Reflections on CDD & Instructional design

CDD and Instructional Design- Reflective Commentary
Reflect on your instructional design process and conceptions by providing responses (approx. 200 words each, excluding references) to the following statements. Even though you are now reflecting on the course as a whole and final completion of your CDD, we encourage you to continue to express any doubts or questions about your design, the role of learning theory, etc; maintaining self- critique of actions and understanding are a healthy sign of reflective thinking and commitment to excellence. Wherever possible, cite a source (from the course readings, others' discussion forum postings, or elsewhere, using APA format) to support your response:
1. There were strategies, resources, and processes that I found really helpful as I constructed my Course Development Document, and others that did not work for me.
Some of the resources that I found useful:
Practically based papers which are reviews of information about successful e-learning eg (Leeder, 2000) or reminders about what works well in quality courses(Herrington, 2001).
Modelling on courses already set up (such as ours)
Discussion with my peers both in the course – thank you especially, Robyn- and other teachers that I interact with.
The Nunes paper which clarified that constructivism and objectivism are not dichotomous but are part of a continuum(Nunes, 2003): it is not one or the other but what works.
Readings about what makes a successful course (eg (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996)

The strategies and processes that didn’t work for me:
First is a big complaint: I think that there is over-use of unnecessarily opaque, new, silly language in the whole field of e-learning. New language makes us feel that we are doing something that is different, better and more special than the old ways…but are we? For example, why on earth is “repurposing learning objects(Gunn, 2007)” not just “adapting useful media?” The difference in language styles between those who actually seem to personally have to make a course work (in a topic other than learning theory) (Leeder, 2000) and those who write about it is striking.
But, more importantly, language can involve us, intrigue us- or repel us. If the issue is the communication of ideas, for better teaching of health professionals and therefore better outcomes for patients, then some of this language won’t do. I have definitely been repelled.
It was surprisingly difficult to find real learning objects as opposed to those that people wrote about, even in the creative commons/e-ward areas. In the end I used an existing resource for my learning object: a CD of interviews of children & adolescents which can be watched to gain an understanding of the issues faced by the person. I think it might be the case that if I want a learning object, I will have to make it.

I also found the Cecil processes quite difficult for communication, although I am using Cecil for my own courses. For example, the different areas which you have to click on separately (questions, discussions etc) – I didn’t even realise there was some info in questions about the CDDs and because I had to click on another button in Slow Cecil I didn’t realise Sanya had posted quite a lot of stuff in her blog.

2. Considering my project and the various elements of e-learning that I explored in this course, the depiction or metaphor for instructional design that I created in Module 9 provides a useful model of instructional design and the role it plays in teaching, learning, and professional development.
Instructional design is the yeast that allows a loaf to rise. If the yeast is allowed to dominate the process the bread is high & beautiful but empty and lacking substance. If there is too little yeast the loaf may be full of good things but it is flat, unappealing and no-one wants to eat it.

Bread may be made by a cookbook – or even in a bread machine - but the best loaves are developed from yeasts made up of natural organisms from the air around us. These “wild yeasts” may be more difficult to handle but the result is one of a better structured, better tasting loaf more adapted to local tastes

The loaf of a successful learning experience is made of simple materials: only flour, water and yeast. It takes time, energy (kneading) and practice and tastes differently depending on where it comes from and who has put it together.


I was very resistant to completing this task. I haven’t found the drawing programmes useful and I don’t want to spend time learning how to use them. For my own learning, the module diagrams in our course about where we were complete with flashing arrows didn’t help orient me: I don’t think I learn with pictures.

I hate “theories that cover everything” and I think that this is what is being requested here. And I also hate empty words. Therefore, I think my bread metaphor is extremely apt and useful for me, although I am very aware some will find it irrelevant for them. Above all it is a practical metaphor – the theory is secondary to the practise of making bread. I also like the fact that anyone can make bread, but only people who pay close attention to the mix and adapt it to the circumstances (the learners, the environment) will make bread that everyone wants to eat and that sustains them for long journeys. And there is still the element of quality – striving for the perfect loaf, the perfect combination. (By the way, I don’t actually make bread.)

3. The strategy underlying my learning design reflects the view of teaching and learning evidenced by my Teaching Perspectives Inventory results, but also reflects new insights I have gained into clinical education, e-learning, and instructional design.
I still don’t approve of the TPI, and I don’t want to keep reviewing my results on something I don’t regard as a validated tool for the assessment of instruction styles. I think that my learning design reflects a balance of a style of transmission, apprenticeship learning and a developmental approach. Feedback on my CDD from Robyn made me consider whether I am as nurturing as I think I am – the answer is clearly “no” and some of the strategies for introductions and supports are adapted with this in mind. I have been communicating more with my current students this year via Cecil (they are distance students who come for block courses) .
I have tried to emphasise the learning that happens between learners, since that has been an interesting and very helpful part of this course and I think that this is an area I have under-used previously. I have enjoyed using some of the web-based methods which have been new to me and think that these might have appeal for communication strategies for some of my students, along with Cecil discussion.
I liked Oliver’s 2006 statement that has been included in Module 10: (Can’t find the reference) regarding e-learning: nothing has changed, but everything is different.


References
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996, September 6, 2006). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. TLT Group, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html
Gunn, C., Woodgate, S, O'Grady, W. (2007). Repurposing learning objects: a sustainable alternative? [Electronic Version]. ALT-J research in Learning Technology, 13, 189-200.
Herrington, A., Herrington, J, Oliver, R, Stoney, S, Willis, J. . (2001). Quality guidelines for online courses: The development of an instrument to audit online units [Electronic Version]. Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2001, 263-270.
Leeder, D. (2000). From Linear Lecture To Interactive Multimedia Module: A Developer's Perspective. Educational Media International, 37(4), 219-224.
Nunes, M., McPherson, M. (2003). Constructivism vs objectivism:Where is difference for Designers of e-learning environments. Paper presented at the The 3rd IEEE International COnference on ADvanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'03).