Instructional Design Principles Running head: Instructional Design Principles, Interrelationships, &
Instructional Design (ID) Principles, Their Interrelationships, & the Overall Process of Designing Effective Instruction Daniel Lloyd Calloway Capella University, ED5802, § 2
1
Instructional Design Principles
2
Abstract Instructional design is a process whereby the designer uses the phases of analysis of the learner needs and learner context, the development of strategies both for instruction and its delivery, and an assessment or evaluation of learner goals and objectives for the purposes of accomplishing instruction and to possibly revise and improve future instruction. By following the key principles and assumptions of instructional design and knowing their interrelationships, the instructional designer is assured of designing instruction that is effective and efficient as well as technologically relevant in today’s educational arena.
Instructional Design Principles
3
ID Principles, Their Interrelationships, & Introduction Instructional design is a process used by the instructional designer in designing instruction whereby the current state of the learner is determined, the end goal of instruction is defined, and some form of intervention is created that will assist the learner in the development of that understanding. Instructional design is based on didactically tested learning theories, and may occur in student-only, teacher-led, learner-led, or other settings (Thornton, Sims, & Irlbeck, 2008). Since instructional design stems from learning theories (which are theories that deal with how cognition and learning takes place and are synthesized within the human mind) and instructional design theory (which proposes the strategies on how we teach or what we teach), it logically follows that instructional design is not synonymous with learning or instruction; that is to say, instructional design is not teaching (those learning experiences facilitated by an instructor), lesson planning, curriculum development, and so on. Instead, the theories that are the bases for teaching and instruction inform those that form the basis for instructional design (Thornton, et al., 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005). What are the key principles of instructional design? What is the relationship among these key principles? And, how do these interrelationships contribute to the overall process of designing effective instruction? The Key Principles of Instructional Design and Their Interrelationships There are six key principles or assumptions that underlie or form the basis for instructional design; these are that: (1) ID is a systematic process rather than a chaotic and random activity; (2) ID is problem-solving oriented; (3) ID is learner- and learning-centered in contrast to teaching- or medium-centered; (4) ID has as its main goal to be effective, efficient, and
Instructional Design Principles
4
motivationally instructive; (5) ID insists on congruence among objectives, instruction, and evaluation; and (6) ID is both empirical and theoretical as opposed to intuitive (Smith & Ragan, 2005). These key principles and assumptions are interrelated in a manner that supports the overall ID process and furthers the implications that ID must be developed by the learner needs and fashioned by the learning environment. Additionally, ID must consider the learner characteristics of likenesses and differences, stable and changing characteristics, and specific prior world knowledge of the learner during the design process. The more precisely the instructional designer identifies learning goals and analyzes them to determine the necessary components of learning tasks, their prerequisite skills, and knowledge, the more efficient and effective these goals will be attained and the more effective will be the instruction. Furthermore, the assessment of learning is guided by the goals of the ID system and techniques must be employed to ensure the assessment is adequate in order for the design to be effective. The designer must consider that the assessment design will often require trade-offs in validity, reliability, and practicality, which stem from resource availability and cost. There is an a priori relationship among instructional strategies that must be developed and utilized by the instructional designer and how these strategies provide a framework for learning both at the macro and micro levels, which are more generative or more supplantive depending on the learning context, task, or the learners themselves, and can be organized around enhanced instructional events. Moreover, a fundamental element in the design of instruction and its relationship to other elements of instructional design is the character of the learning task, and the effectiveness of instruction that can be improved when the instructional strategies utilize the supporting cognitive demands of disparate types of learning. Therefore, when designing effective instruction, at the macro level,
Instructional Design Principles
5
such as courses, units, and programs of study, careful attention must be given to articulation, and a form of curriculum organization needs to be designed that considers setting, learners, and learning goals. Appropriate implementation of instruction is essential regardless of how well the instruction is designed, which relates the implementation phase of ID to the design phase. Instructional designers themselves relate to all phases of designing instruction in that they are both managers of design projects and they deal with management strategies that are a fundamental part of instruction. To ensure effective instruction, the evaluation of instruction should be performed as a formative part of the design & development process as well as summative part of the process in evaluating the value of completed instruction. And, lastly, ID should be technologically appropriate to ensure effective and relevant instruction (Smith and Ragan, 2005). Now, that we have addressed the interrelationships of the various components of instructional design and discussed how these relationships contribute to designing effective instruction, let’s address each of the resources that an instructional designer must consider when designing instruction, and relate this discussion to the Ertmer and Quinn (2007) case study that I have chosen to represent a real-world scenario in which an instructional designer designs effective instruction. Resources Utilized by the Instructional Designer in Designing Effective ID In the Ertmer and Quinn (2007) case study, Malcolm Gibson, an instructional designer, was asked by Dr. Tsagas, the chair of the Computer Science department at Craiger University, to take a look at the proposed program revision that the faculty of the CS department and she had made in response to a Preparing Tomorrow’s Technology Professionals (PTTP) RFP issued by the Information Technology Consortium (ITC) of the state as a means for promoting more qualified IT professionals to assume key job positions in the IT marketplace. The course revision was to make use of the existing face-to-face
Instructional Design Principles
6
courses required for the CS major and offer four online certificate programs to students to be used in conjunction with a CS degree or to be used independently in achieving certification in one or more of these four online certificate programs. Utilizing the principles of ID, drawing upon his skills as an instructional designer, and his knowledge in Web Engineering, Malcolm Gibson began the ID process of solving the problem of developing online course instruction by performing a needs assessment, analyzing the general characteristics of his target audience, performing a task analysis, developing an instructional strategy, and deciding on the best means of instructional delivery. Let’s address each of these components of the ID process in greater detail as they relate to the Ertmer and Quinn (2007) case study:
Needs Assessment The purpose for Malcolm to perform a needs assessment was to determine whether instruction should be designed and if new instruction needed to be developed to solve the problem presented to him by Dr. Tsagas and the faculty of Craiger University. His determination was that, indeed, the current face-to-face certificate program needed to be redesigned in order to make it available online through the current CS degree program but, moreover, to make it easier for learners to obtain online certification independently of the CS degree program and increase the availability of IT professionals in the marketplace who only need certification. Learner Analysis Next, Malcolm set about determining the general characteristics of his target audience, the learners at Craiger University. Malcolm determined, among other things, that his target audience was classified as above-average intelligence, possessing a high aptitude for the specialized area of Information Technology and, in particular, CS and related fields of study. He further determined that these individuals most likely scored well in these areas as demonstrated in their
Instructional Design Principles
7
favorable SAT scores or scores on the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) prior to entering undergraduate study. The learners most likely possess superior levels in verbal, logical & mathematical, visual & spatial, and kinesthetic skills (Smith & Ragan, 2005). In addition, Gardner (2003) would likely classify the learners in the science/math complex of multiple intelligences. The cognitive processing styles or learning styles of these learners would most likely be categorized as field independent (Witkin et al., 1977), leveling and sharpening cognitive control (Klein, 1970; Santostephano, 1978), reflective cognitive tempo (Kagan, 1966), and visual perceptual cognitive style (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1970). And, according to Inhelder and Piaget (1958), the learners would be in the intellectual development stage referred to as formal operations, wherein learners can think abstractly and mentally manipulate symbols without the need for concrete supports, and isolate and work with variables in abstract concepts, in which multiple propositions are present and interacting. Task Analysis The task analysis process is a means whereby the instructional designer takes the goal(s) for the learners; that is to say, what the learner should be able to learn following instruction, and breaks these goals down into specific tasks, which are the intermediary steps that must be achieved before the goal(s) can be attained. Once these specific tasks have been determined by the instructional designer, a further refinement of the ID process that allows the learners to know what they should be able to do following instruction—and which makes for better instruction to be written—are the learning objectives. Malcolm identified two specific goals and multiple learning objectives in his initial analysis. The goals identified were that: (1) Learners would be able to successfully complete one or more of four online certificates in Systems Engineering, Network Engineering, Database Engineering,
Instructional Design Principles
8
or Web Engineer in lieu of attaining a traditional CS major, and (2) Learners would be able to apply one or more of four online certificates in Systems Engineering, Network Engineering, Database Engineering, or Web Engineer toward their successful completion of a major in CS. The types of learning outcomes these goals represent are a combination of declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies known as learning enterprises (Gagne & Merrill, 1990). Declarative knowledge outcome involves the learning task of memorization; intellectual skills outcome are the predominant objectives of instruction found in both school and training strategies, and is typified by the learners not only being able to recall information, but to apply knowledge to instances not previously encountered during instruction; and cognitive strategies outcomes permit the learner to manage their own learning (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Instructional Strategy Based on the ID concept that lessons are designed in four parts: Introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment, Malcolm developed a strategy for each goal he identified in Ertmer and Quinn (2007), taking into consideration the type of learning involved, which was Learning Enterprises (Gagne’ & Merrill, 1990), and which was comprised of declarative knowledge, intellectual skills (or problem solving), and cognitive strategies. For each goal and the objectives that were identified in the Task Analysis phase, Malcolm set about developing his lesson plans such that they would activate learner attention, establish instructional purpose, arouse interest and motivation, preview the lesson, recall prior knowledge of the learners, process the information, focus learner attention, employ learning strategies, provide practice, inform the students through evaluative feedback, summarize and review the material, permit knowledge transfer in the learners, assess performance, and provide feedback and remediation. Instructional Delivery
Instructional Design Principles
9
Finally, Malcolm identified the appropriate media to use with CS learners at Craiger University to be a combination of teacher-assisted and computer-assisted media format. The rationale for his choosing this type of media for the learners was based on the characteristics of the learners, the learning tasks, and the learning context in addition to the fact that this type of media is most supportive of learners who exhibit the learning task and a type of learning consisting of declarative knowledge, cognitive strategies, and intellectual skills, known as learning enterprises, which Malcolm had identified earlier. Malcolm also determined that the most appropriate grouping strategy that could be employed for these learners was the small groups (interactive) strategy. However, it is noteworthy to mention here that for several decades, researchers have tried to establish that certain media are superior to other forms of media (Smith, P. &, n.d.). Not surprisingly, these media studies have failed to establish the overall superiority of one particular media over another. Clark and Solomon (1986) conclude, "Past research on media has shown quite clearly that no medium enhances learning more than any other medium regardless of learning task, learner traits, symbolic elements, curriculum content, or setting" (p. 474). Conclusion The instructional designer must have a full understanding of the key principles and assumptions of instructional design and their interrelationships, and utilize design resources properly if he/she is to design effective instruction. The instructional design process begins with a needs assessment, first and foremost to make the determination whether there is a problem that instruction can solve or whether instruction is even warranted. The process continues with the learner analysis, whose aim is to determine the general characteristics of the learner and the learning context. Next, a task analysis is conducted whereby the instructional designer takes the
Instructional Design Principles
10
goal(s) for the learners; that is to say, what the learner should be able to learn following instruction, and breaks these goals down into specific objectives and tasks, which are the intermediary steps that must be achieved before the goal, can be attained. This is followed by the development of an instructional strategy where a strategy for each goal is identified that will arouse interest in the learner and motivate the learner to learn. And, finally, a delivery strategy is determined, which identifies the best media for providing instruction to the learner, taking into consideration the learners’ characteristics, learning tasks, and learning context to identify a media that is most supportive for the learner.
Instructional Design Principles
11
References Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Gagné, R., & Merrill, M. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38 (1), 23-30. Gardner, H. (2003) Multiple intelligences after twenty years. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL, April 21. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books. Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71. 17-24. Klein, G. S. (1970). Perception, motives and personality. New York: Knopf. Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1970). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan Santostephano, S. G. (1978). A biodevelopmental approach to clinical child psychology. New York: Wiley Smith, P. &. (n.d.). Chapter W-1: Designing delivery and management strategies. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Wiley.com: http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/legacy/college/smith/0471393533/web_chaps/wch01.pdf Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Thornton, N., Sims, R., & Irlbeck, S. (Composers). (2008). Instructional design theory, ID models and learning theory. [N. Thornton, R. I. Sims, Performers, N. Thornton, R. Sims, & S. Irlbeck, Conductors] Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.
Instructional Design Principles Witkin, H. A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
12