Numerous contradictions of cognitive load theory’s predictions have been found, but with germane cognitive load, they can still be explained away.&nbsp; de Jong does not use this term (unfalsifiable) but instead states that germane cognitive load is a <em>post-hoc</em> explanation with no theoretical basis: “there seems to be no grounds for asserting that processes that lead to (correct) schema acquisition will impose a higher cognitive load than learning processes that do not lead to (correct) schemas” (2009).

2. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Poor external validity of lab-based studies</span>.&nbsp; Moreno doesn’t touch on something in the de Jong article – the fact that most cognitive load (and multimedia learning) studies are conducted in labs that “includes participants who have no specific interest in learning the domain involved and who are also given a very short study time” (de Jong, 2009), often only a few minutes.&nbsp; Quite a number of findings from these studies have not held up as strongly when tested in classrooms or real-world scenarios, or have even reversed (<a href="http://www.txwes.edu/professionaldevelopment/materials/Multimedia%20Instructions.pdf">such as the modality effect</a>, but see <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010">this refutation</a> and this <a href="http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&amp;cpsidt=5135499">other example of a reverse effect</a>).

<h3>Principle 1: The online world is a medium unto itself. </h3> <p> The search for excellence begins with this principle: The online world is a medium unto itself (Carr-Chellman &amp; Duchastel, 2000; Ellis &amp; Hafner, 2003). It is not just another learning environment, like a separate classroom down the hall; it is a categorically different learning environment. There are vastly different dynamics in online versus on campus courses.</p>

Principle 2: In the online world content is a verb.

We are moving to a mode of learning that is less dependent on information acquisition and is more centered on a set of student tasks and assignments that make up the learning experiences that students will engage in, in order to meet the objectives of the course (Carr-Chellman &amp; Duchastel, 2000). In the online world, content is a verb.

Principle 5: Sense of community and social presence are essential to online excellence.

Establishing a sense of community often signals movement to a deeper learning experience (Benfield, 2001). It is through sustained communication that participants construct meaning (Garrison, et al., 2000) and come to a more complete understanding of the content. Indeed it is through such interaction and through attending to the processes of learning and teaching (as opposed to attending only to content) that a deeper rather than a surface approach to learning is encouraged (Ramsden, 2003). Without this connection to the instructor and the other students, the course is little more than a series of exercises to be completed.

Principle 7: A great web interface will not save a poor course; but a poor web interface will destroy a potentially great course.

Principle 8: Excellence comes from ongoing assessment and refinement.

This is exactly what has happened to instructional design, and could by <a href="http://effectivedesign.org/2008/02/11/instructional-design-in-academia-where-theory-and-practice-rarely-meet/">why theory and practice don’t meet</a>. <strong>So much theory has been introduced that we can no longer see how instruction is actually designed.</strong> That’s why I think many times it has become easier for novice (in this case non-academically trained) designers can do it so often. They are not encumbered by the fog of theory.

Two major sets of affordances offered in online learning are not found in traditional learning. First, online, communication occurs not through a channel, but through a network. And second, communication flows not merely through a passive medium but through a computational environment.

The theory of distributed representation has a profound implication for pedagogy, as it suggests that learning (and teaching, such as it is) is not a process of communication, but rather, a process of immersion. Put loosely, it suggests the idea of teaching not by telling or even demonstrating but rather through the creation (or identification) of an environment into which a learner may be immersed.

The very intent of ISD, however, is its weakness – namely making explicit intended learning and planning clear, concise approaches to achieving intended outcomes. Clearly defining learning assumes “things won’t change” (content, nature of interactions, changes in related disciplines which impact the information being discussed) between the point of design and the point of learning. This may work for many fields – especially where change is not significant – but models which neglect the adaptive nature of learning and the emergent structure of interactions are less appropriate to today’s work environments than they were in the past.

<p>As stated, instructional design needs to make two substantial changes:</p> <blockquote> <p>1. Stop seeing learning design as a task that occurs in advance of the intended learning, and begin to see it as a part of the learning process itself<br> 2. Begin to focus more on the context of learning (designing environments of learning) and less so on the intended content of the learning activities (course, workshop, or program)</p></blockquote>