Instructional Design: Mistakes were made

  The development of the field and understanding of instructional design certainly exposes its importance as a domain for study and research. As a child in the 80s and early 90s, I remember very clearly the excitement my fourth grade class over the arrival of a MacIntosh in the classroom, the first computer for student use in the school. I also remember its role as a reward for finishing early, either to play those beloved pixelated games or create banners using page upon page of computer paper fed through the printer via perforated strips on the edge. Just as the authors describe, there was very little instruction prompted by the presence of technology. Throughout the rest of my education, technology filled the role of word processor and jukebox, and little else. It wasn’t until I began teaching myself that I started to understand the academic change that technology can impact.

As Reiser and Dempsey (2017) state in their text, Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, lesson design is not solely a matter of content. A lesson that is impactfully designed is “meaningful to the individual learner, memorable to provide sustained performance guidance, and motivational to activate new behaviors” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2017, p. 42). To simplify lesson evaluation by these descriptors, effective lesson design needs to consider its importance to the audience, and its impactfulness in terms of longevity and strength.

It’s impossible to ignore the outcome of technology use in today’s classroom. Beginning with the efficient and effective training of the military with the use of technology during World War II (Reiser & Dempsey, 2017, p. 13), instructional design has proven its ability to affect change. What is critical to this possible impact is attention paid to the process of good instructional design. As proven historically, it’s not enough just to incorporate the media into lessons, but intentional decisions and planning must take place to ensure efficacy.

The advantages of instructional design in terms of its use in education are a result of the iterative system of cyclical reflection and evaluation. This system is applicable for a multitude of subjects from developing instructional design to the mentoring process that we’re examining in EDL 593 (Ingersoll, 2012). As Reiser and Dempsey (2017) state, it is difficult to establish a “final product” as there exists room for improvements and adjustments in instructional design. The continuous growth that instructional design promotes reflects a universal truth regarding examination and adaptation.

There are, however, disadvantages to the process of instructional design. The development is time consuming, a detraction especially in the area of education when needs are constant. When implementing the SAM or Pebble-in-the-Pond model, the end result is not always known in the beginning, requiring a leap of faith for teachers. In many instances, resources are required for the development of instructional design that are not readily available in our field. Despite the disadvantages to using a process for instructional design, the capacity for positive academic growth render it essential in the classroom.

https://giphy.com/gifs/obama-phil-dunphy-gif-qxSOnFTn8Ogms

https://giphy.com/gifs/season-3-the-simpsons-3x10-26tjZHcT2U9Dir1Xa/

Good vs Bad

To expand upon personal experiences with instructional design in both good and bad forms, I’ve created a table of the elements of two learning experiences. The example of good instructional design comes from a presentation made by a current educator and member of the Alabama Department of Education. I remember so many aspects of this presentation like it happened yesterday, even though it took place two and a half years ago.

The example I chose for poorly designed instruction was that of my colleagues and myself, when asked to present a new tool to assist with data collection on ELL students. There are a few excuses I could give for the quality of our demonstration, but let me just say that we had very little time to collaboratively prepare, missing out on a crucial design element.

	Good Experience	Bad experience
Content	Learning Targets (creating and implementing)	ELLevation (online data collection tool)
Audience/situation	Faculty/faculty meeting	Faculty/small groups of faculty members
Duration	2 hours	20-25 minutes
Design Elements	Justification for implementation given Powerpoint Videos Practice implementing skills Reflection time Discussion time Handout including additional resources	Did not identify problem in advance Handout only included directions for accessing site No assigned roles Vague outline of presentation Presentation material lackluster

The positive learning experience was, using Reiser and Dempsey’s terms, meaningful, memorable, and motivational. I have been a proponent of learning targets since the mentioned presentation, and can remember the specific details of the content because of the use of instructional design. As far as the negative experience goes, I would love to be able to return to the planning stage and change many things about how we handled our task of disseminating the information. There were mistakes made during the instructional design process then that I will certainly avoid in the future.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning Teacher Induction What the Data Tell Us. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 47-51. doi:10.1177/003172171209300811

Weare90skids. (2016, August 2). [Tv cart on wheels meme]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/WeAre90sKids/status/760679131604541444