ID+Model+Report

 ** // Summary: // ** The article presents a comparison between Game Design and Instructional Design. The author’s theory is that the disciplines are actually quite similar. There are many elements that complement each other from each discipline and if married together would create an authentic learning experience in a non-traditional setting, a game. One aspect that Game Design promotes is based on Piaget’s concept of cognitive disequilibrium, which leads to question-asking that is thought to be a key to learning and promotes engagement. Likewise, Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding describes perfectly the process commercial game-designers use to help players with a wide range of expertise manage game complexity— challenge is optimized and support (scaffolding) is adapted to provide just the right amount of assistance during a game to allow for success without giving the answer away (Appelman, Bob, Atsusi Hirumi, Lloyd Rieber, Richard Van Eck., p.30). Games and education both support learning based on scientific theories. Games not only utilize instructional theories, but also cycles and problem-based learning, while promoting engagement and continued learning. The motivation of the students to achieve and master the content can be higher by employing games as a means to teach content. Instructional Design “is the arrangement of instructional resources to generate environments that facilitate learning—the very skill needed to develop game-based learning (Appelman et. al.,p.31)” One major difference between Game Design and Instructional Design is the adherence to goals. A Game designer can change the objective of the game to create a better game, while in Instructional Design the objective is set and must be met. This is a piece of Game Design that can be modified to create games that meet educational objectives and do not stray in their goal merely for entertainment purposes. One must “align the desired learning outcomes with the game outcomes, and align both of those with the strategies employed to facilitate learning and engagement during game play” (Appelman et. al.,p.32). Finally, assessment is another aspect that both Instructional Design and Game design have in common. However, in games there is no percentile score at the end. You either solved the puzzle or you did not. The assessment is a continual part of the game. In the education realm many times people want a score at the end of presenting content to assess that learning has occurred. Instructional Design and Game Design have many factors in common. Their common factors make them a good match for working together to create a new learning experience.  ** // Discussion: // ** Science is a subject area that many people tend to shy away from. From the teachers that may not feel extremely comfortable with the content, to students who think it might make them too smart or those who do not feel like they understand or can master it. Games are a way to break down many of these barriers and bring science into more teachers and student’s lives. It was interesting to see the parallels between Game Design and Instructional Design many of the same ideas and theories are present, but executed in a slightly different manner. Two major differences between the two design practices are objectives and assessments. A game can change its objective to be more entertainment; whereas, a lesson must still cover the objectives whether it is entertaining or not. Another big difference is in assessment. Games support continual assessment by showing the objective has been achieved. These two differences can be brought together to create a great Instructional Design solution. The game assessment is a more authentic way to assess understanding of a topic. Although games cannot be the entire way that a student is exposed to content matter it is a good way to bring a realistic science topic, such as weather storms and their parameters to a platform that they can manipulate and create their own understanding instead of just memorizing facts. Game Design and Instructional Design can be utilized in the science classroom to create authentic learning and assessment.  ** Instructional Design for Advanced Learners: Establishing Connections Between the Theoretical Frameworks of Cognitive Load and Deliberate Practice **  ** // Summary: // ** Differentiation in the classroom enables a teacher to meet a student at their level. The article promotes differentiating at the Instructional Design level. Cognitive load theory aids in identifying instructional formats that are effective and efficient in understanding a topic. There are many ways to figure out how students are learning from different formats. This can help guide instructional design to better fit the learner and to advance them to the next level. The article depicts how the same format, and focus on how the brain learns, can be used to help students master a topic by creating a schema. “Schemas can reduce working memory load, because once they have been acquired and automated, they can be handled in working memory with very little conscious effort;” (Gog, Tamara van, K. Anders Ericsson, Remy M. J. P. Rikers and Fred Paas p.74) thus, leading to advanced mastery. In addition, “Expert performance research has shown that it is not the amount of experience in a domain that is relevant for acquiring expert performance, but rather the amount of deliberate effort to improve performance.” (Gog et. al.,p.75) After the deliberate practice is put in place by a teacher, a student then starts to design and monitor their own practice and needs to master the topic. One drawback to using CLP and deliberate practice as means for mastery is motivation. Students must be motivated to increase their performance to put in the effort for mastery. A strategy that needs to be researched further is how “instructional interventions might facilitate the learning process, increase motivation, all while shorting the learning curve. Instructional design should identify the different instructional formats that are effective in teaching novices and advanced students. This will enable Instructional Design differentiation based on levels of knowledge and the learning process.  ** Discussion: ** In the new Constructivist mindset, it is disconcerting to hear the term deliberate practice. Most education conversations are based on scaffolding and leading the student towards understanding without being told directly how to do a task or to memorize. Today’s teachers walk a fine line of self discovery and the need to practice a skill to master it and be able to move beyond it. The article brought to light that one does need practice. Practice for novice learners and even practice for advanced learners. Actually, knowing how and what to practice is a skill that enables someone to become an advanced self learner. The Instructional Design must take into account the need for this practice. The practice does not need to be archaic and simply be, for example, copying times tables down. It can be done creatively. A balance is needed in Instructional Design to incorporate the Constructivist discovery and practice for mastery. Instructional Design can use Theoretical Frameworks of Cognitive Load and Deliberate Practice to enhance the mastery of skills for not only advance learners but novice learners.  ** Connection: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> The two articles were picked because of their possible connection to the issue of science education and integrating the practice of measurement skills in a realistic manner. The game design article produces the idea that games and models are a good manner to utilize, enhance, learn, and augment new skills. The Instructional Design for Advanced learner article discusses how to hone in the skills learned to complete advanced tasks. Science tasks are at times difficult for students because their incorporate so many basic skills at one time, reading, writing, math to then analyze and create a solution. The article was chosen to incorporate some of the individualized learner ideas into science content. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> ** // <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Search: // ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Searching for journal articles is sometimes a cumbersome process. Google displays millions of entries for the search “Instructional Design”. From one link to the next, one starts to weed out some of the articles that do not fit the criteria at all and narrows down the search field to “Instructional Design” and “Science” or “measurement” The best search tool was the University of Florida Library page. Searching under the ** same ** criteria and looking for only journal articles resulted in articles that more closely fit the content matter. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">References: ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Gog, Tamara van, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">K. Anders Ericsson, Remy M. J. P. Rikers and <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Fred Paas <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">. Instructional <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2005 , Volume 53, Number 3 , Pages 73-81 Appelman, Bob, Atsusi Hirumi, Lloyd Rieber, Richard Van Eck. Preparing Instructional Designers for Game-Based Learning: Part 1. TechTrends , 2010 , Volume 54, Number 3    , Pages 27-37 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13pt;">Preparing Instructional Designers for Game-Based Learning: Part 1 **