Instructional design method

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Definition

  • Frequently, instruction design methods are called instructional design models in the literature. However, we decided to make a distinction, for us an instructional design model represents a class of a pedagogical design, i.e. how to teach, how to bring people to learn, etc.

The design process

A globally usable/accepted definition does not exist !

Systems design family

According to Edmonds et al. (1994), the systems approach can be caracterized by an input-process-output paradigm, as follows:

Input-process-output paradigm (Edmonds et al., 1994)

Such a design process is driven by pre-established goals (e.g. needs), it is systematic and systemic “where the outcomes of each component directly of indirectly impact every other component of the instructional design process to some degree, thus producing a ripple effect” (Edmonds, 1994: 56).

Edmonds et al. (1994:57) defines the following fundamental components of the instructional design process. Similar definitions can be found in instructional systems design models like ADDIE or the Kemp model.

Fundamentals of the Instructional Design Process (Edmonds et al., 1994)

While not necessarily in principle, various instructional design methods related to this family adopt for economic reasons a more linear industrialized "waterfall model" like the following one:

  1. Analysis of needs (rough outline of pedagogic goals)
  2. Identification of knowledge to be acquired (in modular form)
  3. Identification of constraints (e.g. economical)
  4. Definition of learning activities and learning materials (in modular form)
  5. Prototyping and testing
  6. Deployment and ajustments (as few as possible)

(Willis, 1995) attributes the following eight characteristics to the traditional Objective-Rational Instructional Design method.

  1. The process is sequential and linear
  2. Planning is top down and systematic
  3. Objectives guide development
  4. Experts, who have special knowledge, are critical to ID work
  5. Careful sequencing and the teaching of subskills are important
  6. The goal is delivery of preselected knowledge
  7. Summative evaluation is critical
  8. Objective data are critical.

According to Lebow (1993) cited by Tam (2000), “Traditional educational technology values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control (Heinich, 1984) contrast sharply with the seven primary constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism.”

Willis (1995) cited by Tam (2000) offers an alternative model termed the Constructivist-Interpretivist Instructional Design Model. It has the following characteristics:

  1. The design process is recursive, non-linear, and sometimes chaotic.
  2. Planning is organic, developmental, reflective, and collaborative.
  3. Objectives emerge from design and development work.
  4. General ID experts do not exist.
  5. Instruction emphasizes learning in meaningful contexts (the goal is personal understanding within meaningful contexts).
  6. Formative evaluation is critical.
  7. Subjective data may be the most valuable.

Major instructional design methods

This section needs more writing, also make sure to include all the concerned articles

Instructional design methods don't all have the same scope. Some just focuss on the design process (i.e. they are usually are quite similar to methods found in information systems). Others include topics addressed by instructional design models (how people learn, how instruction works, etc.)

The following classifaction is maybe not satisfactory, but provides some guidances for further reading:

Light-weight models

Models that are well suited for teachers or designers who prefer to focus on pedagogy

"Classic" Design Process models

Models that sort of fit what can be called Instructional systems design:

Large Scope industrial ID

In depth pedagogical analysis and scenarization ID

Large scope unit planning for educators

Links

  • Multimedia development tools, a very good resource with many models from The Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC) (pronounced like "seismic"), Georgia Tech.

References

  • Bagdonis, A. & Salisbury, D. (1994). Development and validation of models in instructional design. Educational Technology, 34 (4), 26-32.
  • Edmonds Gerald S, Robert C, Branch and Prachee Mukherjee (1994), A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Models, ETR&D, VoL 42, No. 4, 1994, pp. 55-72 LSSN 1042-1629. PDF (Access restricted)
  • Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for systems design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16.
  • Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Pitman.
  • Tam, Maureen (2000), Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning, Educational Technology & Society 3(2) 2000, ISSN 1436-4522, HTML PDF
  • Willis, J. (1995). Recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretist theory. Educational Technology, 35 (6), 5-23.