http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Bic.pdf

Being very new to the field of IDT, (or IP&T, if it is the same field) I enjoyed taken by the conclusion of this article. In order for the field to be independent, unique, and to add value, we need to actually study what instructional designers do. If the ADDIE "model" or "framework" isn't a model, and doesn't have a direct origin, how can it be the central uniting element of a field? Bichelmeyer effectively pointed out that it can't. The interesting thins to me about instructional design is its universality. Instruction happens in every field. Does learning happen the same in every field? Should learning/instruction be approached the same way in ever field? If so, then a solid field of instructional design is incredibly important. If not, then instructional design seems to be an appendage to every other field.