Choosing our Future
Brent G. Wilson
University of Colorado at Denver
Contribution for a chapter titled
The Future of Instructional Design
and Technology,
by M. David Merrill and Brent G.
Wilson. For inclusion in:
R. A. Reiser & J.
V. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and Issues
in Instructional Design and Technology (2nd
ed.).
Upper Saddle River
NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, 2005.
Recent years have seen significant growth in the field of Instructional
Design and Technology (IDT), but at the same time a splintering of effort and
loss of control over research and professional activity. Everyone, it seems, is
doing research and development related to technology and learning, across:
The surge of interest is indicated by the proliferation of professional
organizations and journals devoted to its study.
Growth, even with the accompanying pains, is generally welcome because it
provides energy, new ideas, and attention to innovations. Often, however, a
snazzy new technology becomes the sole focus, not the ideas or innovative uses
that lead to improved learning. After many hard lessons, we have learned this
much wisdom in the field: uses of technology must be considered within the
context of learning effectiveness; otherwise the technological innovation
becomes a kind of fetish with near-magical powers on its own. And even learning
outcomes need to fit within the values of a larger society.
In the midst of ongoing change, it can be difficult to gauge where we are
now and where we are headed as a field of study and professional community. The
purpose of this contribution is to reflect on possible futures for IDT,
considering lessons from our history, current needs of practice, and trends
inside and outside the field.
Historical Influences
Historically, instructional design grew out of educational psychology and
became integrated with instructional technology (Dick, 1987; Reiser, 2001). Key
to this merger between designers and technologists was a broad view of
technology that included "soft" or process technologies such as
procedures, models, and strategies intended to achieve defined educational
outcomes. This allowed instructional designers who saw their efforts largely as
an implementation of learning principles to bring their work into line with
instructional technology, and use technology-based environments as laboratories
for their designs.
Today, many academic programs in IDT continue an affiliation with
educational psychology programs within a college or school of education. It’s
good to have the focus on learning and the scientific grounding that
educational psychology provides. Over a period of a generation, however, IDT
has become more focused on training and adult-learning settings, with a greater
concern for human performance in work environments. Some tension between K12
and adult-learning orientation will likely continue into coming years, but a
defining feature of IDT as a field has been its intentionally broad focus
across learning settings.
Also over the past ten years, the learning sciences have become an alternative to traditional IDT
research agendas. The small but growing number of learning-sciences graduate
programs are marked by:
Compared to the learning sciences, IDT programs give more attention to
In the eyes of many IDT leaders, learning-sciences researchers enjoy higher
status because of their closer access to fundamental cognitive science. This
may be good or bad, depending on one’s point of view. My preference is to value
the diversity of IDT and forego the sole dependence on psychology as a
foundational discipline. In any case, the growth of learning-sciences programs
demonstrates the continuing core importance of educational psychology and
learning-theory principles to learning technologies.
Where We Stand Now
In many respects the IDT community stands at a crossroads as we choose to
respond to outside influences. Early-generation leaders such as Robert Gagné
are gone, although some theorists continue as bridging figures, notably David
Merrill and Don Ely. A number of threats to coherence in the field persist,
briefly summarized below:
Two Roads Diverging
I can imagine two responses to the many threats to the field. One would call
for a focusing and sharpening of our ambitions, our beliefs, and accepted
methods and practices. A second response would encourage a continued openness
in ideology and method, while striving toward a set of common goals and
ambitions. Trying to avoid a caricature (because I fully support the second
response), the two responses or "roads" are summarized in Table 1
below. (Professor Merrill, as a noted advocate for the first road, can correct
me if I’m wrong about this portrayal.)
Table 1
Two roads toward the future of instructional design and technology (IDT).
|
|
Road 1: Strait
and Narrow |
Road 2: Broad
and Inclusive |
|
Goals |
Designing and
using technologies/ resources to improve learning and performance |
Pretty much the
same as Road 1 |
|
Core Models
and Ideas |
Such as:
|
Value a similar
core as Road 1, but maintain flexibility and a commitment to pluralism in
ideology and theory base Always be open to
change in the canon and entry of new ideas and models |
|
Sources of New
Ideas |
Science
(primarily educational psychology and the cognitive sciences) Original thinking
on instructional problems Professional
practice New technologies |
Same items as
Road 1, with greater attention to professional practice and:
|
|
Methods of
Inquiry |
Established
research methods, particularly experimental designs |
Full range of
reasoned inquiry, including:
|
|
Methods of
Sharing |
Emphasis on
established refereed outlets |
Established
refereed outlets plus:
|
|
Methods of
Work |
Apply methods and
technologies known to work through research and validation studies Validate local
solutions via systematic tryout and revision |
Plus:
|
|
Language |
Use precise
language with technical, theoretical meanings |
More fluid
meanings: use technical and theoretical terms, but be open to multiple
meanings, figurative uses, and new, ill-defined terms and descriptions |
|
Membership |
Tighten up the
boundaries to ensure expertise Encourage strong
credentialing, certification requirements |
Maintain
semi-open boundaries to encourage cross-field dialogue and provide a quality
check on expertise |
|
Risks |
Resistance to
positive change Increasing lack
of fit with real problems of practice Lack of
resilience to changing external conditions |
Loss of core
constructs needed to establish identity Inefficient,
redundant overlap in agendas and models Lack of common
metric for establishing value among competing descriptions Internal disputes
that threaten coherence |
|
Potential
Benefit |
Substantial
progress on a narrower agenda |
Good chance at
finding innovations to adapt and move forward |
Note that both roads share a common goal of understanding and supporting
effective instruction and appropriate use of learning technologies. This level
of common purpose is needed to maintain a level of coherence in both roads.
Either road carries some risk for the future. Intransigent insistence on a
tightened view of the field, as illustrated in Road 1, could lead to hardening
of the arteries and, over time, an increasing irrelevance to problems of
practice. Likewise a broadly tolerant, anything-goes future could weaken the
center and reduce any specific advantage to belonging.
The upside potential is also different for the two roads. Road 1 would
likely lead to substantial progress in certain key areas such as development of
automated design tools; effective procedures for replicable designs; and
validated learning control for targeted objectives. These are extremely
valuable outcomes and, in the case of tools particularly, could change the way
we work. Road 2 could also see progress along these same lines, but it would
have to share the limelight with other advances. These are harder to forecast
but could include: improved methods of documenting and sharing practitioner
expertise; assimilation of ideas and methods from related fields; and better
attention to the learning needs of the whole person. Road 2 would result in a
more diverse array of research accomplishments, and a similarly diverse set of
tools and models useful in field settings.
Overall, I support efforts to define the field in fairly eclectic, inclusive
terms. This may be partly because I so often find myself at the margins of
conventional thinking, but the stance is not altogether self-serving. In
general, open systems are able to adapt and survive better than closed systems.
Out of this "free market" of ideas and methods, positive innovations
are more likely to be noticed and nurtured, which will in turn assure our
relevance in the future. In short, we need to be open, inclusive, and
innovative, while at the same time grounded in core ideas and pursuits to
preserve a common identity. There will always be some measure of discomfort—as
well as belonging—within a professional community, but room should be made for
a variety of perspectives and infusion of new ideas.
Foundations of a Broad-Road IDT
I have been arguing for a broader conception of an IDT knowledge base, but
what exactly does that mean? This section outlines a sample of foundational
ideas we can and should draw upon when addressing challenging problems of
practice. These foundational items are presented to remind us of the breadth
and extent of our current knowledge base.
Media studies. What impact do various
media have upon learning? What mechanisms and processes are at play? IDT
includes a long tradition of comparing media; examining media literacy;
critiquing media impact; and using media integration as a means of teaching
reform.
Systems thinking. Systems thinking is
evidenced in a variety of ways. Instructional systems design (ISD) has long
been a driving metaphor that has helped keep the field together. The underlying
idea is that changes in instruction need to be carefully planned out and
developed—and moreover, tested and validated through careful assessment of
outcomes. The very process of instruction has been defined in terms of systemic
interaction between teacher and learner subsystems (Merrill, 1968). Reigeluth
(1995) and others have helped show the series of nested systems within which
instruction happens. Complexity theory continues to contribute to our
understanding of adoption and change processes, and networked learning
communities.
Technical/efficiency stance toward curriculum development. Tyler’s (1949) objectives-driven approach to
curriculum design is known as a "technical" or "efficiency"
way to think about curriculum (Kliebard, 1987). This curriculum stance is
deeply entrenched in IDT thinking. ISD models are closely related to alignment
principles between objectives, activities, and assessment; and to
rational-planning models of problem solving and curriculum development. It
feels somewhat strange to observe, after years of resistance, a resurgence of
these ideas inAmerican public education through the standards movement.
Workplace environments are seeing similar attention to these principles through
learning management systems (LMS), which aid in the tracking of learning goals,
objectives, activities, and assessments.
Design thinking. Near the core of IDT
is a prescriptive stance, a
valuing of design principles to help solve learning and performance problems.
Seeing practitioners as designers of solutions creates value in these
activities and legitimacy for model development in this area. A design stance
also binds IDT to other professional areas such as architecture, computer- and
information-systems design, and industrial design. These connections lead us to
consider a broader set of variables in the design process, including emotional
and motivational influences (Norman, 2004), and aesthetic principles for
improving the immediate experience of instruction (Parrish, 2004, in press).
Appropriate use. Technology has
ascended in prominence not just in education, but in nearly all endeavors.
Philosophers and historians of technology urge caution and care in determining
appropriate use. Careful analysis can reveal the various affordances and
constraints that affect how people receive new tools and innovations. Systemic
impacts of an intervention inevitably lead to unintended side effects (Tenner,
1997), suggesting a general stance of caution, humility, and vigilant attention
to outcomes. Assessing the true outcomes, intended and unintended, requires
designers to look beyond targeted objectives, beyond effectiveness, to consider
the "goodness" or appropriateness of an intervention.
Learning theories. Theories of
learning help us understand what’s happening at a deeper, descriptive level
when we look at instructional interactions. The variety of metaphors and
theories how available can provide insight into why instructional interventions
are working the way they do. Learning theories range widely in scope, from
information-based theories of content and structure, to activity-based
theories, to those stressing qualitative cognitive change. An overview of the
last forty years will show a significant number of innovations in IDT coming
directly from new developments in learning theory.
Tech-mediated instruction. The
acronyms have evolved from CAI to CBT, to WBL to DL and e-Learning, but the
basic idea has remained fairly constant: using technology as a vehicle for
delivering instruction. A substantial knowledge base has developed around these
efforts, including research on feedback, learner control, lesson structure and
sequencing, and interactivity within lessons.
Technology use as a means ofchange and reform. Implementing technology can prompt people to take a fresh look at
teaching practices. Technology has taken on increasing roles in all phases of
instruction, from planning to delivery and assessment. Each point affords
opportunities for deeper change in thinking and processes. Reform is what
brought many people to an interest in learning technologies, and change
processes go hand in hand with technology use.
Technologies for performance support.
A variety of hard and soft technologies have been designed to help people
perform their jobs better. These include models and theories about performance
causes and interventions, as well as various support systems such as
information-help systems, procedural support systems, incentive and tracking
systems, and better designed work tools.
Looking Forward: Trends that could
affect Our Future
Gaming and virtual worlds. Computer
games have been big business for more than twenty years, and a growing body of
literature relates to game design and larger issues surrounding "new media
theory" (MIT Press, 2004). Some of this work has already been applied to
education (e.g., Aldrich, 2004; Gee, 2003), but much more could be done to
apply gaming and simulation principles to instructional design.
Tools for e-learning design and development. A number of theories, including those of David Merrill, Jeroen van
Merriënboer, Richard Mayer, and John Sweller, approach instruction from an
information-processing perspective that considers optimal strategies for
managing cognitive load and effectively teaching key content types such as
rules, concepts, and procedures. Because these theories are themselves fairly
rule-based, they are promising candidates for conversion to automated tools
that specialists and non-specialists could use in designing lessons. A recent
journal issue was devoted to instructional design tools (van Merriënboer &
Martens, 2002), energized in particular by projects originating in The
Netherlands. Successful development tools will apply sound instructional
theories in a practically usable and accessible way. Although on ideological
grounds, some constructivists may have concerns about these kinds of
instructional strategies, I am very hopeful that research in this area will
lead to powerful tools and substantial learning outcomes, which is the bottom
line for instructional design.
Expanding role for assessment and alternative credentialing. Students build a case for a credential in three
main ways: Seat time, formal assessment, and informal field assessment. Anyone
hoping to avoid seat time must find a valid, accurate assessment they can pass.
This is only one reason why assessment is growing in importance. Another is to
hold educational and training systems more accountable for the investment made
in them. In a society that has found a way of measure almost everything of
marketable value, education is one of the late responders to the call for
accountability. In both education and training settings, the importance of
assessment can be expected to grow, along with alternative methods for
credentialing expertise.
Tools for data management and learning support. Computers are particularly good at keeping track of information and
guiding the use of that information for real-time use in solving problems.
Learning management systems (LMS) in corporate settings and K12’s increased use
of data mining for data-drive decision-making are indications that data
surrounding learning and instruction will be more routinely available to
learners, instructors, and managers.
Changing economies. Education tends
to be a very labor-intensive, expensive activity, with expert designers and
teachers crafting and delivering courses over extended periods of time. Network
and presentation technologies have led to renewed emphasis on resource-based
learning (Hill & Hannafin, 2001). That is, more attention is given to
resource development for e-learning than is true of a typical face-to-face
course. Several trends affect the economies in emerging e-learning environments
(cf. Wilson, 2002):
Communities of practice. Learning
happens to individuals, but everyone belongs to some kind of community, and
those communities play a large role in shaping expectations for behavior. When
instruction breaks down for any reason, people often turn to support
communities for help in filling learning gaps and adapting to performance
requirements. Consider knowledge workers, such as engineers. Off-the-shelf
training may be unavailable for a new technical standard or product
specification. A working group may end up researching and sharing knowledge
among themselves, in effect co-opting the "instructional" role
through their own self-directed and collaborative learning activities. Other
times the same group may find a suitable course or tutorial, and send a member
off to master the material. In both cases, learning happens within the context
of a support group, with members contributing and reporting back to the group.
We have only begun to understand how individuals relate to various groups and
communities, and how both individuals and communities these make use of
learning resources, including formal instruction, to address individual and
group learning needs.
Conclusion
IDT has successfully established a fairly broad knowledge base, with
foundations in psychology and other sciences, cultural studies, and professional
practice. Of course the knowledge base is in sore need of further development,
but the foundation is there. IDT’s challenge in coming years will be in
maintaining strong, broad-based grounding for professional practice, with a
focus on a select few cohering principles and purposes to keep the field
together. To a large extent, we can choose the future we want for ourselves.
References
Aldrich, (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31 (8), 18-20.
Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology (pp. 183–200). New York: Plenum Press.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Hill, J. R., & Hanaffin, M. J. (2001) Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49 (3), 37-52.
Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958. New York: Routledge.
Merrill, M. D. (1968, April). Components of a cybernetic instructional system. Educational Technology, 5-10.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J. A., & the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7. Retrieved October 15, 2003, from: http://www.ittheory.com/reclaim.htm
MIT Press (2004). MIT Press website, section on New Media. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?sid=8B381990-B371-4DF9-BCFE-D1B68023530F&cid=12
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Excerpts retrieved April 7, 2004, from: http://www.jnd.org/books.html
Parrish, P. E. (2004, April). Investigating the aesthetic decisions of instructional designers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Parrish, P. E. (in press). Why we don’t talk about the aesthetics of instruction (and why we should). Educational Technology.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1995). Educational systems development and its relationship to ISD. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 84-93). Englewood CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology Part 2: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49 (2), 57-67.
Tenner, Edward. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Merriënboer, J. G. J., & Martens, R. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50 (4), 5-9.
Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (1). Online: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs.pdf
Wilson, B. G. (2002). Trends and futures of education: Implications for distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (1), 65-77.