Action Learning Instructionl Design

7/29/2019 Action Learning Instructionl Design

1/13

Teaching Instructional Design:

An Action Learning Approach

Brenda Bannan-Ritland

George Mason University

Introduction

Inst ruct ional design is a complex and chal lenging f iel d of st udy. Pract i t ioners in t his f i eld are cal ledupon to creat e eff ect i ve inst ruct ional solut ions for al l t ypes of educati on and t raining cont exts andcontent . Theorist s and pract i t ioners involved in t eaching inst ruct ional design have begun t o f i ndfault with tradit ional teaching models, which convey a formal, abstract process often far removedfr om t he exigencies and specif ic i t ies of r eal wor ld pract ice. These leaders are cal l ing inst ead formore authentical ly-based experiences that al low students to better integrate the requiredknowledge and ski l ls of t he discipl ine w hi le simult aneously l earning to funct ion successful ly w it hint he chal lenging context of r eal-world inst ruct ional design si t uat ions (Tessmer & Wedman, 1995;

Winn, 1995). Various t eaching approaches have att empt ed t o bett er communicat e the complexit y oinst ruct ional design pract ice by including m et hods such as case studies, authent ic pr oj ect- basedexperiences, and cognit ive apprent iceship models, among others. These approaches, whi l eadvancing t he st udy of our discipl ine, are typical ly im plement ed in a tr adit i onal col lege coursefor mat , t hereby providing only a l im it ed amount of t ime and experience in the actual process ofinst ruct ional design.

This paper focuses on t he im plement at ion of a new t eaching approach f or inst ruct ional design, apedagogy based on act ion l earning theory. Complem ent ary t o t he pract ice of i nst ruct ional design,act ion learning provides a fram ework f or t eam-based, pr oj ect focused, l earning experiences t hatcapital ize on t he divergent ski l ls of a t eam in a problem solving process. Act ion learning is viewed a

an al t ernati ve perspect ive for t eaching content and pract ice t hat can specif ical l y address many oft he problem s in t eaching a highly compl ex, appl ied, t eam-based discipl ine such as inst ruct ionaldesign.

The Study and Practice of Instructional Design

The st udy and pract i ce of i nst ruct ional design involves t he creati ve appl icat ion of principles oflearning, ski l led planning, decision-making and t echnological expert ise. The f i eld i s a chal lenging

1


2/13

discipl ine t hat at t empt s t hrough a syst emat ic process t o provide eff ect i ve and innovat ive solut ionst o inst ruct ional pr oblems. This process is useful in various cont ext s including educational, corporateacademic and mil i t ary work pl aces. Inst ruct ional designers impl ement prescript ive and descript ivet heoret i cal const ruct s t o assist t hem in t he analysis, design, pr oduction, impl ement at ion andevaluat ion of instruct ional mat erials. Inst ruct ional design is viewed a complex int el lect ual processrequir i ng higher-level t hinking ski l ls and involving a m yriad of prof essional ski l ls t o syst emat ical lyproblem solve instructional and training situations (Nelson, Macliaro & Sherman, 1988).

Addressing t his complexit y, t heorist s in t he f i eld have raised concerns over t radit ional met hods ofteaching the process of instructional design (Richey, 1997; Winn, 1997). The perspective hasemerged that t radit ional met hods of t eaching inst ruct ional design do not adequately preparest udents for prof essional pract ice in t he f iel d (Cennano & Ertm er, 1994). Most impor t ant, t hereexist s a noted incongruency in the cont ent and met hods involved in learning t he discipl ine and w haconst i t ut es actual pract ice. Rowland, Fixl & Yung (1992) st ate t hat m any st udents who left t heircourses had di f f icu l t y wi t h t hei r f i r st real pro ject s, not ing that t here ex ist ed a wide gap bet weent he complexit y of t he inst ruct ional design case t hey encount ered and t he sim ple processes t hey hadlearned in t heir pr ogram of study. In addit ion, focusing on shal low pr ocedural processes rat her t hana thorough understanding of underlying theoretical constructs as vital to good design has been anapparent pr oblem i n many inst ruct ional design programs. Winn (1997) report s t hat, in many

programs, inst ruct ional design is being taught as a simpl e procedure -- of t en wit h t he focus on medproduct ion as an end in and of i t sel f . This approach ignores t he complexit y of t his discipl ine and t hehigh level of comm unicat ion, negot iat ion and other re lat ed sk i l ls needed for t he pract i t ioner t osuccessfully approach instructional problems.

Shif t s in t he phi losophy and theory of learning are also im pacting t he f ield. There is an increasedemphasis on the pract ice and teaching of t he f iel d in regard t o learner experience, learner cont roland learner inter pret at ion as wel l as an emphasis on aut hentic envir onment al and context ual fact oand t heir im pact on t eaching and learnin g (Richey, 1997). St ress has also been placed on t heint egrat ion of t heory wit h pract ice and on inducing ref lect ive met acognit ive processes inpedagogical approaches t o t eaching inst ruct ional design. Knowledge of t heoret i cal per specti ves on

learning are at t he core of t he inst ruct ional design process providing t he pract ic ing professional wita r ich basis for and select ion of inst ruct ional st rat egies that can enhance design. Wil l i am Winn(1997) echoes t he import ance of t heory and ref lect ion in design by st at ing, "Refl ect ion on problem senabled by knowledge of underlying t heory whose greater abst ract i on gives you more r oom f ort hought , is an expedient way t o f ind new and creative solut ions" (p.37). In att acking complex andambiguous instructional situations, design practit ioners need an arsenal of strategies and approachet o support t heir ef for t s. Knowledge of per cept ual and cognit ive t heory is viewed as one of t he keyfact ors in f inding eff ect ive inst ruct ional solut ions and promot ing good design (Winn, 1997; Reigelut h1997).

Various approaches incorporating many of these principles in teaching instructional design have

recent ly surf aced in t he l i t erat ure, i ncluding: cognit ive apprenticeship (Ert mer & Cennamo, 1995);layers of necessit y model compat ible w it h t he pract ice of inst ruct ional design (Tessmer & Wedman,1995); Web-based instructional design case studies (Kinzie, 1997); and authentic instructional desigproj ects in t he t radit ional c lassroom ( Quinn, 1994). These t eaching met hods, along wit h manyconcept ual and research st udies examining process of i nst ruct ional design (Rowl and, 1993; Perez &Emery, 1995), have informed t he t eaching and learning process in t he f i eld. However, f inding wayst o fu l ly incorporate authent ic cont exts, knowledge of t heory, design pract ice and ref lect ion wi t h int he confines of t he t radit ional col lege classroom set t ing remains a chal lenge. Even wit h t heint egrat ion of pr oj ect-based, i nt ernship or case st udies experiences, t he actual pract ice of

2


3/13

instruct ional design is l imited to the t ime frame constraints characterist ic of a typical three-creditcol lege course. Whi le attempting to combat the problems of complexity and incongruity of teachingmet hods and pract ice, many of t hese approaches remain r ooted in and severely l im it ed bytradit ional teaching contexts.

Action Learning and Instructional Design

An alt ernati ve model f or inst ruct ion t hat pr ovides a st rong basis for use in authent ic context s andappl ied pract ice set t ings is act ion learning t heory. Promot ed pri mari l y in business set t ings, act ionlearning has been used in corporate management training programs such as Marriott 's VirtualUniversity Career Development in the Workplace as well as in higher education settings such asHarvard 's Execut ive Developm ent program and George Washingt on University 's Execut ive Leadershipprogram (Marquardt , 1999). However, act ion learning has not pr eviously been int egrat ed int o t hefor mal study of inst ruct ional design. The pri nciples of an act ion l earning approach (please see t helef t -hand column of Table 1 for a summary) pr ovide a framew ork for r e-examining methods oft eaching of inst ruct ional design. In addit i on, t he suggest ed components of act ion learning correlat eclosely wi t h t he specif ic chal lenges involved in t eaching the i l l -st ruct ured, complex pr oblem solvingprocesses of t he pr act ice of inst ruct ional design.

Defined b y Marquardt (1999), " . . . act ion l earning is bot h a process and a powerf ul pr ogram t hatinvolves a smal l group of people solving real problem s whi l e at t he same t ime f ocusing on what t heare learning and how t heir l earning can benefi t each group mem ber and t he organizat ion" (p.4).Act ion learning theory att empt s t o confr ont t he increasing demands of environment al change and

j ob complexi t y in t he cor por at e w or k place t hrough prom ot ing a t eam -based lear ning proc essinducing new perspectives and capitalizing on team resources to solve problems. This approachrel ies on elements such as real problem s, t he int el lect ual resources of t eam mem bers from variousbackgrounds unfamil iar w it h t he problem or set t ing and quest ioning techniques t hat encourage newlines of inquir y in the eff ort t o solve a problem (Di lw ort h, 1998).

3


4/13

Table 1

Pr inciples of Act ion Learning Considerat ions for TeachingInst ruct ional Design

Appli cati ons at George MasonUniversity via Immersion Program

Real problem Incorporate single-project act ionlearning approach t hroughestablishing design group to work onan authentic inst ruct ional designpro to type pro ject implementedwithin a fu l l - t ime Masters levelprogram of st udy

Sol ici ted corporate, mi l i tary orgrant sponsor organizat ion t o f undstudent work on instruct ionaldesign project prototypes.Established three Immersion designgroups - one mil itary sponsored,t wo grant sponsored

Designated project sponsor

in termediary

Establ ish project intermediary tohelp ensure access to subj ect mat t erexper ts

Included l iasons from Departm entof Defense, comput er sciencedepartment and recent graduate ofdoctoral program in SpecialEducation as subj ect m att erexperts and associated members of

p ro ject teams

Diverse t eam Recru i t ing fu l l - t im e students wi t hvarying ski l ls to complement proj ectwork wi t h tu i t ion fund ing

Student s selected wit h var iousacademic backgrounds andexperience levels

Unfamil iar problem and

set t ing

Select ed st udents have l i t t le or noexper ience wit h ID problem cont extor content

Al l student s have contentknoweldge of ID from basic coursebut l i t t l e or no exper ience in theformal app l ica t ion o f ID

procedures.

Syst emat ic processes Introduce element s of act i on learningas a syst emat ic fram ework f or thest udy of appl ied instruct ional design.

St udent s read and discussed act ionlearn ing and commit ted t o theusing appr oach.

Problem viewed as asignificant issue by action

learning part ic ipants

Point out to students that they havebeen prov ided wi t h an oppor tun i ty t omake a di f fer ence on a real projectand see implent ed resul t s rat her t han

complet ing an exercise.

Through di rect in t eract ion wi t h thepro ject in termediary and sub jectmatter experts, students are madeaware of t he impor tance of t he

prob lem to the i r context .

Unfami l ia r p rob lems/ set t ingsinduce fresh questions andcreative responses from

action l earning group

St udents need t o develop ski l l inadapting to unfamil iar work places,assimi late new content and deal wi thambigu i ty in t he pract i ce o f ID

Class discussion and groupin teract ion t ime set aside t ofaci l i tate questions about theproblem sett ing and speci f iccontext ual issues relat ed to pr oject

4


5/13

Balance of programmedknowledge wi t h quest ions and

re f lect ion

Focus placed on reflecting upon andint egrating knowledge of designprocedures wit h the many inherentprocesses involved in the actualpractice of design. Value is placed ongroup and individual process, not juston the f ina l p roduct .

St udents required t o produceindividual Web-based port fo l io t hatincludes ref lect ion on individual 'semerging knowledge of design andon individual 's percept ion of groupprocesses.

Use quest ioning to promptdeeper level of analysis, t estassumptions, explore

possibi l i t ies

Support out-of - t he-box th inking andobvious quest ions in gaining newinsights int o t he design si t uation

Capitalize on student's strugglewi t h pract ica l ly implement ing IDprocess, allow questioning ofprocedures and explorat ion ofaddit ional methods and viewpoints

Est ablishing group groundrules and norms, creat esupport ive atm osphere, a l low

al l group members "air t ime"

Allocate t ime for team processact iv i t ies, contr o l pace to permi tsharing of ideas and frustrations,place focus on meet ing goal ofde l iverab le pro ject r a ther than

interpersonal issues

Designated class time for teamform ation and reviewed of stagesof t eam process, set aside t ime f ordebr ief ing of t eam process aft ercrucial meet ings and project

deliverables, placed emphasis onproblems of group rather t hanindividual interpersonal issues

Commit ment to act ion and

implementa t ion o f ideas

Require individuals and group toact ive ly implement appropr ia test ages of t he design process

Students used ID process as a guidefor a t t acking problem si t ua t ion ,project management proceduresalso provided guidance for t akingaction in directing phases ofpro ject

Commit ment t o ind iv idua lgroup, organizat ional learning

Find w ays t o capi ta l ize on t eamprogress for organizational (orprogram) learning and progress

Implement ed Web-based proj ectsit e t o archive d esign process andprogress, draft s, models and f inalproducts. Creat ion of centr allocat ion for sub j ect mat ter exper treview of products as wel l asarchival review of pr oducts byfuture students. Project si te andindividual port fo l i os serve asqua l i ta t ive data fo r f o rmat iveevaluation of program.

ef fect ive fac i l i ta tor Provide airspace f or every m ember ofthe group, focusing on tasks at hand,using a quest ioning approach, payat t ent ion to l i s ten ing, g ive t ime f orref l ect i on, creat e an emphasis onlearning and avoid judgment

Designat ed class t im e f or student st o integrat e previous knowledge ofID processes and readin gs wi t hexper ience in actual pract ice ofdesign; support positive groupprocess; int ervene when needed tore-direct , cl ar i fy group process orre-mot iva te ; a t tempt to a l low any

5


6/13

and all input on a issues.

Nature of Action Learning Problems and Groups

Several prim ary components are necessary t o create an act ion learning environment . At t he mostfundament al level, act ion learning requires a real problem and a commit t ed group of individuals t osolve the problem. Similar to the instructional design process, action learning uses a systematicprocess to address various t ypes of problem s at both t he m acro (organizat ional) and m icro(individual development) level. However, in contrast to tradit ional methods of teaching instruct ionadesign, act ion learning principl es advocate working on an act ual organizat ional or individual pr oblet hat is seen as signif icant by al l part ic ipants. Typical ly, wit hin inst ruct ional design courses, st udentapply t he inst ruct ional design process t o smal l , wel l -def i ned and const rued t opics. The use of act iolearning wit hin inst ruct ional design coursework has t he potent ial t o increase t he complexit y oft eaching in t he service of providing an enhanced learning environment for st udents in deal ing wit hcomplex pr oblems in t his discipl ine. An act ion learning approach also has t he pot enti al t o increase

st udent 's mot ivat ion in creat ing t he opport unit y to m ake a signif icant di f f erence on a real projectrat her t han merely complet ing a class exercise.

The act i on learning fr amework prom otes involving part ic ipants in problem s t hat present unf amil iarcontent or are si t uated i n unfamil iar set t ings. This recomm endation is based on t he assumpt ion t haplacing part ic ipants in a si t uat ion t hat pr esent s one or more unf amil i ar fact ors induces morecreative responses and elicits more innovative questions, as opposed to allowing those involved torely on est abl ished, comf ort able approaches or t ypical solut ions t hat m ight be generated in fam il iacontexts. Ideal ly, from an act ion learning mindset, the best problem context is one where both theproblem cont ent and set t ing are unfamil iar and the part ic ipant group represents a wide diversi ty ofviewpoint s. These att r ibut es are seen to provide m embers the great est opport unit y for l earning and

for br eaking out of sel f - imposed assumpt ions t hat can l im it creat i v i t y and pot enti al approaches t oproblem s (Marquardt , 1999).

These t enets of act ion learning have much in common wi t h t he pract ice of inst ruct ional design.Typically, designers are called upon to analyze unfamiliar settings and contexts as well as tosynthesize and develop content t hat i s outside of t heir expert ise. Not only m ust inst ruct ionaldesigners be ski l led at adapting t o unfam il iar work places and procedures but t hey must also be ablt o quickly assimi lat e new content and to present creat i ve solut ions t o a variet y of inst ruct ionalproblems. Each instructional design situation presents unique challenges that force a designer torely on quest ioning and creative r esponses t o deal w it h ambiguit y and si t uat ional const raint s. Inaddit i on, inst ruct ional design team s are oft en comprised of i ndividuals wit h various backgrounds an

expert ise including proj ect m anagement , v isual design, comput er programmi ng, and other areas. Indeal ing wit h a development t eam and subj ect m att er expert s, designers must posses t he abi l i t y t ohandle diverse viewpoint s wit hin a group sett ing, w hi le also focusing on accomplishing t he proj ect ahand.

Balance of Questions, Programmed Knowledge and Reflection

Quest ioning and ref lect ion are core components of t he process of act ion learning. Whi le pr oponent s

6


7/13

of this approach place value on current knowledge that the team possesses, (such as contentknowledge typical ly learned in academic preparat ion or knowl edge exist ing in an organizat ion'sknowledge management syst em), a higher value is placed on balancing this type of "programm edknowledge" wit h innovat ive quest ioning and ref lect ive insights. I t is bel ieved t hat pr ogramm edknowledge is an import ant source of l earning, but is increment al, narr ow in f ocus and embedded int he past . Theref ore in isolat i on t his t ype of knowledge general ly does not lead t o signif icantadvances in t he t oday's challenging instr uct ional and business envir onment s (Marquar dt , 1999).Similar to recommended problem solving techniques or needs analysis procedures that advocate

f indi ng out as much as possible about t he problem context prior t o presenti ng pot ent ial solut ions,t he act i on learning process focuses ini t ial ly on asking quest ions rat her t han depending primari ly onprogrammed knowl edge for i mm ediate answer s.

Programmed Knowledge

Primari ly relying on tradit ional methods of teaching that del iver "programmed knowledge" related tinst ruct ional design models and pr ocedures can l im it st udents' perspecti ves in deal ing w it h complexproblems found in t he actual pract ice of inst ruct ional design. Design involves more t han usingstandard models and following set procedures -- i t requires asking good questions and reflection on

select ed processes (Rowland, 1992). Al t hough not t he core f ocus of t heir w ri t ing on t eachinginst ruct ional design, Cennamo & Ert mer (1992) provide an act ion l earning view of t he balance ofprogrammed knowledge, quest ioning and insight w it hin t he context of instruct ional design. Althougwe need designers who can fol low rules when presented w it h t echnical and rat ional problems, wealso need designers who can make good sense out of those problems that are not technical orrat ional: t hat is, designers who are good problem set t ers, w ho are aware of m ult iple possibi l i t ies fosolut ions, w ho can make good choices, and w ho can ref lect on the choices t hey make t o deter mineif learning goals have been met (p. 2).

Questioning and Reflection

The act ion learning framew ork advocates quest ioning and ref lect ion t o prompt a deeper level ofanalysis, to test assumptions, and to explore possibil i t ies. In addition, establishing a supportive,egalitarian context that promotes any and all questioning can assist in defusing defensiveness andinducing creative pr oblem solving. This approach highly support s sol ic i t ing t he m ost obviousquestions from individuals not famil iar with the specif ics of the context or problem in order toprompt t he group to v iew t he si tuat ion f rom a d i f ferent perspect ive. Interest ingly , i t is of t en thedesign group part ic ipants most unfamil iar with the si tuat ion who can prompt out-of-the-box thinkinby the group. The needs analysis process included in instructional design procedures often requirest his t ype of ski l l and t hinking in order t o accurately assess a problem si t uat ion and provide aneff ect i ve solut ion. The combinati on of a support ive atm osphere, an inf ormed knowl edge base, an

inquiry pr ocess and mult iple per specti ves on a problem has great pot ent ial t o el ic i t change andprogress especial ly in t he context of pr act ice and t each of inst ruct ional design.

Inherent in t he design process and an import ant aspect of becoming an inst ruct ional designprofessional is mastering the process of reflection in action (Schon, 1983; Rowland, 1993). As thedesigner t akes act ion and t hen assesses t he consequences, he or she needs t o det erm ine t he nextact ion or consider r edirect ing eff ort s. This "ref lect ive conversat i on" wit h t he mat erials and specif icsof t he si t uat ion helps t o provide guidance for t he designer and, helps to relat e experience toknowledge and identi f ies simi lari t ies wi t h ot her design si t uat ions previously encounter ed (Rowland,

7


8/13

1993). Refl ect i on in act ion guides t he designer in view ing the problem and t est ing various solut ionswhi le providing a base of know ledge that becomes expert ise.

Simi larly, ref lect ion is also at t he core of t he act ion learning process. Reg Revans, t he f ounder ofact ion learning, prom otes providing t i me and space in order t o ". . . stand back and ref lect , unf reezet hought s, r ise above everyday problems and bring t hings int o a comm on perspecti ve" (Marquardt ,1999, p. 33). Est abl ishing a common perspecti ve on t he probl em, design met hodology andprocedures is very import ant f or communicat ion betw een the mem bers of an inst ruct ional design

t eam and the subj ect m att er expert s. Having a broad view of each team m ember's various roles andresponsibi l i t ies wit hin a design t eam is also crucial f or comm unicat ion and pr ogress on a proj ect.Akin to the ref lect ion-in-act ion process touted in the instruct ional design l i terature, the act ionlearning framew ork promot es group mem bers t o explore new areas of expert ise, ref lect on t heiratt empt s, consider t he result s and at t empt t o use t his new knowledge in ot her problem cont exts. Inaddit ion, ref lect ion can help to promote insightful quest ioning in t imes of confusion; complexity anchaot ic condit ions t ypical ly found in r eal worl d inst ruct ional design si t uat ions.

Commitment to Action and Learning

As t he name indicates, act ion learning is int erpret ed quit e l i t eral ly by i t s advocates to mean t here no learning wi thout f i r st t ak ing act ion. Learning f rom t he implementat ion of r ecommendat ions by aact ion learning group is an essenti al element t o t he fram ework. Learning then, according t o theaction learning perspecti ve, is def ined by t he combinat ion of al l of t he fol low ing fact ors:programmed knowledge, questioning, ref lect ion and implementat ion. Requir ing the individual tot ake responsibi l i t y for im plement ing ideas and recommendat ions fr om t he group in pract ice is afundament al part of t he act i on learning process t hat cannot be overlooked. Implement at i on in realworl d set t ings induces fur t her r ef lect ion and insight so t hat learning fr om successes or f ai lures oft he result s can occur. Furt her em phasizing learning, proponents of t his approach st ress set t ing t imeaside t o converse about i ndividual learning and how t o capital ize on t he t eam's insights wit hin t heorganization. As Marskick (1990) indicates the action learning approach may be perceived as

irrelevant to the bottom-l ine and results-oriented view prominent in the world of business.However, t hat view i s changing in the corporat e arena wit h t he advent of new perspecti ves t hatfocus on building learning organizations (Marquardt, 1996) and on sustaining momentum andadapting t o change in t he corporate market place (Senge, 1999).

Within an academic sett ing, placing priori t y on individual act i on and learning is t he mission of t hosein educat ion. Alt hough, not t ypical ly emphasized in the universi t y cont ext , placing priori t y on groupand organizat ional act ion and learning has t he potent ial t o furt her enhance teaching met hods.Although promising new instruct ional met hods are appearing in t he l i t erat ure, many inst ruct ionaldesign programs st i l l pr im ari ly rely on present at i ons of concept s, procedures, simpl e examples,exercises and small projects (Rowland, Parra & Basnet, 1995). In contrast, Tessmer & Wedman

(1995) note l earning processes of explorat ion and const ruct ion may be as import ant [ t o t he t rainingof i nst ruct ional designers] as t he learning product t hat i s produced. To help enhance met hods andt raining in t his discipl ine, Winn (1989) suggest s a f ocus on ref lect ive pr act ice of inst ruct ional designfor st udents rat her t han addit ional courses in pr ocedures. Creat ing est abl ished out let s and met hodsfor ref lect ing on both an individual basis t hrough electr onic port fol i os and on a group basis t hroughproj ect Web si t es can provide new avenues for individual as wel l organizat ional or program learningIncorporat ing met hods t hat focus on process as wel l as content int o t eaching can only enhance t heformal and informal learning processes of a budding designer.

8


9/13

Facilitation of Action Learning

The faci l i t ator of an act ion learning group has t he responsibi l i t y t o provide support f or t he group t ot ake the t ime necessary t o ref l ect on their act ions and learning as wel l as t o monit or progressassist ing t he group in m oving forward. As Marquardt (1999) indicates, " the faci l i t ator acts as a l ink tmaint ain contact w it h key people out side t he act ion learning group; as a cat alyst t o move peopleout of anecdot al mode and int o analyt ical mode; as an observer t o focus on and prompt groupprocess; as a cl imat e set t er t o help est abl ish an open, t rust ing at mosphere for communicat ion; an

communicat ions enabler t o help group mem bers develop ski l ls of giving and receiving inform ati onand opinions; and as a learning coach t o assist t eam m embers in t aking responsibi l i t y f or t heir ow nlearning as wel l as t o appreciate t heir experi ences wit hin t he group as a valuable growt hopport unit y" (Marquardt , 1999, pp. 37-38).

Providing a teaching focus on process rather than content within instructional design courses andexperiences support s a const ruct iv ist orient at i on and si t uated l earning perspecti ve requir ing t hefaci l i tat ion of learning by the instructor. This type of instruct ional experience is best offered tost udents aft er a course in b asic t ermi nology, procedures and models. Brown (1992) del i neates theaspects of teaching in this manner where instructors assume a coaching role providing advice andmodel ing t o st udents on learning t asks. In addit i on, st udents assume an expert role i n mast ering a

part icular aspect of t he task at hand and then part ic ipat ing in a form of r eciprocal teaching(Palincsar, 1989). Winn (1995) terms this shared responsibil i ty for student learning as an apprenticemast ership t hat i s co-created by bot h st udents and inst ruct or. Those who t ake a const ruct iv istst ance wit hin t he f iel d of i nst ruct ional design support t he process of f aci l i t at i ng st udent 's mast ery ot heir own l earning and t he development of new st rat egies, t ools and resources t hat support st udentin funct ioning within an authentic learning context (Lebow, 1995).

Integration of Action Learning Constructs in Teaching Instructional Design

There are obvious correlat es bet ween t he act i on learning process and t he t eaching and pract ice of

inst ruct ional design. The process has t he potent ial t o bett er address t he complexit y of instruct ionadesign in tr aining st udents. Addit i onal ly, adopt ing an act ion learning approach can combat t heproblems of t eaching content abstr acted f r om pract ice and t he t ime const ra ints of the t radi t ionalcol lege classroom t hat pr ovide a l imit ed experience. In t his regard, t he act ion learning model hasbeen appl ied t o t he t eaching of instruct ional design coursework i n t he Inst ruct ional TechnologyMast ers program at George Mason University (GMU). Labeled t he "Immer sion Program" t his academ icexperience attempts to integrate authentic instruct ional design project-based experiences withpr inc ip les of act i on learning. The feat ures of t he program inc lude t he fo l lowing: i n teract ion w i t h areal worl d design problem and subj ect m att er expert s; a design team of 8-10 st udents ini t i al lyunfami l iar wi t h t he problem and the set t ing and other t eam members; and the promot ion ofst udents' posit ive int eract i on wit h a design team and support of t heir development as independent

learners. Please see Table 1 for r eference of t he integrat ion of t he pr inc ip les of act ion learning,considerat ions for t eaching inst ruct ional design and t he im plement at i on of t hese ideas int o GMU'sImmersion program.

The Immersion program is a ful l - t ime Mast ers and Doctor al level in which student s fr om variousacademic and pr ofessional backgrounds part ic ipat e in cor porate, mi l i t ary or grant -sponsoredproj ects and work t hrough the i nst ruct ional design process in a t eam-based experience cont extsimi lar t o real wor ld pract ice. Di f ferent f rom a t r adi t ional t hree credi t course model , t he Immersioprogram is composed of a nine-credit per semest er inst ruct ional design appl ied proj ect experience

9


10/13

complement ed by conventional courses in t echnology and theory t hat f urt her support t he proj ectwork. St udents are also support ed by several prof essors, inst ruct ors and pr oj ect int erm ediaries orrepresentat ives fr om t he sponsoring organizat ion w ho provide cont ent, resources and inst ruct ionwhen needed. Incent ive t o part ic ipat e in t his int ensive program is based in t he st udent 's desire t olearn in a more authent ic manner, paid t u i t ion f or t he major i t y of pr ogram credi ts by the sponsor,and creat ion of a t angib le product t o demonst rate t o potent ia l employers.

The learning experience of t he Immer sion program i s based upon i nt egrat ing inst ruct ional design

content knowledge and promot ing team-based problem solving to eff ect i vely develop aninst ruct ional design solut ion. Typical ly, t he experience culm inates in t he production of both aprot ot ype proj ect (general ly comput er-based) and a comprehensive inst ruct ional design documentt hat rat ional izes the int egrat ion of current t heoret ical and prescr ipt ive pr inc ip les prominent in t heinstruct ional design f ield. The sponsor may then elect to further develop the prototype project orreinvest in anot her Immersion design group t o compl et e development on t he project .

Curr ent ly t hree separat e Imm ersion design groups of 8-10 st udent s are in progress at GMU. Supportfor the program is currently provided by various sponsoring organizations, including the U.S.Depart ment of Defense (DoD) and t he U.S. Depart ment of Education. Design proj ects that t hest udents are current ly w orking on include: t he development of a CD-ROM based orient at ion program

for the Senior Executive Service in DoD; a Web-based electronic performance support system forl i t eracy faci l i t ators who work wit h st udents wit h special needs; and an immersive virt ualenvironment t eaching science concept s t o learning disabled high school student s. The maj ori t y ofsponsor organizat ions have designat ed a proj ect r epresent at ive or int ermedi ary to int erf ace wit h t hImmersion design team and t he organizat ion in order t o help faci l i t ate access t o relevant dat a,content and subject matter experts. These intermediaries work closely with theinst ructors/ fac i l i ta t ors on at t empt i ng to e l iminate logist ica l and administ rat ive obst ac les that mayinhibi t progress on the proj ect f or t he Immersion group.

The st udents are select ed int o t he program based on the mat ch of t heir ski l ls to t he proj ect at handavai labi l i t y for f ul l - t ime st udy and on ful f i l lm ent of prerequisi te courses in basic inst ruct ional desig

and Web development . Since t he maj ori t y of graduate st udents att end GMU on a part- t ime basis,providing funding for r ecrui t ment of f ul l - t ime student s becomes a necessit y. St udents are providedwit h coverage of t he maj ori t y of t heir coursework t hrough grant and sponsor organizat ion f unding. ret urn, t he sponsor receives a developed protot ype and design document t hat r ef l ects currentt heoret ical and prescript ive const ruct s in t he f iel d of inst ruct ional design. The st udents are providewit h a r ich, authent ic design and development experience support ed t hrough inst ruct ion andfac i l i ta t ion by t he inst ructors and proj ect in term ediar ies.

Al igned wi t h act ion l earning principles, t he Immer sion program is heavi ly f ocused on learningprocesses, rat her t han a specif ic product del iverable. Although t he goal i s t o progress t hrough thedesign process fr om analysis t o evaluat ion, t he group is not t ypical ly held accountable f or a f ul ly

developed, comm ercial level pr oduct. The emphasis remains on t he t eaching and learning thatoccurs through experience in designing and developing the project. Sponsor organizations have beenvery supportive of this emphasis and endorse this perspective through attending presentations andformative review sessions set up by the students.

Clear ly est ablished obj ect i ves and expectat ions as wel l as requi rements and assessment methodshave been form ulat ed f or t his unique inst ruct ional experience. Assessment met hods includeinst ructor r ev iew of requi red individual Web-based port fol i o as wel l as self , peer and inst ruct orassessment of individual's progress via a f ive e lement rubr ic on t eam contr ibut ions, ski l l sharing,

10


11/13

proj ect products and wri t ing or synthesis product s.

In addit ion group design processes are document ed t hrough t he st udent development of a projectWeb site (including contacts, st atus report s, design deliverables an d presentat ion products).St udents use t he proj ect si te t o comm unicate amongst t heir t eam, share draft s of requir eddocument s and post f i nal design document deli verabl es such as a needs assessment for subjectmat t er expert review. This documentat ion of col laborat ive and individual perspect ives on designprocesses ensures a focus on learning and reflection while working toward solutions on real

probl ems. A st rong emphasis is also placed on est ablishing team wor k processes, egalit arian pr oj ectmanagement t act ics, appl icat i on of t heory and encouraging fresh approaches t o t he appl ied pract i cof design.

Conclusions

Clearly, tradit ional methods of teaching instruct ional design are incompatible with the complexity oreal ist ic inst ruct ional design problems, r apid change promi nent i n t he cont exts where inst ruct ionaldesign is pract iced, and the need t o more real ist ical ly ref l ect t he integrat ion of content , processand pract ice. Act ion learning provides an al t ernat ive paradigm t hat could inf orm t he teaching and

learning of inst ruct ional design. This approach can f urt her t he success of some curr ent met hods ofauthent ical ly-based t eaching t hat have indicated st udent sat isfact i on and learning in presenti ngissues wit hin an academic cont ext t ypical ly only encount ered in t he work environment (Quinn,1994). Implemented at the programmatic level within a ful l - t ime Masters program, an act ionlearning approach has been shown t o const i t ut e a highly compl ement ary t eaching met hod forinst ruct ional design by providing a framewor k for t eam-based, aut henti c proj ect experi ences andsupport in a learning context . The act ion learning approach incorporated i nt o t he teaching ofinstructional design within George Mason University's Immersion program strives to provide theopport unit y f or st udents that Winn (1997) describes in bringing t heory t o design and appl icat ion in adi rect manner.

References

Brown, J.S., Col l ins, A., & Duguid, P.(1989). Sit uated cognit ion and t he cult ure of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, A. (1992, Apri l ) . The cognit ive basis of school rest ruct uri ng. Paper presented a the annualmeet ing of t he Amer ican Educat ional Research Associat ion, San Francisco.

Cennamo, K.S. & Ertmer, P. (1994). Teaching inst ruct ional design: An apprent iceship model.

Presentation at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology.

Di lw ort h, R.L. (1998). Act i on Learning in a nut shel l . Perf ormance Improvement Quart er ly, 11(1) p.28-43.

Ert mer, P. & Cennamo, K.S. (1995) Teaching inst ruct ional design: An apprent iceship m odel.Perf ormance Improvement Quart er ly, 8(4) p. 43-58.

11


12/13

Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Sit uated learn ing: Legi t imat e per i phera l part ic ipat ion. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, D. (1995). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward anew m indset. . In B.Seels (Ed. ), Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Reconsideration. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications (pp.175-187).

Marquardt , M.J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York: McGraw-Hil l.

Marquardt , M. J. (1999). Action Learning in Action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Nelson, W. A, Macl iaro, S. & Sherman, T.M. (1988). The int el lect ual content of instruct ional designJournal of Inst ruct ional Development, 2(1), 29-35.

Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and pr act ice in an inst ruct ional design graduate program.Educat ional Technol ogy Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.

Reigeluth, R. (1997). Inst ruct ional t heory, pract i t ioner needs and new di rect ions: Some Refl ect i ons

Educational Technology, 37(1), 34-41.

Richey, R. (1995). Inst ruct ional design theor y and a changing fiel d. In B.Seels (Ed. ), InstructionalDesign Fundament als: A Reconsid erat ion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication(pp.77-86).

Richey, R. (1997). Agenda-Bui lding and i t s impl icat i ons for t heory const ruct ion in inst ruct ionaltechnology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 34-41.

Richey, R.C. (1998) The Pursuit of Useable Knowl edge in Inst ruct ional Technol ogy. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 46(4) pp. 7-22.

Rowland, G., Fixl , A. & Yung, K. (1992) Educating t he ref lect ive designer. Educational Technology,32(12) 36-44.

Rowl and, G. (1993). Designing and inst ruct ional de sign. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 41(1), 79-91.

Rowland, G., Parra, M. L. & Basnet, K. (1995). Educati ng inst ruct ional designers: Dif fer ent met hodsfor di f fer ent outcomes. In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Reconsideration.Englewood Cli f fs, NJ: Educat ional Technol ogy Publi cat ions.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The ref lect ive pract ioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (1999) The dance of change: The chal l enges t o sust aining moment um in l earningorganizations. New York: Doubleday.

Tessmer, M. & Wedman, J. (1995) Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response todesign research, st udies and cri t icism. Perf ormance Improvement Quart er ly, 8(3) p.38-54.

Tessmer , M. & Wedman, J. ( 1995). Redesigning t he ID curr iculum . In B. Seels (Ed. ), Instructional

12


13/13

Design Fundament als: A Reconsid erat ion. Englewood Clif fs, NJ: Educat ional Technol ogy Publi cat ion

Winn, W. ( 1989). Toward a rat ionale and theoret ical base for educational t echnology. Educat ionalTechnology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.

Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a t heory-based curr i culum i n inst ruct ional t echnology. Educat ionalTechnology, 37(1), 34-41.

Brenda Bannan-Ritland

Assistant Professor of Instructional Design and Development

Instructional Technology Program

George Mason University

E-mail: [email protected]

13

Documents

Action Learning Instructionl Design