I'm called an instructional designer but I don't see ID as a science or a fixed set of procedures. Following recipes too rigidly excludes serendipity, playfulness, personal voice, suspense. And anyway, who's arrogant enough to believe that we've got to the bottom of the learning process.
Brent Wilson points out some of the inherent contradictions in ID eg:
Designers can usually exert more direct influence over materials and tools than over the interaction between learners and teachers.
At the same time, the nature of the precise interaction between learners and teachers is at the heart of understanding instruction.
I prefer to see ID as a set of metaphors to structure thinking and measure observed learning behaviour against.
I was asked for a primer and dug out some introductions recently. George Siemens assembles some definitions and models. Kyriaki Anagnostopoulo has written a very balanced introduction for LTSN, concluding:
'The benefit of using instructional design models lies in their functions as communication tools. ID models allow individuals and multi-disciplinary teams to use the same vocabulary and to visualise the associated processes.'
12:02:03 PM 
|
|
