“Design Is Not Just What It Looks Like Or Feels Like, But How It Works”
Steve Jobs
I have had limited hands-on experience with instructional design and facilitation in my organization. My work primarily focuses on creating media and technologies to support training in physical and digital learning environments.
Through the Innovation, Design, and Learning Environments course at Royal Roads University, I aimed to deepen my understanding of the role and responsibilities of an Instructional Designer (ID). In this article, I share insights into the processes and ways of thinking I have explored through recent readings and reflections on instructional design.
Complexities of Educational Design
Students bring diverse experiences, interests, and cultural backgrounds to the classroom, making educational design inherently complex. Dousay (2018, p. 278) notes that technological advancements in the late 1960s and 1970s further amplified this complexity, highlighting the need for instructional design (ID) frameworks to simplify and standardize educational practices. As these frameworks gained adoption, educators and designers adapted and expanded upon existing models, leading to a wide array of approaches tailored to specific contexts and paradigms of thought.
According to Heaster-Ekholm (2020), two main paradigms of thought underpinning instructional design (ID) frameworks are Objectivist and Constructivist, both of which have evolved from various learning theories:
Objectivists believe that knowledge is an independent entity that exists apart from the learner, something to be consumed and shared. IDs adhering to this paradigm view the teacher’s role as transmitting knowledge and assessing comprehension.
Constructivist, in contrast, assert that knowledge is actively constructed by learners, shaped by their experiences and beliefs. Constructivists see their role as facilitating and guiding the learning process, helping students build and refine their understanding.
The complexities of educational design and the polarized views of knowledge have led to the emergence of a new role: Learning Designers (LDs) (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). Some argue as Dalziel et al. do (cited in Parchoma et al., 2020), that the LD role is a subset of the ID role. However, Parchoma et al. (2020) argue that the two roles are distinct and one does not encompass the other. IDs are often associated with objectivist approaches, while LDs are more aligned with constructivist methodologies. That said, Parchoma et al. acknowledge that these roles are not rigid, and IDs and LDs frequently blend frameworks and strategies from both paradigms.
Paradigms in my organization
In my organization, the defence sector, objectivist and constructivist paradigms have distinct and valuable applications in educational design, each suited to specific use cases. Our end-to-end training solutions aim to support the training of individuals to work in groups in operations ranging from as small as three people to battalions (100-200). Before collective training, which brings together multiple individuals from different roles and experiences, service members undergo individual training solutions designed to transfer and assess knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward specific subject matter. This phase aligns well with the objectivist paradigm, as it emphasizes the need for measurable, standardized outcomes to maximize the success of future collective training exercises.
Individuals must also develop skills in a collective training context to function effectively as a cohesive unit. In this phase, the dynamics of group interaction make success measurement more subjective and contextual to each team. Constructivist approaches are better suited to these collective training exercises, as they prioritize tailoring the training environment and activities to react to collective engagement. This adaptability allows training to leverage group strengths, address weaknesses, and maximize operational effectiveness.
Conclusion
My initial exploration of instructional design revealed a complex and nuanced field, as might be expected when considering the name instructional “design,” which is inherently subjective and multifaceted. This complexity has given rise to multiple mindsets, which fostered the development of numerous instructional and learning design frameworks. While different paradigms may inform these frameworks of thought, they ultimately share a common goal: to design research-informed approaches that enhance student learning, leverage technology, and build equitable learning environments for all.
References
Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional Design Models. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: Historical Roots and Current Trends. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models
Gale Parchoma, Marguerite Koole, Dirk Morrison, Dorothea Nelson & Kristine Dreaver-Charles (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, DOI:10.1080/07294360.2019.1704693
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 (IJEDICT), 16(3), 50–65.
OpenAI. (2024). A minimalistic depiction of instructional design, blending clarity and structure. https://chat.openai.com/
Pappas, C. (2024, March 28). 10 inspirational quotes for instructional designers. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/inspirational-quotes-instructional-designers
Be First to Comment