Learning Experience Design vs. Instructional Systems Design

I have concluded that ISD is fundamentally behaviorist in nature. It couches the development of instruction in terms of "what will be done to or for" the learner as opposed to "what the learner will do to learn". Some may argue with this distinction, stating that the purpose of the development of instructional systems is to provide learners with opportunities for experience. I would respond with the fact that ISD does not generally describe what learners "will do" to learn, but only what learners "can do" to learn. In this sense, ISD constrains the learning process to achieve "desirable instructional objectives in the learner".

Because the learner is ontologically dynamic and evolving, the concept of a static instructional system presupposes that the ontological nature of the learner can be circumscribed by a "system of learning". I believe that the development of artificially intelligent "learning systems" is an attempt to address the deficiency of static instructional systems. In other words, the development of a system that can emulate the learner's capacity to adapt and evolve cognitively is an attempt to improve the efficiency of instructional systems that are constantly rendered inadequate and outdated by the evolution of the learner. A good example of this is the evolution of video games in instruction. Originally, the games of edutainment were designed to target a specific skill (Math Blaster, Timez Attack, Reader Rabbit, etc.). But once the skill was achieved by the learner, the game lost its utility as a tool to develop skill (although it may be argued that the games could be used as memory aids and refreshers). As gaming has evolved to MMORPG-type games, there is a richer environment presented and a broader range of skills to be developed (although the argument about utility of cognitive transfer of these skills is still ongoing) but the learner is still being "acted upon by the environment" (because it is an artificially created environment constraining the learner) instead of taking control of learning tools to achieve some personally determined objective (although it may be argued that the learner is using tools within the gaming environment to learn, the objectives of the learner are artificially constrained by the environment itself).

Most of these insights I have come to through an exploration of intrinsic learner motivation (ILM). When a learner is truly motivated, they:

1.Determine their own learning objectives
2. Assess what tools and resources they have available to them
3. Make a plan to achieve their objectives
4. Work to achieve their objectives

It is also important to note the the objectives of the learner, as well as the tools and resources available, change constantly. Experience changes the learner, which can also lead to the learner altering his/her learning goals. Experience can also expand or reduce the tools and resources available to learners.

These are some of my thoughts. Here are some implications for what I want to  call Educational Design (ED):

• ED needs to focus on developing tools and resources for learners to use (we are starting to do this a lot better - moving away from programmed instruction boxes)
• ED needs to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the learner and hence the inefficiency of designing instructional objectives for the learner
• The Learner needs to be empowered to determine his/her own objectives from the domain of the instruction.
• ED needs to avoid coercing the learner through constraining the learning environment
• ED needs to provide tools, resources, opportunities, etc. for Learners to learn as much as they want to learn in the domain of the provided instruction
• ED needs to allow the Learner to choose domains
• ED needs to change the way of assessing the Learner
• Personal progress of the Learner needs to be assessed
• Evaluation by the Learner
• Self-Report
• Extrinsic Evaluation
• Cognitive Assessments
• Performance Assessments

Defining design as a verb

Design is the process of reducing uncertainty and complexity to an internally acceptable level.

I will reduce uncertainty and complexity through design to the degree I understand the uncertainty and complexity.

As uncertainty and complexity are in constant flux in the real world, we need to engage in adaptive design practices.

*** Donald Schon's "reflection-in-action" is a response to dynamic complexity and uncertainty.

Operational principles are like generative metaphors. The principle is the simplest case that allows for the generation of several acceptable configurations that function on the principle.
- The principle of "aeronautical lift" leads to any number of technologies that can create lift, different wing designs, objects to be 'lifted', direction of lift, etc.

The key is to develop the skill of stripping away non-essential components to get at the operational principles inherent in an artifact.

In order to learn about something we need to have experience with the thing in order to have sufficient motivation to learn about the thing.
- If I am learning about World War II, I may not be motivated to learn what is being presented if I am not familiar with the geography, implications, personalities, weapons and warfare, etc. associated with it.

When I am explaining/describing a theory, model, framework, etc., I absolutely need to be explicit about what I understand the operational principles to be.

Design always takes place in a context. Understanding the context will lead to an understanding of the design.

Describing Learning

I have come to understand that the way we describe learning places constraints on learning. Learning is an abstract concept. By making it more concrete, we lose parts of the abstraction and, hence, the ontology contracts around the concrete definition supplied.

What is needed is multiple definitions/characterizations of learning. We need layered understandings of the complexity inherent in learning. One such proposal is provided here:

Potential “Layers of Learning” Theory

“Layers” of Learning	Domain Theories
Changing behaviour	Neuroscience Behavioural science
Enhancing skills	Cognitive development
Storing information	Cognitive sciences
Gaining knowledge	Cognitive sciences Epistemology
Making sense of the world	Social sciences Socio-cultural and activity theory
Interpreting reality in a different way	Phenomenology

(adapted from slideshare presentation) Click here for reference

*** What other layers of learning might exist?

*** Other than layers, how might we characterize the complexities of learning?

Seeing-As and the Generative Metaphor

Seeing-As: Two dissimilar things are juxtaposed that they might be 'seen-as' being similar. This helps to create a transfer of structures between the two dissimilar things until they can both be identified as being related in someway. Some previously unthought-of functionality is transferred to the dissimilar object and a new conception of the things and its function or properties arises. This redefinition of the things generates new avenues for exploration and  understanding. Schon calls this a "generative metaphor". The metaphor for the thing becomes generative it that it generates new ways to think about the thing, its properties, its configurations, etc.

" Not all metaphors are generative" (185). Not all metaphors "generate new features of ..." (185).

What is the value add of explicit design

I have found it interesting today that design seems to be a ubiquitous part of people's lives. I use the word ubiquitous because I believe people take it for granted, or in other words, they have automatized the design processes in their lives. They have developed habits, models, algorithms, etc. all to reduce the decision-making that needs to take place each day. The only time they think about their designing is when their automation breaks down. This idea relates to cognitive dissonance in suggesting natural causes of cognitive dissonance. It's not necessarily just previously unencountered ideas that can create cognitive dissonance, but previously unencountered experiences and situations. Schon talks about this phenomenon in "The Reflective Practitioner" and about how when people are confronted with ideas, experiences, or situations they are not familiar with, they first try to frame or set the problem in terms of what they already know. If that is impossible, then Schon puts forth that individuals engage in dialogue with themselves, the situation, or other individuals to try to understand more about the problem so as to frame it in terms of something previously encountered. The goal is always to get to a well-framed problem, because then the individual can ritualistically apply the previous methods, models, algorithms, etc. to resolve the problem. I have not seen Schon make the explicit statement that this is what people do in the everyday course of their lives, but that is what I believe. Schon illustrates a process that everyone engages in, but they do not necessarily understand what or why they do what they do. Hence Schon's phrase "you know more than you can say". For Schon, everyone is constantly designing and redesigning their life, their paradigms, their environments, etc. through purposeful action.

In working on our design-based research project, it is clear to me that the value-add of the class project is not necessarily the presentation of a finished proposal/project, but the making explicit of certain 'design' decisions and 'designerly thinking' of individuals involved in the project.

This is the value of explicit design: when we know why we are doing something, we can control it, manipulate it, alter it, conform it, etc to produce some 'more desirable future' to quote Klaus Krippendorf ("The Semantic Turn"). That is what we as agentive human beings are doing constantly through design: shaping a 'more-desirable' future based on our personal values. We just don't realize it as design because it has become ubiquitous and as a result has become mysterious.

Change your values, change your design. Change your design, change your life. Change your life, change the world.

Instructional Theory and Development

I realized today that I do not understand or fully appreciate what other theorists are saying about learning and instruction. I have not had the time (or I have not made the time) to seriously consider the implications and the nuances of the instructional theories that have been presented to me over the course of my IP&T program. The details are more important than I have realized. Dr. Gibbon's article in response to the Smith and Boling article give some critical considerations regarding instructional theory. They are like questions to ask myself as I am trying to understand a theory. I have been so focused on trying to develop a personal road map of what the theory lay of the land looks like that I have not taken time to appreciate the beauty of the landscape. I have been a cartographer and am now faced with the need of become a landscape artist. I need to be able to understand the details to really understand the theories and I realized today that I do not understand the details. I feel like I have come to understand myself and my own theoretical foundations better lately, but at the expense of an understanding of others. I need to know what others think and why. I will begin this new journey of discovery at once. I am excited to keep growing in this new way.

I rather like the cartographer vs. landscape artist analogy. I think it richly describes my development and my dillema.

Skill Learning and The Reflective Practitioner

Yesterday I attended an LDS design conference in SLC at the Triad Center. It was incredible. On the way up I read about 100 pages in Donald Schon's book "The Reflective Practitioner". It is changing the way I see teaching. The premise of the book is that we know more than we can say. There is tacit information that is available for use to us in approaching previously unencountered instructional problems. Schon goes through case studies examining different professionals engaging in what he calls "reflection-in-action". Basically, individuals reflect on their previous experience in trying to frame a problem so as to make it more manageable. We reflect either on our own or with someone else. In either case, reflection-in-action is a dialogical process by which we make sense of a situation and then bring our past experience to bear on the problem in order to generate solutions. This is exactly what good teachers are doing. Although I believe that many good teachers are not aware of why they do what they do. Schon has a second book entitled "Educating the Reflective Practitioner". I have it to read next. This second book provides an education program for training people to become reflective practitioners. It appears to require a 'more-knowledgeable other' to facilitate the feedback. His ideas correlate very strongly with the concepts of the 3-person model.

On another note, Dr. Gibbons gave a masterful lecture at the conference yesterday entitled "The Skills of a Saint". It was exceptionally timely. He has essentially redefined what we might consider skill. He has given us examples that serve to highlight the skills involved in cognitive tasks, in spiritual development, in the development of character, etc. I had never thought of these things as skills before. This paradigm is a powerful one because so much more is known about skill instruction that about cognition and learning. If learning can be achieved more fluently through the instruction and adoption of learning skills by the learner (which I believe is the case in any learning situation) then we need to turn our focus to experience  design and skill instruction instead of content dissemination (which is a majority of the instruction being developed these days as I see it). I am excited to pursue this new course.

Dr. Gibbons and President Osguthorpe (who also spoke to us) both cited the need for revelation in creating designs that are in line with the will of the Lord. I believe that the Holy Ghost does lead men and women today and especially when those men and women are engaged in the work of bringing souls to Christ. I want to be more guided. I will clear a space in my life each day for revelation from the Lord. This, I believe, will lead to the improvement of my craft more profitably than any other decision.

Design and Domain Theory

In class today we discussed the relationship of design and domain theory. We were examining Dr. Gibbons' theory of design layers. We simultaneously discussed how Reigeluth makes a distinction between design and domain theories. A design theory is about how something should be designed and a domain theory is about what is being designed, its organization, etc. Between these two concepts we determined the following:

* For each domain, there exist several theories of design that might be profitably applied to generate instruction

* For each design theory, there are several domains that might be profitably used to generate instruction

The constant seems to be that each configuration of instruction draws on both design and domain theory.

For Dr. Gibbons' layer theory, there are individual domain theories that correspond to each layer. One of the design decision to be made is which domain theory to accept when structuring that particular layer of instruction.

We also determined that the most influential design decisions to be made in Gibbons' layer theory relate to strategy and content. Once those two layers are established, most of the composition of the other layers will also be constrained. It was interesting to me that these two layers correspond to the "What" and the "How" of the instruction. This is important because this corresponds to Gospel teaching (see "Teaching the Gospel Handbook"). It also corresponds to the content vs. context debate that has raged on in the field of education psychology.

Dr. Gibbons also made the distinction that the 3-Person Theory is really a domain theory of Instructional Strategy. In other words, it is a theory that provides teachers with a strategy for teaching. I also believe that the 3-Person Theory applies to the domain of learning strategy. In other words, it provides learners with a strategy for learning. This is an extremely important distinction as I believe that learning strategy is an impoverished domain as far as research int he field is concerned. But that is just my opinion...

Complexity and instructional design models

I have been thinking about the adoption or rejection of ID models and what that process entails. I have the following thoughts about it:

* Some ID models increase the number of design decisions to be made (Gibbons' layers, etc.)
* Some ID models seek to reduce the number of design decisions to be made (Gong's 3-person model, etc.)

* What are the reasons for increasing the number of design decisions to be made?

• Because: 
• I need more control over specific aspects of the design
• I need to improve the design but don't know where/what to improve

* What are the reasons for reducing the number of design decisions to be made?

• Because: 
• I need to reduce the complexity of what I am designing (too many design considerations to make progress)
• I need to expedite the design and development process (due to time, budget constraints)
• I need to isolate a part of the design process and improve it

These are just some thoughts that can guide my thinking about why I would consider other ID models over others. I think that selecting a design model is a matter of preference, expediency, and contextual constraints.

Principles of Instructional Design

I have decided to design a course on principles of instructional design for my instructional theories course. I don't feel very settled on this as it seems like a pretty broad topic and I am not sure still what the purpose of the course is. So the course may change between now and Monday.

The most productive process I have come to recognize is the the "needs analysis" in the pre-design phase of instructional design. I am finding that we can make every problem to be solved an ID problem if we want to, but the fact is, most of the problems are people problems more than design problems. Understanding this can help focus the scope of a course design or eliminate the need for the course altogether in some cases.

The other caveat to the needs analysis is that people often can't discern what their own needs are. It is a lot easier for them to have others tell them what their needs are and then agree or disagree with the 3rd party analysis. It is a rather frustrating process. There has to be a better way... perhaps critical thinking and metacognitive skills could help. That is worth researching...

The conditions of intrinsic learner motivation

I have a new question:

What are the conditions that support the development of intrinsic learner motivation?

As I have pondered more about intrinsic learner motivation, I have realized that it evolves. What I mean is that learner motivation can be absent and then it can develop within the learner. I want to understand the conditions and the operational principles associated with the development of intrinsic learner motivation. By understanding the conditions and principles, it will enable designers and teachers to develop more effective instruction aimed at not only content delivery, but also the development of intrinsic motivation to learn beyond the classroom experience.

I feel that motivation to learn is the factor that opens doors to learning that are not yet available to a learner. A learner who is intrinsically motivated to learn opens his or her own doors and creates opportunities independently of learning professionals (ie teachers). I do not mean to say that we should replace teachers, but the implication is that the role of the teacher would need to be fundamentally altered if students came to class motivated to learn the content. For example, instead of being a content expert, the teacher would need to shift into a mentoring role, assisting students to sort through information, make sense of it, evaluate it, and organize it into a coherent framework of knowledge. We would also need to restructure how "learning objectives" (which are really instructional objectives) are determined since students would likely be motivated to pursue a knowledge of the content in different ways and to varying degrees.

These are serious implications and require further study and analysis.

Thinking about learning and teaching

I have been earnestly thinking about a conversation I had with Dr. Gibbons about my Masters Thesis Project. He pushed me to find my question and then pursue it. I have had real difficulty with finding my question, I suppose that everyone does. So I have thought about my interest in learning and teaching. I guess when it all comes down to it, my passion stems from my experiences teaching early morning seminary. It was early in the morning and it was seminary. It was the most frustrating experience of my life, and yet I felt compelled everyday to go back and try something new. I don't know that things ever worked out as well as I had wanted, but something about those experiences have lit an unquenchable flame in my soul to improve the experience of the learner. It may even stem from my experiences as a missionary (which were a lot more successful than my seminary experiences). In coming to BYU and learning about Walter Gong's 3-person model, I found a tool that helped me to make sense of my seminary experiences and interpret them through the lens of the key attributes of learning and teaching. This changed my perspectives and allowed me to learn and grow through the evaluation of my past experiences that I perceived as failures. It has been a year and a half since Susan Gong introduced me to the ideas of the 3-person model. I have reflected much on this model and have come to the conclusion that all such descriptive models really rest upon a set of operational principles of learning which, when identified and understood, can yield powerful learning experiences for all involved. I don't claim to understand all of the operational learning principles inherent in the 3-person model because I believe that there are many that are serendipitously included in the model that have not yet been identified. The 3-person model is also a lens for identifying operational principles of learning because it focuses the individual on keys areas of Roles, Knowledge, and Experience.

I am writing all of this because I want to do more than tell people about the 3-person model. I want to help them understand the principles in which the model is grounded. By understanding the principles, it is possible that instructional designers and teachers can develop better instruction and learning experiences for learners. If learners understand the principles of learning, it is possible that they can become better learners. In order for this to take place, I feel like I need to focus my research on what I feel is the most critical area of the 3-person model, which is Roles. When individuals accept the role to be a learner/teacher (L/T), they open the gateway to growth (exponential growth according to Walter Gong). Role, however, is the one key attribute over which the teacher has the least direct influence. This causes enormous frustration for the teacher that prepares diligently and performs back-handsprings to provide learning experiences for the learner. I want to research what leads people to adopt the L/T role. What are the operational principles of learner motivation?

Motivation is a subset of engagement. By definition, engagement is when two separate entities link together or "engage" one another. In order to engage the teacher, the learner has to be "motivated". I believe that motivation is not a thing, it is a state, an experience, a verb, a dynamic set of conditions, etc. So my question right now is:

What are the principles that fundamentally create learner motivation?

I will begin looking through the literature for possible ideas.

Consequently, the course that I have intended to develop for Selnate International School (SIS) will be heavily influenced as a result of this line of thinking. Teaching a course on the 3-person model will become a course on the fundamental principles of learning inherent in the model, not just an exposition of the parts of the 3-person model. Special emphasis will be given to role development and generative motivation experiences. I am rather excited for this development. We will see what happens...