COMMENTARY

Instructional Systems Development in the Schools

[ ] Sharon Shrock Norman Higgins

Sharon Shrock is Associate Professor in Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901. Norman Higgins is Professor in Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0111.

The authors of this commentary take exception to several points made in an article that appeared in the most recent issue of this journal (ETR&D, Vol. 38, No. 2). Following this explanation of their concerns is a reply by the authors of the original article.

[] In their recent article "Instructional Sys- tems Design and Public Schools," Martin and Clemente (1990) address the question, "Are we attempting to redesign schools and class- rooms to accommodate our technologies with insufficient attention to the perceived needs of clients and to the consequences of adopting ISD?" (p. 61). They describe instruc- tional systems development (ISD) as an edu- cational innovation and then proceed to ex- plain how change agents who wish to have ]SD adopted in schools must attend to the perceived needs and goals of classroom teachers, who are the primary adopters of the innovation. In the course of answering their question, the authors make several important points that instructional designers should consider if their processes and the products that result from those processes are to have a positive impact on children in schools. At the same time, the authors make several points with which we take issue and about which we wish to comment.

The points about which we wish to com- ment are (a) the use of "we" to refer collec- tively to instructional developers, as though there were a singular view of instructional systems development, (b) the rigid view of instructional systems development pre- sented, and (c) the implied faith that instruc- tional systems development processes are ca- pable of improving education regardless of who implements them.

A SINGULAR VIEW OF ISD DIFFUSION

First consider the collective "we" as used to refer to instructional developers as a single

ETR&D, Vol. 38, No, 3, pp. 77-80 ISSN 1042-1629

78 ETR&D, Vol. 38, No. 3

group holding a single view. To be sure, the term instructional developers refers to a single group of individuals who go about designing instructional programs and learning environ- ments in a systematic way. However, instruc- tional developers vary greatly in the roles they play, in the extent to which they follow a prescribed development process, and in their views about how their processes and products may impact schools.

Although the authors acknowledge that there are alternativeviews about how to dif- fuse ins t ruc t iona l deve lopmen t in the schools, they focus their attention on those views that call for a major restructuring of schools (Branson, 1988; Reigeluth, 1988), and they refer to alternative views (Shrock & Byrd, 1988) very selectively in support of a singular view. This one-sided and selective analysis does not do justice to those instruc- tional developers who advocate alternatives to restructuring (Schiffman, 1988; Shrock & Byrd, 1988; Snelbecker, 1988; Sullivan & Hig- gins, 1983).

It is quite possible that those who advo- cate major changes in schools in order to ac- commodate instructional systems develop- ment products and processes may not have much experience in developing instructional products for use in school settings or in work- ing in school settings. Those of us who have worked extensively in school settings are very much aware of the difficulty of making major organizational changes in schools and of the difficulty of accommodating ISD pro- cesses in school settings. There is really very little incentive for employing ISD products or processes in schools, and there are very few negative consequences for not employing them. Hanson and Schutz (1978) showed very dramatically the effectiveness of the SWRL-Ginn beginning reading program, the importance of classroom teachers in imple- menting the program, and the importance of the building principal in promoting the effec- tive use of the program. We wonder how the authors would explain the fact that a pro- gram with such demonstrated effectiveness has never been widely adopted in schools? There are undoubtedly many reasons that go

beyond the perceived needs and goals of classroom teachers.

In summary, it should be noted that "we" refers to those instructional developers who have one view of instructional systems de- ve lopment and who wish to reorganize schools to fit their view. "We" does not refer to those who have alternative views or to those, such as Tessmer and Wedman (1990), who advocate adjusting instructional devel- opment processes to the contexts in which they are applied. In a sense, the authors have chosen to set up straw men to knock down, rather than to acknowledge that there are several viable alternatives for diffusing in- structional development in the schools and relating their perceptions of classroom teach- ers' needs to these alternative views.

A SINGULAR VIEW OF INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS

DEVELOPMENT

Martin and Clemente have also used a "text- book" version ISD to represent the field. They imply that ISD results only in mediated, self- instructional packages that remove the direct influence of teachers. They suggest that [SD has little to do with "group processes" and "interactive classroom teaching." Many in- structional developers would state emphati- cally that ]SD has a great deal to do with the effective use of group processess and inter- active teaching. The principles of instruc- tional design transfer across a wide variety of delivery strategies. And teachers' preference for the role of central disseminator of infor- mation in a classroom does not change the learning principles that argue against it. In- structional development is about effective in- struction, not about mediated instruction. If the stereotypical view of ISD among school teachers is otherwise, that is a different prob- lem.

The single-system stereotype is perpetu- ated by the instructional systems develop- ment models to which the au thors refer (Dick, 1977; Dick & Carey, 1985; Gagn6,

COMMENTARY: INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 79

Briggs, & Wager, 1988). These models are rel- atively complex in terms of the number of tasks specified and, if implemented literally, are relatively rigid with respect to the order in which tasks are to be performed. There can be little doubt that the ISD models refer- enced are popular models, based on the fre- quency with which they are taught in edu- cational technology training programs and on the frequency with which they are cited in the ISD literature. These models have been important for communication about ISD pro- cesses among technology professionals. But how often, and where, are these models in their textbook forms ever used in the "real world" of schools? The authors cite only one product that was developed for use in schools following a model they reference (Olson, 1981).

Once again, Martin and Clemente have chosen extreme examples of instructional de- velopment models and have explained why these models will not work in school settings. Again with selective attention, they describe how a very simple model proposed by Sulli- van and Higgins (1983) addresses one con- cern of teachers, namely where to begin the planning process. They do not describe the three-part Sullivan and Higgins instructional model as a whole, nor do they indicate how the model can be implemented by teachers in a manner that is highly compatible with how teachers naturally think about instruction and plan for it.

Professors of instructional technology (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990) are beginning to acknowledge the limited applicability of com- plex instructional development processes in real world educational settings and are de- scribing ways of adjusting the complexity of the development process to the contexts in which they are employed. Others, such as Higgins and Igoe (1989), are even questioning the utility of complex development models as decision-making tools, based on the quality of the decisions made when using them. Which brings us to the third point: It is the instructional developer, not the development process, that is critical to the successful adop- tion of ISD in the schools.

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES VERSUS

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPERS

Martin and Clemente write about instruc- tional development processes as though there were actual rules and procedures that can be followed to produce effective instruc- tional programs. They give ISD a persona when they ask, "To what extent does ISD in- corporate strategies that promote humanistic goals into classroom materials and proce- dures, or identify goals in the affective do- main?" Instructional development models do not incorporate, promote, or identify. It is the people who use the models that do those things. At this point, instructional develop- ment models are very ambiguous and are highly dependent on the intelligence and wisdom of the people who use them. To par- aphrase one of the author's citations, ISD pro- cesses are only loosely coupled and tangen- tially related to the products that result from them.

In their analysis of media selection deci- sion-making, Higgins and Igoe (1989) discov- ered that novice developers were just as likely to make incorrect media selections when they used a model correctly as they were to make correct selections when they used the model incorrectly. Even with a model as complete and well developed as the Reiser and Gagn6 (1983) media selection model, there are many decisions that must be made on the basis of intuition and intelli- gence. Any instructional developer who ap- preciates the complexity and wonder of the real world knows that it is people who must make the decisions about what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is assessed.

Often an instructional developer can see an instructional problem only through a glass darkly. It is only in coming face to face with the reality of teaching something for the first time that objectives become darified, instruc- tional strategies are developed, and modes of assessment are determined. Intelligent, sen- sitive, wondering people make these deci- sions, not impersonal instructional develop- ment models.

8 0 ETR&D, Vol, 38, No. 3

Martin and Clemente suggest that teach- ers reject [SD because they perceive it as less useful in fulfilling humanistic goals and less humanistic in its approaches than they pre- fer. The authors ' decision to leave this point unelaborated casts instructional developers in the role of the bad guys. We'd like to know how the au thors explain teachers ' wide- spread use of practices that do not support humanistic goals? Examples readily come to mind: grading on the curve (insured failure for some students); group-paced instruction (retarded achievement among the most ca- pable, insured failure among the least); and tradit ion-bound curriculum sequences (in- su red fai lure a m o n g those not develop- mentally ready). Our point is not that teach- ers are cruel but that their preferences for certain teaching practices do not result from an informed examination of humanistic con- sequences.

To what extent does ISD incorporate strat- egies that promote humanistic goals? To the extent that either the dient or the developer is capable of recognizing humanistic goals and defining teaching strategies. To what ex- tent does ISD identify goals in the affective domain? To the extent that either the client or the developer is able to describe them. The simple instructional development model pro- posed by Sullivan and Higgins (1983) in- cludes examples of how to describe and as- sess humanistic goals and affective learning.

In conclusion, we share Martin and Clem- ente's interest in ISD applications in schools. We acknowledge that such applications have not been easy or frequent and that the needs and perceptions of teachers must be consid- ered in order for ISD to succeed in schools. However, we do not feel the problem is alle- viated by affirming common misperceptions of the field or by slighting the work of instruc- tional developers who have made substantial contributions toward integrating ISD in schools. []

REFERENCES

Branson, R. K. (1988). Why the schools can't im- prove: The upper limit hypothesis. ]ournal of In- structional Development, •0(4), 15-26.

Dick, W. (1977). Formative education. In L. J. Briggs (Ed.), Instructional design: Principles and ap- plications (pp. 311-333). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The systemat/c design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

GagnG R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Hanson, R., & Schutz, R. (1978). A new look at schooling effects from programmatic research and development. In D. Mann (Ed.), Making change happen. New York: Teachers College Press.

Higgins, N., & Igoe, A. (1989). An analysis qf in- tuitive and model-directed media-selection de- cisions. Educational Technology Research and Devel- opment, 37(4), 55-64.

Martin, B. L., & Clemente, R. (1990). Instructional systems design and public schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 61-75.

Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the class- room: A context for understanding curriculum translation. Instructional Science, 10, 259-275.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1988). The search for meaningful reform: A third-wave educational system. Journal of Instructional Development, •0(4), 3-14.

Schiffman, S. S. (1988). Influencing public educa- tion: A "window of opportunity" through school library media centers. Journal of Instructional De- velopment, •0(4), 41-44.

Shrock, S. A., & Byrd, D. M. (1988). An instruc- tional development look at staff development in the public schools. Journal of Instructional Devel- opment, •0(4), 45-53.

Snelbecker, G. E. (1983). Instructional design skills for classroom teachers. Journal of Instructional De- velopment, 10(4), 33-40.

Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching[or com- petence. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. E (1990). A layers-of- necessity instructional development model. Ed- ucational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77-85.