Global Learning ISD Model

Document Sample
Global Learning ISD Model Powered By Docstoc
					Global Learning ISD Model

             What’s Global?
Unraveling the Global…
Defining the notion of ‘global’ can be a challenge because the nature of
the word within a modern context tends to allude to the term
globalization. A better conception of the word involves the
interconnected relationships developing across cultures through
particular endeavors - one of which is economic (Apple etal, p4).
Therefore, within the broader term global, globalization relates to
economic and political interactions, with other facets of global referring
to socio-cultural aspects of human interactions such as learning.
Unfortunately, the these non-economic interactions tend to be
commodified by the language and framework of globalization markets,
which mask these other endeavors (????). As a critique to this
misunderstanding Thomas Friedman eloquently writes:
     To reduce a country’s economic performance to culture alone is
     ridiculous, but to analyze a country’s economic performance
     without reference to culture is equally ridiculous… (p. 324)
Within the broader global framework, the term then becomes an easy
way to express the cultural identities created from exchange of
knowledge, information, and learning practices, within a global
knowledge economy (Tomlinson, 2006). What the Global Learning
Model attempts to do is create a framework for instructional designers
consult while participating within this global knowledge economy.
                    The Model
• Two phased approach
  – Phase I - Front End Analysis
  – Phase II – Design & Development
• Best suited for e-learning
• Considers the deeper elements such as
  ‘hidden costs’ (Romi’s pyramid)
   Comparison chart to
   Edmonds, Branch &       Click
    Mukherjee (1994)
                 Systematic Approach
A way to conceptualize the Global Learning Model beyond economic sociopolitical cultural
terms is from a systematic ecological framework approach. The Global Learning Model
superimposes three systematic levels. The suprasystem is the broad global learning
framework, which Hagel & Brown label as “distributed learning ecologies” (2006, p.12). The
system is the particular contexts the model can be applied to, such as higher education or
training. Although the suprasystem tends to be theoretical and nebulous, the systems are
where the macro and micro entities are easily seen as institutions. The challenge is to
conceptualize and even coax systems to become more open to the suprasystem, creating a
cybernetic open-feedback loop. Sub-systems within the various systems at times participate
better along the supra-system than the system through various collaborative endeavors such
as Open Course Ware (Brown & Adler, 2008).
Through the dynamic feedback process several ‘global skills’ have emerged that relate more
to this sub-system – supra-system feedback (Brown and Adler’s ‘legitimate peripheral
participation’) than sub-system – system feedback.[1] These skills are meant as a set of
prescriptive competencies needed within the instructional development: They include:
Digital Literacy Skills – Information Literacy (see ACRL standards)
Developing a democratically fair notion of ‘global identity’
Knowing how to navigate as participants among the ‘global’ suprasystem
Knowing how to negotiate knowledge
Being able to think critically through analysis of various knowledge sources and experience
(Apple, etal p 10)

[1] I could spend more time on this notion of distributed CoPs – See Brown
    The Global Learning Model two
           phased approach
The first phase consists of front end analysis work to help determine the need through an
exchange of top-down (macro) and bottom-up (micro) forces. It is a way to understand and
facilitate the ‘edge peripheries’ (Hagel & Brown) within ‘The Long Tail’ of online cultures (????)
with the center. Through this first phase, a set of competencies and instructional goals/objectives
are developed that represent the interests between the forces. This phase is about establishing a
reasonable balance between the entities within a learning endeavors and participants in a global
knowledge economy.
The second phase is the design and development portion. Lying at the center of this process are
prescriptive learning management practices (The ID Tool Kit) that an instructional design uses to
facilitate learning. Within the instructional development process, several factors are weighed:
subject matter experts, appropriate assessment strategies, learner preparedness, and the
competencies. Each must be equally considered when developing instruction.
Example: training janitors from various countries to work in a Mall in Dubai
             SME – the modern world’s notion of cleanliness
Learner preparedness – various notions of ‘clean’, particular learning and work ethic, literacy
Competencies – follow directions, follow standards, understanding why
Assessments – discriminating between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’, being able to do the job
        E-Learing/Hidden Costs
•   The model advocates for e-learning as the most efficient and reliable way to
    delivery instruction because e-learning involves the collaboration of socially
    based knowledge construction. Supporting this notion is the concept of
    ‘Learning 2.0’ derived from Brown and Adler (2008). Within the Learning 2.0
    framework is a new culture based on a global Community of Practice or social
    constructivism. As people participate through e-learning, constraints such as
    time or distance are overcome within a global classroom. In turn, a global
    identity begins to take hold. Brown and Adler articulate this paradigm shift as
    “learning to be” (p. 19). In other words, ‘global’ based e-learning is about
    participating in the open learning process, which is dependent on the balance
    between the top-down and bottom up (“productive friction” Hagel & Brown,
    p.12) influences and a catalyst to the “complex connectivity” (Tomlinson,
    1999 in Apple etal).
•   Through the processes summarized in Phase I of the Global Learning Model, a
    deeper analysis addresses factors relating to ‘hidden costs’ or instructional
    development. The analysis is part of the systematic approach to instructional
    design as best explained by Romiszowski ‘Romi’ (2009). Romi’s systematic
    approach is to consider the hidden costs associated with implementation,
    which do not necessarily translate into (and are sometimes ignored) economic
    terms. He advocates that instructional design should consider the deep
    factors that influence a system such as the management, the teachers, the
    students and the community.
Global Learning Model

                                                       Phase I
  Needs              Competencies
                                        Goals and
  Analysis                              Objectives


                                            Phase II
                        Design and
                       of Instruction


                      Summative                                       Theory
                      Evaluation                                 Bibliography
     Phase I – Front-end Analysis (FEA)
The Global Learning Model engages micro and macro entities through the use of an instructional
designer who facilitates the process to produce a set of competencies and instructional goals as
an end product. The competencies are based on the quality of the negotiations in determining
the need for instruction through systemic analysis.
The illustration of this phase is not necessarily meant to represent a strict step-by-step
process an instructional designer follows. Instead, the phase is more of a heuristic device that
manages the relationships between macro and micro forces through various iterations along the
flow. These iterations are filtered through the ideas within this illustrated framework that
basically identify knowledge gaps and any hidden agendas within the influences to eventually
generate a set of competencies. Without consideration of these influences (the macro and micro
entities) an overly top-down, or bottom-up set of competencies would be fed into Phase II
leading to poorly designed instruction (Brown, 2008; Romi, 2009).
An e-learning strategy is prescribed here as a viable delivery solution as a way to establish a
sense of global while maintaining local interests.

                    Identify gaps                           Determine if e-
    Macro              through                             learning is viable
  Influences        symptoms and                            delivery solution
                      Identify and                                              goals and
                                         list addressing
                       reveal any                                               objectives

                                                                                                  To phase II…
     Micro                                     need
                    hidden agendas

                Negotiation between macro and micro to create a ‘global’
                system with influences from both sides balanced
                between both top-down and bottom-up influences.
  Phase I – Front-end Analysis (FEA)
To reiterate, the process of Phase I is more heuristic than algorhythmic, however this
list provides an example of what Phase I would consist of as a front end analysis

     First, the instructional designer helps identity the macro and micro entities
    within a particular context.
    • Next, a committee is set up between entities from both sides to decide how to
    best narrow the focus on needs considering the advantages and disadvantages of
    each side. During the process the language of desires from the different entities
    is deconstructed into symptomatic terms.
    • Next, causes are determined based on the symptoms which can be translated in
    knowledge or motivational need and gaps, then into the language of viable
    solutions to meet the need.
    • Throughout the dialogue between the macro and micro entities, any hidden
    costs should be discussed within the context of problem/symptom-solution
    language of need. The discussion should continue until an agreement is met
    which determines a workable solution through the development of competencies.
    • The instructional designer collaboratively works with the entities helping shape
    the language of needs into a language of competencies and eventually into
    instructional goals and objectives
    • These goals and objectives are formatively evaluated before moving on the
    Phase II.
   Phase I – Front-end Analysis (FEA)
To clarify, the notion of entities is intentionally left vague and is dependent on the
actual learning context. However, for sake of scope, this model is intended to be used
on large scale projects within adult education, such as designing and implementing an
e-learning program to train adults for a developing country. Therefore, the micro
entity can be seen as the learner, and the macro would be the political system
overseeing the new learning program.

Drawing from the literature: more specifically, this model is a way to meet the
“growing global demand for education” (Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 18) supplying an
international workforce that has a need for “continuous learning…for the ongoing
creation of new ideas and skills” (p 17); as a way to help companies strategically
develop capabilities to “effectively participate in distributed learning ecologies” (Hagel
& Brown, p12, 2006); and tap into the peripheral participation of knowledge creation
within “creation nets”

    …where… participants from diverse institutional settings collaborate to create
    new knowledge, to learn from one another, and to appropriate and build on one
    another’s work…
    (Brown & Hagel, p. 42, 2006)

In essence, the front-end approach of this model acknowledges the presence of open
global networks within a systematic framework of an open system, and attempts to
harness and pinpoint information created by the system, and determine the best way to
disseminate this information in the form of instruction.
            Phase II – Flexible Circle
The circle in Phase II represents the environment within the instructional design
process as a flexible system. Within the circle are dynamic tensions that push and pull
on each other through design iterations. The final design product, therefore, would
consist of the most effective approach for learners to developing the competencies
derived from the front-end analysis in Phase I.
Through the developmental process, the instructional designer negotiates between the
tensions shown in the circle by utilizing components of an ID tool box. Within the tool
box are design prescriptions that assist the designer in developing a learning
environment based on constructivist learning theory (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). This
environment is collaborative, meaningful and contextual. In order for the Phase II
processes to be effective, these natural tensions need to exist and be acknowledged.
The tensions are articulated as: Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence, alignment with
competencies from the FEA, an effective assessment strategy, and learner
The instructional designer, after several rapid proto-typed interactions, eventually
develops an implementation plan. This plan draws back to the macro/micro discussions,
which helped create the tension factors and applies the instructional product considering
the management of change.

                                                              Instructional Designer’s
Phase II                                                              Function
                                                          • Negotiate tensions
                                                          • Acts as change agent
                        SME influence                     • Develop rapid prototype
                                                          • Use ID tool kit

           Learner       Design and
                                                 Align with
         preparedness   Development
                        of Instruction

                        Effective Assessment

Arrows represent natural tension between learning
management from demand systematic pull and
instructional prescriptions Click
        Instructional Designer Function
                                              Phase II
Within both Phases I & II of the design process is an instructional designer who acts as facilitator,
compiler, refiner, evaluator, and instructional architect. The quality of how these various roles inter -
exchange are dependent on the expertise and intuition of an instructional designer. Nevertheless, the
designer draws from design prescriptions to produce an efficient and effective instructional product to
help learners master the Phase I competencies.

Specifically in Phase II, the designer must negotiate the tensions within the flexible circle, acting as a
change agent and learning liaison allowing for maximum flexibility within the design process. The goal
should be to develop materials that are used in an environment that is collaborative, presents alternative
views, meaningful to the learner, and contextual (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).

Since balance is the key within Phase II, a rapid prototyping approach is used to evaluate products
ensuring that design meets the competencies through consideration of the tensions. For instance,
subject matter experts should not provide only their perspective, while learners still must be challenged,
and appropriate assessment strategies should be created.

As a way for the designer to produce effective materials, an ID Tool Kit is used to design the
management of instruction. The tools draw from instructional design theories such as Gagne’s Nine
Events of Instruction, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Merrill’s First Principles to pragmatically develop
materials. Of interest within the Global Learning Model process, is Merrill’s notion of ‘Pebble -in-the-
Pond’ Development, which focuses on the “whole task or problem” and ways to design instructional
around the task context (Merrill, p. 40, 2002). Additionally, the 4C/ID Model is a way to properly
scaffold learners trying to master complex tasks (van Merrienboer, etal, 2003).
Specifically related to e-learning on a global scale, part of the ID Tool Kit includes building learner
capabilities involved in participating as global e-learners. These ‘Global Skills’ relate to building
instruction that requires learners to develop competencies such as digital literacy skills. Churches
(2008), in developing a ‘Bloom Digital Taxonomy’ which leads learners through a process of remember
to creating.
           Phase II Tensions
• Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence
  – Consult SMEs to extract important knowledge needed to fill
• Effective Assessment
  – Criterion based assessment that is balanced between
    learner desire and judge of proficiency
• Competency alignment
  – Balance between whole task mastery and partial
    understanding based on learner need and end function.
• Learner preparedness
  – Ideal instructional environment alone does not guarantee
    learners are prepared, especially within e-learning
    situation. Instructional designer prescribes other
    competencies related to digital literacy and global identity
     Implementation: Change Management
Whatever form the instruction ultimately takes there will always be the further
challenge of implementing the instruction. Within the Global Learning Model,
implementation is more of an implied part that an explict ‘step’. However, the
implications of instructional intervention are what underlie the entire framework.
Within Phase I, for instance, the balancing between the macro and micro entities is a
way to create a product that will impact learners, but not overbear them with top-
down instructional decrees. Phase II, if properly provided with systematic information
interpreted into competencies, should naturally balance the design of instruction to
allow for change to occur through the natural process of participating within a global
knowledge economy perspective.
As part of the framework of the model, change is not something so prescriptive such
as identifying the early adopters and forcing an instructional strategy upon a system.
Instead, by subscribing to a framework such as Ely’s Eight Conditions, change
management is more of an organic process (Ensminger, 2001).[1] Furthermore, this
notion of an instructional design model as a facilitator for change to meet a need, this
model also views the process within a philosophical framework based on Solomon’s
(2000) analysis of the field – these include: The intellectual, aesthetic, moral and
spiritual dimensions of instructional development process. Within these deeper
perspectives, change management is more of an awareness than a prescription.

[1] For more information see Ely’s Eight Conditions
• Formative process – throughout Phase
  I and within the rapid prototyping of
  Phase II
• Summative process – Checks
  congruency with competencies
  – Is the instructional intervention helping
    meet the needs of learners?
  – Does it provide ‘global’ identity while still
    respecting ‘the local’
Learning Context

The Global Learning Model is meant to be
used within a broad context mainly for
adult education however this chart is an
illustrative representation of the global and
local entities                                  Back
      Theoretical Underpinnings
Throughout the process of developing the global learning model, I have attempted to filter my
analysis through a notion that meaning, reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and
ethics is something that is negotiated between individuals on the micro level, and cultures on
the macro level. However, since one culture or individual may possess a sense of superiority
or entitlement over other, there is a conflict between different sides. This conflict results in
an over-binary logic, which justifies the use of power as a means to an ends of ‘helping’ or
‘subjugating’ another. I believe that in order to prevent conflict a constructivist epistemology
needs to be the basis for development. Therefore, the global learning model is deeply
influenced by a constructivist philosophy.
Briefly stated, constructivism involves the individual construction of knowledge as they
experience the world. Therefore, epistemology involves a purely subjective analysis and
interpretation of experience, and not something that is just transferred to an individual (von
Glasersfeld, 1982). This definition is more along the line of ‘radical constructivism’, but for
sake of brevity, the Global Learning ISD model’s foundation is more ‘social constructivist’
than radical. The definition would read more like:
…social construction of knowledge as individuals negotiate their experiences with the world
In simpler terms, people experience the world and interpret their experience within the
confines of previous experience and their culture.
How constructivism relates to instructional design and the global learning ISD model involves
segments of analysis, development, and evaluation (summarized here from an article by
Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).

    Theoretical Underpinnings
                   Segment                                 Instructional designer role

Analysis – instead of a prescription for
knowledge, meaning is more of a negotiating      Assist in extracting objectives within the
process situated within a contextual             negotiation of meanings through facilitation
environment that learners reflect on             and alignment of environments

Development – the creation the student-
centered authentic learning environments
                                                 Utilizes tools and strategies that assist is
where learners develop a sense of ownership
                                                 facilitating change within a learning situation
and meaningfulness as they solve problems
within situations

                                                 Determines formatively if learner knowledge
Evaluation – since value is user-driven within
                                                 is aligned within negotiated situation and
a social situation, evaluation involves how
                                                 summatively if learner has developed
well learners develop metacognitive skills
                                                 appropriately through instruction
Conceptual Comparison Chart
            based on Edmonds, Branch & Mukherjee (1994)

Orientation      Goal to help learners construct meaning
                 Both descriptive (in developing a community through negotiation) and
                 prescriptive (constructing a learning environment to facilitate learning)
Knowledge        Declarative – discovery based learning and norm referenced evaluation
Structure        based on negotiated competencies within front end analysis (Phase I)

Expertise        Expert – the model involves a set of broad heuristics a practitioner uses
Level            when managing the learning system

Structure        On the continuum, the model is more soft-system/intuitive, however,
                 drawing from Romi’s (2009) approach, the structural approach of the
                 model is more systemic
Context          Model is best used within an adult education framework for e-learning
                 by developing a global ecology

Level            Various levels, depending on situation, but mostly e-learning institution

•   Romi (2009)
•   Edmonds, Branch, Mukerjee (1994)
•   Brown (2008) – powerpoint

•   Ensminger, D. C. (2001). Using Ely’s conditions during the instructional design process to
    increase success of implementation. Proceedings of the Design: Connect, Create, and
    Collaborate Conference, Athens, GA


Shared By: