The readings in LT7100 Design of Performance & Instructional Systems have provided a strong, foundational framework for instructional design (ID) by presenting historical and current approaches to developing learning experiences. A couple of themes that I am pleased to highlight are that: ID approaches have a general framework for designing learning methods, and ID follows a similar pedagogy to curriculum design that all educators learn to develop.
Approaching any educational project with contextual guidelines rooted in instructional curriculum design reflects my professional experience in education, my prior knowledge, and experiences. The course textbook Real World Instructional Design (Cennamo & Kalk, 2019) is valuable in presenting the historical context of ID along with practical approaches to designing learning projects and systems. The comprehensive detail of various frameworks of ID from ADDIE to the Five Ds of instructional design are not only helpful as guidelines of structure and process, but diverse approaches highlight the concept that ID pathways are flexible as long as important details are not overlooked. The textbook’s experiential case examples also present real-world scenarios that provide creative insights. Thus, flexibility grounded in history and best practices appeals to many in our class from diverse academic and professional backgrounds because it fosters creativity and problem solving.
The supplemental academic articles that Dr. Richardson has curated are equally as helpful as the textbook. Klein & Kelly’s (2018) ID competencies article provides key insights into what employers expect from designers based upon interviews, job announcements, and other career-applicable criteria. For potential IDs, the article is a helpful guide pertaining to skills and processes that are valuable as an ID. As a student of history, I also find helpful Reiser’s (2001) article chronicling ID in a historical context that includes audio/visuals, chalk boards, and television instruction as ID tools. As a former teacher who admits to using old technology (anyone remember transparencies?), it is comforting to realize that all of these pedagogical tools are in the realm of instructional design.
In addition to the theme of general frameworks for ID, the other theme in our readings that is relevant to my personal experience is that ID concepts are fundamentally similar to curriculum design. What I often valued as a teacher was to plan, assess, and develop effective learning experiences for my students. Similarly, ID frameworks and planning approaches employ technologies and methodologies that all teachers utilize for their students, whether in K-12, higher education, or private industry. Needs assessment is another important step in the ID process that is well explained in Cekada’s (2011) article which focuses on workplace training programs. The questions she raises in doing assessments correctly relates directly to my work in higher education since effective professional development is the result of deliberative planning.
That instructional design follows a framework approach and parallels curriculum design makes sense to me since effective educational results follow student-focused planning. I am encouraged that the readings in LT7100 are providing a foundation of learning ID systems and approaches.
Cekada, Tracey L. (2011, Dec.). Conducting an effective needs assessment. Professional Safety 55, 28-34.
Cennamo, Katherine & Kalk, Debby. (2019) Real world instructional design: An iterative approach to designing learning experiences. (2nd edition). Routledge.
Klein, James D. & Kelly, Wei Qiang. (2018). Competencies for instructional designers: A view from employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly 31 (3), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21257.
Reiser, Robert A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development 49 (1), 53-64.