Subject: Criticism of ID and Counterargument
Author: B
I was interested in the criticisms of ID, especially in e-learning. I had always assumed that ID would have evolved and adapted to fit into the ‘new’ way of delivering courses online without any criticism. I guess because when online learning began at the University of the South Pacific (USP) there was no question about who would handle online course development since the department I work for, the Centre for Flexible and Distance Learning (CFDL) naturally was given the responsibility, which is also an advantage of having a centralized model of operation.
I felt that Human Value Company and International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) came up with such floored generalizing views and misconceptions about ID. I totally disagree with point (1) which states that it is “too slow and clumsy to meet training challenges.” (Suzuki, 2004: 2-2) I believe the ID processes are very important and any way of speeding the process or short-cut would jeapordise the quality of the material. I also agree that “ISD is not a flowchart” as quoted by Suzuki (2004) from Broadbent. Training development does take time, however it means setting realistic deadlines.
For point (2) ISPI is critical of ISD being mere system of project management and a claimed technology, I found this amusing. There was no evidence to support such views and I saw nothing wrong with ISD being a system of project management which is to ensure that the ID processes are followed according to an ideal ID model.
Point (3) is even more laughable in the sense that it says, as quoted for Suzuki (2004) that it “produces bad solutions”, is “not a proper guideline” and produces “homogenized employees who have neither flexibility nor creativity” through the boring material. This is an insult in practitioners who believe in the process and I agree that it is not ‘instant”. If it were then maybe these criticisms may have derived from such practices. The purpose of the ID process and use of ID models is to create a positive outcome.
As for point (4) I don’t understand why they make ISD seem condescending or patronizing, especially when ISD is ensuring that learning does take place and that materials can be revised if there is anything wrong with content or not meeting the course objectives. I think the fourth criticism seemed unfounded.
I can only deduce that ISPI was only putting up a case if they had a mission to get rid of ID or raise a point for the sake of debate. I fell ID processes are here to stay and the ID models that have been studied and adopted.