What Exactly Is an Instructional Designer?

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 (3^rd 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 (3^rd 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 (3^rd 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 (3^rd ed., pp. 45-52). Boston, MA: Pearson.