by Renee Dobrzelewski
EDU 5410 Week 5 Reflection
What struck me most in these
chapters was how firmly the authors seemed to define what counts as “true”
instructional design. I understand the argument for a systematic approach.
Instructional design should involve more than selecting a technology tool or
making content visually appealing; it should be grounded in analysis, learning
theory, clearly defined outcomes, development, implementation, and evaluation.
Having a process helps ensure that instructional decisions are intentional
rather than arbitrary. I have seen the results of inconsistent course layout
and structure, and it makes for a confusing experience for the end user.
At the same time, I found
myself questioning how narrowly that definition should be applied. Branch, in
particular, seemed to draw a fairly sharp distinction between instructional
designers and educational technologists or others who perform only parts of the
design process. That made me wonder whether someone must carry out every stage
of a formal instructional design model to legitimately be doing instructional
design.
My own work makes that
distinction harder for me to accept. I would not call myself an instructional
designer—my official title is Instructional Technology Specialist—but I
regularly do work that overlaps with instructional design. When I help a
faculty member identify why students are struggling with an activity, recommend
a different way to organize content, suggest a technology tool based on the
learning goal, or help rethink an assessment, I am participating in parts of
the instructional design process even though I may not be designing an entire
course from beginning to end.
That is why I see value in the
systematic approach without necessarily agreeing with such firm boundaries
around the profession. A model such as ADDIE can provide structure and help
ensure important steps are not overlooked, but previous readings in this course
have also emphasized that real design is often iterative, contextual, and
messy. In practice, instructional problems do not always arrive as complete
projects with enough time and resources to work through a model from beginning
to end.
These chapters left me
wondering whether instructional design should be defined primarily by the
process someone follows, the expertise they possess, or the quality of the
decisions they make. Perhaps there is a difference between being a professional
instructional designer and using instructional design thinking in another
educational technology role. I am more comfortable with that distinction than
with the idea that people who do not
fit a narrow definition of what an instructional designer is are merely
pretending to practice instructional design. After all, many of us are capable
of following a process even without the title.
Comments
Post a Comment