User:Ahhinkson/sandbox

The Hannafin- Peck Model “Instructional Design has been designed to create a learner-centered experience rather than the traditional teacher-centered approach, so, it encourages the better learning environment… The main goal of an ID (Instructional Design) model or process is to construct a learning environment in order to provide the learners with the conditions that support the desired learning processes.” (Sortrakul and Denphaisarn 2009). The renowned designers of the popular and very useful model Hannafin- Peck model are Michael Hannafin and Dr. Kyle Peck. “Assessment, design and implementation are the cornerstones of the Hannafin- Peck model” (Pappas, 2015) as it lends tremendous help to its users as they delve into the interesting field of instructional design.

Background Information “Dr. Kyle L. Peck is Co-Director of the Center for Online Innovation in Learning and Professor of Education and Research Fellow in the Learning, Design, and Technology program at Penn State University. He studies and applies innovations in education, and his current interests include Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and digital badges in education.” (Wheatley, n.d.) His versatile education background speaks volumes of his competence in developing a trusted instructional design model. This is clearly outlined by (Chuya, 2015): Ph.D., Educational Psychology / Educational Technology -- May, 1987 University of Colorado, Boulder M.A., Education / Reading -- December, 1981 University of Colorado, Boulder B.A., Psychology (Cum Laude) -- March, 1974 Occidental College, Los Angeles, California Some of his publications would include: Book Publications Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999) Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Merrill /Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hannafin, M. J. & Peck, K. L (1988) The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York. (Chosen as 1989 "Outstanding Book in Instructional Development" by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)) Hannafin, M. J. & Peck, K. L (1988) Instructor's Manual for The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York. Kyle Peck met Mike Hannafin as his advisor at the University of Colorado, where they later worked on many papers and projects together.

“Michael Hannafin directs the LPSL, an R&D organization, comprising academic faculty, research scientists, and technical support staff. He earned his doctorate in Educational Technology from Arizona State University in 1981. Prior to coming to the University of Georgia in 1995, he served on the faculty at the University of Colorado, Penn State University, and Florida State University. His research focuses on developing and testing the psychological and pedagogical principles underlying student-centered learning, the development and validation of frameworks for designing and testing Open-Ended Learning Environments and Resource-Based Learning Environments, and their applications in teaching and learning.” (WordPress, n.d.) Chuya (2015), again makes clear reference to the educational background of Mr. Hannfin:

Ph.D., Educational Technology Arizona State University (August, 1981) Tempe, AZ 85287 M.S., Psychology (Educational/School) Fort Hays State University (August, 1974) Hays, KS 67601 B.S., Psychology (Education Minor) Fort Hays State University (May, 1972) Hays, KS 67601 and his works

Journal Publications

SHEPHERD, C., & HANNAFIN, M.J. (in press). Beyond recollection: Re-examining preservice teacher practices using structured evidence, analysis, and reflection. JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION. RICH, P., & HANNAFIN, M.J. (in press). Making instructional decisions visible: The use of video evidence to assess preservice teachers’ practice. JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN HIGHER EDUCATION. GLAZER, E.., HANNAFIN, M.J., POLLY, A., & RICH, P. (in press). Factors and interactions influencing technology integration during situated professional development in an elementary school. COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS. KIM, H., & HANNAFIN, M.J. (in press). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. INSTRUCTIONAL SCIENCE.

Research and Application “An instructional design model provides guidelines to organize appropriate pedagogical scenarios to achieve instructional goals. Instructional design can be defined as the practice of creating instructional experiences to help facilitate learning most effectively.” (Kurt, 2015). It must not however be ignored that, Driscoll & Carliner (2005) state that “design is more than a process; that process, and resulting product, represent a framework of thinking” (p. 9). Also agreeing with this are Branch & Kopcha (2014), who mention that “instructional design is intended to be an iterative process of planning outcomes, selecting effective strategies for teaching and learning, choosing relevant technologies, identifying educational media and measuring performance” (p. 77). Finally, according to Braxton et al. (1995), instructional models are guidelines or sets of strategies on which the approaches to teaching by instructors are based. Effective instructional models are based on learning theories. The Hannafin- Peck model holds firmly to the learning theory of constructivism which states “the focus tends to shift from the teacher to the students. The classroom is no longer a place where the teacher ("expert") pours knowledge into passive students, who wait like empty vessels to be filled. In the constructivist model, the students are urged to be actively involved in their own process of learning” (Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin, n.d.) All of these viewpoints clarify the meaning of instructional design in different ways but there are certain characteristics that must apply to every effective instructional design model. “There are several characteristics that should be present in all instructional design models: 1.	Instructional design is learner centered: Learner and his/her performance are the focal point. 2.	Instructional design is goal oriented: Well defined goals are essential. 3.	Instructional design focuses on real world performance. Help learners perform the behaviors that will be expected of them in the real world. 4.	Instructional design focuses on outcomes that can be measured in a reliable and valid way. Creating valid and reliable measurement instrument is essential. 5.	Instructional design is empirical. Data are the heart of the process. 6.	Instructional design typically is a team effort. This process usually involves teamwork.” Branch and Merrill (2002)

“The Hannafin Peck (1987) design model is a three phase process. In the first phase, a needs assessment is performed. This phase is followed by a design phase. In the third phase, instruction is developed and implemented. In this model, all of the phases involve a process of evaluation and revision. The Hannafin Peck’s design model is simple but elegant in the way in which all three phases are connected to "evaluate and revise". This may not be a model designed for a novice, but its focus on constraints in relation to quality and complexity is appealing” (Morton, 2001). This information is reflected in the visual below. Sortrakul and Denphaisarn (2009), reinforce the stages and their role in achieving one’s task with a slightly different belief however that the model could be used by both experienced and inexperienced individuals. They say, “ The Hannafin Peck Design Model differs... in that uses a three phase approach. Phase one involves a needs assessment being performed. This is followed by a design phase, and phase three where the development and implementation of instruction are performed. All phases include a process of evaluation. This is suitable for simulation. The need analysis defines the goals and objective of the program. The design of program is based upon the findings from the needs analysis. The development part of stage three involves how program will be undertaken and implementation is the actual running of the program. Evaluation and revision are a continual process. This model is one that can be used by experienced or beginning instructional designer.” The main ideas however remain the same.

To help one better understand the use of the model and its phases, a simple problem has been created to better illustrate how the model can be applied to help solve it. The problem of making a powerpoint for example lends to the first phase of the Hannafin and Peck model which is ‘needs analysis’. To begin this phase certain needs must be identified: •	What are the objectives of the PowerPoint? “An experienced pilot will not leave the ground without knowing the final destination, nor will a carpenter begin construction without a detailed understanding of the structure to be built. should an instructor or trainer begin teaching without understanding what the student must be able to do after the lesson…?” (Hannafin & Peck, 1988). •	Who is the target audience? •	Is it lecture style or interactive? •	Is it text based, pictorial, or audiovisual? •	How long is the presentation? •	Is it for introductory or review purposes? •	Should notes be given as reinforcement? •	Is it effective to all learning styles? •	What equipment will be needed to present the PowerPoint? (Laptop, speakers, smartboard…) •	Are there follow- up activities? After all the needs are identified, an evaluation of the needs must be done before proceeding to the next phase. The second phase of the Hannafin and Peck models is the design phase. The PowerPoint would be planned through a concept map or a flowchart ”Essentially, the design stage is when you begin to put all of the pieces together so that you can determine how to fill the performance gaps and fulfill the needs and wants of your learners” (Pappas, 2015). •	What type of room is being used? •	Is it feasible for presentations? •	Are tables needed? •	Does the room allow the seating arrangement needed? •	Is seating individual, pairs or groups? •	Should the presenter be at the front/ back/ side? •	Does the room allow activities? •	How many persons are attending? Especially in the 21st century classroom, the reminder is mentioned here that “user control of the design screen prevents the instructional process from becoming tedious and monotonous” (Hannafin and Peck, (1988) as quoted in Kim and Lee, 2007). Therefore, if possible, this model suggests a more ‘hands-on’ approach for the students to maximize their learning experience. Some even go further to say that “the constructivist approach to learning is greatly supported by varying technology enhanced learning environment” (Sharma, 2018). As with the needs analysis phase, evaluation would be carried out within this phase before proceeding to the following phase. The third phase of the Hannafin and Peck models is the development and implementation phase. The PowerPoint would be created at this point. To assess the effectiveness of the PowerPoint (visibility of the content, slide transition, appropriate information and cues, assessment and testing) are all carried out in this phase. This assessment and testing will be used in the adjustment process to achieve a quality presentation. Hannafin and Peck models encourage the evaluation and revision of all phases, therefore evaluation should occur throughout the phases. Then, when the solution is created- evaluated once more. This allows the model to be accurate in its solution with the constant evaluation. In conclusion, with all the careful steps built into this model, it is evident that in today’s classroom, the needs of the student must be the teacher’s main concern. This then drives the objectives, the design and the development and implementation phase of each lesson. The goal of improving the learning environment and instructions used to help students carry out the tasks set, must be carefully chosen and constantly reviewed.

References

Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77-87). Springer New York.

Chuya, P. (2015, April 2nd). Retrieved from Prezi: https://prezi.com/jbavakfxu24i/instructional-design-model-hannafin-peck/

Driscoll, M., Carliner, S. (2005) Advanced Web-Based Training : Adapting Real World Strategies in Your Online Learning, Pfeiffer. ISBN 0787969796

Dr. Thotsapon, N. D. (2009). The Evolution of Instructional System Design Model. Retrieved from http://elearning2014.com/eLAP2009/Proceedings/40_Full_Nida%20Denphaisarn_The%20Evolution_Online.pdf

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 16-25.

Kurt, S. (2015). Instructional Design Models and Theories.

Michael Hannafin, K. P. (1988). The Design, Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software. MacMillan.

Morton, D. L. (2001). Web Home. Retrieved from http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm

Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin. (n.d.). UCD Dublin. Retrieved from Education Theory: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Constructivism_and_Social_Constructivism_in_the_Classroom

Pappas, C. (2015). Applying the Hannafin- Peck Model in E-learning.

Sharma, R. C. (2018). Innovative Applications of Online Pedagogy and Course Design. IGI Global.

Wheatley, C. H. (n.d.). IT Leaders A conversation with... Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/features/leaders/peck.html

Word Press. (n.d.). USA Instructional Design Theory. Retrieved from https://usainstructionaldesigntheory.wordpress.com/mike-hannafin/