What I found most interesting in this week's array of articles was the acknowledgment and attempts at initial addressing of the tensions within the field if instructional design, primarily the tension between its foundations and its future. Instructional design is, based on this weeks' authors, a flexible field, open to interpretation and adoption by individual designers. The field itself seems to sway between a more rigid adherence to models which allow a designer to more easily define quantitative results and creative processing that allows original and unique situational content to be created. I found it interesting that many of the authors this week made a point to state that the models presented, particularly models based in behaviorism and older models from cognitive science influences, were more guidelines than instructional.
It seems to me, from these articles, that one of the primary reasons for this tension is due to a fundamental principle of instructional design - goal-oriented processes influenced rationally by data, which is continually gathered throughout the process to allow the process to self-correct. With some of the "newer" theories, for example C-ID and CR-ID, it seems that it's not as clear how these theories will produce outcomes that can be reliably and validly quantified. Indeed, reading about CR-ID in particular seemed to be focused more on the failings of the educational system as a whole, and revolutionary changes would begin by re-inventing the system in its entirety. That doesn't leave a lot of room for instructional design to be developed within CR-ID, as instructional design seems to be largely dependent on the situational educational context. Without the foundation of the educational system and educational contexts, it seems instructional design in CR-ID would itself be largely theoretical.
I particularly liked the article by Willis, as he was not only transparent about his own inherent biases as an author based on his personal preferences and educational background, but pointed out the "evolutionary" nature of prevailing instructional design (whether based on behaviorism or cognitive science methodology). Based on the evolution of the field, with its origins in the 1960's, my main reflection from this week is that though the basis of instructional design must be understood through historical context and models, it is due for a revolution. My tentative leaning is towards a future for instructional design that utilizes new models and theories (like CR-ID and others) to either address current failings of the educational system or reinvent the current educational system using technological advances, open educational resources, and new psychological & sociological learning through a modern, inclusive, cultural lens.
Hi Susannah,
I think you have some critical points here, and I especially love that you provided your own take on the future of the field. You mentioned in your second paragraph about some concerns you have for the role of the newer theories. My question is then, what was your thought process of adopting those newer theories in addressing current issues and in the attempt of reinventing the system? Would love to read any further personal reflection you have!
Hi susinc,
I am Xiaojiao Sun, belong to group 4 of R511 with you. I am glad to learn the R511 course and share the reading reflections with you.
In fact, I do not agree with some views of the author this week. However, the same with you, I think that there is an interesting tension in the articles of this week. This type of article is easier to make the audiences pay attention to the contents of the article. Especially A Hard Look at ISD, the author listed many questions in terms of process and challenge. But in the end, he exactly pointed that "ISD is the best thing we have if we use it correctly".This type of article…