Factors Influencing Learning Design: Discovering Instructional Design 17

One of the more interesting outcomes of the Three-Phase Design (3PD) model has been that, while in and of itself, it describes a strategic context from which to build and maintain online teaching and e-learning environments, it does not focus on more granular aspects of the design process proper.

According to Rod Sims (2008) there are six factors are essential to achieving engaging, interactive and memorable learning experiences (see Figure 1). The 3PD Model supports these factors by establishing the build-enhance-maintain process as core to successful project implementation.

Figure 1. Six factors influencing e-learning design (after Sims, 2008)
[Click to enlarge]

Sims called this model Proactive Design for Learning (PD4L): the six factors that enable the design of effective online teaching and learning are:

1. Theory-based, ensuring that decisions are based on contemporary approaches to teaching and learning.
2. Innovative and relevant (incorporating elements of proactive evaluation documented by Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).
3. Team-based, with team members having the relevant and appropriate competencies to engage with and complete the design tasks (Sims & Koszlaka, 2008).
4. Emergent, allowing (where appropriate) the interactions between course participants to establish and introduce course content (Irlbeck, Kays, Sims & Jones, 2006).
5. Interactive, enabling participants to actively explore the relevance and application of the course content (Allen, 2003; Sims, 2006).
6. Personalized, such that participants are able to apply their own context and situation to the learning outcomes (Sims & Stork, 2007).

People (and organizations) do not adopt new ideas at the same time. Some adopt ideas when they are first introduced; others wait for varying periods of time; some never adopt an idea. In The Diffusion Process (1957), Bohlen and Beal maintain that

...the time span over which people adopt ideas will vary from practice to practice.

(p.4).

The authors' research indicated that complexity of practice is a significant factor in determining the value of a diffused idea or technology in organizations. They defined the following categories of complexity:

• Change in material and equipment
• Improved practice
• Innovation
• Change in enterprise
• Cost

Three-Phase Design and it's subsequent iterations are representative of educators' responses to the challenges and opportunities afforded by the introduction, diffusion, and adoption of Web-based technologies in education: traditional approaches to instructional design do not necessarily fit the requirements of online learning. Of particular note in this context is the emergence of Constructivism as a theoretical framework for the development of online learning programs. In the PD4L Model, for example, Sims cites

theories including the social formation of the mind (Vygotsky, 1978), meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968), situated cognition (Clancey, 1997), constructivism (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivism (Siemens, 2004).

(p.9)

He continues:

Together with a pragmatic, interpretivist epistemology, the PD4L model focuses on creating teaching and learning environments where relevant, meaningful knowledge is constructed by the individual.

When compared to the purely Functionalist (in the anthropological sense of the term) methodology of ISD, we can see that models like Sims and Jones' are attempting to accommodate the power and flexibility afforded by digitally mediated technologies in the context of acquisition of skills, knowledge construction, and a more experiential view of learning, that the traditional systems-based approach.

More…
___________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957). The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Malinowski, B. 1990. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Reissue edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster International.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-147.

Sims, R. & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

--

3PD Approaches to Evaluation: Discovering Instructional Design 16

We're approaching the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. I’ve no doubt that there will be a bombard of documentaries, retrospectives, and "why aren't we there now?" features coming this July, surrounding the big day itself. This will brighten up my summer no end. Despite its Cold War beginnings, I happen to think that the Apollo-era US Manned Space Program represents the epitome of human vision and endeavor.

What has this got to do with instructional design, say you?

Well, read on...

NASA wouldn't have got to the Moon, or even to the next town, without gimbals. Not only does NASA use gimbals for orienting rocket engines, but also when designing navigational systems and instrument panels. Without gimbals, it would have been very difficult for NASA to find a way to send astronauts safely into space.

A gimbal is a mechanism that helps to keep an object on target: it's built into the platform's systems to correct deviations from a pre-determined goal.

On the Saturn V rocket, for example, gimbals were used to set the rocket at the correct pitch and yaw angles to safely "clear the tower" - that is, not bump into the rocket's support gantry on lift-off. Later in the flight, gimbals pitched the rocket's trajectory to align with the Earth's curve for it's journey into orbit (rockets don't go "straight up" but rather ascend in an arc until they attain the required altitude).

So what space nerd. What has this to do with instructional design, say you again, losing patience?

In my view, the task gimbals* perform space flight is similar to the role evaluation performs in instructional design.

According to Donald Clark (2009)

Evaluation is the systematic determination of merit, worth, and significance of a learning or training process by using criteria against a set of standards.The evaluation phase is ongoing throughout the ISD process. The primary purpose is to ensure that the stated goals of the learning process will actually meet a required business need. Thus, it is performed during the first four phases of the ISD process.

Indeed, we can see that this strategy is codified in Dick and Carey's approach (see Figure 1), where an ongoing review process indicated during the first six phases of the process.

Figure 1. Dick and Carey's Model
[Click to enlarge]

Formal evaluations proper are undertaken in steps 7-9 of their model:

1. Determine the instructional goal
2. Analyze the instructional goal
3. Analyze the learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
8. Revise instruction
9. Undertake summative evaluation

Dick and Carey (2001) recommend three categories of of formative evaluations to support this process: one-to-one (or clinical) evaluation, small-group evaluation, and field evaluation, but in my view they don't suggest a mechanism for evaluation per se, as the activities they suggest are standard ethnographical research methodologies. Similarly, while they consider on-going reviews to be a component the their ID model, the research suggests that In her 1989 article Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature, Marguerite Foxon describes herself as "surprised" at the "general" and "superficial" nature of the research undertaken on evaluation, and considered that what was there was "difficult to understand and apply."

She continues:

Where evaluation of programs is being undertaken it is often a 'seat of the pants' approach and very limited in its scope. ...trainers often revert to checking in the only way they know - post-course reactions - to reassure themselves the training is satisfactory.

If the literature is a reflection of general practice, it can be assumed that many practitioners do not understand what the term evaluation encompasses, what its essential features are, and what purpose it should serve. ...Many practitioners regard the development and delivery of training courses as their primary concern, and evaluation something of an afterthought."

She suggests that many practitioners prefer to "remain in the dark," concerned that any actual evaluation will "confirm their [the instructional designers'] worst fears" about the educational quality of the courseware they deliver, with the result that they "choose to settle for a non-threatening survey” of Kirkpatrick Level 1-style trainee reactions.

As we have seen in our look at the Three-Phase Design (3PD, in this model evaluation is not viewed as a post-delivery activity (Sims, 2008 p.5): the nature of Web-based education is such that changes can be made immediately (that is, during Phase 2 - Evaluate, Enhance, Elaborate), as long as those changes don't affect the integrity of the learning program's objectives. The second phase can be

"conceptualised to take place during course delivery, with feedback from both teachers and learners being used to modify and/or enhance delivery.

(p5)

Sims and Jones (2003) call this process "proactive evaluation" (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proactive evaluation in 3PD
[Click to enlarge]

Using this approach, formative "feedbacks" occur between instructor and students during course implementation. The authors assert that this mechanism continues the dynamic collaboration between the members of the development team enhances. The second phase enables

generational changes in the course structure, with emphasis on the production (completion) of resources, and where learners can take a role of research and evaluation assistants. By developing and building effective communication paths between each of these three roles, a shared understanding of the course goals and learning outcomes can be established, thereby minimising and compromise in educational quality and effectiveness.

In my view, (as shown in Figure 3), the evaluation in this model is founded upon recursion. The enhancement process is undertaken by the actors (instructors, designers, and learners) using a strategy similar to the concept of optimal (or dynamic) programming, where complex problems are solved by breaking them down into simpler sub-problems.

Figure 3 Recursive evaluation in the 3PD Model
[Click to enlarge]

In essence, the enhancement process is repeated until the learning program is considered complete.

Even during the Maintenance Phase, the ongoing process of

gathering and incorporating evaluation data caters for the sustainability of the course.

(Sims, 2008 p.6)

Unlike the Dick and Carey and Kemp Models, 3PD supports overlapping roles, skills, and responsibilities. These contributions may well change through the lifecycle of a learning program, as the model promotes and supports the development of instructors and students' knowledge, skill and experience via the virtuous circle of ongoing collaboration and communication between the actors, and the development of working relationships. The inclusion of learners in the content development process differentiates 3PD from the other models discussed here.

More...

*(Note to hardcore design-heads: this is a metaphor†: I'm not suggesting they're literally equivalent. Go with it).

†Metaphor (n) - a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

___________

References:

Clark, D. (2009). Evaluation in Instructional Design. [Internet] Available from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat6.html Accessed 12 June 2009

Foxon, M. (1989). Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 89-104. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet5/foxon.html Accessed 12 June 2009

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

--

Phases of the 3PD Approach: Discovering Instructional Design 15

The intent of the Three-Phase Development (3PD) Model was to provide a new focus for the end-to-end learning content and evaluation development process, especially for Web-based teaching and learning. As discussed yesterday, a central tenet of 3PD was that course creation could not be viewed as a short-term development process, but rather as a long-term collaborative process which would

generate and evolve into focused communities of practice with shared understanding and a philosophy of continuous improvement

(Sims & Jones, 2003 , p. 18)

Three-Phase Design is configured to elicit learning content through a three-step process of developing functionality, evaluating, elaborating, and enhancing and maintaining materials, rather than the more traditional systems approach of analyze, design, develop, implement, evaluate. The approach also aims to align the "three essential competency sets" for courseware development - course design, subject matter exposition, and content production - in an integrated fashion rather than as a set of uncoordinated activities.

Rather than process driving development, it is the context of the educational components which determine the members of development teams in a targeted and effective manner. Ideally, these teams would remain for the duration of the project, potentially over a number of semesters.

(Sims, 2008 p.3)

To achieve this goal, 3PD specifies a series of "baselines" (2008 p.4) that align with implementation iterations – the first focusing on building functional and essential course components, the second on enhancement or interactivity, and the third to ongoing maintenance of the courseware (see Figure 1). These three phases of development integrate systems-based methodological approaches to content development, scaffolding of contributors, and quality assurance.

Figure 1: Three-Phase Design & Scaffolding
(after Sims & Jones, 2003)
[Click to enlarge]

According to Sims and Jones, Phase 1 is a predelivery mode, which involves the gathering and preparation of web-based teaching resources, learning channel, specifying assessment-based outcomes, preferred teaching modality, and learning/learner activities designed to attain the prescribed outcomes. Three-phase Design enables a teacher with minimal experience in Web-based training and learning environments to access "functional learning structures" (Sims, 2008 p.4) and in-team expertise from the Developers and the Educational Designers in the group.

Phase 2 (Enhancement) is the delivery stage in 3PD. The asynchronisity of digital network supported learning, and the object-oriented nature of e-learning is such that modifications can be implemented in courseware on an ongoing basis (for example to take account of new learning materials or new knowledge) to enhance the student's ability to achieve the learning objectives. The second phase can be in this way to take place during course delivery, with Kirkpatrick Level 1 and Level 2-style feedback from both instructors and learners being used to modify and/or enhance delivery either continuously. or in a staged manner. For example modifications may be implemented before the beginning of each new semester, based upon the reactions of learners who took the course during the previous semester.

The third stage of 3PD - the maintenance phase - occurs during the "main sequence" (to borrow a term form astronomy) of the course lifecycle. In time, a course will attain a stable state where the teaching strategies and learning activities are working effectively, it’s materials are up-to-date, and the course is taken by sufficient number of learners to make delivery and maintenance cost-effective for the host institution.

Sims (2008) considers that:

The implications of applying the 3PD model is that the original functional system will always be subject to change, and that development environments need to schedule resources for the life-time of that course. The continual process of gathering and incorporating evaluation data caters for the sustainability of the course.

(p.6)

Phase 3 provides an opportunity for a rigorous quality assurance process to be undertaken, and for stakeholders in the course development project to consolidate the instructional design and collaborative skills acquired during the 3PD process: ideally these skills are then applied to the development of a new learning program, where they continue to be refined, with remediation taking place as necessary.
___________

References:

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality.Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Internet: Available from: http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/ Accessed 3 June 2009.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, in J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R. Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models. Internet: Available from: http://www.de-research.com/PhDFinalPapers/CT_3IDModels.pdf Accessed 1 June 2009

--

Discovering Instructional Design 14: the Three-Phase Design Model

In the field of education, instructional design has traditionally been applied using established models, typically using a top-down approach, that focus on explicit definitions of audience, environment, strategies, activities and outcomes. However, when different traditions of design are considered, more creative and organic elements are emphasised, which also embrace a ‘bottom-up’ strategy.

Kays, E, & Sims, R. (2006).

The growth of e-learning has motivated educators to re-examine the theory and practical application of instructional design models to the task of courseware design, development, and delivery.

As we have seen, the ICARE model takes a 'traditional' linear systems approach to course design, but has also been used as the basis for migrating content to an online environment. As we know, migration is a directed, systematic movement of a group of objects, organisms, or people. If we step outside the ICT world for a moment, what else can we say about migration? We know that it is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and risky, with no guarantee that the migrant will reach their destination, and if they do, that they will survive and thrive in their new environment. Returning to the world of digital technology, Gregory Muira (2007) asserts that there are a number of other disadvantages associated with migration:

• Migration addresses the possible obsolescence of the data carrier, but does not address the fact that certain technologies which run the data may be abandoned altogether, leaving migration useless.
• It's time consuming - migration is a continual process, which must be repeated every time a media reaches obsolescence, for all data objects stored on a certain media.
• It's costly - an organization must purchase additional data storage media at each a migration.

Migration can be confused and messy

As a result of these disadvantages, technology professionals have begun to develop alternatives to migration, such as emulation. However, emulation per se is not an effective solution for educational technologists - we know the issues and complications inherent in attempting to replicate the classroom or instructor-led environment in an online milieu. So whither instructional design in the Digital Age?

One well-developed approach is Sims and Jones’ Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model. Three-Phase Design is

an enhancement to the traditional design process [that] focuses on the creation of functional course delivery components,with evaluation and improvement activities integrated with scaffolding (support) for the teacher and learners to provide a dynamic teaching and learning environment in which resources and strategies can be developed or modified during the actual delivery stage.

(Sims & Jones, 2002 p.8).

As illustrated in Figure 1, the process is supported by a "team" (p.8) consisting of an academic (A), a developer (D), and an educational designer (ED) who all contribute to each part of a learning program's iterative progression through the model. The authors' consider that the "ultimate goal" of the model is to disintermediate the Developer and the Educational Designer, enabling the Academic to function as an independent Developer and Educational Designer over time.

Figure 1. The 3PD model including ADDIE components (after Sims & Jones, 2002)

I would assert that in its stated goal, and to a certain extent in it's execution, that the 3PD model is a direct-line antecedent of the Rapid E-Learning approach to courseware design, development and delivery. It's important to point out thought that Sims and Jones themselves view online course creation

not ...as a short-term development process, but rather as a long-term collaborative process which would “generate and evolve into focused communities of practice with shared understanding and a philosophy of continuous improvement” the value of 3PD would be realised through a three-step process of develop functionality, evaluate/elaborate/enhance and maintain rather than the more traditional sequence of design, develop, implement, evaluate.

(2003, p. 18)

Three-Phase Design also integrates the three "essential competency sets for unit or course development" (Sims, in press) - design, subject matter exposition, and production, in a cohesive rather than disparate fashion. Here, development is not driven by a an overarching and inflexible process, but rather it is the context of the learning materials which determines the development in a targeted and effective manner. The approach is based upon the assumption that learning takes place in an online an collaborative environment. Sims and Jones state that 3PD "proposes four critical factors:"

1. Instructional design must align with institutional expectation, contemporary pedagogies, and available resources and skills
2. Skills building is facilitated through the scaffolding process to enable those less proficient in design and development to develop the appropriate competencies.
3. A team-based approach is used to develop communication and collaboration among group members. Sims and Jones (2002) point out that the growth in social media reinforces the importance of this factor.
4. Scaffolded support is incorporated into content design-time to enable instructors and staff to confront new and learning paradigms.

Next time: A closer look at 3PD's phases

___________

References:

Kays, E, & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design:A theory for emergent learning. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p197.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

Muira, G. (2007). Pushing the Boundaries of Traditional Heritage Policy: maintaining long-term access to multimedia content. IFLA Journal 33: 323-326.

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality.Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Internet: Available from: http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/ Accessed 3 June 2009.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

Sims, R. (in press). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, in J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R. Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models. Internet: Available from: http://www.de-research.com/PhDFinalPapers/CT_3IDModels.pdf Accessed 1 June 2009

--