Given equal results, instructional designers recommend the least expensive option. Or do they?
To my regret, I recently deleted this sentence from my soon-to-be published book chapter:
Instructional designers are ethically bound, that if all learning outcomes are equal, to recommend the least expensive, most environmentally sensitive, and most socio-culturally aware method.
I was asked to provide references to back up this claim. Hmm...isn't this considered a tenet of instructional design?
Actually, isn't this a basic truth about all designers everywhere? Part of the job of a designer is to
A) know all of the options and
B) know the strengths and weaknesses of those options which naturally leads a designer to
C) present the options to their client, highlighting the designer's judgment of BEST choice, even if that best choice is not what the client is hoping for.
But this lead to me to stop to really think about this: First, do instructional designers follow this prioritization when recommending media:
- least expensive, aka cheapest, most cost effective
- environmentally sensitive
- socially just?
I know the priorities' positions are open for debate. Is most cost effective the same as efficient? (Reigeluth would say no.) Should social justice in a resource be considered equal with cost effective? (The generalized failure of MOOCs says no.) I think a debate is overdue!
Second, and more importantly, do instructional designers reach out and engage their own powers in first assessing options and then being the voice of wisdom in their work situations? I feel more passionate about this second conundrum than the first one. It is this point that I did write and keep my book chapter (publishing soon) and I am glad I stood my ground on that.
"Instructional designers have the critical role of consulting on media choices for their campuses. IDs can lead the way by advocating, recommending, designing, assessing, and researching learning options."
This ability is powerful. You'll find I'm first in line to advocate that campus administrators should acknowledge that they have consultants on staff in the form of instructional designers. After all, if one of the characteristics of wisdom is to hold within one's mind simultaneously conflicting truths, I can't think of a better description of a designer! We often hold many truths (this is good for this, that is good for that) and yet it does not bother us that no one media choice will solve all problems. We are trained and paid to be wise; to recommend and to help with real world messy choice.
I don't have to be stuck in my contemplation. I have over 11,600 instructional designer friends in the Instructional Designers in Education Facebook group; a group that has grown and welcomed discussions of many kinds.
Thus, I asked for some wisdom of the crowds.
My concern was: Had they been exposed to this series of ideas (they have the power to recommend and they should engage priorities when doing s0) in their ID training?
So I ran an unscientific poll asking this, with the option for respondents to add their own answers, which they did.
Were you taught this as a tenet of instructional design:
Given that all learning outcomes are equal, you are obligated to recommend the learning resource that is: 1) cheapest 2) most environmentally responsible 3) socially just.
The results:
- No. 38 votes.
- Not even no, never heard of it. What is this choice thing you refer to? (Admittedly, my own snarkily-worded choice.) 10 votes.
- Most effective for the learners (added choice) 6 votes.
- Just cheapest (added choice). 5 votes.
- Not all learning outcomes are equal (added by some person that missed my true point because I made all learning outcomes a given, which means they are not up for debate, but hey, discussion is discussion, so fair game AND I'll take up the debate about learning outcomes later). 4 votes.
- Yes. 1 vote.
I am thankful for the 64 votes and further comments. Much to my dismay, however, 48 votes indicated that they did not remember getting exposed to either decision-making powers or the ability to prioritize when making recommendations. There was only one yes vote.
There was one comment that reminded me that it was probably somewhere in Merrill and Reigeluth's writing where these concepts appeared. I checked several Merrill and Reigeluth sources and found that they have indeed been the voices advocating for instructional designers to have an active role in their own professions self-description. I've picked just a few highlights here:
See this gorgeous three page article called Reclaiming Instructional Design from Merrill, Drake, Lacy, Pratt, and ID₂ Research Group from 1966 (!!) within which they make the point that instructional design is a science, new designers are streaming into the field (sound familiar 2021?) and instructional design should not be built 'on the sands of relativism'. Ho-ho! Thems fighting words!
Let's add 40 years to this recipe. Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman make a rather great point in 2009 in their book chapter, Instructional Theory for Education in the Information Age when they wrote:
"Our educational system was designed for a different era-- the industrial age - in which standardization and compliance were needed above all else" (p. 390).
Further, they go on to argue that technology that allows for customization is needed more than technology that supports standardization. They write:
"My main reason for asking you to think about a vision for the information age paradigm of education is that we need instructional theorists to contribute to a common knowledge base for the new paradigm, not for the paradigm of a bygone era" (p. 398, bold added).
Think about that for a second. Are instructional designers designing NOW in 2021 for 2021 educational paradigms? Or for 2020? Or 2019? If you said 2019, you are probably right. What are we doing? We are designing instruction for a bygone era now. Have we considered that instructional design needs to change its focus and priorities?
Further by 2013, Reigeluth is practically calling out from the rooftop:
"There is a desperate need for theorists and researchers to generate and refine a new breed of learning-focused instructional design theories that help educators and trainers to meet those needs (i.e. that focus on learning and that foster the development of initiative, teamwork, thinking skills, and diversity)" (p. 27).
This does signal to me that instructional design as a profession is ready for a paradigm change.
It grieves me to think that this group of trained professionals probably isn't using their powers of wisdom because first, someone is forgetting to remind them (ahem, instructional design schools) and someone else (ahem campus human resource departments) isn't writing that wisdom into the job description or minimum salary (how much does a campus pay a consultant versus how does a campus pay "staff").
Why am I getting so all worked up about this? We're on the edge of discovering-- as a planet-- that many technologically-facilitated forms of learning and working are equal in terms of results. So the online option is now looking better than the on-campus one.
- Calls for learning approaches and media that are environmentally-sensitive follow lock-step with the movement now for remote work choices (i.e. an online science chemistry course requires less chemicals to worry about disposing of after a lab. It is simply put, more environmentally sensitive. Ditto virtual anatomy dissections. Ditto expensive hard copy textbook revisions...).
- Calls for opting for socially-just learning approaches and media (US history textbooks that spend more time on the economic causes of slavery than on the human cost) are long overdue. Ditto respect for women when selecting learning resources/methods. Ditto respect for indigenous populations. Ditto for incorporation of the viewpoint of minorities. Ditto for eliminating ageism. Ditto...ditto.
Time to get to work, instructional design theorists, both those in the field and those that fight for the profession. It's a new age now.
I now write my sentence unapologetically and with conviction.
Instructional designers are ethically bound, that if all learning outcomes are equal, to recommend the least expensive, most environmentally sensitive, and most socio-culturally aware method.
P.S. perhaps you are wondering about that given, "all learning outcomes equal". I have many strong things to say about that, specifically in support of technology and VR-based education. But that's for a future article.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID₂ Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 5-7. http://moemesto.ru/oleg_s_m/file/14270813/display/%C3%90%C2%BF%C3%90%C2%B5%C3%90%C2%B4%C3%90%C2%B0%C3%90%C2%B3%C3%90%C2%BE%C3%90%C2%B3%C3%90%C2%B8%C3%91%E2%80%A1%C3%90%C2%B5%C3%91%20%C3%90%C2%BA%C3%90%C2%B8%C3%90%C2%B9%20%C3%90%C2%B4%C3%90%C2%B8%C3%90%C2%B7%C3%90%C2%B0%C3%90%C2%B9%C3%90%C2%BD.pdf
Reigeluth, C.M. & Carr-Chellman, A.A. (Eds.). (2009.) Instructional-design theories and models. (Vol. 3, pp. 387-399).
Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Routledge.
#learningoutcomes #instructoinaldesign #design #designers #professionals #priorities #onlineeducation
This article originally posted to LinkedIn on July 6, 2021.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/given-equal-results-instructional-designers-recommend-heather-dodds