Instructional design now and in the future: part one
At the risk of opening myself up to a little mockery, I’m going to post a recent paper I did in two parts. Part one, below, includes an introduction and factors I feel have shaped instructional design to its present state. I will post part two in the next few days. As someone doing this as part of an MA program, what I’m looking for is thoughts on approach from those who may be practicing instructional designers or whose experience is grounded in more than literature review or discussions. Mine are definitely lay opinions in this area, despite my experience in other areas of web development. I’ve included only references for this first part and will do the same when I post the second.
Introduction
Instructional design is changing. Learning theory continually shifts to accommodate our ‘best guesses’ about how learning happens. In parallel to this, technology changes rapidly, in particular web-based applications for social activities and the speed and ubiquity with which we can access them. These aspects all come together to provide a daunting number of issues for instructional design consideration. Juxtapose time-tested key instructional design activities that still need to be present and what does it mean for the future of the profession?
Factors that have shaped the current state of instructional design
In analyzing future directions for the field of Instructional Design (ID), it is important to understand where it came from and its present state. Without a solid grasp of ID history, trying to place context around its future would be very difficult. While the origins of ID go back to World War II (Reiser, 2001, p.58; Herridge Group, 2004, p.6), the precursor of current practice seems to be from post-World War II through to specific training developed in the early 1970’s for the military, by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University.
ADDIE – ID Model or Process Acronym?
When you look for the specific origins of an ADDIE model, you will likely come up empty. There appears to be no obvious, authentic source for the term (Molenda, 2003, p.34; Hannum, 2005, p.7) in the literature. In truth, ADDIE is essentially an acronym (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) for a systematic design and development process, describing the nuts and bolts of Instructional Systems Design (ISD).
One Size Does Not Fit All
One specific ISD methodology could ultimately not accommodate the differences required by different learning contexts, learning styles, delivery mechanisms and learning theories. According to Hannum (2005), a rigid ISD process also did not sit well with those wanting faster ways of developing instruction, particularly in the business world (pp.9-11).
As such, numerous ID models based on a standard ISD structure have emerged in the past few decades (Reiser, 2001) to accommodate not only contextual differences (classroom, systems and product), but also, technological advancements, changes in learning theory and the spread of systematic design processes beyond the military to business and educational sectors.
Instructional designers today need to consider a host of contextual issues in choosing and applying a model for their instructional problem. Knowledge type, expertise required, system structure, learning context and the scope of instruction will all provide further information for model selection (Edmonds, Branch & Mukherjee, 1994). As the field of instructional design has developed over the past thirty to forty years, it has undergone steady and progressive change. Considering the change that is happening now and that which is likely to come in the not-too-distant future, the implications of technology for virtually every orientation and context cannot be underestimated.
Constructivism
Perhaps the idea that ‘one size does indeed not fit all’ might prove to have been the primary impetus for changes in generally accepted learning theory today. Constructivism has been the dominant epistemology for the past decade or so, and is having a significant impact on all aspects of the instructional design process (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). While other learning theories will still be used for instructional design with specific contexts, the pervasiveness of constructivism in the literature – and thus as a theoretical underpinning for instructional design education and professional development – ensures its prominence in program planning and instructional design for some time to come.
What is it, then, that distinguishes constructivism as a learning theory? Constructivism has no single definition, but rather a couple of elements common in much of the literature. It recognizes the importance of consciousness, free will and social influences on learning (Bates & Poole, 2003), and suggests knowledge is constructed by persons and is contextualized, based on real past experiences (MacKeracher, 2004).
If we design instruction with a standard ISD process, doing so within a constructivist framework presents some challenges. In particular, evaluation becomes more difficult, when a standardized way of measuring outcomes against objectives must be tailored to meet the individual’s learning experience. As I look at how instructional designers must grapple with the coming technological advances I will discuss this in more detail.
Technology Today
A few years ago, Bates & Poole (2003) predicted that key developments for teaching with technology would include the development of Learning Management Systems (LMS) to accommodate a broader range of instruction, more broadband Internet access, the rise of mobile computing, real-time communication, web services, portals and advanced user interface developments (pp.253-268). The speed at which these predictions have come true and, in particular, the prominence of social media, was likely beyond what they were thinking at the time.
Moore’s Law essentially says that computing power doubles roughly every two years and that, as that power is produced on increasingly smaller chips, the cost of production decreases at a similar rate (Wikipedia, 2009). This trend is predicted to continue for at least another ten years.
Before even considering where web technology is going in the foreseeable future, the developments in just the past fifteen years have been nothing short of amazing. I recall learning to hand code HTML and build web pages for a fledgling City of Vancouver web site in 1995. At that time, organizational web sites were the exception rather than the norm, content was highly textual, static and tedious to produce, web applications and online software were limited in capabilities, and access speed was still slow, typically over 28kbps or 56kbps modems.
Jump forward to today and you will find a very different landscape. Web sites are sophisticated and often designed with the benefit of cognitive psychology and direct user research, while almost any manner of social interaction or functionality is available from today’s variety of web-based social software. In fact, a whole career field in user experience and interaction design now exists to accommodate the burgeoning complexity of producing ever-more elegant and slick interactive online products. The majority of North Americans will be using high-speed access from home (Pew Internet Project, 2009) with download speeds of between 1.5mbps and 6mbps – an increase of between 50 and 1000 times in roughly 15 years, while high-speed wireless networks are a given on virtually all post-secondary campuses. Mobile devices like the iPhone with full web browsers and countless applications are ensuring that no person – or device – is left behind. When you add to this technology context, something in the neighbourhood of a thousand – and growing – enterprise and open source Content Management System (CMS) and LMS products, the challenge for instructional designers in technology-mediated learning is considerable.
What about today’s learner and their technology? Regardless of the learning and learner context, expectations are high. Access to course materials any time, anywhere is becoming very important, as learners from K-12 forward need to balance school, work and life, often holding down a full-time job while training or upgrading their education. As I shall demonstrate in the remainder of this paper, future developments in learning theory, educational technology and the web, and the effect this will have on learners, their expectations and how we need to approach ID as a result, makes this a very exciting (and somewhat scary) time to be an instructional design practitioner.
References
- Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Edmonds , G., Branch, R. & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (4), 52-72.
- Hannum, W. (2005). Instructional systems development: A 30-year perspective. Educational Technology, 45 (4), 5-21.
- Herridge Group (2004). The Use of Traditional Instructional Systems Design Models for eLearning. Retrieved December, 2008 from http://www.herridgegroup.com/pdfs/The%20use%20of%20Traditional%20ISD%20for%20elearning.pdf.
- Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L., (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
- MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.
- Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42 (5), 34-36.
- Pew Internet Project, (2009). Generations Online in 2009. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/275/source/rss/report_display.asp.
- Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (2), 57-67.
- Wikipedia, (2009). Moore’s law. Retrieved January 21st, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Thanks for sharing your journal.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Thanks for the input. I am a job candidate in this new field, and I find this article very helpful and enlightening. It would be even more helpful if you provided some case studies.
Bravo!!
July 16th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
[...] is the second of two parts. Here I talk about factors driving the future of the field. As someone doing this as part of an MA [...]