ISD is too rigid and inflexible?
Ever since WWII, practitioners involved in training and instruction realized how important and powerful a good instructional could be. Instructional designers used a systematic way to take on different design tasks and treat them from the perspective of engineering other than art. Most instructional systems design process followed ADDIE model. Soon after, many practical and research studies were conducted and many instructional system design methods were proposed. These design principles and models were intended to create more effective and efficient instructional materials. Some of them were more general, such as Constructivist Learning Environments (Jonasson, 1999), some were specific in domain of learning (attitudinal instruction proposed by Kamradt & Kamradt, 1999) or in the phases of design process (elaboration theory proposed by Reigeluth, 1978). They provided specific and unambiguous guidelines for instructional designers to follow in order to generate high quality and repeatable learning outcomes. Unlike learning theory which is more descriptive in nature, instructional systems design is to provide a system of procedures that provide sound decision makings in producing instructional materials for educational and training programs in a reliable and consistent way (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). So there purpose of instructional systems design is not to limit instructional designers in a specific way of practice instructional design. Nor does instructional design model try to confine practitioners in a specific subject. The constraints come from the nature of the problem which the instruction addressed, the resources (including technology, supporting environment, personnel… etc) that are available to the instructional designers, and learning outcomes that are expected. The framework proposed in those models should not limit our instructional design activities. We should, instead, be mindful in selecting the instructional design model and be creative in applying instructional design models.
Let’s take constructivist learning environments (CLE) (Jonassen, 1999) as an example. It depicted an overview of what should be taken care of in such an environment and defined the role of instructor, learner, and process that instructional designers should not overlook, and procedures that instructors should follow. First and foremost, CLE was proposed to address problem-solving skills and higher-order thinking using constructivist epistemology. The focal point of CLE is the problem/project/questions presented in the environment. After understanding the properties of those problems/projects, we can see the role of instructor in the eye of constructivist. For constructivists, in CLE, there are three strategic activities that the instructor can use: modeling, coaching, and scaffolding. There are also different types of instructional supporting tools than can enhance the authentic and meaningful learning experience. Stella is a modeling tool for learners to explore different variables and their relationship with the outcome. Other tools like community of practice would foster social learning.
While CLE provided a good framework about the design of a learning environment, by no means it required instructional designer to follow it rigidly. One of the components was about to provide an authentic learning environment. One instructional designer might use anchor instruction (CTGV), another can use cognitive apprenticeship (Collins & Brown, 1989), and the other can use problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). All of these strategies provide opportunities to actively engage learners in the learning environment.
The flexibility of instructional systems design can be demonstrated by using another example. Reigeluth (1978) proposed elaboration theory to be used for instructional systems design in looking at scope and sequence of instruction. It stated the condition of using elaboration theory (psychomotor and cognitive domains only) and the methods of using it. After the scope of the instruction being decided, instructional designer can use different sequencing strategies for different tasks. Elaboration sequencing was suggested to be used when dealing with cognitive structure task that focused on understanding. He also discussed seven steps as instructional design sequence (Reigeluth & Rodgers, 1980)
Select all the operations to be taught
Decide which operation to teach first
Sequence all the remaining operations
Identify the supporting content
Allocate all content to lessons and sequence them
Sequence the instruction within each lesson
Design instruction on each lesson and expand epitome.
These steps serve as a good resource for instructional designers if he/she does not know where/how to start. It is also useful for experienced instructional designer as a checklist to ensure quality of designed material. These steps can be use in a lot instructional design situations. But this is not set in stone that they have to be followed during the instructional systems design.
Our society is a complex and dynamic system so does learning. Learning is a complex task that involves a wide variety of factors. It is not possible to use one instructional systems design to fit all kinds of requirements. As a result, there are different kinds of instructional systems design model addressed different learning tasks and situations. They are more of a set of tools which the instructional designers can select and use for their own needs than a box that a instructional designer expect it would work as long as everything fits in the box. Instructional systems design is flexible in a sense that an instructional designer has to be flexible and creative to use all of those available tools.
The early attempts on creating instructional systems design principles are focused on learning and instructional themselves. All those being in the industrial ear, schooling was regard as producing. Learning must be done in the most effective and efficient way. At that time, instructional systems design was dominated by guidance of behavioral and cognitive theories. Researchers are now started to focus on the systems view of instructional systems design. More and more instructional systems design shift the focus from teacher centered and instructional material based concept to a learner centered and user-design (Carr, 1997) concept. These paradigm shifts provide good counter argument that instructional systems design is rigid and inflexible.