (Time-shared Interactive Computer Controlled Information Television), which was funded by the NSF. TICCIT has served as a benchmark in many ways to the development of CAI systems today.
Merrill has provided his knowledge and expertise to several academic institutions and corporations. Merrill has been a faculty member for Utah State University since 1987 where he is now an emeritus professor. Other academic institutions he has worked with include the University of Southern California, Brigham Young University, and George Peabody College for Teachers. He has also taught in several institutions internationally, such as Twente University in The Netherlands, and the University of Indonesia. Corporately, Merrill has provided leadership for educational technology companies, including being founder, director, and president of Microteacher, Inc., as well as being founder, director, and Vice President for Research for Courseware, Inc.
Today, Dr. Merrill independently contracts himself as an instructional effectiveness consultant. He has held many major instructional consulting contracts throughout his career, including Arthur Anderson & Company, IBM, the US Air Force Human Resources Lab, and United Airlines Services Corporation. His major research contracts have included the National Science Foundation, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, US Air Force, US Department of Defense, Apple Computer Corporation, and others.
As stated earlier, Dr. Merrill has been a pathfinder in Instructional Design. This is exemplified by the fact that he founded and directed the Instructional Science Department as well as the Division of Instructional Research, Development, and Evaluation at BYU. Merrill has been a prolific author on topics related to Instructional Design. His publications include 12 books, 65 journal articles, 16 book chapters, 123 technical reports, and more. He has also performed work on 18 instructional computer products and expert system prototypes.
Merrill is widely considered one of the founding fathers to the field of instructional design. Just as a father laments seeing his child go astray, Merrill has expressed his disappointment in how the field has moved towards a philosophical base. Merrill firmly believes that designing instruction should rely on scientifically proven methods and procedures. These feelings were outlined clearly in one of the most often quoted instructional design articles, “Reclaiming Instructional Design”, which “threw down the gauntlet” on what Instructional Design should and should not be. He best summarizes his thoughts with the statement. “It is possible to know where we are going. We still have a long way to go, but abandoning the path of scientific method and following the uncertain wilderness of philosophical relativism will distract us from our goal and unnecessarily delay our journey” (Merrill, 1996).
Dr. Merrill now resides in Kahuku, Hawaii with his wife Dixie where he works with BYU Hawaii. They have 6 children and 24 grandchildren. His birthday is March 27th (which is 4 days after mine).
References:
Merrill, D., Drake L., Lacy M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Merrill, D. (n.d.). M. david merrill resume. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/resume.htm.
Morad, O. A. (1997). Research project. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
from http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm.
Instructional Technology Global Resource Network, (n.d.). Merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, From
http://www.ittheory.com/merrill.htm.
Amazon, (n.d.). Profile for m. david merrill. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006,
From http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A32KC62XUJ7YW6/104-2486362-5056749.
A Conversation with David Merrill
While finding information to write the biography about David Merrill, I came across this transcript of a phone interview that a student had with Dr. Merrill. I wanted to post it here for anyone else interested in reading it. It is very interesting.
http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm#_Toc402250328
http://research.umbc.edu/~hodell/602rp5.htm#_Toc402250328
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Unit Outline
Each lesson contains 2 components: Instruction (I) and Application (A)
L1: What is an instructional website?
I- present examples, best practices, etc.
A- students will evaluate 3 sites based on best practices criteria
L2: HTML Primer
I- html basic info and html tags reference, website file structure
A- students will identify html tags, relative, and absolute references on an example document
L3: Introduction to WebQuests
I- Characteristics of a WebQuest, Browse examples of webquests on webquest.org site
A- Students will complete beginning stages of planning their own WebQuest: Intro and Task
L4: Frontpage Basics
I- information of frontpage basics, tutorials on AtomicLearning.com
A- step-by-step walkthrough to create a WebQuest template page using FrontPage
L5: Creating a WebQuest
I- WebQuest strategies, continued
A- Students use the template page created in lesson 4 to create a complete WebQuest
L1: What is an instructional website?
I- present examples, best practices, etc.
A- students will evaluate 3 sites based on best practices criteria
L2: HTML Primer
I- html basic info and html tags reference, website file structure
A- students will identify html tags, relative, and absolute references on an example document
L3: Introduction to WebQuests
I- Characteristics of a WebQuest, Browse examples of webquests on webquest.org site
A- Students will complete beginning stages of planning their own WebQuest: Intro and Task
L4: Frontpage Basics
I- information of frontpage basics, tutorials on AtomicLearning.com
A- step-by-step walkthrough to create a WebQuest template page using FrontPage
L5: Creating a WebQuest
I- WebQuest strategies, continued
A- Students use the template page created in lesson 4 to create a complete WebQuest
Course Design Documents
I've had these on the wiki, but thought I'd get them posted here also.
Needs Assessment:
The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education issue a warranty on the teachers produced by OSU that guarantees that they are fully prepared to teach in the 21st century classroom. This warranty is based on the 15 Oklahoma General Competencies for Teacher Licensure and Certification, of which includes the following:
4. The teacher understands curriculum integration processes and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills and effective use of technology.
Also, the The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers defines the following standards as being necessary for all teachers:
1 TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND CONCEPTS. Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: ? demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students) ? demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.
2 PLANNING AND DESIGNING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND EXPERIENCES. Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: ? design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. ? apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. ? identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. ? plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. ? plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
3 TEACHING, LEARNING, AND THE CURRICULUM. Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: ? facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. ? use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. ? apply technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity. ? manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
4 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION. Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: ? apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. ? use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. ? apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
5 PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: ? use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. ? continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. ? apply technology to increase productivity. ? use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
6 SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES. Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Teachers: ? model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. ? apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. ? identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity ? promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. ? facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Additionally, Oklahoma State University Professional Education Unit requires that all teacher candidates to meet the OSU L.E.A.D.S core values in order to be recommended for teacher certification. Included in LEADS is the following core value:
Technology - The Professional Education Unit prepares candidates who understand technology as a complex integrated process for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems in situations in which learning is purposive and controlled. The candidates are able to use technology to help all students/clients by providing a conceptual understanding of how knowledge, skills and dispositions related to education and information technology and instructional technology are integrated throughout the curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practices, assessments and evaluations.
Considering the combination of the Oklahoma General Competencies, ISTE NETS-T, and the OSU core values, a clear need is determined for this instruction to prepare teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum.
Another consideration of need for this instruction is the method of delivery. EDTC 3123 has always been offered in a traditional lab environment. However, to be able to offer at least one section of this course online would be of great benefit to students who have difficulty, for whatever reason, taking the traditional course.
Learner Analysis:
The learners in this instruction are nearly all pursuing a teacher certification. When they take EDTC 3123, some have already been admitted to the Professional Education Unit, but many have not. However, most have decided on a specific teacher certification program, and identify themselves by that criteria (i.e. elementary, secondary science, etc.) The learners are mostly Caucasian, and there are generally more females than males. Most are traditional students, ranging in age from 20 to 35 (estimated upper limit). Most of the learners live on or near campus, but a few commute for nearby locations. Most of these learners carry a full-time class schedule, and many also work part-time.
The learners enter this course with a wide range of technology and teaching experience. Many have had previous computer applications coursework, either in high school or college, or have experience through personal use. Many of the learners have used word processors and presentation software in the past, but fewer of them have a working knowledge of spreadsheets, databases, and other non-entertainment technologies. Most are avid consumers of multimedia, and a few have experience in authoring multimedia. Most do have experience with online communication, including email and chat, and some have experience with discussion boards or listservs. Most have little or no experience in designing and developing instruction, especially with the integration of technology. The learners also have very limited prior knowledge in copyright and other legal issues of educational technology.
Context Analysis:
EDTC 3123 is offered each fall and spring semester, during the regular 16 week blocks. The course is a regular education course, and requires that traditional letter grades be assigned (A, B, C, D, or F) according to performance on course assignments and assessments. Students must earn a C or better in order for the course to count towards completion of their program.
The instruction will be delivered online via Blackboard, a web-based course management system. The course content will be organized into modules, and each module will contain links to other online resources (such as Atomic Learning tutorials), as well as to assessments served within Blackboard. All students will be required to have Internet access to complete the instruction.
EDTC 3123 Course Objectives
Terminal Objective: The student will effectively integrate technology into his/her curriculum.
Enabling Objectives:
The student will demonstrate a basic level of computer competency.
The student will design a lesson that integrates word processing.
The student will design a lesson that integrates desktop publishing.
The student will compare and contrast classroom software.
The student will design a lesson that integrates spreadsheets/databases.
The student will design a lesson that integrates presentation software.
The student will teach with a multimedia presentation.
The student will author an original educational multimedia product.
The student will apply copyright laws to classroom situations.
The student will demonstrate efficient Internet search strategies.
The student will design a lesson that integrates Internet resources.
The student will design and develop a website-based lesson.
EDTC 3123 Course Outline
Unit 1: Computer basics
Unit 2: Designing Lesson Plans
Unit 3: Integrating Word Processing
Unit 4: Integrating Desktop Publishing
Unit 5: Evaluation Classroom Software
Unit 6: Integrating Spreadsheets and Databases
Unit 7: Integrating Presentation Software
Unit 8: Integrating Multimedia
Unit 9: Understanding Copyright and other Legal and Ethical Issues of Educational Technology
Unit 10: Integrating Internet Resources
Unit 11: Integrating Web Design
Needs Assessment:
The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education issue a warranty on the teachers produced by OSU that guarantees that they are fully prepared to teach in the 21st century classroom. This warranty is based on the 15 Oklahoma General Competencies for Teacher Licensure and Certification, of which includes the following:
4. The teacher understands curriculum integration processes and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills and effective use of technology.
Also, the The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers defines the following standards as being necessary for all teachers:
1 TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND CONCEPTS. Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: ? demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students) ? demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.
2 PLANNING AND DESIGNING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND EXPERIENCES. Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: ? design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. ? apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. ? identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. ? plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. ? plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
3 TEACHING, LEARNING, AND THE CURRICULUM. Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: ? facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. ? use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. ? apply technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity. ? manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
4 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION. Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: ? apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. ? use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. ? apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
5 PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: ? use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. ? continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. ? apply technology to increase productivity. ? use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
6 SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES. Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Teachers: ? model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. ? apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. ? identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity ? promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. ? facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Additionally, Oklahoma State University Professional Education Unit requires that all teacher candidates to meet the OSU L.E.A.D.S core values in order to be recommended for teacher certification. Included in LEADS is the following core value:
Technology - The Professional Education Unit prepares candidates who understand technology as a complex integrated process for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems in situations in which learning is purposive and controlled. The candidates are able to use technology to help all students/clients by providing a conceptual understanding of how knowledge, skills and dispositions related to education and information technology and instructional technology are integrated throughout the curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practices, assessments and evaluations.
Considering the combination of the Oklahoma General Competencies, ISTE NETS-T, and the OSU core values, a clear need is determined for this instruction to prepare teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum.
Another consideration of need for this instruction is the method of delivery. EDTC 3123 has always been offered in a traditional lab environment. However, to be able to offer at least one section of this course online would be of great benefit to students who have difficulty, for whatever reason, taking the traditional course.
Learner Analysis:
The learners in this instruction are nearly all pursuing a teacher certification. When they take EDTC 3123, some have already been admitted to the Professional Education Unit, but many have not. However, most have decided on a specific teacher certification program, and identify themselves by that criteria (i.e. elementary, secondary science, etc.) The learners are mostly Caucasian, and there are generally more females than males. Most are traditional students, ranging in age from 20 to 35 (estimated upper limit). Most of the learners live on or near campus, but a few commute for nearby locations. Most of these learners carry a full-time class schedule, and many also work part-time.
The learners enter this course with a wide range of technology and teaching experience. Many have had previous computer applications coursework, either in high school or college, or have experience through personal use. Many of the learners have used word processors and presentation software in the past, but fewer of them have a working knowledge of spreadsheets, databases, and other non-entertainment technologies. Most are avid consumers of multimedia, and a few have experience in authoring multimedia. Most do have experience with online communication, including email and chat, and some have experience with discussion boards or listservs. Most have little or no experience in designing and developing instruction, especially with the integration of technology. The learners also have very limited prior knowledge in copyright and other legal issues of educational technology.
Context Analysis:
EDTC 3123 is offered each fall and spring semester, during the regular 16 week blocks. The course is a regular education course, and requires that traditional letter grades be assigned (A, B, C, D, or F) according to performance on course assignments and assessments. Students must earn a C or better in order for the course to count towards completion of their program.
The instruction will be delivered online via Blackboard, a web-based course management system. The course content will be organized into modules, and each module will contain links to other online resources (such as Atomic Learning tutorials), as well as to assessments served within Blackboard. All students will be required to have Internet access to complete the instruction.
EDTC 3123 Course Objectives
Terminal Objective: The student will effectively integrate technology into his/her curriculum.
Enabling Objectives:
The student will demonstrate a basic level of computer competency.
The student will design a lesson that integrates word processing.
The student will design a lesson that integrates desktop publishing.
The student will compare and contrast classroom software.
The student will design a lesson that integrates spreadsheets/databases.
The student will design a lesson that integrates presentation software.
The student will teach with a multimedia presentation.
The student will author an original educational multimedia product.
The student will apply copyright laws to classroom situations.
The student will demonstrate efficient Internet search strategies.
The student will design a lesson that integrates Internet resources.
The student will design and develop a website-based lesson.
EDTC 3123 Course Outline
Unit 1: Computer basics
Unit 2: Designing Lesson Plans
Unit 3: Integrating Word Processing
Unit 4: Integrating Desktop Publishing
Unit 5: Evaluation Classroom Software
Unit 6: Integrating Spreadsheets and Databases
Unit 7: Integrating Presentation Software
Unit 8: Integrating Multimedia
Unit 9: Understanding Copyright and other Legal and Ethical Issues of Educational Technology
Unit 10: Integrating Internet Resources
Unit 11: Integrating Web Design
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Instructional Strategies
Unit Objective: Students will develop an instructional website.
Assessment: A rubric will be applied to assess the website created by the student that will consider instructional quality, overall design, and functionality.
Instructional Strategies:
1. Non-examples
A technique used in direct instruction to help students distinguish between similar concepts. [to make clear what an INSTRUCTIONAL website is]
2. Six Thinking Hats
A metacognitive strategy that encourages people to look at concepts from different perspectives. Each hat represents a mode of thinking. The white hat = look at data, red = feelings, black = judgment, yellow = positive attitude, green = creativity, blue = overview. [groups of students will cooperatively compare the quality of currently online instructional websites]
3. Demonstration [to show students how to click the buttons to make the website]
4. Active Learning
Any approach that engages learners by matching instruction to the learner's interests, understanding, and developmental level. Often includes hands-on and authentic activities. [students build a website that they would actually expect to use in their classroom]
5. Microteaching
A form of practice teaching in which the student prepares a short (6-15 minute) lesson and presents the lesson to peers for constructive evaluation.
Introduction to Microteaching [students will demonstrate their website]]
6. Closure
Any activities which help students summarize key points learned and how the new knowledge relates to the objectives to be learned. [students will reflect on their own as well as other students’ websites]
Assessment: A rubric will be applied to assess the website created by the student that will consider instructional quality, overall design, and functionality.
Instructional Strategies:
1. Non-examples
A technique used in direct instruction to help students distinguish between similar concepts. [to make clear what an INSTRUCTIONAL website is]
2. Six Thinking Hats
A metacognitive strategy that encourages people to look at concepts from different perspectives. Each hat represents a mode of thinking. The white hat = look at data, red = feelings, black = judgment, yellow = positive attitude, green = creativity, blue = overview. [groups of students will cooperatively compare the quality of currently online instructional websites]
3. Demonstration [to show students how to click the buttons to make the website]
4. Active Learning
Any approach that engages learners by matching instruction to the learner's interests, understanding, and developmental level. Often includes hands-on and authentic activities. [students build a website that they would actually expect to use in their classroom]
5. Microteaching
A form of practice teaching in which the student prepares a short (6-15 minute) lesson and presents the lesson to peers for constructive evaluation.
Introduction to Microteaching [students will demonstrate their website]]
6. Closure
Any activities which help students summarize key points learned and how the new knowledge relates to the objectives to be learned. [students will reflect on their own as well as other students’ websites]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
