XplanaZine

You can’t be everything to everyone, claim the critics, and yet instructional designers are forced to be just that. Instructional design, as an interdisciplinary offshoot of instructional psychology, has undergone major “sea changes” in the last few years, as technology, neuroscience, learning environment variations, and the need for access and inclusiveness, have broadened the field to the point that some have claimed that it is too broad.

As a result, there has been an emphasis on returning back to basic precepts. What actually constitutes effective learning? What does one need to have a good learning environment? What are the basic requirements? The concepts must work across platforms and in multiple modes, which include all varieties of distance as well as face-to-face and hybrid (blended).

Instead of becoming distracted by the seemingly infinite array of delivery options and technological advances, the focus must return to the basics, which can be applied regardless of delivery mode, learning environment, or learner attributes.

Focused goals. Understanding the goals of a course and a program becomes more important than ever. However, there is a caveat. Learning objectives and outcomes must not be too rigidly tied to one delivery mode, but must remain conceptual and applicable to all situations and settings. This requires a clear focus on how to connect content, instructional activities, and outcomes to the work of the course instructor, facilitator, or professor. Goals are focused enough to provide guidance to the instructor (as well as the student), but not so rigid that the faculty member cannot adjust the approach in order to meet individuals needs.

Challenging tasks. Engaged learners require tasks that stimulate them to think, problem-solve, and make connections. Tasks that stimulate result in informal communities of practice among fellow learners, and they encourage self-directed research and writing. Tasks must be both relevant and helpful to stimulate, and the needs of students (affiliation and achievement) should be considered in developing the tasks.

Clear assessment and evaluation standards. While this, like the other guidelines, may seem self-evident, in point of fact, it is often the place where distance and flexible learning is at its most ambiguous, and thus frustrating to the learners. Successful programs set out the expectations clearly, and at the outset to allow for questions and productive clarification and feedback. Assessments should be appropriate for the learner’s environment, and learners should have a choice of assessment methods so that individual needs are met, and accommodations made for physical and logical challenges.

Protection from adverse consequences for initial failures . Nothing discourages like failure, particularly when the environment feels punitive, rather than encouraging. Instead of failure, the environment must be configured so learners (and faculty) are encouraged to experiment, and are rewarded for continuing to try, even if initial attempts are fruitless.

Affirmation of performance. Positive reinforcement for learner activities while engaged in a course (distance, hybrid, or face-to-face) must take place, but the way the reinforcement occurs can vary. Perhaps the most uniformly effective is to have positive reinforcement come from the instructor, and from other learners. At the same time, successful completion of a task should have built-in intrinsic rewards. Motivation theories are very useful in this regard.

Affiliation with others. In distance environments, the more that the affiliation emulates true human contact, the better. This generally takes the form of text-based e-mail exchanges and instant message / chat / discussion board exchanges, although audio instant messaging and movie clips are becoming more feasible as “smart” cell phones, pdas, and other portable devices make such communications possible. Affiliation must be made possible through and by an institution that assures a safe environment for the exchange of ideas, and with respect for individual difference.

Novelty and variety. Boredom kills motivation. Individuals have come to expect stimulating, changing, and relevant environments, which are graphic-rich and which offer individualized, personalized experiences and the services they need at a touch. This has always been the case, but recent developments in technology have made this all the more true for courses offered via technology. While consistency is important in classes because it helps students overcome “ambiguity anxiety,” too much consistency results in boredom. Courses must be constantly reviewed — not just by subject matter experts or designers, but by the actual users.

Choice. Learners need to have a chance to choose. This does not apply simply to institutions or courses, but also to learning activities within the course. If the courses are flexible, students will be able to tailor the courses to meet their individual needs. Effective learning environments accommodate individual differences.

Authenticity . Authenticity has to do with the integrity of the human experience. Authenticity is highly valued in all environments, but particularly in a distance environment, where connections to learner needs, goals, and experience are critical, as are connections to real-life conditions, scenarios, people, places, and case studies.

This has been a fairly simplistic overview of how instructional designers continue to maintain focus on the basics. For more information, a list of resources appears below.

Preliminary Bibliography of Instructional Design Resources

Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (1991). Computer-based instruction . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice-Hall Inc..

Anglin, Gary J. (1995) Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Englewood , CO : Libraries Unlimited.

Bishop, MJ, Schuch, D., Spector, J.M, and Tracey, M. (2005). “Providing Novice Instructional Designers Real-world Experiences: the PacifiCorp Design Competition.” TechTrends. Vol 49 (2): 20-21.

Bordeau, Jacqueline, and Anthony Bates. (1996) “Instructional Design for Distance Learning.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 5, no. 4 (December 1996): 267-83.

Chen, Chwen Jen and Toh, Seong Chong. (2005). “A Feasible Constructivist Instructional Development Model for Virtual Reality (VR)-based Learning Environments: Its Efficacy in the Novice Car Driver Instruction of Malaysia.” ETR&D. 53 (1): 111-123.

Dabbagh, N., and Denisar, K. (2005). “Assessing Team-Based Instructional Design Problem Solutions of Hierarchical Versus Terarchical Web-Based Hypermedia Cases.” ETR&D. 53(2): 5-23.

Dick, Walter. (1995). “Instructional Design and Creativity: A Response to the Critics.” Educational Technology 35, no. 4 (July/August 1995): 5-11.

Dickey, M.D. (2005). “Engaging By Design: How Engagement Strategies in Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design.” ETR&D. Vol 53 (2): 67-83.

Dills, Charles R., and Alexander J. Romiszowski, editors. (1997). Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Duffy, Thomas M., and David H. Jonassen, editors. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Fleming, Malcolm, and W. Howard Levie, eds. (1993). Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Florida Gulf Coast University . (2003) Principles of Online Design: Instructional Design. http://www.fgcu.edu/onlinedesign/designDev.html

Gagné, Robert Mills, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager. Principles of Instructional Design. (1992). 4th ed. Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Gayesky, Diane. (2002). “Out -of-the Box Instructional Design: Moving from Assembly-Line Models to Non-linear Performance Models” ASTD: Training and Development, April 2002, http://www.omnicomassociates.com/t&disd.html

Hannafin, Michael J., and Kyle L. Peck. (1988). The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New York : MacMillan Publishing Company.

Hannum, Wallace H., and Carol Hansen. (1989). Instructional Systems Development in Large Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Harrison, Nigel. (1995). Practical Instructional Design for Open Learning Materials: A Modular Course Covering Open Learning, Computer-Based Training, Multimedia. New York : McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Hastings, N. and Monica Tracy. (2005). “Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now?” TechTrends. 49 (2): 28-30.

Heinich, Robert, Michael Molenda, and James D. Russell. (1993). Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. 4th Edition. New York : MacMillan Publishing Company.

Hoey, Ross. (1994). Designing for Learning: Effectiveness with Efficiency. London : Kogan Page Ltd.

Jonassen, David H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Jonassen, David H., editor. (1988). Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale , NJ : L. Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, David H., and Barbara L. Grabowski. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, David H., Wallace H. Hannum, and Martin Tessmer. (1989). Handbook of Task Analysis Procedures. New York : Praeger.

Jonassen, David H., Rebecca Jo Hennon, et al. (1997). “Certainty, Determinism, and Predictability in Theories of Instructional Design: Lessons from Science.” Educational Technology 37, no. 1 (January/February 1997): 27-34.

Jonassen, David H., and Heinz Mandl, editors. (1990). Designing Hypermedia for Learning. NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Designing Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning. New York : Springer-Verlag.

Kemp, Jerrold E., Gary R. Morrison, and Steven M. Ross. (1998) Designing Effective Instruction. 2nd ed. New York : Merrill, 1998.

Laurillard, Diana. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. New York : Routledge.

Leshin, Cynthia B., Joellyn Pollock, and Charles M. Reigeluth. Instructional Design Strategies and Tactics. (1992). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Lillie, David L., and Gary B. Stuck. (1989). Computers and Effective Instruction: Using Computers and Software in the Classroom. New York : Longman.

Locatis, Craig, and Francis D. Atkinson. (1984). Media and Technology for Education and Training. Columbus , OH : C. E. Merrill Pub. Co.

Madhumita, and K. L. Kumar. (1995). “Twenty-one Guidelines for Effective Instructional Design.” Educational Technology 35, no. 3 (May-June 1995): 58-61.

McAlpine, Lynn, and C. Weston. (1994). “The Attributes of Instructional Materials.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1994): 19-30.

Merrill, M. David. (1993). “An Integrated Model for Automating Instructional Design and Delivery.” In Automating Instructional Design: Concepts and Issues, edited by Michael Spector, Martha C. Polson, and Daniel J. Muraida. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Merrill, M. David, and David G. Twitchell, editors. (1994). Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Michigan Virtual University. (2002). “Standards for Quality Online Courses,” Online Instructor Program. http://standards.mivu.org/evaluator

Milheim, William D., editor. (1994). Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Educational Technology Publications.

Mishra, S. (2005). “Learning from the Online Learners.” British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 36 (3): 569-574.

Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice-Hall Inc.

Performance Improvement. [Formerly Performance & Instruction.] Washington , DC : International Society for Performance Improvement.

Reigeluth, Charles M., editor. (1983). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, Charles M., Bela H. Banathy, and Jeannette R. Olson, editors. (1993). Comprehensive Systems Design: A New Educational Technology. New York : Springer-Verlag.

Richey, Rita C. (1995) “Trends in Instructional Design: Emerging Theory-Based Models.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1995): 96-110.

Ryder, Martin. (2003). “Instructional Design Models.” U of Colorado online. 2003. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html

Seels, Barbara. (1997) “Taxonomic Issues and the Development of Theory in Instructional Technology.” Educational Technology 37, no. 1 (January/February 1997): 12-21.

Seels, Barbara, and Zita Glasgow. Exercises in Instructional Design. (1990). Columbus , OH : Merrill Publishing Company.

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions. Columbus , Ohio : Merrill Publishing Company.

Spector, J. Michael, Martha C. Polson, and Daniel J. Muraida, eds. (1993). Automating Instructional Design: Concepts and Issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Tessmer, Martin, David Jonassen, and David C. Caverly. (1989). A Nonprogrammer’s Guide to Designing Instruction for Microcomputers. Englewood , CO : Libraries Unlimited.

Tessmer, Martin, and Rita C. Richey. “The Role of Context in Learning and Instructional Design.” (1997). Educational Technology Research and Development 45, no. 2 (1997): 85-115.

Tipton, Mary H., and Samuel Dumba-Safuli. (1994). Instructional Design: Theory, Higher Education, and Teacher Education: A Selected Bibliography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Twitchell, David G., editor. (1991). Robert M. Gagné and M. David Merrill — In Conversation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Venezky, R. & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction . New York : Longman.

West, Charles K., James A. Farmer, and Phillip M. Wolff. (1991).Instructional Design: Implications from Cognitive Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wileman, Ralph E. (1993). Visual Communicating. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Winer, Laura R., and Jesús Váquez-Abad. (1995). “The Present and Future of ID Practice.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1995): 55-67.