The beginning of LRNT 524 had us exploring popular design models in an effort to understand the landscape of instructional design (ID). What became a prevalent theme throughout the readings is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to ID and that many factors may lead to the use of one design model over another – or perhaps a blend of several. Assuming one ID model to inform all course design is a disservice to the learner and the model or process used should be appropriate and well-suited to the learning context.
When considering instructional or learning design, an important distinction to make is between an ID model and an ID process. Dousay (2018) describes the ID process as steps taken to achieve the end result whereas the ID model takes a more specific representation of a process. The ADDIE process (assessment, design, develop, implement, evaluate) can be viewed as an overarching framework for informing ID, regardless of the model used.
Another distinction to make is between the design for instruction and the design for learning. This has been a distinction I have been reflecting on a lot since the beginning of the MALAT program and as I learn more, the more I feel compelled to prioritize a learning design approach. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) takes a learner or user-centred approach focusing on learner engagement and developing ‘expert learners’ in which learners are “purposeful, motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic and goal-orientated” (Takacs et al., 2021, p. 31). In my opinion, the notion of developing learners in this way is a more holistic approach to learning and also demonstrates the need for careful, thoughtful and purposeful design.
An area that I would like to learn more about is cultural inclusion in learning and instructional design. Although many popular ID models and processes reflect the consideration of diverse learners, there remains a gap in guidance for creating learning environments that embrace and reflect cultural diversity and inclusion (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). In a time where we are making efforts to foster decolonization many of our systems and processes, learning that supports and reflects cultural inclusion is of utmost importance.
Parchoma et al. (2020) introduce the idea of designing for learning in the yellow house. The yellow house, referencing Van Gogh’s Yellow House painting, is a place where there exists a metaphorical third place or room where instructional design and learning design can come together in an effort tto support growth, creativity and change (2020). This yellow house analogy has created space in my mind and professional practice to consider the possibilities of learning design while granting me permission to get creative. I look forward to learning more as we progress through this course.
References
Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional Design Models. In West, R (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The past, present, and future of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models
Heaster-Ekholm, K. L. (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
Parchoma, G., Koole, M., Morrison, D., Nelson, D., & Dreaver-Charles, K. (2020). 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
Takacs, S, Zhang, J., Lee, H., Truong, L., & Smulders, D. (2021). A comprehensive guide to applying Universal Design for Learning. Justice Institute of British Columbia. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcudl/