Instructional Design

The success of computer based instruction depends, to a large extent, upon the selection of a suitable instructional design paradigm. Instructional design theories do not, however, exist in isolation, rather they are the products of the currently accepted cognitive theory. To properly understand the emergence of the instructional design paradigms in use at the present, it is useful to briefly examine the development of cognitive theory and instructional design.

The Development of Cognitive Theories

Anderson (1985, 4) notes that the study of cognition can be traced back to the time of the Greeks and comments that it is strange that this study was not put on a scientific basis as the physical sciences developed. He states that "... cognitive psychology, like many other sciences, suffered because of our egocentric, mystical attitude towards ourselves and our own nature" (1985, 5). He states that, as a consequence of this, cognitive psychology is only 100 years old, and so lags behind the other sciences in sophistication. Wilhelm Wundt is credited with starting psychology as a science when in 1879 he formed the first psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany. His division of psychology was cognitive psychology, and the research methodology used was introspection. In this method, "highly trained observers reported the contents of their consciousness under carefully controlled conditions" (Anderson 1985, 5). All that a psychologist had to do was to develop a theory which accounted for these observations. According to Anderson (1985, 6), introspective psychology was not well accepted in the United States. Many of the American psychologist were involved in education and they were subjected to an "action oriented" psychology which would have practical applications. One of the important early psychologists in this movement was Edward Thorndike, who developed a theory that was applicable to the school system. He was interested in such matters as the effect of reward and punishment on the rate of learning and "to him, conscious experience was just excess baggage that could be largely ignored". His experimental subjects were animals such as cats rather than humans as their use engendered were fewer ethical considerations (Anderson 1985, 6). Confusion started to develop in regard to introspection in Europe as different laboratories reported different types of introspection, each one representing the theory of the laboratory that produced it. As Anderson states "It was becoming clear that introspection did not give one clear window onto the workings of the mind. Much that was important in cognitive functioning was not open to conscious experience" (1985, 7). This situation gave rise to the behaviourist revolution that took place around 1920. John Watson and other behaviourists mounted a fierce attack on not only introspection but also on attempts to generate a theory of mental operations. They declared that psychology "was to be entirely concerned with external behaviour and was not to try to analyse the workings of the mind that underlay this behaviour" (Anderson 1985, 7). Watson (1930, 2, quoted in Anderson 1985, 7) declared that: Behaviourism claims that consciousness is neither a definite nor a usable concept. The Behaviourist, who has been trained always as an experimentalist, holds further that belief in the existence of consciousness goes back to the ancient days of superstition and magic. and ... The Behaviourist began his own formulation of the problem of psychology by sweeping aside all medieval conceptions. He dropped from his scientific vocabulary all subjective terms such as sensation, perception, image, desire, purpose, and even thinking and emotion as they were subjectively defined. (Watson 1930, 5, quoted in Anderson 1985, 7). Some behaviourists, in rejecting the former research methodology, introspectivism, in which researchers attempted to study the structure and content of consciousness, went as far as declaring that as such things as the mind, consciousness, attention and cognitive processes, could not be shown to exist, they were not "proper objects of scientific enquiry". The behaviourists attempted to produce an objective science which was modelled on the physical sciences and argued that if terms such as thought, belief, mind, and consciousness were to be at all useful to a science of psychology, they had to be replaced with "more objective terms that referred only to publicly observable movements of the organism or to events in its environment" (Stillings et al. 1989, 309-10). Stillings et al. (1989, 309) state that the study of the mind was dominated by behaviourism during the first half of the century. This school was led by I.P. Pavlov, John Watson, E.R. Guthrie, Edward Chace Tolman, Clark Hull and B.F. Skinner. Anderson (1985, 7) states that this dominance of psychology prevented any serious research in cognitive psychology for 40 years. The behaviourists attempted to discover scientific laws which would allow generalisations which could then be used to explain, describe and predict the stimulus that an organism received and the response that it would make to it. The main area in which this work was performed was learning. The rat, rather than humans, became the principal laboratory research subject as psychologists moved to studying learning and motivation in animals. The type of laws that researchers attempted to establish concerned such things as the rate at which rats would press a bar in order to get food rewards (Stillings et al. 1989, 310). While discoveries were made, none of them had any relevance to cognitive psychology. It is claimed that, as an approach to explaining simple behavioural patterns, especially under controlled conditions, behaviourism was "rather successful". However, when behaviourists attempted to explain more complex behaviours, they encountered problems and it became apparent that it was not possible to formulate laws for such complex actions as speech. Also, much behaviour does not appear to be "under the direct, law-like control of either stimuli in the environment or past reinforcement histories". Rather, such behaviours seemed to be under the control of complex cognitive structures (Stillings et al. 1989, 310). According to Stillings et al. (1989, 311): The goal of behaviourism was to define mentalistic terms using only behavioural terms, but this strategy for rescuing failed definitions relies upon using mentalistic terms themselves to define other mentalistic terms. Thus, behaviourism appeared to succumb not only to empirical difficulties but also to conceptual confusion . The failure of behaviourism made it apparent that to understand complex cognitive capacities, it was necessary to look within the organism to determine the processes that mediate between the perception and action. Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science appeared to offer a solution to this situation. Anderson (1985, 8) argues that there were three main influences involved in the development of cognitive psychology. The first of these was the development of the information-processing approach that evolved from human-factors work, which involved research on human skills and performance, and information theory which is a branch of communication science and gives "an abstract way of analysing the processing of knowledge". The second influencing factor was the emergence of computer technology especially in the area of artificial intelligence. While this has had little direct effect on cognitive psychology, it has had an enormous indirect effect. "Probably more important, observing how we could analyse the intelligent behaviour of a machine has largely liberated us from out inhibitions and misconceptions about analysing our own intelligence" (Anderson 1985, 8). Linguistics has been the third area to influence cognitive psychology. Studies of linguistics have shown that language is much more complex than had been believed previously and that "many of the prevailing behaviouristic formulations were incapable of explaining these complexities" and many of these theories "proved to be critical in enabling cognitive psychologists to fight off the prevailing behaviouristic conceptions" (Anderson 1985, 9). Cognitive psychology has grown rapidly since the 1950s. Recently, Cognitive Science has emerged and Anderson states that this can be dated from the appearance of the journal Cognitive Science in 1976. Cognitive science is the "science of the mind. Cognitive scientists seek to understand perceiving, thinking, remembering, understanding language, learning, and other mental phenomena" (Stillings et al. 1989, 1). Cognitive Science "attempts to integrate research efforts from psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and artificial intelligence" (Anderson 1985, 9). Anderson states that: The fields of cognitive psychology and cognitive science overlap. It is not profitable to try to define precisely the differences, but cognitive science makes greater use of methods such as computer simulation of cognitive processes and logical analysis, which are not dominant methods in the rest of psychology (1985, 9). Noddings (1990, 7) states that in the 1960s and 70s there was a philosophical shift from behaviourism to various types of structuralism and cognitivism. and one form of cognitivism came to be known as constructivism. She quotes Bartlett (1967, 10) who describes constructivism in the following terms: The central assertion [of constructivism] is that seeing, hearing, and remembering are all acts of construction, which may make more or less use of stimulus information depending on circumstances. Noddings states that constructivism can be "characterised as both a cognitive position and a methodological perspective" and: As a cognitive position, constructivism holds that all knowledge is constructed and that the instruments of construction include cognitive structures that are either innate (Chomsky, 1968; 1971) or are themselves products of developmental construction (Piaget, 1953; 1970a; 1971a). The latter interpretation is more characteristic of constructivism as a cognitive position, and it is the one held by most constructivists in mathematics education. A very different perspective is taken by Cunningham. He claims that "the state of educational research in the USA is not particularly healthy" (1990, 22) and that the education system is in a state of perpetual crisis. He claims that: Educational research, which portrays itself as the scientific study of education, has not provided many solutions to the pressing problems facing this nation's educational institutions. This is in contrast with most other aspects of our society (e.g., medicine, economy, ecology) where problems are solved through the application of knowledge derived from science. (One could be forgiven for asking if he is unaware to the status of the US economy or of the global ecological situation). One of the reasons for this situation, according to Cunningham is the "Increase in the status and importance of qualitative research has tended to further erode the scientific basis for the study of teaching" and that "qualitative research in its extreme forms is avowedly anti-scientific" (1990, 22). He continues: At the present time, educational research lacks the prerequisites of science. In particular, this field is characterised by a propensity to tolerate incompatible rival theories. The best hope for improving educational research is likely to emerge from the adoption of a scientific approach to research and with a focus on brain functioning. Cunningham insists that educational research should use the neurobiology paradigm so as to allow conclusions on learning to be based on "physical evidence" and "instead of the unit of analysis being humans, like the researcher, the focus is on brain structures, neurons, and neurochemicals" (1990, 23). While making the rather unscientific claim that "the brain is the most complex entity in the universe" he states that determining how the brain works is the greatest challenge to modern science and that it is "hard to imagine how a theory of learning could be posed that ignores this critical part of the picture" (Cunningham 1990, 23). While cognitive psychology does take into account what happens in the brain, according to Cunningham "Unfortunately, many of their ideas about how the brain functions have not been enlightened by a knowledge of neurobiology, endocrinology, genetics, and/or neurobiology" (1990 23-24). Cunningham concludes that: Scientists are just beginning to understand the mechanisms of heredity, the functions of hormones and other body chemicals, and the ways in which the brain functions. Despite the reluctance of many in education to accept the critical importance of such knowledge, it will inevitably play an important role in our attempts to improve the effectiveness of our teaching. It seems obvious that if educational psychologists are to succeed in explaining how learning takes place, they will have to take into account what is actually known about how the brain functions.

Instructional Design

When considering the background of instructional design, the first hurdle is to decide on the name that is going to be used. Seels (1989) uses the names 'educational technology' and 'instructional design' while Osguthorpe and Zhou (1989, 7) use 'Instructional Science' but they point out that a variety of titles such as 'Educational Technology, Instructional Technology, Instructional Design, Training and Development, Program Development and Evaluation' are also used. They also state that Instructional Science is a "new discipline and as such is not well known". (Before proceeding, it should be pointed out that Osguthorpe and Zhou's paper is in the form of a dialogue between an instructor and a student.) Osguthorpe and Zhou (in the voice of the 'Instructor') state why they prefer the title of 'Instructional Science' in preference to the other alternatives: It leaves room for us to draw on what is now being called cognitive science (which draws upon the fields of developmental psychology and learning and cognition), as well as the research being done with new technology (computer-assisted or managed instruction, interactive videodisk, teleconferencing or distance instruction, etc.). In addition, those in the field are equally interested in new developments in the field of educational evaluation and research. Since all models of instructional design require empirical validation, the whole evaluation movement has progressed almost simultaneously with instructional design (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 9). They also argue (1989, 10) that this need for constant evaluation of instructional design models means that people working in this area must be developer, researcher, and evaluator and that they will not be effective if they specialise in just one of these three areas. In a further justification of the name instructional science, Osguthorpe and Zhou (1989, 10) (in the voice of the 'instructor') argue that: it is the study of instruction, which includes the study of the interaction between the learner and what has been planned to enhance that learner's understanding (teacher, text, media, computers or tutors). And just as learning theories have resulted from cognitive science, instructional theories should result from instructional science. By theories I don't necessarily mean the broad sweeping kind of theories that have come from the hard sciences. That might be nice, but we're probably too young a discipline to expect that at this time. The cognitivists have recently emphasised more focused principles or rules rather than trying to portray one overarching theory, as they attempted to do 50 years ago. I see the same thing coming in our field: principles that, if applied in certain settings with certain kinds of students, will yield certain results. Instructional Science has its roots in behavioural psychology and was greatly influenced by learning theorists such as Hull and Spence who: were psychologists who believed that a comprehensive theory of learning could be developed - one that could perfectly predict how much and how fast a student would learn any given content. Many thought of them as motivational psychologists because they placed so much importance on the motivational aspects of learning, but they were actually trying to develop a theory that could predict and explain all human learning (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 8). Hull and Spence continued with their work through the thirties and fourties but "some cognitive psychologists claimed that no one such all encompassing theory could be developed for something as complex as the human mind" (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 8). Seels (1989, 11) states that educational technology "has developed through the contributions of many disciplines". The roots of the instructional design movement, however, can be traced back to the systems approach used during World War II for military training and that one of the pioneers of this movement was James Finn. In fact she claims that he: was a father of the instructional design movement because he linked the theory of systems design to educational technology, and thus encouraged the integrated growth of these related fields of study. It was Finn who made educational technologists aware that technology was as much a process as a piece of hardware" (Seels 1989, 11). The second world war played an important part in the development of Instructional Science. The American troops were very poorly trained and there was very little time available for training and so military leaders approached psychologists such as Gagné, Briggs and Glaser for help. They found, however, that it was very difficult to put their theory into practice in the military situation. Much of the research had been conducted in laboratories so as to give a controlled environment and had a very narrow focus and their work was not appropriate to the military setting (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 8). While trying to improve instruction, Briggs and Gagné: ... identified research areas such as types of learning, conditions for learning, media characteristics, and task analysis. Both continued their research, while professors at Florida State University, and contributed greatly to the development of the fields of instructional design (ID) and instructional systems design (ISD) (Seels 1989, 11). In regard to the research methodologies adopted by instructional science, Osguthorpe and Zhou (1989, 11-12) (in the voice of the 'Instructor') note that at the time that instructional science was being developed, positivism was the only research tradition accepted by social scientists. Thorndike legitimised the true experiment in educational research and early instructional scientists naturally embraced its use in their research. But in recent years, observation, ethnography and other naturalistic methods have become increasingly popular as research tools in instructional science. Instructional scientists have become increasingly interested in looking at the educational process in its full and complex entirety, rather than focusing only on pieces that are more easily defined and researched (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 11-12). It was the frustration of psychologists such as Gagné with the basic research being conducted at the time that lead to the development of Instructional Science "a science that would lead to prescriptive theories, rules ... that teachers could follow that would lead to improved learning" (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 8). These developments were occurring as behaviourism began to move ahead. Thorndike was progressing well with his work, and he had a great influence on Skinner who, in turn, had an increasing influence on both psychology and education. "Both of these researchers felt that learning could be greatly enhanced if it were more systematic - if it were more carefully sequenced" (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 8). The military wanted to produce competent soldiers and so psychologists were forced to create instructional principles that were more prescriptive and would tell instructional designers how to develop effective training materials and programs. This gave rise to the development of procedures such as task analysis (breaking a given task up into a series of sub-tasks) and programmed instruction (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 9). Seels (1989, 11) claims that one of the catalysts for the start of instructional design was an article by Skinner entitled "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching" published in 1954. This article advised educators to "apply knowledge about behavioural reinforcement theory to the design of instruction". Skinner proposed that a technology of instruction should be developed. A technology of instruction is "a teaching/learning pattern designed to provide reliable, effective instruction to each learner through application of scientific principles of human learning" (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, 1982, 266 cited in Seels, 1989, 11). The principles that Skinner proposed led to programmed learning, which Seels states was the first instructional technology as it was the first to be based on a theory of learning. The material used in programmed learning was divided into small, carefully sequenced steps with immediate and frequent reinforcement being given to the learner. Jonassen (1992, 32) also states that programmed instruction was the first real learning technology and that it behaviourist influence on instructional design has continued to the present time ... programmed instruction, was one of the most effective manifestations of behaviourism. Instructional design and development evolved from programmed instruction with the infusion of generous doses of systems and communications theories. Yet IST remains unable or unwilling to severe its behaviouristic umbilical cord. IST has accommodated cognitive psychology in its theory but very little in its practice. Osguthorpe and Zhou (1989, 9) (in the voice of the student), argue that it was this frustration with basic psychological research, which did not seem to have an application for the classroom situation, that led to a rise in the popularity of behaviourism in the sixties. People were much more interested in predicting human performance (based on stimuli and responses) than they were in explaining why they performed the way that they did (which the cognitive psychologists were more interested in). They wanted something concrete that would say if you (the teacher) do this, then the student will do this (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 9). The 'student' also expressed concern about Instructional Scientists accepting behaviourism so whole-heartedly while showing only an interest in what had to be done with the stimulus (instructional) material to bring about more effective learning, and not about the cognitive abilities of the students who used the material. The 'student' concludes "And, frankly, as influential as behaviourism has been in our country [USA], I still see it as being somewhat narrow, if not sterile. It leaves out the most important part, the mind of the student" (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 9). The launching of Sputnik in 1957 and the baby boom after the second World War both influenced educational technology and instructional design. Sputnik brought with it funds for large scale curriculum developments for both schools and colleges while the baby boomers overwhelmed the educational system. This led to colleges building new facilities which would allow for effective teaching/learning as identified by the Trump Plan. The author of this, J. Lloyd Trump, suggested "that learning proceed by a combination of teaching/learning patterns: large group instruction, small group instruction, and independent study" (Seels 1989, 11). This pressure on the education system also led to the development of centres of instructional development. They were charged with helping to produce courses which could be taught to large numbers of college students using mainly junior members of staff and assistants (Seels 1989, 12). Osguthorpe and Zhou (1989, 12) argue that there is a need for a stronger educational research base and (in the voice of the Instructor) that there is a need:   ... not only for research universities to support schools of education, but ... for those schools to emphasise the research bases so central to instructional science ... [and] cognitive science, the use of computers in education and program evaluation are among the most critical areas that a school of education should research ... by documenting more carefully the acts of teaching and learning, we will be able to make real and lasting improvements in education at all levels and in all settings. That, I believe is the challenge for instructional science in the future (Osguthorpe and Zhou 1989, 12).

Conclusion

While theories of instructional design had been developed from the study of cognition, it now appears that instructional design is falling behind Cognitive Science. It will be argued later in this paper, that there appears to be a great reluctance on behalf of many instructional designers to give up Behaviourism in its entirity. This is unfortunate as an appropriate instructional design paradigm is at the heart of all successful computer based instruction and the emergence of new instructional technologies such as Hypermedia and Multimedia demand a paradigm other than behaviourism. It is obvious that there is a need for much research in this area.