Formal or Informal Masters for Instructional Designers?
February 25, 2008In his recent post We Need a Degree in Instructional Design, Karl Kapp argues that simply practicing instructional design isn’t enough; anyone who calls themselves an instructional designer should have a degree in it. He’s added a great image from Kathy Sierra that says “I’d make a good brain surgeon, because I HAD brain surgery.”
Karl makes several points that I agree with (this is my summary, not his):
- There’s too much bad instructional design out there.
- Instructional designers should be able to apply multiple instructional strategies, according to the needs of the situation.
- Instructional designers should be able to articulate why they make the decisions they make, backing it up with research.
- Understanding the theories and the research will help improve instructional design.
- Everyone can always learn more about learning and instructional design.
Although I agree with all these points, I’m not convinced by the conclusion he draws from these points:
I have to say that in my extremely biased opinion…a degree is not only needed, it should be required!
I don’t see graduate school as the only way for individuals to meet the goal of becoming better instructional designers. Shouldn’t people who design learning for others also be able to design their own learning paths? Is formal education the only option, or is it possible to do an “informal masters” on your own?
This is not to say that there’s no value in a masters degree; I’ve certainly heard from lots of people who have found it to be very beneficial. I have every reason to believe that I personally would learn a great deal in a well-designed program. I’m also not claiming that people who have that formal education can’t and don’t gain from the informal methods too. Karl’s a great example of this. He’s out there learning in public even though he has his terminal degree; he clearly sees learning as a lifelong process.
My disagreement is with these formulas.
- Masters Degree = Good Instructional Design
- No Masters Degree = Bad Instructional Design
It isn’t that simple. I’ve seen atrocious design from people with the credentials, and I’ve seen people like Cammy Bean and Cathy Moore who do fabulous work but don’t have the degrees.
Clark Quinn’s explanation falls more in the middle, rather than having an either/or formula. Being a “reflective practitioner” can give motivated people the background and knowledge of that “informal masters” and achieve many of the goals from Karl’s post.
The benefit of the Master’s is the chance to get to know the theories (depending on the program and instructor). The pedagogy for the course should include applying the theories to pragmatic design, not just reciting back the contents (I used to use RFP’s asking for designs or redesigns using the theories). It’s not the only way, but being familiar enough with the underlying principles to be able to adapt the design to match the circumstances is important…
Note that Cammy is a ‘reflective practitioner’ to use Schön’s term, as she reads and reflects on what she does. That’s why she’s effectively done her own ‘masters’ in learning/ISD. So, I’m not comfortable with trusting experience over time to yield competent results, I think it takes someone being an ongoing learner. That’s easier in a well-designed program, though the caveat is that all programs are not necessarily well-designed.
The above image is from Kathy Sierra’s post Does College Matter? but the quote I want to close with is from her Ten Tips for Trainers.
But with that out of the way, nobody needs a PhD (or in most cases — any degree at all) in education or learning theory to be a good teacher. Just as there are plenty of great software developers and programmers without a CompSci degree. People can be self-taught, and do a fabulous job, for a fraction of the cost of a formal education, but they have to be motivated and they have to appreciate why it’s important.
Let the debate continue!
Update: Read all my posts about Instructional Design Careers here.
Technorati Tags: Karl+Kapp, Clark+Quinn, Kathy+Sierra, Cammy+Bean, Cathy+Moore, instructionaldesign, masters, education, informal
Welcome to my blog! If this is your first time here, check out the 
I think there’s a lot of value in an ID degree. I also agree that having the degree doesn’t guarantee that you’ll create something that works.
I’ve been hired several times to redo what degreed designers have done. I’m not claiming that my (ID-degree-free) work was any better. But the fact that a person has an ID degree doesn’t guarantee that they will produce something that learners will use and learn from.
The usual reason the work was being redone was that it was too “boring” (usually wordy, passive, and abstract).
I’ve noticed two patterns in this work that suggest some possible weaknesses in some of the degrees being granted. The designer apparently didn’t learn how to write for a business audience, and they apparently didn’t learn how to create activities that encourage knowledge transfer. Their assessments are simple knowledge checks.
I’m certainly not saying that an ID degree is worthless, just that it’s not a guarantee–just as a degree in any other field is also no guarantee.
On my grumpier days, I think some people are getting shortchanged by their degree institutions. They should at least learn how to write for different types of learners, and they especially should learn how syntax and word choice affect learners’ understanding and motivation.
In my quick & unscientific look into the requirements of several respected degree programs, I saw no required work in writing or readability. There’s a ton of research into language and cognition, but apparently little of it has made it into the instructional design world, a fact which mystifies me.
I am reminded of the scene in Good Will Hunting where they go to the the Harvard bar. Ben Aflek tries to impress some girls and a grad student comes up and starts making him look foolish. Matt Damon steps in and basically calls him on his scheme. The best part of that scene is where he tells they guy he wasted 150,000 dollars on an education he could have got at the public library for 1.50 in late fees. The grad students come back was – yeah well at least I will have a degree…
I really don’t think a piece of paper will ever be able to determine if someone knows there stuff. But it is the only way really to get a job in Higher Education. What to do…
Theoretically, a degree in instructional design really should show a higher level of expertise. In practice, I think I see some correlation, but I’m not sure that it’s strong enough to try to require it. Cathy, I think you may be right that some people aren’t really getting the learning experiences they should be from their programs. I’m sure some programs are better than others, but a degree isn’t a guarantee.
Indiana University has a course called Effective Writing for Instructional Technology, so I guess one program has a writing course.
Sam, I’d forgotten that scene, but you’re right. I have less of an issue with universities requiring degrees for their faculty though; accreditation is a whole other discussion. I’m not sure that instructional designers always fall under the same accreditation rules as faculty, but universities have the mindset of looking for degrees. Of course, there are ways to do higher ed without a masters degree; I’m a good example of that. The for-profit education world is perhaps more interested in your results than your credentials.
Christy, I agree that some instructional design programs are lacking as are programs in many fields and I also agree that a degree is not promise of good performance (unfortunately). We get the students for a little over a year, we teach them as much as we can but some get it and some don’t. We try to screen out the ones who don’t as much as possible but still some who graduate are on the line. I still think, however, that talking about individual designers or redoing one designers work is different than answering the question of whether or not the field should require a degree. I really think that the field needs to show that what we do is rigorous enough and scientific enough to be called a profession. If not, then we really don’t have a field or a single body of knowledge, we just have a bunch of techniques we apply from time-to-time.
Thanks for continuing this discussion and all your great comments…they are always insightful, interesting and relevent. I do enjoy our discussions.
Karl
Karl, I think in many respects I’d be more comfortable with a certification as measure of rigor and standards than a degree. If a certification could be created that used authentic assessment (probably a portfolio evaluation), do you think that would achieve many of the same goals you talked about? IT certifications give people the same credentials whether they have a degree or not, and whether they took formal training or studied on their own.
I agree with the goal of improving the profession of ID, but not with the path you suggest to get there. Can you explain more why you believe the certification model in the IT field won’t work for ID? I enjoy our discussions too, and I’m trying to understand your perspective.