Instructional
Design
Disassociation
and Development of Self
Ann
M. Garvey
Jones
International University
Abstract
This
paper reflects work done through a Jones international University course on designing
interactive e-learning as taught by Dr. Julie Wegner, July and August of 2012.
Elements of the paper include a definition of instructional design
incorporating among other theorists, work from the ADDIE model. The focus of
the plan included in this instructional design work is based on one sentence,
from one chapter, from the book, “Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders:
DSM – V and beyond. The sentence is planned to engage learners of what is and
who are people with dissociative diagnoses. Elements of a group personally
taught called the Thinking Group for adults with developmental disabilities
(DD) was used to comprehend better instructional design. Processes were then informed through a long
distance learning program found in the appendix. The
project is summarized in the discussion noting the enthusiasm to go forward
with the project.
Instructional
Design
Disassociation
and Development of Self
Definition of
Instructional Design
This
learner developed a working definition of instructional design during the first
assignment for the course work on designing interactive e-learning from Jones
international University (JIU). We stated that instructional design manages the
analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of a systematic
process which utilizes affective learning resources, materials, and tools, so
that instructional information can be implemented and applied by the learner
disciplined to learn through meaningful goals, task and/or activities. We also
noted that the contributing theorists to our theory were the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 1994; Berger & Kam, 1996;
Broderick, 2001; Craig, 2012; Gagne, Wagner, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Intulogy,
2010; Reiser & Dempsey, 2012; and Siemons, 2002.
Description of our Learning
Environment
With
the above definition in mind, this learner proposes the following description
of our learning environment that will be developed as our course project. It is resourced from the book, “Dissociation
and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond” written by Paul Dell and John
O'Neil (2009). The instructional design outline for the actual chapter “Disassociation
and Development of Self” is written by Elizabeth Carlson, Tuppet Yates, and L.
Allen Sroufe and it contains eight areas in the same approximate number of our
corresponding sessions. The eight areas
are:
(1) Dissociation:
description and diagnosis, (2) etiology of disassociation, (3) disassociation
within the framework of developmental psychopathology, (4) normative
self-processes, (5) normative dissociative processes, (6) developmental
pathways of disassociation, (7) disassociation and self-functioning, and (8)
conclusions and diagnostic implications.
When
it is time to develop an individual lesson plan for the project, we will
utilize only one sentence from the first area on dissociation description and
diagnosis. It is a very long conceptualized
sentence, so it will be appropriate and worthy of its own unit. The sentence
establishes a scaffold from which the learner will study to conceptualize what
the terms mean and understand better real people who just happen to be
multiples. The sentence reads:
Across
the developmental spectrum, dissociative processes may manifest as disturbances
of affect regulation (e.g., depression, mood swings, feelings of isolation),
identity
disruptions (e.g., splitting, fragmentation),
auto-hypnotic
phenomena (e.g., trances, time distortions, psychogenic numbing)
memory
dysfunction (e.g., psychogenic amnesia, fugue),
revivification
of traumatic experience (e.g. flashbacks, hallucinations), and
behavioral
disturbance (e.g., inattention, poor impulse control, self-harm)
(Hornstein
and Putnam, 1992 as cited in Dell & O’Neil, 2009).
The learning environment that the
learners (generally adults) will utilize is an online site for multiples,
called, “Dissociation Blog Showcase” (Olson, 2012). It is curated by Sarah E Olson, the author of
a book on multiplicity called, “Becoming One” (Olson, 1997). It is her story of triumph over multiple
personality disorder. The showcase is a compendium of approximately 140 blogs
of people who are multiple (dissociative identity disorder (DID)). Because of
our interest in social networking, or social media, we would also like to have
facets of our design plan that include Facebook and Twitter. It is important in our planning that people following
the plan be able to interact with multiples on a one-to-one basis up to and
including leaving comments that may be responded to.
The project will be designed and
introduced through the attributes of a WebQuest. Both multiples and learners should have the
opportunity to impact on one another. There will also be feedback loops that
are evaluative in that a set of directions will encourage the learner to also
become a blogger and write about her experience as she is learning about it.
She will have the option to keep her blog private from the general public,
although there needs to be an inlet so that people within the course and the
instructor can view the learner’s work. Respectfully, there will be a
reflection element where learners can add what they have learned from looking
at not only the multiples’ blogs, but also their peers. It will be an excellent
asset to evaluate and redevelop/interpret the instructional design plan.
Characteristics
of Instructional Design
Baturay
(2008) states that, “Basically the
routine of the [systematic] instructional design includes and follows the stages
of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. Although, this
is the common characteristic found in almost all instructional design models,
there are some minor differences in them.”
Another element of the instructional design is that it includes “the
integration of real-world contexts in learning environments” (Hansen,
2010). As an example of one of my
learning experiences, I would refer to a group I facilitated for twelve years
with adults with developmental disabilities (DD) called, “The Thinking
Group.”
The group met once weekly, for an hour, and it
included approximately 40 adult individuals with DD. This learner had an educational background of
psychology, but we did not understand at that time the development of
instructional design. There was a very
large effort to integrate the learning experience and apply it to the lives of
the group members so they could understand and comprehend better information
from their life and with the lives of their peers while in a social setting: learning
could be both fun and friendly. It
turned out to be a favorite activity, and even though the group for the
majority of years, met one hour before they were dismissed on Fridays, the
group maintained focus and concentration on the tasks and learning experiences
developed for them.
The
five characteristics mentioned previously as analysis, design, development,
implementation and evaluation, were only partially satisfied in the Thinking
Group’s actual instructional design plan. For the most part, it was only during
the latter years that a truer plan was implemented. Initially, the analysis
portion stemmed from events that had affected the facilitator and learners during
the week in front of the session. There was one - 1 1/2 year process where the
sessions were given a higher-order analysis that was penciled in according to a
grid of expectations noted in the accreditation process. Such as there might be
on the column side six to eight areas, such as the area, “social,” and on the
row side, there might be six to eight areas such as the objective, “independence.”
For each week there was movement toward one random grid square to another so
that for the grid coordinates combining social and independence, we might
establish directions for role-playing “riding the bus to their community jog
independently.” The usage of design was
in the creation of the grid and then developing a system so that individuals
could think of concepts that might be partly known, but also partly new. The
implementation was outlined and props gathered, and then spontaneously
delivered.
The
most problematic characteristic was the evaluation of the plan. Due to the
amount of energy expended trying to engage this many individuals at the end of
a tiring Friday, there was very little time to summarize the experience as to
what worked and what did not work and reflect on how the plan was received. It
does seem that the missing evaluative component was detrimental to a cohesive program,
in that the instructor could be very creative and develop plans at the spur of
the moment, but for only 1 ½ years did the program fit closely together in a interconnected
manner. There was some work done in that for the majority of this 12 year period
of time with the group, the facilitator did keep a blog, that although
personal, did descriptively capture some of the better sessions so that
although not useful to the center (which has since closed), have at least not
been lost to time.
Processes
of Instructional Design
During the course of researching, we
found a resource with a systematic literature review that listed and described
the main indicators of the “quality distance learning program” (Chaney, Chaney,
and Eddy, 2010) (see appendix as well).
The indicators included:
Student-teacher
interaction, prompt feedback, student support services, program evaluation and
assessment, clear analysis of audience documented, technology plan to ensure
quality, institutional support, institutional resources, course structure
guidelines, active learning techniques, respect for diverse ways of learning,
faculty support services, strong rationale for distance learning that
correlates to the mission of the institution, appropriate tools and media,
reliability of technology, implementation of guidelines for course development,
and review of instructional materials.
The
main indicators corresponded to processes of instructional design. As well, it
was exceptionally fortunate that the resource discussed the processes listed in
distance learning programs. Although the instructional design plan that we are
designing is not necessarily for learners in an institutional venue, it does
have many characteristics that are likewise associated with adult learners. It
contains items that can be checked-off in the design processes to assure that
each element is covered in the plan. It is especially useful in that it
establishes us as an institution-like entity responsible for relaying
educational information suitable on a more professional level that could also
be utilized then by learners in academic settings as well as autonomously. This is a good representation of multiplicity
and of people who are living the experience which should challenge new
knowledge formation for the learners. As a systems concept, the process is
complete and effective towards the goals we have in mind.
Compare and
Contrast Traditional Instructional Design Models with Whole Task Approaches to
Instructional Design.
The
new instructional design model, designed by this learner, includes parts of the
original ADDIE model where each of the components were broken down into parts
so that the learner could only deal with one part of the problem at a time, and
after she had studied and completed that goal, task, or activity, the learner
would try to associate all smaller lessons she had encompassed into a context
which was close, but not exact to the task that she had been working through.
The new whole task approach to instructional design meant that the learner
would work on completing tasks within the environment. In the example of dissociation and
development of self, the lesson plans will orientate the learner within the
environment of multiples through the blogs, Twitter, and Facebook and also by completing
the assignment of finding examples of disturbances manifested in dissociation.
Hopefully, the learner will relate to the multiples’ experiences they are
reading about, and will still think of them as normal human beings, though with
challenges with the result that the learner is then educated by a larger-sense of
a differently-informed community.
Reflection
I
am very happy with the development of the project plan thus far. Although this
learner’s papers tend to be long, the amount of detail and interest that ensues
is very gratifying to the learner, in that she can visualize the experience and
the project in its entirety and find that it encompasses important intellectual
and creative mental endeavors that keep her involved and engaged. Normally, we
would place the reflection portion of this assignment in the forum, under its
proper place, but because this paper is being turned in later than earlier, we
wanted to assure that thoughts were included before we formulated the
discussion portion of our paper. The following week, we will try to develop
this portion of the assignment prior to the closing of that weeks’ work. In
trying to understand this assignment, we skipped ahead to the second week
assignment of reading chapter 6 on “the learning sciences: where they came from
and what it means for instructional designers (Reiser, and Dempsey, 2009). We
are more than enthusiastic about reading the corresponding chapters for week
two. They felt inspiring in that as we
turned pages and highlighted, elements of the project developed
spontaneously. It was very encouraging
and hinted that we were on the correct path.
Discussion
There
were six components to this paper that should portray the beginning of an
instructional design plan. The definition of instructional design allowed for
both older portions of the ADDIE model while incorporating into that plan
elements of others’ models that advanced the original. The older model had
analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, but the newer
model encouraged more from the learner. She needed to be disciplined enough to
use resources, materials, and tools and the learner in the newer model needed
to be disciplined enough to establish for herself goals, tasks, and/or
activities.
The
description of our learning environment added the text that we would be using
and in particular the chapter that would be highlighted in our course. The
sentence for our individual example of a session pertaining to dissociative
processes is an extremely complicated sentence. Most individuals can develop
for themselves some thoughts on what depression might be, but the chances of
them being able to hold that in their mind close to the time they were thinking
about fragmentation or fugue is relatively impossible. The hope is that when
the learner, one step at a time, ferrets out those words and examples found from
the dissociative definitions in the blogs, then that word and the people she
meets through other and self-introspection will have a new sense of depth, so
that the learner can feel and intuitively sense what somebody with that
disturbance might be going through and only through that would the learner
really learn to understand and validate this creative, but misunderstood disorder
that does affect real people.
The
characteristics of instructional design allowed us to go over the ADDIE model
and then relate it to one of our teaching experiences with the Thinking Group.
It would seem appropriate in today's terms that to learn teaching in a group
processes that involve cognitive thinking abilities could be done by just
experimenting with doing it, and feeling it, and then letting those components
sifts through one's mind prior to one session after another. In actuality, the overall feeling without
having had the evaluation component left the emotion of being overwhelmed with
the project as a whole. Without reframing learning and what the people absorbed
and how they interacted utilizing their thinking processes, it might have been perfect
for its own time and place, however, it is more likely that with newer experience
in structural design, it might now be possible to incorporate better systematic
strategic methods in new instructional design thinking that works better for
all.
The
processes of instructional design utilizing the distance learning program work
of Cheney, Cheney, and Eddy (2010) was truly a great find (see appendix). The
indicators included areas that might have taken much too long to develop
without the “leg-up.” The processes included the people involved, how they
would respond to each other, technology, structure and techniques, and new and
far-reaching ways of learning with meaning as well as having resources,
materials and tools. In comparing and contrasting instructional design models,
we discovered that one did not have to get rid of the old plan (Addie) to use
the new. We could take the best elements of many models and create something
fresh. The project is developing through analysis and design, and we look
forward to the implementation and evaluation of our project.
References
Baturay,
M. H. (Winter, 2008). Characteristics of
basic instructional design models. Ekev Academic Review 12(34). p. 471-482.
Chaney,
D., Chaney, E., & Eddy, (Winter, 2010).
The context of distance learning programs in higher educations: Five
enabling assumptions. Online Journal of
distance learning administration. 13(4).
P 1-8
Craig,
D. V. (2012). Theme 1: Exploring instructional design [online
course]. Retrieved from http://courses.jonesinternational.edu/display.jkg?courseSectionId=28722&uid=81095&tpl=frameset
Dell,
P. F. & O’Neil, J. A. (2009).
Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond. NY: Routledge.
Hansen,
B. E. (January, 2010). Characteristics
of context for instructional design [ProQuest:
Dissertations and Theses].
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.jiuproxy.egloballibrary.com/pqdthss/docview/275987168/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34526
Intulogy.
(2010). The ADDIE instructional design model:
A structured training methodology. Retrieved from http://www.intulogy.com/addie/
Olson, S. E. (1997).
Becoming one: A story of triumph
over multiple personality disorder. Cheltenham,
UK: Trilogy Books
Olson, S. E. (2012).
Dissociation blog showcase: Third
of a lifetime. Retrieved from http://thirdofalifetime.com/dissociation-blog-showcase-2/
Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Chaney, Chaney, and Eddy, (2010)
The Context of Distance Learning Programs in Higher
Education: Five Enabling Assumptions
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
Volume 13, Number Four, Winter 2010.
University of West Georgia, Distance Education
Center
A systematic literature
review on quality indicators of distance learning programs (Chaney, Eddy,
Dorman, et al, 2009) yielded the following as the main indicators of quality
distance learning programs:
- Student-teacher interaction – there
are several types of interaction in distance learning environments (i.e.
student-teacher, student-student, and student-content); however, the
interactions that proves to play a major role in quality assurance in
distance learning programs are student-teacher interactions. Distance learning
courses should be developed to promote and facilitate healthy interactions
between the learner and the instructor.
- Prompt feedback – it is quite
important for instructors of distance learning courses to appear “present”
among their students, during the entire course. This involves providing
meaningful, helpful, and prompt feedback to questions, assignments, and/or
student concerns. According to Sherry (2003), “communications from faculty
that directly engages students and offers timely feedback may contribute
to interchanges and the students’ subsequent success in the course” (p.
454). Instructors should define feedback time in the course
syllabus/outline.
- Student support services – support
services, such as library services, admission services, financial aid, and
advising services should be provided to students enrolled in distance
learning, similarly to traditional, on-campus students. Meeting these
needs are vital to the success of the distance learning program.
- Program evaluation and assessment –
it is crucial for measureable objectives and standards to be set, and
evaluated, when developing and offering distance learning programs.
Evaluation of instructional techniques, delivery, and educational
processes should be rigorously assessed for improvement.
- Clear analysis of audience – The
needs of the audience, along with characteristics, geographic location,
available technologies, and learner goals, should be identified. As well,
the “goals and missions of the learning organization, the costs that must
be recovered, the costs of delivery, the political environment at the time
for the learning organization, the faculty compensation, and the market
competition” (Shearer, 2003, p. 275).
- Documented technology plan to
ensure quality – The Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000)
indicates that “a documented technology plan that includes electronic
security measures (i.e. password protection, encryption, back-up systems
[should be] in place and operational to ensure both quality standards and
the integrity and validity of information” (p. 2).
- Institutional support and
institutional resources – the institutional culture, related to distance
learning, will either drive or hinder the delivery of distance learning
courses/programs. The developer should make themselves aware of core
values of the institution, and incorporate these values into the
development of distance learning courses/programs. In addition,
“allocation of financial resources for distance learning activities and
materials – such as fiscal resources for technology support, training and
support services, faculty incentives, and compensation, instructional
resources, and evaluation research and tools – is critical for high
quality and successful distance education programs” (Chaney et al., 2009,
p. 229).
- Course structure guidelines –
students should be informed of the self-motivation and commitment needed
to be successful in the program. Course structure guidelines should also
include information on course format, minimal technology needed, and
course assignments, etc.
- Active learning techniques – these
are strategies that result in increasing enthusiasm of students to
interact and learn the course content.
- Respect diverse ways of learning –
it is not only important to respect the diverse learning styles of
students today, but to provide various educational delivery methods for
students to engage in the learning process. This also involves assisting
students to become more flexible in their approach to learning, as to
incorporate a variety of learning settings (Dillon & Greene, 2003).
- Faculty support services – faculty
members should be provided with the appropriate support and tools to
develop distance learning courseware, implement the course, and rigorously
evaluate the course. Trainings for each aspect of course development and
delivery should be offered to faculty.
- Strong rationale for distance
learning that correlates to the mission of the institution – in order to
have a successful distance learning program, educators need “top-down”
support, including a strong rationale for these programs that correlates
to the mission of the learner institution.
- Appropriate tools and media – as
mentioned previously, the selection and use of appropriate tools,
technology and media is crucial to the success of distance learning
programs (see the discussion on use of appropriate technology).
- Reliability of technology – a
technology plan should be in place to ensure that the technology platform
used is reliable for the delivery of the course/program. Provide students with
contact information for whom to contact, should technological issues
arise.
- Implementation of guidelines for
course development and review of instructional materials – According to
the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000), it is crucial that “guidelines
regarding minimum standards [be] used for course development, design, and
delivery, while learning outcomes – not the availability of existing
technology – determine the technology used to deliver course content” (p.
2). Rigorous assessment of instructional materials improves the overall
quality of instruction.
These quality
indicators highlight the need for services that meet the needs of students in
the context within which the program will occur. Faculty expertise, especially
in terms of student-faculty feedback and program design features, are key
quality indicators.
No comments:
Post a Comment