The web-site is now in readonly mode. Login and registration are disabled. (28 June 2019)

01_POST-PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMIC DESIGN

Cloud created by:

Hugues Chicoine
11 January 2013

 

POST-PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMIC DESIGN Week1:Initiate - #oldsmooc_s1
Van den Akker et Kuiper (2008)[http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/6801] list a number of studies on existing models and among them Gustafson & Branch (2002) who account for 15 models in 3 categories: 4 models for the classroom, 5 computer modules and 6 comprehensive distance education models (applicable to courses and eventually to diploma granting programs). The survey conducted by Gustafson & Branch in 2002 (http://goo.gl/U9nDU) examined teaching models is an update (4Ed) of earlier work (early 80s). At that time, open (distant) education was not very developed or assertive as is the case today with MOOCS. Only 10 years ago and according to Gustafson & Branch educational design had to be selected according to some applicable context whereby 
(i) teaching occurred in a classroom—classroom-oriented, 
(ii) the course would be delivered by other than the designer—product-oriented, or 
(iii) the training was complex and directed toward problem solving or in pursuit of organisational objectives—systems-oriented.
Among the approaches examined by the authors, the Barson model was one of the very few that was assessed in a number of establishments. Further, the expression 'instructional development (ID)' used by Barson meant the systematic process by which teaching was to be improved and originated from Michigan State University (MSU) between 1961 and 1965 during the early audiovisual revolution.The authors also mention computer-based instruction which is naturally associated with distant learning and requires highly prescriptive ID models or products (Gustafson & Branch 2002:31). In the 2002 version of the inventory, 5 models examine the distant computer approach based on an institutional development process: 
(1) assess the product (need product?)
(2) the product will be generated and not selected or adapted from some existing material (one of the basic design requirements or condition)  
(3) testing and reviews of the product, and
(4) the product is designed for use by the learners under the supervision of tutors and not professors (p.30).
The 5 models for distant learning are as follows (according to Gustafson & Branch 2002, in order of appearance: Bergman & Moore 1990, de Hoog, de Jong & de Vries 1994, Bates 1995, Nieveen 1997, Seels & Glasgow 1998). 
> Bergman & Moore. The Bergman & Moore model deals with the management of interactive teaching projects (video and multimedia). The approach is managed using checklist controls and students are nowhere mentioned. The models provides for activities such as "analysis, design, develop, produce, author, and validate" (p.32). 
> de Hoog, de Jong et de Vries. This model was conceived to prepare simulations or expert systems and it includes 5 independent anchors concurrently deployed within the institutional production context: a learner model, a computer/software design model, an operational model, an instructional model and and an interface. 
> Bates. The model designed by Bates rests on 4 educational and institutional steps or phases: (i) the course outline, (ii) selecting the media, (iii) preparing and producing the materials and (iv) course delivery. The process is in the hands of 3 actors: (i) the project manager, with the support of (ii) content experts and (iii) instructional designers. With respect to the course outline, that is the initial phase of the process, 4 tasks or responsibilities are institutional control: (i) identifying the target group, (ii) determining the place of the course within the program or curriculum, (iii) authorising and validating course contents and (iv) authorising and validating the chosen pedagogical approach ("teaching approach agreed"). The Bates model mentions learners at the outset of the process (target group) and at the end for the assessment of learning. 
> NieveenThe Nieveen model is called ‘Cascade’ and proceeds from a doctoral thesis. It is based on 4 cycles: specifications, an outline of the instructional package, ajustment of detailed instructional material and their assembly. All phases are analysed and assessed for quality with regard to learners' formative evaluation with testing on small groups and field testing on a larger group. 
> Seels & Glasgow. The  Seels & Glasgow model is typically managerial: managing the needs analysis, managing instructional design, managing implementation (this phase includes the preparation of learning material, course delivery, support structures, assessment of student production and recruitment).In general, the above models hadly mention students and learners except as follows: entry behavior expected of typical students—p.48; student knowledge, attitudes and priorities—p.55; level of readiness—p.28; model intended for graduate students—p.49; students number, location—p.49; student needs—p.56; measuring student achievement and the students’ attitudes toward the content and instruction—p.31; how student attention and motivation will be maintained—p.26, all of which are characteristics of the former audiovisual instructional media. 
For all intents and purposes the survey conducted by Gustafson & Branch poses one of the most typical questions: « What instructional strategies are most appropriate in terms of objectives and student characteristics? » (Gustafson & Branch 2002:28). Set in the form of ‘strategies’, that very question generously imparts a pedagogical hue to institutional concerns and is clearly substituted to traditional pedagogy and teaching. 
But the former question concerning student characteristics is left to the backrooms or had not been explored in the 1990s and early 2000s American literature; this is to remain as least as long as contextual and situational approaches prevail.
Open or distant learning operates under a surrogate contextual or situational disguise called 'learning environment'. Yet that approach stil does not provide answers to the question concerning the characteristics of students that are not in class or on the campus and the immediate impact this has on 'pedagogy' and on the long term debate concerning 'what is learning', 'how students learn' and educational design.
Now a MOOC, all forms of open education, hybrid programs and distant learning in general are first and foremost institutional means of course delivery, just as the classroom method. All are the result of organisational approaches and decisions (see Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design here > http://goo.gl/VMmxt). And further, media technologies are curriculum delivery tools (see Curriculum Delivery through Technology here > http://goo.gl/KSZBA). 
How can one bridge the gap between the institutional setup for Curriculum Design & Delivery and the academic (discipline) requirements students and learners are faced with? In part, the answer lies in the Student Workplan approach (or student activities in a given academic discipline).  We may then remember or recapture the meaning of learning as a deliberate (metacognitive) activity. 
/HCh 
GUSTAFSON, K.L. & BRANCH, R.M. 2002. Survey of instructional development models (4e). New York: ERIC, Syracuse University. (http://goo.gl/U9nDU)

POST-PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMIC DESIGN

Van den Akker et Kuiper (2008) list a number of studies on existing models and among them Gustafson & Branch (2002) who account for 15 models in 3 categories: 4 models for the classroom, 5 computer modules and 6 comprehensive distant | computer education models (applicable to courses and eventually to diploma granting programs). The survey conducted by Gustafson & Branch in 2002 on teaching models is an update (4Ed) of earlier work (early 80s). At that time, open (distant) education was not very developed or assertive as is the case today with MOOCS. Only 10 years ago and according to Gustafson & Branch educational design had to be selected according to some applicable context whereby 

  • teaching occurs in a classroom—classroom-oriented, 
  • the course would be delivered by other than the designer—product-oriented, or 
  • the training is complex and directed toward problem solving or in pursuit of organisational objectives—systems-oriented.

Among the approaches examined by the authors, the Barson model was one of the very few that was assessed in a number of establishments. Further, the expression 'instructional development (ID)' used by Barson meant the systematic process by which teaching was to be improved and originated from Michigan State University (MSU) between 1961 and 1965 during the early audiovisual revolution.The authors also mention computer-based instruction which is naturally associated with distant learning and requires "highly prescriptive ID models" or products (Gustafson & Branch 2002:31). In the 2002 version of the inventory, 5 models examine the distant computer approach based on an institutional development process: 

  • assess the product (need product?)
  • the product will be generated and not selected or adapted from some existing material (one of the basic design requirements or condition)  
  • testing and reviews of the product, and
  • the product is designed for use by the learners under the supervision of tutors and not professors (p.30).

The 5 models for distant learning are as follows (according to Gustafson & Branch 2002, in order of appearance: Bergman & Moore 1990, de Hoog, de Jong & de Vries 1994, Bates 1995, Nieveen 1997, Seels & Glasgow 1998).

> Bergman & Moore. The Bergman & Moore model deals with the management of interactive teaching projects (video and multimedia). The approach is managed using checklist controls and students are nowhere mentioned. The models provides for activities such as "analysis, design, develop, produce, author, and validate" (p.32). 

> de Hoog, de Jong et de Vries. This model was conceived to prepare simulations or expert systems and it includes 5 independent anchors concurrently deployed within the institutional production context: a learner model, a computer/software design model, an operational model, an instructional model and and an interface. 

> Bates. The model designed by Bates rests on 4 educational and institutional steps or phases: (i) the course outline, (ii) selecting the media, (iii) preparing and producing the materials and (iv) course delivery. The process is in the hands of 3 actors: (i) the project manager, with the support of (ii) content experts and (iii) instructional designers. With respect to the course outline, that is the initial phase of the process, 4 tasks or responsibilities are institutional control: (i) identifying the target group, (ii) determining the place of the course within the program or curriculum, (iii) authorising and validating course contents and (iv) authorising and validating the chosen pedagogical approach ("teaching approach agreed"). The Bates model mentions learners at the outset of the process (target group) and at the end for the assessment of learning. 

> Nieveen. The Nieveen model is called ‘Cascade’ and proceeds from a doctoral thesis. It is based on 4 cycles: specifications, an outline of the instructional package, ajustment of detailed instructional material and their assembly. All phases are analysed and assessed for quality with regard to learners' formative evaluation with testing on small groups and field testing on a larger group. 

> Seels & Glasgow. The  Seels & Glasgow model is typically managerial: managing the needs analysis, managing instructional design, managing implementation (this phase includes the preparation of learning material, course delivery, support structures, assessment of student production and recruitment).In general, the above models hadly mention students and learners except as follows: entry behavior expected of typical students—p.48; student knowledge, attitudes and priorities—p.55; level of readiness—p.28; model intended for graduate students—p.49; students number, location—p.49; student needs—p.56; measuring student achievement and the students’ attitudes toward the content and instruction—p.31; how student attention and motivation will be maintained—p.26, all of which are characteristics of the former audiovisual instructional media. 

For all intents and purposes the survey conducted by Gustafson & Branch poses one of the most typical questions: « What instructional strategies are most appropriate in terms of objectives and student characteristics? » (Gustafson & Branch 2002:28). Set in the form of ‘strategies’, that very question generously imparts a pedagogical hue to institutional concerns and strategy is clearly substituted to pedagogy and teaching in their traditional forms. Whether the concern is improved teaching, better teaching or simply teaching—didactics, the 'teaching process' cannot be substituted to the learning process in curriculum design (traditional or distant), and learning is explicitely the focus of open | distant education:

 ... the Didaktik parameter of good teaching is not the degree to which the students master the content as delineated in the curriculum, but rather the question if and how the educative substance could be opened up for the student as intended; more exactly, if and how it became open in their individual meeting with the content in the given teaching process" (Hopmann 2007:117).

The latter question, however, concerning student characteristics is always left to the backrooms—or had not been explored in the 1990s and early 2000s literature; this must be expected to remain for as long as orthodox contextual and situational approaches prevail.

Open or distant learning operates under a surrogate contextual or situational gloss over called 'learning environment'. Yet that concept still does not provide answers to the question concerning the characteristics of students that are neither in class or on the campus. Thus, one cannot measure or assess the immediate impact open | distance education has on 'pedagogy' and on the long term debate concerning (i) 'what is learning', (ii) 'how students learn' and (iii) educational or curriculum design.

Now a MOOC, and all forms of open education, including hybrid programs and distant learning in general are first and foremost institutional means of course delivery; they are institutionally determined, just as the classroom method or the conventional stand & deliver approach. Both (classroom and online) are the result of organisational approaches and decisions. Please refer to JISC Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design here > http://goo.gl/VMmxt), and see how media technologies are curriculum delivery tools (see JISC Curriculum Delivery through Technology here > http://goo.gl/KSZBA).

How can one manage existing institutional setups for Curriculum Design & Delivery and the academic (discipline) requirements that students and learners are to be faced with? For most part, it is argued that 'educational design' lies in a Student Workplan approach (or student activities in a given academic discipline).  Doing so, we may remember or recapture the meaning of learning as a deliberate (metacognitive) activity because that is what is expected from the participants | learners. And where this approach is institutionally adopted, developed and applied, there is no more teaching in the conventional sense, yet there is learning in a post-pedagogical mode.  

/HCh 

  *  *  *

GUSTAFSON, K.L. & BRANCH, R.M. 2002. Survey of instructional development models (4e). New York: ERIC, Syracuse University. (http://goo.gl/U9nDU) 

HOPMANN, S. 2007. Restrained teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, vol.6, no.7:109-124. (http://goo.gl/V5aG4)  

  *  *  *

Related pages (in that order):

Hugues Chicoine: A Learner Workplan approach to educational design 

EDUCATIONAL DESIGN (teaching-learning) : Introduction 

POST-PEDAGOGICAL ACADEMIC DESIGN (this page)

CONTEXT? 

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF « Week 3 - Ideate » MODULE

Progress report [@30%,90%]

PROTOTYPE in text form [1,2,3]

Hugues Chicoine OLDS MOOC Final Reflective Post (Cloud)   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extra content

Embedded Content

Contribute

Bronwyn Hegarty
1:53am 16 January 2013


I like the suggestion of a post-pedagogical model for distant students. Can this truly work when it is organisationally-imposed? Are you suggesting that traditional curriculum design needs a 'shake up' if it is to adequately serve distant students (whose characteristics are relatively unknown)? I believe that you could have a post-pedagogical model of learning if the traditions of curriculum design are thrown away, and new approaches which are truly learner-centric are developed.I have posted on the discussion about this..

This discussion about defining learning design has really got the steam rising for me. I realised as I trolled through the readings that so far, the definitions of learning design are all teacher centric because the teacher is always in charge of designing the learning. I think we probably need to throw away the established theories and the models - even though Ida has done a fabulous job of collating them on the wiki - and begin afresh using a truly learner-centric model - even the Arcs model by John Keller that Ida states is more learner-centred is teacher-led. This would mean moving to a constructivist/connectivist framework, and leaving cognitive/behaviourist approaches behind.

I think the role of teachers is to mentor and to teach critical thinking, scaffold metacognition and to guide students in how to be self-directed and self-regulated learners - our role is to guide students to develop their own strategies for learning, and to obtain and manage the information they need - access, filter, evaluate and create - and in doing so they will develop the knowledge they need to reach their learning goals. Teachers are thereby freed up from hours of designing and developing content and activities, and can support student learning more effectively through mentoring. I have some ideas for the ideal learning design approach, please read more on my blog.
Dr Bronwyn Hegarty

 

Hugues Chicoine
5:04am 16 January 2013 (Edited 5:07am 16 January 2013)


Dear Dr Bronwyn Hegarty,
Thank you for your comments.

The expression 'post-pedagogical' is being used to reflect on pedagogy, i.e., teacher-centrered learning and the implicit didactics therein. The expression is being used to underline the absence of that type of input (traditional teaching is collective & intensive) in favour of an otherwise much more intensive individual and intimate activity : learning.
I do not reject the concepts inherent to 'curriculum' for two or three reasons:
(i) curriculum is needed to designate and differentiate academic disciplines,
(ii) it is needed to build academic programs, and
(iii) any teaching-learning (from primary to third cycle) needs to be supported by an establishment endowed with institutional status where curriculum is a sustaining thread.
What we are faced with when examining distance | open education is a different type of educational institution characterised as non-campus establishments that bear the same status as traditional universities (they serve the very same socio-institutional missions). Now in regular universities and colleges, students | learners need not be the object of representations ; what they are and what they are on organised campus can be considered as some type of socialisation. There we were, no doubt the subjects of higher education pedagogy. Teaching is about them and their teachers, and in the systems of that institutional environment learning is the object of assessment or performance. We've all been there yet we don't seem to know much about learning, nevermind the design of the many courses we have attended, and hardly the type of pedagogy we have been submitted to from an early age.
Those concerns take on an entirely different and significant meaning in distance education and relevant questions were acutely raised from the very beginning of the audiovisual era (Marx 1971 ; Tickton 1970,1971 ; Mead 1968). The non-representation of learners is among the items that were carried over from traditional pedagogy to post-pedagogical | distant learning.
What difference is there about the learners who attend distance | open universities ? Status, empowerment, and an unchanged relation to society. And a more direct and focused relationship to knowledge (very intensive learning and, where complete programs are available, very extensive learning). Here, in the OLDSMOOC experiment, the learner can be viewed in an entirely different 'context' (not subject to traditional stand & deliver teaching) and portrayed as in this map | model > http://goo.gl/kB4kn.
So, no we cannot do away with the established theories and models because University needs them ; but universities are changing with the organisational re-engineering of education induced by open universities . In the past five years MOOCs seem to have awaken yet another segment of academe.

/HCh

 

MARX, L. 1971. Notes for a humanist critique of technological innovation in education. In Tickton, S.G., dir. To improve learning. An evaluation of instructional technology, 2. New York: Bowker, 203-212.
MEAD, M. 1968. Age of discrepancies in the understanding and use of modern technology, especially the mass media. Or how parents and teachers fail to tune in on the children’s media environment. In Study of Instructional Technology. Support paper for « To improve learning, a Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the Commission on instructional technology, vol.2, 1971, 213-221. ERIC (http://tiny.cc/u1qn7)
TICKTON, S.G., dir. 1970. To improve learning. An evaluation of instructional technology (volume 1). New York: Bowker. (http://tiny.cc/k8vcc)
TICKTON, S.G., dir. 1971. To improve learning. An evaluation of instructional technology (volume 2). New York: Bowker. (http://tiny.cc/k8vcc)

 

Contribute to the discussion

Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.