Have we "Reclaimed" Instructional Design?

In 1996, David Merrill and the ID2 Research Group published Reclaiming Instructional Design, a paper that "attempts to make clear [their] belief that instruction is a science and that instructional design is a technology founded in this science," and they wanted "to identify some of the assumptions underlying the science-based technology of instructional
design, and to clarify its role in the larger context of education and social change."

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?

An immediately accessible instructional design education

Cammy at Learning Visions asked me to whittle my list down more. As a former English teacher, I relish the thought of making my writing "tighter." So while the purpose of my initial post on how to get an instructional design education without paying tuition was meant as a "here's what you need to know," I still missed the mark.

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.

How to get an Instructional Design education without paying tuition

Well, yesterday Cammy has responded to my post on the disconnect between academic instructional design and practical instructional design. Subsequently, the last five hours or so has been interesting. First of all, I see that Stephen Downes has mentioned our conversation on OLD~Daily, and that has led to a number of comments on my blog as well as others posting about them on their blogs.

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.

The Proper Study of Instructional Design

So, as it always seems, here I am as a young assistant professor still trying to figure out my place in this world. You know, who am I, what is my line of research, and does it really matter? So I was reading in the new edition of Issues and Trends in Instructional Design and Technology today, specifically in Chapter 32: The Future of Instructional Design, which is a point/counterpoint between David Merrill and Brent Wilson. As it always seems, I think like Merrill. (Could it be that it was because he was my teacher? Hmm . . . )

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.

Foundations readings revisited

So, apparently something crazy has happened. Just one day after I get that list posted of readings for my Foundations class, I found another book. I checked to see if I could change my order for fall, but I really shouldn't--not can't, it'll just be a pain.

Reiser, R.A. & Dempsy, J.V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

It's all the other stuff combined, the types of readings I wanted, and it's recent. Personally, I'm giddy with anticipation.

Reading list for Foundations of Educational Technology

So I'm finishing up my syllabus and reading list for this fall's Foundations of Educational Technology class. It is meant to be the introductory course for all our Master's and Doctoral students. I initially started with the syllabus used at Utah State (my alma mater), and from there I worked on it and tried to get it to what I thought and felt was relevant for our students today. Here's what I've got so far (and that's pretty much how it's going to stay unless something crazy happens):

• Clark, J. & Dede, C. (2006, June). Robust designs for scalability. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Research Symposia, Bloomington, IN.

• Ely, D.P. & Plomp, T. (1996). Classic writings on Instructional Technology, Volume 1. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. (Select chapters)

o AECT. The Definition of Educational Technology: A Summary
o Churchman, C.W. On the Design of Educational Systems
o Davies, I.K. Educational Technology: Archetypes, Paradigms and Models
o Gagné, R.M. Learning Hierarchies
o Heinich, R. Is There a Field of Educational Communications and Technology?
o Skinner, B.F. The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching

• Ely, D.P. & Plomp, T. (2001). Classic writings on Instructional Technology, Volume 2. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. (Select chapters)

o Clark, R.E. Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media
o Dick, W. & Carey, L. The Systematic Design of Instruction: Origins of Systematically Designed Instruction
o Hannafin, M.J. Emerging Technologies, ISD, and Learning Environments: Critical Perspectives
o Heinich, R. The Proper Study of Instructional Technology
o Jonassen, D.H. Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?
o Reigeluth, C.M. In Search of a Better Way to Organize Instruction: The Elaboration Theory

• Gibbons, A.S. & Rogers, C.P. (2006, June). Coming at design from a different angle: Functional design. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Research Symposia, Bloomington, IN.

• Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2006, June). Model building for conceptual change. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Research Symposia, Bloomington, IN.

• Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36 (5), 5-7.

• Merrill, M.D. (2000). Write your dissertation first and other essays on graduate education. Available: http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/papers.htm

• Merrill, M.D. (2002). A pebble in the pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 39-44.

• Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.

• Reiber, L. (1998). The proper way to become an instructional technologist. 1998 Peter Dean Lecture, Division of Learning and Performance Enhancements, Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

• Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 57-67.

• Ross, S.A. & Morrison, G.R. (2001). Getting started in instructional technology research. Association for Educational Communications and Technnology. http://www.aect.org

• Seels, B.B. & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional Technology: The definition and domains of the field. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

• Spector, J.M. (2006, June). From learning to instruction: Adventures and advances in instructional design. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Research Symposia, Bloomington, IN.

• vanMerriënboer, J.J.G., Clark, R.E., & deCroock, M.B.M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39-64.

• Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Basically, I tried to find articles in four different areas: History of the field, how to study the field, select design theories (old and new) and current research.

Comments welcome.

Open Source CMS

This summer term I am teaching (in addition to the EDTC 3123 -- preservice teacher technology course) EDTC 5153: Computer-based Instructional Development. I have six graduate students enrolled--none from the College of Education. I have two Chemistry master's candidates, two from TESL (one master's, one doctoral), and two master's candidates from International Studies. It will be nice to get some students from our program in these classes as well.

At any rate, the course focuses on desiging and creating web-based instruction. I initially designed the course to be your basic instructional design, website design and development class, and then I thought better of it. It seems to me that we're past that now. As I looked through my webhosting package from BlueHost, I noticed that I had access to about ten or so different CMS packages.

So I thought to myself (having just gone through the process of helping choose a new COURSE management system for OSU) that a more relevant class might be how to design the instruction and how to evaluate different CMS packages--because I have access, right?--and develop the instruction in a CMS. That seems more "real world." So I eagerly installed instances of the following:

• Drupal


• Geeklog


• Joomla


• Mambo


• PHP-Nuke


• phpWCMS


• phpWebsite


• Post-Nuke


• TYPO3


• Xoops


• Moodle


• BlackBoard (I just used the course OSU made for our class)

So how's it going? Well, what does CMS stand for? Course Management System (as I was thinking) or Content Management System (as most of these are). I think the course is going well, and we're getting a lot of really practical experience. But it would have been nice if more had been COURSE management systems.

What my graduate students need to know

As I've begun advising graduate students again, I've thought a lot about things they "need to know." With that in mind, I've attached three files that I think they should all read and follow the counsel therein.

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

Look what the cat drug in!

So I'm unpacking the last boxes for my office yesterday, and I came across the craziest thing. In my first class with David Merrill, he asked us the first day, "What makes something instructional?" He then told us to write our answer up. Well, I found my response. I must say that for my first (or second) semester in the field, my response was both incredilbly naive and at the same time really pretty good. I wrote:

"What makes something instructional?

"I've been wondering this a lot lately. Most of the work I do deals with web-based instruction. Lately I've been wondering, however, if I am helping design effective instruction for the web. It seems like a lot of what I have been doing is designing online textbooks and workbooks. I don't really feel like that is instructional. Knowledge might be disseminated to a degree, but I don't know that any real learning is taking place.

"I think that real instruction and learning takes place when there is thinking taking place. I think both student and teacher have to think for learning to take place. Let me give an example: I was evaluating a web-based course the other day, and I pointed out a problem in the lesson. The questions the students were asked to answer weren't challenging them to think. Just like many textbooks or workbooks, all a student needed to do to answer the questions was to read them adn then go back and find the answers in the content. I don't agree with that. I keep telling the writers to make the students apply the knowledge. Don't allow them (the students) to simply regurgitate knowledge. Make them think.

"I know that it is hard to do. You can't know how each student will respond to everything. But I think that making students think helps things be truly instructional.

"I had a statistics class this summer. For part of our grade, we had workbook exercises to complete. I didn't learn anything. Why? Because it had no challenging areas for me to think. For example, in each chapter we had a few pages of fill-in-the-blank questions. The problem was, however, that the answers were right next to the blanks!

"That's what I want to avoid when designing my courses. How would I have made the workbooks better? Well, I probably would have written the questions better and not put the answers next to the blanks. Again, being redundant, I would have made the students think."

Boy, some of that sounds a far cry from my staunch behaviorist views now.

At any rate, after we all wrote those David Merrill gave an incredible lecture on what he thinks makes something instructional. And after all these years, I agree with him--it holds up. What did he say makes the difference?

The ability to practice.