Friday, January 16, 2009

Instructional design is dead

Let me start by saying that for many, many years, my title was some variation of "Instructional Designer." And so, its with some amount of hesitance that I say that the field of instructional design is, well, crap.


I'm not a traditional instructional designer, having a Master's degree in education instead of instructional design or instructional technology. I somehow backed my way into instructional design, working in a whole department of instructional designers in my first ID job. Some of those IDs are among the most brilliant people I have known and worked with, and it was an honor to have the opportunity to cut my ID chops in such talented company.

That said, I immediately noticed some problems with the field of instructional design and more importantly, in how instructional designers are "trained." So, although there are definitely instructional designers out there that are talented and know what they are doing, my experience is that they are few and far between. There are many, many other instructional designers who are a product of how instructional design is taught and marketed, and its killing the art of instructional design as a respected, professional expertise.

There are many reasons why instructional design has become a bit of a joke. Among them:
  • Instructional design relies too much on process: there's nothing wrong with having guidelines for design. Let's be honest. 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. Looking for some examples? Here are just a few: Dick & Carey, ASSURE, MRK, Knirk & Gustafson. Not only does ID have a process for the overall stages of ID, but each step in the ADDIE model has specific process around it. 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.
  • Instructional design doesn't follow process enough: Ok, so to immediately contradict myself, 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. In most corporate settings, people other than IDs determine what the learning needs are of the organization and what should be done about it. They bring these projects to the instructional designers to design and develop, and like sheep, instructional designers comply. Where is the analytical step in that? Maybe the real learning need has been identified, and maybe the appropriate solution has been decided upon--but MAYBE NOT. We do ourselves a disservice any time we become corporate order-takers and passively accept the conclusions of others. 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. 
  • Lack of ROI measurements as a rigorous part of our practice: I was lucky enough to work with a company recently that provided me with sales results after a huge training event that we could ALMOST draw a direct correlation between the training and the results. 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. 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 will be taken a lot more seriously if we show our value. Which leads to...
  • Lack of research to show learning effectiveness: Not only should we be examining the effectiveness of our projects, but we should be encouraging academia to be doing research to show which strategies are most effective for different types of learning needs. Its nice to toot our own horns, but its even nicer if unbiased third parties are showing how effective we are. We should be encouraging this type of research whenever possible. We should be opening up our process for rigorous review. If we are learning professionals, let's lead by being open to learn what's effective about what we're doing and what's not. 
  • Instructional design ignores context: This was the first observation I made when I started working as an ID, and I'm sorry to say my opinion hasn't changed. I had been teaching at a charter school in Philly before my first ID job, and I brought with me many of the skills and perspectives that teachers employ to develop engaging curriculum. I joke sometimes that I've designed learning for the toughest audience I can think of: inner city eighth graders. You won't find a more challenging and skeptical audience. You have to design to motivate and keep in mind both the learning environment in the classroom and the influencing factors outside of the classroom. This is no different than designing learning for adults. 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.
  • Perception is reality: This is really just my fancy way of saying that I truly believe people learn constructively, based of their previous experiences and previously held beliefs. All things that aren't really taken into consideration in much of the ID process. How people experience any learning event depends on what they bring to it. Too few IDs acknowledge that and try to build a common experience and frame of reference for the learning experience.
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.

33 comments:

  1. What a great way to start the new year - challenge the profession! Unfortunately, I can't say that I disagree with you. After (dare I say it) nearly 20 years in the ID profession I see many of the same issues you've posted while looking at a number of the ID projects going on around me. And it gets worse every year.

    Now with that said, I'm not sure where to place 'blame.' Many of the IDs I know are as brilliant as those you mention in your post. I fear, however, that they feel trapped - under the business gun to produce a solution quickly, even though they know it is but a band-aid. If they don't comply, the business is likely to find someone who will. Time is our enemy.

    Ignorance is also an enemy. As a profession I feel we have done little to educate the business leaders about the value of ID (or even design in general). Some get it, but most still view training as the group you call on to create a class. They call us after the systems have been designed, or the new organizational structure has been determined. While we may have a 'seat at the table,' it generally comes along too late to influence any decisions. We need to be at the table the moment the initiative begins, and we need to have a say.

    Too often we continue to provide our business leaders with measures that highlight training volume, not effectiveness. As you (and countless others have stated) our ROI metrics tend to be internally focused, not based on actual business impact.

    If we are to survive as a profession we need to finally get past these obstacles. Since I started in this profession we've talked about our position in the organization and of showing the impact of learning (just check out your latest version of Training magazine, or T&D, or Performance - then compare it to an issue of the publication 5, 10, or 15 years ago. What's changed?). Why are we still talking about this? Why can't we change? Are we just too stubborn? Too scared?

    We need people with ID experience to become business leaders - not just 'training' leaders. We need to influence the decisions from the inside.

    We also need to be faster. Our processes do get in the way. But that doesn't dismiss their value. We need processes and tools that will help us meet short business demands, yet not ignore the value of the A and the E.

    I think we also need to stop thinking singularly - as learning as an event. If the business tells us we have 30 days before a new system goes live, why do we continue to try and create an event that must be delivered and consumed within that time? Let's start looking for ways to design learning as the process it should be.

    Thanks for initiating such a thought provoking conversation. Hopefully you'll get comments from many other people that will help resuscitate the profession.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice summary of the issues, Koreen, disheartening though it may seem. But I wonder if we are expecting too much of ADDIE. It's just a model, a product of the behavioural and cognitive approaches to learning that dominated the second half of the last century. And it worked well to help structure the content of learning. Models are suppose to help, not hinder us. Since then, we've seen huge leaps in our understanding of how the brain and memory work, and some smaller ones in how people interact with one another. Our tools should evolve with the challenges we face. If social interaction, negotiation and context are becoming more important in a global information age, then we need to have model that reflects this. It's actually an exciting time to be involved in learning, wouldn't you say? Not disheartening at all.

    Shanta

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi koreen!
    I've written about this before as well. I like your summary better;-)
    My humble opinion is the profession will not change until people stop hiring ISDs. There is no value-add in having someone that ONLY does ISD. That's called a Project Manager.
    The points you mention are write on the money.
    Looking forward to seeing you in Vegas.
    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny, I followed a couple of links to get here, immediately after writing a post in my own blog titled "Is ADDIE Dead?"

    I agree with much of what you say. My take is that ADDIE was developed in Academia not business; it's a useful framework; but it has to be adapted to the realities and constraints of business (hence your "We Don't Use It" point).

    Still, I've learned a lot about learning by studying ID.

    I believe, perforce, the whole training/ID field is evolving away from "designing instruction" to learning how to "facilitate learning." I see that as our challenge in the years ahead.

    - Jack Massa

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not an instructional designer. Actually I was once a Civil Engineer and now I develop online courses. I sometimes describe myself as an "educational engineer". I use knowledge and technology to solve problems in education and training. I came across ADDIE after I had been developing courses for a number of years and you're right: it's not rocket science. But it is a nice checklist. There is still plenty of need for the 'instructional designer' if that is what you choose to call yourself (Or even myself). Concentrate on defining problems, devising solutions, evaluating your success against your original objectives and modifying your strategies with that information. ADDIE is just a handy framework to hang all this on. The important thing is your knowledge (of people, learning, technology and techniques)and your ingenuity.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  6. To start at the beginning, the problem is not with instructional design, but with the product. We have a poor product because we do not measure quality.

    I have never seen an organization with too much process. AT&T has the most elaborate and constricting process I've seen, but it still leaves considerable room for creativity. Most organizations leave design to instructional designers and fail to impose sufficient order through basic standards.

    The biggest problem in instructional design is in the corporate model. Corporate's isolated learners get the least from the product.

    The biggest problem I've seen with the academic product is with the training and oversight of course facilitators.

    As long as we have a burgeoning demand for learning, both academic and corporate, there will be life in the instructional design profession. It may be dysfunctional, but it will exist. If you will observe the course designed by the SME, you'll see what I mean.

    Thomas Garrod, M.Ed.
    Instructional Designer/eLearning Developer

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, I should also note that the problem is with management. Too many learning managers are trainers with no understanding of digital presentation, process design, standards, or cognitive learning methods.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you all so much for this conversation's candor. I'm just starting out as a late learner in education tech and e learning and have a teaching background. Glad to hear the field is veering towards understanding the learner. Keep posting!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I dismissed my first read of this article as another attempt to bring down the ID profession, but found myself thinking about it. Many have made negative comments about the PPT 2 Web demands that are passed on as effective e-learning tools. I have yet to see any PPT that has clear, concise and complete thoughts that can translate into eye-catching bullet items.

    Another push I am witnessing is this insane activity of over-the-shoulder, capture my computer screen, videos. At best, these videos are unscripted snippets of corporate practices but lack coherency and direction.

    And so I fall back to my ID experience and wait for this e-learning industry to come back to where I am...and yet I am still waiting. Is it possible that the ID's unforgiving processes and these other rapid learning tools are just the opposite pendulum swing, both forgetting that at the center of the learning experience is an employee/student who wants to be effective in his/her job?

    After relooking at the thousands of digital pages I have produced and compared the student responses, as well as the production increases reported by the companies, my successful e-learning contents had some things in common: the best e-learning courses offered multiple versions of the same materials that addressed the employee's post environment, included real world sample data and allowed them to start the course at their current level of experience. Companies were also offered ROI measurements, even if it was nothing more than testing the employee's retention and following up to see if the employee increased their production rate since the completion of the course.

    Maybe it is time to start moving to the center where the real learning is needed and where it should occur. Koreen...I just became a fan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who in this crowd has formal, academic training as an Instructional Designer? That's right - not one person.
    Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Suzann, my opinions have been formed by working with a multitude of formally trained, academic instructional designers. Dismissing others opinions out of hand supports my view of the problems in this field. If you won't listen and be open to the experiences and viewpoints of others, then there truly is no hope of moving *our* profession forward.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh! Oh! Hey Suzann, I have!. The Master's program at Boise State. And so lemme flip the question - how many people here have actually taught? Consumed the very instruction they created? had any formal training in 'design'? How about read Foucault? How about understand the power structures that are embedded in something liek Instructional Design methodology? How about have done ANY independent research at all on something like the history of the classroom? How about thought about the design implications of using some of the tools we use? Considered the political millieu in Vygotsky was steeped when he did his major work? How about-who understands or has any formal training in neuroscience? Behavioral Economics? ENOUGH SAID

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've always wondered how many courses in a graduate program on Instructional Design are developed using ID! In my experience, college courses are not created with any sense of ID; instead, accredidation requirements drive content or textbooks do (oy vey).

    For full disclosure (LOL): masters in English, not ID; yes, I have taught for 10 years; worked as ID for 3 years (classroom and elearning); and I have taught courses designed by others!; most recently designed a course on Captivate and taught it successfully more than once.

    I think the focus is on Analysis. We must lay it down that we know training better than SMEs. I know it's a battle.

    Armed with a content-performance matrix, we should be able to recommend (dictate) the most optimal training, write measurable learning objectives, and design flexible courses that work in medias res (people do learn constructively) because starting with background is a killer.

    Oh, and not every course will please everyone. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear everyone

    Clearly I am a novice at blogging as this is my second attempt to enter a comment...

    I have read all the comments to date, and I am cringing at the likely knowledge base of people who make comments like "instructional design is dead"? This is not a constructive comment and suggests that people should re-examine their own processes and content, rather that make broad statements - possibly with the purpose of stirring up comment (and maybe the cynic in me suggests, business??)??

    I do have a formal qualification, PhD, in "instructional design" from an education background - NOT from a business background. I am very much a latecomer to the business world as I work mostly in schools designing materials for classrooms that actually work.

    Most people I know who claim to be instructional designers in the business world have come to their role through either training or IT - and I don't believe these roles provide sufficient knowledge of what instructional design is about? Before I began my doctoral research, I completed a short, formal course in business. I had been through some personal problems in my life, and this was my strategy to get my "head back into gear". I attended for about 90 minutes, for about 7-8 weeks, and at the end I was a formal workplace trainer and assessor. I did NOT complete one piece of reading, nor was I in a workplace (though I was teaching in a classrom at the time) and I don't believe I had the required knowledge to be a workplace trainer - and yet I had the piece of paper?

    The knowledge I used was from my Masters degree - and, since then, I have completed doctoral research and continue to research as I develop new materials for both schools and businesses.

    I use a version of the ADDIE model, however mine is never ending - and it involves measurable outcomes. I believe that ADDIE should be continuous - there are always new ways to improve any training program - and it doesn't matter whether the learning is happening in a school, workplace, on a computer screen or in a parent's lap - the same effective principles are generic.ADDIE is a poor relative of a model compared to models that work and have a substantial evidence base in special education... My readings of ADDIE suggest to me that it had been adapted then adopted by some business academics - so yes, it is an academic model, based on theory. However, across the corridor in education, those theories have evidence that they work.

    This is not a question about balance between content and process - BOTH are critical - and I agree with the need to provide observable measures - how else will you know that your training has achieved the goal?

    As for the practicalities of e-learning - I would highly recommend Tom who runs "The Rapid E-learning Blog" - his regular email bulletins take theory and problems and provide practical real world solutions - on-line!! (Thanks Tom!)

    I also agree that many courses, at every level, provide theory in isolation - without application and there needs to be more of a focus of applying theory, to either prove or disprove effectiveness!

    Best of luck to all instructional designers - I hope you keep on learning yourselves - even after years of research, doctoral study etc, I am STILL learning - that's the joy of instructional design (as I know it) - there is always a new learner, a new context, and a new way of presenting different content - the puzzle and skill of instructional design is making all the pieces fit together - whether it's on a screen or in person - content and presentation together make the learning either happen or fail!!

    I hope to keep learning and designing learning materials for a long time yet, and as long as I keep learning (and I am just one person) then my version of "instructional design" will never be dead!
    cheers
    Gail

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gail, although you chose to open your comments with an insult directed at me personally, I commend you taking the time to comment on this post. Despite what you might perceive to be as my lack of a "knowledge base," the truth is I've worked with hundreds of instructional designers in dozens of different organizations and it is from those interactions that I have become disillusioned with the field as it is currently seen in practice. What I find interesting in your post is that you refer to "my version of instructional design" and you note that you have a mixed experience of both academics and practical application that inform your work. I don't know you, but what you describe is a much more relevant preparation to being successful as an instructional designer than what most IDs receive.

    And one more comment, in my defense, as you clearly haven't met me...my blog is my collection of my thoughts on a variety of topics and experiences related to learning, starting a business, and the variety of obstacles I've faced in my entrepreneurial quests. I'm sometimes too passionate and sometimes too honest. I hope that anyone who reads my blog gets something from it...but that's not the point. I blog to reflect, and for no other purpose. I'm sure if my intent in blogging was to make money, I could find a variety of more effective ways to do so :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Koreen

    I apologise - NONE of what I said was directed to any individual person - just to the some statements that have been made by several people - so I am really sorry that I have offended you - that was NOT my purpose... (I think I said "people"). This was not meant to attack anyone, nor to cause grief - I thought I had been careful to only use my own personal examples? So, I hope you will accept my apologies??

    I am aware that different people, with different backgrounds can sometimes make claims about things - and try to use blogs in different ways - sometimes for personal gain. I was NOT directing this at anyone in particular - though I acknowledge that some blogs are personal reflection - I would also suggest that others are not for that purpose?

    I don't really do blogs, though on this occasion I was quite stunned at the broad claim of "instructional design is dead" - I guess (knowing that this is your personal reflection) you probably were having a bad time back then??

    I also thought that I was supporting the idea that the field of "instructional design" is in need of better training itself - and used my own personal experience to support what I had said.

    Again, my apologies, this was NOT directed at any single person - and there are several people that agree on this topic with the points that Koreen has made. My purpose was to provide a different spin, defending the field of "instructional design" (as I know it) - and I believe that I can only control what I do and say - so I only spoke from my perspective. I don't have 20 years experience in business - and I openly admit that.

    I can only agree with an adapted version of Eric's closure - and that is that not everyone will agree and not everyone will be happy about what others say.

    And thanks to Koreen, I am still learning - and, from this experience, I have learned that some people use blogs for their own personal reflection - and I had only really seen blogs that were intended for a more cynical purpose until now!

    Best wishes, and apologies again, Koreen,
    cheers
    Gail
    ps Koreen, I am based in Sydney, Australia - and maybe one day if you travel this way or I travel again to anywhere near Philadelphia - I hope that we might just meet - and I think we would have some GREAT discussions!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have gone through your site information and it is the same opportunity that I was looking for. The facilities, the process that what you are
    offering are perfectly matched to my Expectation & very soon you will get Response from my side.

    Masters Degree

    ReplyDelete
  20. Koreen, I see that you have some good arguments for getting rid of bad instructional design. I think we need more instructional design, not less. I will comment briefly on some of your points.

    I’m a great fan of the ADDIE process model. Like all good process models, you can follow it slavishly or use it with a good measure of maturity and business sense. I see the same with other project management process models. The model is only as good as the skills you have to apply it.

    Re the Analysis phase, the person doing the analysis does not need to be the ID for it to be a good analysis. And for a large project with specialist roles, I wouldn’t want the ID to be doing the analysis.

    Re ROI, not every training program is amenable to an ROI study. To do that for every program would be incredibly expensive. I have argued long and hard that we should be doing much, much more than the typical Level 1 evaluation. I even wrote a toolkit for conducting evaluations. And yes, ID should be involved in the evaluation exercise.

    I am surprised to see you write that there is a dearth of research on learning. For example, Gagne had done research for what, three decades, before he died. The behaviorists, instructivists, social constructivists, cognitivists, etc, have been doing research and battling it out since the 1950s. The problem is not so much that there is a lack of research, it’s that we are not applying what we know.

    Koreen, I think you put in a good case for getting rid of poor ID. But ID is and should be here for a long time. Think of the opposite; a reductio ad absurdum if you will. What would we do without ID? Instructional Stab in the Dark, or Instructional Lucky Dip?

    Leslie Allan
    Author: Training Evaluation Toolkit
    http://www.businessperform.com/training-evaluation-toolkit
    http://www.businessperform.com/twitter
    http://www.businessperform.com/facebook

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Koreen,

    Like you and many other educational technologists, I am rather dissatisfied with the field. In an attempt to get to the root of the problem, I am currently researching and writing my 2nd book entitled "Educational Technology: The Science of Mediocrity".

    I am taking the view that as a technology, instructional design is informed by rather poor science and the descriptive learning theories that support it.

    I would very much like to interview you for my research. I will attempt to contact you through your company, but you may also contact me through my publishing company, Acorda Press (www.acordapress.com)

    I am also seeking other professionals who are willing to go on record with a critical view of the profession.

    Best Regards,

    Ray Taylor, author of Learning After the End of Knowledge

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't give much weight to a degree in instructional design.

    I got a MA in Adult Ed. and Communications Tech. from Indiana Univ. of PA back in Summer 2001 and even did additional coursework in what I hoped would be a better program at Philadelphia University. The Philadelphia University program was discontinued and the one I graduated from only offers the program at a satellite campus. Most graduate programs in Instructional Design are only adequate for people who already have job experience in training and instructional design, but who want to increase there credentials and pay-scale by obtaining a MA or MS in instructional design. Furthermore, if you are not a web developer, multimedia developer, computer programmer, or a teacher, there are not very many programs that are going to give you any where near the skills you will need to enter the profession of instructional design. Most industry training is done via web applications and multimedia and most instructional design programs only touch the tip of the iceberg of that skill set. I do fear that you may ending up ripped-off and let down by the state in which you receive your degree. The state should not give accreditation to many instructional design programs unless they only agree to admit those who have work experience instructional design or highly-related job or educational experience such as that in IT (Information Technology) or teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous, I don't know if I agree about the necessity for job experience...IF the graduate programs actually provided the opportunity to design and deliver real work. My experience is that most don't, although I'm seeing more internship requirements, and I think that's a good thing.

    I do think the quality issue you're referring to is absolutely valid, and anyone who actually does decide to pursue an instructional design degree should really do their research. There are some programs with good reputations, but they are few and far between.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear Koreen, it's almost 3 years since you have initiated this thread and still people (e.g., me) are stumbling upon this and finding it yet sincere to talk of. So, let me too stab on it!

    ID job pays the bills, but none of us certainly do not want to "live in the age of the overworked, and the undereducated; the age in which people are so industrious that they become absolutely stupid" (Oscar Wilde in 'The Critic as Artist').

    I do agree that a formal education in ID "might" provide exposure to design models, various types of skill development, and achievement of a generally accepted set of competencies as stated by the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI).

    But, what takes everyone by surprise on entering the job field are the "Unconventional Roles and Activities" expected from the IDs (Contemporary Educational Technology, 2010, 1(2), 134-147). These roles and activities often make one wonder, "What am I doing as an ID? Where have learning and learner disappeared?"

    Added to this despair are the commands like, "The client is not either asking for or paying the price of Monalisa. So, just do it!" With no reasonable time given for "reflection of thoughts" and with cost factor, targets, deadlines, break-up of ADDIE between offshore and onshore global teams, the entire functioning is no less similar to a loony bin.

    So, is this "stumbling upon" all about chastising the ID practices? Certainly, not! In fact, as I see it, this "reflection" is triggering the need for global quality standards (is there one already?) on "evaluating" the ADDIE/learning processes followed by each institution (if ADDIE really ensures a better design as well as facilitation of instruction).

    Also, as ID models are highly suggestive (not "prescriptive"), it might augur well for the ID profession to demand/gather empirical evidence for "What worked" and "What did not" because of the delivered Instruction Design. This way, the ID discussions/(squabbles?) may transcend from "what I think or what you think" to "What the objective science asserts".

    ReplyDelete
  29. This has been one interesting read! As a middle school teacher with degrees in technical writing and school administration, I am hoping to enter the field of ID as I find that designing unit plans and strategies for school improvement and then evaluating their effectiveness is what brings me joy. Educational politics is killing the public school system and I no longer want to be a part of it. Are you all willing to share with me a list of books or online resources that successful IDs should read? What literature and etools have you found to be invaluable? Which should be "required" learnings for IDs? I cannot afford to enroll in any sort of formal training right now, so I am looking to engage in an independent study of sorts until my finances permit me to reenroll.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This, as one can expect, creates many challenges in terms of usability, accessibility, layout and navigation for news site designers.
    κατασκευή eshop

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm sorry if anyone already said this...didn't get to read all the comments. I think what the article suggests that a truly good ID should do are nice to haves but not always realistic. Depending on who you work for or who your clients are, there may not always be allotted time to do the heavy A and E pieces of the training. This is especially true of implementation projects. Maybe there are steps in the ADDIE model that don't necessarily meet the needs of the business and at the end of the day that's what counts even more so than the learners do unfortunately. Sometimes showing our value as ID's means knowing how to align what phases of ADDIE we can use to the BOTTOM LINE, meaning our courses align with business objectives. A huge thorough analysis won't mean anything if that's not what the company needs. I mean we may be ID's but how many ID's are business majors? Point is, we may know learning but they know their business and they are paying us, not the other way around, so at the end of the day, what they say GOES! Money talks. Period. That doesn't mean we don't know what SHOULD be done or that we aren't good ID's. Some of us just know our limitations, but we also know that if we were ever given the opportunity to thoroughly complete each step required to release reward winning product, then I'm sure we all would jump at the chance. How many of us would get jobs if we waited on those clients though? Therefore, I think what this article should be arguing is that most ID's don't get the OPPORTUNITY to fully utilize or exercise their skills due to budget limitations and time restrictions. Let's not put all of the responsibility on the ID's shoulders too. Remember that it takes a whole village to create a quality course. We partner and collaborate with SME's and stakeholders to come up with product, being that many ID's are not SME's, so the responsibility of creating quality product lies with all these parties, not just the ID.

    ReplyDelete