Introduction
The role of theory in instructional design (ID) is that of foundational understanding. Theory underpins the rationale often hidden behind design decisions, and a lack of theoretical understanding may lead to misinterpretation of educational needs or misapplication of instructional techniques. The most educationally sound decisions require insight into why they are made and how they are meant to bring about a desired change.
Despite the utility of deeper understanding that theory may provide to the discipline of instructional design, understanding ID theory itself is not an easy task. In general, graduate students struggle with making sense of ID theory, especially as they define theory and differentiate among different types of theory (Belcher & Hirvela, 2007; Burri, 2017; Casanave & Li, 2015). Thus, an effective means to relate novel ID theory to learners is a necessary part of successful instruction. What follows outlines five characteristics theorized to provide a means of successfully engaging learners in improving their understanding of ID theory.
Theory
Application in teaching, as in many other areas, is often based on life experiences. People tend to teach the way they were taught, and the impacts of their teachers are reflected in how their instruction is designed. Despite this, individual experiences are limited and often one-sided, and there may be a lack of understanding as to how these otherwise familiar concepts of instruction came to be. Theory provides a glimpse behind the methods and application of instruction, revealing the fundamental aspects that fuel design decisions. To fully appreciate and absorb this, instructional design students must approach ID theory with a certain openness, awareness, and flexibility.
Objectivity
Foremost, and in possible opposition to prior experience, learners should approach theories with objectivity. Transformative learning theory describes the importance of reflecting upon current assumptions and how one’s view of the world may need to change (Kitchenham, 2008). Recognizing and quelling the preconceptions derived from one’s prior actions and experiences (Castillo-Montoya, 2017) may enhance the ability to reconcile new and potentially contradictory ideas. The familiarity of existing knowledge (Flannelly & Flannelly, 2000) and the inherent difficulty associated with understanding the often conflicting aspects of theory (Belcher & Hirvela, 2007; Burri, 2017) biases learners’ confidence toward what they already know. Driscoll (2004) describes how cognitive information processing and Gagné’s learning theories stress drawing on prior knowledge, and how meaningful learning theory values the relation of new information to old, but active reflection upon the potential flaws or shortcomings of one’s current knowledge and understanding supports the consideration of alternatives while suspending judgments that may limit objectivity (Flannelly & Flannelly, 2000). Learners should remain aware of what they know, but maintain an open mind.
Relevance
As with any difficult task, motivation can be key to successful perseverance in learning ID theory. Keller’s ARCS model (Driscoll, 2004) describes explicit consideration of the relevance of learning as a key element to achieving motivation in learners. Learners may feel personally satisfied about their efforts when the relevance of topics is clear (Cennamo & Braunlich, 1996). The ability to identify with any given ID theory will relate to one’s personal teaching philosophies and instructional preferences. The availability of personally relevant contextual references is also very important (Shen, 2013). Establishing a familiarity with ID theories may make them more relatable and facilitate comparisons and recognition of connections.
Inconsistencies
Through comparison and connection, learners may begin to recognize inconsistencies and contradictions between theories. Developmental learning theories (Driscoll, 2004) encourage teachers to help learners recognize the contradictions present in problems they face and their approaches to solving them. While such contradictions in ID theory are often the source of difficulty and frustration for learners (Casanave & Li, 2015; Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009), the ability to recognize such inconsistencies signifies the development of expert-like behavior (Baldwin, 2014). Novice learners tend to overlook contradictions, especially across disparate representations of ID theory, but as they gain experience they begin to question conflicts and formulate strategies to bring them to resolution (Baldwin, 2014). Recognition of these inconsistencies may result through productive friction (Hagel & Brown, 2005). Typically attributed as an effect of group work by individuals with differing experiences, productive friction may also extend to the differing works of individuals contributing to a unified cause, as is the case when considering multiple theories on instructional design. As a result the boundaries between individuals, or the boundaries between individual theories, expose different views of the world and highlight the difficulties of seamlessly meshing one view with another (Hagel & Brown, 2005).
Fuzziness
Just as the boundaries between some ID theories may exhibit division and disconnects, which inhibit a smooth transition from application of one to another, approaches toward learning ID theories through isolated examination may create similar cognitive divides. Older students and adults tend to rely heavily on previous experience and use this to make more discrete categorizations when cognitively processing related subjects (Alexander & Enns, 1988; Hayes & Taplin, 1993). Developmental theorists such as Piaget and alternative theories such as the computational and framework approaches stress gradual cognitive development through processes of accommodation, assimilation, generalization, abstraction, reflection, and knowledge acquisition, especially in younger children (Driscoll, 2004). This aspect of learning, the ability to blur the lines between concepts and not presuppose the existence of rational divisions, has value when dealing with complex and disparate yet interconnected topics such as ID theory. Softening the boundaries between ID theories and considering the conditional truths supported by contextual application of different ID theories to real world ambiguities supports the fluidity of the learning process and the malleability of understanding required for cognitive growth (Zazkis, 1995).
Limits to Understanding
Consider the statement “The more I learn, the more I realize I do not understand”. As with many topics, learners may not realize the limits to their understanding while they are in the process of learning ID theory. Flannelly (2000) described learner overconfidence as highest on items of high difficulty and lowest on easy and familiar items. Increased familiarity with a topic accentuates the limits of one’s understanding. When dealing with novel and difficult topics such as ID theory, familiarity is low and learners may gravitate toward feelings of overconfidence in their knowledge, especially when bolstered through existing preconceptions. While Keller’s ARCS model (Driscoll, 2004) includes confidence as an important aspect of motivation, learners must not allow their developing knowledge to morph into an overconfidence of understanding. As ID theory abounds with inconsistency and ambiguity, attempts at rigid conceptualization in alignment with learners’ limited knowledge may result in much of the difficulty learners experience with theory (Belcher & Hirvela, 2007). Indeed, many of the preconceptions learners hold during the study of topics may persist after studies complete (Busom et al., 2017), continuing their influence . Objectivity may help alleviate some of this, but interpretations of the learning experience will be contingent upon the learners’ personal experiences, not just the intent of instructors or theory authors (Ricoeur, 1976; Scott-Baumann, 2011). Learners must realize that their ultimate understanding of ID theory will be a blend of their own and others’ views, and most importantly their understanding must make personal sense to be of use. Developmental computational and framework theories support gradual cognitive change, augmented by mental models and thought experiments (Driscoll, 2004). These internal representations provide learners the links with which to make connections to other ID theories and similar concepts. Personal representations such as these may not exactly replicate the original theorist’s intent, may not exactly match any of their peers, and may not perfectly represent any given ID theory. In combination with fuzzy boundaries, acceptance of inherent inconsistencies, and an objective outlook toward evolution however, these may result in highly relevant and learner accessible representations of ID theory.
Application
Graduate students in learning design often have significant personal experience in education and instruction. This may be directly as an educator or, at a minimum, through many years as a learner. Either way, they may have experienced and/or implemented education across many topics and contexts. These experiences follow them into the classroom and are often a useful starting point from which to build new knowledge. This also holds for studies of ID theory, as personal experience may provide a much-needed framework from which to examine theories. The nature of ID theory, however, approaches the goal of education from multiple points of view, often resulting in ambiguity and confusion among theories through conflicting terminology, assumptions, and conceptualizations of instruction (Belcher & Hirvela, 2007; Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009). Over-reliance on learners’ existing preconceptions when undertaking ID theory may create discomfort and confusion. Learners should remain aware of their prior experiences, and draw from them accordingly, but must realize the limits of their current understanding when evaluating new theories that support what are perceived as otherwise familiar educational and instructional concepts (Flannelly & Flannelly, 2000).
ID theories are often presented in a sequential fashion, along some continuum allowing for transition between ideas. While attempts are made to draw connections between current and previously examined theories, the natural separations support encapsulation of individual theories by learners. This formation of cognitive boundaries, where specific theories are interpreted to have discrete characteristics and requirements (Alexander & Enns, 1988; Hayes & Taplin, 1993), complicates simultaneous integration across multiple ID theories. It can be helpful to encourage learners to consider the fluidity and dynamic nature of understanding during cognitive development (Driscoll, 2004) and the value of maintaining soft or fuzzy borders around differing theories so that internal concepts may more easily interconnect even if they only partially map to one another (Zazkis, 1995).
One learner outcome from the study of ID theory can be frustration due the abundance of ambiguity and the lack of definitive guidance on what truly comprises ID theory. As uncomfortable as this may be for learners, recognition of these issues signals the ongoing progression of learners from novice to expert (Baldwin, 2014). Realization of the limits of one’s understanding through the acquisition of knowledge and modification of cognitive frameworks (Driscoll, 2004) may also reduce the overconfidence exhibited when learners begin to process the difficult topics of ID theory through the lens of their own educational experience (Flannelly & Flannelly, 2000). Ideally, learners should be able to exchange feelings of frustration due to a lack clarity around ID theory for one of confidence contingent upon a need for ongoing learning and discovery.
Conclusion
The five characteristics of objectivity, relevance, inconsistencies, fuzziness, and limits to understanding comprise a theorized approach to effective learning of ID theory. Reflection on practices that support suspension of preconceptions, identification of personal relevance, realization of contradictions and ambiguity, maintenance of soft and fluid conceptual borders, and acceptance of the limits to understanding may support learners in the study of ID theory. The approach is somewhat contrary to normal education. Prior knowledge and previous experiences must be tempered to free the learner for consideration of new and potentially abstract concepts. Ideas and descriptions may be at odds between theories, with alternative views not necessarily in exclusionary competition. Clear categorizations are not really possible and attempts to create them may actually obscure the connections that interlink ID theories and make the instructional design process an amalgamation of ideas. Finally, after extensive study of ID theories is complete, learners may still experience discomfort with their lack of clarity and clear guidance in the use of ID theory. While demonstrably more knowledgeable, learners may personally feel that they still have more questions than answers.
Such is the nature of complex and interconnected topics like ID theory. Concepts are abstract, educational targets are in motion, subject populations are ever-dynamic, and a multitude of theories may attempt to achieve the same goal through application of very different worldviews. Learners must develop similar malleable, ill-defined characteristics in order to keep pace with the fluid nature of instructional design and the myriad of approaches available to solving educational problems. Anything less may leave learners shortsighted and ill-equipped to face the challenges ahead.
References
Alexander, T. M., & Enns, J. T. (1988). Age changes in the boundaries of fuzzy categories. Child Development, 1372-1386.
Baldwin, P. (2014). The Effectiveness of an academic literacy intervention to help university freshmen recognize and resolve inconsistencies across multiple texts (Publication Number 3633499) San Francisco, CA. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1611915224?accountid=13360
Belcher, D. D., & Hirvela, A. (2007). Do I need a theoretical framework? Doctoral students’ perspectives on the role of theory in dissertation research and writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 263-289). Parlor Press.
Burri, M. (2017). Making sense of theory: A doctoral student’s narrative of conceptualizing a theoretical framework. BC TEAL Journal, 2(1), 25-35.
Busom, I., Lopez-Mayan, C., & Panadés, J. (2017). Students’ persistent preconceptions and learning economic principles. The Journal of Economic Education, 48(2), 74-92.
Casanave, C. P., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104-119.
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2017). Deepening understanding of prior knowledge: What diverse first-generation college students in the US can teach us. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5), 587-603.
Cennamo, K., & Braunlich, E. (1996). The Effects of relevance on mental effort. National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.
Driscoll, M. (2004). Psychology of Learning (3 ed.). Pearson.
Flannelly, L. T., & Flannelly, K. J. (2000). Reducing people’s judgment bias about their level of knowledge. The Psychological Record, 50(3), 587-600.
Hagel, J., III, & Brown, J. S. (2005). The only sustainable edge: Why business strategy depends on productive friction and dynamic specialization. Harvard Business Press.
Hayes, B. K., & Taplin, J. E. (1993). Developmental differences in the use of prototype and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55(3), 329-352.
Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of transformative education, 6(2), 104-123.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models. Volume III, Building a common knowledge base. London.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. TCU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/468410
Scott-Baumann, A. (2011). Text as action, action as text? Ricoeur, λoƔoσ and the affirmative search for meaning in the ‘universe of discourse’. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 593-600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611412760
Shen, L. (2013). Cognitive context’s role in discourse interpretation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 88-93. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.88-93
Zazkis, R. (1995). Fuzzy thinking in non-fuzzy situations: Understanding students’ perspective. For the learning of mathematics, 15(3), 39-41.
