Design Implications

ELI is no longer actively pursuing this topic. This page is provided as an historical resource; it is not being updated or actively managed.

Instructional design is never taught in the standard PhD curriculum. Most faculty teach but few formally learned how. We model how we were taught and hope for the best, with little administrative incentive to change. Knowledge of methods to relate specified events of instruction to learning processes and learning outcomes is never the basis for evaluation of faculty performance. This is new territory for most faculty interested in best practices for teaching and learning.

We know from twenty years of instructional theory research that there are clear, causal relationships between procedures used in course modules and their learning outcomes, but few instructors have access to instructional designers that can construct those modules. Those interested in exploring the many definitions and theories might start at the Illinois Online Network portal page on instructional design, but most faculty want more practical access to best practices for reaching educational learning outcomes. How do we design the course experience so that our students learn and retain what we intended them to learn? What practices ensure better outcomes?

Course events must be designed with learning outcomes in mind. This is the core of instructional design. Course modules should take into consideration diverse ways of learning (visual, representational, auditory, kinesthetic) and use diverse methods of reaching varied learners. Modules should be conceived for both social and reflective thinkers. Good instruction is designed for the learner and incorporates assessment of outcomes.

The traditional lecture is never an effective way of reaching the learner. Sophisticated technology and 'flashy' sites are not necessarily better modules for learning. It is not the complexity of the tool or the application of any particular theory or model, but intended usage that makes effective course design. Constructivists, behaviorists and cognitivists, if forced to speak the same language, would agree that learning outcomes should guide design.

Students learn when they are engaged, active and required to make sense (in their own words, in their own way) of what they learn. We all understand material only when we make it our own. There are endless ways to help students understand course content and to "do", instead of hear or see. This is the meaning of 'active learning'. Technology, by its very essence, allows "doing". Place a computer in a student's hands and give them the tools to create their own learning. The role of technology has changed many aspects of higher education, but none more significantly than "the classroom". Internet access has made learning accessible all the time, with greater student choice in approaches to learning. Retooling instructional design choices for the virtual classroom is a significant focus in design implications for higher education learning. Those interested in exploring design issues related to online learning (in traditional, distant and hybrid classes) might start at the MVU Standards for quality online courses site or the ION Online Learning Overview page.

A Map of the Learning Space Deeper Learning and Learning Theories Design Implications Learning Activities Teaching Practices Technology Uses		Design Implications ELI is no longer actively pursuing this topic. This page is provided as an historical resource; it is not being updated or actively managed. Instructional design is never taught in the standard PhD curriculum. Most faculty teach but few formally learned how. We model how we were taught and hope for the best, with little administrative incentive to change. Knowledge of methods to relate specified events of instruction to learning processes and learning outcomes is never the basis for evaluation of faculty performance. This is new territory for most faculty interested in best practices for teaching and learning. We know from twenty years of instructional theory research that there are clear, causal relationships between procedures used in course modules and their learning outcomes, but few instructors have access to instructional designers that can construct those modules. Those interested in exploring the many definitions and theories might start at the Illinois Online Network portal page on instructional design, but most faculty want more practical access to best practices for reaching educational learning outcomes. How do we design the course experience so that our students learn and retain what we intended them to learn? What practices ensure better outcomes? Course events must be designed with learning outcomes in mind. This is the core of instructional design. Course modules should take into consideration diverse ways of learning (visual, representational, auditory, kinesthetic) and use diverse methods of reaching varied learners. Modules should be conceived for both social and reflective thinkers. Good instruction is designed for the learner and incorporates assessment of outcomes. The traditional lecture is never an effective way of reaching the learner. Sophisticated technology and 'flashy' sites are not necessarily better modules for learning. It is not the complexity of the tool or the application of any particular theory or model, but intended usage that makes effective course design. Constructivists, behaviorists and cognitivists, if forced to speak the same language, would agree that learning outcomes should guide design. Students learn when they are engaged, active and required to make sense (in their own words, in their own way) of what they learn. We all understand material only when we make it our own. There are endless ways to help students understand course content and to "do", instead of hear or see. This is the meaning of 'active learning'. Technology, by its very essence, allows "doing". Place a computer in a student's hands and give them the tools to create their own learning. The role of technology has changed many aspects of higher education, but none more significantly than "the classroom". Internet access has made learning accessible all the time, with greater student choice in approaches to learning. Retooling instructional design choices for the virtual classroom is a significant focus in design implications for higher education learning. Those interested in exploring design issues related to online learning (in traditional, distant and hybrid classes) might start at the MVU Standards for quality online courses site or the ION Online Learning Overview page.
		© Copyright 1999-2009 EDUCAUSE Need Help? \| Feedback \| Privacy Policy
	Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members.