Instructional Design Theory
Rose Defa
IDET 6750 Portfolio Assignment 2
My Viewpoint on the Value of Instructional Design
Often, when I tell people that I am completing my master’s degree in instructional design and educational technology, they look puzzled and ask “what is that?” In my experience, most people do not think of the pre-work that may occur for a class, seminar or course. Typically, the emphasis is on the instructor or presenter as the “expert,” with the assumption that they can teach others what they know. I believe that good instruction is a combination of an expert presenter, and content developed using good design principles. I will first discuss my perspective on the value of instructional design in relation to various theories, particularly the somewhat heuristic Dick and Carey model and prescriptive principles researched by Merrill. I will present two anecdotal stories that demonstrate a positive and a negative outcome related to the application of instructional design. I will describe the method I use to apply instructional design in the world of non-credit program design.
Design Theory Makes a Dramatic Difference
“Reigeluth (1983) defined instructional theory as identifying methods that will best provide the conditions under which learning goals will most likely be attained.” (Driscoll, 1994) This simple definition adequately portrays my view of the approach and use of instructional design theories and models. Scott and Driscoll (1997) later organized the multitude of design theories into four components: the learner, the learning task and desired outcomes, the learning environment, and the context in which learning is to occur. So whether choosing a comprehensive instructional theory, such as Gagne’s or a more constructivist approach, the choice of instructional methods starts with a consideration of the learner and what they need to learn. In this endeavor, I find an overwhelming amount of validated constructs from which to choose. In actual practice, several particularly resonate and I have found them invaluable.
In designing an entry-level composites technician training program that teaches safety, basic math, terms, processes and testing, I found Gagne’s comprehensive approach useful. I clearly chose Job Task Analysis with a combination of procedural and information processing as represented in the Task Knowledge Structures model. Composite technicians must know basic and intermediate level math applied to machine operation, but must also perform rigid process steps. Dick and Carey’s model was useful given that the course, which included numerous classes, needed to address not only desired student learning outcomes, but institutional requirements and time and resource constraints. These models provide a useful framework through a multitude of decision points, particularly when developing new instruction.
Alternatively, preparation for a seminar coaching on coaching techniques targeted to mid-level managers required a different approach. Good coaches work with different people in different situations, and especially in business, the process may be rife with extraneous constraints. Gaining skill in such ill-structured content involves elaboration methods in a constructivist environment, with more learner control and social learning. I observed that learners more quickly adopted the “best practices” presented if they could choose and edit their own adaptations in consultation with peers.
Two “Case Studies”
Two experiences portray the impact instructional design can have on learning outcomes. They also demonstrate the challenges of instructional design application. These are personal experiences so should be taken as anecdotal rather than empirical studies; however, for me, they demonstrate the advantages and the challenges of designing and delivering good instruction, all related to design theory.
In my position I cultivate relationships with companies to help them assess their employee development needs and then match those needs with expertise available at the college. In doing so, I may work with companies with narrow training needs. In one case, I met with executives to discuss a middle-level leadership development program. As it turned out, their immediate need was to retool their sales people to adapt to a new sales model. I proposed that we perform a needs assessment. After locating the right subject matter expert, we essentially moved through each of the steps of the needs assessment process and arrived at defined instructional goals – we basically followed the ADDIE model. We analyzed the learners, performed interviews, considered the context both from a learning and a performance view. Once the performance objectives were signed off by the company we began developing the assessments and instructional strategy and materials. The biggest challenges were the short timeline and availability of the subject matter expert. As a result the formative evaluation of the instruction actually took place during the pilot instruction and then edits were made to the final curriculum and the summative evaluation was performed after the learners had submitted their projects that were used to demonstrate competency. Overall, although not an exact replica of the ADDIE model, the outcomes for both the organization and the learner were positive. Company executives commented, “The program resulted in all of the outcomes that we hoped for.”
In this case, the prescriptive instructional design model proved very valuable, particularly in the needs assessment phase. Without that structure, it would have been difficult to identify the types of goals, assessments and performance objectives that would demonstrate the learning and the resulting instructional methods needed.
This process is not practical in all situations. Often instructors and designers are called on to create or deliver “canned” curriculum. We go back to the thought that an “expert” can deliver a stellar learning event. In this second case, I was asked to prepare for and present a topic with which I am very familiar, “Leading Change,” but according to a prescribed curriculum. In addition, it was a “last minute” assignment. There was no time to become familiar with the learner. I spent most of my time trying to learn the curriculum format. Big mistake! Although my personal learning theory and the programs for which I am responsible rely on constructivist and anchored situated learning techniques, the curriculum I frantically tried to absorb followed a simplistic template of analogy, concept, anchor, practice and job aids. Given the size and reach of the organization that offered the program, I am sure this curriculum was developed by highly educated designers – with idea of replication and consistency, sort of the McDonald’s approach. Unfortunately for me the learners were mid-level managers who knew much of what was presented and were bored to death. They wanted more meat. By the time I adjusted and tried to move to more learner control, it was too late. This case burned into my psyche that prescribed and canned curriculum can be not only a waste of everyone’s time, but can be damaging.
Both of these cases reveal the two major challenges with instructional design. One, good design takes time and resources. In case one, I was fortunate to be working with a company anxious for a “change agent” training program and they devoted the time, spent the money and provided access to the learners. This is not always the case. The second anecdote reveals the reason so many seminars and short commercial classes produce so little learning. Since their goal is to sell seminars, the needs assessment and learner analysis cannot be effectively implemented. A good topic and design structure for an entry level leader does not offer much for an experienced manager.
Moving Through the Maze
These two experiences bring into focus that the real value in instructional design is in fact the application of the right learning theory to the right learner matched to the best design model for the context. The plethora of instructional design theories and models do not seem as daunting to me as I apply them in real world. I am finding what works and what does not. I have adopted some techniques of gathering and applying design principles in a fast-paced development environment.
For somewhat the same reason that Merrill developed the First Principles of Instruction, (2002) I have created my own “prescriptive principles” for developing instruction: (1) Instructional success is predicated on the degree to which needs assessment, learner prior knowledge and learner needs are integrated. (2) The instruction identifies the appropriate learning task and desired outcomes and ties them to the content. (3) Effective instructional design accounts for and applies validated models to the learning environment. (4) Excellent instructional design creates the best learning context by engaging students in activity that is meaningful and relevant.
These principles do not particularly simplify the task of assessment, analysis, development and design, but they remind me that certain conditions must be met for the best outcome. Working within educational institutions, with faculty, administrators, stakeholders, I may not affect each of these principles, but can use them as guidelines when implementing instruction rather than developing it or assessing outcomes of programs where content was developed by others.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction, 3rd Edition. Florida State University: Pearson Education.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction, Vol 50. No. 3. ETR&D, p. 43-59.