810 Maddrell TInstructional Designer's Task Analysis

You are seeing our new document Reader view. Click here to revert. Feel free to leave us feedback on this feature here.

×

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Instructional Design Task Analysis 1Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN TASK ANALYSISInstructional Design Task AnalysisJennifer MaddrellOld Dominion UniversityIDT 810 Trends and Issues in Contemporary Instructional DesignDr. Gary MorrisonFebruary 18, 2009

Instructional Design Task Analysis 2Instructional Design Task AnalysisThis paper offers a comparison of various conceptions of the instructional design task since Davies (1978) described the three prevalent educational technology archetypes, including(a) audio-visual, (b) engineering, and (c) problem-solving. While steering clear of an analysis of the

paradigm wars

(Merrill, Drake, Lacy, & Pratt, 1996;Willis, 1998) that festered in the 1990s,it is suggested that differences in how the instructional job task is analyzed and conceived impacthow instructional designers should be trained.As highlighted below, early theorists in our field describe the instructional design task aswould result following a procedural job analysis. The focus of such a job analysis is on theobservable behaviors and procedures required to complete the given job (Jonassen, Tessmer, &Hannum, 1999). As such, early conceptions of the instructional design task focus on the prescriptive rules and procedural steps required to complete the designer's task.In contrast, more recent conceptions are similar to what would results following acognitive task analysis. Such an analysis tends to focus on the less obvious mental skills requiredfor task proficiency (Militello & Hutton 1998). As such, more recent conceptions of theinstructional designer's job focus on the impact of situational factors, including where the task is performed, identification of central decision making cues, and assessments of critical mentaldemands. These later descriptions of the instructional design task tend to place far greater importance on the cognitive processes an expert designer completes, such as those used inadvanced problem solving and decision making.By considering the various conceptions of the instructional design task by those withinthe field, it is possible to assess the implications for instructional design training. Based on thetask conceptions described below, should instruction design programs focus on teaching mediadesign and development? Empirically-based instructional design models? Practice-basedheuristics? Problem solving and decision making skills? Project management? All of the above?Given the various conceptions of the instructional designer's task, what should be our focus aswe train new designer's on the tasks which are most relevant to the instructional design job?Conceptions of the Instructional Design Task

Instructional Design as Instructional Media Development

The Audio-Visual Archetype predates any of the conceptions of the instructional designtask that follow below and has its roots in instructional media hardware design and development(Davies, 1978). While the design of instructional media may be one of the earliest conceptions of the instructional design task, a media-centric view is alive and well today with the advent andaccessibility of computer-based and web-based training (Gibbons, 2003).

Instructional Design as the Application of Expert Systems and Rule-based Models

The instructional design task is frequently analyzed based on the observable andreplicable steps in the instructional design and development process. This conception isdescribed as an Engineering Archetype influenced by Skinner's application of a behavioristicstep-by-step approach to the design and development of programmed instruction (Davies, 1978).Heinich (1973) describes instructional product design as “the development of reliable, replicable

Instructional Design Task Analysis 3instruments of instruction based on learner analysis, task analysis, and environment design andevaluation.”Some who hold this conception have argued that instruction is a scientific discipline andinstructional design is a technology which incorporates

known and verified instructional strategies

(Merrill et al., 1996)

.

Others forward a

conditions-goals-methods

instructional designframework which suggests designers follow functional prescriptions toward attainment of theinstructional goal (Reigeluth, 1983)

.

Inherent in this framework is the assumption of a prescriptive knowledge base that can be “codified, owned, controlled, and communicatedunambiguously to others” (Wilson, 1997, p. 301).

Instructional Design as a Problem Solving Process and Decision Making Activity

Instructional design conceived of as a Problem-Solving Archetype began in the early1970s and is characterized by both the cognitive activity required of the designer and theapplication of the designer's acquired skills and experience (Davies, 1978). Unlike a process of rule using and procedure following

as described above, instructional design as a decision makingactivity is conceived of as cognitive problem solving process (Jonassen, 2008). In contrast to aconception of instructional design as the application of unambiguous and objectivist prescriptions, instructional design as a decision making process focuses on the identification andaccommodation of given constraints; instructional design practice heuristics offer guidance, butnot prescriptions for decision making (Silber, 2007; Zemke & Rosset, 2002).Some who share this viewpoint see instructional design as a process of collective decisionmaking involving a

community of interested participants

which include not only the designer, butalso experts in other areas and the stakeholders who work together to on the instructions design(Willis, 1998). While some outright condemn this collective negotiation of the instructionaldesign process (Merril et. al., 1996), others suggest the change in conception as an evolution inthe application of traditional instructional design models which places additional and expandedemphasis on the analysis of the instructional context and on iterative design decision making(Dick, 1996).

Instructional Design as a Project Development Process

The instructional design task is sometimes generically described in terms of phases in theinstructional project development process, including analysis, design, development,implementation, and evaluation, often referred to under the acronym

ADDIE

(Molenda, n.d).Such a focus on the major phases in the instructional project development process has promptedsome to suggest that the instructional designer's task is as much about project planning andmanagement as it is a process to build instruction (Zemke & Rossett, 2002). This view is partially supported by findings which suggest instructional project success is linked to a range of factors related to the project's planning and management, including access and management of tangible resources

(

funding, development tools, and delivery equipment) and

implementationsupport

(

trainer support and examination procedures) (Klimcak and Wedman, 1997).

Hybrid Viewpoint.

Still others take a hybrid viewpoint and suggest that the instructional design task should

of 00

Leave a Comment