Moore and Kearsley describe the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process as a recognized standard for designing distance education classes. The model is the result of several theoretical perspectives on learning and teaching. The fundamental principle of this approach is based on student behavior that can be measured and teaching that focuses on the student's observable performance. The model divides the development of instruction into a number of phases or stages. The overall process consists of five distinct stages. First, the analysis stage involves identification of the specific skills involved and the characteristics of the learners and learning environment. Stage two focuses on design. The goals and objectives of the instructional program are specified as well as the format for the implementation of course material. Development of course materials such as books, study guides, outlines, CD-ROMS, etc. are created as part of the third stage of the process. The fourth stage involves actual implementation of the course materials and the final evaluation stage includes testing of student progress and assessment of the effectiveness of the overall instruction. This process is iterative and requires revision and modification over time as feedback dictates changes in the curriculum materials. The ISD places emphasis on planning and continuous improvement as an inherent part of the process.
Although the ISD model is widely recognized as a standard for design of distance education courses, all course developers do not use this model. Moore and Kearsley state that the individual teacher would find following the model difficult except on superficial terms. Large corporations and open universities, for example, tend to utilize the model more extensively than do traditional universities. A variety of reasons are suggested for this including training, available funding, organizational structure to support the total systems approach, and orientation toward short term results.
For individual courses, many teachers design courses in an ad hoc manner to meet their particular needs or use examples provided by others. Although informally many follow the approach of the ISD it is not formally recognized. Unless a specific model such as the ISD is specifically recognized by the institution, standardized approaches are not likely to result.
Several other models have been proposed for the design of distance education courses. A site which gives an explanation of the major models and a graphic representation of the fundamental elements of the process can be found at the following address: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/sbraxton/ISD/design_models.html
Two of these models that differ in concept from the ISD model will be described more fully in the following paragraphs.
Tripp and Bichelmeyer's Prototyping Design Model is a four level process
that focuses on the creation of lessons as opposed to design of an entire
curricula. The site address is
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/sbraxton/ISD/rp_design.html
The model is based on instructional design expertise that includes reliance on past experience and intuition to guide the design process. This approach is more open-ended and iterative as new ideas are implemented and utilization uncovers avenues for improvement and revision. The stages of the process begin with the performance of a needs analysis based on objectives and learning outcomes desired. Second, the actual prototype is created based on the needs analysis. The prototype can then be used in an experimental process to determine what revisions and improvements are necessary before the final product is produced. The final stage involves the installation and maintenance of the system. This model is very different from the more structured design process represented by the ISD model.
Still another approach that is different from the ISD and the prototyping model is the Jerrold Kemp Design Model that takes a holistic approach to instructional design. The site address is: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/sbraxton/ISD/GIFS/jk_design.gif
All factors that are part of the learning environment are taken into account in a holistic manner and the process becomes iterative and subject to constant revision. Learner needs, goals, priorities. and constraints are identified. As the process unfolds, the following major components are included in the design aspects: identification of learner characteristics, pre-testing, learner evaluation, support services, instructional resources, teaching activities, learning objectives, subject task analysis, and jobs, outcomes, and purpose. The process is less structured than the previous two discussed and involves a constant revision process. Individual styles and learning objectives will dictate to some degree the most appropriate model for any given application.
The use of good design principles is important regardless of the model that is chosen to guide the process. Moore and Kearsley identify twelve design principles that are general and apply to the development of any course or curriculum. These objectives will be used to evaluate an on-line course titled Information Resource Development offered by the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Arizona. I took this course during the Fall 1997 and am very familiar with the content and approach and, therefore, feel I can evaluate this course according to the design principles proposed by Moore and Kearsley. The web address for this course is no longer active since the professor for the course has transferred to another university.
This course exemplified good structure and organization. The course materials were well defined and easy to find. Thc instructor set up clear links to each part of the course including Notes, Readings, Exercises, Issues to Think About, and Summary of Notes. These links were established for each week's class and were consistent throughout the semester. Clear learning objectives and evaluation methods were established up front. Students understood what to expect and deadlines for assignments were clear.
Learning experiences fit the objectives well. Students were required to evaluate specific information resources, for example. Students were given clear instructions as to where to find the resources and evaluation criteria by which to accomplish the task. As stated previously, small units were identified by weeks of instruction and links were established for each learning activity.
Planned participation opportunities were established up front. In this course, a listserv, discussion software, and chat rooms were utilized for interaction and discussion of topics among students. Specific guidelines for using each communication technique, deadlines for participation, and evaluation criteria were clearly stated. Separate software was used for each means of communication rather than an integrated approach such as First Class. This aspect was more difficult from the student perspective in terms of downloading software and making sure the technology functioned properly.
The course materials provided completeness from the perspective of offering examples and complementary resources that would be available in a classroom setting. Repetition was also a part of the course material design. A summary of major points was established as a separate link for each week's notes.
Synthesis was a weakness for this class. The discussions were sometimes difficult to follow since there was no means for summarizing student responses. The instructor participated and commented on student responses but overall the process was not moderated well.
Stimulation was another aspect that could be improved. The lecture notes were standard written materials that could be enhanced with more graphics and visual support. Variety is still another dimension that could be improved. The material was presented primarily in text format. Video and audio presentation of course content was not used. The assignments for the class were primarily open-ended allowing the students choice in their projects and other assignments. Feedback was frequent on participation and other assignments were graded and returned in a timely manner. To my knowledge, there was no mechanism in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the materials, media, or instructional methods utilized in the class.
Instructional design is a complex process. Much can be learned from those who have blazed new trails in this area. Utilization of models developed by others and adherence to general design principles become important aspects in the effective use of technology to meet the needs of course design and implementation.
