In Week 4 of T127: Teaching and Learning Lab Practicum, we examined several instructional design frameworks.

Frameworks and models are useful, particularly as a novice to a field. But as I reflect on projects I’ve been involved in, the frameworks sometimes seem silly. Real-life projects are so messy. Technical and logistical issues arise that can completely derail decisions made early on. So much design happens in the “development” phase when unforeseen, practical decisions need to be made.

I was also stunned to watch Prof. Bill Wisser explain that the ADDIE framework emerged from military Instructional Systems Design (ISD) during the Cold War. Despite working as an instructional designer in a corporate setting and having taken multiple learning design courses at HGSE, I had never come across this simple fact before.

For me, the provenance of a framework matters. Was it developed by practitioners or academics? Why and how did it spread?

Both the pressure to publish in academia and the pressure for profit in business result in the constant birth of new models. Novelty is necessary to either publish or sell. But many “new” frameworks seem to be a reshuffling of the old, just with a shinier polish or a copyright stamp.

As a STEM Educator, I use multiple frameworks; some for myself, some for my learners. These are also often under repeated scrutiny and criticism and recombination – especially the scientific method! – as to whether they accurately portray the work of practitioners.

While I can’t do a comprehensive review, I was curious to learn the origins of the following 10 frameworks and reflect on my experience with them.

1 ADDIE

Origins: Created by Florida State University for the military in the 1970s

Purpose: “Meant as a guideline to create effective training and instructional materials. The model was intended to lead the IDs or faculty to complete each phase before moving on to the next.” (ID Handbook, PennState)

Reflection: I tried to apply the ADDIE framework (usually when making Gantt charts for project management) during my work as instructional designer. I never felt it quite captured the work we were doing, and it was so hard to get to the E phase before another project took priority.

Now having taken a course in Formative Evaluation, I think the way I approached the process as a novice made me think I had to have a completely polished product and only then perform a (summative) evaluation. I’ve definitely gained an appreciating for testing though-out the process as part of design and development from my time at HSGE.

I’m somewhat surprised that this model is so widespread considering it origins, it seems most job postings in Learning & Development still list “familiarity with ADDIE” high on their requirements.

2 Agile and Scrum

Agile

Origins: Response to more linear Waterfall model; Agile Alliance (group of 17 software developers) pushed for a new approach starting in 2001

Purpose: “Speed up development times in order bring new software to market faster.” (Planview, Agile Alliance)

Scrum

Origins: “An article in the Harvard Business Review in 1986 by Takeuchi and Nonaka… described how first-class and innovative products are developed in cross-functional teams with an ‘all-simultaneous approach’ [at companies like Honda, Canon and Fuji-Xerox]…Jeff Sutherland and his team at Easel Corporation adapted the Scrum process for software development in 1993….[In 1995,] Ken Schwaber published the first paper on Scrum after intensive discussions with Sutherland. Since then Sutherland and Schwaber have published several books on Scrum. They also regularly revise ‘The Scrum Guide‘ [first published 2010]”

Purpose: “Helps people, teams and organizations generate value through adaptive solutions for complex problems.” (Agile Academy)

Reflection: I’ve never experienced Agile development or Scrum. It’s always been floating around in the ether and I knew it was a big deal in software development. It’s interesting that unlike many of the models which mention “problem-solving” or “creativity,” Agile emphasize speed as a goal, allowing continuous product release and development. This makes sense with how common the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) subscription business model has become. I’m old enough to remember when software like Adobe Suite came on CDs and you owned a version outright. That business model probably worked well with Waterfall!

3 Design Thinking Hexagons

Origins: Unclear. Many sources mention the the d.school at Stanford although I was under the impression it was IDEO. According to West and Bogers (2013), IDEO “practices are closely linked to Stanford’s design philosophy and practice as most of their methodology, founders, and professional staff were involved in and came from Stanford’s Joint Product Design (JPD) program.” IDEO “brought design thinking into the mainstream” in the early 1990s and d.school was founded in 1994. (Interaction Design Foundation)

Purpose: “Methodology for creative problem solving” (d.school) “Human-centered design is a practical, repeatable approach to arriving at innovative solutions. Think of these Methods as a step-by-step guide to unleashing your creativity, putting the people you serve at the center of your design process to come up with new answers to difficult problems.” (IDEO) The process is represented as hexagons because “stages are seen more as enablers or modes of thinking, rather than concrete linear steps.” (Interaction Design Foundation)

Reflection: I had never seen the hexagons before HGSE. It’s interesting that the origins are a little murky. From my introduction to them during the Learning Design, Innovation, and Technology core programming, I was sure that they were very clearly published by IDEO. We called them the IDEO hexagons. But I couldn’t find any proof of this online or even a date for their origins. The most striking thing about this model is of course that it starts with “Empathize.” Many other models start with doing research or asking questions to identify a problem, but the particular emphasis on empathy distinguishes design thinking. The process feels less cold and academic than many of the other models.

4. Design Thinking Double Diamond

Origins: “In the mid-2000s the British Design Council popularized the Double Diamond diagram, based on Béla H. Bánáthy’s 1996 “divergence-convergence” model.”

Purpose: “The Double Diamond diagram graphically represents a design thinking process. It highlights the divergent and convergent styles of thinking involved.” (Interaction Design Foundation)

Reflection: This one is a more of a description of a phenomenon than a prescriptive model to be followed. I first saw it this year in Bertrand Schneider’s “Digital Fabrication and Making in Education” course.

Despite it not being prescriptive, I have found it be very reassuring when working on projects. It makes me less anxious when I feel like there are so many different ideas or areas to cover. I just tell myself “aha, we’re just on the diverging rise of the diamond, soon we will start to converge again” instead of feeling that I have to direct the conversation to be more practical.

5. Backwards Design

Origins: Described by Wiggins, Grant and McTighe in 1998

Purpose: “An attempt to redirect instructors’ focus from activities and instruction to the outcomes of instruction.” (Center for Teaching and Learning, Kent State)

Reflection: This model is so different than the others! It really is backwards. In so many of the other models, the outcome is unknown at the start. I learned this model during my work as an out-of-school-time STEM educator. It’s how I design lesson plans for workshops and vacation camps. It is very uncomfortable at the start but it is a great method for “killing your darlings.” If an activity doesn’t fit with the learning outcomes, it has to be cut, no matter how fun! Or it shows me that I didn’t fully capture the learning goals if I feel the activity does provide something of value.

6. Teaching for Understanding (TfU)

Origins: “Teaching for Understanding project had its origins in 1988 when Howard Gardner, David Perkins and Vito Perrone of Harvard University began discussing the problem, as they saw it, of schools not giving enough attention to understanding.”

Purpose: “A five-year research and development programme was subsequently mounted with the intention of developing a research-based, classroom-tested approach to teaching for understanding” (ETL Project)

Reflection: I learned to use the Teaching for Understanding model in Tina Grotzer’s “Cognitive Science for Teaching and Learning” course. I love this model because to me this really is the purpose of education. It reminds me of Eleanor Duckworth’s quote about learning being the “having of wonderful ideas.” I think having wonderful ideas is not possible without the groundwork of understanding a subject: there is a particular joy in “grasping” or “getting” a concept.

I was lucky to have this kind of experience in my High School Biology courses, learning about natural selection and the intricate dance between genes and the environment made me feel I had unlocked meanings that had been hidden in plain sight.

7. 5E Model

Origin: Developed in 1987 by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1962 findings of Atkin and Karplus directly informed the creation); constructionist approach

Purpose: “Promotes collaborative, active learning in which students work together to solve problems and investigate new concepts by asking questions, observing, analyzing, and drawing conclusions.” (Lesley University)

Reflection: I also use this model in planning drop-in activities in my work as an out-of-school-time STEM educator. This is more on the lesson level, where backwards design is more on the unit level of more structured programming (workshops and vacation camps).

I often open by asking students questions for the “Engage” step both to assess their current level and introduce them to a topic without reverting to “sage-on-the-stage.” Once they’re engaged and able to Explore (step 2), the transition to Explain (step 3) is so easy because they are naturally curious and want to know why. Since it’s an informal setting, I don’t always get to the last 2 steps (Elaborate and Evaluate) with every student. But I hope that I am providing a foundation that will support their learning in their formal classes.

8. Ambitious Science Teaching

Origin: University of Washington College of Education researchers in 2018; funded by NSF

Purpose: “Deliberately aims to get students of all racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds to understand science ideas, participate in the discourses of the discipline, and solve authentic problems.” (AST)

Reflection: I learned about Ambitious Science Teaching through the Museum of Science’s teacher professional development program. In some ways, it is similar to the 5 Es. I love the focus on a specific phenomena to anchor each unit and the emphasis on creating models and using evidence. However, while the 5 Es is something I’ve been able to apply in informal settings, AST’s affordances can only be realized in a more formal and long-term setting. Students need to continuously revisit their models/thinking and the process requires a kind of rigor and consistency that is not possible in an informal setting when students can opt out or be picked up at any time.

9. Engineering Design Process

Origin: Engineering is Elementary curriculum, Museum of Science, 2003

Purpose: “Set of steps that guide us – or any professional engineer, scientist or mathematician – through solving a problem.” (EiE)

Reflection: The EiE Engineering Design Process is of course just one formulation of this process. I use this model in engineering activities with defined success criteria (as opposed to more open-ended tinkering, making, etc.).

My father is an engineer, and I doubt whether he has ever seen a model like this in his work, although it may still accurately describe the process from a distance. In my conversations with him, Six Sigma (a set of techniques that makes use of statistics and data analysis to reduce errors or defects and improve processes) or the five principles of Lean Manufacturing (model for minimizing waste within systems while simultaneously maximizing productivity) are much more likely to come up.

10. Scientific Method

Origins: As far back as the Ancient Egyptians (image is from Science Buddies)

Purpose: “An iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised…generally recognized to develop advances in knowledge.” (Wikipedia)

Reflection: I use variations of this model to teach students about science. I could reflect on this model for a whole separate reflection – there is so much to say. In some ways I feel this model reveals the epistemology of the human race over millennia, and yet “many philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, including Paul Feyerabend  claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways that science is actually practiced.” (Wikipedia)

I have read Thomas Kuhn and understand how much humanity’s social nature guides scientific inquiry, perhaps above and beyond reason. Feyerabend’s “Against Method” is currently parked on my book shelf in the TBR (to be read) section. However, there is something about the success of this model of rejecting or not rejecting hypotheses based on evidence that gives me hope for our species.

---

Final Thoughts

It strikes me that some models/frameworks aim primarily to describe while some aim to prescribe, although most do a combination.

I also notice how many of the processes identify their primary purpose as solving problems, whether they are specific to design, software development, traditional education, or engineering. They differ in their emphasis on creativity or collaboration, whether their ends or defined or un-defined, and whether the aim to develop a solution, knowledge, or learning. Iteration is a common theme.

As a meta-reflection on reflections – I’m usually not much of a fan. However, this reflection is showing me how much I have learned over the past 3 semesters: more than I thought! I enjoyed thinking about my experience with each model. While I couldn’t definitively outline the affordances and limitations of each model based on my limited experience, I do feel equipped to contribute to the conversation.