When
asked what I do for a living, my response of “instructional design” often
elicits confusion, blank stares, or the mindless nod of a head. Few outside of
the field of education are familiar with the term, and even teachers and
academics aren’t always certain of its use or effectiveness.
At
its core, the field of instructional design and technology is a systemic method
by which to Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate educational
practices. This ADDIE model of design is far reaching in the field, and while
individual approaches may vary, the basic structure remains intact. This is the
process by which all instruction is designed. Yet, instructional design and
technology is also fluid and flexible, a non-linear cycle of evaluation and
revision with no simple answers. It’s a complex industry with a definition that
is ambiguous and arguable yet essential and grounded in research and theory.
Foundationally,
instructional design and technology finds its roots in instructional media. As
early as 1900, education has attempted to utilize or manipulate the popular
technologies of the time to enhance student learning or at least to ease the
instructional process. Though originally the use of overheads and films were
not intended to replace the teacher or other instructional materials, the
current trend, a result of more emphasis on constructivism, is toward a more
student-centered approached, which opens the doors for a more dynamic, creative
use of technology (Reiser, 2012). But the challenge remains the same – how to
employ educational technology in a way that not only engages students, but also
increases learning while simultaneously maintaining or decreasing faculty
workload and meeting the expectations of the institution or governing bodies.
In
the past, with each new technology fad, predictions were made about its
far-reaching impact on education…and hopes were crushed. Slide projectors
didn’t alter the reality for education. Motion pictures didn’t cure the
learning gaps. And SmartBoards haven’t yet imploded traditional instructional
methods. However, instructional technology has had some impact on learning,
such as through the use of film education to train WWII soldiers, which has
been credited with contributing to America’s victory (Molenda, 2008), and it continues
to explore and research ways to better implement new technology through
meaningful, engaging instruction. That is one of the central facets of the
field: the effective application of technology to enhance learning.
How
that is accomplished is the second, and I would argue more important, aspect of
the industry: instructional design. Starting with the wide-spread delivery of
instructional films to soldiers in WWII, educational researchers have been
interested in the impact that well-designed instruction, particularly through
the use of technology, can have on learning. Technology, in turn, influenced
our understanding of how humans process information. And the intertwining of
design and technology was forged.
Understanding
the core learning and instructional theories that have been tested and tried
over the past century is critical for strong instructional design. Simply
pressing play on a Blu-ray player will not guarantee comprehension and
retention. Instead, careful consideration must be given to the learner’s
themselves, their motivations, inner-workings of the mind, transference
capabilities, and retention methods.
For
example, although some traditional drill-and-practice methods have been shown
to increase retention, their pedestrian nature often demotivates students,
resulting in learning lost. These methodologies primarily sprung out of B. F.
Skinner’s behaviorism, and while it laid the groundwork for subsequent learning
theories, it has since lost its favor in the instructional design community
(Reiser, 2012).
With
the development of computers, cognitive information processing theories, such
as Atkinson and Shriffin’s, explored the memory accessibility and capacity of
humans, similar to the concepts of ram and rom. Cognitive load then became a
concern and the schema theory resulted, a means of scaffolding information to
enable easier knowledge storage and memory retrieval (Driscoll, 2012). Focusing
more on instruction, Gagne’s domains of learning and nine events of
instruction, which associates specific strategies and steps with each type of
learning desired, sought to better connect our understanding of learning with
the instructional methods applied in an educational design (Reiser, 2012).
Finally,
and perhaps the most influential today, constructivism emphasizes the role and
responsibility of the learner to generate personal learning objectives, work
through complex problems in authentic settings, and construct their own meaning
(Driscoll, 2012). Applying constructivism to instructional design results in
more focus on problem-based learning, anchored instruction in authentic
learning environments, and higher-order learning goals (Wilson, 2012). Without
a strong understanding of such learning and instructional theories, the
foundations of instructional design and technology would be lost in trends and
market issues. Instead, it is rooted in research, evidence, and best practice.
Therefore,
while the definition of the field of instructional design may still be elusive,
at its core it is a research-based, systematic means of approaching instruction
to enrich student learning through meaningful engagement and intentional
interaction. Using technology to do so is not only natural, but necessary. To
meet students where they are at, to engage them in purposeful dialogue, to
prepare them for the challenges of the real-world requires intentional
interactions with various technologies. In its essence, I agree with the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology’s (AECT, 2004)
definition of educational technology: “The study and ethical practice of
facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and
managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (p. 3). Technology
is not a quick fix. It takes time, and unless intentionally implemented, it
could certainly create more problems than it repairs. But that is what
instructional design is all about. Finding the right solution for the
instructional puzzle presented.
Instructional
design and technology is characterized by a dedication to instructional goals,
where all instructional strategies, materials, and assessments align with the
purposes of the course, training, or program. It takes individuals who think
critically about the learning context, are able to conceive the impact of
applying various learning theories to the design, collaborate with
interdisciplinary colleagues, and are willing to test out new ideas in both
common and unfamiliar ways as we continue to seek the most opportune methods
for reaching the next generation.
References
AECT Definition
and Terminology Committee. (2004). Document #MM4.0: The meanings of educational
technology. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/ Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf
Driscoll, M. P.
(2012). Chapter 4: Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp.
35-44). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Molenda, M.
(2008). Chapter 1: Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, van
Merrienboer, J., & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.). The handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd
ed., pp. 3-20). New York: NY: Routledge.
Reiser, R. A.
(2012). Chapter 3: A history of instructional design and Technology. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp.
17-34). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wilson, B. G.
(2012). Chapter 5: Constructivism in Practical and Historical Context. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp.
45-52). Boston, MA: Pearson.
