Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p.

Definition Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities. (Berger). Instructional design aims for a learner-centered rather than the traditional teacher-centered approach to instruction, so that effective learning can take place. This means that every component of the instruction is governed by the learning outcomes, which have been determined after a thorough analysis of the learners needs. (McGriff) My definition is more bound by the exigencies of working within a busy school library media center and trying to assist teachers in their delivery of the curriculum. While I agree with McGriffs assertion that ID guarantees us a learner-centered classroom and that every component is governed by the learning outcomes, I hesitate to subscribe to the idea of learner needs being paramount. To that extent, I am prescriptivist: the learner may construct knowledge, but it is my job to see that the knowledge he has the opportunity to construct is in concordance with state performance standards. The ADDIE Model The initials of this model stand for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. These five stages emerged from the military, apparently, as a structure for designing any kind of program required to solve a problem.

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 2

It would seem that this five-stage cycle was developed out of some need to ensure that whatever program was being implemented actually matched the problem being solved. This might sound laughable, but how often have we seen teachers assign planet posters when the QCC only asked that the students learn how the planets revolve around the sun in a periodic manner? (Newnan Crossing, second 9 weeks, 2005). It is the Analysis phase which keeps us from making such egregious errors in our lesson plans, and it is this phase which seems to have informed many of our models today. We also retain, thankfully, the idea that the process is a cycle: the Evaluation phase gathers data not just on how much the learner learned, but also how effective the design was, and that data is fed back into the next Analysis phase. However, the ADDIE model in itself is a bit unwieldy for school-level personnel. It seems to be structured much more for commercial producers of curriculum materials than for someone who must has to interpret a state curriculum into daily practice. For example, in the version I encountered (McGriff, 2000), the Implementation phase included such tasks as Teacher training. The ICON Model ADDIE is the quintessential prescriptive model for instructional design. On the other end of the scale is the I-CON Model, one of the ultimate phenomenological models. Posited in the mid1990s by John B. Black and Robert O. McClintock of Columbia University, ICON stands for Interpretation Construction and is a constructivist model. Constructivists propose that children actively construct knowledge and this construction of knowledge happens in a social context. Vygotsky proposed that all learning takes place in the

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 3

'zone of proximal development'. This 'zone' is the difference between what a child can do alone and what he/she can do with assistance. (Conway, 1997) ICON consists of seven design principles which are roughly shaped into a structure for learning. These are Observation; Interpretation Construction; Contextualization; Cognitive Apprenticeship; Collaboration; Multiple Interpretations; Multiple Manifestations. In brief, this model challenges the teacher to present learners with authentic texts/artifacts anchored in authentic situations (Black & McClintock, 1995), which the learners then collaboratively examine and mine for data. The learners decide how best to assemble this data in order to meet the terms of the authentic situation. This kind of rich environment seems admirably suited to the rarefied heights of the Governors Honors Program, perhaps less so to an average classroom. It seems to presuppose a willingness to learn and an ability to abstract and apply that may be beyond many students, especially at the elementary level. Not surprisingly, this complex design for study as opposed to design for instruction (Black, McClintock, & Hill, 1994) does not seem to have survived in the wild, although it continues to be a dominant meme at the Dalton School where it originated (Dalton School, 2005). It tends to require large amounts of technology (the original designs relied heavily on SuperCard and networked Macintosh computers) and clearly requires enormous investments of time, energy, and resources on the part of the teachers. I found no citations on ICON past the original two articles! Comparison

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 4

The ADDIE and ICON models occupy opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their approach to student instruction. ADDIE carefully constructs the learning episode, including the form of the assessment of the learner. It begins with a deliberate learning goal in mind and structures the entire episode to provoke that goal in the learner. ICON, on the other hand, carefully constructs the learning environment but then turns the learners loose to study it, to absorb its riches as best they can with increasingly minimal assistance from the teacher, and then to produce a response to what theyve learned. If the authors of ICON ever attempted to show how to nail down a curriculum objective, I never saw it. Both models have value, of course. I would imagine that the practitioners of ICON at the Dalton School must go through something like ADDIE in order to get their intricately designed shows on the road, even if they dont have measurable curriculum goals in mind. Using ADDIEs focus on desired learner outcomes will prevent a teacher from turning his charges loose to study ancient Egypt by building pyramids out of sugar cubes and writing their names in hieroglyphics. On the other hand, ICON has a siren call which most behaviorist models lack. It promises, if properly constructed, a rich environment of engagement from which students are challenged to draw their own conclusions. Perhaps its too heady for everyday use, but for an occasional splurge, it may be just the thing. Understanding by Design Currently the State Department of Education is promoting the use of McTighe & Wiggins (2004) Understanding by Design (UbD) model in conjunction with the rollout of the Georgia

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 5

Performance Standards. Essentially constructivist in nature, UbD actually manages to combine some of the best of both worlds. From ADDIE and other behaviorist models, UbD begins with an examination of the desired learner goals, either curriculum standards or enduring understandings, also known as big ideas. Both knowledge and skills are included in the mix. along with essential questions, in UbDs Stage 1: Desired Results. Basing the design on the desired goals, UbD moves on to Stage 2: Evidence of Understanding. At this point the model takes a decidedly constructivist turn as it asks the designer to consider authentic performance assessments as a primary means of determining whether or not the learners have achieved the desired results. Here UbD resembles the ICON model in engaging learners in authentic activities and products. UbDs Stage 3: Learning Plan uses a number of strategies found in many other constructivist models, especially Gagns Events of Instruction and Silver & Strongs Home for the Mind, to build the actual sequence, materials, and activities of a classroom lesson. All in all, UbD is a rich, if complex and sometimes confusing, structure for embedding knowledge and skills in authentic learning tasks. Role of the media specialist The media specialist should be a schools go-to guy on any instructional design issues. He ought to be able to speak both ADDIE and ICON fluently, and he ought to be able to design not not only backwards but forwards when the circumstances require.

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 6

The media specialist ought to be a teachers first resource in designing a simple lesson or a complex unit, whether or not the lesson/unit involves the media center and/or information access skills. In fact, the media specialist ought to have some kind of administrative role in instruction, such that when the second grade teachers come in to check out all the planet books, he is able to engage them in a planning session that would convince them that it is not necessary, nor is it appropriate, to assign planet poster when all they have to do is convince the children that the planets revolve around the sun. (This is a nicer way to say he would be empowered to forbid teachers to teach crap that doesnt address established standards of knowledge and skills.) My ideal model I dont have one. Rather, I have lots. I even designed my own at one point, seven years ago before the DOE caught up with me, which used content standards, information technology standards, and Marzanos Dimensions of Learning standards for Information Access, Effective Communication, and Habits of Mind as a basis, with Eisenberg & Berkowitzs Big 6 embedded in Silver & Strongs Home for the Mind as a structure. Hows that for confluence? I append a sample lesson plan as Appendix 1.

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 7

References Berger, C., & Kam, R. (1996). Definitions of instructional design. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html Black, J. B., McClintock, R., & Hill, C. (1994). Assessing student understanding and learning in constructivist study environments. from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/asulcse.html Black, J. B., & McClintock, R. O. (1995). An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/papers/icon.html Conway, J. (1997). Educational technology's effect on models of instruction. from http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm The Dalton School. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from http://www.dalton.org/ McGriff, S. J. (2005). McGriff - Knowledge Base - Instructional Design. from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/IDD/ISDModels.html McGriff, S. J. (2000). Instructional System Design (ISD): Using the ADDIE Model [PDF file]. from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/IDD/ADDIE.pdf McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design : professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Ryder, M. (2005). Instructional Design Models. from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 8

Appendix 1

Lesson plan for Landforms - 5th Grade,

Name of Unit: Landforms Pictionary OBJECTIVES Content Objective(s) *checkpoint test This checkpoint does not correlate with the QCC at this time. Technology Objective(s) (if any) ASSESSMENT Information Access Standard B. ! Effectively uses a variety of information-gathering techniques and information resources. Student uses resources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, and atlases to dene the 15 landforms and then translate them into graphic format. Effective Communication Standard C. ! Effectively communicates in a variety of ways. Student can draw one of 15 landforms found on the Coweta County checkpoint in such a way that other students can recognize the landform. Productive Habits of Mind Standard B. ! Makes effective plans. Student works with other members of the team to make sure that everyone on the team can draw and recognize the 15 landforms. GETTING STARTED Overview Students divide into teams and play Pictionary using a list of 15 landforms. Materials needed assessment rubrics landforms list geography resources whiteboard or chart markers, erasers box with landform slips (one complete set for each team, all mixed up) rules of the game prizes for the winning team

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 9

Setup 1. Print out the landforms list, one for each student. (There are three on the page.) 2. Prepare the box with the landform slips in it. THE LESSON Engagement 1. Explain to the class that they will be given the checkpoint test on landforms soon. Show them the map with the landforms drawn on it and explain that they will have to identify selected landforms on this graphic map. 2. To learn these landforms, the class will play Pictionary. Divide the class into teams. Show the prizes that the winning team will get. [My recommendation is that the losing teams get nothing so that losing is not an acceptable alternative.DL] Note: !The more explicit you can make the Big 6 process, the better. Talk your students through it. Loop back. Allow mistakes. 1. Task Denition: 1.1. Dene the problem 1.1.1. Each person on the team must be able to draw each of the landforms as it might appear on a map. 1.1.2. Point out that it does the smart kid no good to know the denitions of the landforms if no one else on the team can draw them. This is a team effort. 1.2. Identify the information needed. 1.2.1. Ask the students to decide what they think they need to know to do this. 2. Information Seeking Strategy: 2.1. Brainstorm all possible sources. 2.1.1. Students may suggest dictionaries and encyclopedias. 2.1.2. Make sure atlases are brought into the picture. 2.2. Select the best source. 2.2.1. This step may have to wait until 4.2, when students are in the midst of trying to nd the information they need. 3. Location and Access: 3.1. Locate sources 3.2. Find information within sources 4. Use of Information: 4.1. Engage (read, hear, view). 4.2. Extract relevant information 4.2.1. If they begin to rely on denitions as an information goal, ask them if these will help them win the game, i.e., can they now draw the dened term? Go further than the dictionary words. 4.2.2. At this point, it might be useful to go back to 2.2 and revise estimations of what is the most useful resource. 5. Synthesis: 5.1. Organize information from multiple sources. 5.1.1. Caution the teams to practice drawing these forms so that every member of the team can recognize what a gulf looks like, for example. It is the

Lyles, Comparison of the ADDIE, ICON, and UbD models, p. 10

teams responsibility to make sure that everyone on the team knows what theyre doing. 5.2. Present the result. 5.2.1. Read the rules to the teams. 5.2.2. Remind teams that there is a complete set of terms for each team in the box, so a team might nd itself guessing the same term twice. 5.2.3. Play the game. 5.2.4. Award prizes to the winners. 6. Evaluation: 6.1. Judge the result (effectiveness). 6.1.1. Ask students to assess themselves (not their team) on how well they were able to communicate the landforms. What will they need to learn better before the checkpoint? 6.1.2. How well did they as a team do in making sure everyone on the team understood every term and could draw/recognize it in graphic form? 6.1.3. Did any team develop a method for winning? What was it? 6.2. Judge the process (efciency). 6.2.1. How well did they do at nding the information, especially at translating the denitions into graphic form? Assessment/Reection 1. xxx