Instructional Systems Approaches: Criticisms and Responses Based on Theoretical and Empirical Evidences

Transcription

1 Instructional Systems Approaches: Criticisms and Responses Based on Theoretical and Empirical Evidences Graduate School Division of Education, Media and Society Doctoral Program 2008 October Pitagan, Ferdinand Blancaflor

2 "When simplicity is broken up, it is made into instruments. Evolved individuals who employ them are made into leaders. In this way, the great system is united." Lao Tzu 1. Introduction The evolution of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) can be anchored in the long history of psychological and scientific approach to learning. The need to find a more effective and manageable way to create training programs led to the formalization of ISD from post- World War II research in the United States military. At present day, it is considered as the most widely used methodology for developing new training and learning programs. However, for the past few years there have been a continuous debate about its effectiveness. In view of this, the study evaluates the criticisms toward ISD based on theoretical and empirical evidences. To better understand and answer these criticisms in an informed manner, background information about ISD is presented. Moreover, educational technology and theories of learning are explored in relation with ISD. Furthermore, the author offers a personal stand based on the experiences using ISD. 2. Background Information: Instructional System Design To aid in the main discussion of this paper, the definition, advantages and most commonly known models of ISD are presented. Furthermore, the discourse includes the ISD in relation with educational technology and learning theories. 2.1 Definition Instructional system design is an approach that provides a step-by-step system for the evaluation of students' needs, the design and development of training materials, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the training intervention (Kruse, 2000). Moreover, the process is based on pedagogically tested theories of learning and the outcome of instruction may be directly observable and scientifically measured or completely hidden 1

3 and assumed (Wikipedia, 2008). Furthermore, ISD models have a broad scope and cover a wide gamut of the training process, such as analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation phases (Merrienboer, 1997). Through the years, the definition of ISD and the term associated with it continues to include emerging technologies. Some of the varying definition of ISD is presented below: Systems Approach to Training (SAT) The SAT process is an adaptation of systems engineering to the training system and adapts the scientific and artsy nature of the engineering process to facilitate and maximize learning. Instructional Systems Design & Development (ISDD) The ISSD approach involves the design and development of instructional systems that includes but not limited to the plan and consequently the creation of instructions to meet learning needs. Instructional Design (ID) According to Reigeluth (1983), ID models are less broad in scope and generally focus on analysis and design, design, or design and development and ISD models can be compared to frameworks, ID models have much more in common to blue prints. Furthermore, he stressed that ID models go into much more detail, albeit that detail has a narrower focus. The definitions may have varying focus but essential it is the same process - use of systematic approach in the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation of instructions to promote learning. When people see, hear or read the word system, they think of a complex structure that is not easy to comprehend. However, the wealth of literature (Broderick, 2001; Seels & Glasgow 1998; Kemp et al, 1996; Newby et al, 1996; Gentry, 1994; Smith & Ragan, 1993; Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Anglin, 1991; Venezky, & Osin, 1991; Seels & Glasgow, 1990) presents ISD in different perspectives: As a Process: It is the entire process of the systematic analysis of learning needs and goals and the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and 2

4 instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction through continuous evaluation. As a Discipline: It is the branch of knowledge concerned with research and theory about instructional strategies and the process for developing and implementing those strategies. AS a Science: It is the science of creating detailed specifications for the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of situations that facilitate the learning of both large and small units of subject matter at all levels of complexity. As a Reality: It is a real thing and an important factor in designing instructions. Although it can start at any point in the model, it is continuous process to be taken as a whole. As an Art The whole approach involves the design, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. The art of instructional design is also required to achieve both effective and engaging learning environments. Although there are variations in the presentation of the ISD models, the five phases remain essentially the same (Figure 1. next page). Although the figure may seem linear, the multi-dimensional arrows indicate the iterative and repetitive nature of the model. Moreover, the importance of continuous evaluation thereby providing feedback at any stage of the process is highlighted. Furthermore, the figure suggests that the ISD process can start at any given period in the instructional cycle. The basic five phases of ISD can be identified as follows: Analyze the nature of the learning systems (learners, tasks, etc). Design method or model (learning objectives, instructional approach, etc) to achieve the objectives and goals. 3

5 Develop the model into a product (instructional or training materials). Implement by delivering or distributing the instructional materials Evaluate the materials whether it is achieving the desired goals Figure 1. ISD Model Flowchart 2.2 Advantages of ISD The whole concept of ISD is providing a venue to get the over-all big picture of the learning process. It equips instructional designers a basis for sound decision making to determine who, what, when, where, why, and how of learning. Moreover, Clark et al (2006) outlines the advantages of using ISD: It is characterized by an orderly process for gathering and analyzing collective and individual performance requirements, and by the ability to respond to identified training needs. The application of a systems approach to training insures that training programs and the required support materials are continually developed in an effective and efficient manner to match the variety of needs in an ever rapidly changing environment. 4

6 It has a feedback mechanism that ensures the goal is achieved or maintained. The iterative process that verifies the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. 2.3 Instructional System Design Models There are numerous different ISD model, the latest count could well over a hundred. In 1991, Gustafson et al (2007) categorizes ISD models namely: The Classroom Models assume that there is already an instructor, some students, a curriculum, and a classroom. The goal of the instructor, and in turn the model, is to improve the development and delivery of a set piece of content. These models are popular in K-12 and higher education. The Gerlach and Ely; Heinich, Molenda, and Russell; Dick and Reiser and Kemp models are often associated with this approach. The Product Development Models are used to optimize the production efficiency and quality of one or more instructional products. These models tend to have a corporate feel to them. ID models of Van Patten; Leshin, Pollock, and Reigeluth; and Bergman and Moore are in this category. Systems Development Models are concern with the development of a complete instructional system for managing learning needs are often require an extensive analysis of environment, learners, needs, and tasks. These models are commonly used in military and government institutions, mid-size to large corporate training departments, and increasingly in higher education. The IDI; IPISD; Dick and Carey; Seels and Glasgow and Diamond models are affiliated with this category. These models seem to share more similarities than differences and generally could be described as a variation of the generic ADDIE model. The acronym ADDIE stands for the description of the steps namely: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. Even before the formalization of the term ADDIE, the five phases have been the core of the instructional design process. The ADDIE model is basically a generic, systematic, step-by-step framework used by instructional designers, developers and 5

7 trainers to ensure course development and learning does not occur in a haphazard, unstructured way. It is designed to ensure: (1) learners will achieve the goals of the course, (2) allows for the evaluation of learner's needs, (3) the design and development of training materials, and (4) evaluation of effectiveness of the training program using processes with specific, measurable outcomes (Castagnolo, 2002). The ADDIE model was used in the framework for helping create new research topics in learning technology (Liu, 2008). There is a continuous debate about the effectiveness of the ID model, however, arguably the most popular ISD models are the Dick & Carey (1985), Kemp (1985), Gerlach & Ely (1980), and Seels & Glasgow (1990) models. Moreover, Dave Merrill's ID2 and Thiagi's Rapid Prototyping models are experiencing unprecedented interest. To aid in discussion, the models mentioned above are discussed Dick and Carey Model The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick, Lou Carey, and James Carey in their book entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction, now in its 6th edition. According to Dick and Carey (1978),"Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcome." The model is a well-known instructional design model and designed to addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction (Dick et al, 2005). Furthermore, the model details a comprehensive and detailed process, however, it has been criticized for at the same time being too rigid and cumbersome for the average design process (Clark, 2004) Kemp s ID Model The Jerold Kemp (1985) instructional design model included nine different components of an instructional design and at the same time adopts a continuous implementation / evaluation model. It adopts a cyclic oval shape that allows the design and development process in a continuous cycle that requires constant planning, designing, developing and assessing to insure effective instruction. Moreover, McGriff (2001) states that the model is 6

8 systemic and nonlinear and seems to encourage designers to work in all areas as appropriate. He further argues that it is particularly useful for developing instructional programs that blend technology, pedagogy and content to deliver effective, inclusive (reliable) and efficient learning. According to Qureshi and Morton (2006), the Kemp ID model takes a holistic approach to instructional design with the following observations: (1) consideration of subjects analysis, learner characteristics, learning objectives, teaching activities, resources, support services and evaluation; (2) the central focus is the learner needs and goals and content analysis; and (3) the focus on support and services which is not present in other ID models Gerlach & Ely Model The Gerlach and Ely model was designed for the average teacher, implying that she/he is also the instructional designer through the virtue of knowing their students and classroom better than anyone else. It also assumes that there is no need for needs assessment since the need for course content has been established. The model describes its first step as an interactive process of examining content and generating objectives. This is a distinguishing feature, since most models do not recognize this content orientation (Gustafson, 1991). Grabowski (2003) opines that the model is a great asset to a novice teacher and by providing a fresh look at a subject, topic, or student can greatly benefit the experienced teachers. The model provides two necessary items for a successful learning process: necessity of carefully defined goals and the tactics on how to reach each goal. Moreover, the model has stood the test of time and serves the classroom teachers well (Ely, 2003) thereby affirming its indispensability in the instructional design process Seels & Glasgow Model The Seels and Glasgow ID model phases deal with needs analysis (establishment of the instructional goals, requirements, and context), instructional design (task analysis; instructional analysis; objectives and tests; formative evaluation, materials development, instructional strategy and delivery systems all of which are joined by feedback and interaction) and implementation and evaluation, (development and production of 7

9 materials, delivery of the training, and summative evaluation). The steps and phases in this model can be applied in a linear fashion but they are often applied iteratively Presetera (2002) explains that the Seels and Glasgow model leads to efficiency in project planning, resource allocation, and the control of the product development cycle while recognizing that instructional designers are often asked to either manage a project or work within an established project management framework. This advantage is what makes the models often used in systematic training in corporate setting and in the military Merrill's ID1 / ID2 Merill s ID1/ID2 model is brought about by the perceived limitations of the first generation of ID models (ID1), thereby proposing a new ID model (ID2) that encompasses learning in the digital setting. In their argument, Merill et al (1991) argues that by addressing the limitations of ID1 in regards to the teaching of integrated wholes, we propose that ID2 should be capable of teaching the organized and elaborated knowledge needed to facilitate the development of mental models. Therefore the model is primary based in cognitivism. They also outlined the capabilities of ID2: be capable of analyzing, representing, and guiding instruction to teach integrated sets of knowledge and skills; be capable of producing pedagogic prescriptions for the selection of interactive instructional strategies and the selection and sequencing of instructional transaction sets; be an open system, able to incorporate new knowledge about teaching and learning and to apply these in the design process. The new instructional model (Merill et al, 1991) will be composed of the following: a theoretical base that organizes knowledge about instructional design and defines a methodology for performing instructional design; 8

10 a knowledge base for representing domain knowledge for the purposes of making instructional decisions; a series of intelligent computer-based design tools for knowledge analysis/acquisition, strategy analysis and transaction generation/configuration; a collection of mini-experts, each contributing a small knowledge base relevant to a particular instructional design decision or a set of such decisions; a library of instructional transactions for the delivery of instruction, and the capacity to add new or existing transactions to the library; an on-line intelligent advisor program that dynamically customizes the instruction during delivery, based on a mixed-initiative dialog with the students Rapid Prototyping Design (RPD) Model Rapid Prototyping Design (RPD) uses a more formative model that is based on usability testing of prototypes. Results of usability tests on the prototypes are used to modify and improve the product. This model shares many attributes in common with the ISD model, and stresses the importance of iterative analysis and evaluation. Proponents suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design-related domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design, user experience design, etc. (Saettler, 1990; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). Moreover, Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990) presents some advantages of using RPD: (1) it has reshaped traditional thinking about systems-based project management; (2) it is a technology intended to allow greater flexibility in defining the goals and form of instruction at early stages; (3) it helps designers break out of the linear approach to design; and (4) it is more in line with how people actually solve problems in other domains, which is far from a linear process. 9

11 2.4 Instructional System Design and Educational Technology Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources (Richey, 2008). As the conjugated word suggest, it is the use an array of technology to advance learning. These technologies can refer to any material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but it can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. Furthermore, the educators inside the classroom are also considered as technology. ISD has been one of the basic foundations of educational technology. With its systematic nature and adaptability for evolving technologies, it provided the necessary framework in the advancement of educational technology. Moreover, while ISD covers the processes and systems of learning and instruction, educational technology includes other systems used in the process of developing human capability. With technology permeating the every aspects of society, maybe even dictating the course of every day life, and dominating how people learn, educational technology has been evolving. Educational media and society has been used recently to encompass this growing trend. Moreover, ISD is evolving with educational technology and more recent model like RIP is utilized to accommodate these fast-changing technologies Instructional System Design and Learning Theories Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials. In the world of education, the shift has been from behaviorism, through cognitivism, to constructivism and postmodernism. As a field, ISD is historically and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology Behaviorism Behaviorism is a theory of learning that focuses on objectively observable behaviors and discounts mental activities. The theoretical framework has been anchored unto the 10

12 pioneering works of Wilfred Sellars, Ivan Pavlov, Edward Thorndike, Edward C. Tolman, Clark L. Hull, and B.F. Skinner among others. When using ISD, the largest influence of behaviorism can be found in the design process. The way information is presented, basic training skills, motivation, and reinforcements can be designed to elicit observable behaviors. In other words, behaviorist learning theory as a holistic approach isn't dominant as it was in the early stages of instructional design and educational technology (Reigeluth, 1999). Although, it continues to be a valuable theory to describe and even experiment about learning, but by reducing learners to purely biological being, this philosophy of learning has lost favors with many educators Cognitivism Cognitivism as a philosophy of learning states that by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in by generating our own rules and mental models. It looks beyond behaviors to explain learning. Furthermore, it argues that that mental function can be understood and described by quantitative and scientific methods. Noteworthy originators and important contributors are: Merrill -Component Display Theory (CDT), Reigeluth (Elaboration Theory), Gagne, Briggs, Wager, Bruner (moving toward cognitive constructivism), Schank (scripts), Scandura (structural learning). Cognitivism is the theoretical foundation of computer science and information technology. It argues that like an information processing machine, the mind is a black box that can be opened and understood. Based largely on behaviorist premises, ID is adjusting to cognitive ways of viewing the learning process and is embracing new methods and computer design tools that allow greater flexibility in the management and order of design activities (Wilson et al, 1993). As a result of these changes, ID is clearly moving toward greater flexibility and power in its recommended processes and its specifications for instructional products Constructivism Constructivism is a learning theory stipulates that learners construct their own meaning from new information, as they interact with reality or others with different perspectives. It requires learners to utilize their prior knowledge and experiences to formulate new, 11

13 related, and/or adaptive concepts in learning. facilitator. The role of the teacher is that of a As the educational process rapidly change, ISD designers need to visualize a type of learning environment that is capable of instruction about anything, anywhere, anytime. Constructivists tend to see knowledge as connected to practice and as context-dependent (Wilson, 1995). Therefore, knowledge is constructed from experience that can be incorporated in the ISD process. However, other educators are also beginning to question the effectiveness of this approach toward instructional design, especially as it applies to the development of instruction for novices (Mayer, 2004). While some constructivists argue that "learning by doing" enhances learning, critics of constructivism have argued that little empirical evidence exists to support this statement given novice learners (Mayer, 2004). Sweller (1988) and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models or "schemas" necessary for "learning by doing". 3. Critiques toward Instructional System Design In articles published in Training Magazine by Jack Gordon and Ron Zemke (2000) lay out arguments against the use of ISD models with their article titled The Attack on ISD and in 2002, Ron Zemke and Allison Rosette wrote a follow up with A Hard Look at ISD. The articles were the catalyst for a plethora of rebuttal articles, white papers, and seminars on why ISD is not dead and is still useful and relevant to the field (Clark, 2004). Moreover, the paper also looks at some other criticisms towards ISD. The critiques on ISD and consequently the rebuttals and affirmation have been a continuous debate. Thus, this study aims to present and answer these criticisms in a different perspective. For starters, since ISD is primarily design as a systematic approach, the researcher finds it appropriate to group the point-of-contentions into the components of a basic system (input, process, and output). Input simply means something you put in to the systematic series of action designed (process) to put out (output) results. It can be argued that at some point the criticisms may overlap to some parts of the system. However, a system is defined as a set of concepts or parts that must work together to perform a particular function, therefore, it can be surmised that the arguments don t only apply to that particular part but to the whole system. Moreover, the research aims to agree or disagree with the criticisms based on theoretical and empirical framework. 12

14 Furthermore, the researcher offers some personal arguments based on his experiences using ISD. Figure 2 below serves as the conceptual framework of the study. Figure 2. Conceptual Framework 3.1 Input Factors Something must be going into the system to be processed and eventually converted into a desired outcome. In any system, time, money, people, materials, expertise, even perception, among others are considered essential parts for the successful completion of the task at hand. Although there are numerous criticisms that can be attributed to the input factors, most of them are rehearses of the four major points written below. The following criticisms are directly related to one or many of these basic system inputs. ISD process is time consuming and expensive and often do not produce the desired training outcomes ISD is too slow and clumsy to meet today s learners because of the bureaucratic and political mess it needs to get things done 13

15 There s no There - there as some ISD systems spend months designing and developing courses before pilot testing it. ISD clings to the wrong world view such as master performers and rigorously structure classrooms. ISD is not appropriate for creating instruction for ill-structured problems or higher level objectives The time and money spent in developing a viable learning using the ISD model are often the first line of criticisms. However, supporters of ISD argue that the cost effectiveness will largely depend upon the use of appropriate application of the ISD model. It is not fair to think that there are inherent flaws in the model, this also known as flaws in the practice (Zemke & Rosette, 2002). The adequate understanding, training and skills of the designer are the key factors in the successful use of ISD model or any learning model for that matter. A novice designer may have a hard time thereby wasting precious resources but once graduates to being an expert, he may develop his own interpretation of how ISD works by combining, skipping and even adding their own steps in the model. Advocates of ISD argue that it gives importance to learning objectives and its conception even before learning takes place by forcing educators to pay careful attention to what it is that is going to be learned (learning objectives) and what must already be known prior to the learning transactions (Dick et al., 2005; Morrison et al., 2004; Smith & Ragan, 2005) which are clearly identified and stated, and exist apart from the learner (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). These arguments affirm the assurance that by using the ISD model will produce the desired training outcome. The political and bureaucratic system is inherent to any organization. Regardless of what instructional model one uses, the nature of the organization is critical in the success or failure of the model. Most organizations will be concern with the allocation of resources and the return of such investments. Moreover, the people in the organization should control the system not the other way around. Furthermore, the willingness and consequently the support the institutions provide lay the groundwork for successful ISD initiatives. Finally, it may be difficult to affect the paradigm shift in favor of ISD especially in institutional level, but through constant practice it may be perfected. 14

16 To address the argument of ISD being slow and clumsy, Thiagiarajan (1999) conducts workshops in "Rapid Instructional Design" which includes strategies and design elements to move more quickly through the ADDIE phases and to use partial processes where appropriate. This stresses that ISD is not a strict and rigid process. The immediate needs of the learners is the primarily goal of ISD, thereby steps can evolve in accordance with that needs. Although, ISD is regarded as scientific approach to instruction, it requires both science and art in its implementation. ISD has been born out of the need for the most cost effective way of training during the war. Therefore, it safe to say, that with this condition, there are masters performers that were able to perfect ISD. However, this is not equivalent in saying that their steps are open for new interpretation or one have to be a master to do able to do. Masters performers are simply tools that provide guidance. Carliner (2003) suggests we should remember ISD is a value system that must be applied appropriately and all ISD needs is retooling for all the new ways of learning we see since ISD was first proposed more than 50 years ago. Moreover, according to ISD, the "rigorously structured classrooms" should be the last choice of instruction due to high costs and lock-step nature (Clark, 2004). Any learning model like ISD offers a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem (Ryder, 2002). The design phase in any ISD model caters to the specification of the learning objectives, regardless whether require low or high cognitive engagements. Designer should also be aware of the difference between learning goals and objectives, that is the first being a general term and the latter more specific. I see no problem why ISD could not be used for higher level objectives but it needs to wellstructured to facilitate learning. 3.2 Process Factors A process is a planned series of actions that advances a material or procedure from one stage of completion to the next within a system. This involves the design and development of the processes and practices which are critical parts of the instructional system approach. In this regard, the following statements reflect the sentiments by the critics in these areas. ISD process is too prescriptive and rigid. 15

17 The practice of ISD to use the cook book approach to instructional design. ISD is an outdated approach that does not contemplate new learning and instruction or new developments in technology. The art and science of designing instructions is a continuous and fundamental process, one cannot exists without the other. The charge that ISD attempts to change training from an art into a science is unfounded. Although ISD is regarded as a systematic therefore scientific approach, its implementation is far from a linear step-by-step procedure. The designer should combine these steps with a personal touch to create quality learning. Gayeski (2002) argues that the ISD model should never have been conceived as something carved in stone. Therefore, the personal interpretation of the instructional designer matters as much as the scientific processes of ISD. As in any other model, ISD is a conceptual framework in building instruction. The rigidity and prescriptiveness of the model will largely depend on the interpretation of the instructional designer about the ISD steps. Kenny, et al. (2005) note, while implicitly prescriptive, models of instructional design are in fact conceptual frameworks for practice. They are concepts for designing instruction that produce the desired results not laws that should be observed to the latter. According to Tosti (2002) the "cook-book" approach to instructional design comes out of the widespread adoption of ISD by the military in the early 1970s to allow people with little experience to create reasonably acceptable training. This systems approach was needed to combat the prevailing view at that time that hardware was the key (Saettler, 1990). However, since the formalization of the system concept, there have numerous ISD models that have evolve through the changing times. As a good chef would treat a cook book, although it is a valuable tool, some reinvention to suit the palette of the clientele is always a welcome addition. ISD can accommodate new theories and technologies and it is not outdated but rather flexible, allows evolution in practice, and assures quality and effective training in diverse contexts (Dream Team). With the advent of information and communication technologies specially, in the area of education and training, ISD can be an indispensable tool which can accommodate these ever evolving technologies and approaches. Moreover, the greater 16

18 the compatibility between an ID model and it s contextual, theoretical and philosophical origins, the greater the potential to generate effective instruction (Gustafson & Branch, 2004). 3.3 Output Factors Output can be defined as the desired outcome of the processed input. In view of this, the following criticisms indicate the arguments that associate with the efficient and effectiveness of the desired output of instructional system design and its future. Used as directed it produces bad solutions The New Technology Challenge The ISD process starts with analysis so that in the early on the design of instruction, there is a concrete specification of the goals and objectives of instruction. Glaser & Baxter (1999) argues "The development of the system is initiated with the specification of the goals of instruction." The analysis is therefore the most critical part of ISD. The bad solutions can be attributed to the wrong analysis of instructional objectives or the process in which it is implemented. This could not be directly attributed to the model but to human interpretation and error of the instructional designer. As a saying in computer science, garbage in garbage out, bad solutions are not the fault of the machine but of the programmer. Moreover, Clark (2004) discusses how the "A" of ADDIE was never meant to stand for performance analysis and that instructional design should only begin once it is determined training is the solution to the problem. The flexibility and adaptability of ISD to adapt to new technologies and approaches to learning have been proven time and again. However, there should always be room for improvement. E-learning, blended learning and ubiquitous learning are the present and future of learning. The standardized instructions that cater to individualized learners like courseware are the new mode of learning. Effective training programs are more likely because the ISD model increases the probability that the courseware will match the objectives and not veer off in a different direction (Roblyer, 1981). 17

19 4. Conclusion The central theme of the criticisms is the cost-effectiveness of ISD as model for designing instructions. If we are to consider the instructional objectives and goals, the answer is yes. The US military which introduced ISD hasn t officially loose a war. Moreover, the newer technology like blended learning is anchored in ISD. Rebuttals concentrated on the question: Is it ISD that's flawed, or the manner in which it is applied that is the problem (Zemke & Rossett, 2002). This reinforces the belief that ISD per se is not defective but the instructional designers that employ it. The role that an expert and novice play in the manner in which ISD is implemented is a critical factor. In addition, the institution is also crucial in the success or failure of ISD. As an approach and methodology for designing instruction, ISD is unrivaled. It continues to (1) be a valuable and time tested instructional design approach; (2) allow flexibility within the model for new learning and instructional strategies; (3) ensures the integration of new technologies; and (4) provide quality and effective instructional management. Moreover, the systematic approach is a scientifically proven as it is empirical and can be replicated. Furthermore, the continuous analysis that embodies ISD models provides a framework for improving and strengthening instructions. The presentation of ISD models gives the impression that it is a mechanistic step-by-step linear approach. Of course, this is far from the truth, however, impression lasts. This may pose a challenge to novice designer who might overwhelmed by it. Finally, as critics of ISD continue to herald its demise, perhaps, they should offer a better alternative. 18

20 References Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (1991). Computer-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Anglin, G. (Ed.). (1991). Instructional technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Broderick, C. L. (2001). What is instructional design? Retrieved on March 10, 2008 from Carliner, S. (2003). An instructional design framework for the twenty-first century. Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from Clark, D. (2004). The Attack on ISD Retrieved January 30, 2008 from Clark, D. (2004). A hard look at ISD Retrieved January 15, 2008, from Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6 th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Dream Team (n.d.). Dream Team s Roadent Retrieved January 29, 2008, from Gentry, C. (1994). Introduction to instructional development. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Glaser, R., & Baxter, G. P. (1999). Assessing active knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles. Gordon, J. & Zemke, R. (2000). The Attack on ISD. Training Magazine, 37 (4)), Grabowski, S. (2003). Teaching & Media: A Systematic Approach: The Gerlach & Ely Model. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from 180/gerlach_ely.pdf Gerlach+%26+Ely+Model&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4%20ISD/M 4L1P1.htm#m4l1p1_intro Gustafson, K.L. & Branch, R.M. (2007). What is instructional design? In Reiser, R.A. & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. Kemp, J., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Designing effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kruse, K. (200). Introduction to Instructional Design and the ADDIE Model. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from Learner, R. (1986). Concepts and Theories of Human Development (2nd ed.). New York: Random House Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Fearon. Mayer, R. (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction". American Psychologist 59 (1), McGriff, S. (2001) Kemp Model Page. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Merill, M.D., Li, L., & Jones, M.K. (1991). Second Generation Instructional Design (ID2). Educational Technology, 30(1), 7-11 and 30(2), 7-14 Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Rapid Instructional Design. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from 19

21 Merrienboer, J. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component Instructional Design Model for Technical Training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., & Kemp, J.E. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Prestera, Gus. (2002). Instructional Design Models. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from /g/e/gep111/html/m4/l1%20- Qureshi, E. & Morton, L. (2006). Selecting Instructional Design Models. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). The effective dimensions of interactive learning on thewww. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional Design Theories and Models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. U.S. Army (Oct. 83). A System Approach to Training Course. Fort Sill, Oklahoma: U.S. Army Field Artillery School. Richey, R.C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field. TechTrends. 52(1), pp Roblyer, M.D. (1981). Instructional Design Verses Authoring of Courseware: Some Crucial Differences. AEDS Journal, 14, pp Ryder, M. (2006). Instructional Design models. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from University of Colorado at Denver, School of Education Web site: Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company. Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company. Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (1993). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Jossey-Bass Education Stolovitch, H.D, & Keeps, E. (1999). Handbook of human performance technology. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 12 (1), Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Rapid Instructional Design. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from Tripp, S.D. & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), Venezky, R. & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction. New York: Longman. Walter, D., Carey, L & Carey, L. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction, 6th Edition, Allyn & Bacon, Wikipedia (2008). Instructional design. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from Wilson, B. G. (1995). Situated Instructional Design: Blurring the Distinctions between learning and practice, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from (Accessed 03/12/2000). 20

22 Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD handbook of instructional technology. pp ). New York: McGraw-Hill. Zemke, R. & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training Magazine, 39 (2),