Two Peer Responses Needed, writing homework help

Anonymous

Question Description

I have to respond to two peers initial post, so I am attaching the guidelines for the responses and I will upload the two peers I want a response to. I will also upload our first chapter from our book and my initial post to help with the responses.

Guidelines -

Post a substantive response to the initial posts of at least two of your colleagues. Were your categorizations of the two models with the ADDIE framework similar or different? Did your peers offer an adequate justification of the preference between the two models? Remember that it is okay to disagree or challenge ideas within a scholarly debate.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Initial Post Guidelines ADDIE is not necessarily an instructional design model, but rather a broad framework in which all instructional design models can be included. Working with this assertion that ADDIE is a broad framework, analyze how the System’s Approach (Dick & Carey) and the Instructional Design Plan (Kemp, Morrison, and Ross) fit within the ADDIE framework. Justify why you do or do not have a preference between the 1) Dick and Carey or 2) Kemp, Morrison, and Ross models. You may respond to this discussion in any format you wish, as long as each of the required components is included. If you choose to respond in a format other than text, you can attach the document (picture, presentation, etc.) to your discussion post. If you choose a format hosted on the internet (video, VoiceThread, etc.), post the link within the discussion box. Ensure that the project is publicly available or provide the required access info. My Initial Post Week One Discussion One Approaches to Instructional Design Analysis, Design, Development, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) is an instructional design process which includes other models such as Dick and Carey and Kemp or MRK (Morrison, Ross, and Kemp) model (Brown & Green, 2011). ADDIE model is most popular in organizational and business environments. Dick and Carey and MRK system are standard in school and educational settings. Additionally, MRK model is essential in project planning and management (Clark, 2004). Dick and Carey ISD model has ten elements. The first component is defining instructional goals which define what learners should do and expected objectives after completion of the instruction. Then follows identification of what students need to know to fill the performance gap, conduct instructional analysis. The third component entails determining entry behaviors; this is analyzing learner’s skills, motivation levels and experience about what should be learned. Addie phase two has to identify of entry behavior and objectives. The third component enables the instructors to decide at which point the learning process will begin. The fourth element is a description of skills to be learned, circumstances under which they should be learned and set standards. The fifth component entails development of assessment instruments to evaluate the learning process (Dick & Carey, 2000). The remaining five components of Dick and Carey includes coming up with instructional strategy. Development and selection of instructional materials are next based on the broader ADDIE framework phase three. Basing on ADDIE framework formative and summative evaluations is conducted. Formative evaluation is conducted by use of interview groups to determine areas of improvement. The summative analysis determines the overall success of the program. The last component involves revising the instruction based on the analysis in the eighth and ninth element. ADDIE model comprises of evaluation and control phase five that entails internal and external analysis this informs Dick and Carey components. After the evaluation, the system is revised (Clark, 2004). Kemp, Morrison, and Ross model fit in the ADDIE framework. The model based on four interrelated components learners, objectives, methods and evaluation which expand to make nine elements. The first part entails determining the problem and identifying the most appropriate solution. The second part involves learners and contexts such as preferences, styles, consider gender, ethnicity among others and how they relate to the instructional design. Then the instructor conducts a task analysis defining the knowledge and procedures to include in the design (Murray & Bloom, n.d). Instructional objectives informed by ADDIE phase two from the fourth component which should be measurable and achievable. The fifth element is content sequencing a combination of task analysis and development of objectives. The remaining parts are developing instructional strategies, message, and instruction such as video and audio recordings. Lastly, about ADDIE framework phase five, evaluation of the learners against set objectives. Formative and summative evaluations are among the processes conducted within the model. I would prefer Kemp, Morrison and Ross model to Dick and Carey since the instruction is analyzed from a learner’s perspective. The process is a continuous refinement. The model has no definite end or start point, and the flexibility allows an instructor to begin the session based on identified need or problem. The model is more advantageous to instructors with less experience (Ma, 2007). References Brown, A. & Green, T. (2011) The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Clark, D.R. (2004). ADDIE timeline Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html#model Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2000). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company. Ma, Y. A. (2007). Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in distance education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. Murray, S., & Bloom, S. (n.d.). Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/mrkmodel/ 1st Peers Initial Post – B. The acronym ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) is a popular framework within which to map out the various elements that make up Instructional Design (Brown and Green, 2011). As educators develop concepts of how the process of Instructional Design works, they have come up with different plans and approaches that rearrange or elaborate on the different elements in various ways. One example is the Systems Approach, also know as Dick & Carey. This model sets out a linear process with multiple steps from identifying instructional goals through writing performance objectives, developing instructional strategies, and other leading to evaluation. Throughout, the emphasis is on refining and improving the instruction rather than focusing solely on how well the learner performs. While the titles of the steps differ from those used in ADDIE, they fall into the same categories. Another example is the Kemp, Morrison, and Ross Instructional Design Plan. This model is decidedly non-linear. Instead of proceeding from one stage to another, various elements of the instructional design process are arranged in a circle, surrounded by layered rings of planning, revision, evaluation, project management, and support services (Murray and Bloom, n.d.). Rather than addressing different elements in a particular order, instructional designers may use a particular element at any point in the process. Like the Systems Approach, the Instructional Design Plan uses its own names for the different elements. However they also fall into the same categories of ADDIE. Although I have never consciously used either model, I think my experience of Instructional Design is more like the Instructional Design Plan than the Systems Approach. My large projects go through many iterations of design and review, throughout which we use both input from regulatory bodies, and employees' test results to determine where we need changes or improvement. When employees score less than 90% on a particular test question, we know that either the content needs to change (particular points emphasized, a different way of presenting the information, etc.), the test question is badly written, or both. Research on Learner Characteristics has happened at multiple points in the process, both as I watch new employees take the courses I create during Network General Orientation, and through soliciting feedback from existing employees. Although we do only one major revision a year, I am always thinking of how I can change things to make our education more effective and enjoyable. I am very comfortable with non-linear thinking, so the flexible nature of the Instructional Design Plan also appeals to me. However, I can appreciate how the clarity and step-by-step nature of the Systems Approach could be extremely useful, particularly when you have more than one person working on a particular piece of education. I think it comes down to what best suits the needs of a particular project. Brown, A. & Green, T. (2011). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Murray, S., & Bloom, S. (n.d.). Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Retrieved from http://insdsg619.wikispaces.com/Morrison 2nd Peers Initial Post - D The most popular approach to Instructional Design is broken into a three step process which includes: 1. Analyze the situation to determine what instruction is necessary and what steps need to be taken to deliver that instruction. 2. Produce and implement the instructional design. 3. Evaluate the results of implementing the instructional design. The process is the acronym known as the ADDIE (Dick & Carey), which it is described into five actions known as 1. Analyze; instructional goals and objectives are identified 2. Design; learning objectives, assessment instruments, exercises, content, subject matter analysis, lesson planning and media selection. The design phase should be systematic and specific. Systematic means a logical, orderly method of identifying, developing and evaluating a set of planned strategies targeted for attaining the project's goals. Specific means each element of the instructional design plan needs to be executed with attention to details. 3. Develop; developers create and assemble the content assets that were created in the design phase. Programmers work to develop and/or integrate technologies. 4. Implement; procedure for training the facilitators and the learners is developed. The facilitators' training should cover the course curriculum, learning outcomes, method of delivery, and testing procedures. Preparation of the learners include training them on new tools (software or hardware), student registration. This is also the phase where the project manager ensures that the books, hands on equipment, tools, CD-ROMs and software are in place, and that the learning application or Web site is functional. 5. Evaluate; consists of two parts: formative and summative. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for domain specific criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users. Another Instructional Design model is the Instructional Design Plan (Kemp, Morrison, and Ross) which contains nine elements known as: 1. Identify instructional problems and specify goals for designing instruction. 2. Examine learner characteristics that will influence your instructional decisions. 3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes. 4. Specify the instructional objectives. 5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning. 6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives. 7. Plan the instructional message and develop the instruction. 8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess the objectives. 9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities. (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, pp. 7–8) I do not have a preference for either models since I do not have any experience from the perspective as an ID. I will say that as a teacher, we use both of the models not from an ID standpoint but from a teacher's approach to teaching lessons from a curriculum. When we are given a learning goal such as teaching fractions to meet the Common Core Standards or the College and Career Readiness Standards, it is up to us to create how we are going to present the lesson, with what materials, using a variety of guided lessons or different learning strategies to meet the learning types. Teachers then need to create weekly rubrics, evaluate and assess if students have met the learning objectives through a variety of instructional tools. If not, they then try other teaching tools and strategies such as technology until the student(s) has met the goals. So, I feel like I pull from both models as a teacher to meet the needs of my students. References Brown, A. & Green, T. (2011). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Culatta, R. (2013). Instructional Design: ADDIE Model. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/addie.html ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

chriss200
School: University of Maryland

Attached.

Response to peer one
The discussion was on how Dick and Carey model and Kemp, Morrison, and Ross fit in
ADDIE framework. Our categorization is similar in that we all placed the two models within the
ADDIE framework. My argument was based on evaluating the instructional system components
and the ones of ADDIE framework similar to peer. We both agreed that despite the different
names used in the model and ADDIE framework, the components reflect the same thing.
Additionally, Kemp, Morrison and Ross model despite being nonlinear still fits in the ADDIE
framework. Hence, the models fi...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors