The Good, Bad, & Ugly of Instructional Design

via GIPHY

           According to Merrill, Drake, Lacy, and Pratt (1996), instructional design can be described as “a technology for the development of learning experiences and environments which promote the acquisition of specific knowledge and skill by students.” Therefore, good instructional design would be considered as a design process which allows students to think, act, and reflect in a real-life, relevant, and problem-solving way.  This type of instructional design would include clear outcomes and learning objectives correlated with effective, student-centered learning activities. Learning is a social activity in which students explore, research, suggest, and share ideas in a real world context. Therefore, sound instructional design would include social interaction between learners perhaps during small group activities. Inquiry-based and discovery learning provides an opportunity for students to assume an active role in the learning process. During well designed and real world small group activities, students interpret concepts and ideas while learning from one another and confronting different viewpoints.  In addition, learners focus on researching concepts as well as justifying and defending their position.  Moreover, great instructional design would allow student to experience problem solving based on their perceptions of the world. The content and activities provided to students would be linked in such a way that the learners existing knowledge would be retrieved or activated. This linking between what is known and what is taught is the foundation for new learning and leads to mastery. In contrast, bad instructional design consists of the instructor being the center of attention and imparting information about the content.  Although, it could be possible that the instruction presented is content driven, it often results in fragments of learning due to the lack of connection between the learner's schema and interest, and real-world, relevant situations. Oftentimes, this sort of instruction also lacks direction as there is not a clear, concise objective, an understanding of the learning process, or analysis of learner needs and schema.

           In reading Chapters One through Three in Piskurich's (2015) book about the instructional design process, I was fascinated with how to apply these concepts of instructional design to my fourth and fifth grade classrooms. Although, the book begins by explaining how instructional design is incorporated into training in an industrial setting, I began to notice important parallels between planning for industrial types of training and planning for “training” in the classroom setting.  I came to the conclusion that the industrial design process and the instructional design process had the same goal – to have the trainee or learner master concepts taught and apply this knowledge in a real world setting. The instructional design process focuses on the learner, the learning process, learning theories, tools, and outcomes.  As an educator, I know that the assembly line way of thinking as an educational methodology (where every student is taught the same way using the same strategies and methods with the same materials) is no longer acceptable. In addition, it is ineffective teaching strategy.  Yet, it is fascinating how the model of instructional design which was developed for industry can be adapted to the educational realm with impressive results.  The most important step in the instructional design process is the analysis of the learner, their needs, background, skills, and schema. After which, the instructional designer (in the case a teacher) can plan an efficient, effective, and engaging learning experiences where students gain deeper knowledge and understanding.  Piskurich (2015) spends  a great deal of time in Chapter Two discussing the analysis step in the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implement, and Evaluation) Model for instructional design.

Again, as teacher preparing for the effective and engaging delivery of content, I must differentiate learning activities based on the needs, skills, culture, and background knowledge of my students. Assessment guides instruction so the analysis of data gathered from formal and informal, and formative and summative assessments will guide my instructional design.  The ADDIE Model, will serve me well in planning a systematic approach for designing instruction which will allow a deeper level of student learning. Thus, good instructional design can support the transformation of knowledge and skills to my students resulting in their empowerment and motivation to learn.  Through the use of the ADDIE model, I will be able to facilitate activities in which students become active participants in real world, problem solving scenarios. This will result in the learning and acquisition of skills and concepts taught.  Students will be able to apply what they have learned in varying situations and context as a result of this deeper level of knowledge. When designing effective learning activities, I need to know how to use the tools of technology in support of learning goals and how to incorporate technology into sound pedagogy. After all, education’s goal is more than getting students to pass standardized test.  It is to have students become expert thinkers and to prepare them for the 21st century. To achieve this, I need to plan and present content through hands on activities, feedback, and reflection that allows students to construct their own knowledge. My goal is to transform students through meaningful, real-world learning experiences which leads to discovery and deeper learning. If I follow the ADDIE Model of good instructional design,  I can.  

Works Cited

Merrill, M.D., Drake, L.,  Lacy, M.J.,  Pratt, J., & ID Research Group.   (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36 (5), pp. 5-7.

Piskurich, G. (2015). Before you do anything: Pre-instructional design activities. RapidInstructional Design: Learning ID Fast and Right (pp. 17-62). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.