There are many ways that learning objects are defined, and no one universally accepted definition. Common elements of learning objects appear to be:
Focus on learning objectives
A particular structure based on instructional design models
Use of metadata
Hosted in a database or digital library, providing opportunity for ratings and review
Simple interface and complex background infrastructure
So, what is the purpose in designing and developing custom learning objects? For me, learning objects are designed to serve as learning activities providing content and facilitating experiences that lead to higher order use of new knowledge and skills. The image below is a great summary of what a learning object is what the question still begs, how will this inform my development of custom learning objects?
For me, using the ADDIE model is the best way to develop a custom learning object. The image below is great at explaining how the ADDIE model is relevant in this situation. The analyse phase, is the one concerned with the key concepts in the content and developing the required tasks that will achieve the outcomes. Design phases break it down into learning activities or steps, e.g. the different stages of a WebQuest. It may also be appropriate here to design and deliver a pre-test in the learning object to identify background knowledge. Going one step further, I think the develop stage is about the mode of delivering the learning object, the multimedia involved in engaging the learner. Scaffolding the instruction and developing instructional phases are to be developed in this stage as well, e.g. in a WebQuest this might be making sure that all instructions are clear and written with consistency.
When implementing a WebQuest, or perhaps a SCORM package that is a WebQuest, it will most likely need to be hosted in a learning management system. This is the implementation phase, making the learning object available to the intended audience. If there is face-to-face lessons that go with and support the learning object, working out the timing for this is also a key part of this phase. Managing the student data developed during their completion of the learning activities should be determined here as well. The final phase is of course evaluation. Evaluating student data, any assessable objects and feedback given by students is a key part in assessing the effectiveness of a learning object in achieving the learning objectives and outcomes outlined in the first phases. In a WebQuest or online SCORM package learning activity, I would include a student reflection form at the end of the module to gain feedback.
In preparing for my upcoming keynote for a conference with the theme “Instruction, research and the extension of e-learning”, I have been contemplating what exactly is it to extend e-learning in every way and my keynote will address much of what I have researched and experienced, however, I have also been contemplating and pondering what it is to extend on the years of tried and tested instructional design models that have been used prolifically as well.
Research into instructional design shows that it both informs the decisions about what tools to use but also how they are used, forming the solid foundation on which e-learning experiences can be built. “The different phases of the ADDIE process—analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation—provide a roadmap for the entire instructional design process. It starts with what one has to learn and ends when we find out if they learned what was needed” (Martin, 2011, p. 956). The ADDIE model in the video below provides an instructional umbrella, representing the scope of instructional phases that form an e-learning experience. Research has been conducted into how other instructional design models compliment and fit within the phases of the ADDIE model to further scaffold e-learning activities (Kruse, 2009; Gustafon and Branch, 2002; The Herringe Group, 2004).
Other models that have emerged from the ADDIE model include Dick and Carey’s model (1996), Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction (1985) and the ASSURE model developed by Heinich, et. al. (2002). These models are extensions on the 5 phases of the ADDIE model, fundamentally founded on a similar cycle that involves analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. However, do these instructional design models cater for the 21st century learning contexts, which include a plethora of web tools that were not yet in existence when these models were designed? Research into instructional design in the 21st century has led to the development of such models and frameworks as Bonk and Khoo’s TEC-VARIETY in figure 2 (2012) and Bonk’s R2D2 in figure 3. Both the TEC-VARIETY framework and the R2D2 model when integrated within the structure of an instructional design model provide extended e-learning experiences.
“There seems to be an endless number of learning portals and resources relevant to one’s courses, a growing number of tools that one can utilise within a course, and thousands of resources that might find their way into online course activities” (Bonk & Zhang, 2006, p. 2). This issue grows as rapidly as the tools on the web grow, the implications being that educators have access to so many tools that can extend the design of e-learning experiences, however, how does an educator make the decision about the right tool to use and when? The need for a model and framework for making the decisions about what tools to use can largely be informed by research and instructional design models, which then provide the scaffold for integrating further tools to extend the e-learning experience. The TEC-VARIETY framework and R2D2 model help in the selection of resources as well as structure and scaffold of learning experiences.
The TEC-VARIETY framework and R2D2 model
The TEC-VARIETY framework is not designed as an instructional design model to guide the design and development of an online course, it is a framework to enhance student learning experiences through increased motivation, a framework that considers the “technology tools and resources, the pedagogical practices or activities, and the various other contextual variables” (Bonk & Khoo, 2012, p. 7). It is a framework that when coupled with the sound structure of an instructional design model assists an instructor or learning designer to develop relevant 21st century elearning experiences. The TEC-VARIETY framework extends the practical application of many instructional design models beyond the simple scaffolding of learning into considering the technology that could be used to deliver quality 21st century learning experiences online.
TEC-VARIETY and R2D2 are both frameworks that practically explore ways of extending the instruction provided by elearning experiences. Figure 2 shows the TEC-VARIETY framework and the many ways that an elearning instructor could integrate motivational elements into instruction so as to extend the elearning experience.
Figure 2: Bonk & Khoo (2012). The TEC-VARIETY framework.
Whilst figure 3 shows the R2D2 model, which stands for Read, Reflect, Display and Do (Bonk & Zhang, 2006) and addresses the needs of a diversity of learners.
Figure 3: R2D2 Model, (Bonk & Zhang, 2006 in Bonk & Khoo, 2012, p. 4)
My keynote paper and presentation will get added to my blog at a later date so stay tuned 🙂
References
Bonk, C. J. & Zhang, K. (2006) in Bonk, C. J. & Khoo, E. (in progress). Adding Some TEC‐VARIETY: 100+ Activities for Motivating and Retaining Learners Online.
Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249-264.
I’ve been wrapping my head around where instructional design theories and models came from and where they are heading by creating an infographic that includes some of the key players when it comes to instructional design theories.
Infographic created with easel.ly
Of these theorists I am a big fan of Gagne and Sweller but what have the other guys contributed to the development of sound instructional design in the 21st century? First of all, what did these guys say about instructional design?
Edgar Dale’s (1946) Cone of Learning was a model that explored what people are able to remember/process and achieve. To look at the model, it appears like a possible pre-cursor to Bloom’s Taxonomy in that the element of the model that looks that the outcomes people can achieve shows a progression from low to higher order thinking. The model shows that people remember more of the content they engage with if they engage with it in the higher order levels of creating, evaluating and analysing.
B. F. Skinner (1954) made a significant contribution to the world of instructional design with his work The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching. “Based on his theory of reinforcement the development of programmed instruction and outcome-oriented instruction was born. Characteristics of Programmed Instruction: behavioral objectives, small frames of instruction, self-pacing, active learner response to inserted questions, and immediate feedback regardless to correctness of the response” (from Instructional Design Timeline).
A very big name in teaching and learning is Benjamin Bloom who published an incredibly influential taxonomy in 1956. Bloom’s taxonomy is described as a classification of learning objectives and the taxonomy divides learning objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. To me, the taxonomy demonstrates a progressions from rote learning activities to higher order processing of information to embed it within long-term memory. It’s a scaffold for planning learning from the early stages of gaining new knowledge, to the later stages of using that knowledge to do something new.
I’ve discussed Gagne’s work before and I’m definitely a fan of his. Gagne’s work and the Nine Events of Instruction are still very relevant and real today and has been applied to game design as well. Becker’s (2005) paper How Are Games Educational? Learning Theories Embodied in Games clearly identifies how Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction fit so seamlessly within game design.
The Dick and Carey model (1968) could be compared to Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction perhaps, this could be because Dick and Carey’s model is an iterative cycle made up of nine steps. These steps systematically guide a learner from goal setting to summative evaluation. I like the model, however, I believe Gagne’s model is a lot more user-friendly and relevant.
The ADDIE model, refined by Dick and Carey is very similar to the PLANE learning design, which is a taxonomy that goes from explore, contribute, create, implement, share/reflect to mentor. The ADDIE model stands for analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation and is very much a progressive model that begins with the exploration of new knowledge, however, it’s believed that there is up to 100 different variations on the model. It’s a broad model that I would apply in combination with another more fleshed-out model I think but it depends on how much scaffolding is desired really.
The 1990s saw the development of Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (see earlier blog post), which greatly impacts instructional design, and then there came the resurgence of constructivsm. Constructivism was huge in the 1930s and 1940s classrooms, however, in the 1990s it returned as a major learning on how people learn, thus informing how teachers should design instruction. The basic premise of constructivism is that teachers design lessons in a way that allows students to guide their own learning and construct their own meaning from their experiences.
Ok, so what does that mean for modern-day instructional design? Well, I believe these models definitely still have a place in the design of teaching and learning experiences but its about embracing the here and now context in which our students learn and play. Teachers need to know how their students learn these days and a lot of it is through playing or experimenting with technology, and this should be considered when designing learning experiences. I strongly believe that game design is the way we should all be heading in our instructional design for the 21st century.
Do you have an iPhone, an iPod Touch, an iPad and a MacBook? Do you use each of these every day? There are a few videos out there on YouTube that give crazy statistics on how much technology is in use all over the world. Check out this blog post on Digitalbuzz about The Growth of Mobile technology for some statistics.
My question would be, has the rapid growth and use of mobile technology been beneficial in all circumstance? What are the cons of such an exponential increase in the use of these devices? Its my own personal opinion that these devices offer enormous opportunity and educational potential, however, many will jump in and try to use them in different contexts without adequate preparation. Yes, sometimes using these devices doesn’t have to be thought about or planned for but if you integrate something new like a mobile device into educational experiences then planning might maximise the opportunities it affords.
How will you plan? What needs to be considered? I don’t believe it has to be a laborious process but thinking about the desired outcomes and end product or achievements will guide the integration of something new such as a mobile device or mobile-enabled tools. I would ask these questions of myself if I was planning to incorporate mobile devices:
What should it look like in order to be easy to use, and not information overload cognitively?
What do students need to know and be able to do before engaging with the tool or task? (Prerequisite knowledge and skills)
Will the students be able to complete the task/activity with a simple set of instructions or will they need more scaffolding? If so, how much scaffolding will be required to successfully guide them through task?
What disadvantages of using the identified online tool or mobile device could possibly hinder the learning process or outcomes achieved? How can this be avoided?
There are still many questions to ask yourself when integrating mobile-enabled tools and mobile devices into education, however, it is the way of the future and the future is here now. When planned in the right way and integrated with thought mobile devices might enable more self-directed, self-cognitive and self-motivated learning than ever before.
A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: Implications for Design Principles is an article authored byRichard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno are from the University of California, Santa Barbara. The article discusses the necessary research required to adequately design multimedia learning. The aim of the text is to present findings on research-based theory in instructional design. The main argument being that effective instructional design should be based on research-based theory into how students learn. The article also reviews 5 principles of multimedia design to extend on the argument further.
The five principles explored in this paper are very similar to one another and the repetition can prove effective but also sub-what ineffective in that the exploration of material and discussion of theories does not progress to new supporting evidence or concepts. All the theories and principles seem to come down to a very simple philosophy summed up by simply stating that one concept must be taught with two mediums simultaneously to have greatest impact on the individual learner. It was also stated in that article that “corresponding words and pictures must be in working memory at the same time in order to facilitate the construction of referential links between them”, so it would appear that in addition to working with two mediums, information should be actively processed in the working memory to continue to bring about best outcomes. The third principle did provide food for thought, however, with the argument that in a multimedia presentation, words need to be expressed audibly rather than in a visual format.
Therefore, if a presentation was to be given on road safety for example, all words should be heard not seen. Sweller et al. call this the Split-Attention principle and expand on the illustrations given to further show the validity for the principle in reference to the cognitive load theory principles. If the words of a multimedia presentation are given in narrative format audibly then they will be processed in the verbal information processing systems and the visuals in the visual information processing systems, thereby preventing cognitive overload. (p. 4)
Whilst brief, the explanation given for the individual differences principle did provoke more thoughts on the effect multimedia learning has on individual learners. Learners will have different skills, levels of understanding and possess very different sets of background knowledge, thus affecting their needs in multimedia learning arenas. The final principle begs the issue of coherence and consistency and addresses the need to keep to the same principles of design in multimedia learning environments to maintain full level of cognitive abilities, and subsequent achievement.
The article was brief and made some valid and quality research-based statements, informing a developing knowledge and understanding of instructional design principles in engaging learners. It was a well-written argument with clear and simple-to-understand examples. More expansion and illustration on these concepts would have provided further opportunities to develop a deeper understanding and knowledge of design principles. The principles do provide a strong starting point for developing multimedia learning experiences.
T. Cummings and M. Bernard (2002) of the St. George’s University, Grenada and the University of West Indies, Trinidad, respectively have co-written a piece on ‘A model for the Instructional Design, Development, Delivery and Evaluation of a Web-based course in Computer Science’. This article details a five-step model, the EMBER model for system development and problem solving in information systems. The article argues that the EMBER model provides solid foundation for web-based development of courses, focused on an audience of secondary students and with the role of the teacher to be predominantly a facilitator. The model is detailed in precise and succinct language that offers great guidance for planning web-based learning.
EMBER stands for evaluate, model, build, execute and review and is pretty straightforward as far as the steps go. The design of learning courses is done so by evaluating the syllabus requirements and desired outcomes and this is step one of the EMBER model. The article continues to detail each step of the model and provides some images to support these. The images are somewhat hard to understand and may prove irrelevant for some readers; however, the descriptions for each stage are brief and very helpful. The article is short but sufficient in its supply of accurate information and guidance for the design of learning in web-based environments.
There are many ways that learning objects are defined, and no one universally accepted definition. Common elements of learning objects appear to be:
Kristina Hollis 