This link has been bookmarked by 25 people . It was first bookmarked on 20 Jan 2009, by Christy Tucker.
-
17 Dec 10
-
09 Mar 10
-
There's one model, ADDIE, that pretty much sums it all up, and any other ID model that anyone comes up with is basically ADDIE rebranded
-
with all the process that instructional designers have developed to guide our practice, the irony is WE DON'T FOLLOW IT. Let's be honest, the first things that go in the ADDIE model are the A and the E, arguably the most important steps in the whole process.
-
And evaluation? Evaluation of learning effectiveness is not just an assessment at the end of an e-learning module, and any ID worth his or her salt knows that
-
How often do we get any data on the effectiveness of our learning solutions? How often do we include that data collection as part of our process is the real question. Yes, measuring ROI is hard. It requires work, and analysis, and reflection on all of the factors that can contribute to learning outcomes. Let's be honest. If we're doing our jobs up front, we are identifying learning objectives that are measurable.
-
we should be encouraging academia to be doing research to show which strategies are most effective for different types of learning needs.
-
all it education or instructional design...its all learning. So where do ID's fall short? To a certain extent, its following the "process" too closely. People are complex, learning is complex, motivation is complex--and no process is going to address all of these complexities. Good IDs know this and aren't afraid to go "off the reservation" when they need to.
-
designing effective, motivating learning is actually really hard. It means that instructional designers need to be really good critical thinkers. It means that as a profession, instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.
-
-
08 Feb 10
-
18 Nov 09
-
17 Nov 09
-
16 Nov 09
-
07 Nov 09
-
05 Nov 09
-
30 Sep 09
-
20 Sep 09
-
16 Aug 09
-
31 Mar 09
-
02 Feb 09
-
01 Feb 09
-
Maybe the real learning need has been identified, and maybe the appropriate solution has been decided upon--but MAYBE NOT
-
If we're doing our jobs up front, we are identifying learning objectives that are measurable. Even better, we're identifying measurable performance objectives too. Did I mention that we should be doing this UP FRONT? Its a whole lot easier to measure improvement in something if you have a baseline measure, and set the expectation that the learning you are designing is intended to improve that baseline measure.
-
instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.
-
-
27 Jan 09
-
21 Jan 09
-
20 Jan 09
Christy TuckerOne instructional designer's reflections on the problems in the field, including an over-reliance on systematic processes and an under-reliance on actual research
-
Basically, ID as it is currently taught is just following the process, step by step. It's not rocket science. What IS rocket science (or at least a lot harder) is to figure out how to apply process with the endless number of variables that affect any learning need. This is where ID falls short. Instructional designers in too many instances are so tied to the models and the process that the variables and subtleties of good design are sacrificed.
-
Call it education or instructional design...its all learning. So where do ID's fall short? To a certain extent, its following the "process" too closely. People are complex, learning is complex, motivation is complex--and no process is going to address all of these complexities. Good IDs know this and aren't afraid to go "off the reservation" when they need to. Most IDs don't.
-
Ok, so what does this all mean? It means that designing effective, motivating learning is actually really hard. It means that instructional designers need to be really good critical thinkers. It means that as a profession, instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.More than anything, if instructional design is going to survive and thrive as a profession, we need to be leaders--leaders in research, leaders in our organizations, and leaders in our field, not accepting the mediocre. Otherwise, instructional design is dead.
-
-
17 Jan 09
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.