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.

–

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.

–

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.

–

Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes – or behaviors – that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding "the process of learning" (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which "correlate to and address the conditions of learning" (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes – or behaviors – that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding “the process of learning” (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which “correlate to and address the conditions of learning” (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes – or behaviors – that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding “the process of learning” (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which “correlate to and address the conditions of learning” (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

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.

–

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

(Sims & Jones, 2003 , p. 18) 

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

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

(Sims, 2008 p.3)

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

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

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

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

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

Sims (2008) considers that:

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

(p.6)

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

(Sims & Jones, 2003 , p. 18)

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

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

(Sims, 2008 p.3)

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

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

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

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

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

Sims (2008) considers that:

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

(p.6)

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

(Sims & Jones, 2003 , p. 18)

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

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

(Sims, 2008 p.3)

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

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

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

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

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

Sims (2008) considers that:

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

(p.6)

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

–