PEMAHAMAN TENTANG REKABENTUK INSTRUKTIONAL

My understanding of Instructional Design is broken down into two essential components, design and theory. First there are many different types of design. Design is essentially a rational, logical, sequential process intended to solve problems (http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/watdes.html). In saying that, it is easy to conclude that design differs depending on the problem being solved. For example, instructional design in business and industry may be more focused on performance and instructional design in schools may focus on student learning (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002).
The second component strongly associated with instructional design is learning theory. Learning theories are important in instructional designer because they attempt to describe, explain, and predict learning (http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/Theories&Models/theoryintro.html#idtheory). Another way of looking at theory is that is offers guidance on how to better help people learn and develop (Reigeluth, 1983). Taking all this in consideration, my understanding of instructional design is that it is a systematic design of instruction where the outcome goals are to maximize learning.
Definition of Instructional Design
The goal is of Instructional Design is to maximize instruction (Dick & Carey, 2005). Models are used to achieve this goal. Models are simple representations of complex ideas, processes or whatever unique situation they are representing (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). In other words, they are something like a template. Models break down instruction into manageable components (Ryder, 2005). Components can vary depending on the model. Examples of components include needs assessment, instructional and learner analysis, assessments, and evaluations. Instructional Design is focused on the learner performance. It is driven by goals, prepares learners for real world performance, has measurable outcomes, is based on data, and most often requires the efforts of more than one person (Reiser &Dempsey, 2002). As stated before, instructional theory plays a valuable role in Instructional Design. There are three educational theories that influence Instructional Design; Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. Each theory contributes various features that are valuable to the field of Instructional Design http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/Theories&Models/theoryintro.html#idtheory). Instructional design is important because it speeds up the project by providing a “roadmap”; it allows clear communication between team members; and it insures that all elements of instruction have been addressed (Thompson, 2001).

Comparison of ADDIE Model
The ADDIE model seems to be the most straight forward and simple model to follow. It is sometimes referred to as the “generic” model because it is what most design models are based on (http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm). ADDIE stands for analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluate. The following describes each stage of ADDIE:
1. Analysis - The process for defining what is to be learned.
2. Design - The process of determining how it is to be learned—based on audience need, timetable, and budget.
3. Development - The process of authoring and producing the learning materials
4. Implementation - The process of installing the learning solution within the real-world business environment.
5. Evaluation - The process of measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning, based on the stated business objectives; occurring in each phase of the ADDIE model and at the project end (http://www.crawfordinternational.com/html/cai_addie.asp).(http://www.crawfordinternational.com/html/cai_addie.asp).
What I like about this model is that it logically takes you step by step through the design process. Someone new to Instructional Design might find it a good “first” model to work with. It can also be applied to any kind of learning solution (http://www.outsource2india.com/LearningSolutions/articles/ADDIE.asp). Some critics say that the ADDIE model is too systematic it is too time consuming to implement (http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm).
How does the ADDIE model compare to other Instructional Design models? The following is a comparison of ADDIE with Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction, the Hannafin Peck Design Model, and the Knirk and Gustafson Design Model.

Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction
I am most familiar with this model because I have taken the course Systematic Design based on the Dick and Cary model. Like the ADDIE mode, this model is widely used and can transfer across a variety of areas. The Dick and Cary Model is learner-centered. This model is also a system of components consisting of (1) goal identification, (2) instructional analysis, (3) learner and context analysis, (4) definition of objectives, (5) assessment instrument, (6) instructional strategy and materials development, (7) formative evaluation, and (8) summative evaluation of instruction (Dick and Carey, 2005). Some of the models limitations include: behavior is not predictable, so trying to predict behavior is an extremely difficult task; for complex instruction, it is very time consuming to break instruction down into all of its smaller components, and the model is linear, making it inflexible (http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm).

Hannafin Peck Design Model
This model emphasizes the importance of evaluation and revision. There are three phases in this model, needs assess, design and development/implement, each requiring evaluation and revision. This model is linear in nature and requires completion of a particular phase before moving on to the next (http://ed.isu.edu/isdmodels/Hannafin/Evaluate/Hannafin_Evaluate_Prob.html). This mode is a lot less complex than the ADDIE.
Knirk and Gustafson Design Model
This model is a three stage process which includes problem determination, design and development. You first identifying the problem and set instructional goals. Next, you developing objectives and specifying strategies. Last, the materials are developed.
Because it is a small scale mode, it is better to use this model over the ADDIE when creating individual lessons. One of the weaknesses is that the focus on evaluation and development seems to be very late in the process (http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm).

Comparative Summaries: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism
Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a theory of learning that only focuses on observable behaviors and discounts mental activities. Behavior theorists define learning as the acquisition of new behavior. Conditioning is the learning process involved in Behaviorism. One criticism of behaviorism is that it does not account for all learning since does not address mind activity (http://www.funderstanding.com/behaviorism.cfm).
Cognitivism
Cognitivism is concerned with the things that happen inside our heads as we learn. It focuses on how information is processed. Cognitist believe students actively process information and learning takes place through the efforts of the student. This happens when they organize, store and then find relationships between information, linking new to old knowledge, schema and scripts (http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pro_dev/teaching_online/how_we_learn/cognitive.html).
Constructivism
Constructivism views that knowledge is constructed, that is it is constructed by the individual through her own experience. Constructivist approach to learning emphasizes authentic, challenging projects that include students, and teachers. Its goal is to create learning communities that are more closely related to the real world. In an authentic environment, learners assume the responsibilities of their own learning (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construct).

My Philosophy
There are parts of cognition and constructivism that influence my beliefs about learning. Like cognitivism and constructivism, I believe that knowledge is a process. Constructivists believe that children construct knowledge through reflection on their own experiences and that a child’s environment influences their development. (Roopnarine, & Johnson, 2000). For example, a child constructs knowledge through play, and social relationships.
I find hands-on experiences very attractive. I believe that children learn by doing and therefore a teacher is most effective my creating a real-world environment where learning is relevant. I think an ideal classroom would be very interactive with many group projects.
Instructional Design Model and My Personal Philosophy
There are two models that I feel will fit with my personal philosophy. First, Willis’ Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model of Web-Based Design. This design model adheres to the three general guidelines for instructional design that are based on a constructivist theory of learning: First, the design is recursive and non-linear; Second, the design is reflective and third, it is participatory. It is not sequential and assumes that the knowledge construction process is very much dependent on the context. The experiences, perceptions and specific context that each individual brings to the learning opportunity provides the structure for how knowledge will be accessed and constructed (http://www.learningapple.com/id3/id_cid4.htm). The second model is the Cognitive Flexibility Model. It is especially formulated to support the use of interactive technology. Principles of the theory include:
1. Learning activities must provide multiple representations of content.
2. Instructional materials should avoid oversimplifying the content domain and support context-dependent knowledge.
3. Instruction should be case-based and emphasize knowledge construction, not transmission of information.
4. Knowledge sources should be highly interconnected rather than compartmentalized.
(http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/isabel/Ohio99/grounds.html).
I feel both of these support interactive, hands-on, authentic learning experiences.

References
ADDIE Model. (n.d.). Crawford and Associates. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from
http://www.crawfordinternational.com/html/cai_addie.asp.
Behaviorism. (n.d.). Funderstanding. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from
http://www.funderstanding.com/behaviorism.cfm.
Cognitive Flexibility Theory. (n.d.). San Diego State University. Retrieved October 4,
2005, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/isabel/Ohio99/grounds.html.
Cognitive Theories and Learning. (n.d.). Charles Sturt University. Retrieved October 4,
2005, from http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pro_dev/teaching_online/how_we_learn/cognitive.html.
Constructivist Instructional Design. (n.d.). University of Connecticut. Retrieved October
4, 2005, from http://www.learningapple.com/id3/id_cid4.htm.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Gustafson, K. L, & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th
ed.). Syracuse University, NY: (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 477 517).
Instructional Design (n.d.). University of Windsor. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from
http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm.
Instructional Systems Design Models. (n.d.). Idaho State University. Retrieved
September 29, 2005, from http://ed.isu.edu/isdmodels/Hannafin/Evaluate/Hannafin_Evaluate_Prob.html.
Kruse, K. (2005). Introduction to instructional design and the ADDIE model. Retrieved
September 30, 2005, from http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm.
Lin, J. (n.d.). CSCL Theories. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construct.
McGriff, S. (2001). ISD Knowledge Base / "Theoretical" Introduction. Retrieved
September 28, 2005, from
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/Theories&Models
/theoryintro.html#idtheory.
Reigeluth, C. (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reiser, R. & Dempsey, J. (2002). Instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Roopnairne, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2000). Approaches to Early Childhood Education.
New Jersey: Merrill.
Ryder, M. (2005). Instructional design models. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html.
Ryder, M. (2005). Instructional design models. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html.
The ADDIE Instructional Design Model. (2005). Outsource to India.
http://www.outsource2india.com/LearningSolutions/articles/ADDIE.asp.
Thompson, N. (2001). Why ID? The benefits of instructional design models. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/thompson.htm.
What is Design? (2005). Technological Questions and Issues. Retrieved September, 28,
2005, from http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/watdes.html.
University of Phoenix online. (2005). Retrieved September 2, 2005, from http://welcome.phoenix.edu/online/default.aspx.