Learning in Tandem: Instructional design is dead
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 8 people (0 private), first by anonymouse user on 2009-01-20
- Annecanale on 2009-09-30 - Tags no_tag
- Ahayman on 2009-03-31 - Tags education , instructionaldesign , id , constructivism , addie , delicious71409
- Seth3d on 2009-02-02 - Tags imported , phdedd , interesting , design , constructivism , learning , education , edtech , blogs , instructionaldesign , Instructional_Design , edublogs
- Kevforg on 2009-02-01 - Tags instructional design , needs analysis
- Hueihsien on 2009-01-21 - Tags Instructional design , context , reflection , education , ADDIE
Public Sticky notes
Basically, ID as it is currently taught is just following the process, step by step. It's not rocket science. What IS rocket science (or at least a lot harder) is to figure out how to apply process with the endless number of variables that affect any learning need. This is where ID falls short. Instructional designers in too many instances are so tied to the models and the process that the variables and subtleties of good design are sacrificed.
Highlighted by christyinsdesign
Maybe the real learning need has been identified, and maybe the appropriate solution has been decided upon--but MAYBE NOT
Highlighted by kevforg
If we're doing our jobs up front, we are identifying learning objectives that are measurable. Even better, we're identifying measurable performance objectives too. Did I mention that we should be doing this UP FRONT? Its a whole lot easier to measure improvement in something if you have a baseline measure, and set the expectation that the learning you are designing is intended to improve that baseline measure.
Highlighted by kevforg
Call it education or instructional design...its all learning. So where do ID's fall short? To a certain extent, its following the "process" too closely. People are complex, learning is complex, motivation is complex--and no process is going to address all of these complexities. Good IDs know this and aren't afraid to go "off the reservation" when they need to. Most IDs don't.
Highlighted by christyinsdesign
Ok, so what does this all mean? It means that designing effective, motivating learning is actually really hard. It means that instructional designers need to be really good critical thinkers. It means that as a profession, instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.
More than anything, if instructional design is going to survive and thrive as a profession, we need to be leaders--leaders in research, leaders in our organizations, and leaders in our field, not accepting the mediocre. Otherwise, instructional design is dead.
Highlighted by christyinsdesign
instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.
Highlighted by kevforg
Public Comment