I was reflecting on the notion of deciding on an instructional design model and what factors come into play when making those decisions. I believe that only some design with a model in mind because subject matter experts (SMEs) often are unfamiliar with educational theories and practices) despite being employed to instruct (Hogue, n.d; Weller, 2020). This was addressed from an educational context, but I suspect those in the program from industries outside of education would confirm this to be true elsewhere. When I think about my experience as a restaurant manager training employees or as an educator and the training/education I received before being unleashed on those I was instructing, the consideration of design models was limited to non-existent.
Regardless of my experience or knowledge of instructional design models, the following were factors in making my design decisions:
- Outcomes– what are the learners supposed to know or be able to do when completing the course or training session?
- Who– are the learners?
- Timelines– how long do they have to achieve the outcomes?
- Delivery tools, access and environment– what tools are available to deliver the outcomes, and where is the training happening? What tools do my learners have and what would they need to achieve outcomes?
- Assessment– how will they be assessed, and what are the measurements of success?
These decisions align with various aspects of instructional design, such as design goals, design approaches, and design assessment, that Parchoma et al. (2019, Table 2) describe without subscribing to one model or even having knowledge of specific models compared to best practices acquired over time. They also have aspects of the ADDIE process, a foundation framework for multiple design models (Dousay, 2018). Instructional design is layered and is rarely about choosing one model; instead, the designer draws upon various models, theories, strategies and experiences to “customise each instance of instructional design” (Dousay, 2018, Other ID Models section). Much of the choice regarding innovation depends on the learning environment, such as face-to-face (F2F), online (synchronous or asynchronous or both), or blended as well as the digital literacy of instructors and learners.
I choose different tools for the same course for different delivery modes while the outcome remains the same. Innovation does not always infer technology as part of instructional design; however, innovation can come from a willingness to change and improve the design. This can derive from collaborating with instructional designers trained in instructional design. It can also come from listening to student feedback, and perception of a course design is vital to ensuring that the course is learner-centred (Hogue, n.d.). As an instructor, it is important to be flexible, listen to what worked, and adjust accordingly in the design to improve. That is innovation: responding and changing to make something better.
As part of the guiding questions, I considered which models I integrate into my own instructional design or have adapted as I learn more about instructional design over the past few years. I use Bloom’s taxonomy to design unit outcomes and lesson-learning outcomes. Saved on my desktop is a copy of “Bloom’s verbs” (see photo) listing numerous verbs related to the six objectives of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis and synthesis. I aim for outcomes that reach each level in some way, and these outcomes lead to the BOPPPS model for lesson planning. I find BOPPPS to be an excellent lesson model regardless of the learning environment.
I primarily work with international students and have been examining Universal Design Learning (UDL) and aiming to adapt some practices by designing for students with multiple pathways to achieve learning outcomes (Tacks et al., 2021). Giving them options and more variety has increased both achievements of outcomes and engagement in my courses. One thing I noted from the readings, however, was the assumptions behind Bloom’s focus on outcomes with limited consideration for learner diversity (Easter-Ekholm, 2020). If aiming to design a course with UDL principles, I’ll need to ensure that the outcome themselves are not hindering learners from the outset. Has anyone had any moments where they realised unintentional bias or social-cultural context in their instructional design is limiting their learners?
References
Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional design models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. Ed Tech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models
Heaster-Ekholm, K. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: their theoretical roots and cultural considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1275582.pdf
Hogue, R. J. (Host). (n.d.). S3E1: Janet Lee and Darlesa Cahoon are analyzing intsructional design [Audio podcast episode]. In Demystifying intrusctional design.
Parchoma, G., Koole, M., Morrison, D., Nelson, D., & Dreaver-Charles, K. (2019). Designing for learning in the yellow house: A comparison of instructional and learning design origins and practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1704693
Tacks, S., Zhang, J., Lee, H., Truong, L., & Smulders, D. (2021). A comprehensive guide to applying Universal Design for Learning. JIBC. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcudl/
Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.