The subject of what really instructional design and technology entails and its focus has never been more important today. Following extensive research and analysis of different study, there is a great shift that has been identified in this field. This shift has been in the identification of instructional design as problem solving field whose structure is loose and unstructured and therefore capable of taking any direction whatsoever. This shift, while not conspicuous, recognises the importance of the user in the instructional training process as opposed to the content being delivered to the user. In the long run, this shift will serve to improve awareness of both the context and process of learning which will inadvertently improve instructional design technology.
This article goes back to the functional definition of instructional design and technology in this quest to determine how this has changed over time and the ensuing new trends being discovered in this field. Overarching conclusion is that instructional design and technology is a field concerned with both theory and practice of certain factors crucial on the enhancement learning process. These factors include the management, the development, the utilisation and the management of resources for the improvement of learning such that it is more efficient, even engaging. The relevance of this article to the subject of instructional design and technology is defined at the very start. It attempts to deconstruct the field of study and lay out the fundamental or underlying objectives that should make the outline of the responsibility of the instructional designer. Is a designer's job defined by a set of principles that would want to emphasise the convergence of knowledge into one generally accepted more of insemination? The article debunks this notion reverting back to the learning property of groups of diversity and marked differences in learning abilities. As such, the work of an instructional designer is account for all these factors and design a system that offers the learner an enhanced learning experience, the disparity in learning style regardless.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This also reinforces the precept that instructional design lacks structure and is therefore fairly complex. An instructional designer is required therefore to develop a set of skills that should improve their assessment and problem solving skills. The goal is to come up with great solutions even in the face of a murky and multi-dimensional decision making process. The determination of the set of skills that delivers this prowess to an aspiring instructional designer will be breakthrough that will improve this field in the future and shape its evolution and growth over the coming years. A problem-solving process that is poorly structured therefore presents deliberate loopholes that can trigger brilliant design propositions. Conversely, well-structured learning and content development process for an instructional designer would be too limiting both in the creativity of the instructional designer and the scope of learning alternatives offered to the end user that is the learner that will use the instructional software or content created by the designers.
The article 's message seem to be that there is need for the instructional design profession to be made progressive. Such that a designer advances from amateur to professional stage. This proposition is anchored in the complexity that instructional design has come to bring about following the shift in the nature of practice. This progressive ladder should be a show of experience and problem solving skills acquired. This is such that different steps on the ladder will represent differing ability in problem solving. Another notion given by the article is that of being a designer by assignment which assigns a certain degree of specificity to the responsibility of the designer. As such, every job will present new challenges and therefore require novel ways of problem solving. Additionally, the ultimate professional at doctorate level should be able to assess, diagnose, analyse, deconstruct, and improve an existing instructional technology and prime it for optimum impact on the learner.
The model generally borrows from the hospital model which has a diverse range of practitioners with well-defined responsibilities. This is despite the varying competencies they possess. The correct blend of their expertise serves to improve the overall performance of the field. This article has various weaknesses arising from research and presentation of thoughts and ideas. The form of research used in the article is purely theoretical and therefore mostly speculative. The article doesn't provide hard rested data on the efficient of the model it advocates. Instead, it relies on other papers or articles to make its case which while are acceptable, considerably limit the validity of the article's points. However, the writers make a strong case that, given their lack of concrete evidence, is thought provoking and has the propensity to trigger a whole new dimension in research with a view to improving the instructional design and technology field.
Following this aspect of the article, there are varied future research ideas that van go a long way in increasing or cementing the knowledge presented in the article as credible. The first is in the evolving technologies and the equally evolving disparity of preferences by the current generation. This will prove that there is immediate need for processes to be put in place to serve this need hence the unstructured process meant to spur creativity to cope with the increasingly shifting landscape. The second is in the ability of the model to be replicated and the sustainability it would have in the long run. This aspect of future research will be time based such that the progress will be assessed with time and new areas of improvement determined as time elapses.
