Global Learning Isd Model

Global Learning ISD Model

Defining Global Click on text boxes for navigation

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 often used term globalization. Therefore, as scholars agree (Giddens, 1999; Tomlinson, 1999), a better conception of the global should involve defining the word thorough the variety of interconnected relationships across cultures which occur through the vastness of human endeavors, only one of which is economic. Within the broader term of global, globalization relates to one facet of interconnection, the economic and political interactions, while also referring to other socio-cultural aspects of human interactions, such as learning and knowledge creation. Unfortunately, these non-economic interactions tend to be commodified by the language and framework of globalization markets, which consequently mask these other endeavors (Apple, etal, 2002). As a critique to this misunderstanding Thomas Friedman (2005) eloquently comments that:

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 a broader framework, the term global then becomes an appropriate way to express what occurs in the exchange of non-monetary, or purely cultural artifacts such as knowledge, information, and learning practices within a global knowledge economy (World Bank, 2003). What the Global Learning Model attempts to do is create a framework for instructional designers to consult in designing instruction while participating in the exchanges within this global knowledge economy.

Next

The Model • Two phased systematic approach – Phase I - Front End Analysis – Phase II – Design & Development

• Best suited for e-learning adult education • Considers the deeper elements such as ‘hidden costs’ Model Il lu st rat ion

Str en gth s and Lim it ation s

Co mpariso n ch art to Edm onds, B ra nc h & Muk herj ee (19 94)

Next

Systematic Approach A way to conceptualize the Global Learning Model beyond economic sociopolitical cultural terms is to utilize a systematic ecological framework approach. To do this, the Global Learning Model recognizes three systematic interactive levels. One, the suprasystem, is the broad global learning framework, which is the “distributed learning ecologies” (Hagel & Brown 2006, p.12), or “complex connectivity” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 2). 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 within it encompass the macro and micro institutions and individuals participating in exchange. The learning challenge is to conceptualize and even coax these systems to become more open to the global suprasystem, and create a cybernetic open-feedback loop. Exchanges are already taking place among subsystems that at times participate better along this cybernetic supra-system than the their respective systems through various collaborative endeavors such as Web 2.0 collaborations (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”, p. 19) than sub-system – system feedback. These skills are viewed as a set of prescriptive global competencies needed within the instructional development. • • • •

Digital Literacy Skills related to ‘Information Literacy’ (ACRL, 2009) Developing a democratically fair notion of ‘global identity’ Knowing how to navigate as participants among the ‘global’ suprasystem Knowing how to negotiate, trade, produce, or exchange within global knowledge economies • Being able to think critically through analysis of various knowledge sources and experience (Apple, etal, 2002) • Knowing how to be a lifelong learner (World Bank, 2003)

Back

Next

The Global Learning Model: A Two phased approach

The first phase of the Global Learning Model consists of front end analysis (FEA) 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” within ‘The Long Tail’ of online cultures that interact with each other and the center, meaning more peer based interaction alongside managed prescriptions (Hagel & Brown, 2006; Brown & Adler, 2008). Through this first phase, a set of competencies and instructional goals/objectives are developed that represent the interests between the forces. This phase is mainly 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 and balances such as, the subject matter experts, appropriate assessment strategies, learner preparedness, and the global competencies and made. Each must be equally considered when developing instruction. The second phase, if properly balanced, should limit the issues within implementation by harnessing change management values.

Back

Next

E-Learning The model advocates for e-learning as the most efficient and reliable way to deliver instruction because e-learning involves an already established collaboration mechanism 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 the development of a new culture based on principles of a global Community of Practice that involves the social construction of knowledge. As people participate through elearning constraints, such as time or distance, the constraints are overcome within a global classroom. In turn, a global identity begins to take hold, which Brown and Adler articulate as a paradigm shift labeling knowledge construction 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 or “productive friction” between the top-down and bottom up influences (Hagel & Brown, 2006, p.12).

Back

Next

Hidden Costs Through the processes summarized in Phase I of the Global Learning Model, a deeper analysis addresses factors relating to ‘hidden costs’ of instructional development. The analysis is part of the systematic approach to instructional design as best explained by Romiszowski ‘Romi’ (2009) and Doughty (2009). Romi’s systematic approach is to consider the hidden costs associated with implementation, which do not necessarily translate into (and are sometimes ignored by) economic factors. Doughty’s similar systematic approach addresses the hidden costs by concentrating on organizational development (OD), the policy and motivational issues within the instructional development process. Both designers advocate that instructional design should consider deep factors that influence a system such as the contextual layers of management, infrastructure, the resources, the teachers, the students, and the community.

Back

Global Learning Model Competencies

Goals and Objectives

Formative Evaluation

Phase I

Needs Analysis

Ph ase I Ph ase II

Phase II

Design and Development of Instruction

Evaluati on Theory Bibliogr aph y

Summative Evaluation

Back

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).

Macro Influences

Identify and reveal any hidden agendas

Determine if elearning is viable delivery solution Create competency list addressing need

Negotiation between macro and micro entities create a ‘global’ system with balanced top-down and bottom-up influences.

Evaluate Establish goals and objectives

To phase II…

Micro Influences

Identify gaps through symptoms and causes

Back

Next

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 process.  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 by the committee before moving on the Phase II.

Back

Next

Phase I: Front-end Analysis (FEA) To clarify, the notion of entities is intentionally left vague and 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 in a developing country. In this case, 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 that relates to Phase I of this model, the FEA 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, deriving from Brown & Hagel’s notion, 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.

Back

Next

Phase II: Design and Development SME in fl uen ce

Lea rne r pre par ed nes s

Flexibl e Cir cle Dyn am ic T ensions Instr uction al Design er ’s Function Impl em entation

Design and Development of Instruction

Align w ith glob al com petenci es

Effe ct iv e Ass essm ent Strate gy

Back

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. In order for the Phase II processes to be effective, these natural tensions need to exist and be acknowledged. The final design product, therefore, would consist of the most effective approach for learners to develop 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. The tensions are articulated as: Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence, alignment with global competencies from the FEA, an effective assessment strategy, and learner preparedness. 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.

Back

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, is meaningful to the learner, and contextual (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Since balance is the key within Phase II, a rapid prototyping approach is used to quickly evaluate products ensuring that the design meets the competencies through consideration of the tensions. For instance, subject matter experts should not provide only their perceptions, while learners still must be challenged, and appropriate assessment strategies should be created. However, the flexibility of the model allows the designer to stretch tensions based on needs of learning situation. 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 help the designer 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), ‘Bloom Digital Taxonomy’, which leads learners through a process from remembering to creating, is an available theoretical learning management system appropriate for the Global Learning Model.

Back

Phase II Tensions These tensions are the dynamic forces of Phase II. At times, one may outweigh the other, but each force still needs consideration.

• Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence

– Consult SMEs to extract important knowledge and expertise needed to fill competencies

• Effective Assessment

– Criterion based assessment that is balanced between learner desire and judge of proficiency of competency

• Global competency alignment

– This include a skills related to participating within the global knowledge economy supra-system

• 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 development within instruction Back

Implementation: Change Management Whatever form the instruction ultimately takes there will always be the further challenge of implementing it. Within the Global Learning Model, implementation is more of an implied part than 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). Furthermore, the notion of an instructional design model as a facilitator mechanism for change to meet a need, encompasses the notion that of a philosophical framework such as on Solomon’s (2000) analysis of the profession. This framework includes understanding change from the intellectual, aesthetic, moral and spiritual dimensions of the instructional development intervention process. Within these deeper perspectives, change management is more of awareness of the situation than an outright prescription.

Back

Evaluation An evaluation mechanism is built into the model in two major checkpoints. These systematic checkpoints allow for either the instructional designer to internally evaluate the developmental outcomes or for an outside consultant to externally evaluate the outcomes of the process. Depending on the scope of the project and the budgetary guidelines, the evaluation process could take different forms. The first checkpoint is at the end of Phase I. In this step, the evaluator would check whether the competencies developed from the FEA interactions align with their expectations. Deeper analysis would involve examining how the competencies translated into a set of goals and objectives further align with the intensions of the entities. Since instructional materials have not been developed at this point, evaluation questions are more concerned with the deeper levels such as transfer and results (Winfrey, 1999) The second evaluation checkpoint within Phases II examines the instructional product both formatively and summatively. On one level, the main evaluation question is to ask whether the instruction meets the competencies developed from Phase I. Vaildity of the instruction is dependent on the alignment, and could even externally provide future development strengthening the ID Toolbox. Summative evaluation also needs to consider whether the instruction is meeting the needs of the learners and how well the entire developmental process helped foster a ‘global’ learner identity while maintaining and respecting 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 another, there at times 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[1]. 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 working definition of constructivism within the model 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 filter it within the context of their culture. How constructivism relates to instructional design and the Global Learning Model involves a systematic framework segmented into processes of : analysis, development, and evaluation. Based on this framework, the segments and instructional designer’s role is summarized on the next slide (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). [1] This concept was argued in my unpublished Masters Thesis titled “Examining the development of a Global Civil Society through analysis of Literacy Works Volunteer Tutor Training”, and is based on the interpretation of Foucault’s notion of power within Popular Education and Community of Practice frameworks

Back

Next

Theoretical Underpinnings Segment Analysis – instead of a prescription for knowledge, meaning is more of a negotiating process situated within a contextual environment that learners reflect on

Instructional designer role Assist in extracting objectives within the negotiation of meanings through facilitation and alignment of environments

Development – the creation the studentcentered authentic learning environments where learners develop a sense of ownership and meaningfulness as they solve problems within situations

Utilizes tools and strategies that assist is facilitating change within a learning situation

Evaluation – since value is user-driven within a social situation, evaluation involves how well learners develop metacognitive skills

Determines formatively if learner knowledge is aligned within negotiated situation and summatively if learner has developed appropriately through instruction

Back

Model Strengths and Limitation • Strengths – Versatility and flexibility built into design – Built to consider the deeper notions of change in implementation – Addresses global learning within a larger context

• Limitations – Overly broad in scope to be of practical use specifically relating to implementation costs – Conceptually based with no consideration for practical application especially relating to the assumption that elearning will be accessible and viable delivery solution – Assumes designer has a developed global identity Back

Conceptual Comparison Chart based on Edmonds, Branch & Mukherjee (1994)

Orientation

Knowledge Structure

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

Expertise Level

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

Structure

On the continuum, the model is more soft-system/intuitive, however, drawing from Romi’s (2009) framework, the structural approach of the model is more systemic

Context

Model is best used within an adult education framework for elearning to help develop a global ecology

Level

Various levels, depending on situation, but mostly e-learning institutional

Back

Bibliography •

ACRL (2009). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Association of Colleges and Research Libraries. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

•

Apple, M. W., Kenway, J., Singh, M. (2002). Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies, & Politics. Peter Lang: New York.

•

Brown, J.S., Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the Long Tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1) (January/February 2008), p. 16–32.

•

Brown, J.S. & Hagel III, J. (2006). Creation nets: Getting the most from open innovation. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, p. 41-51. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from www.johnseelybrown.com/cr eati onnets .p df

•

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from http://www.pdfcoke.com/doc/8000050/Blooms-Digital-Taxonomy-v212

•

Doughty, P. (2009). IDE632 ID in Context: Where does instructional development fit in the grand scheme of things?

•

Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY.

•

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

•

Next

•

Giddens, A. (1999). BBC Reith Lectures: Runaway World. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/

•

Glasersfeld, E. von (1982) An interpretation of Piaget's constructivism. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 36(4): 612–35. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=077.pdf

•

Hagel III, J. & Brown, J.S. (2006). Connecting globalization & innovation: Some contrarian perspectives. Lecture prepared for the Annual Meeting of World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland January 25-30, 2006. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from www.johnseelybrown.com/davos.pdf

•

Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.

•

Merrill, M.D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), p. 39-44.

•

‘Romi’ Romiszowski, A. (2009). Interview with Professor Alexander Romiszowski (“Romi”) conducted online by Bailin Fang. Open Education Research [published in China], 14(6).

•

Solomon, D. L. (2000). Philosophical inquiry in instructional technology: The forgotten pathway to learning. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from www.lear ndev .o rg/ dl /SolomonP hilo so phy.PDF

•

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

•

van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., and Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), p. 5-13.

•

Winfrey, E.C. (1999). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation. In  B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/k4levels/start.htm

• •

World Bank (2003). Lifelong learning in the Global Knowledge Economy: Challenges for Developing Countries. The World Bank: Washington D.C.

Back