SDoI: Chapter 1: Introduction to Instructional Design
I’m working my way through The Systematic Design of Instruction (SDoI), 4th ed., by Dick and Carey, and here are my thoughts on Chapter 1: Introduction to Instructional Design. (You may get the impression from this post that I’m disagreeing with what the book says, but for the most part, I’m not. I’m just not writing about those parts – boring!)
I feel a bit like Alice while reading this chapter.
Once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversations?” (Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll)
I am clearly spoiled by the Internet, with its interactivity and colors and lolcats. But I am having a hard time remembering how, as an undergrad, I stayed awake when reading textbooks without any pictures or even pull quotes. (I do remember nodding off quite a bit…) Seriously, this text is DRY. And shouldn’t it be itself an example of good instructional design? Despite that, I will try to focus on the points it is making.
On page 10, we learn that
The beneficiary of the application of the systems approach to the design of instruction is the individual learner.
I feel like I’m being tricked by this statement. I would think that, assuming that we are designing instruction for a group of learners, rather than just one, the beneficiary of the use of the systems approach is the group of learners, not the individual. That is, when using the systems approach, we hope to most effectively and efficiently benefit as many learners in the group as possible, but we do not necessarily produce instruction that is the most beneficial to an individual learner. As I understand it from this chapter, the systems approach necessarily takes the view that the group of learners is homogeneous in terms of knowledge background and a range of other factors. And that is simply not true in most cases.
Later in the same paragraph, we find that
The learner is evaluated fairly with instruments that measure the behaviors described in the objectives, and the data are used to revise the instruction so that it will be even more effective with succeeding learners.
I don’t disagree that evaluating current learners is a good idea so that we can make improvements for future learners. But let’s be honest: Future learners are not the same people are current learners. We can only use the data from current learners to help future learners insofar as the groups behave similarly. I think that this assumption ought to be stated in the text.
Moving on to more practical matters, on page 10, we read
In contrast to the instructor who may be working alone, the instructional designer often works with a team of specialists to develop the instruction. The team would typically include a content specialist, a media specialist, an evaluation specialist, and a manager.
So, if I’m understanding this correctly, the instructional designer is not part of the team? Maybe it’s just a poor choice of wording, but I think that the instructional designer is an integral part of the team, although it need not be a single dedicated person. In the team that I work with, some people have defined roles as the content specialist (SME), media specialist, and manager, but nearly everyone acts as an instructional designer in some capacity, and those who are interested participate in evaluation. Having a defined evaluation expert with specialized skills sounds like a great idea for our team!
Next up? Chapter 2: Assessing Needs to Identify Instructional Goal(s)
