Living-systems design model & Design issues for learning environments

Compared to traditional “Instructional Systems Design” (ISD) that follows linear approach (analysis, design, implementation, testing, and delivery), Plass and Salisbury’s “Living-systems Design Model” focuses on an iterative-prototyping approach in developing knowledge-management systems. That is, the living-systems design model executes ongoing assessment and adjustment of system to reflect growing and changing needs from people and organization, whereas traditional ISD does not consider additional needs any more after initial analysis. To be evolutionary system, the living-systems design model follows some phases: Analysis of end-user requirements, design of instructional information architecture, development of instructional interaction design, development of instructional information design, implementation of system design, and developmental evaluation. Even though some phases look similar to the phases of traditional model, they function differently. For example, the living-systems design model does not necessary determine specific learning outcomes unlike traditional design model. Instead, it just describes system features and functionality. Based on these characteristics, the living-systems design model can be called constructivist models of knowledge management.
In addition, in Collins’s “Design Issues for Learning Environments,” he mentioned some important design issues (Learning goals, learning style, sequence, and teaching methods) using cost-benefit approach to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits of design decisions. In learning goals, he talked benefits and costs about memorization vs. thoughtfulness, whole tasks vs. component skills tasks, breadth vs. depth of knowledge, diverse vs. uniform expertise, access vs. understanding, and cognitive vs. physical fidelity. In learning style, he said interactive vs. active vs. passive learning, incidental vs. direct learning, fun vs. serious learning, natural vs. efficient learning, and learner control vs. computer or teacher control. In sequence, grounded vs. abstract learning, structured vs. exploratory learning, systematic vs. diverse problems, and simple vs. complex tasks were explained. Finally, in teaching methods, the elements of cognitive apprenticeship such as modeling, scaffolding, coaching, articulation, and reflection were described.
Although he simply compares costs and benefits of two (or three) approaches, it gives very important implications to instructional designers in that they should review these sorts of issues to avoid disadvantages of choosing extreme approach in designing learning. That is, based on the purposes and characteristic of instruction, a designer should consider best approach, and mix both approaches if necessary.