Bases of the Field
A theory is a set of statements that allow us to explain, predict, or control events (Smith and Ragan, 1993). A theory provides an explanation for observations made over time. A theory explains and predicts behavior. A theory can be modified. Theories are rarely discarded if tested, but sometimes a theory may be widely accepted for a long time and later disproved. There are two kinds of theories on which instructional design is based:
- Descriptive Theories
- Predictive Theories
Descriptive theories describe how learning occurs. Prescriptive theories describe what to do to achieve certain outcomes. Most instructional theories are prescriptive. They suggest that if instruction follows a certain form and process, then learning will occur. This will be a section on the theoretical bases for the field of Instructional Design. By many accounts, there are four, sometimes referred to as the pillars of the field (McGriff, n.d.) (http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/FoundationsISD.html):
| Table of contents |
Communications Theory
Communications theory is related to information processing. In the information processing model, the source of a message works through a channel which is influenced by noise and then received. Sending a message involves encoding and transmitting it. Receiving a message involves receiving a message and then decoding its meaning. The form and structure of the message is what we are worried about in message design. The purpose of communications theory is to increase knowledge and understand of some knowledge or skill; and, to persuade and/or motivate. Communications theory can aid in the design of instructional materials by facilitating the transmission of messages and information from one person to another.
Go here to learn more about Communications Theory.
Systems Theory
One definition of a system is that it is a set of interrelated objects working together toward a common goal (Hall & Fagen, 1975). In other words, the system has a purpose or goal; its parts are organized and hierarchical. General systems theory assumes that the natural world is ordered and rational; and, planning and creation of order are valuable activities. Systems theory provides a framework for us to order the world around us in our own minds. It helps us understand relationships between people and other people, people and things, and things and other things.
The environment places constraints on a system. Through feedback mechanisms, dynamic systems change when interacting with the environment. These changes can lead to progress or self-destruction.
Instruction is a system because it is purposeful, organized, governed by processes and is comprised of a set of interrelated part working together toward a common goal. It is used to create meaning out of existing structures, create new structures and ways to organize information, and solve problems.
Go here to learn more about Systems Theory and its implications for instructional design.
Learning Theory
Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism - The Basics
Behaviorism: Based on observable changes in behavior. Behaviorism focuses on a new behavioral pattern being repeated until it becomes automatic.
Cognitivism: Based on the thought process behind the behavior. Changes in behavior are observed, and used as indicators as to what is happening inside the learner's mind.
Constructivism: Based on the premise that we all construct our own perspective of the world, through individual experiences and schema. Constructivism focuses on preparing the learner to problem solve in ambiguous situations (Schuman, 1996).
For a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of each of the basic learning theories
Learning Theory - Strengths/Weaknesses
Contructivist Learning Theory [1] (http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle2b.html)
What we call contructivism is based on the assumption that learning occurs as a result of what learners understand about their world. It is about the individual construction of knowledge. Constructivism is not a learning theory, per se, but many educators regard it as such. Constructivist education involves student-centered learning, building on knowledge already known by students who contruct new meaning and knowledge through experience.
Radical constructivism does not deny an objective reality; it can not replace objectivism. But it does say that we don't know what that reality is. Instead, mental constructs (schema, mental models, etc.) are constructed by past experience, and modified through assimilation and accomodation of new knowledge and experience. Constructivism, then, is a way of thinking about how we know what we know and understand things; and, a referent for models of instruction and learning (Tobin & Tippin, 1993). In this sense, it is more of a philosphical approach to education which has implications for instructional design and practice.
The Postmodern Paradigm in Learning Theory [2] (http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm)
The constructivist movement is changing the way many of us think about instructional design (ID), but still, postmodern critics of educational technology are often seen as too radical, too iconoclastic. Postmodernists offer a devastating critique of computers in education that makes many educational technologists feel uncomfortable. Computers are our stock in trade, after all. Other postmodern writers offer critiques of practice, but relatively few directly address the interests of instructional designers. I would suggest that postmodern perspectives about the world underlie much constructivist writing, and that a postmodern stance can offer positive, constructive critiques of ID practice.
For more than ten years, a small clique of postmodern researchers and theorists has existed within the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). For years, they behaved like a small, persecuted minority-a "cult" of sorts. They complained that journal editors were biased, ignorant, and unwilling to publish their radical writings. They struggled to have AECT papers and symposia accepted on the program.
The main forum for the postmodern clique was an annual "foundations symposium," which year by year found its way onto AECT's program. The crowds are getting bigger and seemingly better informed. And there has been a noticeable change in the presenters. We see less defensiveness and fewer signs of being persecuted. Instead, we see a growing maturity of perspective and a growing confidence that a postmodern perspective has something hopeful and positive to say to our field. We should approach postmodernism with a belief that there are some worthwhile ideas here, and that the field of ID can be improved by listening closely to "alternate voices" that are currently abounding in our field.
Instructional Theory
Reigeluth (1983) defines Instructional Theory as "identifying methods that will best provide the conditions under which learning goals will most likely be attained." In other words, the focus on instructional theory is on how to structure instruction and instructional material so it can be learned. Many researchers have contributed to the base of instructional theory, but Robert Gagne is considered the first to have direct connections to instructional technology. His most notable work includes his conditions of learning, nine events of instruction, learning hierarchies and taxonomy of learning objectives, (see Gagne's Contributions (http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/theorists/cognitivism/gagne.htm)).
Go here to learn more about Instructional Theory and its implications for instructional design.
Bibliography
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schuman, L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. Available online at: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1993). Instructional design. New York, NY: Merrill.
Return to Instructional Technology.