Moore and Kearsley (1996) point out that the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model of instructional development is based on the belief that instruction should be "defined behaviorally, so that what the student is expected to learn can be measured, and teaching can concentrate on the student's observable performance." (p. 102). Therefore, there is a stress on careful planning. First, tasks the learner will be expected learn are defined (the analysis phase); second the specific objectives of the course and how these will be measured is established (the design phase). Third, materials are produced to ensure that the objectives are met (the development phase). Fourth, the student interacts with the materials and teacher (the implementation phase), and, fifth, there is an evaluation of the success of the students and the course in reaching those objectives (the evaluation phase) (Moore and Kearley, 1996, pp. 102-103).
As the authors point out, this model is used in its entirety most often by large, well-funded entities like the U.S. Department of Defense, major corporations, or open universities (1996, p. 104). Individual teachers will not be producing most of the materials books, AV materials, study guides used by their students. The model requires a major investment of time and "traditional schools, colleges, and universities do not typically have offices full of instructional designers and media specialists, large budgets for materials development and dissemination, and extensive networks of tutors and learning centers (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 15).
The philosophy underlying this model is behaviorist (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 102) and is especially appropriate when specific training is the goal. However, other curriculum designers espouse alternative philosophies of education. For example, Zinn (1991) "distinguishes among liberal, behaviorist, progressive, humanistic, and radical philosophies" (cited in Paulson, chapter 4, class handout, July 8, 1998).
"Radical perspectivism," for example, stresses the moral education of the learner and requires that the student reflect on the actual model of learning that has been used in the curriculum in order to see it as one among several possibilities. Alexander Makedon's views are summarized in an ERIC abstract as follows: "Radical perspectivism stresses that to really understand something, it must be considered from a variety of human and non-human perspectives and out of the diversity of perspectives arises an understanding of the universe as a whole" (Makedon, 1992). The stress on the non-human perspective would certainly result in this approach being considered "radical" by most curriculum designers. A somewhat different use of the term "radical" appears in Richard Aldrich's (1994) discussion of curriculum reform in England, where it is linked with issues of student control.
Another model for designing curriculum, especially with adult learners, is the "experiential" model. Based on the view that adults do better "with less direction and more participation," this approach stresses "experiential activities, lecture/discussion, and cooperative learning" (Patterson, 1996). There is also a greater stress within this model on the pragmatic application of the material in the course.
However, none of these differing perspectives on curriculum design constitute " a model" in the sense in which the Moore and Kearsley textbook uses the term, a specific step-by-step process. The actual curriculum development process required with the "experiential" model or the "radical perspectivist" model can only be inferred. With the experiential approach, it could be assumed that not all learners would necessarily have the same objectives or use the same materials. Placing the objectives of the curriculum under the students' control, as in the Aldrich model, would probably mean that there would be a built-in process throughout the program of redefining the objectives as the students continually clarified their needs and objectives.
An online course which I am evaluating is offered by the Ministry of Education in British Columbia, Instructional Technology 11; I selected the course chiefly because a demonstration was available online, allowing me to investigate the internal structure of course.
I believe that this course demonstrates many of the principles recommended by Moore and Kearsley. The structure of IT11 is clear: the material is divided into four major modules, each of which is divided into about four sections (after each of which a Master Assignment is due), and each section is comprised of several lessons. The student is also told how much time a particular section should take. At the beginning of the course there is an explanation concerning use of the equipment. (Interestingly, the course uses First Class as its conferencing software.) Repetition is shown by there being tips for using the equipment throughout the program. Since the demo only provided access to the first lesson in detail, I could not examine the entire course to see if concepts were sufficiently repeated.
The objectives for each level are spelled out clearly and each segment of material appears to be in manageable units. Support materials is offered: a Glossary is available for each Module, and hyperlinks to material online is provided. Throughout the course, while the required material is being covered, the student also has optional activities: "Things to Think About," a series of specific and open-ended questions for the student to enter into discussions with others; and "Do It Yourself," suggested activities and tasks to try, using the Internet. It is interesting that the student is given the option to explore these two additional areas. Therefore, while participation with the instructor is built in, interaction with other students seems to be optional, although encouraged. The program involves much stimulation and variety since various technologies are used, including multimedia, and many different types of online tasks are recommended, if not required. Feedback from the students is requested on the course itself, although I cannot say if a variety of methods are used to obtain it. The two design features which I don't have enough information to evaluate adequately are synthesis and feedback. Since I do not have access to all of the lessons, I cannot say if material is appropriately summarized, nor do I understand how often or extensively the instructor will summarize the material. Presumably, the student receives feedback from the instructor on each Master Assignment, but the demo did not make clear how much other feedback the instructor might provide. However, the course seems very promising. The demo is written in a highly readable style, the graphics are appealing, navigating seems easy, and the instructor's e-mail address is provided.
Note: the exact URLs for the Eric abstracts would not return the sites to my system. Therefore, I am giving the URL of the ERIC search engine where I retrieved these. Use "curriculum," plus "design" plus the last name to retrieve each of these or the ERIC number.
Moore, M. G. and G. Kearsley (1996). Distance education. Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Zinn, L. M. (1991). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods. (pp. 39-77). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.
Online
Aldrich, R. (1994) Educational Reform and curriculum implementation in England: An historical perspective. Abstract. ERIC Document. ED376613. http://ericir.syr.edu/plweb-cgi/fastweb?searchform+ericdb
British Columbia Ministry of Education. http://www.openschool.bc.ca/demos
Makedon, A. (1992). Humans in the world: Introduction to the educational theory of radical perspectivism. Abstract. ERIC Document. ED368628. http://ericir.syr.edu/plweb-cgi/fastweb?searchform+ericdb
Patterson, Teresa M. (1996). Speech communication education for adult learners: An experiential curriculum. Abstract. ERIC Document. ED 404679. http://ericir.syr.edu/plweb-cgi/fastweb?searchform+ericdb