Global Learning ISD Model

Defining Global
Click on text boxes for navigation
Unraveling the
Global…
Defining the notion of ‘global’ can be a challenge because the nature of the word
within a modern context tends to allude to the often used term globalization.
Therefore, as scholars agree (Giddens, 1999; Tomlinson, 1999), a better
conception of the global should involve defining the word thorough the variety
of interconnected relationships across cultures which occur through the
vastness of human endeavors, only one of which is economic.
Within the broader term of global, globalization relates to one facet of
interconnection, the economic and political interactions, while also referring to
other socio-cultural aspects of human interactions, such as learning and
knowledge creation. Unfortunately, these non-economic interactions tend to be
commodified by the language and framework of globalization markets, which
consequently mask these other endeavors (Apple, etal, 2002). As a critique to
this misunderstanding Thomas Friedman (2005) eloquently comments that:
To reduce a country’s economic performance to culture alone is ridiculous, but
to analyze a country’s economic performance without reference to culture is
equally ridiculous… (p. 324)
Within a broader framework, the term global then becomes an appropriate way
to express what occurs in the exchange of non-monetary, or purely cultural
artifacts such as knowledge, information, and learning practices within a global
knowledge economy (World Bank, 2003). What the Global Learning Model
attempts to do is create a framework for instructional designers to consult in
designing instruction while participating in the exchanges within this global
knowledge economy.

Next
 The Model
• Two phased systematic approach
– Phase I - Front End Analysis
– Phase II – Design & Development
• Best suited for e-learning adult
education
• Considers the deeper elements such
as ‘hidden costs’
Co mpariso n ch art to
Model Str en gth s and Edm onds, B ra nc h &
Il lu st rat ion Lim it ation s Muk herj ee (19 94)

Next
 Systematic Approach
A way to conceptualize the Global Learning Model beyond economic sociopolitical cultural
terms is to utilize a systematic ecological framework approach. To do this, the Global
Learning Model recognizes three systematic interactive levels. One, the suprasystem, is the
broad global learning framework, which is the “distributed learning ecologies” (Hagel & Brown
2006, p.12), or “complex connectivity” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 2). The system is the particular
contexts the model can be applied to, such as higher education or training. Although the
suprasystem tends to be theoretical and nebulous, the systems within it encompass the macro
and micro institutions and individuals participating in exchange. The learning challenge is to
conceptualize and even coax these systems to become more open to the global suprasystem,
and create a cybernetic open-feedback loop. Exchanges are already taking place among sub-
systems that at times participate better along this cybernetic supra-system than the their
respective systems through various collaborative endeavors such as Web 2.0 collaborations
(Brown & Adler, 2008).
Through the dynamic feedback process several ‘global skills’ have emerged that relate more
to this sub-system – supra-system feedback (Brown and Adler’s “legitimate peripheral
participation”, p. 19) than sub-system – system feedback. These skills are viewed as a set of
prescriptive global competencies needed within the instructional development.
• Digital Literacy Skills related to ‘Information Literacy’ (ACRL, 2009)
• Developing a democratically fair notion of ‘global identity’
• Knowing how to navigate as participants among the ‘global’ suprasystem
• Knowing how to negotiate, trade, produce, or exchange within global
knowledge economies
• Being able to think critically through analysis of various knowledge sources
and experience (Apple, etal, 2002)
• Knowing how to be a lifelong learner (World Bank, 2003)
Back Next
 The Global Learning
Model:
A Two phased approach
The first phase of the Global Learning Model consists of front end analysis (FEA)
work to help determine the need through an exchange of top-down (macro) and
bottom-up (micro) forces. It is a way to understand and facilitate the “edge
peripheries” within ‘The Long Tail’ of online cultures that interact with each other and
the center, meaning more peer based interaction alongside managed prescriptions
(Hagel & Brown, 2006; Brown & Adler, 2008). Through this first phase, a set of
competencies and instructional goals/objectives are developed that represent the
interests between the forces. This phase is mainly about establishing a reasonable
balance between the entities within a learning endeavors and participants in a global
knowledge economy.
The second phase is the design and development portion. Lying at the center of this
process are prescriptive learning management practices (The ID Tool Kit) that an
instructional design uses to facilitate learning. Within the instructional development
process, several factors are weighed and balances such as, the subject matter
experts, appropriate assessment strategies, learner preparedness, and the global
competencies and made. Each must be equally considered when developing
instruction. The second phase, if properly balanced, should limit the issues within
implementation by harnessing change management values.

Back Next
 E-Learning
The model advocates for e-learning as the most efficient and
reliable way to deliver instruction because e-learning involves an
already established collaboration mechanism of socially based
knowledge construction. Supporting this notion is the concept of
‘Learning 2.0’ derived from Brown and Adler (2008). Within the
Learning 2.0 framework is the development of a new culture based
on principles of a global Community of Practice that involves the
social construction of knowledge. As people participate through e-
learning constraints, such as time or distance, the constraints are
overcome within a global classroom. In turn, a global identity begins
to take hold, which Brown and Adler articulate as a paradigm shift
labeling knowledge construction as “learning to be” (p. 19). In other
words, ‘global’ based e-learning is about participating in the open
learning process, which is dependent on the balance or “productive
friction” between the top-down and bottom up influences (Hagel &
Brown, 2006, p.12).

Back Next
 Hidden Costs
Through the processes summarized in Phase I of the Global Learning
Model, a deeper analysis addresses factors relating to ‘hidden costs’ of
instructional development. The analysis is part of the systematic
approach to instructional design as best explained by Romiszowski
‘Romi’ (2009) and Doughty (2009). Romi’s systematic approach is to
consider the hidden costs associated with implementation, which do not
necessarily translate into (and are sometimes ignored by) economic
factors. Doughty’s similar systematic approach addresses the hidden
costs by concentrating on organizational development (OD), the policy
and motivational issues within the instructional development process.
Both designers advocate that instructional design should consider deep
factors that influence a system such as the contextual layers of
management, infrastructure, the resources, the teachers, the students,
and the community.

Back
Global Learning Model

Phase I
Needs Goals and
Competencies
Analysis Objectives

Formative
Evaluation Ph ase I
Ph ase II

Phase II
Evaluati on
Theory
Design and
Development
Bibliogr aph y
of Instruction

Summative
Evaluation
Back
 Phase I – Front-end Analysis (FEA)
The Global Learning Model engages micro and macro entities through the use of an instructional
designer who facilitates the process to produce a set of competencies and instructional goals as
an end product. The competencies are based on the quality of the negotiations in determining
the need for instruction through systemic analysis.
The illustration of this phase is not necessarily meant to represent a strict step-by-step
process an instructional designer follows. Instead, the phase is more of a heuristic device that
manages the relationships between macro and micro forces through various iterations along the
flow. These iterations are filtered through the ideas within this illustrated framework that
basically identify knowledge gaps and any hidden agendas within the influences to eventually
generate a set of competencies. Without consideration of these influences (the macro and micro
entities) an overly top-down, or bottom-up set of competencies would be fed into Phase II
leading to poorly designed instruction (Brown, 2008; Romi, 2009).

Identify gaps Determine if e-

Macro through learning is viable
Influences symptoms and delivery solution
causes
Evaluate
Create
Establish
competency
Identify and goals and
list addressing
reveal any objectives
Micro need

To phase II…
hidden agendas
Influences

Negotiation between macro and

micro entities create a ‘global’
system with balanced top-down and
bottom-up influences.
Back Next
 Phase I: Front-end Analysis (FEA)
To reiterate, the process of Phase I is more heuristic than algorhythmic, however this
list provides an example of what Phase I would consist of as a front end analysis
process.
 First, the instructional designer helps identity the macro and micro entities
within a particular context.
• Next, a committee is set up between entities from both sides to decide how to
best narrow the focus on needs considering the advantages and disadvantages of
each side. During the process, the language of desires from the different entities
is deconstructed into symptomatic terms.
• Next, causes are determined based on the symptoms which can be translated in
knowledge or motivational need and gaps, then into the language of viable
solutions to meet the need.
• Throughout the dialogue between the macro and micro entities, any hidden
costs should be discussed within the context of problem/symptom-solution
language of need. The discussion should continue until an agreement is met
which determines a workable solution through the development of competencies.
• The instructional designer collaboratively works with the entities helping shape
the language of needs into a language of competencies and eventually into
instructional goals and objectives
• These goals and objectives are formatively evaluated by the committee before
moving on the Phase II.
Back Next
 Phase I: Front-end Analysis (FEA)
To clarify, the notion of entities is intentionally left vague and dependent on the actual
learning context. However, for sake of scope, this model is intended to be used on large
scale projects within adult education, such as designing and implementing an e-learning
program to train adults in a developing country. In this case, the micro entity can be seen as
the learner, and the macro would be the political system overseeing the new learning
program.

Drawing from the literature that relates to Phase I of this model, the FEA is a way to meet
the “growing global demand for education” (Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 18) supplying an
international workforce that has a need for “continuous learning…for the ongoing creation of
new ideas and skills” (p 17); as a way to help companies strategically develop capabilities to
“effectively participate in distributed learning ecologies” (Hagel & Brown, p12, 2006); and
tap into the peripheral participation of knowledge creation within “creation nets”

…where… participants from diverse institutional settings collaborate to create new

knowledge, to learn from one another, and to appropriate and build on one another’s
work…
(Brown & Hagel, p. 42, 2006)

In essence, deriving from Brown & Hagel’s notion, the front-end approach of this model
acknowledges the presence of open global networks within a systematic framework of an
open system, and attempts to harness and pinpoint information created by the system, and
determine the best way to disseminate this information in the form of instruction.

Back Next
 Phase II: Design and
Development

SME in fl uen ce

Lea rne r Design and

Align w ith
pre par ed nes Development of
s glob al
Instruction com petenci
es

Effe ct iv e Ass essm ent

Flexibl e Cir cle Strate gy

Dyn am ic T ensions
Instr uction al
Design er ’s
Function
Impl em entation
Back
 Phase II – Flexible Circle
The circle in Phase II represents the environment within the instructional design
process as a flexible system. Within the circle are dynamic tensions that push and pull
on each other through design iterations. In order for the Phase II processes to be
effective, these natural tensions need to exist and be acknowledged. The final design
product, therefore, would consist of the most effective approach for learners to develop
the competencies derived from the front-end analysis in Phase I.

Through the developmental process, the instructional designer negotiates between the
tensions shown in the circle by utilizing components of an ID tool box. Within the tool
box are design prescriptions that assist the designer in developing a learning
environment based on constructivist learning theory (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). This
environment is collaborative, meaningful and contextual.

The tensions are articulated as: Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence, alignment with
global competencies from the FEA, an effective assessment strategy, and learner
preparedness.

The instructional designer, after several rapid proto-typed interactions, eventually

develops an implementation plan. This plan draws back to the macro/micro discussions,
which helped create the tension factors and applies the instructional product considering
the management of change.

Back
 Instructional Designer Function
Phase II
Within both Phases I & II of the design process is an instructional designer who acts as facilitator, compiler,
refiner, evaluator, and instructional architect. The quality of how these various roles inter-exchange are
dependent on the expertise and intuition of an instructional designer. Nevertheless, the designer draws from
design prescriptions to produce an efficient and effective instructional product to help learners master the Phase
I competencies.

Specifically in Phase II, the designer must negotiate the tensions within the flexible circle, acting as a change
agent and learning liaison allowing for maximum flexibility within the design process. The goal should be to
develop materials that are used in an environment that is collaborative, presents alternative views, is meaningful
to the learner, and contextual (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).

Since balance is the key within Phase II, a rapid prototyping approach is used to quickly evaluate products
ensuring that the design meets the competencies through consideration of the tensions. For instance, subject
matter experts should not provide only their perceptions, while learners still must be challenged, and appropriate
assessment strategies should be created. However, the flexibility of the model allows the designer to stretch
tensions based on needs of learning situation.

As a way for the designer to produce effective materials, an ID Tool Kit is used to design the management of
instruction. The tools draw from instructional design theories such as Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction,
Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Merrill’s First Principles to help the designer pragmatically develop materials. Of
interest within the Global Learning Model process, is Merrill’s notion of ‘Pebble-in-the-Pond’ Development,
which focuses on the “whole task or problem” and ways to design instructional around the task context (Merrill,
p. 40, 2002). Additionally, the 4C/ID Model is a way to properly scaffold learners trying to master complex tasks
(van Merrienboer, etal, 2003).

Specifically related to e-learning on a global scale, part of the ID Tool Kit includes building learner capabilities
involved in participating as global e-learners. These ‘Global Skills’ relate to building instruction that requires
learners to develop competencies such as digital literacy skills. Churches (2008), ‘Bloom Digital Taxonomy’,
which leads learners through a process from remembering to creating, is an available theoretical learning
management system appropriate for the Global Learning Model.
Back
 Phase II Tensions
These tensions are the dynamic forces of Phase II. At times, one
may outweigh the other, but each force still needs
consideration.

• Subject Matter Expert (SME) influence

– Consult SMEs to extract important knowledge and expertise
needed to fill competencies
• Effective Assessment
– Criterion based assessment that is balanced between learner
desire and judge of proficiency of competency
• Global competency alignment
– This include a skills related to participating within the global
knowledge economy supra-system
• Learner preparedness
– Ideal instructional environment alone does not guarantee
learners are prepared, especially within e-learning situation.
Instructional designer prescribes other competencies related to
digital literacy and global identity development within
instruction
Back
 Implementation: Change
Management
Whatever form the instruction ultimately takes there will always be the further
challenge of implementing it. Within the Global Learning Model, implementation is more
of an implied part than an explict ‘step’. However, the implications of instructional
intervention are what underlie the entire framework.
Within Phase I, for instance, the balancing between the macro and micro entities is a
way to create a product that will impact learners, but not overbear them with top-down
instructional decrees. Phase II, if properly provided with systematic information
interpreted into competencies, should naturally balance the design of instruction to
allow for change to occur through the natural process of participating within a global
knowledge economy perspective.
As part of the framework of the model, change is not something so prescriptive such as
identifying the early adopters and forcing an instructional strategy upon a system.
Instead, by subscribing to a framework such as Ely’s Eight Conditions, change
management is more of an organic process (Ensminger, 2001). Furthermore, the notion
of an instructional design model as a facilitator mechanism for change to meet a need,
encompasses the notion that of a philosophical framework such as on Solomon’s (2000)
analysis of the profession. This framework includes understanding change from the
intellectual, aesthetic, moral and spiritual dimensions of the instructional development
intervention process. Within these deeper perspectives, change management is more of
awareness of the situation than an outright prescription.

Back
 Evaluation
An evaluation mechanism is built into the model in two major checkpoints. These
systematic checkpoints allow for either the instructional designer to internally
evaluate the developmental outcomes or for an outside consultant to externally
evaluate the outcomes of the process. Depending on the scope of the project and
the budgetary guidelines, the evaluation process could take different forms.
The first checkpoint is at the end of Phase I. In this step, the evaluator would
check whether the competencies developed from the FEA interactions align with
their expectations. Deeper analysis would involve examining how the
competencies translated into a set of goals and objectives further align with the
intensions of the entities. Since instructional materials have not been developed at
this point, evaluation questions are more concerned with the deeper levels such as
transfer and results (Winfrey, 1999)
The second evaluation checkpoint within Phases II examines the instructional
product both formatively and summatively. On one level, the main evaluation
question is to ask whether the instruction meets the competencies developed from
Phase I. Vaildity of the instruction is dependent on the alignment, and could even
externally provide future development strengthening the ID Toolbox. Summative
evaluation also needs to consider whether the instruction is meeting the needs of
the learners and how well the entire developmental process helped foster a
‘global’ learner identity while maintaining and respecting local entities.
Back
 Theoretical Underpinnings
Throughout the process of developing the global learning model, I have attempted to filter my
analysis through a notion that meaning, reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and
ethics is something that is negotiated between individuals on the micro level, and cultures on
the macro level. However, since one culture or individual may possess a sense of superiority
or entitlement over another, there at times is a conflict between different sides. This conflict
results in an over-binary logic, which justifies the use of power as a means to an ends of
‘helping’ or ‘subjugating’ another[1]. I believe that in order to prevent conflict a
constructivist epistemology needs to be the basis for development. Therefore, the global
learning model is deeply influenced by a constructivist philosophy.
Briefly stated, constructivism involves the individual construction of knowledge as they
experience the world. Therefore, epistemology involves a purely subjective analysis and
interpretation of experience, and not something that is just transferred to an individual (von
Glasersfeld, 1982). This definition is more along the line of ‘radical constructivism’, but for
sake of brevity, the Global Learning ISD model’s foundation is more ‘social constructivist’
than radical. The working definition of constructivism within the model would read more like:
…social construction of knowledge as individuals negotiate their experiences with the world

In simpler terms, people experience the world and interpret their experience within the
confines of previous experience and filter it within the context of their culture.
How constructivism relates to instructional design and the Global Learning Model involves a
systematic framework segmented into processes of : analysis, development, and evaluation.
Based on this framework, the segments and instructional designer’s role is summarized on
the next slide (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).
[1] This concept was argued in my unpublished Masters Thesis titled “Examining the development of a Global Civil Society through analysis of Literacy Works
Volunteer Tutor Training”, and is based on the interpretation of Foucault’s notion of power within Popular Education and Community of Practice frameworks

Back Next
 Theoretical Underpinnings
Segment Instructional designer role
Analysis – instead of a prescription for
knowledge, meaning is more of a
Assist in extracting objectives within the
negotiating process situated within a
negotiation of meanings through
contextual environment that learners
facilitation and alignment of environments
reflect on

Development – the creation the student-

centered authentic learning environments Utilizes tools and strategies that assist is
where learners develop a sense of facilitating change within a learning
ownership and meaningfulness as they situation
solve problems within situations

Determines formatively if learner

Evaluation – since value is user-driven
knowledge is aligned within negotiated
within a social situation, evaluation
situation and summatively if learner has
involves how well learners develop
developed appropriately through
metacognitive skills
instruction

Back
 Model Strengths and
Limitation
• Strengths • Limitations
– Overly broad in scope
– Versatility and to be of practical use
flexibility built into specifically relating to
design implementation costs
– Conceptually based
– Built to consider the with no consideration
deeper notions of for practical application
change in especially relating to
the assumption that e-
implementation learning will be
– Addresses global accessible and viable
delivery solution
learning within a – Assumes designer has a
larger context developed global
identity
Back
 Conceptual Comparison
Chart
based on Edmonds, Branch & Mukherjee (1994)
Orientation Goal to help learners construct meaning
Both descriptive (in developing a community through negotiation)
and prescriptive (constructing a learning environment to facilitate
learning)
Knowledge Declarative – discovery based learning and norm referenced
Structure evaluation based on negotiated competencies within front end
analysis (Phase I)
Expertise Expert – the model involves a set of broad heuristics a practitioner
Level uses when managing the learning system

Structure On the continuum, the model is more soft-system/intuitive, however,

drawing from Romi’s (2009) framework, the structural approach of
the model is more systemic
Context Model is best used within an adult education framework for e-
learning to help develop a global ecology

Level Various levels, depending on situation, but mostly e-learning

institutional

Back
 Bibliography
• ACRL (2009). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Association of
Colleges and Research Libraries. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

• Apple, M. W., Kenway, J., Singh, M. (2002). Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies, & Politics.
Peter Lang: New York.

• Brown, J.S., Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the Long Tail, and learning 2.0.
Educause Review, 43(1) (January/February 2008), p. 16–32.

• Brown, J.S. & Hagel III, J. (2006). Creation nets: Getting the most from open innovation. The McKinsey
Quarterly, 2, p. 41-51. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from www.johnseelybrown.com/cr eati onnets .p df

• Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8000050/Blooms-Digital-Taxonomy-v212

• Doughty, P. (2009). IDE632 ID in Context: Where does instructional development fit in the grand
scheme of things?

• Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
NY.

• Ensminger, D.C. (2001). Using Ely’s Conditions during the instructional design process to increase
success of implementation. Design: Connect, Create,
• Collaborate Conference, April 2001, Athens, GA.

Next
• Giddens, A. (1999). BBC Reith Lectures: Runaway World. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/

• Glasersfeld, E. von (1982) An interpretation of Piaget's constructivism. Revue Internationale de Philosophie

36(4): 612–35. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=077.pdf

• Hagel III, J. & Brown, J.S. (2006). Connecting globalization & innovation: Some contrarian perspectives.
Lecture prepared for the Annual Meeting of World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland January 25-30,
2006. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from www.johnseelybrown.com/davos.pdf

• Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and
limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.

• Merrill, M.D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7),
p. 39-44.

• ‘Romi’ Romiszowski, A. (2009). Interview with Professor Alexander Romiszowski (“Romi”) conducted online
by Bailin Fang. Open Education Research [published in China], 14(6).

• Solomon, D. L. (2000). Philosophical inquiry in instructional technology: The forgotten pathway to learning.
Retrieved January 30, 2009 from www.lear ndev .o rg/ dl /SolomonP hilo so phy.PDF

• Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

• van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., and Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind:
Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), p. 5-13.

• Winfrey, E.C. (1999). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation. In  B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Educational Technology. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from
• http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/k4levels/start.htm

• World Bank (2003). Lifelong learning in the Global Knowledge Economy: Challenges for Developing Countries.
The World Bank: Washington D.C.

Back