On Learning Design

In the process of doing my first review of a journal article, I noticed a frequent reference to the concepts of 'instructional design' and 'learning design'.  While I recognise 'instructional designer' as offering occupational identity, I have never personally resonated with 'design' as a term.  The work I create mixes thought and spontaneity.  Although I plan, why don't I design?

In my last post, I looked at a number of different educational concepts from an etymological position.  'Design', when treated similarly, is related to the Proto Indo-European *sekw- which means "point out".  The Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.) suggests the mass noun version of 'design' as the "purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object".  Oxford Art Online notes the term's wider use "to describe the aesthetic and functional characteristics of an object" and "as an essential part of the process of making, marketing and selling mass-produced goods".  In general, these definitions construct 'design' as a concept located in development towards production and distribution.

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Like its root term, 'learning' is derived from *leis- meaning "to furrow; learn".  In contrast, 'instruction' is related to *ster- meaning "to strew, scatter, spread out".  Where 'learning' provides a space for knowledge to grow (and stand), 'instruction' distributes it (if somewhat haphazardly).  When related to 'design', 'learning' and 'instruction' acquire externally-driven structures and procedures.  These constructs find context online.

As those involved in online teaching and learning know, 'design' is a technological approach to education.  Its focus in periodicals, like the Journal of Learning Design (Australia), is "the design of learning experiences for ... students in online, blended and offline learning environments".  Indeed, instructional design is defined as "a technology for the development of learning experiences and environments which promote the acquisition of specific knowledge and skill by students" (p. 2). 

The 'how' versus the 'why' dominates the discourse.  This is reflected in a theoretical application where "few if any designers actually use models to confine their practice" (p. 89).  However, early pioneers founded "much of their work on instructional principles derived from research and theory on instruction, learning, and human behavior" (p. 58).  Indeed, the history of design in online education presents strong theoretical positions.  The influence of behavioural psychology on instructional design is seen in references to Robert Gagné and B. F. Skinner.  Whilst acknowledging the technological core of instructional design, Merrill, Drake, Lacy, and Pratt (1996) acknowledge empiricism as a source of validity (p. 1).  There seems little justification for a purely instrumentalist approach.

When I analyse 'learning design', I see a practice-emphasised interpretation of education.  The benefits of this approach is that students are "active inquirers, working on problems that [can be] genuine problems for them (rather than merely problems the teacher ... imposed)" (Phillips, 2007, p. 238).  Unfortunately, the major limitation is relational: participants are easily located as (at best) designers and end-users or (at worst) producers and consumers.  One means for overcoming this may be identifying 'design' as just one means of constructing both the relationship and the process.  Thus, like the ADDIE model for which it forms an integral part, 'design' could be seen as one path to good teaching.

Unlinked Reference

Phillips, D. C. (2007). Theories of teaching and learning. In R. R. Curren (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of education (pp. 232-245). Malden, MA: Blackwell.