Assumptions, Coexistence, Learning Theories, Rapid Prototyping, Technology and Instructional Design

Photo from morguefile.com

The taxonomy that is provided in table one of the article "Revisioning Models of Instruction Design" presents three different instructional development perspectives/models with a list of characteristics to compare and contrast how each model relates to each characteristic. The three models are "classroom orientation," "product orientation," and "system orientation." One purpose of the taxonomy is to consider how different characteristics of Instructional Design models will change depending on the assumptions made about the characteristics.

For example, the characteristic of "resources committed to development" would be considered very low in a classroom orientation, and since it will most likely be the teacher involved (who is normally not a trained instructional developer), the "ID skill/experience" characteristic would be low. However, in a "product orientation" perspective the teacher would most likely work with a team and have additional support so the "resources committed to development" would be high and so would the "ID skills/experience." So what is the overall purpose of this taxonomy? The article states that classifying the models helps to understand the assumptions that are made for the characteristics of each model. Further, the taxonomy can help to determine which model would be most applicable for certain conditions in a learning environment. Exploring and discussing these characteristics, and the assumptions made for each model, is the first thing that should be tackled when developing a plan so everyone is essentially on the same page and agreements can be reached.

When considering the theories of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, it might seem difficult to consider how the three of them could coexist in Instructional Design. ID essentially has its basis in behaviourism, yet the differences between these three theories may not be as dramatic as one may first think. Brenda Mergel in "Instructional Design and Learning" discusses how it is even difficult "to pin down what theory a certain theorist belongs to." She observes that the ideas of theorists evolve over time, and she quotes Davidson (1998) who states that Gange, a behaviourist, "evolved progressively to approach a more cognitive theory" and some of his other discussions indicate a "shift towards constructivism." So if the ideas of learning theorists shift and evolve between different learning theories, is it hard to imagine (or accept) that these three major learning theories could possibly coexist in Instructional Design?

Mergel makes the argument that "behavioural strategies can be part of a constructivist learning situation" and "cognitive approaches have a place in constructivism." Essentially, the learning theory used will depend on the learning situation. Thus, the learning situation may require more than one learning theory to be considered for the Instructional Design.

The argument that one learning theory will most likely not be adequate in Instructional Design is also discussed in "Revisioning Models of Instructional Development." Here a challenge is issued to ensure that instructional designers "are well versed in a variety of learning theories" since a blending of learning approaches will produce the most effective instruction and met a "complete array of learning outcomes." This blending is further highlighted by Mergel in the argument that learners should not simply be let loose in a constructivist design approach, but that "a mix of old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning designs be implemented."

Rapid Prototyping is essentially thinking and changing things as you go, or thinking on your feet. It is considered a design methodology in situations where the designers are not sure what exactly will enhance performance. Thus "brainstorming, building, testing, and revising on a continuous cycle can become a normal and accepted alternative to traditional ID." Settings that are considered "rapidly changing workplaces with ever-changing performance conditions" are perfect examples where rapid prototyping can be used.

I would argue that rapid prototyping, or something very similar, occurs in many classroom settings. I think one of the biggest attributes that is not included in the discussion on rapid prototyping in the article, but would be used in the classroom, is reflecting. Most teachers will reflect on how well a lesson or learning activity performed, or how will it is performing. There are so many conditions in a classroom that affect the performance of a lesson/learning activity. How a teacher approaches the class one year for a particular lesson could change dramatically the next year, just based on class composition or whether the class is at the beginning of the day versus the end of the day. There are also times when "teachable moments" occur and the teacher will take advantage of these in order to help the class make relevant and meaningful connections to the lesson or activity. Aside from the reflections of a teacher, there may also be feedback from the students on how well they liked a lesson or activity and changes are sometimes made "on the fly," or revisions are done for the next time that lesson or activity is delivered. I think these are examples of rapid prototyping because they consider the performance in the classroom and revising, changing, building and brainstorming lesson plans and activities is a continuous cycle for teachers.

Information Technology is changing Instructional Design because using technology for educational purposes is constantly evolving. As indicated by Mergel, technological advances since the 1980s and 1990s "have enabled designers to move toward a more constructivist approach to design of instruction." The use of the Internet for not only reference material, but also Web 2.0 applications, is providing learners with opportunities to construct and collaborate with very few barriers. As indicated in "What is ID, Do We Need ID?", distance education and wireless learning are realities of many learning environments. In the online article "What Everybody Ought to Know About Instructional Design," it discusses how learning experiences are "manufactured" and the instructional designer's role, essentially, is to help learners "make sense of the new information."

Making sense of new information, regardless of the learning theory approach, is most likely going to include the use of technology. Thus, the Instructional Design has to determine which theory, or blend of theories, will help the learner, and it is paramount, as discussed in the online article "When Information technology and Instructional Design Meet," that the designer(s) always remember that "technology is a tool, not a strategy." So while Information Technology is changing Instructional Design it should never be allowed to undermine the design effectiveness. The technology should always complement the learning design not vice-versa.