Below is where I currently believe my ID model fits into the frameworks described by Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee (1994):
Orientation: My curriculum development ID model definitely leans more towards the
prescriptive, because it matched well with what Edmonds et al. described as a model that "outline[s] how a learning environment can be altered or constructed in order to affect the variables of interest in a certain way or bring about the desired outcome" (1994, p. 60). This would certainly apply to the concept of a unified and grade-specific ELA curriculum. Based on what I've seen resulting from the process of a well-planned and structured curriculum development effort, I would say that my model could also be categorized as both
descriptive and prescriptive. My model will "speculate and recommend organizational strategies, and...[will be] comprehensive and explicit in the amount of detail for application" (Edmonds et al., 1994, p. 60).
Knowledge Structure: This label is much more straightforward; I believe my model is
procedural, since it is concrete and not abstract in nature. I am definitely working with the idea of how a goal can be reached, rather than answering the question of why we're trying to reach it (Edmonds et al., pp. 60-61).
Expertise Level: Although I think that the audience for whom the final product [curriculum] is intended should cover the range of novices, intermediates, and experts, I believe that those who are creating the curriculum and following my ISD model are more likely to be in the
intermediate to expert range. Those charged with creating something that will potentially affect thousands of students should be well-versed in what the state standards are, and how to address them in the classroom. They should also be familiar with classroom-level instructional strategies so that lessons addressing these standards can be implemented effectively. Although a novice may be able to follow the model, application of the model would be best used by those with teaching/classroom/curriculum development and implementation experience.
Structure: At this point, I am going to categorize my model as
novice/soft-system-based. I am choosing this designation because the primary audience of my model can be made up of instructional designers, but more likely, will be comprised of teachers. There will need to be flexibility factored into the curriculum as it is being created, as individual teachers using the product resulting from the model will use their own strategies in order to address the delineated standards and approaches. Also, since both the creators of the product and the consumers of the product are teachers, I do agree with Edmonds et al., who state that teachers have expertise in instruction in their contexts, but may not have experience as formal instructional designers (pp. 65-66). Based on my own experience, teachers rely on a more intuitive form of instructional design. Through IDD&E, I have learned a more structured approach that matches well with, and more importantly justifies, the decisions I made as a classroom teacher based on what I believed to be "good teaching."
Context: This may be the easiest category for me, as the nature of working with a district-wide curriculum is a clear sorting of my ISD model into the
K-12 arena.
Level: For this categorization, I am a little unclear. My first thought is that this is
institutional-level, as it affects the entire school district. However, it encompasses curriculum-level, although at all grade levels, as well as course-level, unit-level, lesson-level, and even module-level. The only level described in Edmonds et al. that I do not view as applying to my particular model is mass-level, since this is not global nor is it national (1994, pp. 67-69). Could it be national? Yes, but then different standards would need to be addressed from state-to-state. This may also change my context from K-12 to either K-12 specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, or K-12 in the United States, depending on how I'd like to go with this. I may even choose to limit this to one particular school district, greatly limiting the context, but still remaining at the institutional level.
One thing that I was happy to learn from this exercise was that categorizing my ISD model, even in the planning stages, is a lot easier than I thought it would be. Even though I don't have everything on paper yet (still mulling over how exactly all of this will be represented), it's good to know that I have a fairly clear idea of where I'm going with this.
