The Future Of Instructional Models

Here is November’s Big Question from Learning Circuits: Are our models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT, etc.) relevant in the future? The question does not stop there. The LC blog follows it up with “Are ISD/ADDIE/HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time-to-performance, and informal learning?” Although Learning Circuits must have seen both these question together as defining one problem statement, I see two distinct questions here. 

Let me respond to the “first question” first. The relevance of a model depends on how you use it rather than when you use it (past, present, and future). In this case, the question seems to imply that the models in question are traditional (ISD, ADDIE, HPT, etc.). However, the use of brackets, the addition of “etc.” and the absence of the word “traditional” or “conventional” makes the question open to interpretation—which is not a bad thing. 

“Our models” are somewhat like this question. A model by its very definition is generic; it acquires specificity only in local contexts. So, if one is to assume that ADDIE is top-down, behavioristic, and ID driven, then it will appear to be so. On the other hand, if a few learners decide to use the process elements of ADDIE to design learning for their own use in a Second Life kind of platform, the application of this model takes on a completely different perspective. 

Therefore, the problem lies not with the models, but in how we approach them and what we take out of them. We should be able to appropriate models, not just apply them literally or reject them outright. By appropriating a model, we make it relevant to us and to our times.

The second question, on the other hand, assumes that the future of learning lies in rapid e-learning and informal learning. And this “future” seems to be arguing for a shift in the ownership of content creation.

Who is the best person to generate content? Is it the learner (Learning 2.0), the instructional designer (Learning 1.0), or the SME (LCMS)? Should content generation be top-down, self-directed, or collaborative? Such questions most often lead us toward tautologies and not toward answers. Moreover, no content is born out of nowhere; most types of content are extensions of or responses to already existing content.

If we need answers, we might have to ask the following questions:

• What kind of learning experiences will help me sharpen my perspectives, take the right  decisions, and do the right things?
• Where and how can I find, create, and participate in these experiences?
• How should I organize these experiences so that I’m able to make meaningful associations? 

I’m not arguing that these questions are unambiguous—“right decisions,” “right things,” and “meaningful associations” are all ambiguous words in the absence of a defined criteria. The point I’m trying to make is this: Learning is linked to memory, retention, application, critical thinking, and creativity. And if adapting certain processes or ways of organizing content can lead to a learning experience that aids long-term retention or provides deeper insights, then there is nothing wrong in using a model that suits the purpose.

Give me the discursive content of a Google search and the conversations of a blog, but don’t deny me the effectiveness of a well-designed learning program. And models like ISD, if used creatively, can help produce highly effective learning programs. Let the future of learning be not defined by platforms (Web 2.0 or otherwise) but by the rigor of thought and the boldness of assumptions—supported by research, empirical evidence, and lived experiences.

(Anil Mammen heads the content & instructional design specialist group at Tata Interactive.)

Comments

[dave lee]

Anil:

Great post. My thought after reading your comments, is that whenever learning needs to be designed, then of course there will be some sort of model used. If the learning experience will happen of it's own accord, thus not needing to be designed; then why would be we involved - model or no model?

It's great to have the prestigious Tata Interactive Group involved in The Big Question! Thanks for joining the conversation.

Dave Lee, blogmeister
Learning Circuits Blog

[Karl Kapp]

Good discussion of the use of a model. I agree that it is the application of the model that makes a difference. The ADDIE proces is simply a design process that can be applied to many different situations such as Second Life or other "Learning 2.0" tools. I also assert that a model is generic and used for guidance but is not set in stone. Good comments Anil.

[Karl Kapp]

I agree with your discussion of the ADDIE model and others as generic. We can apply those model as we see fit. Yes, just because a model is presented doesn't mean we can't change or modify the model to fit a new educational situation like creation of a blog or establishing a learning event in Second Life.

[Anil Mammen]

Thanks Dave and Karl for the comments. As Dave rightly pointed out, I don’t think all kinds of learning need to be designed for the learner. Active learners seek out learning not only from books, experts, and the Web but also from movies, conversations, and inanimate objects. In which case, models don’t matter. However, because formal learning is not altogether dead and is not likely to die for sometime to come, design and models have their roles to play. But the questions really are: what role will they play and how will they play it?

[dave lee]

It just occurred to me that one of the things I've struggled throughout this discussion has been the way we discuss these models.

What role THEY will play and how will THEY play it? I'm not picking on you, Anil. We've all done it through this discussion. We tend to anthropomorphize and generalize these methods.

Whether ADDIE, ISD, or HPT have a future depends on how we use them. If we think of them as "course generation machines," their days are numbered. But if we see them as a set of general guidelines with room for interpretation, they can serve us well for years to come.

As you said in your original post, Anil. The key is how WE utilize these tool in a specific situation and how adapt them for new situations.

[Anil Mammen]

Completely agree with you. That anthropomorphism just slipped out even without my knowing it. Language most often leads us towards absurd traps. (Here's another one: "Language leads us".) The intent was: “In what role will we use “them” and how will we use “them”? The moment we try to resist the objectification of a model, it already acquires the form of an object. But resist we must.