| Online Teaching: Instructional Design Theories Part I |
|
Online Teaching: Instructional Design Theories Part I C. M. Reigeluth Any attempt to understand education is enlightened by the recognition that education is a system; namely, that it is comprised of many interacting elements, and that the effects of each element are dependent to a great extent upon other elements of the system. Banathy (1991) has identified four levels of educational systems: (a) the learning-experience level; (b) the instructional system that implements those learning experiences; (c) the administrative system that supports the instructional system; and (d) the governance system that owns, rules, and funds the entire educational or training enterprise. Separate fields have arisen for each level, including learning theory, instructional and curriculum and counseling theories, administrative studies, and policy studies, respectively. Interdisciplinary linkages are woefully deficient in most cases. This entry will focus on the instructional level of educational systems. Within the instructional level, there are many theoretical approaches, each oriented around a different type of decision-oriented activity. Curriculum theory and theories of front-end analysis inform decisions about what to teach. Instructional design theory addresses decisions about how to teach it. Instructional mediation (or instructional development) theory is concerned with how to take the designs (or blueprints) for the instruction and make them a reality on the most appropriate media. There are also theories for instructional evaluation, dissemination/ implementation/ change, and management. This entry only addresses instructional design theory. CHARACTERISTICS OF ID THEORIES An ID theory is a set of guidelines that indicate what methods of instruction are most likely to work best for different situations. Just as a carpenter uses different tools for different situations, so a person who facilitates learning must use different tools for different situations. ID theory is accumulated knowledge about which methods work best for which situations. 1. Conditions-Methods-Outcomes It is helpful to think of two aspects of the teaching "situation" that will influence which methods will work best: desired instructional outcomes and instructional conditions. Desired instructional outcomes include the effectiveness of the instruction (which is based on learning outcomes), the efficiency of the instruction (as indicated by learning time and/or cost of the instruction), and the appeal of the instruction (the extent to which the learner enjoys it). Instructional conditions include some aspects of the learner (such as relevant prior knowledge, ability, motivation, and learning styles), some aspects of what is to be learned (such as whether it requires application, understanding, or simple memorization), some aspects of the learning environment (such as instructional resource and time constraints), and even some aspects of the instructional development process (such as development resource and time constraints). Of course, different aspects of an instructional situation will influence how well different kinds of methods, or "tools," will work. Hence the basic form of instructional theory is "if-then" statements—often called "prescriptions" or "guidelines"—in which a method appears in the "then" part and relevant aspects of a situation appear in the "if part of the statement. If a prescription is very narrow, prescribing a single method variable, it is usually called a "principle of instruction." A theory is much broader in scope: an integrated set of method variables—a package deal— is prescribed, rather than just a single method variable. A few additional distinctions will assist in clarifying what ID theory includes and excludes. 2. Instruction versus Learning ID theory is different from, but related to, learning theory. ID theory focuses on methods of instruction and facilitation—what the teacher or other learning resource does—whereas learning theory focuses on the learning process—what happens inside the learner. 3. Prescriptive versus Descriptive Simon (1969) has distinguished between the natural sciences, which are descriptive, and the design sciences (or sciences of the artificial), which are prescriptive. The natural and design sciences are usually closely related, as in the case of biology and medicine, physics and engineering, and learning and instruction. Cronbach and Suppes (1969) made the same distinction under the rubrics of conclusion-oriented and decision-oriented disciplines. ID theory, as a design science, is prescriptive, or decision-oriented, but it is closely related to learning theory. There is a common misconception that descriptive theory must precede prescriptive theory— that learning theory must precede ID theory. In reality, throughout the history of science, from the steam engine to superconductivity, the prescriptive has often preceded the descriptive. Someone has discovered that a certain technique (or tool or method) works; others then set about trying to determine why. Although this has often been true with ID theory, it is also true that instructional tools have been invented and prescriptions have been developed based on a new learning theory. 4. Pragmatic (Eclectic) versus Ideological It seems fair to say that all descriptive theories contribute something useful, no matter how inadequate they may be overall. As Snelbecker (1987) has pointed out, descriptive theorists strive for theoretical purity, adopt a single perspective or view of the world, and put their theories up to compete against other theories. Their primary concern is whether their theory is ideologically pure and conceptually consistent. But practitioners need to address all aspects of a problem and multiple kinds of problems. Their primary concern is how well a prescriptive theory attains their practical goals. Therefore, they need multiple perspectives, and frequently develop solutions that are based on, or can be explained by, several different descriptive theories. Therefore, prescriptive theorists tend to take a pragmatic view that integrates useful contributions from a variety of theoretical perspectives. 5. Validity versus Superiorly. For descriptive theories, the major scientific concern most cases. is validity—how well they describe reality. But for prescriptive theories, since they are goal-oriented, the major scientific concern is superiority (or optimality) —how well they attain the goal. There are usually many ways to attain a smgle goal, but some are better than others. The goal of prescriptive theory is not to find out if a given method works; it is not just to identify a method that "satisfices," but to identify the method that is better than the other known alternatives for each set of conditions. Of course, the efficiency (based on time and/or money) and appeal of a method are important criteria, as well as its effectiveness. The goal of prescriptive theory is also to improve the best available methods continually. This is significant, because it requires a completely different paradigm of research than does descriptive theory—a paradigm that is coming to be called "formative research" (Newman 1990, Reigeluth 1989). 6. Level of Detail or Generality Prescriptive theories, like descriptive theories, can be very detailed, very general, or anywhere between. The more general an ID theory is, the broader it will be (i.e., the more situations in which it will apply), but the guidance it will provide to an instructional designer will be reduced. For example, "To improve learning and motivation, have the learner actively engaged," applies to almost all instructional situations, but it provides little guidance to a designer or teacher as to exactly what the instruction should be like for their particular situation. More guidance makes the designer's work easier and quicker, but it also takes more time and effort for the designer to learn initially. If a designer does not have formal training in instructional theory, he or she will invent their own, but it may differ considerably from the accumulated experience of researchers and practitioners as represented by the current knowledge base of prescriptive theory. 7. Product versus Process Finally, it is helpful to consider the distinction between ends and means, or product and process. ID theory is that knowledge base that deals with the ends or products (using that term loosely)—what the instruction should be like (after it has been designed). Instructional development models, on the other hand, deal with the means or process—what an instructional designer should do to plan and create the "products." Typical development models specify activities for a developer to perform to analyze (needs, tasks, content, learners, and more), design, produce, evaluate, implement, and manage an instructional system or "product." ID theories specify instructional methods for a teacher (or other learning resource) to use to help a learner learn. This is a very important, yet often overlooked, distinction. For a concise description of some modern ID theories see Reigeluth (1983), in which eight theorists describe their respective ID theories. In another volume (Reigeluth (1987) the same theorists illustrate their Jheories through a sample lesson. |
Contoh Jabaran Variabel Penelitian, Sub Variabel dan Indikator Penelitian (16925)
Thesis: Action Research Tutorial (6413)