Paradigm Shift and ID models

The paradigm shift can be simplified down to the idea that rapid prototyping is not an alternate instructional design but a view on the development of learning environments. The article lays out four assumptions that go against traditional ID models. The first is that there is a fundamental difference between science and design. This difference is the way in which they attack the problems that they encounter. Science looks to find general principles, or rules, to the problems. This view can be seen in traditional ID with principles that follow a linear model. Design looks to develop solutions to the problem in ways that achieve the results desired. This takes a non-linear focus in that they are looking for results not a set of guidelines to follow. The second being that using the design view learners can still achieve the learning outcomes. That it is possible through the method put forth to learn, or to achieve the intended results. The third is the issue of validity and what this rapid prototyping article puts forth is to use the term optimality. Validity is defined as how correct, or valid, the model is and this definition for rapid prototyping cannot be used based on the view of “truth” being subjective. The term optimality is used instead because it is based on this belief of truth being subjective. Optimality is defined as “research that determines if the model achieves the desired results in a specific instructional situation”. This is on track with the shift away from this view of science undergirding ID and focuses on the epistemological view of truth being subjective. This goes into the fourth and final assumption put forth by this article and that is the view of post positivist idea of objectivity. That is that humans can not be objective in social sciences. These four assumptions focus break away from traditional ID models and as stated before how the scientific approach was applied to the design process. The authors are putting forth this as not just another model that designers can use, rather they are putting forth a belief of how instructional design takes place.   

            Chaos theory, the R2D2 model, and Rapid prototyping have similarities that are fundamental assumptions of these theories, and models. They all look at learning being complex, that there are many variables that go into and can affect learning. This idea is differentiated from that of traditional id, the traditional model uses reductionist views or breaking down the problem. Traditional ID models also define the problem at the outset. The alternative models do not break down the problem or define the problem at the outset. Instead, they let them develop throughout the development of the learning environment. This helps lead to the belief that the ID person becoming the content expert. They are not relying on a SME for the information that needs to be learned, but rather engrossing themselves into the environment in order to develop the learning environment to achieve the intended results. The next fundamental assumption that they have is the model being non-linear. In traditional id the principles were developed with the models being linear or following a step by step guide.  This is not the case with these alternative models, they have differentiated levels in the model but they do not go step by step. You do not have to finish one section before moving on and you have the freedom to go back to the level at any point to enhance the learning environment.  They all focus on open systems instead of closed systems like traditional ID models. An open system is one in which it receives input from environmental factors meaning that the context as an impact on the ID. The closed system is based on efficiency and control of parts. They do not have the belief that context or environmental factors play a role, or that they can control these aspects.  These are the fundamental assumptions that each of these model share and the differences they have with traditional ID models.