Instructional Design (also called Instructional Systems Design (ISD)) is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and appeal of instruction and other learning experiences. The process consists broadly of determining the current state and needs of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some “intervention” to assist in the transition. Ideally the process is informed by pedagogically (process of teaching) and andragogically (adult learning) tested theories of learning and may take place in student-only, teacher-led or community-based settings. The outcome of this instruction may be directly observable and scientifically measured or completely hidden and assumed. There are many instructional design models but many are based on the ADDIE model with the five phases: 1) analysis, 2) design, 3) development, 4) implementation, and 5) evaluation. As a field, instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology.
History
Much of the foundations of the field of instructional design was laid in World War II, when the U.S. military faced the need to rapidly train large numbers of people to perform complex technical tasks, from field-stripping a carbine to navigating across the ocean to building a bomber—see “Training Within Industry (TWI)”. Drawing on the research and theories of B.F. Skinner on operant conditioning, training programs focused on observable behaviors. Tasks were broken down into subtasks, and each subtask treated as a separate learning goal. Training was designed to reward correct performance and remediate incorrect performance. Mastery was assumed to be possible for every learner, given enough repetition and feedback. After the war, the success of the wartime training model was replicated in business and industrial training, and to a lesser extent in the primary and secondary classroom. The approach is still common in the U.S. military.
In 1956, a committee led by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy of what he termed the three domains of learning: Cognitive (what one knows or thinks), Psychomotor (what one does, physically) and Affective (what one feels, or what attitudes one has). These taxonomies still influence the design of instruction.
During the latter half of the 20th century, learning theories began to be influenced by the growth of digital computers.
In the 1970s, many instructional design theorists began to adopt an information-processing-based approach to the design of instruction. David Merrill for instance developed Component Display Theory (CDT), which concentrates on the means of presenting instructional materials (presentation techniques).
Later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s cognitive load theory began to find empirical support for a variety of presentation techniques.
Cognitive load theory and the design of instruction
Cognitive load theory developed out of several empirical studies of learners, as they interacted with instructional materials. Sweller and his associates began to measure the effects of working memory load, and found that the format of instructional materials has a direct effect on the performance of the learners using those materials.
While the media debates of the 1990s focused on the influences of media on learning, cognitive load effects were being documented in several journals. Rather than attempting to substantiate the use of media, these cognitive load learning effects provided an empirical basis for the use of instructional strategies. Mayer asked the instructional design community to reassess the media debate, to refocus their attention on what was most important: learning.
By the mid- to late-1990s, Sweller and his associates had discovered several learning effects related to cognitive load and the design of instruction (e.g. the split attention effect, redundancy effect, and the worked-example effect). Later, other researchers like Richard Mayer began to attribute learning effects to cognitive load. Mayer and his associates soon developed a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning.
In the past decade, cognitive load theory has begun to be internationally accepted and begun to revolutionize how practitioners of instructional design view instruction. Recently, human performance experts have even taken notice of cognitive load theory, and have begun to promote this theory base as the science of instruction, with instructional designers as the practitioners of this field. Finally Clark, Nguyen and Sweller published a textbook describing how Instructional Designers can promote efficient learning using evidence-based guidelines of cognitive load theory.
Instructional Designers use various instructional strategies to reduce cognitive load. For example, they think that the onscreen text should not be more than 150 words or the text should be presented in small meaningful chunks. The designers also use auditory and visual methods to communicate information to the learner.
Learning design
The concept of learning design arrived in the literature of technology for education in the late nineties and early 2000s with the idea that “designers and instructors need to choose for themselves the best mixture of behaviourist and constructivist learning experiences for their online courses” . But the concept of learning design is probably as old as the concept of teaching. Learning design might be defined as “the description of the teaching-learning process that takes place in a unit of learning (eg, a course, a lesson or any other designed learning event)”.
As summarized by Britain, learning design may be associated with:
- The concept of learning design
- The implementation of the concept made by learning design specifications like PALO, IMS Learning Design, LDL, SLD 2.0, etc…
- The technical realisations around the implementation of the concept like TELOS, RELOAD LD-Author, etc…
Instructional design models
ADDIE process
Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE Process. This acronym stands for the 5 phases contained in the model:
Analyze – analyze learner characteristics, task to be learned, etc.
- Identify Instructional Goals, Conduct Instructional Analysis, Analyze Learners and Contexts
Design – develop learning objectives, choose an instructional approach
- Write Performance Objectives, Develop Assessment Instruments, Develop Instructional Strategy
Develop – create instructional or training materials
- Design and selection of materials appropriate for learning activity, Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation
Implement – deliver or distribute the instructional materials
Evaluate – make sure the materials achieved the desired goals
Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation
Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE process.
Rapid prototyping
Sometimes utilized adaptation to the ADDIE model is in a practice known as rapid prototyping.
Proponents suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design-related domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design, user experience design, etc. In fact, some proponents of design prototyping assert that a sophisticated understanding of a problem is incomplete without creating and evaluating some type of prototype, regardless of the analysis rigor that may have been applied up front. In other words, up-front analysis is rarely sufficient to allow one to confidently select an instructional model. For this reason many traditional methods of instructional design are beginning to be seen as incomplete, naive, and even counter-productive.
However, some consider rapid prototyping to be a somewhat simplistic type of model. As this argument goes, at the heart of Instructional Design is the analysis phase. After you thoroughly conduct the analysis—you can then choose a model based on your findings. That is the area where most people get snagged—they simply do not do a thorough-enough analysis. (Part of Article By Chris Bressi on LinkedIn)
Dick and Carey
Another well-known instructional design model is The Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model. The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction.
Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by championing a systems view of instruction as opposed to viewing instruction as a sum of isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction. According to Dick and Carey, “Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes”. The components of the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey Model, are as follows:
- Identify Instructional Goal(s): goal statement describes a skill, knowledge or attitude(SKA) that a learner will be expected to acquire
- Conduct Instructional Analysis: Identify what a learner must recall and identify what learner must be able to do to perform particular task
- Analyze Learners and Contexts: General characteristic of the target audience, Characteristic directly related to the skill to be taught, Analysis of Performance Setting, Analysis of Learning Setting
- Write Performance Objectives: Objectives consists of a description of the behavior, the condition and criteria. The component of an objective that describes the criteria that will be used to judge the learner’s performance.
- Develop Assessment Instruments: Purpose of entry behavior testing, purpose of pretesting, purpose of posttesting, purpose of practive items/practive problems
- Develop Instructional Strategy: Pre-instructional activities, content presentation, Learner participation, assessment
- Develop and Select Instructional Materials
- Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction: Designer try to identify areas of the instructional materials that are in need to improvement.
- Revise Instruction: To identify poor test items and to identify poor instruction
- Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation
With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel rather than linearly.
Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)
Another instructional design model is the Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS). The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, PhD and Mary Sullivan Esseff, PhD in their book entitled IDLS—Pro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop, and Validate Instructional Materials.
Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Dr. Gabriel Ofiesh, a Founding Father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff contributed synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design, “Instructional Development Learning System” (IDLS).
The components of the IDLS Model are:
- Design a Task Analysis
- Develop Criterion Tests and Performance Measures
- Develop Interactive Instructional Materials
- Validate the Interactive Instructional Materials
Other models
Some other useful models of instructional design include: the Smith/Ragan Model, the Morrison/Ross/Kemp Model and the OAR model, as well as, Wiggins theory of backward design.
Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.