Teaching and Instructional Design: two sides of the same coin?

This month I decided that it was high time I started preparing for the fall semester.  Sure, my third class  -EDDE803-(and third semester) of my EdD program is 2 months away, however since I have the books (thank you Athabasca for planning ahead! :-) ), why not start now that I am a little more relaxed?  The first book that I just finished is by Diana Laurillard Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. This book was on my to-read list on Goodread for a while, so I am quite happy to finally get an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

The book makes, in my mind, a valid point that teaching should be approached from a design science perspective, implementing, analyzing, tweaking, analyzing some more, tweaking again, and so on. As I was reading this book I was thinking back to the process of instructional design. Instructional design is iterative in nature and there are many elements of this book (if not all of the elements) that I know from an instructional design lens.  When I finished reading the book, while it was interesting and it framed things in a slightly different way than I had encountered them before, I was left wondering two things:

1. What is teaching?  Being an experienced instructional designer, if teaching, as is presented by books on teaching, deals in most part with the instructional design aspects, then what separates teaching from instructional design?  I suppose that what I was hoping for was a more philosophical discussion on teaching, teaching as a philosophy, rather than teaching as a process.  Then again, the title does indicate that teaching is viewed as a design science, and instructional design is a design science, so I suppose the overlap is inevitable.

2.How much overlap is there between teaching and instructional design?  If you think of a venn diagram, with one circle being "teaching" and the other "instructional design", how big are the areas that are not mutual?  And what are those areas?  I suppose one area might be the analysis part: determining if there is a learning or performance gap, and if this gap can be remedied with instruction.  This would fall on the ID side of things.  But, are there elements like this on the teaching side of the diagram.  There must be!

I've been teaching as an adjunct for a few years now and I can pick a number of words that describe what a teacher does.  However, how one operationalizes these without going over into instructional design is something that I haven't been able to fully identify yet.  As I wrote above, I am wondering if what I am looking for is slightly out of phrase with what I am given and the answer is right in front of my eyes.

What do you think?  What is teaching? How does it differ from instructional design?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion forums in MOOCs are counter-productive...well, sort of...

Image
The other day I was reading this blog post on why MOOC forums are counter-productive .  I was really thinking hard about this and my initial inclination is to agree. Forums, in MOOCs, are  counter-productive. But, as with most things in life, there is a big asterisk here. If we look at how MOOCs are setup, and by MOOC here I mean xMOOC since that's what most people think of, the discussion board is one big crazy mess. Coursera has done something interesting in crowdsourcing thread relevancy by allowing people to up-vote or down-vote threads, but at their core these discussions are setup like every other discussion forum out there in traditional education: There usually is a prompt that people will answer, and answers can be repetitive as well, so when you are the 1000th poster to a question prompt and you see that others have answered something similar to your answers, what is the motivation to wade through many, many, many similar answers in order to find the subtle contextual
Read more

Academic Facepalm (evaluation edition)

Image
Back in December, I was searching for the #tenure hashtag on twitter.   There was some discussion (probably stated by Jesse Stommel 😜) which prompted me to search for this #hashtag out of curiosity to see what was tagged.  Along with heartwarming stories of people who've just earned tenure (a nice perk right before the winter break!), there was this wonderful tweet specimen... I'm not gonna lie.  IT BUGS ME. It bugs me as a learner.   I've always completed course evaluations and I tried to give honest feedback to the professor.  If the course was easy, hard, just right, I wanted them to know.  If I was appreciative, I wanted them to know.  Yes, sometimes I've half-assed it and just completed the Likert scale with a "loved the course" comment at the end, but many times I try to be more concrete about the feedback. It bugs me as a program manager. I am the individual who sets up, collects, and often reminds students, about the course evaluations.  M
Read more

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more