A revised methodology of instructional design for online learning

June 15, 2004 By Jason Rhode Leave a Comment

While not an entirely new educational concept, online learning is one which has received much attention recently. Early instructional design models were based on an interactive design model (Sims & Jones, 2003) which at times could prove to be very inefficient. As the field has continued to progress, many additional models and methodologies have been utilized as foundations for instructional design for online learning. While I recognize that many existing techniques and processes have proven successful, I contend that current methodology can be revised to ensure that primary emphasis is placed on learners and the learning process rather than focusing on the technology used. Modification of current methodology will require active leadership at the highest possible level (Rogers, 2000).

A myriad of crucial elements must be considered when designing online instruction, including: learning design, interface design, interactivity, accessibility, assessment, student support, and utility of content (Sims, Dobbs, & Hand, 2002). While the combination of these issues creates a seemingly daunting task for any instructional designer, effective and successful online instruction, “facilitates collaborative learning, active learning, and independent learning and exceeds the traditional classroom in its ability to connect students and course materials on a round-the-clock basis” (Riedling, 1999).

Relationships between teacher, learner, content, and fellow learners should be among the first elements to be considered (Sims & Jones, 2003) as learning processes are established to facilitate these desired interactive learning experiences. Effective implementation of online learning environments requires a paradigm shift from “teaching” to “learning” (Rogers, 2000) in which the instructor doesn’t view himself as a dispenser of knowledge but rather a facilitator and guide in addition to providing learners with introductory information necessary to begin the learning process. I agree that online learning, “be conceptualized as an environment that integrates collaboration, communication, and engaging content with specific group and independent learning activities and tasks” (Sims et al., 2002).

Another key to any instructional design effort is to have a clear process and team approach linking members of the development team with educators (Sims & Jones, 2003). The focus of these efforts should always be on the students, providing them with both support and critical thinking strategies which will foster success in any context (Sims & Jones, 2003). The participants of the instructional design process such as the educational designer, faculty, and the development team (Sims & Jones, 2003) have an important role in ensuring that the learners remain the focus of the development. While the level of influence for the various team members in this process changes at various phases (Sims & Jones, 2003) their commitment to the success of the learners should remain constant.

Proactive evaluation, described by Sims, Dobbs, Hand (2002) should be another design attribute as participants in the design process develop an understanding of essential elements of the successful learning environment. Strategic intent is a key element of any online pedagogy, as the purposes for online instruction are clarified.
I believe we must be mindful of both methods and media as both influence the way individuals learn today (Kozma, 1994). While a variety of media and methods can be utilized in delivering instruction (Clark, 1994), these learning tools must never usurp the instructional objectives or learner needs. The learners needs, context requirements, and teacher constraints should be focused on before selecting a delivery strategy (Riedling, 1999).

Much is yet to be learned about online learning environments both in terms of effectiveness and achievement outcomes (Sims et al., 2002). The undeniable fact exists that a student body requires diverse learning experiences to target a variety of learning styles (Franklin, Peat, Lewis, & Sims, 2001). As the needs of the learners are kept in proper perspective as a high priority for instructional designers, online learning solutions can be utilized to provide these varied learning experiences.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Franklin, S., Peat, M., Lewis, A., & Sims, R. (2001). Technology at the cutting edge: A large scale evaluation of the effectiveness of educational resources. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14.

Riedling, A. M. (1999). Distance education: The technology – what you need to know to succeed, an overview. Educational Technology Review, 1(11), 8-13.

Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. Educational Technology Review, 1(13), 19-33.

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.

Filed Under: Blog, Thoughts Tagged With: ,

Key success factors on an online learning community

June 15, 2004 By Jason Rhode Leave a Comment

A successful online learning community does not simply come into existence by chance. Rather, it must be carefully crafted in light of a myriad of philosophical, technological, and practical issues. While the context, content, and learning strategies are all important tangible considerations for any designer to consider (“Building online learning communities,” 2000), essential theoretical and pedagogical elements must also be considered. While the development of an exhaustive list of these success factors is beyond the scope of this assignment, several important elements will be briefly discussed.

General approaches and skills to the online learning community must be considered early in the development process. Palloff & Pratt (1999) list several foundational elements to any successful online learning community, including: access to technology, guidelines and procedures, participation, collaborative learning, and evaluation of the learning process. Technology access refers to the importance of all learners having equal access to necessary computer resources. Guidelines and procedures should be “loose and free-flowing” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) yet at the same time provide a framework for successful completion of objectives. Buy-in from participants is certainly crucial and minimum levels of participation should be agreed upon. Any lack of participation or presence within an online community can, “critically influence how people behave online, form impressions of others, and negotiate common ground” (Preece, 2000). An atmosphere of collaborative learning should be fostered through the development of a “level playing field” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) by which all learners should feel comfortable to share openly. Participants should be encouraged to provide feedback to one another on a continual basis (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Additional foundational keys to consider when developing successful online learning environments could include: “honesty, responsiveness, relevance, respect, openness, and empowerment” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).

Ultimately, usability and sociability ingredients are the foundational building blocks for a thriving online community (Preece, 2000). As developers consider not only desirable content but also find out who the users will be but what their expectations are (Preece, 2000) they will be equipped with the foundational understanding necessary to begin the community development process. As online community is truly about people rather than simply technology, the needs of the target learner population must be of paramount importance before any decisions regarding technology are made (Preece, 2000).

References:

Building online learning communities. (2000) Retrieved May 9, 2004 from, http://www.elearningpost.com/elthemes/comm.asp

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Filed Under: Blog, Thoughts Tagged With: ,

Online learning as a suitable environment for collaboration

June 15, 2004 By Jason Rhode Leave a Comment

Online learning provides an engaging and interactive means through which collaborative learning can take place. Learners are provided the opportunity in an online context to interact with the course content, instructor, and fellow learners through technology which is uninhibited by geographic or schedule constraints. Capella University serves as a prime example of the diverse student body that is possible though online learning. These online learners represent a wide variety of cultural and professional backgrounds. Each possesses a unique perspective and mix of expertise which ultimately benefits all the other learners.

Several modes of online communication exist including synchronous and asynchronous. Asynchronous discussion allows the learners to come together to dialogue as well as complete course assignments (Hofmann, 2003) while synchronous communication is crucial for, “establishing team roles, responsibilities, goals, deadlines, and for resolving differences of opinion.”(Curry, n.d.). The current Capella learning platform, Learning Space, supports only asynchronous communication. Students and instructors can log-in to their learning portal after supplying their username and password to view course schedule, media, course room, or learner profiles. Within the online course room, students and instructors can discuss in an asynchronous format the content of each learning unit. This is truly where the collaborative learning takes place, as students and faculty share their insights from the required reading, questions they may have, and even work they are completing towards meeting the course objectives.

As compared to other learning platforms available, Learning Space is quite archaic at best, and provides a cumbersome set of tools for the learner to navigate. For example, the platform does not keep a record of the previously viewed messages. This forces users to try to keep some kind of manual record of their status in the course discussion. Such frustrating intricacies of an online collaboration methodology can be solved through software enhancements to provide users with an easy-to-use mode for collaborative learning. I’m excited to learn that Capella is keeping these user issues a priority and is making upgrading to a more enhanced learning platform this summer. From my knowledge of the WebCT Vista platform, this will be a wonderful improvement for learners and faculty alike!

While the technology which enables online learning is the mode by which this learning methodology is possible, it is important to remember that the quality of the online learning environment is dependent upon the quality of the instructional design (Hofmann, 2003). The engaging collaborative format possible through the online context provides rich constructive learning opportunities for students.

References:

Curry, D. B. (n.d.) Collaborative, connected, and experiential learning: Reflections of an online learner. Retrieved May 2, 2004 from, http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/2.html

Hofmann, J. (2003) Building success for e-learners. Retrieved May 2, 2004 from, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/hofmann.htm

Filed Under: Blog, Thoughts Tagged With:

Key elements of behavioral, cognitive, affective, and collaborative learning theories

June 14, 2004 By Jason Rhode Leave a Comment

Scholars have theorized that learning takes places through a multitude of domains, including: behavioral, cognitive, affective, and collaborative. Best practice models from throughout a variety of educational settings have confirmed the effectiveness of instructional strategies which identify these learning modes and seek to incorporate these learning processes, when applicable, into learning environments.

The behavioral or psychomotor learning domain focuses upon the processes of mastery of physical skills. Physical skills have been categorized in a variety of ways, but invariably include cognitive, psychomotor, reactive, and interactive domains (Romiszowski, 1999). Romiszowski (1999) stresses not only the general learning processes of psychomotor skill learning but also the instructional strategies necessary for skills development. The challenge for educators teaching physical skills is for learners to transfer knowledge of these skills into proficient practice.

Bloom first defined the cognitive domain of learning as one which deals with the, “recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of understandings and intellectual abilities and skills” (Reigeluth & Moore, 1999). While Bloom’s taxonomy is arguably the most well-known articulation of cognitive processes, others such as Gagne, Ausubel, Anderson, Merrill have all presented similar cognitive theories which express a variety of levels of interaction between learner and content. Therefore, the focus of cognitive learning is built upon the understanding that learners attain knowledge through a variety of interactions and processes.

The affective domain is one which, ”refers to components of affective development focusing on internal changes or processes” (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999). Or, stated another way, the affective domain relates primarily to the motivational factors involved in learning. A taxonomy of internalization from least to most includes: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999). Affective components are strongly related to other elements of learning processes, and are at times not easily distinguishable.

Collaborative learning has been defined as, “a structured exchange between two or more participants designed to enhance achievement of the learning objectives” (Clark & Mayer, 2003). Collaboration has typically taken place in the classroom setting through the use of group work, etc. but has been expanded into a plethora of applications in the online learning environment. While traditional collaborative learning opportunities have typically been synchronous, many online instructional strategies now implement asynchronous collaborative exercises. These asynchronous collaborations are not dependent upon schedule constraints of learners or faculty. The undeniable fact exists that a variety of levels of structure exist among collaborative environments and that not all forms of collaborative learning prove equally effective (Clark & Mayer, 2003).

Each learning domain examined certainly clarifies important learning processes. The task for instructional designers and educators alike is to evaluate what the needs of the students are and then to employ strategies which help students meet instructional objectives.

References:

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning together on the web. In e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Martin, B. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain: Implications for instructional-design theories and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructinoal-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol.
2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Romiszowski, A. (1999). The development of physical skills: Instruction in the psychomotor domain. In Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Filed Under: Blog, Thoughts Tagged With: ,

Instructional design models that relate to specific learning or training environments

June 14, 2004 By Jason Rhode Leave a Comment

As a novice of instructional design, I’m experience the “growing pains” of trying to get up to speed on the terminology and theoretical premises for the various models. Nonetheless, I keep reassuring myself that eventually I’ll make it over this learning ID learning curve.

Prestera (Prestera, n.d.) presents a succinct and tangible overview of ISD models. He referred to Gustafson’s classifications of ISD models into three categories, include: classroom models, product development models, and systems development models. It is easy to identify the instructional context will help the instructional designer to determine which model, or combination of models, will prove most effective. I wholeheartedly concur with Tennyson’s claim that, “for each learning problem there may be more than one solution and approach to instructional design” (Tennyson, 1997).

Each model reviewed employed a specialized framework in order to develop learning strategies within a specific context. The Dick and Carey model, while presenting a foundational approach for converting a goal statement instruction ready for implementation (Dick, 1997), has been accused of only being feasible in unrealistic circumstances. Tennyson (Tennyson, 1997) presents an accommodating system dynamics approach to instructional system design which, “dynamically adjusts the authoring activities by direct reference to the given problem situation” (Tennyson, 1997). His model stems from the understanding that the actively engaged learner who is solving problems while learning will best be able learn complex systems (Tennyson, 1997). Gerlach and Ely present a classroom model which examines content first prior to objectives and describes key interactive procedures while refraining from articulating any concrete practices (Prestera, n.d.). Sims, Dobbs, and Hand (Sims, Dobbs, & Hand, 2002) stress the importance of proactive evaluation and strategic intent in any ISD model selected. Kemp presents a model similar to Gerlach and Ely’s, in which he expands upon the concept of flexibility within the ISD process while keeping content at the core of the development (Prestera, n.d.).

Ultimately, I’ve learned from the ISD models presented in this unit that elements of flexibility and customization should be paramount in any model chosen. The characteristics of the learners, the learning context, and instructor are among the many elements which need to be considered when choosing a model to utilize.

References:

Dick, W. (1997). A model for the systematic design of instruction. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Steel & S. Dykstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives. Volume 1: Theory, research, and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flechsig, K.-H. (1997). Cultural transmission, teaching, and organized learning as cultureembedded activities. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives. Volume 1: Theory, research, and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Prestera, G. (n.d.) Instructional design models. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from, http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/g/e/gep111/html/m4/l1%20-%20isd/m4l1p1.htm

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.

Tennyson, R. D. (1997). A system dynamics approach to instructional systems development. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives. Volume 1: Theory, research, and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Filed Under: Blog, Thoughts Tagged With: