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...

Reflections on Learning and Teaching

I have really been struggling with the concept of evaluating learning and teaching. I do a lot of it constantly, both formally and informally (and even tacitly). At the heart of this issue lies the idea of learning and what it is. I have really struggled with ontological ideas of learning. I feel like in some ways that the ontology of learning is overlooked as if it is trivial. I feel like the sheer complexity of describing learning has discouraged people from focusing on it. I do not think we adequately understand learning. The evaluation of instruction ought to take into account how well the instruction facilitates learning, but in order to do so, a clear and definitive understanding of learning must be determined. And so I struggle with what has already been proposed in terms of descriptive learning theory. It seems as though it is either a behavior, a cognitive phenomenon, or a reality construction, or some combination of the three (although this last combinatorial option seems rare to me).

Steve Turley made the observation that Richard Feynman decided that he was going to derive all of the mathematical proofs for himself that he would use in his science. In so doing he would come to understand things for himself without having to rely on others. I have somewhat determined to do the same by starting with a more fundamental perspective of theology. And so I reason:

One central purpose of creation was to receive a physical body in order that our existence as a spirit intelligence might be enhanced. This physical body would provide the means whereby a spirit intelligence could grow, develop, progress, etc. This progress would require that the spirit and body experience together different events that would facilitate the growth of one another. From here I venture to say that the growth of the spirit through experience with the physical body and its senses constitutes learning.


There are conditions to learning however. Experience alone is not learning. Experience that leads to the growth of the spirit constitutes learning.

*** It is important to understand how a spirit grows and what factors and forces contribute to that growth. I am still seeking to understand this by study and by faith.

From these premises I make the following assertions:

1. Learning is the acquisition of experience that develops the spirit.
2. As experience is evaluated and expanded it can be shared with others. This constitutes the learning process.
3. The sharing of experience demonstrates that learning has taken place.
4. Sharing experience also leads to learning in others as it constitutes a reciprocating experience with both learner and sharer "learning".

These were just some thoughts I've had. I feel like if I could understand learning better, I could devise better instruction to facilitate learning. That is where I am going with this. What I have written may be all wrong in a few days or as I learn more, but this is where I am at. It is ok to learn more, break down our understanding, and rebuild it again to incorporate new experience.

Reductionist approach to instruction

While most instructional theorist take a prescriptive or descriptive approach to instruction, the 3-Person model offers a reductionist approach.

Take any given instructional situation. Determine (reduce) what the key elements are.
[The 3-person model reduces instruction, and therefore learning, to Roles (people), Knowledge (content and context), and Experiences (interactions)]

Once you have determined what the key elements of instruction are, determine (reduce) the key elements of each of those.
[The 3-person model reduces Roles to the L/T role, Knowledge to Purpose and Values (context) Main Idea and Validations (content), and Experience to capture, expand, teach, and evaluate]

You can further drill down into each of these elements and reduce them further but that may be unnecessary.

Now reduce the complexity of instruction down to 3 people. With 3 people, you have all of the interaction possibilities that you would have with a larger classroom or social environment. Reducing the interaction to 2 people is simply insufficient because interactions in classroom and social environments do not occur in isolated dyad relationships. A simple consideration of these facts will be enough to support the reduction of learning and teaching to 3 people instead of 2 people.

The reduction approach is open to interpretation and flexible because is is not prescriptive. It is also not perfectly descriptive because it does not claim to identify every element of learning and instruction, only the most prominent or important ones.

The power of the reductionist approach is that it minimizes complexity and empowers individuals to channel energy into learning and instruction where that energy efficiency is maximized. That is the goal of the reductionist approach:

Minimize complexity and maximize energy efficiency

This approach will lead to breakthroughs in fields not just related to education. It can change the world as we know it...

The Relationship between Knowledge and Questions

The types of questions that people ask are indicative of their knowledge.

The more someone knows about a subject, the more informed their questions may become.

"God will not answer any questions that we are not prepared to ask".
- Susan Peterson-Gong-

When comparing how much students know about a subject, it is helpful to ask them to list their questions about the subject. I think this will indicate depth of knowledge and depth of engagement with the subject.

The more initiated one is (Legitimate peripheral participation - communities of practice theory), the more "engaged" one is, both with the subject matter and with the members of the community that possess the knowledge of the subject matter. Dialogical knowledge sharing is a communal experience (that means more than 2 people).

This is the crux of assessing depth of knowledge.

Johnny Lee' Wii Remote "Smart Board"