My professor introduced us to an interesting concept paper about Agile Instructional Design written by Peter Rawsthorme. One thing linked to another (as it usually does) and I have not only gained a new perspective on instructional design, but a new resource for mind bending ideas – see Peter's web site and current blog. At the heart of the paper on Agile ID is the perspective that traditional ID methods can "suffer the restraints of their linear roots." The author proposes that those restraints should be addressed to better consider,
"… time, budget, changing learning theories, increased use of constructivist methods, availability of subject mater experts, changing ID development staff, rapidly changing technology and media channels …"
Whether an Agile ID model becomes the solution, it is hard to deny the top down (designer not learner driven) nature of traditional instructional design methods that results in a fairly static outcomes (a "finished" course or instructional module). It raises many questions in my mind, including 1) How can the value derived from learner involvement be better incorporated into the design process? and 2) How can the learning environment be designed to allow and encourage its own evolution?
However, on the flip side, I can appreciate why (rightly or wrongly) a designer would prefer a more traditional ID approach as it helps the designer to control the process and narrow the focus of the learning outcome. Taken to the extreme, I could image the Agile process never satisfying any learning "objective" if the objectives, as well as the design and delivery, are always moving targets. But, that raises even more questions that will have to wait for another day …
technorati tags:instructional design, Agile design
Definitely interesting, but I have to say that I don't think the idea of never being "finished" with a course is a new one… In my experience, the reason we end up with a fairly static outcome has a lot less to do with ID approach than it does practical business concerns. (While everyone seems to agree in theory that feedback from each implementation should be fed back into reevaluation and redesign of the course, it's rare to find a producer who's really ready to budget for this in practice)
That said, I do like the stated focus on anchors early on in the model, as well as the strong focus on fomative evaluation … in many other models, people do tend to get too locked in to "modular thinking" before they've really had a chance to think about themes and metaphors