It’s Saturday night, and I’m reading an ID book. Just because.
[I ordered it used a few weeks ago. When I opened the package on Friday, the nostalgic aroma of the library stacks hit me. Oh how I love the smell of books!]
Consider the following my highlights and margin notes on the first chapter.
Instructional design, defined:
“The discipline of instructional design is concerned primarily with prescribing optimal methods of instruction to bring about desired changes in student knowledge and skills.” (p.4) (my emphasis in bold italics)
Instructional Design is “a ‘linking science’ between learning theory and educational practice.” (p. 5)
Curriculum vs. instruction:
“curriculum is concerned primarily with what to teach, whereas instruction is concerned primarily with how to teach.” (p. 6)
What does an ID do?
“Instructional scientists want to determine when different methods should be used – they want to discover principles of instruction – so that they can prescribe optimal methods.” (p. 12)
Understanding the difference between theories of instructional design and theories of learning:
Theory of ID focuses on methods of instruction – what the teacher does; theory of learning focuses on the learning process – what happens to the learner.
“…much of what is called instructional theory is really learning theory. Instructional-design theory is relatively easy to apply in the classroom because it spells out methods of instruction. Learning theory is usually difficult to apply in the classroom because it does not spell out methods of instruction; at best it spells out ‘conditions of learning’” (p. 23)
This is my aside:
Very interesting to read an almost 30 year old book. In the intro Reigeluth talks about the 25-year old field of instructional design. 30 years later many things have changed, but probably not as much as one might have hoped…??
Have you read this book?