Blog posts

Heretofore, instructional designers have thought they were in the business of designing instructional systems to meet prespecified learning objectives. But first the constructivist movement--and now communication technologies themselves--seem to be thre atening this conception as the sole way to support learning. People are learning without help from designed instruction! In many settings, in fact, "natural" learning is more prevalent than "designed" learning <a href="#resnick">(Resnick, 1987)</a>. We believe that the situation requires a reexaminination of our core roles. Are we in the business of designing instruction or are we in the business of supporting valuable learning, wherever it may happen? The answer to this question will result in either a narrow or broad interpretation of our role and its relationship to non-instructional forms of learning.

Our own belief is that dynamic learning communities are proper objects of study. We should seek to understand how such communities function, how they grow, how they can be nurtured, and how they can be replicated across diverse settings. But nurturing is different than designing. We must respect the integrity of the community. In time, we may come to think of ourselves more as <em>learning technologists</em> than as <em>instructional technologists</em>, and <em>learning support specialists</em> more than <em>instructional designers</em>.

J<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Surowiecki">ames Surowiecki</a> explored a similar concept in Wisdom of the Crowds. Surowiecki's book is often misunderstood. He makes the point that people do not <em>think together</em> in coming to certain conclusions, but rather than people think on their own and the value of the collaborative comes in the connection and combination of ideas. Each person retains their own identity and ideas, but they are shaped and influenced by the work of others.

Collective intelligence places the collective first. Connective intelligence places the individual node first.

A task always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.

Do not add a period after the URL, to prevent the impression that the period is part of the URL.

As a professor of instructional technology and a consultant in the field who has written, reviewed and advised on ID projects for hundreds of organizations big and small. I have to say that in my extremely biased opinion...a degree is not only needed, <strong>it should be required!</strong>

On an individual basis, it is possible to learn enough, be smart enough and talented enough to eventually become a top notch designer (as Cammy is a great example.)but this doesn't benefit the field as a whole. And, I would argue those cases are rare.

But to say that you can develop instruction without understanding the underlying theories, developments and ongoing research trends is not believable to me. <br><br>I've seen too much bad instruction which has pointed me in the direction of saying that a degree is needed.

The discipline (and it is a discipline) borrows heavily from psychology, cognitive science, behavioral science, information design theory, and media design theory. However, it is the blending of these theories and ideas into the design of instruction that makes the difference between merely presenting information and creating an event in which learning actually occurs.

You don’t have to read Vygotsky in the original Russian, but what you can <strong><em>not</em></strong> do, and I see all too often, is follow a cookie-cutter approach which says “I have to have an introduction, concept, example, …”, and then write one of each without understanding what are the key principles behind each of those elements.

Note that Cammy is a ‘reflective practitioner’ to use Schön’s term, as she reads and <a href="http://learningvisions.blogspot.com/2007/05/humble-learning-moment.html" title="Cammy Bean's learning reflections" target="_blank">reflects</a> on what she does. That’s why she’s effectively done her own ‘masters’ in learning/ISD. So, I’m not comfortable with trusting experience over time to yield competent results, I think it takes someone being an ongoing learner. That’s easier in a well-designed program, though the caveat is that all programs are not necessarily well-designed.

But with that out of the way, nobody needs a PhD (or in most cases -- any degree at all) in education or learning theory to be a good teacher. Just as there are plenty of great software developers and programmers without a CompSci degree. People <i>can</i> be self-taught, and do a fabulous job, for a fraction of the cost of a formal education, but they have to be motivated and they have to appreciate why it's important.

Start here: Why should my son or daughter have to pick a single college and with it only the teachers and courses offered there?

Similarly, why should a professor pick just from the students accepted at his or her school? Online, the best can pick from the best, cutting out the middleman of university admissions.

Once you put all this together, students can self-organize with teachers and fellow students to learn what they want how and where they want. My hope is that this could finally lead to the lifelong education we keep nattering about but do little to actually support. And why don’t we? Because it doesn’t fit into the degree structure. And because self-organizing classes and education could cut academic institutions out of the their exclusive role in education.