Bill et all
Okay..I think we are getting a little sidetracked but maybe not.
First Bill, based on your replies, your perspective seems to be related to the automation of ID in business/training world if I am correct and your perspective seems to be ADDIE based.
While you may think you are a behaviorist..I have my doubts that you are really a “true” behaviorists with operant conditioning or S-R basis for doing training!
My guess is that all of the “behaviorists are really cognitive behaviorists
From behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13, 141-158.
(I don't have access to a search base for a university, but this article might prove interesting).
The business world has a very limited view of the use and purpose of ID/design. ADDIE lives and breathes there. The focus on the word “performance” has always had a bad taste in my independent mind, that the focus was on the worker as being a trainable item rather than an individual thinker responsible for their own learning. Don't get me wrong..I have been involved in that world and the demands for performance may mean the difference between having and not having a job. Its just the attitude that seems to go along with some business practices that the only important thing is to “perform” rather than participate in the production of that outcome.
For Deirdre and Julia, we are more likely what I call “w system -wayists”.. In other words, the 6 ws make up our approach based on the ID theories and knowledge that is buried in our tacit knowledge banks. No one single approach or method controls what we do, though we may have similar steps each time we look at an issue.
but, the business world more often takes the roads of the Performance Ids
and you have to remember where the objectives/performance and behaviorist training really started..the military
As far as development of design for training until it reaches automaticity, these publications might be of interest..I am still reading the 3rd one.
So what does all this mean for “automating” instructional design? What it means is that computers/software programs would find it difficult to follow our pathways of working unless they were highly adaptive with no set format. The costs of producing such a system would be high and the effectiveness could be impaired by the limitations. It would also not be reproducible the next time. The computer might get frustrated and melt down! :)!
As I said, the collection of data alone such as “Designers Edge” used to do in order to formulate design docs and decisions would and could be possible, but it would still have to allow for flexibility of the user's input.
In addition, this discussion seems to be based on the presumption of using ADDIE which is the trainer's favorite and based on skills sets, not necessarily on integrating knowledge with skill. There is another model called 4C which would make it much harder to automate ID
I am using that link because it shows part of the model
This was the ID2's breakdown of the model ( which has changed since then)
Why automating may be limited
the whole presentation:
I have seen the program that they are using to try to automate 4C/ID design based on the work done originally at Open Univ in the Netherlands. It is an extremely complicated program even for an experienced ID. The learning curve requires absolute knowledge of the theory behind the model. There are no screens showing anymore on their website, but pages 4, 7, 9 in this article will give you an idea.
There are other approaches to design:
The book is that expensive on Amazon too:
I would love to read this one, but don't have 500 for spare change reading!
So where does that leave us..see my reply to Bill's where to go question.