In unit 1, we are examining various models of learning design and instructional design as they relate to digital learning environments. It has been interesting to read and reflect on how more traditional Instructional Design Models (IDMs) like ADDIE, Blooms, and UDL have been used and/or adapted for use with online learning, and also how newer models like David Merrill’s “Pebble in the pond”, or Open Learning are emerging to meet the ever growing intricacies of online learning.
Working in corporate learning, my experience has been that many workplace learning solutions are designed haphazardly, without extensive consideration given to the model or method of design. With that in mind, many of the design processes that I have been witness to most closely resemble ADDIE or Blooms Taxonomy (perhaps, because they are two of the most well-known, and therefore assumed to be superior?). In reflection, I wonder how programs could have been improved, or learner experiences and performance objectives amplified if they were developed by following an intentionally appropriate IDM.
As I continue on the readings, I am further of the opinion that no one design model is “better” than another, and that a combination of factors must be considered when choosing the model that is most appropriate for the task or problem at hand. For example, a K-12 environment following a mandated curriculum should of course consider the individual learners needs or cultural dispositions, but primarily must focus on what is to be learned and therefore is less able to be agile or flexible in the design process. Conversely, a performance based learning objective is more flexible, and can be designed with the learner at the centre (like the pebble), and then built outwards, with the ability to be more flexible and less prescriptive.
In my practice, I have typically taken a ‘learner first’ approach to designing learning – Who are they, what do they need to know, why do they need to know it, and what are their barriers to learning. Again, this is because I have worked almost exclusively on performance improvement, and as such the Kemp Model most closely aligns to what I have followed to date. The more I read about IDMs, the more I realize how little I know.
Your note on choosing a model most appropriate for the task really resonates with my thoughts as well! While I am also in the mindset that a K-12 environment may have less room for flexibility, I think the efforts to make it flexible are really appreciated by the learners. For example, I have had courses where the assignments and topics are given to you. I have also had courses where you can choose one of a few assignment options based on your interests and preferences. This worked because all of the assignments assessed the same skills and knowledge – the student was simply asked to present it differently. As a student, this was also great when it came to presentation day because every classmate had something different to show and it gave you new ideas for what to do on future projects.
Thanks Paula! I agree with what you said about corporate/adult learning being haphazard and often using Bloom’s Taxonomy and/or ADDIE. That has been my experience as well. In my case, the model has been prescribed by regulatory guidance documents and ends up being the only acceptable model. I wonder how we can change this and open up to different models, ones that are more learner-centric.
Hi, Paula,
We are curious as to which readings have contributed to your opinion “that no one design model is “better” than another, and that a combination of factors must be considered when choosing the model that is most appropriate for the task or problem at hand”. As you have shared, “the more I read about IDMs, the more I realize how little I know,” and we agree that it can seem endless!
Taking “a ‘learner first’ approach to designing learning – Who are they, what do they need to know, why do they need to know it, and what are their barriers to learning” is a very empathetic approach.
Although you seemingly haven’t settled on one, in particular, that might be more optimal than others in your context; we wonder if some align more closely to your empathetic approach than others? Why do you think they align? Are the emerging models (Merrill, 2002) that you have encountered adding anything to the field if all models are already created equal?
Lisa & Leeann
Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble‐in‐the‐pond model for instructional design. Performance improvement, 41(7), 41-46.
Hi Paula,
I appreciate and respect that you take a “learner first” approach to design. I think that so often in corporate and educational design, this is overlooked by so many. I have known many in my organization to focus on content and recall with mixed results. I am a firm believer that most things can and should be transformative. Teaching and instructional design is an art! Do you believe that it is ok to mix and match different aspects from different ID methods? I sometimes do but it doesn’t always turn out.
Sam