In 2017 I shifted from a career in the world of design and marketing to one in higher ed, but it began with a contract as a Subject-Matter Expert rather than teaching. With no prior experience or training, I was placed in a world of acronyms I didn’t understand and was asked to develop curriculum—essentially on my own—for a few courses. There were no Instructional Designers to work with or design models to guide me. Since that time, I have developed a fair number of new courses and have yet to use a design model (or had help from an ID) to guide decisions relating to delivery, tool, or assessment that I have had to make along the way. Over time, I found these decisions were typically based around my understanding of course outcome requirements, time restrictions, student motivation, student prior learning, my own mental wellbeing (e.g., how hard is this to mark?), and so many more things that were (and still are?) likely subliminal. I think I would have really benefited from knowing there were resources out there like Dousay’s (2018) chapter on Instructional Design Models.
This overview of design models was eye-opening as I discovered there were models that could streamline thought processes that I previously had to work out on my own through trial and error. The timelines on my course development has always been tight (e.g., develop 2–3 courses in ~3 months), and as I read Dousay (2018) I found myself highlighting various models that looked applicable to rapid development and the constant revisions my courses require. For example, the Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition (ARSC-V) Model from Keller (2016) was particularly interesting as it mirrors many of the elements of course development that I want to be improve on. Vague questions around student—and, I suppose, instructor—motivation are always floating around in my mind as I rework course design and having a model that could help focus my mind on course design and innovations that will foster an environment of motivation and curiosity will be incredibly helpful.
With so many models to choose from, it is important that I can assess its applicability to my situation before moving too far with it. For example, I have tight timelines that require a model that won’t hold too closely to the ADDIE process, so maybe a model like Allen Interactions’ (n.d.) SAM model would be a good starting point. But, beyond timelines, I need to consider how the course is being delivered (e.g., online/face-to-face, synchronous/asynchronous, etc.); how the course is positioned within the larger program (e.g., first or second year; prerequisite course[s]); the broader purpose of the course (e.g., teach foundational principles vs. encourage exploration and discovery); or how much work is required (e.g., full course development vs. course update). There is a lot to consider and, to be honest with myself, I’m not sure I would have the time to choose, let alone formally implement a design model. Rather than throw out the concept of using design models, I plan to do more reading on them to get a better sense of best practices, useful strategies and common concepts that I can take with me as I attempt to improve my course design in everyday moments. Essentially, I am openly admitting to a laissez faire approach to design models that was inspired by a quote from Brent Wilson (University of Colorado Denver),
Think about what good instruction means. Are you following a sound design procedure, e.g., ADDIE? Are you adhering to best practices of the professional community? Are your strategies supported by learning theory? Are design decisions validated by demonstrated gains on pre- and post- measures? Each of these has a role in creating good instruction, but don’t forget to meet the needs of learners, especially those at the margins. (Dousay, 2018, Tips From the Field section)
References
Allen Interactions. (n.d.). E-Learning Development With SAM. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://www.alleninteractions.com/services/custom-learning/sam/elearning-development
Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional Design Models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/
Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, Learning, and Technology: Applying the ARCS-V Motivation Model. Participatory Educational Research, 3(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.06.3.2
Great post, David. I particularly appreciate your reflection of being tossed into an ID task with no access to designers and very little time. I too have been in this type of situation at the start of my academic career- we tend to reflect-in-action when thrust into these situations, for better or worse. It is stressful, but you get the job done at the end of the day. I wonder how our earlier work will compare now that we’ve been formally introduced to such great ID models?
Thanks, Jonathan! I was actually just thinking about the courses I developed when I first started and how poorly developed they were. But I had little other option at that point, and I learned what worked and what had to change. I don’t think even an ID model would have fixed some of the errors I was making. It’s good to know that our mistakes are just another way we learn.
sounds very familiar!
Thanks so much for this, David. I’ve been thinking for the past couple of days about how I plan on approaching this blog post myself. I’ve been feeling a little foolish for having been teaching for eight years and during this whole time have not even been familiar with the process of instructional design… let alone used one. Your very honest post sounds so familiar to me and makes me feel a little better about myself… that I’m not alone and that we as educators who have come to the profession through subject expertise rather than an educational background are at a disadvantage when it comes to effectively transferring our knowledge to our students.
Long story short… this was a good read. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks, Christopher. I really appreciate that. No matter what angle we come at education from — be it trained educator or industry professional — we will have some weaknesses to overcome. I always felt that, despite my own limitations and biases, that an honest review of my courses from the perspective of a student ends up being one of the best ways to handle ID. Asking student-perspective questions like “am I actually prepared for these assessments” and “does this activity/assignment feel like a make-work project” often does more than all the diagrams that I’ve looked at. And believe me, teaching for 8 years without getting familiar with the process of ID sounds more like a problem with the organization offering you any time to develop skills than you being foolish.
Hey David, I am glad you shared your experience. It puts my mind at ease knowing that you can get away with relying on your own intuitions when you lack a theoretical framework at the beginning of your career. I am likely to avoid that path because I am not an instructor and I can still add theoretical knowledge to my approach, but if I do end up in a situation like yours, it’s good to know that I am not doomed to fail.
You’d be surprised how far you can get with a cheery disposition and being willing to admit that you made mistakes. I don’t have a cheery disposition so I’ve just had to fake it. Some intuition works, some falls very flat… but then you learn, fix, and try again. I’m sure you’ll be great.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, David.
You mention coming from a design background. I’m curious if there might be a process that you typically followed, consciously or unconsciously, to complete that work at all? Are there components of that which might similar to what we’re discussing, whether with SAM, Agile or a similar method? Are there ways that you might augment it with what you are learning now to create your own method?
That’s a really interesting question, Jean-Pierre. Most of my design career involved one-off projects which means the end result has a very different shelf life from a college course. That being said, the process has many similarities since you always begin with an analysis of the client, the end user (or customer), and the way the designed piece will interact within an environment. For example, a billboard is different in objective, design style, and time available for reading than an ad that sits on those little plastic separators at a grocery check-out. Once the analysis is done, you design based on predetermined limitations (size, medium, colour, etc.) to accomplish a specific objective (e.g., go to website, purchase something, etc.). If the design is not a one-off it will be evaluated after it has been in its environment for a while to see if it is still doing its job well. Do we need to rewrite text, resize a label, etc.?
As you can see, the overall process mirrors many of the pieces you might find in Agile, SAM, or many of the other models. At their heart, these design models appear to do the same things (analyze, strategize, create, implement, fix) but from a unique perspective to fit specific contexts or needs. I did the same thing in graphic design, only sometimes all of that happened in two-days time. I’m not sure there is much from ID models that I would bring to the graphic design world, but I think the ID model I made up in my brain when I started developing courses ended up being a merging of those core ideas of ensuring we’re creating the best design for the intended target (student) based on predetermined objectives and limitations alongside my history of having to do it all in two days.
Wow. That was a long winded response. Sorry about that. Hopefully I actually answered you questions.
David, excellent information here. I am liking the idea you note with course prep being altered to use a design model.