Instructional Design Model
Instructional Design Model
& Grant Challenge
Volunteer Today. Sign up to learn, lead, and share with peers.
The (Draft) EduJedi Instructional Design Model Program with Grant Challenge
Volunteer and EduJedi leadership will coordinate and send selected invitations.
Sign up for a Part 1 Administrator Call. The purpose of the virtual meeting call is to discuss differences because of ed-tech maturity in instructional design models.
Grant Challenge & Part 2 Teacher Call. Post the discussions in Part 1, the EduJedi will ask all participants to forward an invita-tion to several of their teachers to enter a sponsored contest and design two lessons using the two tracks of instructional design to win one of 3 prizes. Once recruited, the EduJedi will hold a briefing call with all teachers on the model to clear up questions.
EduJedi Model Grant Applications
■ Devise an Instructional Plan with Discovery Design
Evaluated on a scale of 10-points per 6 sections (60) with 5 bonus points for designing in an aspect of tech. For example, a nod to student’s logging in to a program and using some function, using an LMS, creating an activity with some hardware or high-tech instrument.
Participating educators will win grants coordinated through a school or district’s foundation.
1st Place - $2,000
2nd Place - $1,500
3rd Place - $1,000
EduJedi Achievement Badges
After administrator call and recruitment of teachers, this program will run for months to give plenty of time for teachers to create and submit before judging.
About the EduJedi Model
EduJedi vs. ADDIES
A New Model in Draft
This graphic at the top of this web page shows a draft model shift for instructional design that acknowledges new dynamics in learning because of technology. Ideologically, technology should make the jobs of both teaching and learning easier. A model needed to help answer, to make that true, and true in any type of arrangement of time and space between teachers and learners.
The EduJedi Model is the new “digital learning experience design model” to replace the now 45-year-old ADDIES model and others that are not quite acknowledging the shift to digital or student-driven journeys. Notice that it is a “learning experience” model, not an instructional design model, and that is just one of the many characteristics that diverge from the old ways. This new model is both more precise and more expansive and flexible.
Many educators have grappled with the differences between traditional instructional design and digital. Some educators have shoehorned-in digital with old models, but problems remain because old structures do not acknowledge key differences and potentials. Old design steps were linear, whereas digital and the Internet can be richly non-linear. The repercussions of this vast difference go largely unacknowledged in old instructional models.
Traditional instructional design focuses on the teacher and what the institution and teacher does, while digital learning experience design focuses on the student and what they do. This is important today because technology changes the potential modes of learning. Digital learning experience design capitalizes on the tech medium being the message1. It designs the student interaction with content in a way that personalizes and creates a concept of student self-direction, knowledge exploration, access and equity, while still potentially intersecting with live teaching based on design. A digital learning experience designer, which could be a planner or teacher, typically carries a high percentage of the action of teaching through the digital medium than live direct instruction by human teachers only. This leverage for human teachers and curriculum planners allows them to truly personalize learning paths based on interests, ability and pace, but still interweave some traditional lecture-style teaching and especially make time for hands-on and project-based learning because digital distribution should provide certain efficiencies.
There are fundamental differences in the models for instruction. Shown here graphically are the basics of the popular model of instruction, ADDIES2, and the new EduJedi model of digital learning experience design. The ADDIES model was developed by the US Army in 1975 for an age when the way we learned was simple and singular: “classroom, teacher, facing front in rows, be quiet, raise hands, take tests and more tests then PASS or FAIL.”3 Educators have lamented the fact that ADDIES isn’t even necessarily a “learning model,” but is more of a process model4 born of the industrial age for industrial-style conformity. Today’s enterprises are demanding more creativity from graduates, a trait often curtailed with years of learning under old models. Other educators have discussed the fact that ADDIES is focused on compliance and is painfully slow5, and inflexible6,7,8. In all, the design issues with old models keep mounting.
The EduJedi model is different than ADDIES in these ways:
1. Detaches the assumptions of place, time, teacher-centricity and prior structure to learning.
2. Allows for goal setting not restricted to “course” or “class” framework.
3. Provides for automated synchronicity between academic standards, pacing guides, teacher lesson calendaring and the parts of a lesson which are designated live interaction to a) be auto-calendared as learners achieve that point, and b) have auto-cohorting if all students are pacing independently.
4. Rather than a problem posing only by the instructional designer, allows for user problem-posing or question-oriented learning, and discovery-by-subject.
5. Acknowledges potential student discovery autonomy in defined knowledge domains or utilizing the entire Internet.
6. Acknowledges the emergence of academic standards of excellence.
7. Acknowledges the potential of multi-standard, cross-curricular address. Redefines access and equity as personal through a more relaxed structure that accounts for ability, interest, and self-pacing because of software capacities and the abundant immediacy and availability of knowledge digitally.
8. Ignores course ingredients of scheduling, instructors, location in favor of always accessible/ anywhere/virtual, live-chat or on-demand “Uberized” live direct instruction with advanced analytics notifications and messaging.
9. Sets up multiple levels of personalization: by personal subject interest, by position on master normative paths irrespective of age/grade, and by competency.
10. Disassembles over-organizing around teachers only, ridged schedules and step-by-step linearity to make way for “chunked” and expositional (experience) learning.
11. Provides a step for digital manipulations, simple within-a-master-system actions of text and sequencing, or full graphics up to virtual reality design or beyond.
12. Allows design models that capitalize on digital workflow and expression potentiality – uses the medium for its unique capacities.
13. Provides for the digital capacity of embedded formulative assessment as well as embedded summative assessment within fully designed subject courseware journeys or learning games.
14. Emphasizes the interjection of live activities in Step 3, which may be small group or whole group projects, traditional lecture attendance, or any hands-on learning.
15. The EduJedi model framers emphasize this for the continued relevance of schools through active community and learners being physically together rather than most learning being online/distance.
16. Allows iteration in implementation with the mention in Step 4 of the software development term “quality assurance (QA),” a modern software development term related to internal testing and pilots. In practice this is done for major systems, parts of systems, single-subject applications and at the lesson or course level.
17. Acknowledges independent learning paths potential in digital workflow, both by student-level goal setting and reference to use of auto-remediation, auto-recommendations (consumer shopping engines which present preset or key-word related options once a transaction is complete or as-you-are-shopping adapted in learning to present additional materials, more things to study, similar or adjacent lines of study, etc.) and auto-routing.
18. Acknowledges the ease of automating continuity and encouraging further study in digital at completion points with termination or continuance dynamics, whether by human interaction or automation.
19. Creates a faster design paradigm with less focus on compliance documentation, which adds cost and inhibits personalization.
5. Focuses on Compliance & is Painfully Slow, https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1365/marc-my-words-why-i-hate-...
6. Too inflexible for the Digital Age https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-t...
7. ADDIES too linear, restrictive when dealing with user generated content or learning outcomes that do not have a predetermined end state, assumes that you canknow all of the requirements in advance: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=2ahU...
8. ADDIES limits to learning, does not allow for working/learning: http://6321team3coopsummer2011.pbworks.com/w/page/40975014/The%20ADDIE%2...