Instructional Design - Theory OR Practice

One of my favorite memories is set against the backdrop of the lush green hills of Nagaland and Manipur, in a place called Mau. In this memory beautiful Manipuri girls sit with their looms, dreaming fascinating patterns and weaving them using reds, blacks, and whites. The patterns were what made the fabric beautiful; the yarn was what made the patterns real; but it was the loom - the framework that made it possible for the Manipuri girls to create a fabric that was beautiful, wearable, and strong. The memory has now acquired a golden glow that deepens with each passing year – but its relevance is renewed each time I come across people who profess that they can create something beautiful without using a framework.

Have you ever met people who alienate theory from practice, who scoff at concept-building but laud practice whole-heartedly, and who tell you that doesn’t matter whether you know the instructional design concepts or not, as long as you have a big, fat experience under your belt? If you have, I am confident that our thoughts will synchronize!

Why the Gap?

Let us reflect upon our past experiences and try to list the possible reasons behind this mental divide.

I think the first reason is the learning methodology followed in our educational system. During our formative years, all of us go through theory classes and lab-classes. Theory remains theory, and lab experiments remains lab-experiments. Most of our teachers never bother to connect the two. Many-a-times, students work on experiments for which the concepts are yet to be learned! Some, who study in the government schools of far-flung villages and towns, consider themselves lucky if all the lab-equipment is in working condition. So… Theory remains theory, and practice remains practice. Theory fetches more marks, it is more important; so it is the one that gets most of our attention.

Then we grow up and realize that theories are just good for getting marks. It is practice that fetches us our salary, and that fetches our organizations their orders. We become so engrossed in practice that we even forget to ask the essential question – What is it that we are practicing? This brings us to the second reason behind the alienation of theory from practice, which is the mindset that says - Don’t waste time worrying about the theory, complete the deliverable and send it away!

Is the Gap Good?

The Indian student is pinioned to theory and the Indian instructional designer is focused on practice; over a period of time, and after repeated practice without conscious application of theories, it becomes a habit. Once it becomes a habit, the defense mechanism begins to tick. A smoker would give you ample reasons for continuing to smoke if he doesn’t want to contemplate giving up the habit. Those who don’t smoke would probably be derided for their aversion to smoking. This is the smoker’s defense mechanism; the instructional designer’s defense mechanism is quite similar to this.

It’s best to steer clear of those who proclaim that good ID is completely intuitive and that it doesn’t require a framework. If someone tells you that a good script is written at one go, that a good ID doesn’t need to plan…beware! By saying this I don’t mean that there may not be some ID gurus (probably a one in thousand) who could accomplish the feat of creating a fantastic, error-free script that mesmerizes their audience, without conscious use of instructional design principles. But then I haven’t met any so far.

Falling Through the Gap…

In my experience, an ID can create a good script only by consciously incorporating the concepts of instructional design. The reason is simple – the difference between a great script and an average one could be just one missing or misaligned concept.

The following are few among the many examples that bring out the issues that relate to the gap between theory and practice:

• Teaching a course that needs to be taught at Bloom’s Level 4, at Bloom’s Level 3.
• Focusing on ARCS on course level but forgetting to consider just one of the four factors at module level.
• Forgetting that higher Bloom Levels map to the activities at bottom of Dale’s Cone.
• Assuming that Need Analysis is all about the learner’s needs for taking a course.
• Overloading a course with case studies and contextual exercises and overlooking the need of reviewing learner’s understanding of the concepts at lower Bloom Levels.

These are just some of the blunders that we may commit if we don’t use the framework or the loom of instructional design theory and practice.

I am sure that right now some of the readers must be thinking, “We take care of all this, so what if we don’t consciously map the exercises, assignments, and activities to various theories.” I can also imagine some of those who are new to instructional design, muttering, “What is it all about?” And a few who believe in continuance of the divorce between theory and practice, would probably be sniggering, “It’s all common sense! You don’t need theories to do what is purely common sense.”

In all cases, I request you to be patient, for I am now about to unwrap one theory and one model in light of some of their practical applications. I am sure that most of you would have heard about these two and many would have used them often – I am just going to bring out some of the many practical uses these theories and models can come to.

So let us begin:

Bloom’s Taxonomy – Is it Practical?

Almost all of us know that Bloom’s Taxonomy comprises six learning levels that are arranged in an ascending order. These levels are:

o Knowledge
o Comprehension
o Application
o Analysis
o Synthesis
o Evaluation

In addition to this, we can also recall simplified assertions such as “content should always flow from simple to complex.” Now let us review where and when we should apply Bloom’s Taxonomy and how. Let us begin with a simple example:

You are required to create a course, that is third in a chronological series and the first two courses are pre-requisites for the course that you need to create. Some content is being covered across the three courses. How will you use Bloom’s Taxonomy to arrive at the competencies, their levels, and their corresponding activities, assignments, and exercises for the course?

I am assured that the list of verbs associated with Bloom’s Taxonomy will be of no “practical” help. I am also definite that mere definitions of the six levels will be of scarce use.

If you wish to create a robust course, the list of questions that you will need to answer among many others, would include:

• What should be the sequence in which the competencies should be taught and what level of learning should be imparted to the learner so that course meets its objective?
• Should you start teaching all competencies by providing information about them, and build them up to the required level?
• How many activities, assignments, and exercises of what type should be given against each competency?
• What should be the level of each activity, assignment, and exercise, so that it measures up to the audience’s expectation?
• What marks should be allotted for each activity, assignment, and exercise?

So how do you answer these questions that will lay the foundations of your course. Well, the truth of the matter is that only a “practical” understanding of Bloom’s taxonomy could help you create a course that will accomplish its major objective- whatever it may be. This understanding is beyond the obvious verb-list and equally obvious definitions of each of Bloom’s levels. An example that I often take in class is that of the verb “List.” List is a simple, no-frills attached verb, usually humbled in most verb lists as Bloom Level1 verb. This verb can easily be applied to define the competencies at all Bloom Levels, sans none. Reflect on it when you have some time.

Continuing with the discussion on Bloom’s Taxonomy, we, the instructional designers, need to figure out how we wish to learn it. If we learn it at Bloom Level 1 or 2, the theory-scoffers have full right to snigger at us with disdain – for we will add little or no value to the content we work on! But if we learn it at higher levels and use it to our advantage, our courses become masterpieces!

If one theory can provide such a strong framework for your course, think what a few more could do.

ARCS– Is it Practical?

Let us shift our focus from Bloom’s Taxonomy to ARCS. John Keller gave us this model for learner motivation. The beauty of this model is in the simplicity of its application. In fact, it illustrates the process of motivating anyone for any kind of job – not just learning.
ARCS is:

o Attention
o Relevance
o Confidence
o Satisfaction

The essence of the ARCS model is: If you wish to motivate your learner, you should gain his attention, build a relevance of content for him, generate his confidence in the content, and satisfy him. This simple model forms the beams and cantilevers for the edifice that stands on the foundation stones of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Lay one crooked beam, the building will lose its symmetry; miss one element of ARCS somewhere in a course, and the course will lose its charm.

Let us see where a course or training will use ARCS:

o Course Introduction
o Course Body
o Course Conclusion
o Course Exercises
o Lesson Introduction
o Lesson Body
o Lesson Conclusion
o Language
o Graphics
o Sounds
o Content Outline
o Icons
o Interactions
o Animations
o … … …the list goes on.

ARCS is a model that is applicable at all stages of the development process and in all elements of a course/training! It is applied at the course level, the module level, the frame/page level, and even the paragraph level!

The point is: how many times do we review our course through the ARCS filter? Most often than not, the intro-animation is the lukewarm but conscious acknowledgement of the existence of “Attention.” The presence of objectives confirms that “Relevance” is built into it. If there are no errors in content, it’s assumed that the learner’s “Confidence” will not be shattered. Finally if the learner has performed well in the quiz, we assume that the course “Satisfied” the learner!

Despite ARCS being an extremely practical model that we all use each day of our lives, when it comes to using it in our courses and trainings, it suddenly transforms into Betal. It dons the mantle of theoretical concepts, slips away from our hold and returns to the most inaccessible branch of our mind’s tree.

Let Practice be One with Theory!

These are of course, two of the many theories and models that if used in practice can make sure that the courses we create impart learning in the most effective manner. I’ve been there, just next to you; I’ve run the race against time, I still do – but I’ve realized one beautiful truth about theories and models; they make your content stronger and your day more valuable! They make you fall in love with your work by giving you a reason for everything that you write. They answer the “why” behind everything you do.

You have a beautiful mind; let it create. Sit in the sun with wind in your hair, with the weft in your fingers; and the loom of instructional design tied to your waist. Create the beautiful patterns of learning and shape the future of mankind!

Author: Shafali R. Anand