When selecting a learning design (LD) model, there must be consideration of context and delivery format. We also know that learning design is socially and culturally situated (Campbell & Schwier, 2014 and Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Without these features, learners would be unwilling to participate in the learning process. The technological developments and importance of learner motivation are an important reason for moving away from behaviorism. The goal should not be to change behavior but rather learning and applying higher level skills.

It seems from the readings that many design decisions are based on the educator’s persistent antagonists, time and budget. Following this, pedagogical perspectives influence the decisions of design. Most importantly, “leveraging organizational and individual strengths” (Rothwell, Benscoter, King & King, 2015) seems the most all-encompassing trait of learning design.

The role of innovation is crucial as learning is dependent on context. As Dousay (2017) notes “Every instructional design project is unique every time” (p. 1) Therefore a designer must be willing to adapt to a changing context. ADDIE, a frequent model used by various fields of instructional design, has been criticized for lacking guidance and broad scope (Bates, 2015). In response to these challenges flexible, or agile, designs such as , Anderson’s VUCA environment (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) (Bates, 2015).

This model is too complex for the day-to-day design of K to 12 schools. An alternate that Dousay outlines is Carr-Chellman’s Instructional Design for Teachers (ID4T). The strengths, according to Akbulut (2011) are that this model guides instructors towards having students achieve the learning goal, but also guides instructors in using the resources already available. In short, there are strengths and weaknesses to each design model so it seems a clear goal is to have a deep repertoire of LD models to choose from.

References

Akbulut, Yavuz (2011). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom practice. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 12(1).

Bates, T. (2015). Chapter 4.3 The ADDIE Model. In Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. A. (2014). Chapter 13: Major movements in instructional design. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). Available at https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Rothwell, W. J., Benscoter, B., King, M., & King, S. B. (2015). Chapter One – An Overview of Instructional Design. In Mastering the Instructional Design Process: A Systematic Approach. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.