I think the problem with Dick & Carey's The Systematic Design of Instruction may not be so much the paradigm they present as bad technical editing. Quite a number of the foundational terms are interchangable in the text with no warning or reason given to the reader. Even following an Index reference is confusing. Follow Task Analysis from the Index and it takes you to Job Analysis. Are they really interchangable terms?The book also seems to be written from the point of view of those who really know their material, as I'm sure Dick & Carey do. Unfortunately, the book should be written for end-users who do not know the material. There's a pretty wide gap in presumption about how knowledgable their end-users are throughout their writing.
I also think that while Dick & Carey may present a usable paradigm for instructional designers it is largely impractical for the use of teachers who do not have the time to digest 367 pages of detailed instruction and then put it into use for designing their instruction. I think as a teacher I'd give up the complexity of their structure for a simple user profile and needs analysis.
1 comment:
After a fair bit of work with on Dick & Carey's The Systematic Design of Instruction I think the problem may not be so much the complexity of the instructional design paradigm but may be poor editing. Terms change and are interchangable within the same sections leading to confusion for the designer. Even following a term from the index can be confusing...try to find Task Analysis from the index and the reference leads you to Job Analysis. Not for the faint of heart.
Post a Comment