Seels and Glasgow Model: Discovering Instructional Design 20

And so my friends, we reach Number 20 in our journey of discovery around Instructional Design. That's a month's solid blogging, investigating one of the fundamental domains associated with our profession.

What have we learned? More of that anon, but for now I'm going to cover the the Seels and Glasgow Model in this E-Learning Curve Blog series on a systems approach to instruction design.

Now read on…

In a 2008 article called Can we reinvent e-learning? I asserted that

ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resembles the philosophy and practice to this discipline's methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.

In my view this is no bad thing: the reality is that Learning & Development is a pragmatic discipline, tasked with facilitating individuals in their endeavors to learn, educators would be poorly served if the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical epistemologies of the domain did not at least tacitly acknowledge the practical challenges associated with implementing learning programs.

Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow's Model (see Figure 1) reflect this assertion; they situate their understanding of ISD and their model on the thesis that design occurs in the context of project management (p. 177).

Figure 1. The Seels and Glasgow Model
[Click to enlarge]

Their model is distributed across the three phases of project management:

1. Needs Analysis Management
2. Instructional Design Management
3. Implementation Management

This distribution allows a learning program (or project) to be planned, resourced, and managed much as any other project in an organization is arranged.

In this model, the first phase (Needs Analysis) includes the establishment of the instructional goals, requirements, and context for the courseware. Next, the Instructional Design phase begins when Needs Analysis is completed: this second phase consists of six activities:

1. task analysis
2. instructional analysis
3. objectives and tests
4. formative evaluation
5. materials development
6. instructional strategy and delivery systems

- all of which are linked via feedback and interaction communications channels. In Phase Three of the model (Implementation and Evaluation) the development and production of materials, training delivery, and summative evaluation are undertaken.

As is usual in a systems-based approach to ID, the phases in this model can are typically applied in a linear fashion, but they are often applied iteratively. As Gustafson and Branch highlight, the steps in the instructional design phase are interdependent and concurrent, and multiple iterations of this process may occur during this part of the development lifecycle (2001, p.43).

In this sense - and reflecting on my ADDIE/PM remarks, we can say that this is a product-oriented approach to content development. According to Chen

Developing an instructional project involves skill sets ranging from project management and interface design to sound preparation and programming...Design teams represent various fields of expertise (producers, instructors, editors, etc.).

(2007 pp.2-3)

Managing potentially large teams and and hundreds (if not thousands) of media assets needs substantial resources and commitment, and requires strong project management to stay on time and budget at the appropriate quality of outputs. To support this objective, Seels and Glasgow focus on the importance of well-designed materials, the need to identify and understand communication patterns within organizations, develop strategies for diffusion of innovations, and the importance of supporting learners.

Interestingly, Seels and Glasgow also include the concept of diffusion of innovations in their model:

The strategies that lead to diffusion are most effective if used during all the phases of a project.

(1998, p. 178)

They consider that when their model is applied ,the phases are generally linear in nature but

it is not necessary to complete a step before proceeding, and the order can be changed so that steps can be performed concurrently.

(1998, p 179)

We can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems philosophy epitomized in ADDIE quite will, while acknowledging the needs and limitations of the practical application of instructional design. Much like 3PD, formative evaluation via a feedback mechanism (multiple iterations rather than recursion) is a distinguishing (but not unique) characteristic of Seels and Glasgow's approach.

Next time: What have we learned? The implications of Instructional Systems Design for E-Learning
___________

References:

Chen, I. (2007) Instructional Design Methodologies. In: Kidd, T. & Song, H. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology. IGI Global

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional Technology. Columbus OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

--

Discovering Instructional Design 11: The Kemp Model

The Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model, more commonly known as the Kemp Model defines different elements – not “step, stage, level, or sequential item” (Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.10) of an instructional design, and emphasizes the adoption of continuous implementation and evaluation through the instructional design process.

According to Morrison et al, there are nine key elements to instructional design:

1. Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.
2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.
3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.
4. State instructional objectives for the learner.
5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning.
6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.
7. Plan the instructional message and delivery.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

These elements are independent of each other, in that they do not need to be considered in a linear fashion and there is no particular start- and end point. The oval shape of this model (see Figure 1) is constructed to convey the idea that the design and development process is an iterative cycle that needs constant planning, design, development and assessment to ensure effective instruction.

Figure 1. The Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model
[Click to enlarge]

The model is systemic and nonlinear; it encourages designers to work in all areas of ID as appropriate. The use of ovals emphasizes this flexibility visually; the graphical design communicates a continuous non-linear cycle that requires iterative planning, design, development and assessment. The inner oval (surrounding the core) illustrates that revision/formative evaluation activities can be undertaken at each stage of the development process, something that is not always built into other models, usually because of the constraints of time and money.

The outer oval includes a typical post-instruction activity (summative evaluation) and also highlights three elements usually absent from other models – namely project planning, project management, and support services. The latter are required both for the project itself while it is in development, and afterwards to support the actual instruction.

We can say that it describes a holistic approach to instructional design that considers all factors in the environment; the starting point and order in which the designer addresses them is not prescribed, though the elements in the model may form a logical design sequence when read anti-clockwise (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. The ADDIE steps applied to the M-R-K Model
(after Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.29)
[Click to enlarge]

The flexibility of this approach is reinforced by the absence of lines or arrows that would dictate a specific design sequence (see Dick and Carey's Model) as a comparison. According to Presenera (2002) the Kemp Model is designed to primarily to appeal to (classroom-based) teachers, who may not have specific instructional design experience.

The Morrison-Ross-Kemp model has three characteristics that differentiate it from some other models:

• instruction is considered from the perspective of the learner
• the model takes a general systems or even object-oriented view towards instructional development
• the model emphasizes management of the instructional design process

Using the model

Using this model the instructional designer begins by asking six questions related to the skills or knowledge to be learned: required level of learner readiness; instructional strategies and media that are be most appropriate for the content and the target population; level of learner support required; measurement of achievement; and strategies for formative and summative evaluation.

(Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2004, p. 4).

Because of the lack of connectivity between elements and the facility for IDs to start at any place within the model, a designer can examine the entire scope of a project - or just as effectively work on a single learning object or lesson. Using this classroom-oriented model, an individual with little instructional design skill can develop a piece of instruction using few or no additional resources and with minimal front-end analysis. Similarly, there is no requirement to conduct formative and summative evaluation on the final materials (Gustafson and Branch 2002, p.16). A more experienced designer (or one with access to more resources) can also use this model in the design of a complex and widely-distributed learning program.

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction, (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons

Prestera, Gus. (2002). Instructional Design Models [Internet]. Available from: http://www.effectperformance.com/sites/prestera/html/M4/L1%20-%20ISD/M4L1P1.htm#kemp Accessed: 3rd June 2009

--

Can we re-invent e-learning?

Somebody once said:

Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself - if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.

(Marc J. Rosenberg, Beyond E-learning)

In essence, this means transforming learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around

1. the learner
2. their environment
3. their tasks

enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their activities effectively.

David Jonassen says:

In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.

He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that

[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to "deliver" knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.

In the context of organizational development and workplace learning, this is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting. In theory, this leads to the creation of a virtuous circle of continuous growth and development.

In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the ADDIE conceptual framework, most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).

The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades.

I think ADDIE is a myth.

And I'm not alone in reaching this conclusion. In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,

I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.

(p.1)

My view is that ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resemble the philosophy and practice to this discipline's methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.

While these training deliverables may have value in and of themselves, they have limited value for learners in the longer term. We could even say that the training outputs are valid; some of the objectives of the learning intervention designed according to the precepts of ADDIE may be met but

Our field of educational communications is founded on the premise that communicating content to students will result in learning. In educational communications, information or intelligence (in many different forms) is encoded visually or verbally in the symbols systems employed by each technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive the messages encoded in the medium and sometimes "interact" with the technology. Interaction is normally operationalized in terms of student input to the technology, which triggers some form of answer judging and response from the technology in the form of some previously encoded (canned) message. Technologies as conveyors of information have been used for centuries to "teach" students by presenting prescribed information to them which they are obligated to "learn."

(Jonassen, 2001)

So, can we re-invent e-learning?

___________________

References:
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Internet] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007

Constructivism and instructional design: more considerations

In this series of blog posts, I am considering the implications of learning and development for knowledge workers in the modern workplace, the limitations of the Systems Approach to training, and how to implement a Constructivist learning environment that can effectively and efficiently support knowledge workers.

Now read on...

In yesterday's post, and based on the work of Michael Molena, I suggested that the epitome of the Systems Approach, ADDIE, was less a development process and more a set of heuristics to facilitate instructional designers' efforts to develop e-learning content. I also outlined M. David Merrill's work to identify fundamental invariant principles of "good" instructional design, regardless of pedagogy. Merrill asserts that there is a core of consistent "Principles of Instruction" that we may use as the basis for content development regardless of the actual methodology used.

Merrill's primary and central principle of instruction is task-centered learning. A task is an activity that represents a problem that may be encountered in a real-world situation. Learning objectives or samples of the types of problems learners will be able to solve at the end of the learning sequence may also substitute for a task. A progression through problems of increasing difficulty are used to scaffold the learning process into manageable tiers of difficulty. The courseware should relate to real world problems.

Learner guidance helps focus the learner’s attention on critical elements of the information and relate these critical elements to the portrayal. The learner guidance that enhances the demonstration is indicated by bullets.

(2006a, p.4)

Merrill recognizes three categories of classification that provide information and can be portrayed:

1. Kinds-of
2. How-to
3. What-happens

Kinds-of category

Concept classification occurs when learners must discriminate among members of two or more related categories of objects or events. An effective presentation/demonstration for concept classification (kinds-of) requires the following instructional activities.

1. Tell learners the name of each category or alternative procedure.
2. Show learners an example of each category.
3. Provide learners a definition for each category.
4. Show learners examples of each category.

How-to category
Procedure learning occurs when learners must carry out a series of steps. A presentation/demonstration for a procedure (how-to) involves the following instructional
activities:

1. Show learners a specific instance of the whole task.
2. Demonstrate each of the steps required to complete the whole task.
3. Show the consequence of each step.
4. Summarize the steps in the procedure and their sequence.

What-happens category
Process learning occurs when learners understand how some device works or the process underlying some phenomenon. A presentation/demonstration for a process (what-happens) involves the following instructional activities.

1. Demonstrate the process in a specific, real or simulated situation.
2. Repeat the demonstration for several increasingly complex scenarios.

In tomorrow's post we shall examine principles for the effective use of media in this learning environment.

________________________

References:

Merrill, M. D. (2006a). First Principles of Instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models III (Vol. III). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Merrill, M. D. (2006b). First principles of instruction: a synthesis. In R. A. Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Eds.) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Columbus: Ohio, Merrill Prentice Hall.

--

ADDIE, and the Systems Approach: a Critical Analysis

In yesterday's post I looked at a systems approach to instructional design and development, and suggested that this approach was an emergent property of the process whereby instructor-led courseware developers in the 1990's attempted to apply previously-effective training development techniques to the new domain of e-learning.

As an example, I looked at the ADDIE design appraoch and suggested that it could be characterized as a set of heuristics (or conceptual framework) to enable learning professionals to output content commensurate with the systems approach.

Now read on...

In this context, we can say that ADDIE will only deliver results consistent with the expertise of the content designer, as it relies on their (the designers') skills and experience in transferring information and knowledge to "deliver" learning to the recipient. In E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Don Morrison remarks that

...like many ISD models it fails to give clear guidance about what makes good learning content. You can follow ADDIE to the letter and still deliver mediocre content.

(2004, p.255)

It can be said that ADDIE (and similar systems' approaches to learning content development) are closer in philosophy and practice to a project management methodology than a pedagogy. In this respect they can be a useful approach when developing "one-shot" training content in environments where repetitive worker activities are the norm.

Take this scenario as an example:

1. Production workers have just started using the new WidgetMaker 300-0 tool: it can create 3o widgets per hour.
2. As it's operating principles are very similar to the the older WM 299-8 (20 widgets per hour) model, the organization decides that workers only need a 2-day familiarization course before beginning production with the new tool.
3. A new production target (30 WPH) is set for workers to reflect the increased efficiency of the tool.
4. After three months, production is still 5WPH short of target. It turns out that workers are using the old production process on the new machine, and with the expectation of attaining 30WPH are actually working harder than ever, but are still 50% short of the difference between the new and old hourly production rate. Much disgruntlement all round.
5. It seems that there's an extra gadget on the handle of the WM300-0 that nobody noticed because of the cursory nature of the 2-day familiarization course.
   
6. Time for some training...

Table 1 Systems Approach Methodology applied to learning intervention

ISD Process Phase	Systems Inputs
	People
Analyze	Organization sees deficiency in workers skill-base or competency set (causes lower productivity from the new widget-making tool, the WidgetMaker 300-0, than had been planned)
	Material
Design / Develop	Two-day delta training developed
	Technology
Implement	Training on new process delivered to learners
	Time
Implement	ILT / WBT course delivered (Learners taken out of productive work to take training)
Evaluate	Workers complete certification on tool
	Outputs
Outputs	Workers' productivity increased	Delta training integrated into updated operators' training program

As this example illustrates, treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables. While these training deliverables may have value in and of themselves, they have limited value for workers in the longer term. We could even say that the outputs are valid; workers have increased productivity and the next training course will have extra content to address the issue of lack of competency on the WidgetMaker 300-0. The efficiency of the system has been improved, and future trainees on the WidgetMaker 300-0 will not experience the productivity "hit" experienced by their colleagues. From a project perspective, it makes sense to fold the delta training into the course for the tool.

• There are a number of negative consequence associated this approach
• The delta training no longer exists as a discrete knowledge asset for the organization
• Over time, specific knowledge of that particular learning intervention will be lost, half hidden among the overall learning goals of the WidgetMaker 300-0. Useless in effect, should another learner require remediation on that particular aspect of the tool
• Without this discrete knowledge resource at workers' disposal, the only way to remediate their specific deficiencies on the tool is to require them to re-take the complete How to use the WidgetMaker 300-0 course. Again.

Our field of educational communications is founded on the premise that communicating content to students will result in learning. In educational communications, information or intelligence (in many different forms) is encoded visually or verbally in the symbols systems employed by each technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive the messages encoded in the medium and sometimes "interact" with the technology. Interaction is normally operationalized in terms of student input to the technology, which triggers some form of answer judging and response from the technology in the form of some previously encoded (canned) message. Technologies as conveyors of information have been used for centuries to "teach" students by presenting prescribed information to them which they are obligated to "learn."

(Jonassen, 2001)

Rather, Jonassen argues technology (and in particular so-called Read/Write Web technology) should enable learners to develop their skills in a constructivist learning environment (or CLE).

As a quick reminder, here's the Cliff Notes version of Constructivism:

• We construct our own understanding of the world we live in
• Knowledge not received from outside, but by fitting new information together with what we already know we construct knowledge in our head
• Learning is the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences
• Constructivist theorists support that people learn best when they actively construct their own understanding

With this in mind (no pun intended. Well... maybe), we'll be looking at CLEs tomorrow.

____________________________

References:

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

--

E-learning ecosystems and the failure of ADDIE

Onwards with our investigation of the e-learning ecosystem and learning & development in organizations. Today's post looks at the similarly-sounding but fundamentally different Systems Approach to instructional design and learning, and why the doubtful provenance of ADDIE combined with a misunderstanding of the role of content delivery channels have failed a generation of e-learners.

Now read on...

I have suggested that a growing number of researchers and learning professionals (Dillon & Hallett, Jonassen, Rosenberg etc) are recognizing the negative affect of what Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) call the "breach between learning and use" (p.1) of training interventions in organizations. We have seen that both instructor-led and 'traditional' self-paced learning courseware are relatively limited in their application, and are most effective in a restricted range of circumstances. Brown, Collins, & Duguid elaborate:

Many teaching practices implicitly assume that conceptual knowledge can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. [The authors] argue that this assumption inevitably limits the effectiveness of such practices. Drawing on recent research into cognition as it is manifest in everyday activity, the authors argue that knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.

(p.1)

To meet these conditions, we can say that it is appropriate to adapt both pedagogical approaches and the technology resources now available to enhance learners performance.

Marc J. Rosenberg concurs:

Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself - if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.

In essence, this means transforming workplace learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around the learner, their work environment, and their tasks, enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their work effectively. As David Jonassen says:

In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.

He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that

[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to "deliver" knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.

This is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting.

There are four inputs necessary in every system to produce a product or output:

• People: The workers making up a group and linked by a common activity.
• Material: The raw products which go into the system.
• Technology: The technique for achieving a practical purpose or goal.
• Time: The measured period during which an action or process begins and ends.

In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the ADDIE conceptual framework (see Figure 1), most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).

Figure 1. The ADDIE ISD Heuristic

The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades, but curiously, it may not exist! In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,

I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.

(p.1)

Hence my suggestion above that ADDIE is more properly labeled a conceptual framework; I would go so far as to say that it could even more accurately be described as a set of heuristics or "rules of thumb" to enable instructional designers from a instructor-led tradition to develop learning content by adhering to the precepts of the systems approach (see Table 1).

Table 1 The ADDIE Model

Phase	Activity
Analysis	During analysis, the designer identifies the learning problem, the goals and objectives, the audience’s needs, existing knowledge, and any other relevant characteristics. Analysis also considers the learning environment, any constraints, the delivery options, and the timeline for the project.
Design	A systematic process of specifying learning objectives. Detailed storyboards and prototypes are often made, and the look and feel, graphic design, user-interface and content is determined at the Design stage.
Development	The actual creation (production) of the content and learning materials based on specifications instantiated during the Design phase.
Implementation	During implementation, the plan is put into action and a procedure for training the learner and teacher is developed. Materials are delivered or distributed to the student group. After delivery, the effectiveness of the training materials is evaluated.
Evaluation	This phase consists of (1) formative and (2) summative evaluation. 1. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. 2. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users. Once they have undergone formative and summative evaluation, learners are encouraged to review and revise the courseware as necessary, until they have successfully passed the proscribed tests

The transactional nature of the systems approach assumes that the very act of communicating information to the supplicant (sorry, learner) results in the output of "learning."

Adhering to this content development methodology, instructors consider that the channels used to "deliver" knowledge are cognitively neutral and merely replicate and modalities of the classroom - voice-over narration equating to instructor explanation, the screen being equivalent to the overhead projector or blackboard, computer-mediated interaction being the essentially the same as teacher-student interaction, and so on.

By balancing the cognitive load across the learning modalities, it is supposed that knowledge can be effectively delivered, and the student will "learn." A corollory of this is that the learning delivery channels (visual, audial, text-based, and so forth) themselves have no affect upon the learner's interpretation of the content, so to all intents and purposes, the "sage on the stage" transforms into the "guide by the side."

_____________________

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Internet] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007

--

An Open Environment for E-Learning Course Development: Project Lifecycle 1

Phase One: Requirements gathering - Developing the Instructional Design

In 1996, ISD guru David Merrill et alia asserted that there were indicators to demonstrate that educational instructional design (ISD) had gone awry:

Too much of the structure of educational technology is built upon the sand of relativism, rather than the rock of science. When winds of new paradigms blow and the sands of old paradigms shift; then the structure of educational technology slides toward the sea of constructo-babble.

It was not until the Wright brothers discovered the correct principles of aerodynamics that they could invent an airplane that would sustain powered flight; it is not until we discover the correct instructional strategies that we can invent instructional design procedures and tools that will promote student learning.

(Merrill, Drake, Lacy & Pratt)

The instructional design applied in this Open Environment is quite closely aligned to the model developed by Roderick Sims in his 1997 article Interactive learning as an "emerging" technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies.

[N]o … consensus has been established for interactive learning materials. There appears to be no common set of standards for the learner-computer interface, the strategies for presentation of interactive material is variable and the influx of newer technologies (such as multimedia and web-based resources) have only added to the complexity of developing effective interactive learning materials.

(Sims, 1997)

In this context and to provide a degree of "failover", I recommend aligning the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional framework (see Figure 1) and Aubrey’s Interactive Instructional Influence Development (I³D) model.

Figure 1. An ISD model featuring the ADDIE processes

The I³D model (see Figure 2) presents a pragmatic approach to the development of courseware, “incorporating elements… of instructional design and project management ” (Sims) through integrating the “...deliverables, techniques and skills of courseware development” (Burford & Cooper, 1997) to enhance the likelihood of developing effective interactive courseware.

Figure 2. Aubrey's I³D model

[Click image to enlarge]

Aubrey designated the four deliverables in the I³D model as:

1. Proposal
2. Prototype
3. Produce
4. Package

which broadly aligns with the development lifecycle advocated in the Open Environment for E-Learning approach.

More tomorrow.

______________

References:

Aubrey, J. (1992). The interactive instructional influence model. Paper presented as part of the requirements for completion of the Graduate Diploma in Computer Based Learning. University of Technology, Sydney.

Burford, S. Cooper, L. (2003). Online development using WebCT: A faculty managed process for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 16(3) [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/burford.html Accessed 16 Apr 2008

Merrill, M.D. Drake, L. Lacy, M.J. Pratt, J. & ID2 Research Group Utah State University (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design Instructional Design Resources [Internet] Available from: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra2/extra2.html Accessed 16 April 2008

Morrison, D. (2003). E-learning Strategies How to get implementation right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sims, R.C.H. (1997). Interactive learning as an "emerging" technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 13(1) 68-84. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet13/sims.html Accessed 16 Apr 2008

--