Goals ~ Content Overview ~ Readings ~ Activities ~ References ~ Further Study ~ Module Evaluation

An Overview of Developing Materials
for Online Delivery

-Seels & Glasgow, 1998, p. 7

Goals:

• To understand the role of procedural models in the instructional design process
• To identify the generic processes that can be found in instructional design models
• To identify and use the elements of the instructional systems design models, and, in particular, the Kemp, Morrison, and Ross model, to understand and think about the process of instructional design
• To become familiar with the basic steps of the ASSURE model
• To reflect on the limits and problems which are inherent in using models for the design of instruction

Content Overview

Educators need to ensure that the instructional experiences they offer will succeed in enhancing student learning. When beginning to develop online instruction, one can either 'just do it' or apply some approach to the design process in an effort to make the result more effective. In this module, you will learn about the approach referred to as instructional design (or sometimes instructional development), which can be represented by a large number of models and definitions. The purpose of these procedural models is to help educators who are designing instruction to "conceptualize representations of reality" (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 17). We believe the approaches represented by instructional design to be an essential grounding for teachers wishing to build online instruction.

While there are hundreds of instructional design models, certain generic processes emerge from their common features (Seels & Glasgow, 1998). These processes are described by Seels and Glasgow as follows:

Analysis - the process of defining what is to be learned.

Design - the process of specifying how learning will occur.

Development - the process of authoring and producing the materials.

Implementation - the process of installing the instruction in the real world.

Evaluation - the process of determining the impact of instruction. (p. 7)

Although instructional design (ID) has been utilized more in non-school environments than in schools, it remains necessary for teachers to focus on the design of instruction as well as the delivery. The article that you will read by Snelbecker (1987) will provide a rationale for the use of ID in K to 12 education.

In this module, you will become familiar with an overview of an instructional design approach and the steps involved in its systematic application. It is important, however, that you understand how instructional design (ID) differs from instructional systems design (ISD). The following definitions are provided for clarification:

From these definitions, you may conclude that instructional design has come to be used as a more general term which can include development processes and approaches to learning which do not fit well with systems orientation and systematic processes of ISD. The conventional ISD models are generally more suited to developing instruction which is centered in a behaviourist or cognitivist learning paradigm and they tend to work better for learning which is at a 'lower level' of the various taxonomies put forth by learning psychologists. The learning of more complex topics, which represent a higher level of the taxonomies, may require a more student-driven model. Merrill (1992) looks at how constructivism may be applied to the instructional design process or whether the two might operate within conflicting paradigms. He suggests that instructional design does not exclude the discovery process, for example, which is a collaborative instructional strategy advocated by constructivists, but that instructional design may offer alternative strategies when they are suitable (Merrill, 1992). Winn (1992) elaborates on this discussion and proposes that "rather than prescribing instructional strategies for the student, the designer now uses a different kind of strategy that guides or perhaps coaches the students as the need arises, but does not impose a particular way to learn" (p. 178).

We will not be examining constructivism to any depth in this module, since the topic requires more attention than we can provide here. We suggest, however, that you begin to think about its role in online learning. For those who would like to pursue this topic in more detail, we have provided resources in the "For Further Study" section of this module.

Of the various ISD models available, for this course we will only use the model proposed by Kemp, Morrison, and Ross (1998, p. 5), which contains the following nine elements (see figure below also):

1. Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.

2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.

3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.

4. State instructional objectives for the learner.

5. Sequencecontent within each instructional unit for logical learning.

6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.

7. Plan the instructional message and delivery.

8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.

9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

You will notice that subsequent modules for this course will reflect some of the elements listed above. These include content analysis, learner analysis, goals and objectives, assessment, strategies and sequencing, and finding/producing resources. The above steps are intended to serve as a guide for development of online materials, but they are not intended to be followed in a lock-step approach. You will find that some processes overlap, others may be optional, or that you may rearrange the order in which you use them. While some of these processes may be applied intuitively in a K to 12 environment, there are benefits from using a systematic approach:

Typically, there are a number of people who are involved in the instructional design process. This group is usually referred to as the "development team" and consists of the following roles as defined by Kemp, Morrison, and Ross (1998):

In a virtual school environment, it may not be likely that a team consisting of all the above members will exist. Often, the online teacher must fulfill each of the above roles - a considerable task for even the most experienced of instructional designers. As an alternative for this situation, Heinich, Molenda, Rusell, and Smaldino (1999) have proposed the ASSURE model "to plan systematically the effective use of instructional media" (p. 31).

The ASSURE model was developed as "a planning aid to help ensure that media are used to their maximum advantage, not just as interchangeable substitutes for printed or oral messages" (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1999, p. 26). It is also described as "a procedural guide for planning and conducting instruction that incorporates media" and is intended for use by the individual teacher in planning media use as opposed to more ambitious models that often require development teams (Heinich et al, 1999, p. 31). While the description of the ASSURE model in the reading describes a classroom-based environment, one can modified it for use in a virtual school setting.

So far, we have discussed the goals of instructional design models and their elements, some of which we will examine independently in the next few modules. It is expected that you will utilize the ISD model by Kemp, Morrison, and Ross in your final project for this course.

Readings:

In this module you are asked to read the following:

Gustafson, K., and Branch, R. M. (1997). Instructional design models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (Chapter 1)

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D., & Smaldino, S.E. (1999). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning. (6^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Chapter 2. PART I and PART II

Snelbecker, G.E. (1987). Instructional design skills for classroom teachers. Journal of Instructional Development, 10 (4), p. 33-40.

Module Activities::

There are no submission requirements for this module, although you are asked to complete the computer conferencing and lab activities below.

Computer Conferencing:

In the appropriate conference thread, please respond to the following statement:

Lab Activities:

You are asked to use the time to think about and plan your final project. You should be using the elements of the instructional systems design model by Kemp, Morrison, and Ross.

References::

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Designing effective instruction (2^nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Merrill, M.D. (1992). Constructivism and instructional design. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Ed. Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. (2^nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Winn, W. (1992). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Ed. Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

For Further Study:

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H., (Eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Module Evaluation:

Please take a few minutes to evaluate this module in an email message to the instructor. Your suggestions for improving the module will be appreciated.
Thank you.

  UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
Faculty of Education: Department of Educational Psychology
January 14, 2000