1.Title of the Model
Model 1:
1.Title of the model:
FieldTrip - (Inquisite Friends) - Come with us to our fieldtrip
2. The Context:
This model describes the design of a collaborative virtual experience. A class that goes to a field invites other classes who cannot make the field trip to join them virtually. The classes can send questions, hints, and already researched topics and ask the class that is going to find out more information or can ask them to answer specific questions.
The unit is employed every half year where classes are matched with other classes. The classes are in secondary education and the model describes the communication process and the collaborative work on answering the questions.
3. The process:
This model is a best-practice model, meaning we modeled an existing and actually carried out course. We selected the course-based uniqueness of design, sound and theory-based pedagogical model, and availability of accompanying material were some of the crucial criteria. Within the process, we utilized parts of other models, as we usually do, but the overall structure was unique to process. For the modeling strategy for this particular model, we started building the smallest units first, like how classes were matched, how questions were answered, etc. after fine-tuning these individual aspects we designed the overall structure to capture the relationships between the different elements. The smaller units or nuggets we chose to create in the beginning allowed us to avoid the reinvention of wheel parts.
4. Highlights:
In this particular model, we were facing many challenges to design it. The first challenge was for us to again define what a unit or nugget is that is consistent and has boundaries that are set. The different activities were intertwined, can be employed non-sequentially, but in this particular course had a timeline (sequence). In many of the activities, several groups were supposed to be doing the same activity parallel and forward their results to the others group. The challenge here was to define the interaction and being precise of who is sending and who is receiving information. An additional challenge pertained the determination between necessary and sufficient information, for example: in this particular context of the course, students were communicating the results back to the other classes via e-mail. For other designers to reuse some of the design decisions laid out in this activity, the information and decision to use e-mails is not exclusively necessary, meaning the same communication could have been achieved via videoconferencing, chatting, or producing a web-site addressing the questions the other class had. Nevertheless, the concrete activity (e-mail) requires a different model than the creation of a particular web site. For us is still a question on how to model the variety of different activities or media that could make sense in the context of the problem. By just modeling, one (e-mail) we felt the design was not as re-usable as it could have been.
Model 2:
1.Title of the model:
Generic Constructivist Model
2. The Context:
This is a theory-based model in contrast to best practice or any practice model. The model is providing a generic structure for teaching within a constructivist design and teaching paradigm. Though it cannot serve for a concrete design question on how to structure f.e. a discussion group around a particular context of a class, it can provide within the formalized IMS-LD model a design template for building non-sequential learning activities.
Through its clear theory-base, the model itself is a meta-model abstracting from the many different design and teaching situations that informed the theory building.
3. The process:
The process of building this model was very literature and analysis of research findings intense. Constructivism is a very broad movement that entails many different forms. The aspect of findings principles and then how they can be operatinalized in a design model dominated our discourse. Since we worked without a clear context of a particular class, the components of the design had to stay on an abstract level. We struggled with certain components of the process more than with others. For example, in many constructivist design models, there are not many sequences and many activities of students are iterative. The challenge was to design activities and acts that are coherent in the activities they offer for students but are not restricted by the design model in when the activities have to be completed. Additionally, many micro-level elements were hard to incorporate due to the flexible nature of the theoretical underpinnings. Since many decisions within a particular course are done by students in cooperation with each other and with the teacher, many conditional aspects need to be modeled and many alternative ways of achieving same learning outcomes were included when in practical life, the teacher or students might only pick a particular set of activities.
4. Highlights:
The design of this model raised many different questions and provided many challenges for the design team. The main challenge was the question if there can even be one model for constructivism, not just because it is an abstract model, but that we construct a model that can also be differently modeled. The pedagogical strategies and philosophical assumptions of the paradigm we modeled influenced in this sense greatly our approach to modeling. General questions arose that we shared different prototypes of the same model created by different people. We realized different ways of modeling and that how the model looks like is dependent on the personal preferences of the designer and a style of modeling. After syntactical and compliance with IMS-LD questions were understood through practice, the best practice approach to modeling came into question. There are multiple ways of modeling a particular component, some of it is more modular, more accessible for novices or provided visual elements that highlighted key elements. There are not many best practice cases out there for how to design these models. Compared to computer science where much emphasis in training is spend to install a sense of good design
Model 3:
1.Title of the model:
Generic Behaviorist Model
2. The Context:
This is a theory-based model in contrast to best practice or any practice model. The model is providing a generic structure for teaching within a behaviorist design and teaching paradigm. Though it cannot serve for a concrete design question on how to structure i.e. the design for a particcular communication pattern in courses, it can provide within the formalized IMS-LD model a design template for aligning smaller aspects of a class design with the overall structure of the design. Through its clear theory-base, the model itself is a meta-model abstracting from the many different design and teaching situations that can be classified as behaviorist.
3. The process:
In this particular template, it was important for us to connect within the model the classroom activities of the instructor and the students with the preparation of the instructor. In modeling the preparation, the model sets already the stage for what follows within the class. We spent some time finding the spaces of the different components in the 2/3D dimensional space of MOT+. The instructor in this model is involved in the preparation and it virtually every step of the students. The feedback structure made it at first difficult to place every component in a way that makes it visually easy to follow the overall model. Although not as important as the design aspects of mapping the activities in the model, the visual aspects of arrangement, color-coding etc. are important for novice model builders.
The overall structure of the design was determined by the theoretical underpinnings; nevertheless, the modeling asked additional questions in which the sequence of the model had to expanded. For our modeling experience, determining the level of detail provided in the model was always a struggle. How much in detail should the design go? In best practice or practice cases, the availability of material or insights into the design process was often the determining factor, even when we could have gone more in depth into each of our model. In the theory-based model, the material and approaches were endless, so much more difficult to set the boundaries.
4. Highlights:
The model was a great communicative device for us to form a better understanding of behaviorist forms of instruction. By modeling, the discussion became focused on the model itself. A big challenge is still the syntax and the design process itself. We found ourselves sooner agreeing on the design than on the visual representation and compliance with the model. For the design, the many different ways of designing one element let us question a best practice approach of designing. Our practice sure reflected our personalities and our understanding of the theory we wanted to model.
Model 4:
1.Title of the model:
Generic Cognitivist Model
2. The Context:
This is a theory-based model in contrast to best practice or any practice model. The model is providing a generic structure for teaching within a cognitive design and teaching paradigm. Though it cannot serve for a concrete design question on how to structure i.e. the design for a particular communication pattern in courses, it can provide within the formalized IMS-LD model a design template for aligning smaller aspects of a class design with the overall structure of a general template. Through its clear theory-base, the model itself is a meta-model abstracting from the many different design and teaching situations that can be classified as cognovits.
3. The process:
The modeling off the cognitive model provided come challenges. Compared to behaviorist to constructivist models much of the elements are observable and are structured around the sequencing or opening off instruction. In a cognitivist model, it is hard to operationalize the different steps without a particular context.
When in the design of concrete learning situations and best practice cases our question of design is that we don’t know where to stop to go deeper or broader, with the design of theory-based models it is quite the opposite. There is not much chance to go deeper because the deeper you go the more the context would play a role.
For our further modeling of theory-based approaches, we would transform the theory-based models into true meta-models, meaning, that in addition to design a generic model, what has many benefits to reference a variety of different nuggets as possible examples and objects within the larger artificial design.
Nevertheless, the generic model has its benefit, because describing an overall structure and visualizing that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
A few more words on the design process: This is a model of a cognitivist framework for teaching, there are many others. This is important to note, because we had to make deliberate choices on which body of literature to rely on and operationalize. Additionally several assumptions of cognitivist theory are intertwined, but are hard to represent in IMS-LD.
4. Highlights:
A great benefit for our own modeling activity was that we understand the cognitivist approach in a more operationalized way, although because the concreteness of the model is lacking depth, individual steps might still be hard to determine how to do.
Within this model, many of the teacher’s activities are very preparation-intense. In other models, we tried to incorporate the design process of the teacher as much as the classroom activities themselves into the model. In this model, it was not easy to do that, and provided a challenge that again is due to the lack of context.
Model 5:
1.Title of the model:
True Story of
2. The Context:
This model describes a unit of learning in a K-12 context in which kids are utilizing a variety of different technologies to represent a story from a children’s book. Students were involved in a few evaluation tasks in which they had to compare one textbook account with another to get to the bottom if the wolf was really that bad in the story of the “three pigs”.
Beyond that particular context, the model can be utilized as a template to build cross-curricula instruction and integration of math/language/technology rich class activities.
3. The process:
The model took a best-practice approach by modeling an existing lesson. We developed the model following the step-by-step description that the teacher outlined in the lesson plan. As similar as to most of our modeling so far, we run into the problem of depth and breadth of our modeling. Additionally, since we modeled rather a larger section of a class activity, we further started questioning the value of modeling an entire section and not just little nuggets. Most all of the activities that we build could be replaced by other ones, f.e. a particular approach to discussing the book could have done in a multitude of ways. By not directly specifying the exact way of discussing, the teacher left a considerable amount of detail on his/her approach out of the lesson plan, left to the individual teacher who reuses to fill in the gaps. The value of the particular structure lays than more in the entirety of the plan, starting from the idea and a ‘twist’ in the approach. For us, the modeling provided the challenge to model the activities so other similar discussion nuggets were easily to be put into the place where the other module was. A particular difficulty of modeling in this ‘object-oriented’ way is that transitional aspects of the model (like leading from one activity to the other) become secondary or redundant.
For our own modeling, purposes we yet have to come up with a way of consistently and systematically distinguish between core elements of the design and redundant, exchangeable, or even neglectable pieces within the model. In other words: what a re necessary and what sufficient elements and attributes of certain designs.
4. Highlights:
As mentioned earlier, the model is a great communicative device to use it to plan and discuss learning design. Additionally, the model becomes a reflective device. Through the modeling of around 15 models, the eyes are faster adapting to different design and by modeling, we found ourselves questioning the different decisions the instructor went through to come up with this lesson plan. It is unfortunately not very visible within the particular design how that design grew before we modeled it. Additionally, since most teachers are never teaching the same way, we don’t see in the model the different alterations and changes the instructor utilized. In that sense, the model has no history or is incapable of keeping history.
Johannes Strobel, Concordia University
1
Johannes Strobel, Concordia