|
Application of Instructional Design Models to the development of a courseware exampleStephen Bostock, May 1994
Instructional design is defined. Ideas from several ID models are applied to a design for courseware about the uses of computers in education and training. The analysis and design produce a learning map, a pseudocode algorithm and storyboards. Some issues raised by the exercise are discussed. Contents Introduction : terminology and purposeIntroduction: terminology and purpose What is Instructional Design (ID)? It is 'the process of deciding what methods are best for bringing about desired changes in student knowledge and skills for a specific course content and a specific student population' (Reigluth 1983). This describes ID practice, but like every activity in education, it is grounded in theories about learning and instruction. Reigluth (1983) describes theories of instruction (i.e. collections of principles of instruction, based on correlational or causal relationships between learning and instruction phenomena) as including conditions, methods and outcomes of learning. A specific set of methods consitutes a model of instruction suitable for certain types of learning. Before using any ID model, we should ask: What is a descriptive theory of a particular type of learning on which a prescriptive model of instruction can be based? . The learning intended in this exercise is cognitive processing, hopefully of a deep, meaningful nature. The theories underpinning the models relevant here are therefore those of cognitive psychology (Tennyson 1990, 1992). The activities of the learner must therefore include attention to the instructional stimuli, encoding and rehearsal to embed the learning into long term memory associations with existing knowledge so that retrieval is possible (Gage and Berliner 1988). In more detail, these activities are described by Corno and Mandinach (1983) as five activities (p.186 in Schimmel 1988), by Wager and Gagne (1988) as nine processes, and by Shuell (1992) as twelve 'learning functions' (Figure 1). These are echoed in the ID models discussed below. ___________________________________________________________________ Figure 1 Learning activities Corno and Mandinach 1983 Shuell 1992 Wager and Gagne 1988 Merrill et al. (1990b) summarise the impact of cognitive psychology on ID as promoting learning activities to enhance retrieval, through organisation (structuring knowledge) and elaborations (explicit specification of relations between knowledge units). Broadly, learning outcomes require mental models to be created, and courseware should be designed to promote this. Before attempting to practice ID, we should first ask: How does ID relate to other instructional activities? The development process for producing instruction, at least that involving courseware, has been called the instruction production process or courseware lifecycle, and many versions of the process have been published. Pragmatic sequences are provided by Branch (1994), Barker(1987) and Shuell (1992) and more formal ones are provided by Jonassen (1988 a), Spector et al. (1992), Goodyear(1994) and Roblyer (1988) (see Figure 2). Although there are differences in detail between these and other courseware production schemes, all such schemes share the general sequence of requirements, analysis, design, development (or 'implementation' - production of materials), field testing and use (or 'implementation'). One problem in assimilating the ID literature is the inconsistent use of terms such as 'design' and 'implementation' for parts or the whole of this process. 'Design' is used here to mean a small part of the process, following analysis and preceding any physical development/ coding of instructional materials. In mainstream software development, design takes the products of analysis and produces first a logical design and then a physical design which takes account of available resources and equipment and which can be easily used as a blueprint for software construction. In ID we can also expect to take the products of an analysis of specific learning goals to work from the general to the detailed design for a specific implementation which will determine, but stop before, production. This assignment will deal with analysis and design phases, as just defined, for a specific courseware example. ___________________________________________________________________ Figure 2 Descriptions of courseware production Branch 1994 1. Situational assessment 2. Instructional goals 3. Instructional analysis 4. Instructional objectives 5. Instructional strategies 6. Media selection 7. Pilot use/test and summative evaluation Spector et al. 1992 1. Analysis 2. Design 3. Production 4. Implementation 5. Maintenance Shuell 1992. 1. Identify purpose/goals 2. Consider the user 3. Specify instructional procedures present the knowledge to be acquired, motivate the learner, engage necessary psychological processes 4. Assess the learner's knowledge and understanding 5. Provide for alternate instruction (remediation and accommodating individual differences) 6. Field test with real students and make changes as necessary. Barker 1987 1. Is there a need? (Training requirements) 2. Who is to be taught? (Prior learner ability) 3. What is to be taught? (Task analysis) 4. What level of instruction is needed? (deptha and detail) 5. How is the material to be taught? (design of lessons, teaching methods, tests) 6. What resources are to be used? (Computers, texts, video..) 7. Assessment of effectiveness 8. Revision Roblyer 1988 Phase I Design State instructional goal Perform Instructional analysis Develop performance objectives Develop testing strategies Design instructional strategies Phase II Pre-programming development Develop flow charts and storyboards Develop support materials Design team review and revision Phase III Development/Evaluation Program first-draft materials Perform formative evaluation (Within each phase there are feedbacks for revision) Jonassen 1988, p.3 Analysis Phase Identify instructional problem- Needs Assesment/ performance analysis Task/instructional analysis- task content selection, description, sequence Develop performance objectives Develop assessment Select organisational strategies Development/Synthesis phase Determine delivery strategies Determine motivational strategies Select existing media and materials, or Develop materials- outline, storyboard, code prototype Develop management strategies Evaluation Phase Assess entry skills Administer and evaluate learning (& revise prototype) Produce and disseminate, implement instruction Evaluate the system Goodyear 1994 Requirements specification Functional specification Design Implementation Integration Verification and validation Maintenance ______________________________________________________________________ An issue in both software and instructional development is the place of revision feedback -bottom-up clarification and amendment in a basically top-down (sequentially planned) process. All the sequential development models include some feedback, often only to one step backwards. A more radical approach in software development is rapid prototyping, where partial designs are developed to give feedback through the whole process, repeatedly clarifying analysis and design. Prototyping is especially valuable where requirements cannot be specifed clearly and Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) have proposed its use for the development of multimedia instruction for unfamiliar situations. While this process is possible for courseware development if the evaluating user is the client 'gatekeeper' (Goodyear 1994) or purchaser, real prototyping is not generally possible with the user-learners. In this exercise, analysis and logical design do not involve user evaluation which would take place after coding and, with later summative evaluation of instructional effectiveness, would allow a long feedback loop to design. The design of the Human Computer Interface is separate from 'logical' ID (Jonassen 1988, Preface) but part of the later physical design, so it will be a small part of this design exercise. The HCI will follow the conventions of the MS-Windows interface. Ideally, courseware is developed by teams including four types of people: an Instructional Designer, a subject specialist, a resource (graphic) designer and a programmer. In this exercise the author is the Instructional Designer, existing materials (warts and all) are the subject and the resource design is part of the HCI, which is not included. The design process stops before a programmer is needed. It is assumed that someone else would code the software, to prevent design decisions being avoided and left to the programmer. Context of the learning ID must be related to specific learners and their environment. The Keele MSc in IT is a taught course with 10 modules taught to over 70 full time and part time students. The Business Information Systems module includes one section (of eight) on Computer Based Training (CBT) in a broad sense, which provides a description, discussion and experience of different uses of computers in education and training. This will be referred to as 'the course'. Written by the author in 1991, the current learning resources are open learning notes (see appendix), duplicated readings, a video, a face to face session, a computer conferencing tutorial and the use of example applications and authoring software. About 15 hours of learning is assumed. The students are typically graduates in disciplines other than computer science although some part time students are not graduates but have experience in the computing industry. This early module introduces computer applications while other modules teach specific technical skills. Students will have some programming skills in Pascal and have used other types of software in this module. Many part time students have experience of training in commercial settings, but recent graduates do not. The setting for computer use is either in a laboratory at Keele or at home using a Windows PC and printer. Assessment for the module is by a 5000 word essay on a choice of topics including CBT, (85%) and for conference tutorial contributions on three topics of which one is CBT. So this section is well represented in assessment but is not essential for a credit. Analysis of learning outcomes The planned courseware would provide an additional learning resource to give additional support to weaker students, potentially substitute an introductory lecture, be used as an 'advance organiser' (Ausubel, in Gage & Berliner 1988), aid encoding of information about types of CBT software, prompt synthesis of the information (Shuell 1992 p38) and hopefully encourage critical thinking about the value of the applications being studied. Because of the incestuous nature of the subject matter it will also illustrate Instructional Design of courseware, but this should not influence the design. Instructional analysis first produces a broad learning map (Roblyer 1988). The content is summarised in Figure 3 and the learning map based on it in Figure 4 shows that there are some learning dependencies in the topics. This is a 'kinds of' knowledge structure (Hannum 1988, p279). Currently, learning is partly experiential: students use a range of demonstration versions of commercial training packages, a conferencing system and two authoring systems. A video also demonstrates various CBT applications. __________________________________________________________________ Figure 3 Summary of open learning notesIntroduction to terms - distinctions of different types of CBT CAL: Simulation Modelling Games Computer Mediated Communication CAI: programmed learning pros and cons of CAI drill and practice multimedia hypertext/hypermedia authoring courseware Intelligent tutoring systems ________________________________________________________________________ Figure 4 Courseware design documentation: Learning Map showing learning
prerequisites in topics ________________________________________________________________________ Following Wager and Gagne (1988) the types of learning goals are: balanced attitudes e.g. to the usefulness of types of CBT; verbal information e.g. CAI stands for computer aided instruction; (arguably) concrete concepts e.g. specific CBT applications such as a Unix tutorial; defined concepts, e.g. hypermedia, authoring language; rules e.g. about how courseware can be produced, when it is cost effective. It is often difficult to distinguish concrete and defined concepts so no attempt is made to do so here. Gagne's classification under-emphasises procedural (rule) skills, but the broad distinction between declarative verbal information and concepts versus procedural rules is found in other classifications: knowledge and skills, conceptual knowledge and causal knowledge (Dijkstra 1991), or verbal information and intellectual skills (Tennyson 1990). Here they will be termed concepts and rules. In reality, different sorts of knowledge about a subject are integrated and knowledge representations of integrated knowledge are being developed (Merrill 1993) but the simple classification will suffice for this exercise. The stated aim of the module is 'To give an understanding of the range and function of commercial applications supporting ... (the) requirements of businesses' and this can be applied to the training function for this section, but more specific objectives will be necessary for instructional design. The performance objective for concepts is to state and to use them and the major concepts appear in figure 4. For rules the objective can be defined at two levels: for each topic objectives include being able to describe different types of CBT and their uses, and discuss critically their advantages and disadvantages. For the whole course, objectives are that students can compare the concepts of different types of CBT and suggest when they would be appropriate and cost-effective. Wager and Gagne (1988) point out that possession of a concept can only be evidenced by demonstrating it (procedurally) as opposed to stating it (declaratively), or at least by giving a description of a demonstration of the concept, and this must influence the testing of learning. Sources of ID models Before developing an instructional design the salient aspects of important ID models should be considered. Merrill (1988) points out that most courseware is of a tutorial type (including 'drill and practice') which is based on a model of programmed instruction with branching between frames (screens) on which the subject matter is static. While having its uses, this type is not suitable for primary instruction and its widespread misuse for this purpose can be seen as a mistaken attempt to teach procedural knowledge (skills, rules) declaratively. In contrast, in experiential instruction the computer simulates the subject matter, not the tutor, so that the learner interacts with the subject. In parallel, courseware can also provide a tutor role such as a coach, guide or expert demonstrating skills. Montague (1988) makes the related point that the instructional environment must represent to the learner the context of the environment in which what is learned will be or could be used; the learning must be 'situated' in the functional context of its use so that the learner knows when and how to use it. This performance (experiential) orientation contrasts with traditional topic (tutorial) designs. It is effective because it promotes directly the cognitive processes needed in the learned performance. These experiential, performance-oriented approaches would work best where cognitive skills (rules) are being learned. Where declarative knowledge (concepts) are being learned there is still an issue as to how to stimulate appropriate cognitive processing and thus achieve deep (meaningful) rather than shallow (rote) learning (Jonassen 1988, Ch.6), equivalent to encouraging 'semantic encoding' (Wager and Gagne 1988, Figure 2.2). Employing the principles of cognitive psychology leads to courseware designs which require learners to consciously employ learning strategies such as paraphrasing, summarizing, outlining, generating questions and cognitive mapping, which force integration of new knowledge with existing knowledge structures, as opposed to relying on short term recall of statically presented information (Jonassen 1988 p.158). Most courseware is interactive but the type of interaction should facilitate meaningful knowledge acquisition rather than rote or associative learning. One design strategy to acheive this is the 'electronic notebook' on which various forms of notetaking can be performed in response to interaction with the courseware. Learning activities need not take place on the screen but on paper, for example, or alternatively the medium for these learning strategies could be closely integrated with the courseware. The latter approach is attempted here. The guiding principles from these models can be summarised as: where cognitive skills are being learned the courseware should provide a simulation in which they can be practiced with guidance, and where verbal information or concepts are being learned the courseware should prompt learning strategies to improve the quality of learning. These broad principles must be augmented with more specific rules to generate designs of small sections of the courseware dealing with individual concepts or skills. Merrill's Component Display Theory provides useful Performance-Consistency rules (Merrill 1988 p.61) especially rule 1 which prescribes that for learning outcomes of using concepts or procedures, the basic sequence of instruction should be an exposition of the general concept ('Eg', in his symbology), an exposition of examples ('Eegs') and then student activity with examples ('Iegs'). At a still more detailed level, Merrill's instructional events must be described as one or more frames using storyboards. General Design The knowledge structure above (Figure 4) is used both to organise and sequence courseware content, and (in the menu 2.4, below) to communicate the subject matter to learners (Hannum 1988, p289). Because the greater part of the learning goals are in the domain of verbal information and concepts, this knowledge structure determines the course structure, rather than alternate structures based on skills or attitudes (Hannum 1988). The design shown in Figure 5 overlays sequence, selection and iteration structures on learning objectives by topic, and goes down to the level of instructional events. A general introduction to the nature and types of CBT (concepts) is necessary first but this is preceeded by events to alert, create expectancy and prompt retrieval of relevant knowledge (Wager and Gagne 1988, Figure 2.2). These processes also proceed each following section of the courseware. The use of sequence, iteration and condition is determined by learning prerequisites. The most general skill, 'CBT rules', must be learnt last after all other learning objectives have been met. Repetition of sections should be allowed under user control or determined by assessments of learning. It would be useful to provide additional, remedial instruction but that is not attempted here. A distinction in each topic is made between concepts and rules. Each topic is preceeded by events gaining Attention, providing Objectives and stimulating relevant Recall (AOR). Figure 5 implies a high degree of software (as opposed to user) control. Where no prerequisites determine the order, the learner chooses from the unused topics at that level (selection). In addition, the user would be able to use buttons, hotwords and menus to review visited frames and use a glossary, but not to move to modules for which prerequisites were not achieved as increased user control does not necessarily result in improved learning unless learners have good 'meta' learning skills. The content of this courseware has been restricted to existing course notes to concentrate on ID. The particular content means that example CBT applications - the 'experiential' courseware content - can be launched by the courseware and appear as part of it. The courseware can also emulate CBT applications in a pop-up window during Eegs sections. ____________________________________________________________________ Figure 5 Courseware design documentation: Pseudocode design
_____________________________________________________________________ Detailed designs Detailed designs are needed for every line in column E of figure 5, traditionally done as storyboards. A selection of storyboard designs follows using a screen designer along with descriptions of actions/functionality, but these screens are not final graphical or interface designs. Standard menus allow users to save their copy of the courseware in its current state, editing of written text, changing text characteristics, use of a glossary and help about using the mouse and the menu items. 1. CBT AOR These are the first frames of the courseware, with the objectives of gaining Attention, providing Objectives, and stimulating relevant Recall about the use of computers in education and training generally. Frame 1.1 Gaining Attention A welcome screen with a title asks the user to enter their first and second names so that printed output can be personalised and identified. When both lines have been entered the remainder of the text is displayed.. 1.2 Giving objectives including learning strategies. Frame 1.2.1 The learning objectives of the CBT course are stated, in the context of the whole course. A button allows to press with a screen pointer presents the next frame. Frame 1.2.2 The learning strategy is described including the use of the electronic notebook and printer. All text written in the notebook is stored and will be printed at the end of each section being completed. Frames 1.3 Stimulating recall. Examples of CBT which the students have encountered are briefly described. The user is asked to write about any other uses of computers they have encountered. The answer is analysed crudely. For example, if the user's text does not include the text strings 'email', 'e-mail' or 'mail' it will be pointed out that electronic mail can be used for student support, as it is in this course. 2. CBT VIC The learning objectives here are verbal information about CBT, including the acronyms and names of different types and where example packages might be found, and concepts such as the types of uses of computers in training, and the multidimensional nature of its varieties. Frame 2.1.1 (Eg) will state what CBT is, what different types are, what terms and acronyms for these are. The button bottom right continues to the next frame 2.1.2. All text fields are write protected but the bottom one. The means buttons put the full phrase in the field to the right. The i.e. button pops up an explanation of the last item. 'gloss' pops up a window with an alphabetical glossary. Frame 2.1.2 Eg Makes some distinctions between different uses of computers for manage training and individual learning programmes (CML), as a tool in simulations and games, as a communications tool, and as a substitute tutor. Each of the labels is explained in turn. Frame 2.2. Eegs. will state some examples and refer to other course resources such as the video, and demonstration applications to be used later. Frame 2.3 Iegs Frame 2.3.1 will ask for the meaning of the important acronyms. The phrases are written in the fields to the right and when OK? is pressed a smiley or a frowny are added and the correct term appears in the bottom window. The OK buttons do not work until something is typed in the field. Feedback to this simple 'verbal information' need only be the correct response (Schimmel 1988). When all the fields contain the correct answer the frame can be left. If all descriptions are correct the bottom window shows the message 'click the --> button to continue'. If more than one has been typed wrongly the advice shown is placed in the bottom window. The next button goes to frame 2.3.2, the previous button goes to 2.1.1 so that the terms can be read again. Gloss produces a pop-up glossary. Frame 2.3.2 will ask for examples of certain types of CBT . Frame 2.3.3 will ask for the types of certain examples. Frame 2.3.3 The electronic notebook will appear and the user will be asked to write an outline of the types of CBT under headings provided in the notebook. A prepared answer will then be shown and the user asked to compare the two, and change their own if they wish. Both texts will be stored and later printed. Frame 2.4 A menu screen (based on Figure 3) will appear as an overview. It will be available temporarily from many other frames for a quick reminder of a user's current position and progress. and will be used to select sections. The 'return' button will return to the frame from which the user came. Other boxes are hot spots which start new section, within the restrictions of the prerequisites and design structure. A record of individual learner's use of the topics is kept across sessions and marked as done, but they are accessible for repeat use. Availability of the options follows the rules in figures 4 and 5. It is shown here after Simulation is selected. 18. CBT Rules Frame 18.1 Explains that a mini case study is being printed with questions attached. The user is a consultant on training technologies and they are to give advice on the technology and instructional style of courseware best suited to the company and the trainees. The user writes on the paper copy. Frame 18.2 After at least 5 minutes and when the user requests, answers are typed into the screen notebook and both the students and the model answers are then printed. Frame 18.3 Asks the user how close his/her answer came to the model answer. If not close the explanation of the model answer is given and the user asked to write this themselves on the model answer. These frames are repeated with a different case study if the answers are not close or if the user requests it. Frame 4.1 Simulation Eg The first part of the simulation section describes simulations in general. The title is displayed. The 'go on' button is pressed to get the next and subsequent paragraph. The word simulation is underlined indicating it is hypertext hotword. The pointer changes to a finger when passing over it and when clicked a pop-up window shows a definition of simulation. The 'show me an example' button' appears and when pressed it starts an example graphical simulation which replaces the courseware on the screen. When it finishes, this screen returns and the 'continue ->' button appears, which calls up frame 4.2. 7. Simulation Rules Frame 7.1 Eg Summarises the types: simulations, models and games and when any and each of these are useful in training. Frame 7.2 Eegs Illustrates the rules with descriptions of three small case studies presented in turn. Frame 7.3 Iegs Several scenarios are presented in turn. The user pushes a button to answer. Following Schimmel's (1988) rule 3 for intellectual skills, a correct answer produces a pop-up window confirms the reasons for the correct choice and offers praise. A wrong answer suggests why it is wrong and how to judge the correct answer in future. Three 'goes' are allowed before the right answer and confirming reasons are displayed. A 'more please' button appears top right to prompt for the next scenario. When three scenarios have been correctly answered a 'continue' button appears but further scenarios are also available. Human Computer Interface A number of guidelines for consistency and ease of use would accompany the design, such as the following. Text will be dark on a light background. Text in the courseware will be serif, that typed by the user, sans serif. The main sections of courseware will have different coloured pale backgrounds to colour code them. The screen pointer will change shape: over text fields it becomes a T bar, over hot spots, hot words and buttons which can be pushed, it becomes a 'finger'. Buttons with similar functions appear in the same place on different screens. Discussion This small exercise has given the opportunity to use aspects of several models of instructional design in a fairly systemmatic attempt to promote meaningful learning. The limitations of the current design are several. The instructional goals were classified broadly into concepts and rules, with rules knowledge occuring at the level of topics and of the whole course. While the courseware design gives some attention to the employment of this knowledge this should probably be increased; Tennyson (1990) suggests that 70% of instructional time should be devoted to knowledge employment, towards learning objectives of contextual skills, cognitive strategies and creative processes. The importance of simulating situated learning suggests more use of case studies within the courseware. The courseware does not explicitly encourage meta-learning rules. One specific possibility is the use of a graphical browser or concept map (Novak 1990). The value of a graphical browser as a navigation aid in hypertext is ambiguous (Jonassen 1990, 1993) but it can be a valuable tool for organising knowledge (e.g. Bernard 1990, Connop-Scollard 1991). The construction of a concept map is a learning activity which could be encouraged by the courseware providing the elements of the map to be arranged and linked. The learner could be returned to it after each topic was completed, to construct a personal map incrementally (see appendix for storyboard). This could be printed finally, but the temptation to show a 'correct' map should be resisted - the purpose would be to stimulate learner organisation of their own knowledge. The courseware is adapted to the content and learning goals (Joanassen 1988, p198, Hannum 1988) but not to individual differences, although individual experience is used and recorded in the electronic notebook, and learner control is allowed where it does not contravene learning prerquisites. Where testing (e.g. frame 7.3) occurs, different remedial feedback is prompted by the learner choice. The record of topics done, recorded across sessions, constitutes a simple model of the learner's experience. Carrier and Jonassen (1988) propose a model for adapting courseware to better adapt to important individual differences. However, step 4 of their model requires pre-testing learners with 'a battery of tests' to select the most relevant learner charactristics. For one course intake this would be impossible but tests could be done for adaptation for following intakes. Instructional analysis and design has similarities with systems analysis design in mainstream software engineering: both have phases of specifying requirements, problem analysis, designing solution components, producing (coding) the system, testing and implementation (use). What is noticeably different in practice is the lack of diagrammatic and structured text tools in ID, excepting the venerable flowchart. Two instances arose in this exercise where such tools were produced and found valuable. Firstly the learning map (figure 4) is developed from a hierarchy of topics to showing learning prerequisites. A larger course might produce a more complex network. Secondly, a standard software engineering tool for specifying algorithms, pseudocode, seems not to have been used in ID, and Figure 5 is an attempt to do so. It uses horizontal indentation and vertical position to specify sequence, condition and iteration of instructional units, each of which is then designed as one or a few frames (storyboards). The pseudocode form would be familiar to a programmer performing the coding. It replaces the traditional flowchart specification which is still common in ID, and the only design tool in some current authoring systems (e.g. Authorware), although it has been largely abandoned in software engineering. The use of pseudocode does not imply that subsequent coding would use a procedural authoring language (in fact it would probably be coded in the event-driven Toolbook system which was used for the storyboard screens). Two dominant features of software engineering tools are the representation of modularity and structured algorithms, neither of which are represented in flowcharts. The pseudocode representation enforces structure by restriction to the three control structures of sequence, iteration and selection. This allows specification of the possible paths through the courseware, and its consituent parts. However, the length of pseudocode in figure 5 is about as long as such an algorithm should be without requiring superimposition of modularity. A common tool in software design is the 'structure chart' (Yourdon 1989) which represents software modules, communication between them, and any selection or iteration in their use. Croft (1993) has discussed the use for ID of some software engineering tools including structure charts to replace flowcharts. The content of each module is specified in pseudocode. A larger piece of courseware than involved in this exercise might benefit from a modified structure chart tool. A strength of analysis and design in software engineering is the smooth transition from analysis representations of the problem to design representation s of the solution. For example, data flow diagrams can be transformed into structure charts (Yourdon 1989). What is not clear is the form of an instructional analysis tool which could be transformed into an instructional design representation. State transition diagrams are one candidate (Croft 1993) where states could include the learner before instruction and the learner after instruction. System models of instruction including the learner have been fundamentally behaviourist. It remains to be seen whether cognitive learning can be specified within an analysis tool. Finally, to reflect on the value of this practical exercise, it has become clear that instructional analysis and design are crucial activities for courseware development, but also that ID is a discipline under active development. The psychological foundations of ID theories have shifted from behaviourism to cognitivism (Gustafson 1993) and there is a broad consensus as to the types of learning activities required for meaningful learning, but there is a lack of tools for instructional analysis and design. Merrill's recent ID theories seem capable of automation in the form of ID 'shells' (Merrill, Li & Jones 1992), which would be a remarkable achievement. By analogy with software engineering, one can hope for the development of standard tools for instructional analysis and design (Merrill 1990) but it remains to be seen if the foundations of ID, the heterogeneous, indeterministic and partially chaotic nature of human learning, is firm enough allow it (Winn 1990, Jonassen 1990b). References Branch R C 1994, Common Instructional practices employed by secondary school teachers. Ed.Tech. March 1994. 25-34. Barker P 1987 Authoring languages. Croom Helm. Bernard RM 1990. Effects of processing instructions on the usefulness of a graphic organizer and structural cueing in text. Instructional Sci. 19, 207-217. Connop-Scollard C 1991. The ID/D Chart: a representation of instructional design and development. Ed.Tech. December 47-50. Dijkstra S 1991 Instructional Design and the representation of knowledge and skills. Educational Technology June 1991 19-26. Gage N L and Berliner D C 1988 Educational psychology, Chapter 12. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Gustafson KL 1993 Instructional design fundamentals: clouds on the horizon. Ed.Tech. Feb 27-32. Hannum W 1988. Designing courseware to fit subject matter. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Jonassen D H 1988 a. Instructional design and courseware design. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Jonassen DH 1988b. Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Jonassen D H 1990 Semantic network elicitation: tools for structuring hypertext In Hypertext: state of the art, eds McAleese & Green, Intellect Jonassen D H 1990 b Thinking technology: Chaos in instructional design. Educational Tech. Feb. p32-34 Jonassen D H 1993 Effects of semantically structured hypertext knowledge bases on users' knowledge structures , 153-168 in Hypertext: a psychological perspective eds. C.Mcknight, A Dillon & J Richardson Merrill DM 1988. Applying component display theory to the design of courseware. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Merrill D M 1990. Introduction to special issue: Computer based tools for instructional design. Ed.Tech. March 1990. 5-6. Merrill, M.D., Li, Z. and Jones M.K. 1992. Instructional Transaction Shells: responsibilities, methods and parameters. Ed.Tech. Feb 1992 5-26. Novak J D 1990 Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate learning Instr. Sci. 19 29-52 Roblyer M D 1988. Fundamental problems and principles of designing effective courseware. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Schimmel B J 1988, Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Shuell T J 1992 Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning. 18-53 in Adaptive learning environments ed. M Jones & P H Winne. Springer Verlag. Spector JM, Gagne RM, Muraida DJ & Dimitroff WA 1992. Intelligent frameworks for instructional design. Educational Tech. October 21-27. Tennyson RD 1990. A proposed cognitive paradigm of learning for educational technology. Educ.Tech. June 1990 16-19. Tennyson R D 1990b. Integrated instructional design theory: advances from cognitive science and instructional technology. Educ. Techn. July 1990 9-15. Tennyson RD 1992 An educational learning theory for instructional design. Educ.Tech. Jan. 1992 36-41. Tripp S D and Bichelmeyer B 1990. Rapid prototyping: an alternative instructional design strategy. Educ. Tech. Res. and Dev. 38 (3) 31-43. Wager W and Gagne R M 1988. Designing computer aided instruction. In Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, ed. D H Jonassen. LEA. Winn W 1990, Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science 19, 53-69. Yourdon, E. 1989 Modern Structured Analysis.Prentice Hall. Appendix: Concept map storyboard Appendix: Current course notes |
|