Assignment 1B: Instructional Design (ID) Jigsaw activity (Individual)

Value: 30%

A gentle reminder that as with all LRNT courses, you are expected to incorporate APA standards for citations, formatting, and references and to back up your writing with evidence and appropriate academic literature as necessary. You are required to pay attention to grammar and clarity and to avoid colloquialisms. References are not included in the assignment word count. Also, don’t forget the numerous resources available to you as you build your competence and fluency with APA formatting and writing style. In particular, check out the RRU APA 7 formatting checklists as well as RRU WriteAnswers where you can ask your APA questions.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is for you to critically reflect on the design models and approaches that you explored in part one of this assignment to consider them through the contextual lens of your current or future practice.

Instructions

For Assignment one part ‘B’, you will write a reflective paper that considers how you might incorporate one or more of the ID models you explored in assignment one part ‘A’ within your current or future practice. As this is an individual assignment, you are free to choose which ID models and approaches from your curated team list that are most relevant for you to reflect upon.

It would help if you began by describing the context in which you are situating the ID models and approaches, who the learners in this context are and what their needs might be, and how your selected design decisions could support effective learning for this audience.

Consider:

Are your design goals clear? Why? Why not?
What learning challenges might these ID model(s) solve?
What limitations might this model or approach present in this context?
What are the real-life implications for implementing your chosen approach(es)?

This portion of the assignment should be constructed as a formal academic paper and must include APA formatting and referencing.

Format

Your reflective paper should be submitted in a written format (2000-2250 words).

You are expected to adhere to APA standards for writing, citations, formatting, and references and to support your case with appropriate academic literature.

Submission

You will submit your paper to the Assignment 1B dropbox in a Word doc format

Grading

This assignment will be marked according to the following rubric:

Assessment Criteria	Excellent (A+ to A)	Proficient (A- to B+)	Satisfactory (B to B-)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Adheres to Academic Standards – APA, spelling grammar	APA, spelling and Grammar are error-free	APA, spelling and grammar have less than 3 errors	APA, spelling and grammar have less than 5 errors	APA, spelling and grammar errors throughout the work
Writing structure, flow and use of literature or traditional knowledge	Writing is clear and effective for potential audiences. Paragraphs are well organized and adhere to proper paragraph structure. Ideas are well supported, and literature or traditional knowledge is well synthesized.	Writing is clear and effective for potential audiences. Paragraphs are fairly well organized and mostly adhere to proper paragraph structure. Most Ideas are supported, and literature or traditional knowledge is synthesized.	Writing is somewhat unclear or ineffective for potential audiences, making it difficult to follow ideas or arguments. Paragraphs inconsistently adhere to proper paragraph structure. Ideas are inconsistently supported by literature or traditional knowledge, or synthesis is lacking.	Writing is unclear and ineffective for potential audiences. Paragraphs do not adhere to proper academic paragraphing structure. Literature is not used in a meaningful way to support the development of ideas.
Background and context	The learner provides a clear and concise background and context for the model, ensuring the reader has a full understanding to interpret their model selection.	The learner provides a clear and concise background and context for the model, providing the reader with sufficient information for general understanding to interpret their model selection.	The learner provides a limited background and context for the model, providing the reader with limited information making it difficult to interpret their model selection.	The learner provides incomplete background and context for the model, providing the reader with inadequate information to interpret their model selection.
Description of the selected Instructional Design model	Clearly explains the selected ID model and presents a detailed, realistic, and appropriate rationale for its selection in the writers’ context	Explains the selected ID model and presents an adequate rationale for its selection in the writers’ context	Identifies some aspects of the selected ID model with minimal explanation and presents a limited rationale for its selection in the writers’ context	The selected ID model is not identified and/or rationale is insufficient and does not include any supporting arguments or evidence for its selection
Reflection	The response demonstrates an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the model. The insights and recommendations provided are clearly aligned with the case and strongly connected to the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials. Reflections are thorough, insightful and demonstrate critical thinking and connected learning.	The response demonstrates a sufficient analysis and evaluation of the model. The insights and recommendations provided are mostly aligned to the case and connect to the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the module materials. Reflections are present and support evidence of critical thinking and connected learning.	The response demonstrates basic analysis and evaluation of the model. The insights and recommendations are somewhat aligned to the case, and connect to some theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the module materials. Reflections are partially present but superficially demonstrate limited evidence of critical thinking and connected learning.	The response demonstrates a limited analysis and evaluation of the model. The insights and recommendations provided are not aligned to the case, and/ or do not connect to the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the module materials. Reflections are inadequate to demonstrate critical thinking and connected learning.