![\"\"](\"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/178\/2021\/01\/Christopher-Rowe-Design-Manifesto-copy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Now that I have been exposed to instructional design in some detail, have had an opportunity to explore a variety of models, and have gone through the design process with a partner, I feel like I am ready to develop a set of my own design principles.\u00a0 The intention of these principles is guide my design process and to remind myself of the elements I have recently grown to value.<\/p>\n
In order to develop an instructional artifact that accomplishes its goal of providing learners with a specific skill or knowledge, a designer should always begin with a focus on the learning outcomes.\u00a0 Curry et al. (2020) pointed out that outcomes can be categorized into a series of five domains, including cognitive strategies and motor skills, amongst others, and that each require their own approach in terms of instruction.\u00a0 Considering that concept, it would be wise to begin with an understanding of the learning outcomes in mind, the domain in which they fall, and to ensure that the pedagogy aligns with the outcomes.\u00a0 Looking back, I believe I have often approached instructional design in this manner, but without intentionality.\u00a0 I have also only designed instruction associated with the topic of my expertise.\u00a0 If I am to pursue instructional design as a profession, a more grounded understanding of learning domains would be beneficial.<\/p>\n
Analysis of the learners who will make use of an instructional artifact is crucial to ensure that the content is curated and presented in a manner that is suitable for them.\u00a0 Stefaniak and Baaki (2013) asserted that \u201ca learner analysis should include a description of the learners\u2019 entry behaviours, attitudes, motivation, learning preferences, and group characteristics\u201d (p. 6).\u00a0 Through such an analysis, the designer positions themselves well to increase the suitability of content, assignments, and delivery method to the specific needs of the learners.\u00a0 As a marketer, I have long understood that a deep understanding of the audience with whom you are communicating is essential for the development of a compelling message that motivates them into action.\u00a0 Instruction, I have learned, is no different.<\/p>\n
Two of the hallmarks of good design, as indicated by Mathur (2018), are simplicity and clarity.\u00a0 Both of these qualities are applicable to instructional design when employed to increase focus in the course material and a reduction of cognitive load.\u00a0 Jenkins et al. (2013) indicated that \u201cwhen designing learning materials, extraneous cognitive load should be minimized so that learning can occur\u201d (p. 62).\u00a0 They went on to argue that overcomplicated presentations can \u201cexpend users\u2019 working memory\u201d, which can reduce the likelihood of achieving the objectives of the course (p.62).\u00a0 On a similar subject, Peterson et al. (2020) recommended identifying the \u201ccore competencies\u201d that are the foundation of the curriculum and allow the rest to be dropped (p. 3).\u00a0 The benefit of this approach is a more focused course, and the educator can spend more time on the meaning-making of the required learning objectives.\u00a0 I now recognize that I have had a history of including too much content in my courses.\u00a0 I find the subject that I teach fascinating, and I often feel the need to share as much as possible with my students.\u00a0 Looking back, I see the result was a series of courses that lacked focus and efficiency.\u00a0 This is something I look to correct in the future.<\/p>\n
Technology\u2019s continued inclusion in instructional design seems like a foregone conclusion.\u00a0 Having said that, it is important to remember its place in education, which is in a supportive capacity to other instructional methods.\u00a0 It was Clark\u2019s (1994) position that media was not the driving force in learning methods, but rather that it could increase the accessibility or efficiency of those methods.\u00a0 As a result, technology should be chosen to increase the effectiveness and cost of instruction but should not replace methods as the central theme.\u00a0 Additionally, Morris (2018) recommended a figurative return to the foundational decision-making that took place to include technology in instruction to ensure that when we do include it, we do so with intentionality.\u00a0 This principle is included to remind me that I should not choose to include a piece of technology to entertain myself or my students, but rather for what it brings to the instructional artifact and how it improves learning in a cost effective and accessible manner.<\/p>\n
In order to improve motivation and increase engagement in course content, learners need to have an understanding of why they are being taught a certain skill or concept.\u00a0 The first of Merrill\u2019s Principles of Instruction is the presentation of the problem.\u00a0 In his own words, Merrill (2002) asserted that \u201clearning is promoted when learners are shown the task that they will be able to do or the problem they will be able to solve as a result of completing a module or course\u201d (p. 45).\u00a0 In my own practice, I have occasionally overlooked this critical step.\u00a0 I include this design principle here to decrease the likelihood that I will do so again.<\/p>\n
Learners need to receive feedback throughout their development so they can make any necessary corrections to their behaviour or thinking.\u00a0 Formative assessment is an important step in any instructional artifact and should not be dismissed.\u00a0 It is beneficial for both the learner and the educator.\u00a0 Lau (2016) observed that students benefit from being involved in the construction of their own education and the development of their own sense of judgement.\u00a0 They can only do this if they have access to the educator\u2019s constructive feedback.\u00a0 On the other hand, in terms of the educator, Bloom (1968) pointed out that if one were to track the results of formative testing over time, they could determine the efficacy of certain instructional methods and iterate their practice accordingly.\u00a0 In my own practice, I have almost exclusively engaged in summative assessment.\u00a0 While I have regularly provided my students with informal feedback, I look forward to formalizing this important step in my practice with the use of formative assessment.<\/p>\n
Assessments should reflect, as closely as possible, a learner\u2019s ability to perform the skill or solve the problem at hand in a real-world scenario.\u00a0 Supportive of this idea was Koh\u2019s (2017) assertion that \u201cauthentic assessment is an effective measure of intellectual achievement or ability because it requires students to demonstrate their deep understanding, higher-order thinking, and complex problem solving\u201d (p. 1).\u00a0 It is through these authentic assessments that students are able to demonstrate the synthesis of their new knowledge by applying it to real problems in their own context.\u00a0 My previous experience with executing summative assessment has been through a requirement for my students to regurgitate my own interpretations and perspectives back to me.\u00a0 This superficial and rote memorization has little value.\u00a0 What really matters is the student\u2019s ability to assimilate the information presented in the course and synthesize it with existing knowledge.\u00a0 In this way it becomes a schema they can apply to new situations and from which they can benefit in their own contexts.<\/p>\n
Finally, when the opportunity is available, the inclusion of Open Education Practices (OEP) can be used to increase learner agency and engagement.\u00a0 Baran and AlZoubi (2020) observed that \u201cthe greatest value of open pedagogy is that it promotes student agency and provides open access awareness\u201d (p. 232).\u00a0 They further pointed out that students who had a higher sense of agency through exposure to OEP \u201cwere engaged and excited to act on their own goals in open pedagogy practices\u201d (p. 239).\u00a0 Student agency is something that has been absent from my previous courses.\u00a0 I recognize that my attempts to bring structure and objectivism to my curriculum has prevented my students from taking ownership of their learning, which results in less engagement.\u00a0 If I want my students to take control of their education and learn to learn, they must be given opportunities to explore those skills.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, my exposure to instructional design, learning theory, and the design process has been invaluable.\u00a0 It has given me a new perspective on how I will approach education and design my courses.\u00a0 Critical for me is a sense of intentionality, purpose, and direction as opposed to blindly throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.\u00a0 I look forward to making use of these design principles in my practice when I return to teaching.<\/p>\n
Baran, E., & AlZoubi, D. (2020). Affordances, challenges, and impact of open pedagogy: examining students\u2019 voices. Distance Education<\/em>, 41<\/em>(2), 230\u2013244. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01587919.2020.1757409<\/p>\n Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Evaluation Comment<\/em>, 1<\/em>(2), 1\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-1-4419-1428-6_4645<\/p>\n Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development<\/em>, 42<\/em>(2), 21\u201329. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF02299088<\/p>\n Curry, J. H., Johnson, S., & Peacock, R. (2020). Robert Gagn\u00e9 and the systematic design of instruction. Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis<\/em>, 1\u201312. https:\/\/edtechbooks.org\/id\/robert_gagn_and_systematic_design#chapterTitle<\/p>\n Jenkins, J. L., Durcikova, A., & Burns, M. B. (2013). Simplicity is bliss: Controlling extraneous cognitive load in online security training to promote secure behavior. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing<\/em>, 25<\/em>(3), 52\u201366. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4018\/joeuc.2013070104<\/p>\n Koh, K. H. (2017). Authentic assessment. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/acrefore\/9780190264093.013.22<\/p>\n Lau, A. M. S. (2016). \u2018Formative good, summative bad?\u2019 \u2013 A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education<\/em>, 40<\/em>(4), 509\u2013525. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/0309877X.2014.984600<\/p>\n Mathur, G. (2018). Simplicity, clarity, and elegance in digital product design<\/em>. Myntra UX Design. https:\/\/medium.com\/myntra-ux-design\/simplicity-clarity-and-elegance-in-digital-product-design-61990b12e642<\/p>\n Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development<\/em>, 50<\/em>(3), 43\u201359. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF02505024<\/p>\n Morris, S. M. (2018). Critical instructional design. An Urgency of Teachers: The Work of Critical Digital Design Pedagogy<\/em>, 1\u201314.<\/p>\n Petersen, C. I., Baepler, P., Beitz, A., Ching, P., Gorman, K. S., Neudauer, C. L., Rozaitis, W., Walker, J. D., & Wingert, D. (2020). The tyranny of content: \u201ccontent coverage\u201d as a barrier to evidence-based teaching approaches and ways to overcome it. CBE Life Sciences Education<\/em>, 19<\/em>(2), 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1187\/cbe.19-04-0079<\/p>\n Stefaniak, J. E., & Baaki, J. (2013). A layered approach to understanding your audience. Performance Improvement<\/em>, 52<\/em>(6), 5\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/pfi.21352<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Now that I have been exposed to instructional design in some detail, have had an opportunity to explore a variety of models, and have gone through the design process with a partner, I feel like I am ready to develop a set of my own design principles.\u00a0 The intention of these principles is guide my … Continue reading Instructional Design Principles<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":184,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt524"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/184"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":310,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299\/revisions\/310"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0162\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}