|
|
|
Instructional Design Model[Extract from Introduction - quasar.ualberta.ca/edpy597mappin/readings/m13_willis_1.htm
- A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on
Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory Instructional Design Model: In the educational technology literature the term instructional design has so many meanings that its use has little purpose without further elaboration. In some publications, the term roughly refers to the field called educational technology in this article (e.g., Riegeluth, 1983). In others, the terms is used to describe the practice of educational technology from a particular theoretical perspective such as behaviorism (Gropper, 1987). Instructional design may also be the umbrella term indicating the components that should be included in an instructional package (Merril, 1988). The phrase has also been used to indicate the process others have used it to mean a particular model or theory that can guide the design of instruction (Wright & Conroy, 1988). In this article, instructional design (ID) refers to the process of designing materials, and the term instructional design model (ID model) refers to a model or theory that can guide the instructional design process. Many instructional design models have been proposed (Bagdonis & Salisbury, 1994). However, the great majority of the models currently available are based on social science theories from the behavioral family, broadly defined to include information processing and cognitive science theories that "break down" content to be taught into smaller units which are then taught with direct instruction strategies. Dick (1995), for example, comments that the "historical roots of what today is referred to as instructional design was Skinnerian psychology, especially as it was manifested in programmed instruction" (p.5). To the Skinnerian base, Dick adds three other influences: the instructional objectives of Robert Mager, Robert Glaser's criterion-referenced testing, and Robert Gagne's events of instruction. All these influences, from Skinner to Glaser, fall well within the behavioral family of theories, which it is suggested here, includes cognitive science and information processing theories that share a common foundation with more extreme versions of the theory such as radical behaviorism. The term "behavioral" will be used in this article to indicate this family of theories, but other terms are also appropriate, including objectivist, empirical, and rational. Winograd and Flores (1987) called this group the "rationalistic tradition," while Schon (1987) used "technical-rational" in much the same way. Many of the traditional theories of learning from psychology fall into this family as well as many of the instructional theories developed by educational technologists. The Gagne-Briggs (Gagne & Briggs, 1979) and Gropper's (1987) behavioral approach to instructional design come immediately to mind.
While there are real differences within the behavioral (or objectivist or rationalistic
or technical/rational) family of theories, they all share related philosophies of science
that are objectivist, rational, and empiricist or postempiricist. And the tenets of those
philosophies of science can be seen in the instructional design models derived from them.
This paper lays the foundation for an alternative instructional design model based on
social science theories from the constructivist family and on an interpretivist philosophy
of science. These two families of theories-behavioral/objectivist/empiricist/rational and
constructivist/interpretivist - have radically different answers to two fundamental
questions, and those answers are the reason for many of the differences between a
behavioral-empirical instructional design model and a constructive-interpretive ID model.
The two questions involve the role of language and the nature of truth. - Jerry
Willis is Professor and Director, Center for Information Technology in Education,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas. |
|
|
|