So You Want to be an Instructional Designer? (Part 2)

Try the 5 Levels/5 Ways Instructional Challenge

In my previous post, I challenged aspiring instructional designers to "stop hiding behind theory." When you hide behind theory, you look to theory to justify every decision you make in your instruction. You may also begin to see learners less as individuals and more as research subjects. I've worked with many instructional designers and educators who struggle to translate theory into practice. I suspect this is because they have been trained to defend their dissertations, not teach. Am I saying that you shouldn't learn instructional design theories. No—but understand that there isn't always a tidy theory to help solve every untidy real-life teaching and learning challenge you will face. In designing for learning, never lose sight of the learners and always be guided by the humane instincts you are hopefully bringing with you to this field.

Humane instincts is another way of describing empathy. Empathy is more than a buzzword. Empathy is actionable and intentional. It's not something you do because you feel sorry for someone. It's also not something you do because you want to come to someone's rescue or receive a reward or recognition for doing so. Empathy is expressed in words and actions that demonstrate you value someone. As an instructional designer, evidence of your empathy will be apparent in the extent to which you make an effort to understand and anticipate learner needs and provide different ways for different learners to overcome the hurdles they may encounter in their learning journeys.

With the 5 Levels/5 Ways Instructional Challenge, the goal is to teach one concept to five different types of learners in five different ways. I was inspired to come up with this challenge after watching Wired magazine's "5 Levels" video series. I added the "5 Ways" component to the challenge, because as an instructional designer not only do you need to become skilled at communicating with different kinds of learners, you also need to become skilled at teaching using a variety of methods. In fact, neuroscience suggests that we process information more effectively when we engage multiple senses and multiple brain areas during learning. This concept is referred to as multisensory learning. (It's not to be confused, however with the learning styles theory.)

I encourage you to read more about these concepts as you work on the 5 Levels/5 Ways Instructional Challenge. For additional inspiration, watch this video from Wired's "5 Levels" series in which a neuroscientist explains the concept of memory to a child, teen, college student, grad student, and expert:

As an instructional designer, you are likely to be designing learning experiences for children, teenagers, undergraduate students, graduate students and/or professionals/practitioners. I have found that the better you become at explaining concepts, the more effective you will be as an instructional designer in creating experiences that invite learning.

There are more insights I will be sharing in the "So You Want to be an Instructional Designer" blog series. For now, my best advice for this challenge is to think less about being impressive and more about being effective. Go for clarity over complexity.

Okay, let's get to the challenge!

The slides embedded below provide details for completing the 5 Levels / 5 Ways Instructional Challenge.

I won't be able to provide individual feedback on your work, but you can connect with me on LinkedIn to share what you discover. I'm always on the lookout for people who truly have a heart for this field and for supporting teachers.

Keep your light on!

#5Levels5Ways

References

Fadeev, A., & Milyakina, A. (2021). Multisensory learning environments. research project education on screen. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202113002003

Rogowsky, Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Frontiers in Psychology., 11, 164–164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164