Moore and Kearsley believe that in the best case scenario the Instructional Systems Design approach will provide the course designers, instructor and students with a complete education package that is as free of defects as possible and open to revision. They also point out that it is not always appropriate because it is the most time consuming and the most costly approach to use. This is compounded when expensive media will be incorporated into the delivery of the class.

Two alternatives to the ISD approach that can be used in designing distance education are the Gerlach and Ely Design Model and Rapid Prototyping Design. Both of these design models have been developed with an emphasis on quick design and deployment. One major difference is the RPD model would probably work best with professional instructional designers and the GED model is designed for the content expert who is not a professional instructional designer. Brief descriptions of these and other models can be foundathttp://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/sbraxton/ISD/
id_models.html

The RPD model emphasizes the creation of instruction for lessons as opposed to developing an entire curriculum. The four stages are performing a needs analysis, constructing a prototype, utilizing the prototype to perform research and installing the final system. One of the unique features is that the designer should use their past experience and intuition to guide the design. I can see this being useful in a professional environment where the commitment to a tight time line might require a shorter design time than one would expect using the ISD approach.

The GED model is designed for the K-12 education, but it also provides a model for adult learning as well. This model provides guidance to the content expert on selecting media and allocating resources. This model might be appropriate for someone given the task of designing a distance education class or lesson without a lot of support. As with the ISD approach, using either of these models to design distance education will still require the designer to be aware of the design considerations that are particular to distance education.

To put the general design principles offered by Moore and Keasley to the test, I spent some time reviewing a distance education art class offered by the Houston Community College system. The emphasis on the class is viewing electronic art as represented by on-line artists and on writing about art. You can reach the class web site at http://www.hccs.cc.tx.us/JWoest/jw_1301.htm#writing

The structure of the course appears to be clear, but is missing some pieces. While not offered on the website, the instructor does have a syllabus and a face to face orientation is required. The class uses a BBS system to communicate and hand in assignments. The necessary hardware and software requirements are laid out and a link to the Houston Community College distance education web page is provided. This page describes in detail the many other considerations the distance learner must take into account. It is difficult to evaluate the entire structure of the course without access to the syllabus. The missing pieces include the grading criteria for assignments, due dates and the objectives. It would be helpful for students to have this material included on the class website.

Stated objectives are missing altogether from the website. From what I can see, I would say that the implied objectives include the students demonstrating an understanding of the different concepts presented in the text through written work and demonstrating the ability to write about art using different art critique writing styles.

The course is broken down into small units that parallel the text. Each week one topic is covered. This topic is supported by a virtual field trip to a website devoted to a particular artist or concept or by an actual field trip to a museum.

There is no indication on the website about what type of participation is planned or required other than reference to the BBS used to communicate. The course certainly has the opportunity for interaction to take place either through redistribution of student writing, peer editing or joining up for field trips.

More resources should be included on the website to provide for a complete experience. Again, the syllabus may contain this extra information, but if the Internet is the primary means of interacting it should be on the website. There should be commentary from the instructor and including reviews and theory sections would greatly enhance the experience.

There is no indication of the use of Repetition and Synthesis on the website. Again, the opportunity for this to take place is certainly available depending on how the instructor will manage the student interactions on the BBS.

The field trip options for each chapter are quite interesting. Initially, I think students' motivation will remain high because they will never know what to expect. Most of the field trip sites on the Internet provide additional links. One of the more interesting implications of this is that it allows the student to have a better understanding of the various artists than is usually possible when viewing traditional art because the artists interact with visitors in a more personal way.

There is a reasonable amount of variety in the presentation of information. There is an initial face to face meeting. A syllabus of the course is handed out to the students. The field trips vary from Internet visits to actual visits to traditional galleries and museums, and a textbook provides an additional medium to deliver information.

All evaluation is based on written assignments. Generally, written assignments are considered open-ended. The instructor has some interest in the form that the students use, but also states that there is flexibility in how the students choose to write. The website does not show what the grading criteria are, so it is impossible to judge how flexible the content can be. All assignments and feedback are submitted by e-mail, but it is hard to judge how personal and prompt the feedback would be.

The criteria of continuous evaluation is also hard to judge. The only indication to be taken from the web site is a "new" feature is that updates and messages will be left in a particular location.

This particular distance education course appears to be workable, but when evaluated with Moore and Keasley's criteria it is in need of a few components. One major improvement would be for the instructor to consider using the website to provide more information about the structure and objectives of the course and use the syllabus as a means of conveying more of the commentary and examples required under the "completeness" category. The glaring weakness of the design is that lack of use of the primary media (the Internet) in presenting information about the class.