| Module
4: An Overview of Instructional Systems Design Models help us conceptualize representations
of reality.
In this module we take a look at the role of conventional models of instructional systems design in the instructional design process. These are generally more suited to developing instruction which is centered in a behaviorist or cognitivist learning paradigm and they tend to work better for learning which is at a lower level. What do we mean when we say, 'at a lower level?' Various learning psychologists from Benjamin Bloom, to Robert Gagné, to David Merrill have undertaken to classify the types of learning tasks which we ask students and trainees to use. For example, Gagné's hierarchy includes recalling information, concrete concepts, defined concepts, principles, problem solving, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor skills. In this hierarchy, and in others, we can write performance objectives for such tasks as recalling facts and listing or demonstrating the steps in a procedure much more easily than we can write performance objectives for such tasks as analysis. In fact, it is designing for such higher level activities which highlighted the shortcomings of behaviorist approaches almost two decades ago. There will be more discussion of types of learning and limits/problems of models for higher level learning in the modules on learning objectives, task analysis, and instructional strategies. The model we are using in this course is the Morrison, Ross and Kemp model which is reproduced below. You can readily notice that it has nine small ovals representing the nine basic steps in the systematic design process, or what MRK refer to as a "comprehensive instructional design plan" (MRK, p. 7):
MRK, p. 6
What is less obvious are the two ovals which surround these basic procedures and the significance of them. The two ovals are meant to suggest that the activities each represents are a 'surround' for the whole project and that they are ongoing throughout it. In the first oval the revision/formative evaluation activities are meant to be undertaken at each stage of the development process, and, if undertaken conscientiously, can assist in making the learning materials very effective by the end of the project. However, in the real world this ideal process is often tempered by the twin realities of time and money. Often designers working to deadlines on tight budgets are not able to undertake the number of tests and revision cycles which they might like to, and consequently, not all materials which are developed using a basic ID process have undergone the improvements which are implied in the models. The second oval deals with a number of aspects of the design process which instructional designers ignore at their peril. These include planning activities, project management, arranging the necessary services to support both the project and the instruction once it is implemented, and any summative evaluation which is required. One of the most frequently asked questions about models is how one should properly use them. How prescriptive are the sequence of steps and the procedures given for any model? The answer, of course, is 'it depends.' One of the major dimensions tends to be the experience and confidence of the instructional designer. Novice designers tend to like the support and reassurance that a model provides to them, and they tend to use them more than an experienced designer would. On the other hand, while an experienced designer may not use a model for immediate reference the way a novice might, experienced designers may be found comparing models to find ones which suggest improved ways of doing things to them, or better ways of explaining the process to their clients and team members. Models and their associated descriptions can continue to provide good references to experienced designers and, as stated above, an invaluable resource for communication and project management with their team members. At this point it is also useful to note that not all projects start at the same place or are open to the full range of choices for media and strategies which the models imply. You will have noted in the description of the MRK model that the authors maintain that a designer can start at any point in the process which makes sense for a particular project and change the order of the steps and revisions as they make sense in a project. Another point worthy of note is that in today's world instructional designers are often told what the development and delivery technology will be and, sometimes, what the instructional strategies will be. As David Jonassen put it at a recent conference, "The web is the answer, now, what was the question." From a more positive viewpoint there are advantages to students for consistency across programs and ways of controlling costs which a single approach may provide. Examples of this is may be seen at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, Grant MacEwan Community College, and the University of Alberta, all of which have committed to the use of a development/delivery environment called WebCT for all of their alternative/distance delivery courses. A further
impact on the use of instructional design models may be from resource constraints.
Designers are often asked to undertake design work with less money and time for both the
design task and for the production of the product that they feel is necessary. This can
mean that corners are cut and steps get left out of the instructional design process and
that the type of media resources or delivery technology which the designer thinks are
necessary are not affordable. Both of these things can have an effect on the final
product. One group of authors has tried to recognize the constraints which function in the
real world and provide a model which instructional designers can adapt to meet the needs
of particular projects and circumstances. Wedman and Tessmer (1991) developed a 'layers of
necessity' model which they assert can allow designers to look at their circumstances for
a particular project and choose those aspects of the whole design process which they can
afford and/or are warranted by the project. Readings and Activities: In this module you are asked to read the introduction and chapters 1 and 2 of the Gustafson/Branch book listed below, to re-read Chapter 1 of Morrison, Ross and Kemp with particular emphasis on the elements of instructional design, and to participate in the conference threads. Secondly, you are asked to write a short statement (no more than 300 words) in which you describe what you think of the Morrison, Ross and Kemp model of instructional design. You should describe how effective you think it would be, and what you think its major shortcomings may be. This is to be submitted electronically to the instructor by September 26.
Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Instructional design models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinhouse on Information and Technology. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1991). Adapting instructional design to project circumstance: The layers of necessity model. Educational Technology, 31 (7), 48-52. |
