Jennifer Maddrell
Old Dominion University
IDT 810 Trends and Issues in Contemporary Instructional Design
Dr. Gary Morrison

This 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 impact
how instructional designers should be trained.

As highlighted below, early theorists in our field describe the instructional design task as
would result following a procedural job analysis. The focus of such a job analysis is on the
observable 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 a
cognitive task analysis. Such an analysis tends to focus on the less obvious mental skills required
for task proficiency (Militello & Hutton 1998). As such, more recent conceptions of the
instructional 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 mental
demands. 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 in
advanced problem solving and decision making.

By considering the various conceptions of the instructional design task by those within
the field, it is possible to assess the implications for instructional design training. Based on the
task conceptions described below, should instruction design programs focus on teaching media
design and development? Empirically-based instructional design models? Practice-based
heuristics? 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 as
we train new designer's on the tasks which are most relevant to the instructional design job?

The Audio-Visual Archetype predates any of the conceptions of the instructional design
task 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 and
accessibility of computer-based and web-based training (Gibbons, 2003).

The instructional design task is frequently analyzed based on the observable and
replicable steps in the instructional design and development process. This conception is
described as an Engineering Archetype influenced by Skinner's application of a behavioristic
step-by-step approach to the design and development of programmed instruction (Davies, 1978).
Heinich (1973) describes instructional product design as \u201cthe development of reliable, replicable

framework which suggests designers follow functional prescriptions toward attainment of the
instructional goal (Reigeluth, 1983). Inherent in this framework is the assumption of a
prescriptive knowledge base that can be \u201ccodified, owned, controlled, and communicated
unambiguously to others\u201d (Wilson, 1997, p. 301).

Instructional design conceived of as a Problem-Solving Archetype began in the early
1970s and is characterized by both the cognitive activity required of the designer and the
application 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 making
activity is conceived of as cognitive problem solving process (Jonassen, 2008). In contrast to a
conception of instructional design as the application of unambiguous and objectivist
prescriptions, instructional design as a decision making process focuses on the identification and
accommodation of given constraints; instructional design practice heuristics offer guidance, but
not prescriptions for decision making (Silber, 2007; Zemke & Rosset, 2002).

Some who share this viewpoint see instructional design as a process of collective decision
making involving a community of interested participants which include not only the designer, but
also 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 instructional
design process (Merril et. al., 1996), others suggest the change in conception as an evolution in
the application of traditional instructional design models which places additional and expanded
emphasis on the analysis of the instructional context and on iterative design decision making
(Dick, 1996).

The instructional design task is sometimes generically described in terms of phases in the
instructional project development process, including analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation, often referred to under the acronymADDIE (Molenda, n.d).
Such a focus on the major phases in the instructional project development process has prompted
some to suggest that the instructional designer's task is as much about project planning and
management 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 implementation
support(trainer support and examination procedures) (Klimcak and Wedman, 1997).