[quoting Warby, 28 Feb 97] ...The Franklin-Quest Reality Model. Anyone else familiar with this model? If not I suggest you research it. Learning is largely a matter of changing the beliefs on which our actions, cognitive or physical, are based. This model serves as a tool for changing beliefs and behaviors which serve as the evidences that learning takes place. Combined with other instructional models, this becomes a very effective tool, particularly on the personal level. Creative designers can discern how it applies in other situations as well.
Sounds interesting. Can you provide some references to research on the model? [reference given in: Warby, 4 Mar 97] You also make an important point: "combined with other instructional models..." that implies that it's not the whole solution (a refreshing thought, considering as a negative example the recent debate over constructivism). It also means that you recognize (and I hope the originators of the model do, too) that changing beliefs isn't the only thing (if it were, then the "think system" for teaching how to play music would work, and the plot of The Music Man wouldn't).
While I agree with most of your comments listed below, you seemed to miss my unwritten main point: Example is one of the best instructors. I would propose that the more instructors involve students in their projects, the more likely that effective instruction would be taking place.
Sorry I missed your point. I agree that well-designed instructional systems which involve projects, when executed by a competent instructor, can be effective in teaching some kinds of knowledge/skill. I do not agree that any project is better than any other method of instruction, nor do I agree that whatever the need for learning, and whatever the context for the learning, the solution is a project.
Serious ID isn't hard--its fun. Most effective designers like what they are doing. That's why they work effective design principles into their personal presentations. It's the ones that think of ID being hard that rely on telling. But serious ID is time consuming.
I would say that "hard" and "fun" are orthogonal. And most of the ID projects I've seen which result in the best outcomes tend to be in the upper right quadrant (hard+, fun+). But, to quote a friend of mine, "sometimes work is just work.
I would also agree that it generally takes more resources to make something good than to make something lousy, in most areas of human endeavor. You get what you pay for. But there are some important qualifiers for ID:
(a) the level of effort in an ID project should be controlled by the risk that diminished effort will result in an unacceptable learning outcome. An ID project based on this principle, and an "absolutely can't fail" (or "guaranteed shelfware") requirement, could be very short.
(b) as I said before, people learn in spite of instruction all the time. There's no such thing as an "undesigned" piece of instruction--only one that doesn't correspond to your standards for what ID is. It is not true that learning cannot take place without good ID. It is true (I believe) that good ID improves the chances of intended learning taking place. Nor would I ever claim that "good ID" is the only valid way to design effective instruction. Our understanding of teaching and learning is far too feeble to make any such claim. I would make some modest claims about the ability of ID to produce effective instruction, of some kinds under some circumstances, in an effective, stable, reproducible, generalizable, and systematic way.
Statement #3 brings us back to reality. Most of the responsibility of the learning process at the University level belongs with the student. Effective instructors act as facilitators between students and knowledge.
I would argue that in most cases the important dimension isn't age or years in school (if that's what "university level" implies) but how much you already know about a given area (except for elementary-age learners, for a bunch of developmental reasons). The more you know about a content area, and the more practice you've had in learning about that area, the easier it is to supply for yourself the "missing" instructional components. For example, I'm sure Dave Merrill is a much more self-sufficient learner about model railroading than I am, since the last time I built a layout with scenery and buildings was when I was in 7th grade. To learn what he can just by perusing a book on the subject, I would need a much more intensively-designed instructional system than he would. On the other hand, I bet I can learn a lot more from a reference book on design of directional antennas for amateur radio than he can. And (unfortunately) the difference between us in age and years in school ain't that much!
Concerning "scientifically proven principles": Since it is true that there are few scientifically proven facts to rely on when it comes to instructional design (David Merrill may disagree), these become very important. Consider this pyramidal paradigm of instruction: Instruction ought to be based on scientifically proven facts. As we get further from the base, we move more towards the point, which represents pure speculation. In-between are theories and hypotheses based on varying degrees of scientific evidence. Most instruction should be designed near the base of the pyramid. Experimentation takes place nearer the tip of the pyramid.
Data collection, however, works in just the opposite direction, much like a funnel. The more speculative the instructional process, the more data must be collected, and the more scientifically-based the instruction, the less data must be collected, at least in terms of scientific evidence for the process. The funnel paradigm is used here because all data is funneled into developing more scientific evidence.
My only disagreement would be that since real-world instructional problems are far more complex than our theories are capable of explaining, a complete instructional solution for a real-world education/training need will always involve a combination of formal design knowledge and gut feel intuition. We don't have the option of designing only what we really know how to. Example: when we build PLATO courseware, we have all kinds of design standards. To the extent possible, they are based on my judgment of the weight of research evidence and theory in ID and other fields (e.g., interface design). But there's lots that in there just because we think it should be, and it made sense at the time. Because of this, I have a basic principle in the application of our design standards: you can violate any design principle, if you prototype it and try it on some actual t-pop members using accepted methodology, and your design works.