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is an attempt to improve the efficiency of instructional systems that are constantly rendered inadequate and outdated by the evolution of the learner.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