Thomas (2010) states, “The medium does not dictate the design” (p.185). As we use the medium of instructional design models and theories, one must ask, are we, as teachers and instructional designers, becoming too beholden to our structure? Thomas’ statement resonates with Bates’ criticism of the ADDIE (Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model of instructional design, “My main criticism though is that the model is too inflexible for the digital age” (Bates, 2014).

Whether we find ourselves talking about technology or content, the environments that many of our students find themselves in are rapidly changing. Thomas (2010) goes on to state, “Traditional design models prescribe rigid methods regardless of the contextual differences in that it assumes each learner learns in the same way; as a result, strategies prescribed by the teacher expect every learner to learn the same thing in the same way at the same time in the decontextualized classroom environment” (p.231).

While it is an easy fix to set up structures and models and treat them as a panacea, we must always have in the back of our minds that those we are designing the learning for are not structured and fixed models. Our students are not static like these models; but dynamic, each one individual with their learning styles, personalities and baggage. We must always keep this in mind, whether we are in front of a class or sitting down to design an activity.

As we consider our students and their diversity, we must always carry their uniqueness to the front of our mind and consider it in our design process. Our students are not static, nor are they the same. Shouldn’t our design and instruction reflect that?

References

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

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).