LTECH 5510 - Week 4 Blog - Different Instructional Design Model - Component Display Theory

Prompt: answer and discuss the following:

• What was the model
• What is the point of the model?
• How is the model different from what you already know? How is it the same?
• Is this model something you may use? Why or why not?
• How is an ID model different from a theoretical model (i.e. social constructivism)? Why is this distinction important?
• Do you think such a differentiation will matter for a client?

What was the model

Component Display Theory (CDT)

What is the point of the model

The point of the component display theory is that “instructional outcomes, represented either by objectives or test items, can be classified on two dimensions: student performance (Remember-Instance, Remember-Generality, Use, and Find) and subject matter content (Fact, Concept, Procedure, and Principle).”  (Merrill 1994).  This theory can be represented by a grid or matrix, where each set of performance task can be put into it.  Like such: 

Each performance task/question will be attempting to use at least one cell of the grid above.  For example, a question that can be found on a test that is a use-procedure question might be: “What is the mean, midpoint, and standard deviation of these numbers?”  This asks the student to use the particular procedures needed to accomplish that task.  

It is the conclusion of this design theory that is if you can build performance tasks that ask the learner to do each of these, your learn has a better chance of retaining the knowledge, and meeting the goals of the learning objective.  

How is the model different from what you already know? How is it the same?
This model is very similar to the concepts I already follow in my instructional design, as it’s very close to the idea’s set forth by Bloom’s Taxonomy, which is a driving force in my design.  They both have a hierarchy of sorts, where the lowest level of knowledge starts with the remembering and understanding of facts, followed by using those facts to create new facts, and then using those new facts to understand whole concepts that can be applied to unknown things.  

The difference between the two are subtle, but present.  Blooms encourages more often then not, using it’s high level of objective specificity to create the objectives and design for the learning, with the idea that the lower levels of thought will be used in the high level activity.  The CDT believes that value can be had on the “simpler” concepts of remembering facts and procedures, but only if they can be built upon to achieve high levels of activity.  

Is this model something you may use? Why or why not?

There are parts of this model that I would very much like to use.  I feel it is already very close to what I have been doing already, but having it more identified will really help me write questions for tests, and my create more meaningful and specific objectives that will makes sure I hit on all of the levels of this design.  

It has always been a struggle for me to create test questions that aren’t too hard or too easier.   With the matrix explained in this theory, I can more easily see the difference between “What do you do in this process” and “Explain how to do this process with these examples” type of questions.  I also know that each of them can be useful, but to different level of learners.  

Writing objectives has also been a thorn in my side.  The following chart from Dr. Merrill (1994) is very helpful as well:

How is an ID model different from a theoretical model (i.e. social constructivism)? Why is this distinction important?

The difference between the ID models and theoretical model’s is the difference between theoretical ideas and actual ideas in practice.  An ID model can, and almost always does have, a theoretical model behind it, it’s just an ID model has more concrete things to do to actually design the instruction.  

You start out wanting the learnings to achieve acquisition of knowledge about a subject (goal).  Then decide what is the best way to get to that knowledge (theoretical model), then you decide how to create a path using that theory to get to the goal (ID model).  

The distinction is important because it allows us, as designers, to create courses that fit to our strengths as designers, while still servicing the needs of the learners.  If you are of the constructivist theory, where you design in with the idea that each thing builds on the things of the past, you can still be stronger at designing things using the ADDIE ID model verses the Component Display Theory.   

Do you think such a differentiation will matter for a client?

I think it depends on the client, but most often then not I do not think it will.  When researching for this blog post I can across another writing by Dr. Merrill that I think applies to this.  He says in a 2007 article 

“Everyone feels that they are a designer. Most of us have been in school for a good portion of our life. We have witnessed hundreds of hours of instruction good and bad. There is probably no other human professional activity shared by almost all members of civilized societies. Why shouldn’t we feel that we know a good deal about teaching or designing instruction?” (Merrill 2007)

It’s this quote that I think summarizes why the need for differentiation of ID Model and theoretical model is not needed for most clients.  Saying something along the lines of “I design in an ADDIE model” will be just as sufficient as saying “I design in an ADDIE model with an emphasis on Social Constructivism.”  The reason for it is based on the though of quote, most people “know” about teaching, as they have been exposed to it all their lives.  They don’t really care about how the sausage is made, because they have been eating it their lives and already think they know how it’s made.  

With a client, making them feel comfortable and making them feel confident in you is the first step to a good relationship.  

References:

Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Section 3 Component Display Theory. Chapter 7 The Descriptive Theory

Merrill, M. D. (2007). The future of instructional design: the proper study of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (Second ed., pp. 336-341). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.