Photo by Anthony Shkraba from Pexels

I started a career in English language education ten years ago because I enjoyed working with people from other cultures and wanted a job that offered me the freedom to travel. I taught overseas in public and private language schools and enjoyed it. It was a dynamic environment in constant motion, with disruptions, lots of discussion, and novel ideas. What’s not to love?

But, the COVID-19 pandemic generated waves of change in language education as traditional face-to-face learning rapidly moved online. From an Instructional Design perspective, this sudden shift online was complicated because it required technological tools to mitigate the various forms of interaction typically involved in the teaching-learning process. For instance, deciding how learners would interact with the content, how they would interact with the instructor, and how students would interact. But, even before COVID, instructional design was a problem-solving activity that involved examining issues and offering solutions to them (Rothwell et al., 2015). Rothwell et al. (2015) explain that this process requires an iterative and systematic approach or design model to guide and support instructional designers in their practice.

When considering a design model, I would start by deciding on the course format (Dousay, 2017). Will the delivery be synchronous, asynchronous, or blended? Next, I would need to think about how a particular model would support my context or desired outcomes (Dousay, 2017). These two considerations play a crucial role in selecting an appropriate design model that facilitates consistency in decision-making (Dousay, 2017).

Admittedly, I lack sufficient experience making design decisions. Although, if I were tasked with making such decisions today, using the knowledge I have accumulated from the MALAT program, I would start by meditating on my audience: Who are my learners? Where are they geographically situated? How do they like/want to learn? What are their unique needs? In the ESL world, this information might be established through an interview and a pre-assessment to gather learner-specific information and gauge their level of English proficiency. Next, using the relevant data collected, I would go ahead with the planning process with multiple learning theories in mind:

• behaviourism/cognitivism to develop vital learning objectives and ensure my approach is learner-centered (Dron, 2014),
• connectivism to support various types of interactions (Dron, 2014),
• social constructivism to leverage the learners’ previous experiences to make learning meaningful (Dron, 2014),
• andragogy to ensure I always have the learning styles and preferences of my audience in mind (Knowles, 1973), and
• task-based language teaching (TBLT) focused on communicative interaction to promote successful language learning (Moore, 2018).

By incorporating multiple elements from different learning theories, I am in a better position to tailor my content to suit the needs of the course. And, now, with all the vital components, I would decide on the technology using Bates’ ACTIONS model (Dron, 2014).

As a novice designer, traditional design models, like ADDIE, are the best guides as they teach foundational design principles that are time-tested and reputable (Bates, 2015b; Giacumo, 2021). That being said, I recognize I run the risk of using a model that limits opportunities for innovation (Brown, 2018). In the future, I might consider newer models or integrate old elements with the latest in the form of a mash-up (Bates, 2015a), infusing the strengths of ADDIE with design thinking and rapid, responsive aspects of the Agile framework into my practice (Bates, 2015b). These adapted models would help tailor my course design when engaging in the Instructional Design problem-solving process (Bates, 2015b). As Parchoma et al. (2020) write, the focus should not be on designing learning but on creating conditions for compelling and emergent learning opportunities. With that in mind, I think playing around with the positive attributes of different design models once I am more skilled would be a desirable alternative to following one or none at all (Dousay, 2017).

In a rapid evolution context, like the one we find ourselves in, innovation and design is a transformational process of the teaching and learning experience (Veletsianos, 2011). It involves improving learning experiences through a series of phases that takes what currently exists through numerous iterative experimentation processes until the desired learning outcome is reached (Rothwell, 2015). However, as Veletsianos (2011) writes, the extent to which transformative results are realized depends on many factors, including individual learners, scaffolds, and the design of opportunities for transformation. Nevertheless, Instructional Designers are the main actors of teaching and learning design, and therefore are paramount in the innovation process.

References:
Bates, T. (2015a). Chapter 4.3 – The ADDIE Model. In Teaching in a Digital Age. BCcampus. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Bates, T. (2015b). Chapter 4.7 – ‘Agile’ Design: flexible designs for learning. In Teaching in a Digital Age. BCcampus. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

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

Giacumo, L., & Breman, J. (2021). Trends and implications of models, frameworks, and approaches used by Instructional Designers in workplace learning and performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 34(2), 131–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21349

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. ERIC, ED084368. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED084368.pdf

Moore, P. (2018). Task-based language teaching (TBLT). In Liontas, J. I. (ed.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0175