Model Status Report

Model Name: Chiarchiaro/Davis

Orientation: We have developed the design with multiple sources of reference relative to our minimal experience. We have incorporated Diamonds “ideal” approach in that we do not wish to stifle creativity in any sense by pre-conceived notions of what the outcome should be. We want to encourage thought on all levels by all participants to reach the best solution possible and only scale back based on real obstacles, not mental barricades. We have also incorporated the concept of reciprocal determinism or as the article in module _ refers to it as __
Knowledge Structure: We hope to impart declarative knowledge, but there is also some cognitive and process oriented knowledge. Recipients should be able to apply the time management skills throughout their academic and personal lives.

Expertise Level: We would never assume to design a process in excess of the novice level. From the readings and the presentations to date it is clear that what distinguishes novices from experts is experience, adaptability and intuition. Gentry’s model is meant for expert because the steps while documented are not clearly defined, they require an experience mind to review and know that the process is being followed. This opposed to the ADDIE model which is very descriptive throughout the process making it ideal for a novice, however I think it is important to point out, that each model has the potential to be used in an expert setting, while models lend themselves to setting it is in the end the expertise of the designer to adapt and manipulate the applicability of the model which determines the success of the instruction. Given those parameters any model can be employed by an expert to achieve maximum affect.

Structure: The model had a 3 phase approach incorporating previously mentioned aspects. Initially we want to review the social, environmental and individual factors which might impact the gap and prevent a reasonable and effective solution. In terms of our design, current budget restraints might prevent a reasonable solution or the coaching staff may view other needs as more pressing making our attempt obsolete to them and without that buy in we could not move the process forward. We designed the initial phase just to examine these issues if we determine the need exist for an instructional intervention and all the parties are agreeable to us moving forward to phase two.
Phase II involves the bringing together of all involved and interested parties to formulate the ideal. This concept is derived directly from Diamond and we believe it to be an essential part to a novice designer. The bringing together of gatekeepers, interested parties, developers, participants, SME’s and opinion leaders takes the onus off the novice designer to be the clear expert and shifts responsibility for failure and success to all the involved parties.
Phase III involves the remainder of the processes in an iterative fashion. The design places the ideal in the middle of a circle of dependent functions. We specifically wanted the participants to refer back to the ideal at every step of the design, development and formative evaluation process. We specifically made each of the processes equal in size to avoid emphasis on one over another, with exception of media selection. Media selection was given a specific design because we saw this step and singularly crucial in the process. Media selection in today’s world has to be a more thoughtful process. As more and more institutions move to on-line learning environments, the use of blog, RIO, RLO, learning modules and exploratory learning environments the vehicles which you incorporate also need to help educate your learners in the environment they are most likely to find themselves in. While would could teach people how to use a traditional Franklin-Covey day planner, it is more likely that going forward an online planner and time management resource would serve them better based on explosion of technology and future direction of technology. This idea also goes back to the concept of making sure the learning as relevant to the learners current or future environment, if the learner can see the future uses of the item they are much more likely to internalize and use the material. The final step in phase III is summative evaluation in which we assess after implementation the degree to which our instruction helped to close the identified gap.

Context: Until now we had not thought of any other context for the designer other than higher education. However, I think the design fits in any of the three realms successfully, because you are forced to measure the important environmental factors initially. A review of these factors is important in all realms, e.g. the culture within a business may make impossible to implement the change you are looking for current and by the same token political concern may stifle the creation of solution to a particular need. Most often it appear to me that in the world of education it is the monetary constraints which curtail the production of good instruction, while this is difficult to overcome it does have an advantage, it comes with less of the same quid pro quo you see in business or politics, that is not to say that there are not entrenched attitudes in the field of education, but I think education spend more time looking to push the envelope.

Level: In terms of our model we think the design can apply to all levels from mass to unit level, but this is contingent on the expertise of the instructional designer. Our model is descriptive in that it describes how the parts interact to derive a solution and it prescribes certain methods which need to be followed, but those considerations become vastly complicated based on the size of the project. We could use this method to develop a 1.5 hour course on time management based on our current skill; however we do not possess the skill currently, to apply the same design to the creation of curriculum for Syracuse University. The approach is sound but implementation again would be contingent on the expertise of the instructional designer.

Model Strengths: We happen to think that the systems/systematic approach is a particular strength because it forces you to always refer back to the ideal and as you progress and adjust the other steps based on previous impact.
Particular Weakness of the Model: It has been developed by novices and we surely have overlooked a key element. Furthermore the fact that we have not used the design to develop actual instruction prevents us from observing what might be potential pitfalls in our design.

General Opinion and Utility: Our opinion as novice instructional designers is that we have the ability to identify models and apply models to certain projects at the beginner level. For example, the level of the project can possibly start at the lowest level, serving the minimal amount of learners but can eventually serve a larger audience of learners depending on the success rate with the initial group. Our opinion is that we are not in position to apply this to more than a specific controlled group of learners. Within the financial constraints of education, it is our opinion that it will be very difficult to come close to the “ideal” model that manifests out of the Diamond model. In another sector we probably have a better chance of coming close to that “ideal” model based off of better financial situations. In our opinion we are very pleased with the structure of the model considering our lack of knowledge and experience as instructional designers but our review of the social, environmental and individual factors we feel are thorough. Our initial phase and front end analysis we feel is very consistent with the Diamond model protocol and is vital for progression throughout the model. In conclusion, we feel that we have developed an adequate model considering our level as instructional designers.