Revisiting “Beyond Instructional Design”

Rod Sims

Abstract


The original reason for challenging the concept of “instructional design” is that while the underpinning theory tends to hold true (that good design will enable learning), the practice I had observed too often focused on content (subject-matter) (re)organisation rather than the learner, learning and knowledge application. This challenge aimed to debate whether a system that emerged from formal, classroom, military training was consistent with contemporary organic and personal environments of social computer-based and online education.

Over the nine years since the article (Sims, 2006) was published, much has changed in the opportunities we have for learning and my thinking has also evolved, resulting in a learning design approach titled Design Alchemy (Sims, 2014). For those involved in “designing for the learner,” Design Alchemy demonstrates that the design of learning environments can be effectively and efficiently produced without explicit or initial reference to subject-matter; instead, a design focused on alignment of learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment is sufficient to create a course and in itself will define the necessary subject-matter resources.


Keywords


instructional design

Full Text:

PDF

References


Biggs, J., & Tang C. (2011). Teaching for quality Learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Routledge.

Kennedy, G. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 43-61.

Lanarca Declaration (2012). Lanarca declaration on learning design. Retrieved from http://larnacadeclaration.wordpress.com/full-document

Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.

Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.

Open University Learning Design Initiative. (2013). About the project. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI

Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf

Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models. (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.

Sheldrake, R. (2011). The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature. London: Icon.

Sims, R. (1997a). Interactive learning as an “emerging” technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 68-84.

Sims, R. (1997b). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.

Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257-272.

Sims, R. (2003). Interactivity and feedback as determinants of engagement and meaning in e- learning environments. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning & Teaching With Technology: Principles and Practices (pp. 243-257). London: Kogan Page.

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-9. doi:10.5204/jld.v1i2.11

Sims, R. (2014). Design Alchemy: Transforming the way we think about learning and teaching. (Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations). New York: Springer.

Sims, R., & Bovard, B. (2007). Using elaborations of online presence to foster critical thinking and reflection. In M. Spector (Ed.), Finding your online voice: Stories told by experienced online educators (pp. 163-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sims, R. & Hedberg, J. (2006). Encounter theory: A model to enhancing online communication, interaction and engagement. In C. Jawah (Ed.), Interactions in Online Education: Implications for Theory and Practice (pp. 27-45). London: Routledge.

Sims, R. & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding design and planning through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2). 135-148.

Ulmer, G.L. (2003). Internet invention: From literacy to electracy. New York: Longman.

Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wikipedia. (2006a). Instruction. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction

Wikipedia. (2006b). Design. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

Wikipedia. (2006c). Instructional Design. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v8i3.252
Abstract Views:
888
Views:
PDF
432

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.



Contact | Announcements | © Queensland University of Technology | ISSN: 1832-8342