Course design and development models have centered around a systems approach since the end of WWII. This approach was developed because of a push for more efficient training techniques at the end of the war. (Moore pg102) The model represented by Moore and Kearsley identifies five basic segm ents of the process. This model includes: design, development, implementation, evaluation and analysis. Although this is not the only Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model that course developers use, it does represent the elements common to most ISD models. Two other models include the Dick and Carey & Seels and Glasgow models.

Dick and Carey

The Dick and Carey model contains 10 segments instead of the five shown in the previous model. 
(http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin7345/behav_dick.html)

This is one of the most popular ISD models partially because of it's strong behaviorist approach to revision and performance based outcomes.

Seels and Glasgow

(http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin7345/constructivism/seels.html)

The Seels and Glasgow model is basically founded in the contructivists theories on learning and is unique in that the individual segments are non-linear, meaning that they do not require completion to proceed to the next step.

Regardless of the systems model that the designer used, the course must be evaluated and revised in a systematic fashion. In the ISD approaches, part of the evaluation process includes student analysis of the course. As a student in a distance learning class offered by Rio Salado Community College, I will review the course based on Moore and Kearsley"s 12 principles of general course design.

Rio Salado

I took the course EDU210 "Teaching at the Community College." This is a required course to recieve State certification as a community college instructor. This class was managed online via First Class, the World Wide Web and the instruction was delivered by both the Web and audiotape.

The class had excellent structure, objectives and unit size. The instructions and content were clear and easy to follow. Each student was presented with the expectations before, during and after each assignment. The assignments were topic specific and of manageable size. I was most impressed with the synthesis required to answer the exam questions and the constant feedback and responsiveness from the instructor. The variety of topics and continuity in objective allowed for repetition, completeness, variety and continuous evaluation.

The greatest flaw in this course was that the participation and interaction was primarily limited to student instructor.

Conclusion

Regardless of model used to develop courses, student achievement and continued performance are essential outcomes to any lesson. As we move into the 21st century it will also be essential to evaluate the models by which we develop instruction. Increased communication and resources will impact the outcomes for the student.

Print

Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A Systems View, California, United States: Wadsworth, 101-124.

Online

Department of Curriculum and Instruction (1998) Uiversity of Houston. The Dick and Carey Instructional Design Model,1985. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin7345/behav_dick.html

Department of Curriculum and Instruction (1998) Uiversity of Houston. Seels and Glasgow ISD Model II For Practioners, 1997. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin7345/constructivism/seels.html

Rio Salado Community College (1997). Teaching at the Community College, Couse via the World Wide Web: http://www.rio.maricopa.edu/classes/main.shtml