It’s a well-designed, perfectly executed, fully-featured lesson set that meets all of your learners’ needs. Now you need to get it to the people. But hold on! You’ve used one of the preset Camtasia production settings, and the output that you get on the screen doesn’t match your expectations.

It’s an unpleasant surprise.

You feel all your hard work has been for nothing. What’s worse, the clock is running, and you’ve assured your customer that their training materials is “Fantastic! No, really. It’s amazing. You’ll be really pleased.”

This is a relatively common situation e-learning developers encounter (according to people who have contacted me on this subject) so in my view, it’s worth exploring a little further: why does this occur, how can it be overcome, and how can it be prevented from happening in future projects?

The underlying reason for poorly-rendered content typically manifests itself long before a content developer clicks on the Camtasia Production Wizard ‘Finish’ button. To understand the reason, we have to look at the context: we must begin with Rapid E-Learning as an approach to developing courseware, and we must look at Camtasia as an authoring tool.

An overview of Rapid E-Learning

Traditional learning content development methods (see Figure 1) involve using subject matter experts (SMEs) working with instructional designer who, in turn, designs a learning intervention. A digital media development team then builds the interactive solution based on this design. The quality assurance team evaluates the solution against the design and test plan. This “waterfall” approach to content production can lead to long and costly design and development cycles, which can reduce the effectiveness of material with critical timelines or where content regularly changes or is updated.

Figure 1 Traditional E-Learning Content Development Model
[Click to enlarge]

Rapid E-Learning (REL) takes a different approach. While the definition of rapid e-learning differs among experts, generally it’s considered to be e-learning that can be developed quickly and inexpensively. REL uses tools and processes that decrease development time dramatically. Traditional courseware development timelines are measured in terms of months whereas REL timelines are measured in terms of days and weeks. This makes it an attractive solution for many companies. This can be a time-consuming process, even if a project runs on-time, with a minimum number of contributors (see Table 1).

Table 1 Production Logistics

In contrast, the Rapid E-Learning Approach can be defined as

the process of developing content quickly and inexpensively. REL uses tools and processes that decrease development time dramatically. Traditional courseware development timelines are measured in terms of months whereas REL timelines are measured in terms of days and weeks.

(Archibald, D. 2005)

Jennifer de Vries sees e-learning as being

…like the desktop publishing industry of 20 years ago, when desktop publishing was relegated to the one person with the big computer who knew the specialized software and laid out all of the documents. Then MS Word came along and it included many desktop publishing features, giving everyone the ability to create reasonably attractive material on a PC using this very simple software. I think rapid e-learning tools are going to transform the e-learning industry in much the same way, so that e-learning development will become more accessible to the general public.

(Fournier, J. 2005)

In essence, her opinion (which is one that I share), is that the tools used to create e-learning are at a point where they are on the cusp of a tipping point and become much more commonly used.

Figure 2. Where Rapid E-Learning Fits
[Click to enlarge]

These tools – Camtasia among them – are known as programming-free authoring tools. They are typically (though not exclusively) built for non-technical authors that don’t have programming skills. These systems are often template- or form-based and are very easy to learn and use. They are very efficient and productive tools if you need to quickly enable subject-matter experts and training professionals to develop e-learning content without knowing a programming language.

More…
___________

References:

Archibald, D. (2005). Rapid E-learning: A growing trend. Learning Circuits Magazine. [Internet] Available from: http://www.astd.org/lc Subscription required. Accessed 14th July 2006

Fournier, J. (2006). Rapid E-Learning Grows Up. Learning Circuits Magazine. [Internet] Available from: http://www.astd.org/LC/2006/1206_fournier.htm Accessed 20th July 2009

–

Rather, it is an approach to content development that enables SMEs to author content quickly and efficiently, typically using learning professionals as coaches and assistants in the process.

The two tenets of rapid e-learning are:

1. Ease of development 
2. Short development time frames

The key to successful rapid e-learning is having tools and templates that make it easy for practically any expert to quickly create effective learning materials.

However, rapid content authoring is only part of the story. The end-to-end content design, development, delivery, management and maintenance cycle demands a broad range of skills (I talked about some of these here), and a number of computer applications to support and leverage these steps of the e-learning development process.

In my never-ending pursuit of enhancing performance when using the Rapid E-Learning methodology, I regularly assess new applications, tools, and utilities to assess their value in my learning and development content production procedures. Here are the applications I’m going to evaluate over the next few months. Of course, I’ll blog my views on them over that period of time. Interestingly, only a few of these apps are ‘pure’ e-learning development tools; the others I intend to use to facilitate aspects of the content development process, rather than to actually develop learning materials.  

Serena Prototype Composer 2009
Serena Prototype Composer is an application planning, modeling and prototyping environment for non-technical users to visually define their application needs, including business processes, activities, user interfaces, requirements, and data. Models can be derived from existing resources such as Web applications and can be published as running prototypes as well as Microsoft Word specifications.

WebCAT
The Web Category Analysis Tool is an open source utility that allows designers and usability engineer to test a proposed or existing website or CMS/LMS ontology or categorization scheme. This enables  knowledge managers (and instructional designers) to determine how well taxonomies, categories and learning content objects are understood by users. WebCAT is a variation on the traditional card sorting paradigm, where  users are guided to generate a category tree or even a folksonomy.

Stanza Desktop
Stanza Desktop is an e-book publishing tool, designed for generate digital publications, including electronic books, newspapers, PDFs, and general Web content for a range of hardware platforms. It supports HTML, PDF, Microsoft Word, and Rich Text Format reading, as well as all the major e-book standards: unprotected Amazon Kindle and Mobipocket, Microsoft LIT, Palm doc, and the International Digital Publishing Forum’s new EPUB Open eBook standard. According to the developers, Stanza is designed to to make reading on your Macintosh, PC or mobile device an “enjoyable and hassle-free” experience.

iWebkit
iWebKit is a GNU-licensed file package and content framework designed to enable those without the time or the programming skills to use the iPhone SDK to create iPhone and iPod Touch compatible websites and webapps. According to the developers, the kit is accessible to anyone – even people without any html knowledge. and is simple to understand thanks to the included tutorials. We’ll see.

Microsoft Learning Content Development System
The Microsoft Learning Content Development System (LCDS) is a free-to-use tool that enables the developers to create interactive, online courses. The LCDS allows anyone to publish e-learning courses by completing the easy-to-use LCDS forms that seamlessly generate highly customized content, interactive activities, quizzes, games, assessments, animations, demos, and other multimedia.

PowerManual
PowerManual addresses the needs of presenters, trainers and anyone  who uses PowerPoint on a regular basis. PowerManual enables you to produce high quality documents  in a range of formats, including Word, PDF and HTML.PowerManual enables the creation of cover pages, logos, custom headers and footers, document pagination, on-the-fly slide updating, as well as PowerPoint slidestack management.

As I said, I’ll be reviewing the apps, testing and reporting on their functionality, ease-of-use, suitability of purpose, adaptability to e-learning, and so on. I’d like to hear your opinions: do you already use some or all of these tools? What do you think of them? Are you going to evaluate them yourself, based on my suggestion? Are there any other tools in the same space that are more effective?

Let me know what you think by commenting in the space below.

–

The ASSURE Model is a constructivist approach to training design developed by Robert Heinich and Michael Molenda of Indiana University and James D. Russell of Purdue University in the 1990’s.

ASSURE is an acronym derived from the key verb descriptor of the tasks associated with the approach. As such, the model proposes a six-step guide for planning and delivering instruction; while not specifically designed for e-learning, in practice it the methodology seems to align to the requirements of designing courseware for that modality. 

The steps (or tasks) are described in detail in Table 1:

Table 1 ASSURE Model components (after Human Resource Development website)

While the learner’s needs, the instructional goals, and the availability or desirability of particular media are the drivers for the design and development, Gunter and Baumbach (Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia, 2003) state that

The instructional goals should be the focus, not the goal. When integrating technology, it should always be viewed as a tool that assists… the learning needs of the student. The teacher becomes a mentor and colearner, who is actively engaged in enabling students to access, analyze, apply, and create information electronically.

(pp.193-194)

More…

___________

References:

Gunter, G. & Baumbach, D. (2004). Curriculum Integration. In: Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. (Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. Eds). ABC-CLIO; illustrated edition

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development [Internet] Available from: http://itchybon1.tripod.com/hrd/id15.html Accessed 10th June 2009

–

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.

–

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 (rocket’s 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.

–

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

–

So far, all the models I’ve talked about in this E-Learning Curve Blog series have described a linear process in the design of learning events, for the purpose of delivering the content in a classroom environment.

This approach has been variously categorized as "phased," "stepped,"  and "unit-based." It assumes a pretty sophisticated knowledge of pedagogy, as well as a degree of experience in instructional design. In the classroom context, instructors, trainers, and lecturers do not necessarily have an instructional design background, and typically do not follow a linear method of planning and learning event decision-making. From a development perspective, we find educators undertaking instructional design who rarely work according to theory. More often than not, the design of instruction is not a linear activity – an idea developed in the Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model, where the application of an instructional design model could be initiated at any point during the design process.

Experience tells learning professionals that an idea of what needs to be developed already exists, and this often provides the basis of the design. The instructional designer then reviews the design to ensure all components of the "model" have been accounted for, and refines the design if necessary to "check all the boxes." The process is then written up as if it occurred in a linear and systematic fashion. I would assert that the substantial majority of educators under time-pressure and with high demands on their skills would admit that they have done this – if not publicly, then certainly in the wee small hours, in the darkness of their souls. 

As I discussed yesterday, the ICARE approach is a distillation of the Dick and Carey Model for instructional design. Today, we’ll look at how Middlesex University in the UK modified the ICARE model for their Global Campus initiative.

The higher education must undergo a paradigm shift from an environment and culture shaped by the brick and mortar facilities and faculty-centred activities, to an environment defined by “learner-centred” processes shaped by information technology and ubiquitous asynchronous access to subject content material, learner support activities and technology-literate resource personnel.

(Dubois,1998)

In response to the Jacques Dubois’ challenge, Middlesex University  established a “Global Campus”. The Global Campus offers distance learning education in countries including Egypt, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK.

In the conventional mode, the [Middlesex] University staff interacts with students in lectures, seminars, and labs.  Initially, the elimination of all staff interaction with students was considered; however, it was felt that staff provide necessary support for the student including instructional support, and study direction. Additionally, meeting in seminars allowed the students to meet with each other leading to more peer interaction which is considered desirable.  In this every student would be required to manage their own learning, but be able to interact with both tutors and other students.

(Mojab & Huyck, 2001)

In the Global Campus framework, courseware is distributed asynchronously via the on-line Global Campus WebCT LMS (now owned by BlackBoard), or via a CD-ROM which is issued to all the students registered on the distance learning program. The Global Campus’ instructional framework was developed at Middlesex University based on the ICARE Model (see Figure 1).

 Figure 1. Original ICARE Model
[Click to enlarge] 

The Middlesex ICARE framework (MDX-ICARE) departs from the base model in both pedagogy and implementation. Pedagogically, the second phase ("Connect") has been changed to "Content ." According to Mojab and Huyck it was changed for "clarify." So, introduction is followed by the content – in which the main lesson is presented with intermittent activities to engage the student and make the learning an active rather than a passive process. The activities are often linked to the Apply component of the unit (see Figure 2). 

Figure 2 ICARE-MDX Framework
[Click to enlarge]

The Global Campus development team implemented a seven-phase process to convert their materials for delivery over digitally mediated channels.

1. A 20-unit breakdown of the module is provided by the module leader; this includes a brief introduction and list of objectives for each unit. This was considered an important and difficult stage in the development of a new module, with little history of previous runs.
2. The plan is considered and approved by the Global Campus academic board chaired by the Distance Learning Curriculum Leader.
3. The introduction unit (unit 01) is written by the module leader to provide the authoring team with an overall picture of the module and its objectives. 
4. The remaining units are divided between a team of authors with a schedule of delivery.
5. Authored units are sent to the internal reviewers and back to the authors for final consideration and amendment.
6. The final version is fully piloted to a small cohort of students.
7. If necessary, further revision is made and the final product is sent to the host campus for implementation.

According to the authors, the Global Campus material was also used for the conventional students. These students had a hard copy of the material in the form of a 500-page handbook (requested by the students), a CD version of the web site, and access to the WebCT site. According to Mojab and Huyck "this material was very beneficial for the conventional students. It provided a great deal of information, and pointers to other information for these students.

The authors continue:

Having said that, initially, some students expressed their unhappiness with information overload. The above material along with the conventional lectures and faculty contact was too much for the students.  Some felt that they had to read all of the work and do all of the activities.  It had to be pointed out that they were responsible for particular issues in each unit that were specified in the introduction. The unit included material to expand and explore these issues. They were relieved. Indeed the feedback from the students has been very positive.

(2001 p.12)

As a result of course conversion to a Global Campus module, both distance and conventional students  had access to a comprehensive set of lecture notes produced for the online modules, meaning that a significantly greater amount of lecture time can be spent on interacting with the students rather than on presenting the lecture material.

In this context.

Not having to present the material, which is provided in print, presents a real opportunity to introduce to and extensively discuss with students additional but related topics which would greatly enhance their understanding of the subject.  The absence of this opportunity in the distance learning mode suggests that the conventional students appear to be at advantage.

(Mojab & Huyck, 2001 p.12)

The Global Campus team concluded that the process of refactoring their courseware for e-learning had the following results:

• Higher quality content for students
• Inter-discipline and cross-discipline academic collaboration
• Opportunity for research and publication
• Administration and management infrastructure operational efficiency
• More effective use of time
• Student expectations increased

According to Michael Moore’s (1993) theory of ‘transactional distance,’the greater distance there is between the learner and the instructor, the more responsibility the learner has to take in the instructional process.

This theory suggests that distance learning models should provide a better model for developing autonomy in the learner than the conventional model of learning. The Middlesex University team recommend that a suitable qualitative and quantitative survey of transactional distance theory could be carried out to measure and compare the development of autonomy in distant and near learner by testing for the following four conditions:

•    Students are actively involved in all decisions made about their learning.
•    Students are able to learn without the continuous involvement of teachers.
•    Students are active rather than passive.
•    Students are able to take responsibility about their own learning.

Next: We move into the domain of Instructional Design in the context of e-learning proper.

__________

References:

Dubois, J. (1998). Distance Learning: A transformation Model for Higher Education. 4th International Conference on Technology Supported Learning, Berlin, Germany.

Mojab, D. & Huyck, C. (2001). The Global Campus at Middlesex University: A Model for E-Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cwa.mdx.ac.uk/chris/draft6.doc Retrieved 3 June 2009

Moore, M. (1993), Theory of transactional distance.  In: Desmond Keegan (Ed.): Theoretical principles of distance education. London, New York: Routledge 1993, p.22-38.

–

…an emerging profession, (2) focused on establishing and maintaining efficient and effective human performance, (3) guided by a model of human performance, (4) carried out systematically, (5) based on open systems theory, and (6) oriented to finding and applying the most cost-effective solutions to human performance problems and discovering
quantum leaps in productivity improvement through human ingenuity.

(Smith & Tillman, 2004 p.1)

More prosaically Gustafson & Branch  consider instructional design (ID) as

a system of procedures for developing education and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion. Instructional design is a complex process that is creative, active, and iterative.

(What is Instructional Design? 2002, p. 17)

The latter assert that instructional design is a complex systematic process with the following characteristics;

• interdependent – no elements can be separated from the system
• synergistic – all the elements can achieve more than the individual elements alone
• dynamic – systems can adjust to changing conditions in environments
• cybernetic – elements communicate among them efficiently

According to Gustafson and Branch, adhering to a instructional systems design process and can make instruction more effective and relevant to learners.

With these parameters in place, let’s take a look at the ICARE approach to designing instruction. Based on the venerable Dick and Carey Model and pioneered by San Diego State University in 1997, the model has found a place in the higher education sector. According to Vincent Salyers (2006) ICARE has potential "as one possible means for structuring and organizing course content." As we’ll see in my next blog post, the Centre for Learning Development at Middlesex University have adapted the ICARE framework, designed templates with built-in guidelines for use by academics with little experience in instructional design, and extended the model as the basic pedagogy  for their ‘Global Campus’ instructional framework for distance education (Mojab & Huyck, 2001).

According to the ICARE Model’s main proponents Hoffman and Ritchie (1998), the model is distilled from basic instructional design practice (see Table 1), and adapting various systems to what seemed to be particularly useful components for e-learning course design and development.

Table 1. The ICARE Model

In this context for example, when refactoring course content into online modules (what the authors term "distance learning units") a conventional 20-credit module is deconstructed into twenty units worth nine hours of study each. The model has the following five distinctive but interrelated components that are applied to individual lesson/lecture ‘unit.’

More…

___________

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.

Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D.C (1998). (2005). Teaching and learning online: Tools, templates, and training. In: J. Willis, D. Willis, & J. Price (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual – 1998. Charlottesville, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mojab, D. & Huyck, C. (2001). The Global Campus at Middlesex University: A Model for E-Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cwa.mdx.ac.uk/chris/draft6.doc Retrieved 3 June 2009

Salyers, V. (2006, July). Using the ICARE Format for Structuring Online Courses. Impact 2006, WebCT, 8th Annual Users Conference; San Antonio, TX.

Smith, P.L., & Tillman, J.R. (2004) Instructional Design (3rd Ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Books.

–

With that in mind, there are several valuable techniques used to analyze the objectives the ID has develop. I will cover three approaches today.

Now read on…

Hierarchical analysis
These are diagrams or tables showing the dependency relationships between the objectives, so that it becomes clear which objectives must be learned before others are attempted. 

The hierarchical approach is used to analyze goals that are identified as being intellectual or psychomotor skills. It’s purpose is to identify the foundational knowledge or rules that need to be taught/learned before the subsequent steps are taught.Subordinate skills are analyzed and then those skills are further analyzed. Hierarchical analysis is a top down model (see Figure 1), where each lower step supports the skills required by the steps above it.

Figure 1 Hierarchical Table

The IS should ask the following questions:

• What does the learner need to know in order to accomplish this step?
• What mistake might a learner make in completing this step?

Grouping or clustering
Sometimes objectives are too small to cover one at a time. In this case, they may be grouped into higher units, whether called “lessons”, “topics” or “modules”. As an aside this leads to one of the great ongoing debates in learning: what constitutes a learning object / lesson / section / module? As you will know if you design learning and development programs for a range of training institutions, corporations, and public organizations, each of them uses a terminology when delineating the same (or similar) discrete units of learning content. But I digress.

When clustering is indicated, a useful guideline may be to distinguish between enabling and terminal objectives.  An enabling objective usually forms part of a subset of objectives that collectively enable the learner to demonstrate a terminal objective, which can be described as the key behaviors, skills, or performances a learner has acquired and can undertake at the end of a course. For example, if the objective involves changing an bicycle wheel, then enabling objectives for this would be using a spanner, unhooking the chain, preparing the patch, and so on. Table 1 is an extract from a time management course:

Table 1 Clustered Objectives

DIF analysis
In a DIF analysis, the objective (or groups of objectives) are analyzed in terms of difficulty, importance and frequency.

• Difficulty: the simpler the skill to be taught the better. All skills are not equal so for each we need a measure of complexity. One common measure is Bloom’s Taxonomy  which rates skill complexity from 1 (knowledge) through to 6 (evaluation).
• Importance:  No matter how often a skill is used, or how difficult it is, we have to ask how important that skill is to performance. A taught skill may not be used very often by the learner but it could be crucial to that learner’s job. Conversely, other skills may require constant use and re-use but may be less important in overall competency terms.
• Frequency: this simply measures how often an objective will be performed.

All three categories above can be rated on a scale of 1 – 5 from easy to hard, infrequent to frequent, less to more important and so on.  Table 2 shows how a completed DIF analysis might look.

Table 2 Sample DIF analysis

Prerequisites Identification
These describe what learners must be able to do before they start the course.  These are often defined in terms of skills, knowledge and attitude (SKAs). When you subtract the student’s previously-learned SKAs  from the list of objectives, the remaining SKAs are the objectives that will need to be covered in the learning program.

More…

–

Here’s what the Forum will cover:

It wasn’t long ago that e-Learning developers thought that putting a simple Flash animation and a small sound file into their e-Learning offerings was really leading-edge stuff. But today much more advanced technology, like higher bandwidth, gaming, and immersive learning techniques, is easily available. And, ever-more-sophisticated learners, who are demanding more effective and absorbing e-Learning programs, are pushing for adoption of advanced media techniques.

This Online Forum will show you how to use audio, video, animation, and other technologies to enhance the engagement and “stickyness” of your e-Learning offerings. You’ll see real-life examples, and learn various design approaches for effectively using media. This Online Forum is your best chance to focus on improving the e-Learning you create for your organization, and to…

• EXPLORE how using different media tools and processes can enhance your e-Learning offerings,
• DISCOVER how better use of media enhances a wide variety of topics and formats,
• EXAMINE the design and development of media-use techniques to achieve specific goals,
• LEARN how other organizations are using media to build engagement into their e-Learning programs, and
• ENSURE that your e-Learning meets both your learners’ and your organizations’ goals.

I’m pleased to announce that I will be presenting the Forum session on using audio in e-learning. Called Integrating Audio into E-Learning Courseware, session participants will learn the audio production lifecycle, see examples and demonstrations, and get hints, tips, and tricks-of-the-trade to enable you to produce high-quality audio for your courseware. You’ll  learn how recording subject matter experts as they describe a process, task, or activity, when well-recorded and produced can, in most cases, be integrated into courseware without taking the extra steps of hiring a professional voice-over artist to re-record the narration. This can lead to considerable savings in time and money, as well as reduce the time-to-market of courseware.

In this session, you will learn:

• Why use audio in e-Learning?
• The uses of non-linear editing tools
• How to record audio
• How to produce audio
• How to integrate audio into commonly-used rapid e-Learning applications and podcasts

When learning with multimedia, research shows that visual imagery is better retained when accompanied by verbal information; that learners are better able to integrate information via multi-modal instruction. Called the Six Principles of Learning, it describes how information encoded and transmitted using both visual and auditory channels reduces the cognitive load on the learner, so their working memory can process information more effectively.

However, most e-learning professionals perceive that creating and integrating high-quality audio is a highly-specialized activity outside of their expertise. But now more than ever, e-learning technology and content production skills are a key requirement for learning professionals who wish to interact with their audience.

So join me on Thursday by clicking here to register for the event. if you haven’t already registered, I’ll be delighted to see you there.

–