1. What is the paradigm shift that Tripp and Bichelmeyer (rapid prototyping) point out in instructional design? Ties in with some other models.
There are three assumptions that they point out as being significant in showing that rapid prototyping is a paradigm shift. The first is that there is a difference between science and design. The second is that it is possible to gain scientific knowledge by using materials developed by design science. The third is that validity means something different when applied to design theories than when it is used with educational psychology. This point really confused me, to be honest. Mainly I think it means that research should be based on finding out if a model works? I'm just not entirely sure how this relates exactly to paradigm shift. Anyway, the fourth assumption is that the human experience is a subjective thing and that perfect objectivity is not possible. These four things are some of the base beliefs underlying rapid prototyping and it's these things that make it a paradigm shift in thinking about design.
2. What is the correlation between the three theories? Similarities? Don't talk about surface level (ie. all have design component). Talk about fundamental assumptions. Are they equally dynamic?
The number one thing that I noticed as being in common between them all is the belief that linear models such as traditional ID are too confining to allow for real success. The other thing that I noted is that they all believe that learning is more complex than a system like traditional ID can account for. Personally, those are what I believed to be their most important similarities. It is what essentially puts them in their own category apart from traditional ID. Their similarities basically outline a different belief system as far as what learning is.
No comments:
Post a Comment