On the one hand, we’ve probably offended a lot of people by now by sacrificing their sacred cow. But the truth is, if these solutions were so effective, they would be working now and e-learning would be in a different state than it is. But we think that the problem with e-learning ultimately arises from the definition of design.

What Is Design?

We see design as:

Adisciplined inquiry engaged in for the purpose of creating some new thing of practical utility. It involves exploring an ill-defined situation, finding as well as solving a problem(s), and specifying ways to effect change. Design is carried out in numerous fields and will vary depending on the designer and on the type of thing that is designed. Designing requires a balance of reason and intuition, an impetus to act, and an ability to reflect on actions taken [Rowland, 1993, p. 80].

In other words, we see design as a problem-solving discipline. Problem solving implies two things: first, that an effort must be made to define the problem and, second, that the solution is intended to address the problem identified. The more thoroughly the problem is identified, the more likely that the solution will address it.

What Are the Basic Beliefs About Design?

Underlying this definition are the following beliefs:

• No two problems are the same. That is, each time someone designs a course, he or she faces a unique set of circumstances. Admittedly, sometimes many characteristics will be the same (similar learners, similar organizations). But, if nothing else, the point in time at which the training is designed is always different.

• One of the key purposes of defining the problem is identifying the constraints underlying the situation. Many of these constraints limit the solutions designers can consider. Although some courses are presented online because that seems to make the most sense for the particular learning material, many more courses are presented online because a sponsor or some other stakeholder required it. Designers did not consider classroom learning because it was not an available option.

• Rarely does a single, perfect solution exist to a given problem. Rather, several possible solutions exist, and one of the jobs of the designer is making a tradeoff among educational, economic, and technical issues to devise a solution that is likely to address the learning objectives and the needs of the sponsors and the learners, within the schedule, budget, and technology constraints imposed on the project.

The Limitations of a Scientific Approach to Design

Reaching a solution is part science, part instinct, part art. In studies of designers, most exhibit a strong idealism (Carliner, 1995). They want their courses (or whatever they’re designing) to have a positive impact on the people who use them. They want their work to be the most effective that it can be. But many designers are also realists, and the best enter design projects with a strong awareness of practical limitations. This is where instinct comes in; a good designer has an instinct for what will work in a given situation and what can be done with a given schedule, budget, and technology infrastructure. That instinct is honed with experience. The stronger the base of experience, the more situations that the designer can draw on for inspiration (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004). That’s why new designers rely so strongly on research. Because they lack experience, research allows them to substitute the experience of others to help guide their instincts (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004; Clark, 2003).

When using studies that are performed with similar students and in similar situations, the studies can provide a greater sense of comfort that a given solution (or partial solution) is likely to be effective. What new designers have to realize, however, is that the more different the situation that they face is from the one described in the research study, the less they can rely on that study to predict the likelihood of their own success. Experimental studies, which are the ones most often cited to suggest the effectiveness of certain approaches, are intended to demonstrate a predictable relationship. But the situation cannot be predicted with the same level of confidence if the characteristics that are key to those relationships differ. Advocates of the scientific approach also note that following the instructional systems design process results in more effective instruction (Clark & Mayer, 2002). Unfortunately, little evidence supports that claim. Although scores of instructional design models exist, only one has been actually been tested in practice, according to Gustafson and Branch (2002), who have tracked and documented all of the instructional design models for the past several decades.

Rather than describe actual instructional design practice as observed in organizations, these models prescribe how instructional designers should approach the design task. The steps listed in these formal processes say more about the things that instructional designers value about instructional design than they do about the tasks that instructional designers actually perform. For example, a typical instructional design process like Dick, Carey, and Carey’s (2000) has five steps for needs assessment and related activities and only one step each for instructional design and development. This would suggest that the bulk of instructional designers’ time is spent on assessment. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Surveys of instructional design practice conducted through the years suggest that few instructional designers perform more than a cursory needs assessment (Guerra, 2003; Wedman & Tessmer, 1993; Zemke & Lee, 1987, to name a few). Research also suggests that only a limited amount of evaluation actually occurs (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002, reported in Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003). Instead, the bulk of instructional designers’ efforts are spent on instructional design and development. Perhaps the reason that most models describe needs assessment in such detail is that they represent the process as their authors would like for it to be performed. Many of the same studies also suggest that instructional designers believe that they should be spending more time on needs assessment. In other words, the scientific approach suggests that instructional design is a methodological process that makes extensive use of analysis and evaluation and that relies on research-based solutions when, in fact, instructional design is more of a design and development process that relies on a limited amount of analysis and that improvises solutions that balance educational, economic, and technical challenges.

Limitations of the Philosophical Approach to Design

Because much of the scientific basis for instructional design falls apart under close scrutiny, some designers choose to take a totally intuitive approach. They often base design decisions on their philosophy of learning. Two well-known philosophies of learning are

1. Behaviorism, which states that learning is a change in behavior and that the only behaviors that matter are those that can be observed and measured. The behaviorist approach is evident in much corporate technical training and technical colleges because it focuses on teaching observable and measurable skills. Much of the instruction is focused on helping learners build the capacity to perform these skills (behaviors) without unnecessary assistance 2. Constructivism, which states that learning “is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based on their current [and] past knowledge” (Bruner, 2002). The constructivist approach is evident in many academic courses and management education programs because it focuses on the acquisition of concepts and their situational application. In the constructivist approach, much instruction is focused on helping learners develop their critical thinking skills.

Because these designers are primarily guided by philosophy, much as Cubist, Impressionist, and De Stijl artists (among others) were guided by philosophy, we classify this approach to design as the philosophical approach. One of the issues with the philosophical approach is that its practitioners promote it almost religiously, even when the philosophy is clearly limited. Because many behaviorist designers insist on following rules, they dogmatically follow rigid templates to designing courses, whether or not these make sense or apply all that well. For example, an instructional designer for a computer installation course insisted on including interaction every three screens in a web-based training program because he had read that guideline in a textbook on instructional design. He insisted on retaining that guideline, even when someone pointed out that the guideline was developed for computer-based training in the 1980s, before graphical user interfaces were available and before simulations, graphics, and pop-up windows could make a course interactive without asking questions, thus outdating this guideline.

This inappropriate application would not be lost on a constructivist designer, who focuses primarily on thinking skills. Such designers often fall into the trap of designing courses that promote thinking, but fail to determine what they really want learners to think about. Consider, for example, the academic e-course in which the instructor led a lively discussion online about computer security with students. The instructor was proud because he had helped learners discover the principles of the topic. Unfortunately, after the lesson, learners wondered why they had spent an entire virtual session on computer security when the topic of their course was research methods.

In some instances, advocates of instructional philosophies like behaviorism and constructivism are not aware of their names, much less the epistemological foundations of these philosophies (epistemological refers to the belief system underlying the philosophy, including fundamental beliefs about what knowledge is). In our experience, neither of these philosophies is inherently better than the other. Both are only effective when they are judiciously applied. For example, a behaviorist approach can be useful in teaching installation skills because there really is a preferred way of performing this task. Designers would not want learners “discovering” the procedure through trial and error. Although some learners might discover the correct procedure, others would not or would discover a procedure that is only partially correct. The time needed to discover such a procedure would also be much longer than if designers merely told it to learners.

Similarly, a constructivist approach is effective for teaching learners about the application of principles and policies. For example, although an organization may have a clear policy on approving time off for workers, the challenge to managers is in the application. In some departments, such as a product development or corporate communication department, nearly all of the staff can take off on a holiday without jeopardizing the company. In other departments, some staff must always be working to avoid jeopardizing the company, such as the security and help desk departments. Constructivist learning helps sensitize managers to these differences. Furthermore, although behaviorism and constructivism are the best-known learning philosophies, others exist, such as humanism and liberal education, to name a few.

In addition, most experienced instructional designers see the philosophies as laid out on a continuum and, within a given course, may choose learning activities that exhibit qualities of both philosophies, because the activities seem appropriate to the content being taught at the moment. Figure 1.1 shows a simple continuum of some of these philosophies.

The Problem-Solving Approach to Design

Although the philosophies are often presented as distinct from one another, many courses actually reflect several philosophies. The reason that many experienced instructional designers can integrate several philosophies into a single course is that most instructional designers are guided more by practical considerations than by philosophical ones. Enriched by many instructional design projects, these designers see each project in its own light, and use the philosophies as a means of illuminating one part of that project. Instead of a philosophy governing their entire approach to a course, these designers rely on something else. From their portfolios of instructional design techniques that they have used on previous projects, these instructional designers choose a design technique that has successfully worked on a similar project and either apply it as is or adapt it to address the needs of the situation. Such instructional designers first define the problem they’ve been assigned to address, then suggest a solution. Research suggests that most instructional designers perform minimal needs assessments (Rossett and Czech, 1996). In fact, they rarely approach design as a linear process. Instead, these designers perform several design tasks at once, especially when designing e-learning programs.

Some approach design as an iterative process, in which designers first perform simple background research on the instructional problem, the learning context, and the intended learners, then quickly develop a prototype of the e-course. Then designers show the sample designs to representative learners and obtain their feedback. As a result of the feedback, designers deepen their understanding of the learners and the learning situation and revise the prototype course (Stone & Villachica, 2004). Designers repeat this process until the design is acceptable to the intended learners. This iterative approach combines the needs assessment and design phases. This is one example of the pragmatic, problem-solving approach to design. The problem-solving approach is an informed one. For each project, instructional designers must research the background of the learning content, learning context, and intended learners before suggesting a solution. But problem-solving designers do so in an abbreviated way that takes advantage of the instinct developed with experience. For example, a designer performing her fourteenth project for the same company is not as likely to conduct a full audience analysis as is one working on her second. She already knows a lot about these learners and can quickly find the information she does not have.

Furthermore, although the problem-solving approach has a less dogged adherence to the research, it does not ignore it. It accepts research for what it is—a source of ideas that also provides insights to the likely success of an idea. But the problem solving designer also recognizes that the only way to assure success of a given approach is to test it with the intended learners of the actual course.