Week 3 - ISD: Underlying Theories and ISD Models

Wow, so much information this week (which is partially why I'm late on submitting this post-the rest I'll blame on a week from hell at work)! Took me some time to digest it all (I ended up taking an outline of notes for each individual presentation and reading which really helped me better absorb the material). I started my review of this week's material with the required readings and then watched all three presentations (theories underlying instructional technology, guides to planning instruction, and ISD models). In hindsight, I would have been better prepared for these readings had I watched the presentations first. The videos contained most of the material pertaining to the objectives for this week while the required readings provided an example and detail on two different types of ISD models, the flowchart (Dick & Carey) and the circular (Morrison).

I don't want to regurgitate my outline of the material here. Instead, I'll point out a few things that stood out to me this week.

• ADDIE is not an ISD model in itself. I've heard this referenced and just assumed it was true. Per the presentations, it's more like shorthand for a whole family of system approaches. 
• I'm still not sure how the theories underlying instructional technology relate to the guides themselves (I might need to revisit the readings).
• On second thought, the lesson frameworks appear to be based on the different perspectives on learning (behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism). But that's the most that stood out to me.
• One of the best known flowchart type ISD models, the Dick & Carey Model, was the first of its kind to focus attention on front-end concerns (asking for the problem itself before venturing further). This seemed like a major step in the right direction.
• The presentation made a point regarding this model, along the lines of paying attention to the front-end concerns, that training cannot solve a lack of incentive or a lack of proper tools-training can only solve ignorance. Seems like defining this (reason behind a stated problem) can be another line of study in itself.
• The US Air Force ISD model was at the heart of the "total quality management" push in the 90's.  This reminded me of the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) model used in Lean and Six Sigma.
• Was the PDCA model based on the US Air Force model?
• More on Lean and Six Sigma, the model used for continuos improvement in processes is called DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) which appears to be a very linear, flowchart type model-very systematic.
• DMAIC can also use the SIPOC (supplier, inputs, process, outputs, customer) model during the Define and sometimes the Analyze phase. Another seemingly linear process, however, you start in the middle (process) when using SIPOC, and then follow the systematic process for filling in the blanks surrounding these process steps (the point is to give a high level view of a process and to focus on the inputs and outputs of each process step instead of getting hung up on the process steps themselves).

I tried answering the synthesis questions this week with work in mind (and here are the ramblings as I tried to work through some of the questions). I know I'm always trying to think of the best way to communicate new information to my teammates - I've been trying to devise a strategy for constantly reflecting on current situations (so it's at the top of our minds when responding to issues in the treatment rooms), incorporating new situations into that knowledge base as they come up, and remembering previous issues so as to learn from them and possibly apply them for root cause analysis in current and future issues. It doesn't seem to be enough to know there's a need for that communication though, there's also an amount of motivation needed from the employee to perform at that level (which the Dick & Carey model pointed out that training won't solve that problem). This train of thought somewhat led me in to the second question, which was "how can we help people to learn?" I think this is the exact question that led me to my class this summer (games as learning tools) and now to this class today. I feel I need ALOT more background and understanding (recognizing there are different sorts of learning tasks and they might require different teaching strategies) to be able to better help people learn.