Looking back on my introduction to instructional technology and design, one of my greatest takeaways has been the malleability of the field. It dates back more than a century, yet it lacks the foundational, undisputed theories that many disciplines have. This is partly because it is almost always changing, and therefore its theories are continually developing.
Not all aspects of instructional design change; in fact, we have been using the same approaches and ideas for quite some time. Theories like behaviorism are still in use, and teachers work with many of the same constraints, such as funding, and with fundamentally the same basic tools, such as drawing boards. Books, pencils, rulers – all continue to be staples of instruction.
It is undeniable, however, that instructional design is evolving fast. New technology means new requirements, new tools, new approaches. World events demand novel skills. Cognitivism in the United States education system was rooted in the demands of the twentieth century. Likewise, in the twenty-first century, there is an increased demand for speed, technical and computer proficiency, and ease of access. The Internet has changed how we collaborate and share information. The COVID-19 shutdowns normalized what the Internet made possible. The introduction of artificial intelligence has challenged principles of authenticity, ownership, and quality. We are caught in a flurry of change.
It seems to me, then, that instructional designers cannot afford to be complacent. We must understand how to identify our needs and the needs of students with the help of models like SECTIONS, and we ought to know the basic rules of good design and articulation, as well as how people learn. We must then evaluate our available resources. What technology is useful? What is not? What tools are worth the time spent learning? What is not? How can we leverage the expertise we already have?
The students and subjects in question can alter the answers to these questions. The toolkit of an instructional designer may change from year to year, class to class, student to student. An instructional designer should himself be a learner, because he will need to adapt.
For my closing remarks, here are some components of instructional design that I find valuable and which I plan to retain in my professional journey.
-
Modular learning with video and blog-style content seems effective, especially in a time when students’ attention spans stall without proper pacing.
-
I favor the “learn by doing” philosophy of constructivism and would like to apply it to my work, borrowing also from behaviorism and cognitivism along the way. Behaviorism can help a student know the facts, cognitivism can help a student think through processes, and constructivism emphasizes application of information. All three theories serve a function.
-
Understanding the uses, operability, and ethical boundaries of artificial intelligence is relevant even in this early stage of its development.
-
Knowing your way around any design and video editing software will help make you a well-rounded instructional designer, as will understanding LMS applications. Fortunately, once you learn a software or application, it becomes far easier to learn others of the same kind.
I have no doubt this list will develop and change with time. There is still more for me to learn, unlearn, and practice as an instructional designer. I am thankful I can participate in a professional field with so much opportunity for growth.