I have been diving deeper into learning about Instructional Design (ID). When learners sit in a classroom, they might not realise that the teacher leading the class is not simply improvising, sharing knowledge, and handing out tests. The delivery of instruction likely underwent a systematic process of pedagogy-informed planning and design—this is Instructional Design.
It was fascinating to learn that ID has its roots in World War II, when efforts were made to improve military training programs. Reiser (2001) noted that psychologists and educators employed by the U.S. military studied recruits who excelled in certain disciplines. Tests were developed to assess relevant skills, enabling the identification of recruits suited for specific roles where they could perform best.
There is no one-size-fits-all method for designing effective learning content and delivery. ID is deeply contextual and varies depending on factors like whether the instruction is in a classroom or online, the average age of learners, and social and cultural influences. Naturally, the subject matter also plays a critical role. With so many intersecting conditions, every instructional project must be approached as unique.
ADDIE is an acronym that appeared frequently in my research. It describes the underlying process common to most ID models: Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. Within the ADDIE framework, a variety of ID models exist—many dating back to the 1960s. While they share similarities, these models are not interchangeable; some are better suited to curriculum design or lesson planning, while others are ideal for performance-based training.
Regardless of the model, iteration is critical. By evaluating how a solution performs for learners (users) and making improvements, the likelihood of achieving learning outcomes increases. Without measurement and refinement, learners may fail to meet outcomes—a risk that, in some industries, could lead to serious consequences.
Parallels Between Instructional Design and Software Development
For those with experience in software development or user experience, ID approaches will feel familiar. Iteration is a common thread—creating, testing, and refining a product in cycles. Features are released, feedback is gathered, and improvements are made, fostering incremental refinement. Instructional design follows a similar process, using feedback loops to improve learning outcomes.
Interestingly, the ADDIE framework reflects processes I’ve encountered in my work as a software developer. In software development, a need for a feature or change is analysed, a solution is designed and developed, and the feature is implemented for users. Evaluation might involve user testing, A/B testing, or analysing usage data. This feedback informs further analysis and refinement, creating an iterative cycle of improvement.
Models in Practice
When I began teaching, I was introduced to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which I’ve since integrated into my instruction. In my web coding classes, I ask learners to solve problems, explain code in plain language, or create features using new concepts. They do this in their independent assignments, and as we engage in interactive demos while I continually prompt their thinking by seeking their input. By aligning activities and assignments to Bloom’s Taxonomy, I’ve found it well-suited to the study of web development.
In my diverse classrooms, I aim to adopt Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002) principles to accommodate the diverse needs of my learners by offering multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression. Self-study material is offered in a variety of contexts, like videos and articles, but students are encouraged to find what works for them. Though there are submission requirements for assessments, there is flexibility in giving learners choice in their implementations and content themes. To keep learners engaged and motivated, we often talk about the “why” of what we are doing: how it fits into the work, increases value in their skillsets, and prepares them for industry.
While I have experienced ADDIE principles in practice, I have also experienced the drawbacks of neglecting them. Reluctance to iterate on instructional design—even when data supports change—can leave learners frustrated and ill-prepared for industry. While ongoing improvement requires investment, iteration is the cornerstone of successful instructional frameworks.
As I explore ID models and reflect on my experiences in software and education, I have started to wonder how I might structure an instructional design model of my own. This is something I am eager to contemplate further.
References
Adobe Stock. (n.d.). River and green forest in Tuchola natural park, aerial view [Stock image]. Retrieved November 29, 2024, from https://t.ly/CxO4p
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational technology research and development, 49(2), 57-67.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Be First to Comment