In reading these chapters together it was difficult to separate the topic of the first from my read of the second. Though I think both topics need to be looked at individually, I also thought that the way chapter 5 impacted my reading of chapter 6 was interesting to consider. In large part because the way that Molenda described ISD and made a case for it I was extremely put off by. The explanation Molenda provided in the history and purpose of ISD as having its "first root ... in the US military" and that the resultant idea stemmed from looking at a problem as a deconstruction of process starting at the end result and moving backward while trying to use the entirety of a situation to develop the system that will accomplish the end result. When it is a person developing or acquiring skills through this method this is what Molenda identifies as "the systems approach." I intentionally site the result of the "systems approach" as a method to successfully design a system for a person to develop or acquire skills because I do not feel that claiming that what is happening in this system is learning.
Because I come at life and my occupation from a perspective of wanting a world where everyone is trying to do their education work from a place of authenticity in conversation with skill, and because I am primarily from a background that is about teaching children, helping adults find relevant and reliable information to their particular circumstance, and assisting instructors navigate skills in a new environment to accomplish a task have spent significant time internalizing - my professional passion tends to lean toward a melding with my personal passion for learning experiences that are authenticity driven and that champion self-determination.
However, I am also deeply trained in the ideology of following a prescribed set of rules and expectations for the purpose of acquiring skills to fulfill a set end destination. These are tension points in my own grappling with this topic, because it is difficult for me not to see ISD as Molenda describes it as a way to implement instructional design in ways that prioritize skill acquisition - learning that is responsive based on asserting that the end goal is everything and achieving it is the highest accomplishment of the system that is performing its function for the student in delivering that 'success' VS a system that is designed to champion a learner who is being taught to think and reflect and internalize what a topic and or learning experience is, means to them.
I realize that both methods are necessary in our current economy, and how people must 'earn a living' and exist in the structures (everyday life in the modern age) that currently exist. So it was with reluctance, but increasing respect for his work in including both of these things that I read Branch's essays in Chapter 6.
Initially it seemed like Branch was just expanding on a mentality aligned with ISD in the more surface skimming of it that Molenda (and their rejoinder from Argondizza) covered it. But seeing myself in Rieber's response - I was more open to admitting that Branch made some crucial distinction and points using ISD language, but ultimately not actually supporting the version of ISD it seemed Molenda was. I base this on how Branch talks about complexity and identifies that (what I would dub a 'responsible' learning system) pays attention to when it is 'most needed' and when it is not (p.50).
While Branch is certainly taking a gate-keeper approach to instructional design and what constitutes and instructional designer, and in a tone that is quite blunt, I appreciate that within that bluntness he is able to make a lot of space for, once someone has been established as an instructional designer, that person to be functioning with a lot of freedom and responsibility to grapple with and create and design based on a mentality that is flexible, inclusively expansive, and is mindful that ISD is not an answer, it is merely a tool with strengths and weaknesses in application at every stage.
Comments
Post a Comment