Below are some of my annotations and comments on Thomas’ (2010) chapter on learning and instructional systems design as part of a doctoral dissertation.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I\u00a0was 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.<\/p>\n
Prior to reading this paper, I was unfamiliar with almost all of the pedagogical models discussed — Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
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\u00a0training to business processes and tasks.<\/p>\n
This was a short section with\u00a0only one paragraph. As a reader,\u00a0I’m not sure what my takeaway was supposed to be.<\/p>\n
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\u00a0 ask myself, what is realistic given my client’s needs, their organizational culture, and their resources?<\/p>\n
Sections 3.9 and 3.10 both discuss constructivism. In general, constructivism would be problematic for my clients. Corporations are accountable to their\u00a0shareholders, 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I initially thought this section would\u00a0provide limited usefulness to me because it focused on blended learning, and my area of interest is fully online learning, but most was relevant.\u00a0Linking interface design to Gagne’s “gaining attention” event of instruction was an interesting connection, one I likely would not have made on my own.<\/p>\n
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\u00a0that my instructional design provided too much learner feedback (the client requested I limit my feedback to “correct” or “incorrect”).<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
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\u00a0experience 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\u00a0the findings\u00a0also\u00a0apply in a corporate setting.<\/p>\n