The importance of understanding the problem
Reading about various instructional design (ID) models this week, I encountered many iterative loop-type models, many of which were based on the ADDIE (Analyze Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) process. This reminded me of other iterative loop-type models I’ve encountered during my career so far, including the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Loop, PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) Cycle and DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) Process. These models have common concepts in understanding context and need, defining parameters for direction, executing an action, and evaluating the result, which becomes an input to the next cycle iteration. Upon reflecting on this, it’s interesting to realize that the most significant part of the cycle involves understanding the problem and the impact of change on that problem. I was reminded of the quote attributed to Charles Kettering, “A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved” or the similar quote “A problem well put is half solved” attributed to John Dewey alongside Einstein’s “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” These perspectives highlight the importance of understanding a problem before acting and, when considered in an iterative methodology, the recursive way in which understanding the problem and the resultant action become inter-affecting, often narrowing the scope of improvement in progressive iterations.
But what about the philosophy of learning and the philosophy of reality?
At this point, I began reading Kristen Lina Heaster-Ekholm’s 2020 paper on the roots of popular ID models. The paper resonated with me and challenged my viewpoint on the nature of ID models. I hadn’t considered the epistemological origins of the many models I am familiar with, many of which are based on behaviourist/cognitivist perspectives. This struck me as an essential concept to investigate in greater depth in the later assignments in this course. Heaster-Ekholm’s analysis of the various ID models pointed to a problem I have noticed throughout my career and learning journey. Many of these models consider learning a process of knowledge transfer through exposure to concepts in a structured method to achieve defined outcomes based on standardized assessments. While the learner is considered to an extent in some models, they are generally not learner-centric. In contrast, reviewing the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework places the learner and their context at the model’s centre and represents a constructivist epistemology. I intend to learn more about the UDL framework in the coming weeks, specifically the recent update to version 3.0. My interest in UDL and other social-justice-oriented ID models is based on my growing understanding of systemic bias and ongoing propagation through standardized methods. In addition to Heaster-Ekholm’s paper, Parchoma et al.’s 2020 conceptual paper on a theoretical Yellow house or “third space” where concepts from ID and Learning Design (LD) can be tested, synthesized and co-evolved resonated with me. In this way, models of differing ontological and epistemological origins can give rise to new complementary, hybrid or merged alternative approaches. One point that struck me in this paper was Parchoma et al.’s excellent assertion regarding the conceptual Yellow house as a place to expand beyond Western perspectives to include Indigenous and other non-North American/Euro-centric epistemologies and ontologies.
Applying ID models to my roles
In my current role, I am not typically performing instructional design, or if I am, it’s often for smaller curricular elements like an e-learning module or patient education video. However, my exposure to these ID models has helped me to better understand the work of my colleagues and collaborators and be able to provide feedback, guidance or input on our mutual projects. In addition to my role, I collaborate with Niagara Health’s DEI committee and Indigenous Health Services & Reconciliation teams on projects and have been developing a growing awareness and recognition of the problems of systemic racism and inequity on equity-deserving groups and the ongoing impact of colonialism on Indigenous peoples in Canada. As a result, I hope to continue bringing ideas and concepts from social-justice-oriented thinkers to my work. The CPUT learning design model chapter by Gacahgo et al. in the 2022 book Toward a Critical Instructional Design is particularly interesting. Integrating the Participatory, Justice, Care and Praxis domains and Wehipeihana’s 2013 To, For, With, By, As participation model in an iterative design model centred on empathy provides a roadmap for change across a spectrum of potential implementations. I intend to learn more about this model, bring its principles to my practice, and share it with my associates.
References
Gachago, D., Bali, M., & Pallitt, N. (2022) in J. Quinn, M. Burtis & S. Jhangiani (Eds.), Toward a Critical Instructional Design. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/criticalinstructionaldesign/
Heaster-Eckholm, 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. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewissue.php?id=59
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
Be First to Comment