I am in the field of Instructional Design. As a frame of reference it may be
helpful to say that instructional design implies development and can be
described as a manufacturing/engineering type of discipline. In instructional
design we have "instructional development models" that represent what
instructional designers do.
I am looking for three things. First, I am looking for support and criticism
of the following notion. Second, I am looking for help in clarifying the
notion that I am about to put forth. Third, I am looking for an articulation
of the alternative.
------
Here is the idea: The actual activity of design is not embodied in the design
or development models themselves (as they are generally articulated). These
models are artifacts of the activity of design and embody only a shadow of the
actual design process. They represent the path that the designer took to
bridge the gap that Simon discusses. When we teach students a design model we
are giving them an instance of a solution to a now completed project. And,
that specific solution is only applicable under the same specific conditions
with specific constraints.
-------
Am I way off base? Am I too general? Do I even make sense? If I do and someone
agrees with the notion, where can I go to find a) others that have written on
the subject, and b) an articulation of what should be taught instead of these
"artifacts" of the design process?
Thanks for taking the time to consider my question.
Jon Nelson
Instructional Designer
Utah State University
|