Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson and Pat Parrish

Instructional design (ID) as a domain of practice is about designing good instruction ­ in Reigeluth's (1983) terms, creating a program or product that is effective, efficient, and appealing. Effective instruction meets established learning goals and objectives; efficient instruction does so with minimal expenditure of resources, particularly time; and appealing instruction draws the sustained attention and positive response of learners.

But is that enough? But what if the learning goals are inadequate ­ can we establish effectiveness when the objectives are lacking depth? In the pursuit of efficiency, how do we weigh the value of different outcomes? And appealing instruction ­ do we attend to surface features or deep qualities that lead to powerful learning experiences? I reflect in this paper on what it is that we¹re pursuing in instructional design ­ what does good instruction look like? Getting clear on ends may help legitimize some under-used means that deeply engage the learner in transformative experiences. The paper is based on a paper in progress, co-authored with Pat Parrish and George Veletsianos, submitted for presentation at AERA in New York, March 2008.

View the paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson

This was a keynote address to the Instructional Technology Council, 18 February 2007, in Albuquerque. The 500 ITC attendees are comprised of eLearning program leaders, managers, instructors and support personnel. In this talk, I begin with the “mere vehicles” discussion about the effectiveness of media.

In addition to tools and instructional strategies, I stress the importance of dedicated and talented people; learning activities; and experiences from the learner’s point of view. I also cite Joni Dunlap’s work on how to save time as an online instructor.

View the presentation

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson, Scott Switzer, Pat Parrish, and the IDEAL Research Lab

In today's world of generic instructional methods and standards, we have observed a need for deeper kinds of learning engagement – the kind that leaves a lasting impression on the learner and has a demonstrable impact on practices. In this paper we offer initial guidelines for achieving transformative learning through deep engagement. The guidelines draw on theories of cognition, aesthetics, and ritual and symbolic support for identity change.

For the past two years our research lab has explored ways to broaden the theoretical foundations of instructional design (ID), particularly to strengthen the relevance of ID thinking to problems encountered in practice. Our recent work has explored how practicing instructional designers follow aesthetic concepts in designing learning experiences (Parrish, 2005, Parrish, 2006) and how ID practices fit within larger organizational values of respecting diverse learners and encouraging inclusive practices (Wilson, 2005a, Wilson, 2005b).

One problem we have observed is the proliferation of generic, highly-templated learning resources. As traditional training materials are converted to e-learning in particular, high volumes of content are produced but often at a sacrifice to quality (Merrill & Wilson, 2007). In higher education and K12 environments, curriculum is referenced to standards, but learning activities often do not push beyond a superficial level. In these technically correct but shallow learning environments, learners will express a need for deeper kinds of engagement – the kind that leaves a lasting impression and has a demonstrable impact on their practices. In this paper we offer an initial analysis for understanding these concerns, and point the way for continued inquiry along these lines.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Patrick Parrish

This article offers principles that support a particularly underappreciated aspect of instruction design, the aesthetic dimension. Rather than merely the surface qualities of things and events, the concept of aesthetics applied here pertains to a heightened form of engagement with the world. Aesthetic experiences are those infused with meaning, immersive, and felt as coherent and complete. Any significant, transformative learning experience will have aesthetic qualities, but even less ambitious instructional situations can benefit from attention to these qualities.

Drawn from research, aesthetics theory, and current ID and learning theory, a set of five principles and fifteen guidelines for their application are offered. The principles are not only compatible with existing ID theory bases—they can support that theory by offering ways to embody it in effective learning experiences.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Patrick Parrish

We often accept new technologies with such optimism that we fail to recognize their limitations. We often assume that human nature will adapt to the technology, rather than the other way around. A recent instructional technology that has seen such optimism is the learning objects approach to instructional design. The optimism surrounding instructional technologies like learning objects tends to take two forms; one follows the control paradigm of education, while the other follows the often conflicting open-systems paradigm.

This chapter analyzes the optimistic responses to learning objects arising from each of these paradigms, and then offers challenges to them. While the chapter uses learning objects for its example, the analysis approach is useful for examining the impacts of any technological innovation.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Patrick Parrish

This article addresses a prevalent reluctance to acknowledge the aesthetic aspects of instructional design (ID), and argues that this mistake can limit the effectiveness of instruction. It analyzes sources of this reluctance by examining four common beliefs about the nature of aesthetic qualities, and applies a conception of aesthetics, drawn from the American pragmatist philosophers, to argue that these beliefs our based on misconceptions. While aesthetics has always been used to describe the relationship of art to culture, as well as to explain how works of art achieve their impact on us, pragmatist aesthetics sees this relationship and impact as indicative of something much more pervasive. The pragmatist conception describes a quality that exists equally in the experiences of everyday life as in the fine arts, and one that directly applies to the learning experiences we design as instructional designers.

The paper also describes the somewhat limited ways in which ID draws from the other design disciplines (typically through technological connections), but fails to acknowledge its aesthetic connections to them. It also begins to articulate what might comprise an artful practice of instructional design, drawing from parallel practices in the arts.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson, Joni Dunlap, Stacey Ludwig-Hardman, and Christine Thornam

Learning communities can emerge spontaneously when people find common interests or learning goals, and pursue projects and tasks together in pursuit of those goals. Bounded learning communities are groups that form within a structured teaching or training setting, typically a course. Bounded learning communities do not spontaneously form, but develop in direct response to guidance provided by instructors and supervisors, supported by a cumulative resource base. This paper presents strategies that help learning communities develop within bounded frameworks, particularly online environments. Seven features of learning communities, derived from a comprehensive review of literature, are presented.

In courses, instructional designers should consider and create supports for the developmental arc of learning communities, from initial acquaintance, commonality-finding, and trust-building, through project work and skill development, and concluding with wind-down and dissolution of the community. These three stages of community formation are termed initiation, participation, and closure. Teachers contribute to the development of learning communities by conveying attitudes, actions, and beliefs about their willingness to be there and know students. The inter-subjective experience between students and instructors is termed teaching presence, and indicates the establishment of an atmosphere of trust. The paper concludes with a discussion of assessment issues and the need for continuing research.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson

Responding to Merrill’s manifesto Reclaiming Instructional Design, this chapter reflects on the practice of instructional design (ID) among the professional community of instructional designers. My intent is to work toward a conception of ID that is inclusive of different perspectives while preserving a coherent identity through a shared history and common purposes. I present a conception of ID practice as principally a craft shared by members of a professional community, containing both technical and tacit-knowledge components. Two core ideas help ground ID as a community: the conditions-of-learning framework linking methods with desired outcomes, and a systems approach to viewing instruction and instructional development.

Instructional systems design, as a development methodology, is contrasted with a consensual approach that emphasizes the inclusion of different perspectives and stakeholders into the decision- and meaning-making process. A holistic approach to instruction is offered that encourages design and review of instruction at four different levels: individual cognition and behavior; social and cultural learning; values; and aesthetics. In spite of the current proliferation of competing theories and perspectives, a degree of coherence in the field can be achieved by focusing on the common purposes of improving the design and delivery of instruction.

Wilson, B. G. (2004). Foundations for instructional design: Reclaiming the conversation. In J. M. Spector, D. Wiley, C. Ohrazda, & A. Van Schaack (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum, in press.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Brent Wilson

Recent years have seen significant growth in the field of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT), but at the same time a splintering of effort and loss of control over research and professional activity. Everyone, it seems, is doing research and development related to technology and learning, across:

• Settings: K12, higher education, work, home, entertainment
• Players: IDT specialists, educational specialists, researchers in other fields, and untrained enthusiasts

The surge of interest is indicated by the proliferation of professional organizations and journals devoted to its study.

Growth, even with the accompanying pains, is generally welcome because it provides energy, new ideas, and attention to innovations. Often, however, a snazzy new technology becomes the sole focus, not the ideas or innovative uses that lead to improved learning.

After many hard lessons, we have learned this much wisdom in the field: uses of technology must be considered within the context of learning effectiveness; otherwise the technological innovation becomes a kind of fetish with near-magical powers on its own. And even learning outcomes need to fit within the values of a larger society.

In the midst of ongoing change, it can be difficult to gauge where we are now and where we are headed as a field of study and professional community. The purpose of this contribution is to reflect on possible futures for IDT, considering lessons from our history, current needs of practice, and trends inside and outside the field.


Contribution for inclusion in:

Merrill, M. D., & Wilson, B. G. (2005). The future of instructional design. In J. Dempsey, & R. Reiser (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, in press.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Patrick Parrish

Prepared for the AERA Annual Meeting, 2004. In this study, I sought to better understand the relationship between art and instruction by investigating the ways in which teachers and instructional designers attend to the aesthetic qualities of learning. The study examined the practice of teachers and IDs in diverse settings, asking how they applied strategies to enhance learner engagement and influence attitudes toward the content of instruction.

Specifically, it examined the design and implementation decisions used by participants in their work on a specific class or product, such as the visual and other sensory qualities of the classroom and learning materials; the use of narrative structures in learning activities; the creation of tension, anticipation, and dramatic impact; the pacing of activities; the pattern of activities; and methods of creating closure. Findings demonstrated that this set of participants consciously attended to criteria of aesthetic experience discussed by Dewey (1934), including tension, immediacy, and anticipation of consummation.

View the full paper

Contributed by:

Author's Abstract:

Patrick Parrish

Object-oriented instructional design offers the promise of universal access to online instructional materials, increased productivity among trainers and educators, and solutions for individualizing learning. However, it is unclear whether it can fulfill these promises to the degree many envision. As for every new instructional technology, it is easy to become over-optimistic about learning objects, but we should remember that problems of education are always more complex than technology alone can solve.

The author takes a critical look at the proposed benefits of learning objects described in the published literature, particularly scalability and adaptability. The author also looks at both the difficulties in defining the term learning object and the limitations of metaphors used to describe the concept, and concludes with propositions for learning object usage.

Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 49-67.

View the full paper