Month: November 2017

Below are some of my annotations and comments on Thomas’ (2010) chapter on learning and instructional systems design as part of a doctoral dissertation.

Introduction

The term instructivist and instructivism was new to me. A definition explaining how instructivism is different from behaviourism would have been helpful, especially since it was such a key element in the discussion of how instructional design is moving away from instructivism and toward constructivism.

History of Instructional Design

Having already studied the history of instructional design, much of what was discussed was already familiar to me. The list of instructional design models developed by Ryder would have been a useful appendix or chart to include, especially since no reference list was provided.

Conceptual Representation of ID

The key finding in this section is that there is no one agreed-upon definition for instructional design. A definition I disagreed with was by Seels and Glasglow (1998), who stated “learning should not occur in a haphazard manner,” (as cited in Thomas, p.186). I believe there needs to be a distinction between learning and training. Learning occurs all the time in real world situations, while training is a more formal structure for guiding that learning.

Instructional Design Models and Pedagogical Models

Sections 3.4 and 3.5 both discuss instructional design models. One question I had when initially skimming the article was the difference between instructional design models and pedagogical models. The answer is that instructional design focuses on the development process for a learning solution, while pedagogical models focus on the learning strategies that underpin the solution.

I was already familiar with the ADDIE model, rapid prototyping, Gagne’s nine events of instruction, and Merrill’s models, but the other models discussed were new: universal systems design, DC model, MRK model, Smith and Ragan’s model, and dynamic ID model.

Prior to reading this paper, I was unfamiliar with almost all of the pedagogical models discussed — Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory,  ICARE Model, ASSURE Model, Mayes’ Pedagogical Framework, 7 principles for good practice in online courses, the blended learning models, though I had at least heard of the ARCS model and project and problem-based learning.

Summary of Features and Criticisms of ISD Models

The key finding by the author after review of tinstructional design models was, “even though each model had some differences, they were all basically similar in their need to provide certain components that are common to instruction” (p. 230). This was disheartening after trying to make sense of all the different models just discussed. The comment that traditional models are often criticized for being more process than people-focused rings true to me for corporate settings. My experience has been that most corporations are focused on business outcomes and want to align corporate training to business processes and tasks.

Beyond Traditional ISD

This was a short section with only one paragraph. As a reader, I’m not sure what my takeaway was supposed to be.

Core Foundations of the Grounded Design

This section identified five considerations for designing learning, regardless of delivery method used: psychological, pedagogical, technological, cultural, and pragmatic. While I agree all considerations are important, my approach is largely pragmatic. Whenever I design a learning solution for clients, I  ask myself, what is realistic given my client’s needs, their organizational culture, and their resources?

Constructivist Views and Constructivist Design Models

Sections 3.9 and 3.10 both discuss constructivism. In general, constructivism would be problematic for my clients. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, so they need evidence that shows their learning and development budgets have been well-spent. Statements like “Constructivist strategies are often not efficient, resulting in a trial-and-error approach to the performance in the real world” (Merrill, 1997, as cited in Thomas, 2010, p. 265) makes constructivism a hard sell, even when it would be best for learners.

Alternative Instructional Design Approach

After a heavy emphasis on constructivism in the previous section, this section provided a more balanced view that acknowledged cognitivism and behaviourism still have a role to play in learning. The comment, “The problem is in selecting the most appropriate one to apply in a particular real setting” (p.268) gets at what I believe is the core role of an instructional designer: selecting the right approach for a given situation to maximize learning outcomes.

Blended Learning: Development of Design Criteria

I initially thought this section would provide limited usefulness to me because it focused on blended learning, and my area of interest is fully online learning, but most was relevant. Linking interface design to Gagne’s “gaining attention” event of instruction was an interesting connection, one I likely would not have made on my own.

It was re-affirming to read, “meaningful feedback improves performance” (Driscoll, 2002, in Thomas, 2010, p. 279), as I had received criticism from one of my clients that my instructional design provided too much learner feedback (the client requested I limit my feedback to “correct” or “incorrect”).

Role of Instructional Designers

Most of this section referred to instructional designers in higher education and referenced the role of teachers, students, faculty, lessons, curriculum, etc., so this section was not directly relevant to my professional practice or area of interest. The one statement that jumped out at me was that instructional designers need to fulfill multiple roles, including student, reviewer, tester, and project manager (p. 285).

Success Factors for Technology Integration

Having worked on multiple enterprise resource platform integrations in an organizational change management capacity, I agreed with everything included in this section but did not encounter any new or interesting findings. Most of the content seemed to state the obvious. This is more a reflection of my existing knowledge and experience than a comment on the content the author chose to include. Commentary on higher education was of little interest because it would be speculation as to whether the findings also apply in a corporate setting.

References

Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).

I’m already familiar with ADDIE model, but I’ve never considered it through the eyes of a learner – until now. In his article, Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in the digital age? Bates (2014) provides a quick summary of the ADDIE instructional design model and explores its benefits and limitations. (If you aren’t familiar with ADDIE, it’s used to guide instructional designers through creating learning solutions. The acronym stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate.)

Since all of my work is in a business setting, I welcome Bates’ (2014) reference to ADDIE’s connection to corporate e-learning and training and can see how ADDIE would remain popular given its roots in behaviourism. In my experience, corporations have a strong preference for behavioural learning interventions (previous blog post).

I absolutely believe it’s important to address learner needs and characteristics when developing learning solutions, so I am surprised most of the benefits of ADDIE Bates mentions are for corporations or other entities; he doesn’t talk about any benefits for learners. In contrast, I have always thought the model does a great job of reflecting learner needs. The Analyze phase provides the foundation for all other phases, so even though the learner isn’t always mentioned explicitly, consideration for learners is still present.

One shortcoming I do find with the ADDIE model is that there is no link to performance support or follow up for learners after formal training is complete. Learners don’t stop learning once training is done, and learning transfer isn’t explicitly mentioned in ADDIE.

I’ve also found ADDIE is not entirely realistic. As Bates mentions, following ADDIE can be expensive and redundant. It’s not always possible to be as thorough as the ADDIE model requires. Budgetary requirements and time crunches often require combining steps or taking shortcuts rather than following each phase sequentially.  Depending on the size of the project, ADDIE doesn’t always make sense for my professional practice.

It is disappointing to have Bates criticize ADDIE without providing a new model for instructional designers to consider. I expected Bates to mention the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), at least in passing, because SAM seems to be replacing ADDIE in the business world. The model focuses on rapid prototyping and development, which addresses Bates concern that ADDIE is not flexible enough to address modern challenges.

References

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]