The Architecture of Instructional Theory

I recently read "The Architecture of Instructional Theory" by Andrew S. Gibbons and P. Clint Rogers. The authors suggested that instructional designers should think of their design theories as having a framework (instructional design theory) for the different parts of the theory (instructional theories). To make it easier for me to grasp, I imagine something like a book shelf. (Simple image, I know.) The instructional design theory is the bare book shelf. Then there are instructional theories. The authors proposed dividing the theories up by function. Functions include control, message, strategy, representation, media-logic, and data management. These different functions go in different layers of the overall framework. To go back to my image, each function would go on its own shelf. Books that fulfill different functions would be on separate shelves. One shelf could be for books that give the reader a scare, act as a tear-jerker, make the reader think, provide instruction for self-improvement, etc.

Dividing different design layers by their functions is done in architecture, and the authors said it was a sign of a design field's maturity. I suppose one of the reasons for this chapter was to move the instructional design field into a deeper and more mature state. While I think technically most of the papers contributed to a field are attempting to add to the field, I like that this one has a specific direction for the field to move in and improve with.

An improvement that this framework provides is that the different function fields/layers/shelves (enough options?) can be altered on their own without destroying the other layers. In the architecture example, the structure (bones) of the building was on a different layer than the services (electricity, water, etc.). In other words, changes can be made to the wiring, and the structure of the building doesn't have to change. It makes sense. A design that tried to incorporate all the different layers into one layer could cause disruption in the structure when a service element is changed. I think the layers, with the elements divided according to function, provide an appropriate division strategy for separating the different elements of a design (including instructional design). I can remove or add a book on the "tear-jerker" shelf. While it would have an effect on my overall library (represented by the bookshelf), it wouldn't affect the other shelves' collections.

There is a further advantage that the framework gives designers. With the different functions of control, message, strategy, etc. in different layers (or shelves), they are in their own individual compartments. This way, they can safely have their own languages. Different instructional theories (the books that will fill the shelves) tend to have their own language and vocabulary. Trying to create an overarching theory with so many different languages is difficult (a design of a building combining all the layers into one). However, dividing the functions up individualizes each theory so it can be treated on its own. That way, the different languages won't have to interact. They can be treated on their own shelf. There are different languages to describe a horror story, a tragedy, a book about abuse, and a self-help book about getting out of debt. Being able to talk about them separately makes thing simpler. The authors give additional benefits of this framework system, but these were the two big ones that I took away from the chapter.