Does instructional design require science or creativity?

Does instructional design require science or creativity?

In this article, instructional design and instructional design models will be explained and the question of whether instructional design requires science or creativity will be discussed. According to Şimşek (2011), although educational design studies were seen before the 1950s, they were first seen as systemic in the 1950s, and accordingly models appeared ( akt. Göksu, Özcan, Çakır; Göktaş, 2014). Educational requirements and the development of effective, efficient, engaging learning systems to meet these requirements are one of the basic principles of instructional design (Şimşek, 2016). Education is divided into branches, each of which requires expertise separately. One of these branches is instructional design (Şimşek, 2016). Improvements in learning systems made to meet the educational needs of a designated group are called instructional design (Simsek, 2000 akt. Lightning, 2006).

It is useful to examine instructional design models in order to look for answers to the question of whether instructional design requires science or usefulness. Instructional design models widely known in the world are core model, linear model, flexible models, interactive models, intuitive models, Composite models (lightning, 2016). The most well-known example of core models is the model called ADDIE. The model shows what stages the process consists of, rather than how the teaching design is done. These stages are Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and evaluation (Şimşek, 2016). The ADDIE model, which brings a detailed view of instructional design, stands in detail on all components, and the output of one stage requires use as input of the other stage (Lightning, 2006). The model developed by Dick and Carey (1985) in linear models is the most recognized model. The stages in this process must be step by step and in a sequential sequence. There are phases in which more than one work is done simultaneously (Lightning, 2016). The most prominent example of the flexible model is the model developed in 1994 by Kemp, Morrison and Ross. This model advocates that the person who makes the teaching design should systematically follow a path in this direction by choosing the point where he will start (Lightning, 2016). The Model is used effectively in individual designs, leading to difficulties in high-level designs, especially in project management. The most familiar example of interactive models is the American Air Force Model. It does not have a linear or cyclic structure, but is often used to improve the disruptive parts of an ongoing process. As an example of heuristic models, we can give the rapid Protitipping model that Tripp and Bichelmeyer developed in 1990. The most important feature of the model is very extensive and uses designer creativity when designing processes (Şimşek, 2016). In the traditional design process, evaluation is at the final stage, while in the Rapid Prototyping Model, the evaluation is all over, including the beginning of the process (Lightning, 2016). Compound models were proposed by Seels and Glasgow in 1990. In this model, The Associated stages are first clustered among themselves, and then the relationship is established between them.

Instructional design models cover the basic components of design processes in line with these goals within the scope of instructional goals. Due to the complexity of the process, there is no model that the designer designs to his liking (Şimşek, 2016). The models of instructional design mentioned above and widely known in the world have certain stages, even if they differ from each other by certain criteria. I think that in determining these stages, science should not be removed. But with technology coming to the forefront in today’s models, it is also observed that there are studies that allow people who are not design experts to design (Lightning, 2016). In this context, I think that when designing instruction with a model, we should not be separated from science when creating stages, and we can use our creativity as it comes to the fore in intuitive models within stages without disturbing the structure.

References:

Göksu, İ., Özcan, K. V., Çakır, R., & Göktaş, Y. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim tasarımı modelleriyle ilgili yapılmış çalışmalar. İlköğretim Online, 13(2), 694-709.

Şimşek, A. (2016). Öğretim tasarımı ve modelleri. İçinde K.Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Eds.)
Öğretim teknolojisinin temelleri: Teoriler, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler (105-122). Ankara: PegemNet Yayıncılık