IDT: Practical or Pie-in-the-Sky?

Designers-by-assignment pose a special, though not new, challenge to the field of Instructional Design. To understand the situation, designer-by-assignment must be understood. One the one hand, this is a job title, assigned to those who create instructional design products without necessarily having the training of an instructional designer. One the other hand, this entire matter is a reflection of an economic reality, and reveals the increasingly multitasking nature of the workplace. In that sense, people are often managers-by-assignment, negotiators-by-assignment and so on, as a strategy to alleviate the costs of using trained specialists.

One potential compromise in the approach of design-by-assignment is a loss of the value of research and theory. Without training, designers-by-assignment may not produce adequate materials. Merrill would like to see the tools of instructional design produced in such a way that they embody current and relevant theories, so that the products produced using those tools will have the essential qualities that traditionally came from the instructional designer on the job. Merrill would also like to see instructional designers receive more education in management.

Superficially, this sounds logical. Merrill has a strong bias towards the idealism of science and empirical results, so his proposal follows a methodology that looks good on paper. One must wonder, however, how a software tool can replace the brain of a trained designer. Even if one follows rigid scientific principles, there has to be creativity to work with those principles and arrive at useful solutions. Most scientists will attest to the need for creative thinking in solving problems of logic. So far, computers have not proven to be creative problem solvers.

On the other hand, Merrill’s suggestion to train designers to be good managers sounds like a very good idea. For one thing, learning management skills leads to better self-discipline and work habits. Large projects require both. It also seems inevitable that, as Merrill indicates with statistics, instructional designers with graduate degrees will increasingly be called on to manage designers-by-assignment and others as well.

Wilson actually rearranges the issue by indicating that designers-by-assignment is not necessarily inappropriate; often they have “extensive practical and content knowledge that empowers them to understand local cultures and processes…”. He points out that all designers have knowledge weaknesses, so the idea of a perfectly trained designer is not attainable in any event.

Wilson characterizes his approach as a broad way, and Merrill’s approach as a narrow way. Merrill takes this kindly, although he sticks to his points. The question remains: How do we, as instructional designer students, proceed? Do we take it upon ourselves to add management education? Do we learn an appropriate foreign language because, like so many other industries, the nuts and bolts of our jobs will be done overseas for relatively low wages? Will there be a decline, not only in quality, but also in the value of our hard won degrees?

It seems that since instructional design and technology is woven into the world of computers, constant change will be the order of the day. We must stay current not only in the technology, but also in our positions in the field. It seems reasonable to strongly suggest that work in education will remain strong, and some industries, like the military, just won’t function at all without the utmost attention to details. However, automated solutions seem inevitable for many industries, driven by economics and the ability to conform to widespread standards.

One example of that relates to custom software. Twenty years ago, I programmed a keyboard skills test for the Los Angeles Times in collaboration with an industrial psychologist. The test had to conform to the standards of affirmative action; therefore it required a qualified designer with a Ph.D. in industrial design. Since then, California has banned various forms of affirmative action. On that basis, an off-the-shelf program could be used today, in place of the custom solution. A Ph.D. level designer would not be required. The cost difference is significant. If our needs as a society become so trite as to make creative solutions extraneous, instructional products will be mere commodities to be produced as quickly and cheaply as possible. To prevent that, some of us need to move into research, others into theory development. In other words, we have the responsibility to keep our field fresh, relevant, and a land of opportunity for designers. Beyond that, we must be prepared to continue our education and enhance our value since, despite all of our reasoning about what we see now, the future is always unpredictable.

Stranger Than Fiction

Chapter 31 reads like a Lucas/Spielberg script; accelerated learning through focused electronic stimulation of the brain, personal learning and life profiles maintained in centralized data mines, enhanced group think through brain synchronization... We accept these ideas readily in science fiction because it is just that, fiction.  However, science fiction has often cautioned us by its very cynical depiction of such "advances".  Chapter 31 has only one sentence that indicates there will certainly be ethical and legal questions to answer as we develop more invasive learning methods.

In this blog, I submit my personal opinion that the ethical questions start with learning itself.  I often argue that education is an unconditionally good thing.  But I also believe that learning must remain a process mediated by free will.  And sociologically, I believe we must maintain a society where various levels of education have their place and value.  Even if we had a pill that turned any person into an instant Einstein, should everyone take it, and would that really serve our variety of human needs best?  People learn for many reasons.  Some need job skills.  Others enjoy the process and the result is not so important.  Just about everyone needs to have reading skills, but not everyone needs to know how to fly a plane.  But what if a law were passed that required everyone to submit to an electronic brain implant that gave them emergency CPR skills?  That would save a lot of lives, but would it be fair, ethical, moral?  

Realistically, learning needs vary with each person and over the course of a lifetime.  Just in time learning might be the way to address the actual development of a person's life.  If I could rapidly acquire parenting skills during the nine months of pregnancy, I'd be a better parent and not have to guess five or ten years earlier, when I was originally in school, if those skills were really going to be necessary in the first place.  This might be a great opportunity for advanced learning systems to be applied.  On the other hand, maybe I prefer to learn by doing and wish to learn parenting as I go.  In either case, should I be forced to learn to be a good parent in advance?  

I don't want to live in a world ruled by a tyranny of education.  Alexis de Tocqueville is often noted for the concept of a tyranny of the majority, in which the interests of the majority completely override the interests of the minority.  The Bill of Rights is one example of how this tyranny is meant to be avoided, securing certain essential rights regardless of the wishes of the dominant powers.  I suggest that we need similar thinking wherever systems of power are developed.  The right to be blissfully ignorant might be right number one.  In our enthusiasm to create more advanced learning systems I think we need to remember that learning begins as a natural process for survival, adaptation, and a good quality of life.  We must be careful to let real human needs motivate those advances and not let the potential advances cause us to treat people as receivers of our zealous implementations of the latest technologies because those technologies can theoretically create statically better learning results.  Is it not apropos to consider that in the end, learning must remain a consequence of free will, personal choice and even the desire to have a bit of fun?