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.
14 comments:
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.
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.
Who in this crowd has formal, academic training as an Instructional Designer? That's right - not one person.
Enough said.
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.
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
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!
Post a Comment