Educators vs Instructional Designers – Tackling Some Questions

Educators.  Instructional designers.  Are they the same thing?  Should they follow an identical process?   Does education have something to learn from the field of instructional design?  These are the questions I want to tackle in this blog post.  I’ll try to tackle them, but maybe they run faster than me.  Recently thinking about education has made my mind hurt and I feel like sitting on the sidelines.  Okay coach is sending me in.  I’m gonna try to make the tackle…

Tackling Question 1:  Are educators and instructional designers synonymous (or at least should they be synonymous)?

Here’s what I think:

If educators and instructional designers did the same thing, then they would employ the same methodology in performing their respective roles.  For example, instructional designers typically employ the ADDIE model when designing trainings, job aids, or other interventions to improve performance.  So are educators and instructional designers the same?  This is the first step in answering the next question, “Should they employ the same methodology?”

I think educators have a very different, but related, task when compared with instructional designers, and I believe their job is much more difficult. “Why?” you ask.  Ok, I’m running after the wide-receiver…

Instructional designers tend to be employed in order to improve performance.  There is a specific target that the company or organization hiring them has in mind.  For example, 7-Eleven may feel that their traditionally awesome coffee has started to taste a little bitter or weak.  Something has gone wrong with how 7-Eleven employees are managing the coffee station.  (This isn’t true – 7-Eleven still has awesome coffee.)  If 7-Eleven were to experience this problem, then they could call in an instructional designer who would identify what barriers there are to performance and either design trainings or job aids to help the employees perform more effectively.

Educators tend to be employed in order to teach some proscribed set of knowledge and skills to all students.  A state or local agency outlines specific target sets of knowledge and skills to be taught in each subject matter and grade.  So a history teacher may be expected to teach about the Constitutional Convention.  All students are expected to learn about this important event in our nation’s history and there are generally no guidelines offered by the state for how students are expected to use this knowledge – other than that students should be able to correctly answer questions about the Constitutional Convention on a standardized test.  So the teacher designs a learning experience that teaches these facts in a way that the information will be encoded into long-term memory (not necessarily used).  There is no expected performance utilizing this information rather than recall for the standardized test.

So there are several key difference between these two roles:

• Goals:
  • Instructional Designers have a very specific goal.  Their goal is to improve a SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in a particular CONTEXT.  Information that is learned in their trainings has value because it improves performance.  That is why it is learned.  The why is the reason for the instruction.
  • Educators have as their goal to help students acquire a BROAD SPECTRUM of knowledge and skills considered FOUNDATIONAL to an educated citizen regardless of context, chosen profession.  Why this particular knowledge is important is not specified.  The reason for the instruction is simply so that students learn the information.  There are no specific goals related to use of the information.
• Audience:
  • Instructional designers generally have members of an organization as their audience.  Certain commonalities generally follow simply because their audience are all members of the organization.  They have all CHOSEN to be employed or members of the organization.  Audience members likely have similar SKILL SETS or INTERESTS because they have chosen this career path or membership.
  • Educators on the other hand largely work with an audience that has no unifying characteristics other than AGE.  ALL students are expected to learn the material regardless of their interests, passions, career goals, etc. because the knowledge is seen as foundational.
• Outcomes:
  • Instructional designers are expected to produce DEFINED RESULTS.  What counts as success is clear, and all knowledge and skills are situated in a particular CONTEXT OF USE.  Designers know exactly why, how, and when the knowledge and skills will be applied, and there is a specific GAP they are trying to close with the intervention.  Performance will be REPEATED as the employee or organization member continues their work.
  • With educators the results are Ill-DEFINED.  State standards do not tend to outline how the knowledge and skills students are gleaning from their education should be used, and the only performances that are measured and valued are GRADES and STANDARDIZED TESTS that provide NO CONTEXT OF USE and certainly NO CONTINUED, SUSTAINED USE of the the information.
• Motivation:
  • In the case of instructional designers, their audience will tend to have motivation built into their membership:  SALARY, ADVANCEMENT (based on performance reviews), JOB SECURITY, ATTAINING COMMON GOALS.  The knowledge and skills are something that they will use again and again in order to do their job.  The knowledge itself has value because they know how they will use it.  It isn’t just something to be remembered for no specific/clear purpose.
  • Educators have a problem with motivation.  Almost always the motivation for learning that is offered is simply that learning the material is a hurdle that is necessary for advancement.  If you do well and make a good GRADE, you may get into COLLEGE or get your DIPLOMA.  Unless you simply happen to be interested, the information only has value until you have achieved the grade or have gotten your diploma.  Then it becomes irrelevant.  The motivation for learning is not related to the value of the knowledge or skills.

Summing up.  Even though the job of both educators and instructional designers is to instruct and guide, educators and instructional designers work in very different circumstances.  The apparent role of the educator is to provide a broad-base education for students that provides a sampling of knowledge in important fields as well as provides a foundation of knowledge and skills that allow the students to be active and successful citizens.  The role of the instructional designer is to militate the circumstances of successful performance in a specific context.  They are very different.

Sweet!  Made the tackle!  Or is there a penalty on the play?  You tell me.  Gotta move on to the next play…

Tackling Question 2:  Should they follow an identical process?  Does education have something to learn from the field of instructional design?

Working in different circumstances does not necessarily imply that educators and instructional designers should employ different models as a guide for their practice.   Although I worked in K-12 education, I went to graduate school at San Diego State in order to get a  Master’s in Educational Technology where I learned about instructional design.  (Quick plug:  great program at SDSU) But that still doesn’t answer the question.  Should they use the same process?  The most pervasive model used by instructional designers as a guide for their practice is the ADDIE model (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate).  At least at first glance it seems like perhaps educators should use this model.  Why shouldn’t they analyze, then design an instructional package, develop it, implement it in the classroom, and evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional package?  Should educators use this model in their work?

Well, in some important respects, they can’t even if they wanted to.

1. Time:   Planning an instructional intervention in Instructional Design takes a lot of back end work.  You analyze the audience, the needs, the goals, and most importantly the gaps prior to instruction.  Educators have to daily churn out plans for the day with limited time.  Generally the process is more like the DIE model of teaching.  Design, Implement, Eternally with no chance to take a breath.  Create a lesson, deliver it, and repeat without having time to truly analyze needs, design instruction to meet those needs, and evaluate success.  So even if educators want to analyze, carefully design, and evaluate their instruction, there just isn’t time.
2. No Meaningful Analysis:  When instructional designers do the Analysis portion of ADDIE, they are generally analyzing the status of the performance they are tasked with improving.  For example, in the 7-Eleven case above, the instructional designer would perhaps observe employees performing their task, survey them about the current process, guidelines, etc.  This data would provide information for the designer so that they could identify why the performance is not up to par.  It may indicate a need for better training, better job aids, a need form more staff, etc.  The analysis informs the strategy.  In the case of education there is no prior performance to be analyzed because ultimately education is not focused on performance.  The goal each year is to fill the child’s head with new knowledge.  So analysis would be simply the flimsy act of determining what students already know.  The analysis will only inform what you need to focus on, not what strategy to implement.
   
3. No Defined Performance: Instructional design hinges on improving performance.  In education there is no specifically outlined way that students are expected to use the knowledge they gain; there is no context of use.  This is probably why information tends to be taught at a surface level (recall and comprehension).  Educators can simulate or create contexts of use where students will be asked to apply and use the information they learn, but these are not an inherent part of the system.  If educators create or simulate the contexts of use, this takes time (see above).  Plus then the specific ideas of the educator are defining the value of the information.  If the state or locality takes the time to identify the information that should be taught, why aren’t they articulating its value as well.
4. Lack of Continued Use:  Part of what makes the very extensive nature of the ADDIE model feasible is that all of the effort put into the endeavor is meant to not only support a single performance but extended performance over time.  In education you are covering so much material, it is not worth repeatedly coming back to topics like the Krebs cycle or the Roman empire.  Generally the knowledge is only important until the end of that grade level and then it is never mentioned again.  Why put the effort into making sure that students learn, and learn well, what the Magna Carta is and why it was important?
5. Lack of or Manufactured Motivation:  Encouraging students to feel motivated to learn can be an art-form.  Some teachers are masters and some students simply love to learn, but for many students telling them that they need to know a broad array of information that crosscuts academic fields and includes tidbits like the steps of photosynthesis because it may be important some day or because it is basic scientific literacy isn’t going to provide the motivational gravitas the student needs.

So my argument is that teachers can’t employ the ADDIE model because it isn’t feasible and the circumstances of the task outlined for them by the state and how success is measured makes it unrealistic.

Did I make the tackle?  Oh I see a flag on the field.  Here it is:

Notable Exceptions to my “they can’t even if they wanted to” claim:

If an educator is teaching an audience that is motivated by a specific outcome, then I believe that educators should use instructional design strategies.  Some examples would be educators in teacher education programs, elective classes that teach a skill such as drama or wood shop, or any education program that is preparing students for a specific trade, hobby, or career.  In these situations, you know what you want your students to be able to do to be successful, and you can identify what knowledge and skills are necessary.  In addition, they are motivated because they are training in a field that they have chosen.  The outcome is defined and the students have a reason to attain that outcome.  For example, if you are a professor in a teacher education program, all of your students want to become exceptional teachers.  So you can identify particular outcomes that are important, and design instruction appropriately.  In contrast, if you are teaching high school biology, you are given a goodie bag of facts and skills the students should acquire, but you don’t know how they will use this knowledge in the future.

Why does this matter?

Well, frankly I think it matters a lot.  I think sometimes we act like the process for teachers is clear and straightforward.  If only teachers did it, then everything would be peachy.  Instructional designers have a much more straightforward task.  Teachers have way too much on their shoulders because ultimately their task is not even defined for them.   I know that when I first learned about instructional design, it seemed to me that it defined how teachers should approach the process of education, but now a days it seems an insurmountable task.  In my next few posts I’m going to write about my thoughts for education reform because I am still trying to work through what I think about the following:

• What counts as foundational knowledge and skill for teachers
• How should we teach teachers to teach
• What expectations we should have as a locality, state, or larger society for education and the role it plays
• How can the system be better structured to meet those expectations

Sorry for all of the sports metaphor embedded in the post.  It felt right at the time.  Funny thing is, I don’t even like football.

Spinning a Tale of Two TPACKs

I remember the giant, “Aha,” moment that I experienced when I first heard the TPACK framework discussed.  Many months ago I spent some time effusively discussing the power of the TPACK framework and my concerns about how to develop TPACK.  I’ve read a few papers on the subject, heard and enjoyed Judi Harris’ and Mark Hoffer’s talk at ISTE, and have visited the TPACK wiki.  I am most definitely a devotee of the framework.  It has continued to influence my thinking about how to guide educators to employ more effective teaching strategies in the classroom and how technology can help make that happen.

Despite my enthusiasm for the TPACK framework, it has at times been a struggle for me to truly use it as a guide because of some niggling tensions.  One tension relates to the problem of just how complex TPACK is, but that concern is for another post.  In this post I want to discuss a suggestion for the framework based on a need I’ve felt for a little more structure.

Act I:  A Tale of Two TPACKS

First I want to spin a tale of two TPACKs.  If you’re bothering reading this post, you probably know what TPACK is, so I won’t recap that story.  That tale has been told and told well by Koehler and Mishra.  Check out the TPACK wiki for more info.

Here’s how the second tale begins.  Recently I wondered whether there were interesting parallels between educators and other disciplines.  I considered scientists first.   One way to characterize the role of a scientist is that they add to our collective understanding of the world through an evidence-based approach to discovery.  What forms of knowledge are necessary for effectively fulfilling that role in society?

Science TPACK

Maybe this is wholly ridiculous (in which case it would be a dead-end as a plot twist), but I think that essentially scientists have their own form of TPACK.  Scientists have content knowledge (CK)  – from their field of study, they have technological knowledge (TK) – of what tools are available for conducting science and how to use them, and they have instead of pedagogical knowledge, process knowledge, (PK) – knowledge about how to effectively conduct each stage of scientific inquiry.

Below is a table that compares the two forms of TPACKs.  I didn’t outline the three middle levels of complexity TPK, PCK, and TCK mostly because I’m lazy, but I think it works.  Just as an example, at the intersection of process knowledge and technological knowledge, the scientist would need to know what tools are appropriate at each stage of the process of inquiry.

So I think there are some interesting parallels, but this is just the beginning of the story.  On to Act II…

Act II:  Providing Structure to Our Tale

There are two things that really struck me about the above comparison.

1. It is fairly easy to define the process that a scientist goes through, but not so easy to define for a teacher: Sure there are people like Feyeraband who would tell you that there is no clear process for scientists and that any attempt to define a process only constrains scientists. Sure the “scientific method” is not rigidly adhered to.  But basically it serves as a good guide for the scientific process.  If you wonder what the process is for an educator who is trying to sculpt a learning experience, it is a little bit more difficult to define the process.  There is no clear agreement, but there are lots of overlapping similarities.  I think this is okay because the scientific method has similar variations in its construction.  However, I think it is interesting that if you search learning model or learning process on the internet you get dozens of different definitions, and few are process oriented, whereas if you do the same for the scientific method, the guidelines are fairly uniform.  I think this will have to be a topic for another post.
2. The Structure of the Process is important. It is what defines the types of knowledge that are important.  This is what I want to elaborate on below.
   

The TPACK framework is outlining the types of knowledge that you would need in order to be an effective practitioner in education.  The Science TPACK outlines the types of knowledge that you would need in order to be an effective practitioner of science.  Now you might say that knowledge about the process, structure of each, would be nested in the pedagogy/process sphere described above.  For example, knowing the scientific method would be a fact that is nested within the Process Knowledge circle and knowing the process of learning/teaching would be nested within the Pedagogical Knowledge circle.  But I want to make an argument that the process should be outside of that sphere.  Here’s why in brief.

The process that you go through as a scientist or an educator defines your role and your daily practice.  It is something that guides your entire endeavor.  Separate from that process is knowledge how to perform each aspect of your process well and effectively, knowledge when that stage of the process is appropriate, etc.  So I would argue that the actual process itself is outside of TPACK, and knowledge of how to effectively perform each stage, when it might make sense to vary the process is what resides in the PK circle.  The PK represents the knowledge that you will constantly be balancing and negotiating with the context, the current content, and the technology.  The general structure is not negotiated because it is foundational to your role.  You may find that after a “Check for Understanding” you need to provide more “Input,” so the process may not be strictly linear, but the elements of the process and the general order is fairly firm.  Below are diagrams of what I’m talking about, but as I mentioned previously the process for educators isn’t as proscribed as it is for scientists.  There is no “Educational Method” that is as universal as the “Scientific Method.”  So I used the lesson planning steps outlined by Marzano in What Works In the Classroom.

So I would describe the diagrams below as saying this:

Just as in science there is a methodology for inquiry, their is a methodology/process for teaching.  What informs that daily practice or implementation of that process is TPACK.

Okay, that’s my two cents.  I don’t know whether there is any real import to what I am saying here. What I think extracting the process from the center of the PK bubble would help me resolve is resolving some of the complexity.

I think what ends up worrying me the most at the end of this post is that the “way to teach” isn’t clearly defined.  Maybe teaching and learning is just too complicated, maybe there are two many variables like social interaction, motivation, context, etc., but perhaps we can agree on a general structure/process as a foundation.

TPACK for Educators

 

TPACK for Scientists