Discussion Based On The Background Readings Especially Popha

Discussionbased On The Background Readings Especially Popham 2009

Discussion: Based on the background readings, especially Popham (2009), write an original post that answers this question: What is the relationship between curriculum and instructional design? Module 2 Case Select two of the instructional design models from the background readings (ADDIE, ARCS, Assure, Backward Design, Dick & Carey, or Kemp) and write a 3- to 4-page paper that compares/contrasts the two models. Conclude your paper with a discussion of which model you believe to be superior for meeting the needs of diverse learners, and justify your opinion with information from the background readings or other relevant sources. Be sure to utilize proper APA formatting for your paper and citations.

Module 2 SLP For your Module 2 SLP, you are building on the curriculum discussion and analysis you started in Module 1. It is recommended that you read the prompt for all four SLPs before beginning your Module 2 SLP. In Module 2, you will select one of the instructional design models from this module and apply it to your chosen curriculum. Write a 3- to 5-page paper that includes a thorough discussion of all steps in your selected instructional design model with examples of what each step looks like when applied to the instructional aspects of your chosen curriculum. Be sure to utilize proper APA formatting for your paper and citations.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the Relationship Between Curriculum and Instructional Design

In educational theory and practice, the relationship between curriculum and instructional design is foundational to effective teaching and learning. According to Popham (2009), curriculum refers to the planned and guided learning experiences and intended outcomes set within an educational program, serving as the blueprint that defines what learners should achieve. Instructional design, on the other hand, involves systematically developing educational experiences and materials to facilitate the attainment of curriculum goals. This relationship is symbiotic: curriculum provides the 'what' of education, while instructional design determines the 'how' of delivering content effectively to meet those educational objectives.

Curriculum establishes the scope and sequence of content, learning goals, and assessment standards. Instructional design translates these elements into practical teaching strategies, learner activities, assessment tools, and delivery methods. Popham (2009) emphasizes that effective instructional design ensures that instructional methods are aligned with curriculum objectives and learner needs, fostering meaningful engagement and achievement. For example, a curriculum may specify the goal of understanding climate change, but instructional design encompasses the development of lessons, activities, and assessments that will best facilitate student comprehension and application of this complex topic.

Comparison of Instructional Design Models: ADDIE and Backward Design

Choosing appropriate instructional design models is critical to creating effective educational experiences. This paper compares two popular models: ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) and Backward Design (also known as Understanding by Design) to explore their structure, processes, and suitability for diverse learners.

ADDIE Model

The ADDIE model is a systematic, linear approach to instructional design that guides developers through five phases. The Analysis phase involves identifying learner needs, goals, and contextual constraints. In Design, specific learning objectives, assessments, and instructional strategies are planned. Development focuses on creating instructional materials and activities. Implementation involves delivering the instruction to learners, while Evaluation assesses effectiveness and informs improvements (Molenda, 2003).

ADDIE's cyclical nature allows designers to revisit stages, making it adaptable for iterative development. Its comprehensive structure ensures that multiple facets of instruction, from needs assessment to evaluation, are considered systematically. This model's flexibility makes it suitable for diverse learning environments, as detailed in Popham (2009).

Backward Design Model

Backward Design begins with the end in mind. Educators first identify desired learning outcomes and assessment evidence, then plan instructional activities that align with these goals. The focus is on ensuring that all teaching steps directly contribute to meaningful student understanding of core concepts (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

This model emphasizes clarity of purpose and alignment, making it highly effective for achieving specific learning objectives. It encourages educators to prioritize deep understanding and transferable skills over rote content delivery. Backward Design is particularly advantageous for diverse learners because it centers on clear goals and assessments tailored to students’ needs, promoting inclusivity (Popham, 2009).

Contrasting and Comparing the Two Models

The primary distinction lies in their approach: ADDIE is process-oriented, covering all stages from needs analysis to evaluation, offering flexibility and broad application; Backward Design is goal-oriented, focusing on outcomes and designing backward from those outcomes. While ADDIE provides a comprehensive roadmap suitable for varied contexts, Backward Design emphasizes alignment and relevance of instruction to specific learning goals, fostering learner engagement and mastery.

Both models are capable of addressing the needs of diverse learners, but their effectiveness depends on implementation context. ADDIE’s systematic nature facilitates thorough planning and adaptation, which can be advantageous in complex or evolving educational settings. Conversely, Backward Design’s emphasis on clear goals and assessment alignment supports differentiated instruction by ensuring that individual learner needs are directly targeted and monitored.

Which Model is Superior for Diverse Learners?

Considering the strengths and limitations of both models, I believe that Backward Design is superior for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Its focus on aligning instructional activities with clearly articulated learning outcomes ensures that instruction remains purposeful and student-centered. This approach allows educators to identify gaps, tailor strategies, and provide accommodations based on individual needs, thus promoting equity and inclusion.

Research supports the idea that goal-oriented models like Backward Design foster deeper understanding and higher engagement among learners with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and interests (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Additionally, because Backward Design starts with the end in mind, educators can design assessments and activities that reflect learner variability, making it easier to incorporate differentiation and scaffolding as needed (Popham, 2009).

Conclusion

The relationship between curriculum and instructional design is integral to effective education. While curriculum delineates the scope of what should be learned, instructional design determines how to facilitate that learning effectively. Comparing the ADDIE and Backward Design models reveals differing emphases—process versus outcomes—but both contribute valuable insights. For effectively addressing diverse learner needs, Backward Design’s clear focus on goals, assessment, and alignment makes it a more adaptable and inclusive model, capable of fostering equitable learning experiences.

References

• Popham, W. J. (2009). Course Management and Student Achievement. Educational Leadership, 66(8), 10-14.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
• Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-37.
• Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Pearson.
• Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (2015). Designing Effective Instruction. Pearson.
• Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2014). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Pearson.
• Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. Wiley.
• Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. Longman.
• Caffarella, R. S., & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning Programs for Adult Learners. Jossey-Bass.