SDoI: Chapter 2: Assessing needs to identify instructional goal(s)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiemann/ / CC BY 2.0

[This is the third in a series of posts about Dick and Carey’s The Systematic Design of Instruction. Want to read an overview and my thoughts on Chapter 1 before proceeding?]

This chapter is mainly about writing goals for instruction. However, before getting too excited about designing instruction,

Note that while an instructional designer may participate in a needs assessment study, there is no assumption that part or all of the solution will be instruction. (p. 18)

This make a lot of sense, keeping in mind that instruction might not be needed, even if someone in charge thinks that it’s the solution. Thus, I think that it might be inappropriate for an instructional designer (ID) to be the only person doing a needs assessment. That is, the ID might have too much stake in instruction being the solution and should instead work with a team to assess the need. A disinterested third party might also be appropriate.

Throughout this chapter are statements about how the ID should clarify and restate goals, such as the following from p. 17:

Typically, the goals used by an instructional designer have been derived from some type of needs assessment, either formal or informal, and have been further refined by either a job or curriculum analysis.

In fact, we learn on p. 19 that

Many goals are fuzzy, and designers must learn how to cope effectively with a “fuzzy.”

Puts me in mind of a warm fuzzy, which really sounds like a good thing! But not so when writing goals. Much as it may be important for IDs to write clear (“unfuzzy”? “defuzzed”?) goals, a very important point is made on p. 20:

Powerful people often determine priorities, and finances almost always determine the limitations of what can be done on an instructional design project.

Ah, reality. This sounds more like the world I am accustomed to, where goals are not carefully crafted so much as dictated and fudged. I do like the sound of this ideal world described in the chapter, though.

One thing I find lacking in this chapter is a consideration of how to apply the identification of goals in academia. In the chapter summary on p. 27, we read

Questions you should answer about the problem and need include whether:

1. The need is clearly described and verified.
2. The need is foreseeable in the future as well as presently.
3. The most effective solution to the problem is instruction.
4. There is logical agreement between the solution to the problem and the proposed instructional goals.
5. The instructional goals are acceptable to administrators and managers.

Starting with “question” 1, in education, the need is often assumed to exist – it cannot be clearly described or verified. Of course, there are exceptions, but if we consider, for example, a math class required for humanities majors or an introductory foreign language class, the students who take the class may have no immediate or foreseeable need to use what they are learning. This makes question 3 invalid.

I’m ready to read Chapter 3: Conducting a Goal Analysis.

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)

The systematic design of instruction

I’ve been working as part of an instructional design team for almost two years now, and I haven’t read The Systematic Design of Instruction by Dick and Carey. (Don’t laugh!) It’s time to correct that.

I came to instructional design not from an education background, but from applied linguistics and teaching English as a second language. So, I had prior experience designing courses, but people in those fields generally talk about “materials development,” not “instructional design,” and I have never heard anyone refer to the systems approach, ADDIE, or Dick and Carey.

So, it’s time to up my game – or at least my instructional design lingo! I bought an older edition of this canonical textbook on eBay for $1.99, and I’m going to read it (however long it may take me!) and post my thoughts on it here.

First, one note about the preface: Wow, how incredibly meta. The preface explains that the book was designed by the authors for instructors to use to teach future instructional designers to design instruction. My head is getting tangled up in that one…