Initial Thoughts on the Green Brick
Being at home sick provides one with more time to read and yet less ability to focus - so I am appreciative of the summaries provided at the end of each section on "What is Instructional-Design Theory" as well as how these summaries build on each other. I also appreciate that the author of this section acknowledges early on that some decisions (on Instructional-Design) might be best made by the learner while engaged in the actual learning. I find it interesting (but I'm not sure if it is helpful) that the Mr. Reigeluth feels it is necessary to break everything down in to nice, neat, unique little boxes. It makes sense as a way of defining all the elements but as I read it, I feel like I'm missing something holistic (the "big picture) and find that I keep telling myself to give it a chance to come together later.
Given how completely each aspect is separated from another (learning goals vs desired instructional outcomes, instructional-design theory vs instructional-design process, etc) - I find it surprising that at the outset the Reigeluth indicated that "Instructional Theory" and "Instructional-Design Theory" would be used interchangeably "...for the sake of brevity." ( I assume that it was Reigeluth who wrote the Forward for Unit 1, since he is the editor of the book) . I can't help but question whether "Instructional Theory" suggests a "decision oriented theory" while "Instructional-Design Theory" suggests a "design oriented theory" (a distinction that is important in the context of this book, or at least important to Reigeluth in the context of chapter 1). He claims it is because "many people use the term 'instructional theory' with the same meaning as instructional design theory." Given his tone in chapter one and the attention applied to clearly defining what each term does and doesn't mean, I find it out of character that the he would do this.
Finally - the last of the three bullet points at the top of the first page ("Some issues about instructional-design theories that are of interest to researchers and some of interest to practitioners) seems to imply that there are issues that would be of interest to researchers and not to practitioners and vise versa. I can't help but wonder if this dichotomy between the researcher and the practitioner is healthy for educational theories in general. Later in the first chapter, Reigeluth seems to criticize that very attitude. In the section on why instructional-design theory is important, he includes the following quote from Posgrow: "The feeling is widespread in the REAR community that its responsibility is to produce general theory and that it is up to practitioners to figure out how to apply the theory." It is unclear to me whether Posgrow believes this himself or is simply explaining a prevalent opinion within the REAR community. What is clear to me is that Reigeluth recognizes this attitude as one belonging to those who are interested in decision oriented theories (as opposed to design oriented theories) and that he further believes that it is important for researchers such as those in the REAR community to spend more time and energy developing design oriented theories.
So - I'm left wondering... are researchers generally drawn to decision oriented theories? Are practitioners generally drawn to design oriented theories? Is it possible to combine the focus or is it really one or the other? What about the practitioner as researcher?
Given how completely each aspect is separated from another (learning goals vs desired instructional outcomes, instructional-design theory vs instructional-design process, etc) - I find it surprising that at the outset the Reigeluth indicated that "Instructional Theory" and "Instructional-Design Theory" would be used interchangeably "...for the sake of brevity." ( I assume that it was Reigeluth who wrote the Forward for Unit 1, since he is the editor of the book) . I can't help but question whether "Instructional Theory" suggests a "decision oriented theory" while "Instructional-Design Theory" suggests a "design oriented theory" (a distinction that is important in the context of this book, or at least important to Reigeluth in the context of chapter 1). He claims it is because "many people use the term 'instructional theory' with the same meaning as instructional design theory." Given his tone in chapter one and the attention applied to clearly defining what each term does and doesn't mean, I find it out of character that the he would do this.
Finally - the last of the three bullet points at the top of the first page ("Some issues about instructional-design theories that are of interest to researchers and some of interest to practitioners) seems to imply that there are issues that would be of interest to researchers and not to practitioners and vise versa. I can't help but wonder if this dichotomy between the researcher and the practitioner is healthy for educational theories in general. Later in the first chapter, Reigeluth seems to criticize that very attitude. In the section on why instructional-design theory is important, he includes the following quote from Posgrow: "The feeling is widespread in the REAR community that its responsibility is to produce general theory and that it is up to practitioners to figure out how to apply the theory." It is unclear to me whether Posgrow believes this himself or is simply explaining a prevalent opinion within the REAR community. What is clear to me is that Reigeluth recognizes this attitude as one belonging to those who are interested in decision oriented theories (as opposed to design oriented theories) and that he further believes that it is important for researchers such as those in the REAR community to spend more time and energy developing design oriented theories.
So - I'm left wondering... are researchers generally drawn to decision oriented theories? Are practitioners generally drawn to design oriented theories? Is it possible to combine the focus or is it really one or the other? What about the practitioner as researcher?
posted by susan | 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home