E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs

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

–