The Role Of The Instructional Designerin Her Article Lessons On Learn

The Role of the Instructional Designer In her article "Lessons on Learning," Christine Robinson examines how attention to the cognitive and affective needs of a learning population can help instructional designers create effective, substantive, age-appropriate learning experiences. Moreover, Chapters 1 and 16 of Instructional Design describe the importance of systematic planning to the success of curriculum design, and how technology can assist in the curriculum design process. Based on your personal experiences, as well as knowledge gained from the Learning Resources, reflect on the following: Recall an experience you have had as a learner in a higher education setting, corporate training program, professional workshop, or any other learning experience you felt was unsuccessful.

From an instructional design perspective, why do you think the experience was not successful? For example: Did the instructional goals/objectives, strategies/activities, and assessments lack congruence? How so? What was the effect of this deficiency? Was the instruction at an inappropriate level for the audience?

Were the unique qualities and needs of adult learners not accounted for? How so, and how did this negatively influence the learning experience? Did the instruction fail to result in lasting change? Did the instruction fail to engage learners in higher-level thinking? Was the curriculum sequencing structure not well suited for the instructional content?

Why? How do you think that this unsuccessful learning experience should have been designed to be more successful? What is the role of the instructional designer in ensuring an effective course of study?

Paper For Above instruction

Reflecting on my personal experience with an unsuccessful learning program during my postgraduate studies provides valuable insights into the critical role of instructional design. The particular course was intended to enhance understanding of advanced research methodologies, yet it failed to meet its educational objectives due to several instructional design flaws. Analyzing the factors that contributed to this failure reveals the importance of systematic planning, alignment of objectives, and understanding learner needs—principles emphasized in Robinson’s article and chapters 1 and 16 of the Instructional Design textbook.

The course's primary inadequacy was the lack of congruence between instructional goals, activities, and

assessments. The learning objectives were overly broad and theoretical, without clear, measurable outcomes aligned with the instructional strategies employed. For instance, the instructor relied heavily on passive lectures without incorporating active learning strategies such as case studies or problem-solving exercises. Consequently, assessments primarily consisted of written exams focusing on rote memorization rather than application or critical thinking skills. This misalignment resulted in learners understanding the content superficially but failing to develop practical research skills essential for real-world application.

Additionally, the instructional content was not tailored to the adult learners' needs. As adult learners, we brought significant prior knowledge and practical experience; however, the course heavily emphasized theoretical aspects without connecting them to practical research scenarios. A failure to account for the unique qualities and motivations of adult learners led to diminished engagement and motivation, negatively impacting the learning experience. The course did not foster an environment conducive to intrinsic motivation or self-directed learning, which are critical motivators for adult education (Merriam & Bierema, 2013).

Furthermore, the curriculum sequencing was poorly organized. The content was presented in a linear, density-heavy order without considering prerequisite knowledge or the logical progression necessary for comprehension. This structural flaw made it difficult for learners to build upon prior knowledge effectively, resulting in confusion and frustration. The lack of scaffolding and clear linkages between sessions hindered the development of higher-order thinking skills, which are vital for masterful research practice (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

From an instructional design perspective, these issues stem from inadequate systematic planning, which is essential for creating effective educational experiences. An instructional designer should conduct thorough needs assessments to understand learners’ backgrounds, goals, and contexts before designing the curriculum (Gagné et al., 2005). They should develop clear, measurable goals aligned with suitable instructional strategies tailored to the learners' level and needs. For adult learners, this includes leveraging experiential learning, practical applications, and fostering autonomy (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015).

A more successful redesign of the course would involve multiple improvements. Firstly, employing backward design strategies ensures alignment of objectives, activities, and assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Active learning techniques such as collaborative projects, case analyses, and real-world problem-solving should replace passive lectures to promote engagement and higher-order thinking

(Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Additionally, curriculum sequencing should be structured to build progressively from foundational concepts to advanced application, incorporating scaffolding and formative assessments to guide learners effectively (Lepper & Malone, 1987).

The role of the instructional designer in this context is pivotal. They must systematically analyze learner needs, define clear and achievable learning outcomes, and incorporate pedagogical strategies suitable for adult learners. They are responsible for designing a coherent and engaging curriculum, selecting appropriate technological tools, and continuously evaluating and refining the course based on learner feedback and assessment data (Reiser & Dempsey, 2017). In essence, instructional designers serve as the architects of educational experiences, ensuring that content delivery is not only accurate but also engaging, relevant, and capable of fostering lasting change (Seels & Richey, 2012).

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Cengage Learning.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.

Lepper, M. R., & Malone, H. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 255–280). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. In Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 1–19). Pearson.

Seels, B., & Richey, R. C. (2012). Integrating instructional design and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 52(5), 50–53.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.