Resources
Skillful Design: Choosing Instructional Method
by Carol L. Weaver

Pick up any book on "how to teach" and you will see a laundry list of instructional methods – the techniques, activities, and strategies designed to provide the learner with an opportunity to interact with the content. Klatt (1999), for example, analyzes 47 instructional methods (pp. 185-240). You will often find the methods clustered in categories such as teacher-centered or learner-centered or whole-group, small group or individualized (Pregent, 2000). But even if I know I want to use small groups within my instruction, are some small group activities "better" than others? How do I choose what method to use, when, and with which participants?

Caveats about Choosing Instructional Methods
Before we examine some of the common criteria used to select instructional methods, it is important to note that the research (volumes of it) does not identify a single "best" instructional method or strategy. Most attempts to do so have concluded that teaching and learning are complex enterprises that are easily influenced by a wide array of variables. "Methods" are seldom implemented in a standardized way. For example, a riveting lecture by a skilled instructor may engage the audience on many levels. The same content, delivered by a different lecturer could have very different impact on the audience. A lecture with visuals is different than a lecture without visuals. So, as you look at the criteria that follow, know that these are guidelines and that there is no one "right" answer. The goal is to intentionally select instructional methods that provide rich learning opportunities for the participants.

A second reminder is also in order. Instructional methods are generally chosen after several other important instructional decisions have been made. Most planning processes recommend a sequence of events that creates a context for selecting the instructional methods (Caffarella 2002; Pregent 2000). Generally, the main purpose of the program is known and the target audience has been identified. The delivery mechanism or mode (face-to-face or distance, for example) is another major decision that is made before instructional methods are selected. Program length, site and setting are also generally determined in advance of methods. Two other critical decisions, program objectives and content, also generally precede selection of instructional methods. In some settings, assessment and evaluation strategies are already determined.

Note that Caffarella (2002), among others, suggests that program planning is not a linear process, but more of an iterative one. As we think about choosing instructional methods, for example, could decisions about program sequencing be re-considered if an instructional strategy is selected that requires two class sessions rather than one? Could a different facility be used to provide better access to instructional technology? If we really want to employ a particular instructional method, could prior decisions be re-visited to accommodate that method? Can we bounce our decisions back and forth to create the best possible learning opportunities? If not, we must make our instructional method decisions within the constraints of the existing program decisions.

Factors to Consider
A survey of the literature reveals multiple criteria to judge the relative appropriateness and value of an instructional method. Caffarella (2002) identifies ten considerations and Fink (2003) offers six situational factors that should be explored when selecting instructional methods and strategies. Klatt (1999) identifies multiple variables that may influence choice of methodology. Pregent (2000) identifies five criteria for selecting teaching methods. A seminal article by Brophy and Alleman (1991) also provides excellent guidance for choosing instructional methods. What do these experts suggest? Here is a distillation:

1. What are the goals associated with this learning event?
   Goals are broad aims and intentions. We frequently identify goals that have no content-base, such as developing communication skills, building relationships among participants, or increasing participant capacity for self-directedness. Frequently goals are accomplished over time and across multiple events. We need to ask which methods of instruction in this learning event will contribute to goal attainment. For example, if we are teaching in a program for new judges that aims to help new judges develop partnerships with other new judges, have we selected methods that are consistent with that goal? Or, do our methods restrict interaction among participants?
2. What are the instructional objectives?
   Objectives are the learning outcomes targeted by the instructional event. Two considerations are identified in the literature: domain and level. Is your instructional objective primarily cognitive, affective, or psychomotor? Is the aim a lower-level outcome (knowledge acquisition) or a higher-level outcome, such as application or evaluation? A lecture is an excellent way to acquire basic information, as is reading, watching a movie, or listening to a tape recording. These are not, however, the most powerful methods for teaching manipulative skills. A demonstration, followed by practice, would be more likely to accomplish the intended outcome. Higher-order learning is more likely to be stimulated by problem-based learning, debates, case studies, and reflection.
3. What is the content?
   Caffarella (2002) and Fink (2003) indicate that the content should be analyzed in terms of degree of abstraction. Some instructional methods are particularly suited for presenting concrete or practical materials while others help learners grasp more abstract or theoretical concepts. Fink (2003) also suggests that determining whether the content is convergent or divergent in nature may assist in choosing instructional approaches. Is there one best answer or approach suggested by the content? Or, is diversity of perspective or multiple considerations of value? Content may also present issues in terms of participant response (Fink, 2003). Do participants feel that they already know the content and there is nothing new to learn? Do participants come with attitudes and beliefs that may interfere with open exploration of the content?
4. Who is the target audience?
   What are the key learner characteristics that determine how they will engage in learning and respond to teaching? What prior experiences do they bring to the classroom? What do they already know? What do they believe? What are their preferences for learning? How tolerant are they of new learning activities? How confident are they in this learning situation? What is their motivation for attending this particular educational activity? What is at stake for them as participants?
   
   While it is often difficult to know the answers to these questions about individuals in the group, we can often assess the characteristics of a targeted audience. We obviously cannot meet the needs of each participant, but we can employ a variety of methods that will be consistent with the needs of a broad spectrum of participants.
   
   If we choose to use instructional methods that might be less familiar to the target audience, we may need to provide additional support for participation. We may want to blend new methods with familiar ones, providing a gradual introduction. We may want to ask participants for feedback about the new methods, so that we can fine-tune our use.
   
   It is important to note that it is acceptable and sometimes even desirable to provide new challenges for participants. While we often focus challenging content, instructional methods may also provide a challenge. Challenges can be stimulating, invigorating and create energy in a learning environment. If the challenges are too great, however, they may intimidate the participants. Finding the balance between challenge and support is a critical instructional skill.
5. What are the capabilities and beliefs of the instructor?
   Some instructional methods, to be successful, require specific instructional skills. The instructor(s) must be capable of fully implementing the chosen instructional methods. If the Socratic method is chosen, for example, a particular set of skills is required for that method to be fully employed. The instructor must be able to use instructional technology, manage a debate, or structure small group instruction if those strategies are to be successful. It is also critical that the instructor believes that the strategy is important, valuable and appropriate. Without instructor buy-in, it will be difficult to create an environment that encourages participant engagement.
6. What is the context?
   Context may include a number of factors that influence the "climate" for learning. The ambiance of the setting, the reason the educational event was created, the arena in which the skills and knowledge will be applied, or the relationship among individuals or groups in the audience can create atmospheric conditions that enhance the effectiveness of some instructional methods over others. The instructor or instructional designer who does not analyze the context of the instructional setting may be overlooking elements critical to the success of the educational program.
7. What are the logistics?
   This category of considerations can very broad and is critical to help determine whether or not instructional methods are feasible. Logistical considerations may include amount of time available, number of participants, seating arrangement and flexibility of furniture, available equipment, preparation time, and cost of materials. If a particular instructional method cannot be fully utilized because of logistical constraints an alternative method may need to be considered. Participants disengage when told, "Well, we really can't do this ..." or "I know you cannot see this ..." or "We don't have time to fully engage in this exercise …."
   

Making a Decision
Obviously, this list of considerations does not provide any definitive answer. It forces instructional designers and instructors to take many factors into consideration, but leaves open many possible alternatives. How do you prioritize among the alternatives? Again, drawing on the sources noted above, here are some suggestions:

1. If the instructional event has a single instructional outcome, Brophy and Alleman (1991) suggest the selected methods should be relevant to the domain of the outcome (cognitive, affective or psychomotor), be pitched at the right level of difficulty, be feasible in the setting, and be cost-effective in terms of time, trouble and use of resources.
2. If the instructional event has multiple instructional outcomes, Brophy and Alleman (1991) and Fink (2003) recommend choosing strategies that are:
   -capable of accomplishing multiple instructional objectives simultaneously;
   -authentic, holistic, and realistic;
   -focused on powerful ideas and principles, rather than isolated facts or pieces;
   -sequential (move participants from part-to-whole competency);
   -capable of stimulating higher order thinking;
   -engaging and energizing; and
   -capable of producing important outcomes and results.
3. If the instructional event includes a series of activities, the recommendations include choosing methods that provide, over time:
   -variety;
   -progressive difficulty;
   |-opportunities for application to real-world problems; and
   -individual choices or alternatives.

Expanding Instructional Repertoire
Instructors should seek to expand their instructional repertoire to increase their capacity to use a variety of instructional methods. After reading about a strategy (some resources are suggested below), instructors may wish to chat with and observe others who regularly employ the method to gain ideas about its effective use. Attending faculty development seminars where a variety of instructional methods are investigated is another way to gain insight into the value of new methods.

When you are ready to try out a new method, begin incrementally. Add a small instructional segment that uses one new method in conjunction with other more familiar methods. Be sure to fully implement the new method and provide adequate support for participant engagement (it may be new to them as well). Anticipate participant resistance to new methodology; be ready to articulate why you are employing this new approach. Solicit feedback from participants about their response to the method. You may also want to ask other educators to observe your teaching and give you feedback about the implementation of the selected method. Don't be discouraged by less-than-positive first attempts. Learning new instructional strategies is difficult and takes time. Each time it is used, there will be contextual issues that will make its application somewhat unique. Over time, with practice and feedback, your expertise will increase. The investment will be worth all the work when a participant leaves your instructional event and tells you that you have made a significant difference in their professional capacity. That is why we do what we do.

References

Brophy, J & Alleman, J. (May, 1991). Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 20(4), 9-23.

Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners. (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Klatt, B. (1999). The ultimate training workshop handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.

Pregent, R. (2000). Charting your course: How to prepare to teach more effectively. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Recommended Resources
Angelo, T. & Cross, K. P. (1993) Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Honan, J. P. (2002). Using cases in higher education: A guide for faculty and administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning. Berkshire, England: SRHE and Open University Press. McGraw-Hill Education.