Toe-may-toe or Toe-mah-to - Are the creators of instructional design models just being persnickety?

In homage to my classroom mantra, "Fake it 'till you make it", when I was recruited by my employer to turn our entire two year, multi-subject curriculum into a curriculum that could be delivered through online modules, I embarked on research to learn as much as I could about instructional design.

What did Google reward my efforts with? Instructional Design, a website compiled by Greg Kearsley and Richard Culatta, both are education gurus working to bring innovation to education.  To be honest, I wasn't sure if I had found a gold mine or a land mine.

Twenty-four models of design philosophy later and my mind was spinning.  Could there really be more than two dozen unique models of instructional design?  Apparently my questioning was as redundant as the instructional design models.  Published in 2002, 13 years before my quandary, in the journal Educational Technology Research and Development, M. David Merrill questioned, "Are all of these design theories and models merely alternative ways to approach design?" (Merrill, 2002)

Seventeen pages and 40 referenced authors later, Merrill concludes, with a handful of exceptions which he lists for further research, "No theory or model reviewed includes principles or prescriptions that are contrary to those described in this paper." (Merrill, 2002)

In the scientific model of proving the validity of a theory by trying to disprove it, let's compare Merrill's identified commonalities to the instructional design model offered by Lev Landa: Algo-heuristic theory. Proposed nearly twenty years prior to any other constructivist theory reviewed by Merrill, Landa suggests that true learning occurs when students piece together concepts of a process to better understand how to apply knowledge. (Culatta, 2015).

Training Cartoon - Image of Sloth and Froth - Perspectives on Algo Heuristic Theory. by Shafali Anand

Created for a page of her website that is dedicated to algo-heuristic theory, Shafali Anand illustrates the seemingly antagonist components of the method which compel instructors to help students uncover learning through experiences (heuristic means to learn for one's self...I had to look it up too) and then to solidify this learning through the establishment of rules, or an algorithm (hence, "algo") that help students replicate the process in the future without having to re-learn through experience.

I offer the explanation of the model below:

Did you catch it?  Are you mind blown?

Shouts Shock Sing According To Cry Call Sing by Max Pixel
 is licensed by CCO Public Domain

If you missed the overlap between Landa's theory and Merrill's, let's review Merrill's principles to help you achieve a "light bulb moment".

If you will recall, Merrill spent his free time reviewing a surplus of instructional design models in an attempt to "identify and articulate the prescriptive design principles on which these various design theories and models are in essential agreement" (Merrill, 2002). The info-graphic below summarizes his findings.

Merrill's First Principles of Instruction by Bailey, L. (2016, May 27)

Now, let's compare Merrill's common elements of instructional design with Landa's algo-heuristic model:

1. Merrill asserts that a commonality among instructional design models is a task; and this is clearly illustrated in Landa's work.
2. While you can assume students would have to activate prior learning - at least subconsciously - in order to complete the task, Merrill's second phase of "activation" is not overtly present in Landa's algo-heuritic theory.
3. The models reconnect with a demonstration and then application of the desired skill.
4. Merrill does not include any mention of reflection in his findings, but thankfully, Landa reminds instructors of the value of reflection as a metacognative skill that reinforces learning.
5. Finally, just as Merrill's instructional principles predict, Landa's model ends in integration - or the opportunity for student to use their learning as it applies in a new context.

Merrill never reviewed Landa, but clearly Merrill had Landa's number.  The real questions, that Merrill didn't examine is the "completeness" of any of the models.  He identiified the commonalities, but he did not take any time to identify gaps outside of his principles.

Before I leave you with the words of Merrill, let me leave you with a cautionary evalatuation of the both Merrill's principles and Landa's algo-heuristic model.  Both models of instructional design focus on making learning meaningful for the learn.  With a focus on learning toward the higher end of Bloom's Taxonomy and student centered approaches, both gentlemen describe ideal experiences with no room for error.

The gaping hole in both models comes when an instructor looks for the data trail to indicate student understanding and accurate formation of a mental model for the lesson.  Neither structure provides for formative or summative evaluations.  While Landa does carve a role for the teacher in demonstrating a method for achieving desired results, neither takes into account the responsiveness a teacher can provide through casual monitoring and assessment.

So, if you are on an epic journey to find the holy grail of instructional design models; the short cut to the journey is to spend some time with my friend, M. David Merrill.  Just remember, even as Indiana Jones encountered booby traps on his quest for holy grail, you also will fail if you fall into the trap of thinking Merrill has captured a complete picture of instruction.

His work is a terrific start, though:


References:
Bailey, L (2016, May 27). Digital Natives, Media and Learning: Implications for the Future of Army Training. www.armyupress.army.mi. Retrieved from http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Digital-Natives-Media-and-Learning/

Culatta, Richard (2015). Algo-Heuristic Theory (L.Landa). Retrieved from: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/algo-heuristic.html

Merrill, David M. (2002) First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 50, (Number 3), 43-59