[quoting Reigeluth's paper] I believe the most significant issue is that we need a new paradigm of instructional theory...focusing on customized learning that fosters learner empowerment, initiative, and responsibility, as well as teamwork, thinking skills, metacognitive skills, and diversity.
I think that there is a convergent model emerging (as Martyn [Wild, 4 Dec 96] points to). I increasingly see most theories adopting equivalent concepts (with different names, of course) or not excluding other ideas. Things like
are fairly well represented across theoretical approaches. Note that here I'm talking about cognitive domain, though this structure should generalize.
I feel it is important to encourage instructional theories in a wide variety of different areas--not just in the cognitive domain--but also in the affective domain, where we need guidance for developing what Daniel Goleman calls "emotional intelligence" and for what Thomas Lickona calls "character education," as well as how to develop attitudes and values and so forth.
I'm not sure that we can expect teachers to provide instruction on character education, values, and attitudes. Teachers can (and should) embody the shared society values, but shouldn't the instruction come from parents and spiritual leaders? Education does have to acknowledge and support different cultural approaches to learning.
Because of the need for a new paradigm of instructional theory, I have started work on a Volume II of the Instructional Design Theories and Models book that I edited in 1983... Currently, contributors include: John Anderson, John Bransford, Alan Collins, Lyn Corno, Howard Gardner, Mike Hannafin, Dave Jonassen, Beth and Tom Kamradt, Susan Kovalik, Lev Landa, Thomas Lickona, Barbara Martin, Richard Mayer, Karen McCown, Dave Merrill, Laurie Nelson, David Perkins, Stanley Pogrow, Charles Reigeluth, Rita Richey, Roger Schank, and Rand Spiro.
I really valued reading the first edition as a whirlwind tour of ISD. I welcome an updated survey, but I have to say that is appears that there're just TOO many (I'd get lost in all that). Just to be contrary, I'll support the other comments that it's missing some people. I'm glad Martyn quoted a few names; I'll also suggest Barrows (I note that Charles has mentioned Problem-Based Learning but not included the best known proponent), though I believe he's also another Yank.
I'll also suggest that to achieve what Charles is arguing for here, the book needs to also conclude with some emergent model.
1. Some of the "key markers" that should distinguish the new (information-age) paradigm of instructional theories from the old (industrial-age) paradigm are:
INDUSTRIAN AGE INFORMATION AGE
Teacher as "King" .......... Learner (customer) as "King"
I'd quibble with this. I think it's more...
| didactic process | .......... | dialectic process |
...as I HATE the use of "customer" in learning discourse. It implies passivity--you "purchase" learning rather than are an active participant in it. Further, I recognize and support Ian's fears of the student having no guidelines.
I might also add...
| focus on recitation | .......... | focus on transfer |
...and I can't think of a way to do it (can't figure out the "old" equivalent), but I'd want to include a new focus on encouraging "self-learning."
2. We need to recognize the existence of two major kinds of instructional methods: basic methods, which have been scientifically proven to consistently increase the probability of learning under given conditions (e.g., for given types of learning and/or learners),... and variable methods, which represent alternatives from which you can choose...
I see we have learning methods, and we have delivery methods. Not basic and variable methods.
For example, if someone wants to learn a skill, then demonstrations of the skill, generalities about how to do it, and practice doing it, with feedback will definitely make learning easier and more successful.
Of course, we often need to first help learners understand that they want to learn a particular skill.
And, the transferability of the skill is enhanced by reflection on the skill, as well as practice across widely disparate examples. I don't see these captured in your focus.
We have learned much about the basic methods in the old paradigm of instructional theory. Now we need a new paradigm of instructional theory that provides flexible guidelines about when and how learners:
- should be given initiative;
- should work in teams on authentic real-world tasks;
- should be allowed to choose from a diversity of sound methods;
- should best utilize the powerful features of advanced technologies; and
- should be allowed to persevere until they reach appropriate standards.
I think that we can dispense arguing about "when and how" if we instead
The learners themselves will take initiative, will search out methods, and will persevere. However, this is premature :-).
3. Instructional theory should result in designs that allow learners to make more decisions about their instructional methods, by allowing them to choose from among sound alternative approaches...
A major shift in the paradigm of ISD that this scenario of the concept of user-designers represents is the notion that much of the analysis... will soon be done during the instruction as the computer system continuously collects information from an individual learner and/or a small team of learners and uses that information to present an array of sound alternatives to the learner(s), both about what to learn next and how to learn it.
As has been suggested by T. Kent [Thomas, 5 Dec 96], I have doubts that we really are yet capable of producing good intelligent tutoring systems (for both conceptual and pragmatic reasons) nor do I believe we should. Conceptually, we don't have the knowledge yet (I disagree that Merrill's demonstrated it). Pragmatically, we don't have the commitment of resources that it takes. And it takes a LOT.
I think we can do it by having the intelligence come from the dialogue between learner and facilitator, with the technology providing activities, resources, and communication.
In another scenario of the concept of user-designers, computers play a relatively minor role in some instructional situations, so the users must--ahead of time--design the framework or support system within which the instruction will occur. Rather than this being done in a designer-based team, in which an instructional designer plays the leading role, it is done in a user-based team in which the designer plays a facilitating role and the users--teachers or trainers, along with learners--play the leading role (Laurie Nelson, 1995). This user-based approach recognizes the need to put better design tools and knowledge in the hands of those who generally create and deliver the instruction anyway.
This is an ideal, and I have great worries about burdening teachers with even more tasks. They ought to move to being facilitators of discussion, and have good resources available. They might describe what they need, but do they really need to be able to use design tools? If you're going to create rich and robust environments, you'll need powerful tools, and I'd argue that it's impossible to provide powerful construction tools that are easy to learn (look how long it takes to become good at any medium).
I agree with the model of teachers being partnered with teams to design, but I worry about putting to much onus on teachers to learn new design tools.