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?

I remember having this conversation with a graduate school friend of mine, Platte Clark, a few years ago. Platte and I worked on our master’s degrees in English at the same time, and we shared an office for about a year. Actually, Platte and another guy, Rulon Wood, are responsible for steering me to Instructional Technology, as they were both working on double master’s degrees in both English and IT. At any rate, Platte left school with work still to do on both degrees. He had been offered a big job with Novell Education (I believe), and it was too good to turn down. He later went to work for Franklin Covey, but suffice it to say that Platte is HIGHLY intelligent, and a gifted designer. Again, he just *gets it.* Eventually he finished his MS in English, but not his MS in Instructional Technology. I remember talking with him about his frustrations about the academic field. At the time I was close to finishing my Ph.D., and I was feeling pretty good about myself. I had done a little freelance work here and there, but nothing really substantial. Most of the ID work I had done was in faculty support. I hadn’t talked to Platte in a couple of years, and as we did, he expressed frustration with the instructional technology degree. “It’s just not how it’s done,” he told me. “All those things they taught us don’t translate to the ‘real world.’” I tried to tell him that we needed the theory so we could improve the practice, but to be honest, the longer I do this, the more I disagree with myself.

Cammy commented back on my post about the shifting roles of an instructional designer and said:

“But some would argue that one needs, or at least certainly benefits from, the solid foundation of academic training in ID. I’ve done alright without it, but I wonder where I would be if I had a Master’s?”

My guess? Probably not. I’ve read enough of what Cammy writes to know how smart she is and what kind of work she does. She’s brighter than the majority of graduate students I either went to school with or have taught. She has great attention for detail, and that translates well to instructional design. Also, she writes well. She is clear, concise, and articulate. So does it matter if Cammy knows (and I have no idea if she does) what the Dick/Carey, Smith/Ragan, or Morrison/Ross/Kemp models are? What about Component Display Theory, Elaboration Theory, the Conditions of Learning, Learning Hierarchies, the ARCS model, 4C/ID, ADDIE, ASSURE, Schema theory, Cognitive apprenticeship, Social Learning theory, or Cognitive flexibility? Does she need to know those?

When I teach intro and advanced instructional design, I act as though you’re no instructional designer if you don’t know those theories and models. Well, I used to. Why? Well, my professors did. Now that could be because my professor wrote some of them and was/is a huge theorist. But even he has softened his stance. One of his latest, most influential pieces of work was the First Principles of Instruction. In his paper, Dr. Merrill explains:

“The premise of this paper is that first principles for instruction do exist and that one or more of these irst principles can be found in most instructional design theories and models. This premise also assumes hat these design principles apply regardless of the instructional program or practices prescribed by a given theory or model. If this premise is true, research will demonstrate that when a given instructional program r practice violates or fails to implement one or more of these first principles, there will be a decrement in earning and performance. Our survey of instructional products also demonstrates that many instructional programs fail to effectively incorporate all of these principles.

The hypotheses of this paper are that:

1. Learning from a given instructional program will be facilitated in direct proportion to the implementation of first principles of instruction.

2. Learning from a given instructional program will be facilitated in direct proportion to the degree that first principles of instruction are explicitly implemented rather than haphazardly implemented.”

Basically, Dr. Merrill looked at the existing plethora of models and theories and found out what was the SAME rather than coming up with a different model or theory–a big departure for one of the leading theorists in the field.

I would argue that if Cammy read this paper, 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.

So what does all this mean? I spend a lot of time recruiting graduate students to our program and, as I refer to it, “preaching the gospel of instructional design.” If it’s not necessary, then why do I spend so much of my time saying this is so important?

Because it’s my job, and I love doing it. I love the art of instructional design. Any six year old can splatter paint, but that doesn’t make them Jackson Pollock. It takes a real talent to create great instruction fluidly, with purpose, and I can’t teach that. You either have it or you don’t.

So I find myself the longer I do this I come back more and more to my conversation with Platte and having conversations like this with Cammy. Theoretical instructional design needs to mirror practical instructional design more. And when it does, and as our field shifts to more designers-by-assignment, then we’ll be on to something important.

My gosh, what kind of posting maniac has Cammy unleashed?

So I do like being a member of the club and the social aspect of this conference.

So far I’ve run into some people I’ve known for a while and it’s been good to catch up. I had breakfast with David Merrill, chatted with Andy Gibbons and Don Descy, caught up with Brad Hokanson, Lauren Cifuentes and Jennifer Summerville, and I SAW Trey Martindale, but I haven’t talked with him yet.

I plan on posting throughout the week.

First Merrill breaks down the terminology of the proper study of instructional design as such:

• science: the pursuit of understanding
• technology: the creation of artifacts
• theory: describing phenomena and predicting (hypothesis) consequences from given conditions
• research: applying appropriate methodology to test these predictions
• instructional design theory: understanding what conditions are necessary for a learner to acquire specific instructional goals, specific knowledge and skill, or specific learning outcomes

He then continues to break down the technology of what we do.

• technology of instructional design: using empirically verified instructional design theory to develop instructional products designed to enable students to efficiently and effectively acquire desired instructional outcomes
• technology of instruction: breaks down into three activities . . .

1. the principles of effective and efficient instruction (instructional design theory) be captured in tools that provide intellectual leverage to designers who may not know the required instructional design theory
2. demonstrate the use of these tools in designing and/or developing an instructional product
3. predict the performance of this product and then test this performance in a trial with students from the target population

So then an instructional scientist attempts to discover and test principles for instruction, and the instructional technologist uses the principles discovered by the scientist to develop and test conceptual tools and technology-based tools that can be used by instructional designers for the production of instructional products.

So back to the question: what am I? Am I an instructional scientist or an instructional technologist? Well, that’s the problem. I want to be both.

Is that feasable?

Is that OK?

I hope I work this all out someday.

Write your dissertation first and other essays on graduate education by M. David Merrill

Suggested self-study program for Instructional Systems Development (ISD) by M. David Merrill

Annotated bibliography on Instructional Design

“You don’t know what you really think until you write it down.”

That’s why I’ve got to get back to blogging–to find out what I really think.

“There has evolved from the research conducted by cognitive and behavioral psychologists a set of very specific, empirically validated procedures for teaching concepts. If followed, these procedures provide far more efficient and effective concept instruction than that typically seen in classrooms or mediated instructional materials.

“The procedures outlined in this book may appear to be extremel laborious compared to procedures you are now using to prepare instructional materials. However, after you have prepared several lessons using the recommended procedures, you will find that your planning efficiency has actually increased. In addition, your students will find your lessons more enjoyable and much easier to understand.

“… Instructional design is a phrase which means selecting and arranging instructional materials in a way which helps students learn more efficiently and effectively. It also means selecting and arranging special materials which allow you as a teacher, or the students as learners, to find out whether they have learned what you intended.”

Now that’s pretty much how I explain things, but I found this entire passage really clear. I can’t wait to read the rest of the book.