|
Foundations
of Instructional Systems Design
The diagram shows my conception of the relationship
of the foundational principles with the practice of instructional
systems design. Philosophical frameworks are depicted as
a continuum on the foundational base, that shows the two
extreme points of view held by practioners in the field.
Philosophical frameworks correspond to epistemology. The
foundation supports the four primary pillars of instructional
systems procedures and principles (Smith & Ragan, 1999).
The differing widths of the pillars depict the relative
importance of each in supporting (i.e., contributing to,
informing, guiding) the principles and procedures of ISD.
For more explanation of the parts
of the diagram, click on the part. If you select one of
the "pillars," you will move to that component
of my Knowledge Base.
 
- Constructivism
- Constructivism
is one of many rationalist views, that is characterized
by the belief that reason is the primary source of knowledge
and that reality is constructed rather than discovered.
Uniquely, constructivism is also considered a major learning
"theory," along with behaviorism
and cognitivism,
although it is really an educatonal philosophy.
See the Learning Theory pillar in the diagram.
-
-
- Pragmatism
- Pragmatism is the middle ground of the continuum
of the philosophical framework, situated between rationalism
(constructivism) and empiricism .
Pragmatists believe that knowledge is acquired through experience,
interpreted through reason, and is temporary and tentative.
That last point, "tentative," leaves open the
possibility for the pragmatist to change their perspective
based upon new evidence or a changed belief system.
Pragmatists discuss knowledge in a particular field as a
negotiated understanding based upon an agreement of experts
as to the common interpretaton of the experience or phenomena.
John Dewey was a pragmatist, as well as the majority of
psychologists. Most instructional designers, according to
Smith and Ragan (1999) are pragmatists.
I am a pragmatist, with beliefs that are consistent with
moderate constructivism. See Constructivism for further
explanation of the different constructivist positions. In
addition, I share the empircists view of the value of testing
knowledge through the accumulation of data and that there
exists, "out there" generalizable principles of
learning that can be discovered.
- Objectivism
- Empiricism is sometimes termed objectivism,
which stands on the ground that knowledge is aquired through
experience. The majority of empiricists would argue that
this experience allows an individual to arrive at an understanding
that reality is objective and singular. The focus is on
sensory experience to the exclusion of any mental (cognitive)
experience that might be obtained through reconceptualization
and interpretation.
Empiricism is characterized as "reductionism,"
which is reducing complex entities to their more simple
components, and "associationism," which is a tendency
to relate ideas if they are experienced contiguously (sequentially
and connected) in space or time.
An empiricist is labled by some scholars as any who advocates
an educational approach that employs experimentation and
seeks to draw generalizations based upon the data. Another
label is positivist.
- Philosophy
of ISD
- Philosophy of instructional systems design
seems like an odd concept regarding this applied, decision-oriented
field.
Consider these three reasons:
1. Theories are the source of principles that drive many
prescriptions for design. Understanding the theoretical
foundations of ISD helps the practitioner understand concepts
such as, how learners learn, the source of knowledge, and
how to instruct different learners, to name a few. If an
instructional designer knows the relevant theory bases,
they can make reasonable and intelligent decisions in ill-defined,
ill-structured situations.
2. Theories are the common ground shared with other professionals
in the field. A relationship exists between the designer
and specialists and scholars in ISD or related fields. It
is important to acknowledge the bases of their conclusions
and recommendations because our own educational philosophies
are comprised of beliefs and values that are substantiated
or modified by their empirical research.
3. Theories allow designers to explain why they make certain
decisions; justification of the rationale for a particular
design decision is necessary to maintain credibility in
the view of clients or students. Theory, along with your
own educational philosophy, can provide a rationale for
many of our decisions.
The field of instructional systems design does not have
educational philosophies, but people who study and practice
in the field do. Because of the personal nature of educational
philosophy, it is not possible to generalize one particular
philosophical perspective. Three components of one's philosophy,
epistemology, ontology,
and axiology, are explored in greater
detail below.
There are three general educational philosophies that seem
to have a strong influence on instructional designers: constructivism,
pragmatism, and objectivism.
-
- (Smith & Ragan, 1999)
-
- Steven J. McGriff
- I am a pragmatist, with beliefs that are
consistent with moderate constructivism. See Constructivism
in my Portfolio for further explanation of the different
constructivist positions. In addition, I share the empiricist
view of the value of testing knowledge through the accumulation
of data and that there exists, "out there," generalizable
principles of learning that can be discovered.
-
- My ideological and philosophical orientations
structure how I conduct analyses as required by research.
To understand myself, and subsequently my analyses, I must
examine and understand three interrelated domains: epistemology,
ontology, and axiology.
See below for more information.
-
-
-
- See Philosophy
of Education in my Portfolio for more details regarding
my pragmatic views.
-
-
- Epistemology
- Epistemology is the branch of philosophy
that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic
question: What distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from
false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this question
translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can
one develop theories or models that are better than competing
theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences
of cognition, which developed from the information processing
approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence,
as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a
human's capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.
Based on the Greek words, episteme meaning "knowledge"
and logos, meaning "theory," epistemology is concerned
with the definition of knowledge, the sources and criteria
of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge possible, and the relation
between the one who knows and the object known.
Your belief about "knowledge," where it exists and how you
get it, naturally affects your notions about educational
practice. Particular epistemological views influenced the
theorists who developed learning theories, conducted research
and developed instructional design methods.
As an educational practitioner (you, me!) we need to personally
reflect on the question of whether we believe knowledge
is objective or subjective. To begin the process, if you
haven't already, reflect on your degree of agreement with
the following statements:
I believe that knowledge exists independently of an individual;
that it exists "out there" and the role of the educational
practitioner is to guide individuals as they acquire knowledge.
I believe that knowledge is built by an individual, is internal
to the individual and is affected by the social culture
and experiences of the individual and that the role of the
educational practitioner is to guide individuals as they
individually construct their knowledge.
If you chose the first statement, your epistemology is associated
with behaviorist learning theory and the instructional design
models and theories that have evolved from behaviorism.
In the philosophical framework shown in the diagram, the
behaviorist view is on the empiricism/objectivism end of
the continuum. By contrast, the second statement is on the
rationalism end of the philosophical continuum, associated
with cognitivism or constructivism and the various design
models and theories that have developed from those points
of view.
Your epistemology has implications for your views about
educational practice and instructional design process, give
it thougtful consideration.
For more information, see Principia Cybernetica [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
].
-
-
- Ontology
- Another -ology word to boggle your
mind. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned
with the nature of ultimate reality. Metaphysics is customarily
divided into ontology, which deals with the question
of how many fundamentally distinct sorts of entities compose
the universe, and metaphysics proper, which is concerned
with describing the most general traits of reality. [Encarta
98 Desk Encyclopedia ©1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.]
Relevance to instructional systems research. Ontology
asks, "What is the nature of reality? What can really
be known about reality?" For the researcher, they are
attempting to investigage something. That thing is
typically called "reality." We assume, too easily,
we know what is "real," but reality is a most
difficult issue to grasp. You must distinguish between the
facticity and quality of a thing. Facticity asserts that
a thing exists in some form. Quality tells us in what
form the thing exists. Can these two concepts be separated?
For example, can I assert that a thing exists if
I have no idea of what it is? In philosophical terms,
is it possible to separate my ontology of a thing from my
epistemology of it? Is it possible to assert that terrorist
groups exist, if I don't have an idea of what terrorist
groups are? Perhaps, it is my pre-conceived notions of what
terrorist groups are which leads me to assert that they
exist. As a researcher, if I hold pre-conceived notions
of what things are before I conduct an investigation into
them, then are my investigations really "research"
or "propaganda?" (Baptiste, 2001). Positivists,
as an example, handle the issue of whether research is propaganda
by paying attention to replicability, reliability, and objectivity
(Babbie, 1998). On the other hand, constructivists
discount replicability and deny objectivity and focus on
dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
See Research
in my Portfolio for more discussion on qualitative and quantitative
research methodologies.
Here's some cool explanation from Tom Gruber that I liked
reading, picked off the web [http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
] on October 15, 2001:
Tom Gruber <gruber@ksl.stanford.edu
>
Short answer:
An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization.
The word "ontology" seems to generate a lot of
controversy in discussions about AI. It has a long history
in philosophy, in which it refers to the subject of existence.
It is also often confused with epistemology, which is about
knowledge and knowing.
In the context of knowledge sharing, I use the term ontology
to mean a specification of a conceptualization. That is,
an ontology is a description (like a formal specification
of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can
exist for an agent or a community of agents. This definition
is consistent with the usage of ontology as set-of-concept-definitions,
but more general. And it is certainly a different sense
of the word than its use in philosophy.
What is important is what an ontology is for. My colleagues
and I have been designing ontologies for the purpose of
enabling knowledge sharing and reuse. In that context, an
ontology is a specification used for making ontological
commitments. The formal definition of ontological commitment
is given below. For pragmetic reasons, we choose to write
an ontology as a set of definitions of formal vocabulary.
Although this isn't the only way to specify a conceptualization,
it has some nice properties for knowledge sharing among
AI software (e.g., semantics independent of reader and context).
Practically, an ontological commitment is an agreement to
use a vocabulary (i.e., ask queries and make assertions)
in a way that is consistent (but not complete) with respect
to the theory specified by an ontology. We build agents
that commit to ontologies. We design ontologies so we can
share knowledge with and among these agents. For more information
[http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
]
-
-
- Axiology
- Axiology is the realm of values, value
judgments, and ethics. [From the Greek word, axios,
meaning 'worth.'] Regarding educational technology practice,
the AECT
code of ethics was developed to guide practitioners,
at least in terms of "how to conduct" themselves.
The question of "why" and "for what purpose"
are value driven and personally developed by each individual
and may be influenced or guided by ethics. I make this distinction
because ethics can be followed as a legal parameter; a code
to control the otherwise contrary behavior of individuals.
Values eminate from the heart and soul of the individual
and will naturally guide their behavior and actions, for
good or ill, almost regardless of what an external code
of ethics prescribes.
In terms of research, axiology comprises
three issues: (a) the place and role of the researcher's
values in research; (b) the role of research subjects;
and (c) the appropriate use of research products (Baptiste,
2001).
- Baptiste, Ian (2001, September). Qualitative
Data Analyis: Common Phases, Strategic Differences [paragraph
24]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research [online Journal], 2(3). Available
at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
[Date of access: 09/19/2001].
|
