Instructional Design Theory

by Kenneth J. Smith

You had an introduction to learning theory in Unit 2, and you’ve probably studied learning theory elsewhere. Now, we need to differentiate between learning theory and instructional design theory. Learning theory is the study of how people learn. Instructional Design Theory is the study of how to best design instruction so that learning will take place. Instructional design theory, then, is drawn from learning theory.

You know that the two broad fields of learning theory are behaviorist and cognitivist. The two broad fields of instructional design theory are directed instruction (instructional systems) and constructivist. Directed instruction approaches are, in general, drawn from behaviorist learning theory, while constructivist approaches are drawn from cognitivist learning theory.

We’ll provide here an introduction to both directed instruction (also called instructional systems) design and constructivist design. Further information is available through the other links in your syllabus and elsewhere. As you develop projects for this class, it will be necessary for you to choose what you think is an appropriate instructional design, justify that design, and apply it in your project.

There are books written on this subject, and there is a substantial body of research. However, we’ll try to introduce the basics in just one page. Below is a model borrowed, with modifications, from Reiser and Dick.

So that we don’t get confused with each other’s specialties, following is a short explanation of each of the above, using examples from a very low level.

1. The first consideration is the audience for the instruction. Students differ in terms of background of experience, attitudes, abilities, needs, motivation, knowledge, and other factors. Instruction must be designed with these matters in mind. Are your students mostly majors in your subject, highly motivated toward further study in it? Or are they taking it as an elective because it’s at a convenient time of day? Do they already know and care quite a lot about your subject, and do they have attitudes about it? One does not effectively plan instruction without answering these and other questions about the target audience.

Determination of the target audience will lead to identification of prerequisites. Are certain prior knowledge and abilities necessary for achieving the goals of your class? Or do the goals need to be adjusted in terms of the audience?

2. Goals are general statements of what you would like for students to be able to do when they complete your course. A goal for first grade math might be: Students will be able to solve basic addition problems. A goal that probably none of us could achieve might read: Students will DEMONSTRATE their knowledge of how Congress operates.

3. Enabling objectives are specific statements of what students will be able to do as a result of you instruction which will contribute to their reaching the goals(s). If a goal is to reach the second floor, then the steps are the objectives. If you happen to be a pilot, and your goal is to arrive safely in San Diego, you wouldn’t just go to the airport and take off. There are necessary objectives for meeting that goal, or you will likely crash somewhere in the desert. The objective must be measurable in some manner. An objective might be: Given five problems consisting of 2 single-digit numbers, the student will add them correctly four times. Another might be: Given a role in a mock meeting of Congress, the student will draft a piece of legislation in a manner which could be offered as a bill.

If students achieve all of the objectives, but have not reached their goals, then there is something wrong with the objectives. On the other hand, if students have not met all of their objectives, but have reached their goals, some of the objectives were not necessary.

4. Instructional activities are those activities which help to meet the objectives and, eventually, the goals. These may consist of anything from reading to listening to participating in field trips to exploring the Internet. They may be developed by the instructor (See Reiser and Dick in the references), with knowledge of the students’ background, needs, abilities, etc. (see 1 above), or they may provide students with opportunities to explore within a domain, integrating their new knowledge with knowledge and attitudes which they brought with them in order to "construct their own meaning." (See Jonassen in the references). Some combination of these approaches may be desirable.

5. Instructional media include lecturing, assignments, using presentation packages such as PowerPoint, the Internet, computer-assisted-instruction packages, and others. The problem is to discover which helps most in meeting objectives, and that may not be the same for all students.

6. Assessment tools must be designed to provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and attitudes stated in the objectives. How do you know when students have arrived, either for objectives or for goals?

7. Implementation gives you the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of your plan of instruction.

8. Any plan should be subject to revision, and the revision should go clear back to the objectives. Usually we do not wish to change the actual goals for a course, but the objectives may not be actually helping to meet the goals, the activities may not be helping to meet the objectives, the medial may not be the most efficient means of delivery, and the assessment may not actually provide the opportunities to demonstrate meeting the objectives.

The above plan may look like a lot of trouble, and it will take considerable effort the first time it is applied to a class. However, it will take less time as you become more experienced with it, and it will result in effective instruction.

1. Jonassen, David H., Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking, Merill/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

2. Reiser, Robert A. and Dick, Walter, Instructional Planning, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1996.

As you read about instructional design, you will come upon a number of models which fit into the area of constructivism, so a single definition is very difficult. However, some generalizations can be made. Constructivists, as the name implies, believe that all knowledge takes place as people construct their own meaning from their own experiences, backgrounds, and attitudes. Clearly, then, constructivism is an outgrowth of earlier theories such as discovery learning. Constructivists believe that their approach makes learning more relevant to students by imbedding it in real, "authentic" situations, helps them learn to solve problems, think critically, and learn how to learn. Emphasis is on the process of learning, rather than searching for the answer.

A constructivist design, then, would (1) focus on learning through posing problems, (2) be concerned with large goals such as problem solving and learning skills, rather than specific objectives, (3) stress group work such as cooperative learning, and (use alternative assessment methods, such as student portfolios, evaluation of product (look at your final "exam" for this class), use of open-ended questions, and teacher observation.

Some specific constructivist strategies include:

1. advance organizers: motivational and "scaffolding" (understandings which provide a framework for study) activities;
2. chunking: organizing content into related "chunks", making it easier to remember;
3. mnemonics: memory techniques such as "30 days hath September, April, June, and November";
4. framing: a technique for organizing content to make it easier to remember, and
5. semantic mapping (or semantic web): a technique for clarifying relationships.

A constructivist, then, might choose to use such games as the "Carmen Sandiego" series, from which a student would be expected to learn history and geography by using that content to solve problems. One might assign students a group project, such as the development of a PowerPoint program on desert ecology, for presentation to the rest of the class or others. That development would require students, not only to learn to work together, but to learn the necessary biology, math, history, geography, and English to make the presentation effective. Or one might choose to use a computer to simulate a real activity. Among the best known and most sophisticated of such programs are flight simulators, but there are lots of others. Sometimes they are better than the real thing, for a crash in a flight simulator is much less drastic than a crash in an airplane! Perhaps you know about "Oregon Trail", a simulation which requires the use of geography and math as well as decision-making and making predictions.

Take a look under "Resources" in the Construe program for examples of constructivist programs, particularly those coming from Vanderbilt University (the Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series"). You’ll find some exploration under "Resources" to be quite revealing. (Is that suggestion constructivist or directed instruction? Will it help you meet your goals for this class or not? Will it help you pass this course or not?)

Bruner, J. The Relevance of Education, W. W. Norton, N. Y., 1973 (theoretical background)

Jonassen, David H., Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking, Merill/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

Roblyer, M. D. et al., Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, Merrill/ Prentice-Hall, 1997. (A good discussion of instructional design, with practical suggestions for combining directed instruction with constructivism. Also a good practical guide to integrating technologies into the classroom.)

West****(cognitive psychology-based strategies)

Willis, J. "A Recursive, Reflective Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretist Theory," Educational Technology, 33(10), 15-20. (A constructivist model)

Choosing a Design

There are those who think that a directed instruction design is appropriate for all instruction, while others are quite certain that constructivism is the only justifiable approach. Before making a decision of you own, you might ponder some questions.

1. Is the same design best suited for all kinds of learning? For instance, is one design better for learning specific content, while another is better for learning critical thinking?
2. Does a lesson need to limit itself to one design, or would some combination work better?
3. What is most consistent with your, the school’s, and the community’s goals? For instance, you may want students to be able to think about history, but is that what parents expect for their children? Is there a resulting difference in design?
4. What does research indicate about the relative effectiveness of differing designs? Would the research results be different if we changed the goals or the assessment?

Return to Unit 3