In this message, I respond to postings from Martyn Wild, Steve Draper, Tom Reeves, Jason Ravitz, and Joe Beckmann. The sections are:
A recurrent theme in many of the postings is that we shouldn't think in such dualistic terms as the new paradigm replacing the old. For example, Martyn [Wild, 4 Dec 96] said that we should move beyond thinking in terms of "...wholesale replacement of one model with another, where there is an implication that 'new' is best..." Steve Draper [6 Dec 96] said, "All those contrasts seem to me foolish in that both extremes are bad, and good instruction will have some of both parts of each contrast." Jason Ravitz [7 Dec 96] said, "Instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water, one should perhaps recognize the dialectic in the learning process--perhaps we need BOTH the 'old' and the 'new' paradigms." And Joe Beckmann [7 Dec 96] said, "One of the more egregious neologisms of the Reigeluth 'paradigm' is its presumption that a new paradigm is mutually exclusive to a previous paradigm: that the old is actually opposed to the new." I strongly concur. In my article in the May issue of Educational Technology, I did a better job of talking in terms of not throwing away the knowledge base we have gained in the "old paradigm" of instructional theory, and I apologize for not making that clearer in my posting to the ITForum. It's kind of like Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics. Einstein doesn't really replace Newton, he subsumes him. But it is still useful to identify the "key markers" that distinguish the Einsteinian view from the Newtonian. The two views DO entail very different conceptions of the universe, regardless of whether or not we want to consider them different paradigms. So, I would say that, depending on how they are used, the key markers I offered could, as Martyn put it, "create an artificial and misleading dichotomy between old and new," or they could provide some useful insights into a different conception of the world, that can in turn provide us with some useful insights for a different conception (indeed, paradigm) of education.
Martyn Wild also points out that Pask and others have developed methods consistent with the "information-age paradigm" I talk about. And Joe Beckmann states that "it seems the markers have been in place for almost a century." The point of the "key markers" is to characterize the PREDOMINANT mode of thinking and operating of the time--across societal systems. In several of my writings, I talk about how various societal systems, including the family, business, transportation, and education, have changed paradigm from the agrarian age to the industrial age and now to the information age (see e.g., Chapter 1 in Reigeluth & Garfinkle, Systemic Change in Education, 1994; or Chapter 6 in Anglin, Instructional Technology, 2nd ed., 1995). While the horse and the railroad were the predominant paradigms of transportation during the agrarian and industrial ages, respectively, other modes of transportation were used during those times, and both modes of transportation are still used to some extent today. Indeed, there are still some one-room school houses today, and serving their communities' needs quite nicely. And, the automobile was invented long before it outpaced the railroad in the U.S. But I don't believe Pask's Conversation Theory was a part of a majority of classrooms in the industrial model of education. Furthermore, I believe there is a systemic incompatibility of Conversation Theory with the industrial model of education, with its focus on standardization, lock-step approach to use of time, norm-based assessment, and extrinsic motivation.
The whole notion of a different paradigm is the notion of systemic incompatibility. One of the reasons for the failure of many educational reforms is that the parts of the system that were changed are incompatible with many of the parts that were not. So in essence the rest of the system is fighting to change it back to what it was. The rigid calendar, the standardized curriculum, and the norm-based grading system are three features in particular that have undermined many reforms. Instructional theory that has been widely utilized in education has been designed to fit this industrial-age paradigm. For an educational paradigm that is truly learner centered--where students are allowed different amounts of time to learn the same thing, where they are allowed much more flexibility in learning different things (not just selecting different courses--package deals), and where all students succeed--educators will need different kinds of guidance from instructional theories, what I believe will be a different paradigm of instructional theory, much like Einstein's theory of relativity is a different paradigm of physics theory from Newton's, but one that uses the best of what Newton has to offer. So, in response to Steve's question, yes, I do think that a "new paradigm" is really going to improve practice.
Joe Beckmann says: "A real learner centered system is as fictional as an exclusively teacher dominated classroom." I do agree that learner centeredness is a continuum and that the extremes are indeed fictional. But, when you consider that people learn at different rates and that our current system holds time constant and allows achievement to vary, to change the system so that learners would be allowed as much time as they need to reach the attainments does indeed represent a different paradigm (for it requires changes throughout the system for it to work), and it can indeed be a "real learner centered system" compared to our current system. So I strongly disagree with Joe that "there is no need to re-conceive the whole educational system." But certainly we can "use what works in building what might work better." It's just that "what might work better" represents more than what "tinkering with it" can create; it requires a major redesign centered around allowing time to vary and customizing the learning for each learner.
[quoting Wild, 4 Dec 96] Another view of teachers is AS instructional designers--they create instruction using a range of instructional models... I would suggest that teachers, as instructional designers, need appropriate resources that can be used in a range of instructional contexts and designs...
This was precisely my point. I agree entirely.
[quoting Wild, 4 Dec 96] ISD has, in educational contexts at least, never really caught on outside the US; and learning theory, rather than instructional theory, has always been seen to have much greater value in designing instructional models.
I would just like to point out that few of the authors for the Green Book II have anything to do with ISD. Most are psychologists or educational psychologists, not ISDers. I suspect there is, inside the U.S., just as broad a view of what "instructional design" is, as outside the U.S.
Tom [referring to Reeves, 6 Dec 96], I didn't realize my attempts at being conscientious at your dissertation defense had such an intimidating effect. As I recall, it was one of the very first dissertations I was a "reader" for. I hope I have become more sensitive to such emotions over the years. If it is any consolation, I was very impressed with your responses.
I'm glad Tom overcame his residual apprehension. Actually, I think perhaps he is doing more than that by turning the tables a bit, for he is the one asking the piercing question now! I'm afraid it would take a major treatise to describe all the points of agreement and disagreement between Dave Merrill and myself. But out of respect for your time as well as mine, I will confine myself to some of the highlights, from my perspective (which Dave may well disagree with). In fact, Dave seems to think we differ quite a bit more than I do. See for example the letters to the editor that each of us wrote in the July issue of Educational Technology.
The issue of user-designers is very different from that of the existence of empirically verifiable principles of instruction, which in turn is very different from that of different paradigms. First, regarding user-designers, I believe I differ from Dave in that I think users should be actively involved in the design of their instruction, though I think our differences may be more a matter of degree of involvement than presence or absence of involvement, for I'm pretty sure Dave believes in the value of some needs and learner analysis and utilization of formative evaluation results that include learner suggestions for improvements. Second, regarding principles of instruction, I believe I agree almost entirely with Dave that there are empirically verifiable principles of instruction. I believe, as I think he does also, that those principles are probabilistic, rather than deterministic, and that they are often conditional (they are valid in some conditions but not in others--although some methods are clearly less conditional than others). This conditionality reflected in the conditions-methods-outcomes metatheory that we developed together (March 1979 issue of Educational Technology). I think there are very few methods that have "relatively little regard for context, time, or the participants involved." Those that do exist tend to be on very general levels of description (see e.g., David Perkins' "Theory One" in Smart Schools). This view is very consistent with Chaos Theory's position that under the apparent chaos there lies order--very complex order. And, I agree with Dave that order can be revealed "as a result of careful scientific inquiry."
Third, I don't think this means that new paradigms are hogwash. I suspect Dave underestimates the importance of values in instructional design. One of the major themes of the Green Book II is that values play at least two important roles in instructional design. One is that they influence the learning GOALS that are selected. Cognitive and constructivist theories tend to pursue different (higher-level) goals than behaviorist theories. Different methods (and theories) are required for facilitating acquisition of different kinds of learning goals. Volume II will include chapters that focus on learning goals that have until recently received little attention in instructional theory, such as the higher levels of learning and learning in the affective domain. Another role that values play in ID is that they influence MEANS for attaining a given goal. There is always more than one way to accomplish a given goal. Which way is "best" depends on what criteria you value for evaluating the alternatives. Those criteria reflect your values, such as "the extent to which learners are in control of their own learning." Volume II will include chapters whose choice of methods is based on widely differing values. Furthermore, all of the theories in Volume II will make their values explicit, with respect to both goals and methods. Since different paradigms reflect different value structures, paradigms are important to instructional design. Learner-centered instruction, in my view, represents a significant shift from the "Fake 'em out and flunk 'em out" attitude that Dave himself characterized as being characteristic of the industrial-age paradigm. Again, I don't think Dave's views are really as different from mine as his recent inflammatory, line-in-the-sand rhetoric indicates.