8

Kristen Samuelson

Trends and Issues

Instructional Design Theory

June 13, 2005

8

Instructional design is the process by which educators develop and implement instructional products. This process is guided by a multitude of learning and instructional theories and philosophical theories. The design process will differ slightly, depending on which instructional design model is followed. But, there is one key element in all instructional design models, and that is the step-by-step process that must be followed in order to design an effective product.

Berger and Kam define instructional design as, “the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.” (October 18, 1996, http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html) The design process typically begins with an initial analysis of the problem and ends with the evaluation of the product. The steps in between are where the models differ.

The ADDIE model of instructional design is constructed of five clearly written phases introduced in a linear fashion: Analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate. The analysis phase is the first and most important of the phases. It is in this phase the problem is defined, the source identified and possible solutions outlined. The solutions are developed into instructional goals and tasks for use in the design phase. In the design phase, you develop the instruction based on the specific objectives. Using information from the design phase such as intended audience, objectives, type of delivery for product, you then develop your instructional product. This third phase of design, builds in detail upon each of the previous phases. It is here that the instruction is developed, as well as the means by which students will learn. The fourth phase requires implementing the product, or delivering the instruction to the learner. The product must meet the objectives developed for the product and must document student progress of attainment of the instruction. The final phase is evaluation, but it isn’t necessarily left for last. Evaluation is a step done to measure the effectiveness of the instructional product. Evaluation of the product should be done periodically throughout the design process with a process known as formative evaluation. The purpose of the formative evaluation is to allow the educator to revise the product before the final product is completed. A summative evaluation is then completed after the end product has been delivered. The summative evaluation will let the educator know whether the product was a useful to in delivering the instruction and whether the product should be used again, or possibly revised further.

I believe that the ADDIE Model is an effective way for all teachers to develop an instructional product. Though a complete model, it is still manageable for all teachers, novice and expert, to use and implement. In the following section, I will explain and compare the ADDIE Model to three additional instructional design models.

With all of the web-based courses available to students, I elected to research the Cognitive Flexibility Theory as pedagogy for web-based course design. The Cognitive Flexibility Theory is a more complicated model than the ADDIE Model as it is designed to deliver more difficult instruction as well. The theory claims that the delivery of materials in a linear fashion will not meet instructional objectives because of the oversimplification of the material presented (S.R. Boger-Mehall, http://www.kdassem.dk/didaktik/l4-16.htm). Tutorials, lectures and bookwork are characterized as “linear instruction.” As educators, our goal is for our students to be able to transfer the knowledge that they have acquired to a different and greater stage. This application of knowledge is known as “cognitive flexibility.” The computer, along with multimedia and hypertext products lends itself well to this flexibility.

It is important, however, to keep in mind that traditional instruction may be very successful in teaching well-structured, simple subject matter. When the information is not simple and well structured, the power of the computer and the format of hypertext support a more flexible approach to instruction that some have called random access instruction. This allows the learner to access information as needed in any order pertinent to his or her needs (S.R. Boger-Mehall, http://www.kdassem.dk/didaktik/l4-16.htm).

Cognitive Flexibility focuses on delivering instruction in many and various capacities and giving many different types of examples. It is especially formulated to support the use of interactive technology. The four principles of this theory are:

1. Learning activities must provide multiple representations of content.

2. Instructional materials should avoid oversimplifying the content domain and support context-dependent knowledge.

3. Instruction should be case-based and emphasize knowledge construction, not transmission of information.

4. Knowledge sources should be highly interconnected rather than compartmentalized.

(R. Spiro, http://tip.psychology.org/spiro.html)

Michael Hannafin writes, “The ability to apply design processes across various domains is key to the adoption and growth of such processes.” (M. Hannafin http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper14/paper14.html) The Hannafin & Peck Model is another linear example of instructional design. It is broken into three phases. Phase one focuses on assessing the needs of the learner. Product design takes place in phase two. Phase three involves developing and implementing the product. Evaluation and revision are not put into any of these three phases because they are ongoing throughout the development process, influencing the next step along the way.

This model is simplistic, much the way of the ADDIE Model. The main difference here is that in the Hannafin & Peck Model, it is clear that evaluation and revision is intertwined throughout the Model. Because of its simplicity, this model might be better suited for a more experienced educator (http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm#Hannafin&Peck).

The last instructional design model to discuss is Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model. This model too, is a step-by-step approach to delivering a large amount of instruction to students. There are ten specific phases to the Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model and is based on the same phases as the ADDIE Model, just more specific. These ten phases are

  1. Assess needs to identify goals
  2. Conduct instructional analysis
  3. Analyze learners and contexts
  4. Write performance objectives
  5. Develop assessment instruments
  6. Develop instructional strategy
  7. Develop and select instructional materials
  8. Design and conduct formative evaluation of instruction
  9. Revise instruction
  10. Design and conduct summative evaluation

(S. Stokes, K. Terry, http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume3No1/Stokes.htm).

The Dick and Carey’s Model identifies the identification of the instructional goal as the most important step of the development process. This is consistent with the other models that I explored. They also suggest that an expert in the subject matter being taught, be the one who develops these goals. Dick and Carey suggest that their model is a little like following a recipe in a cookbook – “you do this and then you do that.” (B. Schindelka, April 2000, http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/schindelka/schindelka.htm). The Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model has been the leading instructional design model in the behavioral theory since it’s induction in 1968 (P. Deubel, March 2003, http://www.ct4me.net/multimedia_design.htm).

I believe that there is not any one correct instructional design method that would be suitable for all content and audiences. As you can see from the models that I have presented, some are intended for advanced skills and knowledge and some for more basic topics. Some models can be used for large pieces of instruction, while others are better used for one topic. The main point to gain from these models is the importance of developing a plan and following a systematic design in developing your product.

Behaviorism originated in psychology but has spread as a wider field to include, sociology, education and biology. There are four beliefs in the behavior theory. The first is that behavior is naturalistic. A man’s brain responds to external stimuli. The second belief is that man is nothing more than a machine that responds to conditioning. Again, this belief emphasizes that man responds to external stimuli – our behavior is a product of our conditioning. The third belief is that man is not responsible for his actions. If we are simply responding to external stimuli, then everything we do is inevitable. The final belief is manipulative and by offering rewards and punishments, you can control a persons’ behavior (G. DeMar, http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_DeMar_-_Behaviorism.html).

Skinner’s goal as a psychologist was to shape his patients behavior so that they would behave in more socially acceptable ways. His intent for behaviorism was for it to be the basis on which patients, students and whole societies were manipulated (G. DeMar, http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_DeMar_-_Behaviorism.html). Today, anti-behaviorists reject the theory because the theory explains behavior without reference to mental activity.

Cognitivism sprung from the school of behaviorism, but it was quite a different view. The cognitivistic school "went inside the head of the learner" so to speak in that they made mental processes the primary object of study and tried to discover and model the mental processes on the part of the learner during the learning-process (http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-834.htm). Cognitivists have an “information processing” view of learning, much like that of a computer. Learning is the process of committing symbolic representations to memory where they can be processed. This view emphasizes the active mental processing by the learner.

The cognitivist theory states that knowledge acquisition is measured by what learners know. The learner is an active participant in the learning process, so active feedback is an important step to the process. Memory is an important role in this theory. When information can be stored in the memory in an organized fashion, it can be called upon in the transfer of knowledge and skills. Therefore, storing organized information in memory is proof of learning.

  • Proponents of the cognitivist theory claim its strengths are that learners are trained to perform a function the same way based on specific cues, their behavior will be consistent with others who are trained in the same manner. They also argue that the learners’ thoughts, beliefs and values are influential in the learning process. Cognitivist critics argue that the learner knows how to perform tasks based on a given set of cues which may not be the best, safest or most efficient way to perform those tasks (http://web.cocc.edu/cbuell/theories/cognitivism.htm).
  • The last theory to explore is that of constructivism. Constructivists feel that learning is the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences. It is based on the idea that we “construct” our own understanding of the world we live in and form the rules and mental models to learn. The first of the four guiding principles of constructivism is that learning is a search for meaning. The second is that learning requires an understanding of the wholes as well as the parts that make up the whole. The third principle states that in order to teach well, we must understand the mental models of the students so that we understand their perception of the world and how they form assumptions. The final one states that the purpose for learning is for the learning to construct his or her own meaning, not just memorize the right answers (J. Brooks, M. Brooks, http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm).
  • The constructivist theory is not limited to higher level learning. Educators should focus on relating known facts and new understandings. The task of the instructor is to translate information to be learned into a format appropriate to the learner's current state of understanding. Curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the student continually builds upon what they have already learned (J. Bruner, http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html). The theory emphasizes hands-on problem solving.
  • These theories provide a basis in which we can design our classes. As a Web Mastering teacher, I feel that the constructivist theory is more suited to my content area and the manner in which I teach it. It’s important for the students to be able to learn how to problem solve, how to transfer learned skills into a larger venture. I think that these elements are important in other content areas as well. This doesn’t mean that I don’t find some value in the behaviorist or cognitivist theories. I can see where behaviorism might play a greater role in an undisciplined or less motivated classroom, and where the cognitivist theory makes more sense when learning vocabulary.
  • I have used the ADDIE Model to design multimedia products in the past and have had great success. I feel that this model was a great tool in efficiently developing this product. After doing the research for this paper, I feel that I would like to try the Cognitive Flexibility Theory for the next product that I develop for my class. Again, I feel that because of my subject area, that this model might be the most effectual. The delivery of the hypertext product is a natural fit for a Web Mastering course. Content is related and should be presented as such, it should also have multiple representations of delivery.

References

Academic Preparation for Science. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.siast.sk.ca/science/evaluation/intro.htm

Behaviorism Tutorial. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Behaviorism/Part2/def.shtml

Boger-Mehall, S. R. Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.kdassem.dk/didaktik/l4-16.htm

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. Funderstanding. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm

Bruner, J. Constructivist Theory. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html

Cognitivism. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://web.cocc.edu/cbuell/theories/cognitivism.htm

CSCL. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-834.htm

Cunningham, P. Teacher Knowledge, Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Case-Based Learning and Teacher Education. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://music.utsa.edu/tdml/conf-II/II-Cunningham.html

DeMar, G. Behaviorism. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_DeMar_-_Behaviorism.html

Deubel, P. Computing Technology for Math Excellence. (2003, March). Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.ct4me.net/multimedia_design.htm