Induction Exercise

INDUCTION EXERCISE The definitions, history of the field, and core models of instructional design

For: Current Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology

Kay Miller, Ellen Reeder, Marisa Tapia

Definitions A review of instructional design texts reveals an array of definitions describing and classifying the discipline, theory, practice, implementation, as well as descriptions of content and role characteristics. In an analysis of the definition concept as identified by the committee of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), proponents are broken down. First, it should be noted that AECT’s ethical stance must be identified as this builds the moral foundation that will guide theory, its constructs and lay the ground work for a basis to practice in the discipline of instructional design. Secondly, all these terms are interconnected and similar in scope and are defined by the use of the terms by those in the field. According to AECT, the first definition of the field dealt primarily with the integration of design, delivery and effectiveness of the learning content. Additionally, the association states that technology can be used to facilitate education, enhancing ease of access to learning, as well as ease of understanding and availability. It should also be noted that the term educational technology is much more widely accepted internationally while the term instructional technology is not widely accepted. Both instructional technology and educational technology, however, can be seen as interchangeable terms, as both have the same elements and share the same concepts. Another point of view is that educational technology is geared more towards primary and secondary schools while instructional technology denotes is used in corporate training and in higher education. Instructional technology and education technology are broad terms which encompass the validity, resource allocations, applicability and overall “look” of a program with the defining perspective on outcome attainment or performance improvement. A definition of instructional design involves identifying the critical elements that promote learning. Instructional design can be said to include optimizing results of a needs assessment, planning instruction that emphasizes retention and understanding and implementation, and evaluation processes that result in outcomes necessary for a program to be deemed effective. Successful instructional design programs must contain enhanced elements to improve learner behavior or to motivate the learner. This information must be used in real-life scenarios and add to the learner’s knowledge base; the program is useless if the learner shows no change in behavior or practice. AECT’s Code of Professional Ethics identifies guidelines for acceptance of and accountability in all work in the field of instructional design. There are three components to the code. The first entails the obligation of the individual to facilitate access to materials. The second, involves a pledge to the community to ensure that all content is valid and truthful. Finally, the code calls for a professional commitment to generate research grounded in evidence and uphold content accuracy. Ultimately, the code can be viewed as a clarion call for authenticity in educational development. The Code of Professional Ethics sets the tone for identifying the essence of educational technology, instructional technology, instructional design and instructional design and technology. As the meanings of these terms can be fluid, it is necessary to define these terms clearly and identify their connections. Evolution of these concepts follows and allows for changes in learning and assessment, the identification of skills and prescription of tasks, the design and development (planning methods), the ease of access, the ease of attainment of content, and the measurable outcomes via the evaluation process, thus building on what can be deemed instructional design. Outcomes must not be overlooked in order to identify the

improvements in design quality. Resier (2006) expands on the definition of instructional design by stating that instructional design’s roots stem from a systems theory approach in which there are interconnecting factors affecting the end result. There exists a level of interdependence to ensure fluidity and continuity and to accomplish the desired outcome. Reiser also states that there should be an analysis and synthesis of information in the context of criteria to be met. This process is known as ADDIE-Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. These elements connect strategies for goal attainment and aid evaluation of the effectiveness of any given project or program. Although these elements all work together, one concept that is consistent throughout any development is revision. Continuous revision is necessary throughout the steps in the process to improve design and meet desired positive outcomes. According to Reiser (2006), there are six characteristics of instructional design. Instructional design is learner-centered, goal oriented, and applicable to the real-world scenarios; it must include a focus on outcomes that report validity and reliability, thus ensuring quality and improvement; it is empirical, and is created via a team approach. This process is quite similar to the definition identified by AECT but much more elaborate relative to systems theory in which there is more inclusivity of members and task delineation and assignment. Learner-centered instructional design is defined as instruction that is personal and individualized to the learner. Goal-centered learning involves having a desired outcome that can be attained by implementation of process in developing content. Instructional design should provide a focus on real-world performance to build on the individual’s current knowledge base so that the new knowledge can be immediately applied in real-world situations. This real-world focus must include enough detail and content in order to allow efficient and effective acquisition by the learner in a manner that is intuitive and promotes learning. Validity and reliability are essential factors for instructional design and are pertinent to outcome deliverables. Validity and reliability tools assess findings to substantiate any type of learning; however if the validity and reliability tools are not effective tools they will not generate effective outcomes. Thus, there should be a thorough assessment of the validity tool to ensure reliability of the assessment findings. The tools can be competency checklists or demonstrated validation that a skill was acquired based on the design of the instruction. Reiser defines instructional design and technology to encompass the following processes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Analysis and performance problems (assessment) Design Development Implementation Evaluation Management of the instructional process

These processes must be in place to affect resources as well as effectively improve learning and performance in all settings. In summary, despite the wide array of definitions, there exists a link among them all. The instruction being developed must be identified by a needs assessment to determine direction and development. The instruction must be self-serving, attainable, and accessible so that the learner can apply the knowledge to real-world scenarios. The instruction must be intuitive and promote

growth. The instruction must provide direction for revisions in order to fine tune what should be versus what needs to be to identify effectiveness. The revisions will ultimately provide information that generates data driven elements to promote positive outcomes. Practice guidelines should adhere to the AECT’s Code of Ethics to ensure continued development, accuracy, ethics, and authenticity. Role refinement should stay true to the constructs proposed by the AECT’s Code of Ethics. In all, data findings need to support program development that will provide quantitative measures to identify, improve and build on knowledge to support instructional design, instructional designers, educational technology, instructional technology and instructional design and technology.

History of the Field Study of the history of instructional design, or instructional development, reveals a gradual evolution and convergence of ideas over many decades. These changes resulted from a great desire to improve and expand learning capabilities and give learners the possibility of living better lives. Most scholars show the first developments toward a science of instructional design (ID) before the 1920s with a fundamental shift from phrenology and the idea that the brain is a muscle, to an empirical knowledge base for education based on E. L. Thorndike's “Laws of Learning” and the introduction of educational assessment. Influenced by the Industrial Revolution, Thorndike applied a behaviorist approach where workers and eventually students learned new behaviors through readiness, exercise (or practice), and effect. Thorndike, believing that instruction should pursue socially useful goals, built upon his theories to become an advocate of social engineering, matching society’s needs to education and developing educational assessment that connected outcomes and instruction. In the early 1900s, when schools faced criticism of inefficient practices and poor learning by students, educators enthusiastically adopted Thorndike’s scientific management as a way to improve outcomes. This standardization model remained popular into the 1990’s with school reform efforts and the call for a standardized curriculum and specific, identical student outcomes measured through extensive testing (Wiburg, 1995). During this period, the visual instruction movement blossomed with the advent of filmmaking. Classrooms incorporated the motion picture projector, with a catalog of instructional films published in 1910. The popularity of educational films led Thomas Edison to predict that “books [would] soon be obsolete in the schools.” His miscalculation foreshadowed others' reactions to new media developed in the decades that followed, with the same outcome – high enthusiasm that the technology will revolutionize learning, but ultimately resulting in little effect on changing the education process. In the 1930s, though the great depression reduced funding for education, two important developments occurred. First, new technology brought sound media to the forefront in the form of radio broadcasts, recordings, and the new “talkies.” With the introduction of sound, the visual instruction movement became known as the audiovisual movement. Second, in 1933, Ralph W. Tyler’s Eight Year Study began. The Eight Year Study clarified procedures for writing objectives and ensured that assessment of these objectives would be used to revise and refine future education programs (Shrock, 1995, p. 14).

The onset of World War II brought a tremendous instructional challenge: how to train thousands of new military recruits swiftly and with precision to master new technologies. Using the ideas generated from Thorndike, the well-funded research and development effort included leaders in the fields of psychology and education. They incorporated the use of audiovisual tools such as projectors, still photographs, audio recordings, transparencies and slides. Thousands of training films created by an ID team – often consisting of a subject matter expert, an instructional designer, and a director -- were shown repeatedly with success, reducing the need for extensive teacher preparation. Instructional technologists also introduced task analysis assessments for trainees to ensure placement in areas where they would be most likely to succeed. Task analysis requires the mastery of one skill before the student could continue on to the next. The massive R & D effort was credited with helping the U.S. win the war. After the war, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) was formed to continue the education research and development effort. Today, the AIR is one of the largest behavioral and social science research organizations in the world. Its stated mission is to conduct and apply behavioral and social science research to improve people’s lives and well being, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged. Furthering the application of scientific technique to learning, B. F. Skinner’s Programmed Instruction Movement emerged in the 1950s. Programmed Instruction shifted the focus of education away from process concerns and toward the learner's behavioral outcomes. It was characterized by clearly stated behavioral objectives, small frames of instruction, selfpacing, active learner response to inserted questions, and immediate feedback to the accuracy of the response. Programmed Instruction introduced the Systems Approach to education. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. Bloom found that most test questions students encountered required a simple recall of information -- the lowest identified level of learning. He developed a taxonomy of learning that advocated a mastery approach, the careful analysis of instructional outcomes, and the design of instruction to attain them. Classrooms had not been organized to support the individualized learning expected in programmed instruction and behavioral objectives (Wiburg, 1995). Bloom’s method proposed classroom strategies that supported conditions for mastery and individualized learning. During this time, the audio visual field expanded into educational television (ETV), augmented by the designation of educational channels by the FCC and funding by the Ford Foundation. The programming treated subjects in depth, including interviews with people of literary and historical importance. The programming was also noted for being dry and academic, with little entertainment value. Slow to develop, ETV, failed to build a popular following and thus, had little impact on national education. The launch of Soviet Sputnik, however, had great impact, spurring another educational crisis along with the next evolution of ID: a shift away from instructional programs to designing an entire curriculum (Leigh, 1998). The launch began the space race, and caused the federal government to re-evaluate the success of current education programs, especially in science and math. Because of the research spurred by Sputnik launch, the 1960s proved to be a decade of burgeoning growth for ID. The Federal Government supported development through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and the US Office of Education funding of the Instructional Development Institutes to train public school teachers in ID.

During this great developmental push, previous approaches of system development, task analysis, and behavioral objectives coalesced to form an identifiable field of ID referred to as an instructional systems approach. Robert Gagné, in The Conditions of Learning, first published in 1965, identified the mental conditions needed for learning, expanding the area of learning objectives for ID. Gagné described the teaching activities essential to reach learning outcomes and promoted a hierarchy of skills and task analysis. A refinement of evaluation procedures also took place. Susan Markle recommended rigorous evaluation and feedback both during and after the design process. This refinement led to a shift from norm-referenced tests that compared a student’s performance against the performance of other students, to criterion-referenced testing that measured the student’s mastery of skills individually. Criterion-referenced testing remains prominent today (Shrock, 1995). Another important trend in the evolution of ID that began in the 1960s was the broadening of the AV field beyond a concern about technological products. Media specialists worked to widen the field to include the design of instructional messages, thus creating the field of instructional development and technology (Shrock). The 1970s saw more consolidation of the field and further development of the systems approach, as well as the introduction of the needs assessment. The number of ID models significantly increased. Several branches of the U.S. military adopted ID for training. Colleges opened instructional improvement centers to help faculty integrate media and ID into classrooms, and ID graduate degree programs spread across university campuses. In the 1980s, budget cuts caused a downward trend of ID at college level. However, the use of ID for business skyrocketed, resulting in the development of formal education and training departments. The popularity of personal computers led to development of computer-based instruction. Schools’ use of computers in classrooms boomed, but the computers tended to be used primarily for word processing. ID research showed little impact in K-12 classrooms. Starting in the 1990s, educators saw a need to teach the person as well as the content, to go beyond over-reliance on objectives and outcomes. Constructivism, the learning theory that human beings gain knowledge from experiences, seemed to solve this problem. As opposed to the behaviorist perspective where learning became a reaction to stimulus, response, and reinforcement, constructivism's central idea is that human learning is constructed, that learners build new knowledge upon experience. Learners actively construct new knowledge rather than passively receiving information from teachers. Rapid development during the last two decades in computer, internet and other digital technologies has led to growth in distance learning at the university level, in businesses, and in the military. In previous years, through films, audio, and educational TV, learners could interact only with the educational content. Now, with easy access to computers, interactive capabilities with chat rooms, and relatively inexpensive meeting software, learners can interact with the instructor and other learners, with almost unlimited access to information through research databases, wikis, Google and Google Scholar, and other tools. Constructivist teachers are more likely to have students use the internet than traditional teachers, according to Hank Becker’s 1998 Teaching, Learning and Computing study. As stated above, technology provides students with almost unlimited access to information for research and idea testing. It allows students to make presentations to broader audiences and also exposes them to feedback from a more diverse group of people in the real world beyond the classroom, school and local community - all conditions optimal for constructivist learning, according to Becker’s study.

In the past, media had little impact on learning, according to research. But new technology facilitated by computers and constructivism as stated above has helped fill the need for access to courses that might not be readily available to students who live too far away, or for busy adults who have limited time for learning. If instructional strategies are developed to integrate these technologies properly, they will have a lasting, if constantly evolving, impact on education

Core Models of Instructional Design Many instructional design models have been developed in past decades. The two presented below, Gerlach and Ely's systematic approach and John M. Keller's ARCS, are by no means an exhaustive representation. The two models do, however, represent attempts to incorporate complex issues and techniques into instructional design: technology and media in the case of Gerlach and Ely, and motivation in the case of ARCS. Gerlach and Ely Instructional System Design The design model developed by Vernon Gerlach and Donald Ely (1971) is an example of an ISD, or instructional system design. ISD's are prescriptive models which generally involve an assessment of the learner's needs, a determination of the lesson objectives and the development of a strategy to meet the objectives. Gerlach and Ely's model, though based on the well-known ADDIE model, was novel at the time for the integration of technological media into instructional design. Gerlach and Ely assert that only clearly defined learning objectives could achieve that integration effectively. They made their appeal largely to (presumably younger) teachers who wanted to be “different” or ground breaking (Gerlach and Ely, 1971, p.2). The Gerlach and Ely model consists of 10 steps, beginning with the specification of content and objectives, followed by an assessment of what the students already know, which determines how the instruction is set up. Finally, the students' performance is evaluated and outcomes are analyzed in light of the intended outcomes. The first step is the Specification of Content. Simply put, in this step, the instructor determines what the lesson will be about. In the next step, the Specification of Objectives, the teacher determines what students should be able to do at the end of the lesson. Gerlach and Ely's description of the second step is quite detailed, as the ultimate design of the lesson will depend largely on the what the objectives are determined to be. Gerlach and Ely use five categories of Objectives identified by the Classroom Learning Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (p80): 1) Identify (for example, in a lesson about dogs: which dog is a Dalmatian?) 2) Name (this dog is a Dalmatian) 3) Describe (what does a Dalmatian look like?) 4) Order (list dogs from biggest to smallest: Dalmatian, Chihuahua, German shepherd) 5) Construct (draw a picture of a Dalmatian). There are four criteria for determining objectives. Criteria must 1) be stated in terms of learned behavior, 2) describe an observable performance or product, 3) state the condition of performance and 4) state the standard of performance (p 79). Gerlach and Ely's model is concerned with two kinds of behavior: first is the ability to make a new response or behave differently in a familiar context. The second is the ability to use existing behaviors in a new

context (p 43-44). Step three is the Assessment of Entering Behaviors. In this step, the instructor gathers information about the student awareness of or experience with the subject. This might take the form of a survey or a pre-test, for example. Step four is the Determination of Strategy, in which the teacher decides the form the lesson will take, be it a lecture, field trip, interactive media, demonstration, and so on. Step five is the Organization of Groups. Students can work individually, in small or large groups (no more than 15). Students can also be grouped by characteristics, such as ability or interest (p 244). Steps six and seven are the Allocation of Time and the Allocation of Space, respectively. Step eight is the Selection of Resources, in which the teacher determines which tools students will use to complete the lesson. Steps four through eight are interdependent. If there is only one computer in the classroom, for example, students will not be able to work in small groups or individually if the lesson requires a computer. Steps nine and ten examine the results of the lesson. In step nine, the Evaluation of Performance, the teacher determines whether the students met the criteria established in step two. Step ten is the Analysis of Feedback: based on the evaluation in step nine, was the lesson plan effective? Although the Gerlach and Ely model addresses the problem of incorporating new technology into instruction, there are criticisms of their approach. For example, critics say that the model is instructor-centered, rather than learner-centered. The model also uses summative, rather than formative evaluation. In other words, the lesson progresses to completion before the efficacy of the lesson is evaluated(Ledford and Sleeman, 2000). While the Gerlach and Ely model is strictly technical in its approach to instructional design, the ARCS model looks at factors that engage the learner to make instruction more effective from a psychological standpoint. John M. Keller ARCS Instructional Theory ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction) is an example of an instructional theory, meaning that it details how the learning environment might be developed to optimize the learning experience. When John Keller began studying motivation in the 1970's, educational psychology was mainly concerned with differences in relationship of learner ability to performance outcomes (Smith and Ragan, 1999). ARCS seeks to rectify this by identifying factors that affect student motivation to learn, independent of ability or prior knowledge of the subject matter. ARCS is not necessarily intended for use as a distinct system for instructional design, but can be used in conjunction with other systems. Keller's model identifies four categories that affect motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. Within each category, Keller also identifies five or six strategies for optimizing that factor. Each of the categories can be refined further into three types of strategies: Attention – Perceptual Arousal, Inquiry Arousal, Variability; Relevance – Goal Orientation, Motive Matching, Familiarity; Confidence – Learning Requirements, Success Opportunities, Personal Control; Satisfaction – Intrinsic Reinforcement, Extrinsic Reinforcement, Equity.

Attention

Relevance

Confidence

Satisfaction

Incongruity and conflict

Experience

Learning requirements

Natural consequences

– new information is

- prior knowledge of subject matter

- students should clearly know what is being taught and have all resources

- positive consequences are intrinsic to learning

Concreteness

Present worth

Difficulty

Unexpected rewards

– information is consistent with the learner's reality

- the student requires or desires the knowledge now

- challenging, but not too difficult

- incentives are given at unpredictable intervals

Variability

Future usefulness

Expectations

Positive outcomes

- changes in delivery, or medium of instruction

- the student is aware of a need or desire for the knowledge in the future

- students should have realistic and positive expectations for success

- praise, attention, helpful feedback, etc.

Humor

Need matching

Attributions

Avoidance of negative influences

- relevant jokes, humorous analogies

- allows learners to take risks, assume responsibility or leadership roles, cooperative interaction

- students should be able to attribute their success to their own effort.

- don't use threats to inhibit poor performance

Inquiry

Modeling

Self-confidence

Scheduling

- learner is engaged in problem solving

- role models, such as teachers, alumni, leaders within the group of learners

- allow students to increase knowledge or independence

- reinforcements should be unpredictable, unexpected

Participation

Choice

- presentation of information involves interactivity (games, simulations, etc)

- allow students to pursue their work in the manner of their choice

unexpected given the learner's experience

ARCS also contains a process model to help incorporate motivation into design using four phases: Define, Design, Develop and Evaluate. Define in this instance means to ask: can

motivational problems be solved using the tools offered by the ARCS model? The steps in the Define phase are: classify the problem, analyze audience motivation and prepare motivational objectives (in other words, determine what the student should be able to do at the end of the lesson). The Design phase has two steps: generate potential strategies and select strategies. In the Develop phase, the instructor creates new or adjusts existing plans and gathers materials. The Develop phase involves preparing motivational elements and integrating those elements with instruction. The Evaluate phase involves a developmental tryout (of materials and procedures) and an assessment of motivational outcomes. Critics note what they call the “oversimplification” of human motivation, saying that ARCS does not address individual perceptions of competence, causes of success or failure and so on (Hardre & Miller, 2006). However, ARCS was the first model to address motivation in learning at all, and it remains the central model for that purpose.

RESOURCES Definitions - Januszewski, Molenda & Harris Shrock, Sharon A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. Anglin (Ed.) , Instructional technology: past, present, and future (pp. 11-19). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Wiburg, Karin M. (1995). An historical perspective on instructional design: Is it time to exchange Skinner’s teaching machine for Dewey’s toolbox? Retrieved on August 26, 2009 from Internet Time Group Web site: http://internettime.com/itimegroup/Is%20it%20Time%20to %20Exchange%20Skinner's%20Teaching%20Machine%20for%20Dewey's.htm History of the Field A hypertext history of instructional design. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from University of Houston College of Education Web site: www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html Becker, Henry J., Ravitz, Jason L., & Wong, YanTien (1998). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 Survey Report #4. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445657). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ Leigh, Douglas (1998). A brief history of instructional design. Retrieved on August 26, 2009 from Performance Improvement Global Network Web site: www.pigncispi.com/articles/education/brief%20history.htm Shrock, Sharon A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. Anglin (Ed.) , Instructional technology: past, present, and future (pp. 11-19). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Wiburg, Karin M. (1995). An historical perspective on instructional design: Is it time to exchange Skinner’s teaching machine for Dewey’s toolbox? Retrieved on August 26, 2009 from Internet Time Group Web site: http://internettime.com/itimegroup/Is%20it%20Time%20to %20Exchange%20Skinner's%20Teaching%20Machine%20for%20Dewey's.htm Core Models Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1971). Teaching and Media: A systematic approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hardre, P.L & Miller, R.B. (2006). Toward a current, comprehensive, integrative and flexible model of motivation for instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 19(3), 27-53.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivation design. Journal of Instructional Development 10(3), 2-10. Ledford, B.R. & Sleeman, P.J. (2000). Instructional Design: A primer. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Smith, P.L., & Ragan T.J. (1999). Instructional Design (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc.