There Is A Critical Need For Good Instructional Design Bec

There is a critical need for a good instructional design because it is a multipurpose learning tools that not only serves instructional designers but also learners of all ages

There is a critical need for effective instructional design because it functions as a versatile learning tool, benefiting both instructional designers and learners across all age groups. According to Clark (2016), e-learning courses should be integrated with instructional methods that align with high-quality research, ensuring that digital education is both effective and evidence-based. This integration underscores the importance of designing instructional models that are carefully planned, researched, and systematically developed to achieve high-quality learning outcomes.

In instructional design, determining the strategic purpose of a program is fundamental. The purpose guides the setting of goals, objectives, expected outcomes, and resource allocation, which collectively shape the overall instructional model. As Clark (2016) emphasizes, understanding and aligning these elements with cognitive processes is essential because humans utilize specific cognitive mechanisms to learn effectively. Consequently, instructional designers must adopt evidence-based practices that mirror human cognitive functions to optimize learning experiences.

The core approach in developing strong instructional design lies in analyzing and implementing critical elements during the design phase. These elements include clear goal setting, developmental instructional objectives, selection of relevant instructional materials, and appropriate assessment methods. Evidence from literature, such as Reigeluth (1987), suggests that incorporating these components enhances the overall quality of learning. A well-structured instructional design not only facilitates active engagement but also promotes meaningful learning by leveraging proven cognitive strategies.

One of the primary reasons for emphasizing good instructional design is its role in elevating educational quality. Both instructors and learners are the main beneficiaries of thoughtfully designed instruction. Well-crafted instructional materials, aligned with instructional objectives, foster an environment conducive to active participation and knowledge retention. As Reigeluth (1987) asserts, the learning process is inherently active, requiring participation from learners to internalize and apply knowledge effectively. Therefore, instructional design must create opportunities for active learning to maximize educational outcomes.

Furthermore, instructional design’s importance extends beyond content delivery; it also involves systematic evaluation and continuous improvement. Designing assessments that accurately measure learning outcomes allows for identifying areas of strength and improvement. Such iterative processes are vital for enhancing instructional effectiveness over time, as recommended by Clark (2016) and other scholars.

In addition to individual benefits, a rigorous instructional design framework supports institutional goals by promoting standardization and scalability of educational programs. Consistent application of instructional design principles ensures quality control and facilitates the development of diverse learning materials that can be adapted to different contexts and audiences. This scalability is crucial in today’s global and digital educational environments, where customizable and accessible learning solutions are in high demand.

In summary, the pressing necessity for robust instructional design stems from its capacity to create impactful, research-backed, and learner-centered educational experiences. By focusing on critical elements such as clear objectives, cognitive alignment, relevant materials, and systematic assessment, instructional designers can significantly improve learning outcomes. Such strategic approaches are essential in cultivating an educational landscape where learners are actively engaged, motivated, and equipped with skills for lifelong learning.

References

• Clark, R.C. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guideline for consumers and designers of multimedia. Walden University Library.
• Reigeluth, C.M. (1987). Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models. Walden University Library.
• Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Prentice Hall.
• Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.
• Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
• Seel, N. M. (2012). Literature of instructional design and technology. Springer.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional designs for microlearning. Educational Technology Publications.
• Dirkx, J. M. (2006). The meaning and role of affect in adult learning: A phenomenological perspective. In Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 235-250). Jossey-Bass.