For this blog post, I have been tasked with sharing my thoughts on selecting an appropriate instructional design (ID) model.
Before I start, I would like to share what I learned from Heaster-Ekholm’s (2020) article: Instruction Design Models: Theoretical Roots and Cultural Considerations. I found this article fascinating, and it provides a good starting point for picking the most appropriate ID model. The author found many popular ID theories based on objectivist and constructivist epistemologies. Objectivities believe that knowledge can be shared from person to person and that learners are to understand, and build on the knowledge they receive (Dousay, 2017). The role of the instructor is to be the “sage on the stage” (King, 1993, p.30) to possess the knowledge and pass it along to the students. Some examples of objectivist ID models are; ADDIE, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the Dick and Carey Model. Constructivists believe that knowledge needs to be created by the students and the learners are at the center of constructivist ID models, with their experiences and beliefs shaping the knowledge created (Dousay, 2017). The role of the instructor is to be the “guide on the side” (King, 1993, p. 30) and to guide students into constructing their knowledge. Some examples of constructivist ID models are Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction and Universal Design for Learning. Knowing the learning goals will help guide which ID model to choose. Ertmer and Newby (1993, as cited in Heaster-Ekholm, 2020) stated that the different epistemologies serve different functions. Objectivist ID models can be used to facilitate the mastery of content and aid in problem solving where known facts are applied in different circumstances (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). In comparison, constructivism is “suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action” (Heaster-Ekholm 2020, p.59). It is also important to note that researchers (Dousay, 2019 & Heaster-Ekholm, 2020) often found that using a combination of ID models provides designers with the best opportunity to provide the best learning experience. In closing, I would like to share what Dousay (2019) wrote, “ID is rarely a simple process. In practice, designers often draw upon personal experience and the wide variety of models, strategies, and theories to customize each instance of instructional design” (p. 9).
I look forward to learning more about different ID models and how I can apply them to aid student success.
References:
Dousay. T. A. (2017). Instructional design models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). 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://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1275582
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
November 19, 2022 at 4:41 pm
Hi Tim,
Great post! I appreciate how you pointed out constructivist and objectivist models and where to apply them. I’m beginning to see that there indeed are a wide variety of models to choose from and I like the idea of adapting models to fit a particular circumstance.
What kind of learning models are you discussing/evaluating/using in your work? If I remember correctly, you might actually be doing this in your current work.
Sarah
November 21, 2022 at 12:13 pm
Great job noting the the “sage on the stage” and the “guide on the side” as components underlying some models. There are of course more paradigms than the two you have listed, do you think it is important then for a learning designer to plan with the instructors paradigm in mind? Are some approaches more difficulty to implement in our design?