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

–

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.

–

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

–

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

–

Figure 1 Influences on Learning Theories (after Stahl, G. 2003)

The heterogeneous nature of learning theories, with sometimes subtle and occasionally significant divergences in their character usually serves only to confuse an already complex domain: even gathering an understanding of the key terms associated with the subject (see Figure 2) can be an overwhelming task for those new to the discipline of instructional design.

Figure 2 Tag Cloud of Learning Theory Terms

So how do you choose a learning theory for your instructional design?

In their 1993 article Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features, Ertmer and Newby use Dale H. Schunk’s definitive questions as well as two more of their own to enable those engaged in instructional design to distinguish between learning theories at the highest level. Schunk (1991) defines five questions to distinguish learning theories:

1. How does learning occur?
2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer occur?
5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Ertmer and Newby include two more questions for instructional designers:

1. What basic assumptions / principles are relevant to instructional design?
2. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Based upon these criteria, we can say that instructional design can be characterized as being effective in the contexts described as below:

__________

References:

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-70.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.

Stahl, G. (2003). Building Collaborative Knowing: Elements Of A Social Theory Of CSCL, IN J.W. Strijbos, P.Kirschner & R. Martins (ed.), What we know about CSCL in higher education, Amsterdam: Kluwer.

–

Here’s what they say about Educate:

Featuring inbuilt lesson planning, student tracking, teaching strategies and eLearning tools, Educate provides teachers with a holistic approach to engaging students in 21st century learning environments. 

While the iApp is not yet available via the iTunes Store, you can check out their website for more information about Educate in action. 

According to their website, Educate’s key features include:

	Lesson planning	Educate’s inbuilt weekly planner keeps all your planning in one place. Personalize your weekly timetable and plan for individual lessons all from a single interface
	Effective teaching strategy implementation	Access easy to follow strategies for engaging students in your lessons. Choose from a variety of individual or collaborative activities directly aimed at improving learning outcomes.
	Student attendance and progress monitoring	Quickly and easily track student attendance or performance in all your classes via ready made scales. Update records as you teach and export to your PC, Mac or Learning Management System
	Collaboration with other Educate users	Use your Facebook account to connect with other Educate users to discuss pedagogical practice, suggest application features and seek support
	Engage with eLearning	Post content to your Moodle learning space, anytime, anywhere. Also, access critical tools such as a voice recorder for anecdotal notes, a camera that allows you to tag images and a stopwatch for time-critical tasks

This short video outlines the product’s features.

(Alternatively the video is available on YouTube here)

I think that this app has a lot of potential for educators, and I’ll be following its progress with interest. I’ll certainly review it when it becomes available.

More on instructional design tomorrow.
–

The E-Learning Curve Blog focuses on the development and deployment of learning technologies, and I’ve been known to discuss approaches to cognition and Constructivism at great length. For one reason or another, I haven’t really discussed the bridge between the theoretical and the practical aspects of education – the twin pillars if you like – so over the next few weeks, I’m going to spend some time discussing this in an occasional series of articles on instructional design .

Instructional Design (ID) is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of instruction and other learning experiences. The ID process can be said to have a number of steps:

1. determine the current state and needs of the learner
2. define the end goal of instruction
3. develop a learning intervention to assist in the acquisition of new skills, knowledge or expertise.

Before we dive in to ID with much gusto, I want to begin by briefly outlining the theoretical basis for pretty much all contemporary approaches to instructional design.

1. Behaviorism

Based on observed changes in behavior, Behaviorism focuses on a new behavioral patterns being repeated until they becomes automatic. The theory emerged from work done by Ivan Pavlov in associative learning and classical conditioning. The theory of behaviorism concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy, 1990). It views the mind as a "black box" in the sense that the response to a stimulus can be observed quantitatively, while totally ignoring the possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind.

In his 1953 text Science and Human Behavior B. F. Skinner developed the concept of operant conditioning and its application in education and training through the use of  positive and negative reinforcement techniques. A behaviorist approach to learning was first implemented in educational technology in the 1960’s.

Main characteristics:

• Behavioral objectives (performance, condition, standard)
• Programmed instruction
• Individualized instruction
• Computer assisted instruction
• Systems approach

2. Cognitivism

Based on thought processes governing behavior, the theory of Cognitivism emerged from the inability of the Behaviorist Model to explain how children do not imitate all behavior. Similarly, the  Behaviorist Model could not account for certain types of learning.

Bandura and Walters’ 1963 text Social Learning and Personality Development led to Social Cognitive Theory, a concept further developed by Jean Piaget.

Main characteristics:

• schema
• 3-stage Information Processing Model (sensory register / short term memory / long term memory)

Cognitivism began influencing technology in education in the 1970’s. Its adoption led to a shift from measuring external behavior to focusing on the internal mental processes behind behavior, leading to a greater emphasis on task- and learner analysis. According to Cognitivists, tasks are broken down to move from simple to complex, based on previously-learned mental models, or schema. Cognitivism is currently the principal theory used in instructional design.

3. Constructivism

Based on individual perspectives addressing demand of the real world, The theory of Constructivism emerged from work undertaken by Bartlett (1932).

Merrill and Jonassen (1991) further developed the theory to postulate that our reality is perceived through a process of social negotiation.
First implemented in educational technology in 1980’s and 90’s. Led to a movement from objectively to subjectively focused learning, and the development of more open-ended tasks where results of learning are not so easily measured, and are not the same for each learner. Constructivism is not compatible with simple Systems Approach and outcomes of learning are NOT predetermined.

Main characteristics:

• Use of realia (real-world objects)
• Authentic tasks – task-based learning
• Reflective practice – learning to learn
• Use of hypertext and hypermedia – branched learning rather than a linear learning path

More…

___________

References:

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press

Good, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14.

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45-53.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.

–

Now read on…

In their 2004 paper Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning (Naismith, Lonsdale,  Sharples &  Vavoula), consider the importance of taking an approach to m-learning that

moves away from the dominant view of mobile learning as an isolated activity to explore mobile learning as a rich, collaborative and conversational experience, whether in classrooms, homes or the streets of a city. …how we might draw on existing theories of learning to help us evaluate the most relevant applications of mobile technologies.

(p.1)

Table 1. Applying Learning Theories to M-Learning (after Naismith et al, 2004)

As yet there is no comprehensive ‘grand theory of mobile learning’ – nor do I expect that there will be any time soon. As I move forward through this series of posts, one of the areas I will consider is integrating pedagogy for the use of mobile devices that in a number of areas. In much the same way as we have many categories of devices, we will discover that there are many ways to integrate learning on mobile devices using a number of instructional designs, developmental approaches and delivery models. I support the view that  one of the great strengths of m-learning (and indeed e-learning) is it’s facility to transcend traditional learning environments like the classroom or training center, and to combine different elements in ways that are appropriate to the learning activities to be supported.

More…

______________________

References:

Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R,. Rodríguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M. and Cautivo, R. (2004) Teaching science with mobile computer supported collaborative learning (MCSCL). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 67-74

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. and Sharples, M.  (2004) Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning. NESTA Futurelab Series, Report 11. [Internet] Available from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm Accessed 15 February 2009.

Pask, AGS (1976) Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Zurita, G, Nussbaum, M and Sharples, M. (2003) Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of hand-held computers in the classroom. Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, Italy: Springer-Verlag, 193-208

Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M (2004) Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected hand-held computers. Computers & Education, 42(3): 289-314

–