|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Instructional design article.|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
I'm an instructional designer with 15+ years experience. I've designed a lot of Computer_based_training (including five years at PLATO), and I currently work in higher education, specifically in distance learning. I have a philosphical bias against postmodernism in general and radical constructivism in particular. I believe that objective truth does exist and that it can be transmitted. That bias may have crept into the article; I tried to remain neutral. Most IDs who design learning activities for a living (as opposed to tenured professors who theorize about learning) are concerned with *measurable outcomes*, and in that context the approaches that work tend to be more behaviorist or cognitivist than constructivist. Brendano 15:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm a University Professor and have been a professional Instructional Designer for nearly 15 years. I agree with the above author that objective truth exists, and that instruction should be well structured for novice learners. I also believe ill-structured instruction is better suited for those with more expertise. I think this conflict has spawned our philosophical debate. The debate raging in the instructional design community today (the guidance debate) is akin to the media/methods debate of the 1990s and has affected many of written works including this page. This page (like many in Wikipedia) is a compilation of varied perspectives. But like all philosophical debates, an end will come soon enough and we'll be on to something else. Dlewis3 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fresh from my doctoral program in Educational leadership with an emphasis in applied psychology and learning design. Co-authored a book chapter with faculty development expert, Dee Fink, on "How to Create Significant Learning Experiences" (in Aspiring Academics, 2008). My work is usually outside of higher ed, and usually focuses on how to promote positive behavior changes to improve quality of life --Melissaganus (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to have more references. Hirzel 12:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The word "model" that is hyperlinked on the article tab does not lead to information about instructional design models. This needs to be corrected.
I don't agree with this part of the article: "A counterpoint to constructivism came in the late 20th century with cognitive learning theory, which provides models based on research on how the human brain processes and stores information."
As far as the discussion goes in Germany, the sequence is behaviourism (Pavlov, Watson, Skinner) - cognitivism (cognitive turn in the 60ies via the integration of cybernetic/systemic models) - constructivsism (by Maturana & Varela, Piaget, von Foerster). The sequence is moving away from the notion of an objective, normative truth, or a reality that is entirely independent from any observer (especially on the social level).
Of course there are tasks, problems and knowledge which could be tied to 'objectivity', like 'how to bind a shoelace?', 'what's the fastest and cheapest way from city A to city B?' or what's the solution to '25 + 6?'. But if you apply the idea of "There's an objective truth for every question out there", then you're on a slippery slope. Take, for example Pres. Bush: „Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. [...] We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.“ Vgl. George W. Bush (2002), „Remarks by President Bush at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy“. You can't argue with someone who claims he's in possession of the objective truth.
I recommend the lecture of Gödel, Luhmann or Whitehead and Russell. There are and always will be assertions in any given system that are beyond 'true' or 'false', depending on either a formal system of higher order or on belief.
Instructional design coordinator
If you are familiar with, or interested in this topic, please take a moment to review the new article Instructional design coordinator, it is still a draft and needs some cleaning up. Thanks! (Patrick 00:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
The statement made in the article
"Proponents suggest that it attempts to save time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix but widespread attempts to make Instructional Design a field of professional practice devoid of analytical thought have resulted in rapid protyping."
Whether accurate or not is not presented in a balanced way -- unless the author has a specific empirical study that shows that 'rapid prototyping' is devoid of analytical thought.
This is clearly an opinion with no attribution or primary source reference so it should be either rewritten or removed. 188.8.131.52 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since posting this over two months ago and as there has been no objection or discussion raised. I am removing these biased statements. 184.108.40.206 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late comment but I agree those statements were correctly removed. :-) Alex Jackl 17:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved from article - Instructional design types
Written by what appears to be one of the authors of the only source, I don't think it belongs without better sources demonstrating that this is worth including and how to include it properly.
I've gone ahead and removed it from the article. At 17:54, 4 February 2012 I had offered a version that removes what I consider the least contentious problems - the presentation of the authors names and publication year, along with a statement on their continuing work in the area. I'd hoped that it would be clear that such information is clearly not encyclopedic, and instead highly promotional. Even then, providing a bulleted list is undue weight, as may be the listing of the three models at all and the subsection itself. That still leaves the problem of presenting the information out of context with respect to other information in the article as well as other research. I'm happy to go into further detail on all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Instructional design types
Hamdani, Gharbaghi and Sharifuddin (2011)  proposed three general trends of educational design models. Instructional design Models are:
- Traditional instructional design models (ID)
- Instructional system design models (ISD)
- Constructivist instructional design models (CID or C-ID)
They also continue their future study by introducing the next generation of instructional design models as postmodern instructional design models (PID or P-ID) based on theoretical and social developments in recent decades (see following figure).
Gagné's Influence on Education Today
Gagné's Influence on Theorists
Spawned by a graduate course in the College of Education at Lehigh University, three graduate students decided to update the ADDIE model as it relates to instructional design. Fav203 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hamdani, M, Gharbaghi, & Sharifuddin, R.S (2011). Instructional Design Approaches, Types and Trends: a Foundation for Postmodernism Instructional Design, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(8): 1-7 http://www.insipub.com/ajbas/2011/August-2011/1-7.pdf