As I said, I go up for tenure this coming fall, and that brings with it extra pressure.  And last semester wasn’t a good one.  Yes, I got three publications, but my teaching wasn’t to the level I’m accustomed to.  And to make matters worse, while I research and design online instruction, they were all online courses, and I definitely didn’t practice what I preach.  So I figured I needed to “sharpen my saw.”  To do this, I enrolled in a course offered by the faculty development group here at Oklahoma State University. The title of the course? The title of this post: Preparing Online Instructors.

We’re one week in, and I’m already feeling weird about taking the class.  There is quite a range in technological expertise amongst the students, and an even broader range about pedagogy.  To be honest, as an instructional designer and when it comes to online instruction, I feel that I’m more experienced than the instructors.  Now that’s not a knock on them, I just think I’ve done more.  So as we’ve started discussions, I find I write a lot more detail–based on my experience–than the other learners.  I’m afraid I’m going to come off looking like the “know-it-all,” and I don’t want that.  But if you’re going to ask me a question, you had better want my answer, because I’ll give it to you.

I thought the course would be a good way to get back to blogging, so here’s what I’m going to do.  As I participate in discussions, I’m going to post my responses here.  I don’t really know why other than if I’m going to spend that much time writing, I’d like feedback on my ideas and thoughts from those within my field.  So feel free to comment.

One more thing, I’ll never identify a classmate by name.  I’ll use an initial.

Here we go . . .

This podcast had to be removed for clearance purposes.

Cammy:

I’ve been meaning to follow-up with you or at least say hi. I’ve been in the weeds at work, as you can tell and haven’t had much surfacing time. Nor have you, from what it sounds like . . .. But I don’t want to let the thread die.

What are you thinking these days?

John:

I’m thinking:
“AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!”

I totally agree. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It’s been quite interesting actually, and I think very good for me. As an “academic” you tend to buy into the notion that we know what we’re doing. And don’t get me wrong, I do (and I know you know that—I’ve worked corporate as a designer as well). But in the Ivory Tower, it’s easy to think we have the answers. Yet, one day, I stumble across some blog by someone without a degree but who is an instructional designer, and you think, “Isn’t that quaint!” And then I start reading it (your blog), and I all of the sudden realize, “This gal knows her stuff,” and “Why didn’t I think to ask that question? What a great question!” So it’s been good for me to remember that academics don’t have a monopoly on what instructional design is or isn’t.

So where does the conversation need to go? I’m not sure. I’m intrigued by this idea of who gets to be called an instructional designer. Why don’t we have certification? Mechanical engineers have certification tests that you can take (and if you pass you’re good to work) whether you have an academic degree or not. You have to be a certified pilot. You have to be certified to spray chemicals on plants. You even have to be certified to work on cars at Wal-Mart! But to be an instructional designer? Nope. One of my former students, Chris Duke, thinks it’s because we’d never get anyone to agree to what it should entail. Well, why not? Why can’t there be some sort of portfolio system for it? You know, you and I submit portfolios, and if my instruction is sound, then TA DA! You’re an instructional designer. We sprinkle fairy dust on a certificate, and you impress your mom and dad. Chris says that we’d never get behaviorists and constructivists to agree on what constitutes “sound instruction,” but I don’t agree. I mean, EVERYONE agrees objectives and assessments have to match, don’t they?

So assume we’re then going to have a certification. What goes in it? What do we need to be able to DO to be an instructional designer? What skill set do we need to demonstrate? WHO gets to decide?

That’s what I’m thinking, and I think it’s an important conversation. And I think that the only way to get an answer to the questions it for those in the “ivory tower” to collaborate with those “in the trenches.”

Thoughts?

Cammy:

Did you see Karl Kapp’s post on this subject — he had weighed in our our conversation (you were cited, so I figured you had seen it)…

http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2008/02/we-need-degree-in-instructional-design.html

I think trying to get corporate America to buy-in to the whole notion that you need a certificate to practice this thing (ID) that exists on this vast spectrum will be the ridiculous part. So a company has to get a specialist with a certificate to create a PPT presentation that’s going to be used as a self-paced eLearning? No way, Jose.

Let’s keep talkin’….

John:

I think that’s the disconnect between academia and corporate. I forget that in the “real world” there is generally no real difference (if any) between a designer and a developer. When I think instructional designer, I think DESIGNER—the one who designs the stuff. It’s the developer who makes the PPT.

That’s a light bulb moment for me. That’s one of the BIG differences, no?

Cammy:

Well, in that sense, I am just the designer and I am in the corporate world. But I do think I’m an exception. Look at the comments on my recent post about the current project I’m doing. A number of people responded that they do the design and build the sucker. The reality is that is usually a combined role (which is why IDs increasingly are expected to know the tools that are used). There has been controversy on this point on my blog as well.

But with the rise of rapid eLearning tools, the lines get blurred even more. For better or for worse, anyone can create eLearning. (Some would argue that it’s actually eLearning that’s getting created….)

John:

So what then, in your eyes as a corporate designer, is MY JOB as an academic?

Cammy:

Ooh. Now that’s an interesting question. I’ll have to ponder that and get back to you…;)

John:

Sounds good. For now, I’m going to edit this up a bit and post it. Let’s see what type of reaction and input we get.

I know it’s some of my colleagues CRAZY. They think I’m a big heretic. I think I’m a realist.

Cammy:

You are a heretic.

Did you read Karl’s post?

John:

Yeah. When I read what he thought I was kind of like, HUH? I mean, let’s be honest, as instructional designers, WE’RE NOT CURING CANCER. Lives are not at risk, though we act as though they are (and granted sometimes they can be—I think of an instructional evaluation I just did for the Department of Defense on ammunition packaging and shipping). But seriously, you know, in academia I think most are trying to justify their student loans and show off the fancy calligraphy on the walls than they are to truly trying to get to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter in instructional design is designing instruction that helps people learn better. That’s really all I care about. I want to know how do we do it and make learning more efficient and engaging.

But what I do, in my opinion, is no more important to the field than what you do everyday in your guerilla design sessions.

Cammy:

Although this particular guerrilla design project feels more like training than learning…maybe that’s the distinction/the difference.

John:

Don’t they have to go hand in hand? If training is effective, then won’t learning take place? Or, if learning doesn’t take place, then have they really been trained?

Cammy:

Yes, but…you can “learn” how to use a software tool, yes. But maybe where true instructional design is necessary is when we’re talking more about learning concepts, true behavioral changes…less procedural?

John:

THEORY ALERT: If learning can be broken down into different domains, then learning is learning, no matter what the domain. For example, Gagne said we have a) verbal information, b) intellectual skills, c) cognitive strategies, d) motor skills, and e) attitudes. He then said, no matter what the domain, for learning to take place, there are nine events that have to take place (although what happens in each step might vary depending on the domain): 1) gain attention, 2) inform learner of objective, 3) stimulate recall of prior learning, 4) present stimulus, 5) provide learner guidance, 6) elicit performance, 7) provide feedback, 8 ) assess performance, and 9) enhance retention and transfer.

Do these not hold up whether you’re learning software or a concept?

I think they do. I believe learning is learning is learning.

You?

Cammy:

OK. Learning is learning.

But Gagne Schmagne.

The reality is: you start to get into the shades of training/and learning. If you’re just providing performance support does the learner really need to learn it or do you just show them where to access the info they might need? Do you actually need to assess the learner? Isn’t that what their job is about? Especially when you get into software training…

I was interviewing a potential ID the other day (no master’s degree, although she did a full load of course work in Training & Development for a master’s…) — at the company where she works, the users wouldn’t bother with the assessments. They just wanted the info. So she had to completely refocus how she designed her training resources. This is the reality.

[I’m multi-tasking right now, so these thoughts may be ALL over the place…caveat emptor!)

I must also admit to feeling incredibly burnt out from this project I’m working on now…my perspective is probably hard and jaded. Just get the damn thing done and who cares about the rest!

So there you have it, Sports Fans. An academic and a practitioner both trying to figure out what it all means and how we work together. Any feedback or your thoughts on what we’ve said here are welcomed.

Read what I find interesting about all this and my thoughts about instructional design certification after the jump.You know, as I have started writing about instructional design, I have thoroughly enjoyed the mental exercise of it all. It’s been quite fun. However, what has been a real kick is to see some of the comments people have said about it. First of all, I obviously wasn’t clear enough in my writing. When I wrote about how theory and practice don’t meet in academia, and about how to get an instructional design education without paying tuition, I was speaking directly to Cammy. I said,

“I would argue that if Cammy read this paper (The First Principles of Instruction) , it would be all the “education” she would need as a designer. After all, what is the aim of instructional design? In my book, it is to produce effective, engaging, and efficient instruction. If Cammy can do that without the master’s degree, then more power to her.

So back to her question: where would she be with academic training in instructional design? Probably at the same spot. She may or may not be making the same amount of money, but she would more than likely be in the same spot.”

But as I said, obviously I wasn’t clear. Karl Kapp wrote that we need a degree in instructional design and said,

John Curry wades in with an academic perspective but then backs off and concludes that by reading one single paper by Dr. Merrill that one can become an instructional designer.

So I don’t know if I wasn’t clear, but I don’t think I ever said that, and I don’t know if Dr. Kapp has read the entire conversation between Cammy and me, but I think his comment is an oversimplification and misinterpretation of what I said.

You see, I agree that we need an education in instructional design. What I’m not sure of is if a person needs a master’s degree in instructional design to be an instructional designer.

I’ve been in this field for around eleven years, which I agree isn’t very long, but as long as I’ve been around I’ve heard the back-alley conversation about how we need some sort of certification as an instructional designer. A cursory Google search shows the following: Darryl L. Sink & Associates, Inc. offers two tracks for certification; there are seven (SEVEN!) different certifications issued by Langevin Learning Services (but I can’t get their URL to open); the Center for Effective Performance says you can gain all the skills needed to become a Certified Instructional Technologist; Washington State University issues a certificate in instructional design; Indiana University has a certificate in Instructional Systems Technology; Western Governor’s University has a graduate certificate in Instructional Design; University of Massachusetts at Boston has a graduate certificate in Instructional Technology Design; Cal State Fullerton has their Instructional Design Technology Certificate; the Illinois Institute of Technology has a certificate in Instructional Design; Regent University says if you complete their online BlackBoard training, they’ll send you “a Regent University Online Instructional Design Certificate and gift“; Lloyd Reiber, Rob Branch and the bunch from the University of Georgia have started professorsofinstructionaldesign.com, and they have three different levels of certification, and ASTD even has their own certificate and workshops.

I also found a number of people who say they are certified instructional designers, but I still don’t know what that means.

I just don’t understand why this seems to be so hard for our field to get together on this. If you look at the list above, you’ve got UGA and Indiana, two of the top academic institutions on board with some sort of certification, you’ve got one of the professional organizations in the field, ASTD, with certification (why isn’t AECT in this mix?), and even ISPI has the Certified Performance Technologist. It’s not like their isn’t a precedent here.

But then comes the question: who’s in charge? Who gets to say what is involved and how do you get everyone else to buy-in to the whole thing? Continuing the conversations with Cammy, what does someone have to know or be able to do to be a certified instructional designer? Is the ADDIE model the minimum requirement? What about the Nine Events? Do they have to know the difference between behaviorism and constructivism? Do the five domains of the definitions of the field have to be represented (Design, Development, Evaluation, Utilization, Management)? Or do they just have to be able to produce good instruction? And what is the definition of good instruction that we can all agree on? If you look at the criteria for the above listed certifications, most of them (not all) have less instructional design instruction than my undergraduates get in the preservice technology course.
I think this is an important conversation we need to have as a field. I think there will always be the need for our graduate programs, but as we all know, there are plenty of people with a graduate degree who couldn’t design their way out of a paper bag, and yet, there are also plenty of people like Cammy who can do it without the degree.

If we are to continue to survive as a field, we have to answer this question: what makes an instructional designer, and when do they become one?

In short, as they titled the paper, it was time to “reclaim instructional design” from “a lot of people associated with instructional technology who don’t seem to know where they are going. Neophytes who are pursing instructional technology are lured this way and that by the varied philosophical voices crying lo here.”

So, twelve years later, where are we? Have we “reclaimed” instructional design?

To sum up the article, Merrill and the ID2 research group (BTW, ID2 stands for second generation instructional design) do an excellent job outlining what science is, and how instructional design is, according to that definition, a science.

Do I agree with what they say? Yes, I do. It would be hard for me not to. Not only was Merrill my professor, but Leston, Mark, and Jean were all doctoral students with me in the program. But personal relationships aside, and I know I talk about them a lot, I agree with what they say. Again, not because I know them, but because I see the world the same was as they do.

Now, to be fair about this, I must also point you to an EXCELLENT alternative point of view on the topic.  Brent Wilson, who was the person whose comments spurred Merrill to write Recaliming ID, wrote Foundations for Instructional Design: Reclaiming the Conversation, which was includeed in a fantastic book on instructional design, Innovations in Instructional Technology (link to the entire book via Google Books).  In his essay, Brent doesn’t argue point by point with Merrill, but rather looks at things from a very different lens.

In short, it looks as though one of the main differences between the two points of view comes down to the old beahviorist/constructivist point of view.  Merrill, et.al. contend that learning is an individual process, and Wilson counters that there needs to be consensus.  Now let me be clear: I AM OVERSIMPLIFYING THINGS HERE, AND I KNOW IT (so don’t send me a million comments telling me so).  But many of each sides’ points stem from those lenses.

Wilson makes the point of the day in his conclusion.  He writes:

“The practical problem is the mediocre quality of instruction. The response is instructional design. As Richey (1998) notes, agreeing on the details of formulating a problem requires some degree of shared ideology, but that is precisely where we agree—on the general nature and importance of these problems. Then and from that base, competing theories and perspectives enter the dialogue. As researchers and practitioners grapple with problems of practice, they are led to countering explanations and theories, leading to re-descriptions of problems and proposed solutions. As so many have argued, the interplay between theory and practice is a dialogue, which is the healthiest possible condition for a field, even in the face of proliferating perspectives. Cutting short that dialogue would be a mistake. Keeping our eye on the end goal, improving instruction, should be enough to hold us together as a community of professionals.”

So,  again to the question, twelve years later, where do we as a field stand on instructional design?  Not really anywhere different.  I do think that in the last twelve years the field’s voice has definitely shifted from a more structured, behaviorist perspective to a more open, constructivist perspective.  For me, well, it’s not hard to see where I stand on that spectrum.

I think this conversation is one that needs to continue.  Yes, I know it’s more fun to talk about the new tools and toys that are coming out and see how we can implement them in instruction effectively, but I think this collective soul-searching is imperative to us as a field. No matter where we stand on the conversation of reclaiming instructional design, we all can agree on one thing: the problem, (as Wilson put it) mediocre instruction.

What do you all think? I know a number of practitioners read this blog, does this conversation have any relevance at all to you, or is this something that only the academics care about?

Let me explain.

All of these posts back and forth with Cammy have dealt with instructional design in a non-academic context. We have been talking about how to do the job WITHOUT a graduate degree. So what did I do? I gave her a graduate reading list. How’s that for good design?

So I decided I was going to trim the list to only FOUR things, and they couldn’t be theory-laden. Rather, they had to be something a brand new designer-by-assignment could pick up and learn something that would be immediately applicable.

See the list after the jump.

My list of four things to read would include:

• The Conditions of Learning, by Robert Gagné (the beginning of ID)
• Training Complex Cognitive Skills, by Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer (the beginning of ID’s future)
• First Principles of Instruction, by David Merrill (a synthesis of all theories and models)
• The Design of Everyday Things, by Donald Norman (as I said, good design is good design)

So what about you ID fans? If you could only pick FOUR things to give to someone to help them get an instructional design education, what would they be?

I’ve got to admit, I’m enjoying thinking about these questions.

Wendy Wickham from In the Middle of the Curve has joined the conversation. Wendy has an MA in Instructional Technology from Towson University (I don’t think I know anyone on that faculty). Wendy makes a good point saying:

How I use theory – selling my instructional design ideas.

People respond to jargon. And, interestingly, people love learning other people’s jargon. I had never seen such an excited group of people as the day I introduced ADDIE to the Project Management group and related that process to how they do business.

Do I use ADDIE? Not always – but it does seem to be a nice way to keep track of the status of my ID projects.

Citing academic theory makes it sound like you are putting more effort into it than “I dunno – this just made sense. Whadya think?”

Do I need my MS in Instructional Technology to practice? No. The theoretical ammunition I received in that program helps.

Great point. I had the same experience working with some military officials earlier this year. But later Cammy responds:

I completely agree that this stuff impresses clients. I use it all the time.

But one can learn the jargon without going to grad school. And one can cite the academic theory by reading and staying informed.

Perhaps the (somewhat cynical) question to ask is — what’s the right amount of jargon needed to get by? Do I need to know all of the things on John’s list?

Personally, I don’t think so. I’ve gotten by well enough without most of those theories, it seems.

This comes back to my quest from last year of getting an informal masters in ID.

If one were to construct an informal, self-paced, DIY instructional design curriculum, what content would you include?

So Cammy, only because I’m a big fan of yours, I present How to get an Instructional Design education without paying tuition.First of all, let me reference some previous posts from my blog.

On April 1, 2006 I posted What my graduate students need to know. Specifically, on that post I’d pay attention to the suggested self-study program for Instructional Systems Development (ISD) by M. David Merrill (Yeah, I know, I keep referencing him in things, but it’s hard not to, he taught me design!). It’s outdated to a degree, but it has a solid foundation. He’s since given me a list of books to add to it, but I can’t find it right now. (Note to self: LOOK FOR IT!)

Next, when I was designing the EDTC 5203: Foundations of Educational Technology course here at Oklahoma State, I posted my Reading list for Foundations of Educational Technology. I later followed that post with Foundations readings revisited, in which I pointed people to Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd Edition. Specifically appropriate for this discussion is chapter 32 of the text: The Future of Instructional Design (which I referenced in my original post). Also in that chapter was Merrill’s breakdown of the proper study of instructional design. I posted my responses to the chapter in June 2006. According to that chapter, I would be considered an instructional scientist to Cammy’s instructional technologist.

With that said, if I wanted someone to get an instructional design education without paying tuition, here would be my list of must haves:

• One of the following (Whichever you’d prefer. I’d probably read the first and then pick one of the following three ):
  • The Essentials of Instructional Design, by Abbie Brown and Timothy Green. It provides a great, fundamental overview of the process, including all three of the following books.
    • Instructional Design, by Pat Smith and Tim Ragan.
    • The Systematic Design of Instruction, by Walter Dick, Lou Carey, and James Carey.
    • Designing Effective Instruction, by Gary Morrison, Steven Ross and Jerrold Kemp.
• The Conditions of Learning, by Robert Gagné. This is a seminal work, and in my opinion, a must have.
• The ID Casebook, by Peggy Ertmer and Jim Quinn. A case study approach to implementing ID in various arenas.
• Training Complex Cognitive Skills, by Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer. Dr. Merrill says this is the most significant work since Gagné’s Conditions of Learning. This design takes us beyond the simplistic domains of learning we’ve always dealt with and answers the question, “What if it’s a combination of domains?” FANTASTIC book.
• The Design of Everyday Things, by Donald Norman. Good design is good design.
• What Engineers Know and How They Know it, by Walter G. Vincenti. A book on how engineers solve design problems. After all, aren’t we educational engineers?
• Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field, by Barbara Seels and Rita Richey or Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (more recent), by Al Januszewski, Michael Molenda, and Phillip Harris.
• Preparing Instructional Objectives, by Robert Mager. Ahh, the beginning . . .
• Rapid Instructional Design, by George M. Piskurich. This is more like it’s done in the “real world,” isn’t it?
• Absolute Beginner’s Guide to Project Management, by Gregory Horine. Like we’ve already established in my first post to Cammy, this is where we are headed.
• A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment, by Kavita Gupta, Cathy Sleezer, and Darlene Russ-Eft.  Another good one (but about 20 years old) is Training Needs Assessment by Allison Rossett.
• Psychology of Learning for Instruction, by Marcy Driscoll. We need an idea of what we believe how people learn.
• Survey of Instructional Development Models, by Kent Gustafson and Rob Branch. Nice overview of the models.
• Instructional Design Theories and Models, Volume 1, and Volume 2, by Charlie Reigeluth. They are kind of dense reading, but well worth it.

Disclaimer: In these last series of posts, I am in NO WAY saying that it isn’t necessary or beneficial to have academic training.  I actually had Tyler Wardle, of our Ph.D. recruits,  tell me last night that I shouldn’t have posted what I did until he actually entered our program (or someone else’s).  So perhaps I wasn’t clear.  I do believe the theory informs practice, and that knowing the theory should make you a better designer.  When I commented that it wouldn’t make a difference, I was speaking directly to Cammy.  I was saying that she seems smart enough that it probably wouldn’t make a difference to her situation.

So there you have it, Cammy. I hope this helps.

Comments, anyone? What did I leave off?