Instructional Design Model Report

ID Model Report

Location and selection: Dick and Carey’s, Gerlach-Ely’s, and Schank’s models and the Rapid Prototyping model all appealed to me because my research is problem (project) – based learning and educational gaming. So, I started running internet searches with combinations of these models. When I ran across an article that seemed helpful in describing models, but didn’t have its own model, I read through the bibliography to see if the articles or authors listed may be helpful. In this method, I found the author of the ARCS (integrating learner motivation) model, John Keller. While running a search of his name in combination with the key terms educational gaming, I found the two articles I am using for this assignment. The article on an experiential educational gaming model appealed to me since my research interest lies with gaming and I am currently trying to incorporate gaming into my curricula. The second article appealed to me because I was introduced to using cell phones in (and out of) the classroom at FETC. After reading the SMSE model and paper, I realized that the FETC speaker was using this model with the assignments he had us (the audience) doing.


Citation:
Kiili, K. (2005). Educational Game Design: Experiential gaming model revised. Tampere University of Technology. Pori, Research report 4, 1-12.
Retrieved 22 May 2009 at http://amc.pori.tut.fi/publications/EducationalGameDesign.pdf

The Revised Experiential Gaming Design Model (REGDM) proposed by Kiili is complex. The author explains that his main purpose in proposing this model is to help designers to understand the mechanism of learning with games. The author thinks that currently the use of educational gaming is more as tools for supporting factual information then utilize the power of gaming as an interactive context free media.

The author tries to explain his model by likening the model to the cardiovascular system of a human. The human cardiovascular system has two loops, one from the heart to the lungs and then back to the heart (pulmonary) and the other loop goes from the heart to the body and then back to the heart (systemic). Kiili’s analogy likens the pumping of a human heart to the challenges, gamefulness, or playability of the educational game. His thought behind this is that the drive to play the game pumps the rest of the process. His solutions loop is likened to the human pulmonary loop. The experience loop is likened to the human systemic loop. The “heart beat” is the challenges the game player is faced with in the process of playing the game. Each challenge forces the gamer to generate solutions and the trial of each solution generates experience and learning. Of course this is just a simple overview of Kiili’s REGDM. Kiili breaks each of the loops into steps, just as you could break down the pulmonary loop into blood vessels, lungs, and alveoli. The aim of this game design model is to guide and facilitate the work of game designers. Unfortunately, because games are so variable and abstract, there is no one recipe to make a good educational game. Kiili suggests starting with a needs analysis, then solution generation, and then fast prototyping to refine game features. Of course the final step is evaluation, and Kiili recommends two phases of evaluation: game world (gaming features) analysis and experience (gamer’s experiences, feelings, and perceptions) analysis. Again, this is a very basic overview that fits into Kiili’s complex REGDM.

Kiili states that the three main goals of this model are: 1) describe the learning process through games; 2) support design of flow inducing educational games; and 3) describe the educational game design process in an abstract form. I tend to agree with his goals. In my opinion, most educational games are skill and drill which don’t allow the students to think for themselves. His model for making educational games would allow the player to think in strategic and problem-solving ways. In my opinion that is more important than factual knowledge that can easily be looked up in this digital age. His model was very complex, but I won’t use most of it because I’m not looking to design games, but implement them. I can use the foundations of his model to design curriculum around games. By modifying his model slightly, it allows me to create curriculum that doesn’t focus on fact-based knowledge, but allows the “heart” to generate lessons in each loop of experience and problem-solving. It will be a process without a single recipe because of the variability of games and learners.



Citation:Shih, Y., E. (2005). Seize Teachable and Learnable Moments: SMSE instructional design model for mobile learning. Paper presented at the International Association for Development of the Information Society International Conference Mobile Learning June 28-30, Malta.
Retrieved 22 May 2009 at http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200506L012.pdf

The SMSE model is a new instructional design model to facilitate mobile teaching and learning in education. The introduction of mobile handheld devices (such as cell phones, PDA’s, Pocket PC’s, etc.) enables learners to participate in a learning environment at anytime and in any location. As a model, SMSE has four crucial parts: Scenario, Message, Synchronization, and Evaluation. Scenario means creating a situation where students can learn through their mobile devices. The teacher creates a lesson, webpage, survey, or other assignment. This is anytime and anywhere learning since the lesson can be sent at any time and the student can be anywhere. Message refers to the process of notifying the students which could be by texting, instant messaging, or by sending an audio/video file. Messaging also encourages interactivity and collaboration. Synchronization refers to the coordination of the mobile learning assignment to the lessons of the class. This process promotes self-reflectiveness and transformative learning for students. Finally, evaluation refers to the assessment of the assignment and learning outcomes so that improvements can be made to ensure authentic learning and knowledge construction.

The author’s objective is to effectively combine mobile technology and learning environments to enhance the learning experience. According to Shih, the SMSE model is designed to maximize the effectiveness of mobile learning applications while integrating mobile learning into existing learning activities. I agree that Shih’s model has the potential to succeed in this combination of traditional learning and new technology. Shih created his model primarily for distance education, but I plan on adapting his model for face-to-face classes. His model is relatively simple and straight-forward, so I don’t anticipate any problems on creating mobile device lessons for my own classes. I think linking lessons to handheld technology is a great idea. Based on my own experiences, students have a hard time turning off or putting away handheld devices. By tapping into their interests, using mobile devices may be a vehicle for education.