2 2 Abstract Instructional design models provide for a systematic approach of implementing the instructional design process for a specific educational initiative (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2004). This paper will briefly describe the purpose and what instructional models are followed by process of three selected models: (a) the Dick and Carey systems approach; (b) Morrison, Ross and Kemp model (also known as the Kemp model); and (c) the Three-Phase design (3PD) model. The process description for each model will serve as the foundation and supporting points required for comparing and contrasting process of the models.
3 1 Dick and Carey, Kemp, and Three-Phase Design models for Instructional Design Instructional design (ID) models can provide a systematic approach of implementing the instructional design process for specific educational initiatives (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2004). Gustafson & Branch (1997) states that there is a wide variety of instructional design models describing the ID process created for different situations and settings (as cited in Gustafson & Branch, 2002b; Ryder, 2006). The purpose of the instructional design models offer both educational and training organizations design steps, management guidelines and teamwork collaboration options with designers, technicians and clients (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). Specifically by definition, a model can be defined as a way of doing something; an explicit representation of a reality. It is an example or pattern that prescribes relationships in a normative sense (Branch & Gustafson, 1998, p. 4). A model can also function as a visual and communication tool to help conceptualize complex schematics or instructional design process along with how the various stages or elements relate to each other (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). The application and value of a model is dependant on the instructional situation, problem or task (Siemens, 2002; Ryder, 2006). Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model The Dick and Carey systems approach model is one of the most influential ID system oriented models. Like most models, the Dick and Carey system bears the conventional core elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, also known as the ADDIE model (see Figure 1). The Dick and Carey model is more complex where the approach based from the five core elements is broken down to additional or variety of steps with different terminology (Brant, 2001; Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). Most importantly, Brant (2001) states
4 2 that, designers must end up with a product containing accomplished objectives and measurable outcomes. This process used in many businesses, government including military environments as well as performance technology and computer aided instructions reflects the fundamental design process (Gustafson & Branch). Dick & Carey Systems Approach Model Figure 1. Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model showing the linear approach for design instruction with review process. ADDIE components (indicated in red) are added for discussion analysis (source from Dick, Carey & Carey 2001, p.2). The components for the model stated by Dick, Carey and Carey (2001) consist of nine procedural steps or linear sequences (see Figure 1). Each of these components is dependant upon one another indicated by the direction of solid arrow lines. Dotted lines representing formative evaluations points to instructional revisions that originates from reexamination of the instructional analysis validity and entry behaviors of learners. The sequential steps for the design are as follows: (a) assess needs to help identify learning goals, (b) conduct instructional analysis and analyze learners and contexts, (c) write performance objectives, (d) develop assessment instruments (e) develop instructional strategies (f) develop and select instructional material (g) design and conduct formative evaluations, (h) revise instruction based from
5 3 formative evaluations, (i) design and conduct summative evaluation (not a mandatory step) (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001; Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). Assess needs to help identify learning goals. The application of this first component makes it unique from other models in that it supports the use of needs assessment procedures and clear measurable goals. Goals are clear statements of behaviors that learners are to demonstrate as a result of instruction (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001 p.30). Instructional goals must be created before the implementing the ID process (Dick et al; Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Conduct instructional analysis. Before proceeding with instruction implementation, designers must conduct the process of instructional analysis to find out prior learner s skills, knowledge and attitudes. They must also carefully examine and create step-by step task description to help learners achieve instructional goals (Dick et al, 2001). Analyze learners and contexts. This step aligned with the process of instructional analysis (see figure 5), involves the collection of information on learners entry behavior, characteristics, prior knowledge, skills and attitude, academic motivation and learning preferences. An instructional design can then proceed to the selection of an environment that can support learning. The performance context for learning application and skills is important for the building of instructional strategies (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Write performance objectives. Next, objectives in the form of specific statements are important for informing what learners will do during instruction and upon completing of an instructional module. Objectives also function as measuring tools that connect to the assessment step (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Dick, Carey & Carey (2001) consider this as the foundational step to the next stage for testing.
6 4 Develop assessment instruments. The purpose of assessments is to measure the performance objectives. Knowing each objective s behavior, conditions and criteria, offers the designer guidance on how to select and determine an assessment instrument that can measure performance objectives. Both objectives and assessments again are dependant on each other (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Develop instructional strategies. Four major components consisting of pre-instructional activities, content presentation, learner participation (including feedback) and follow-through activities make up the instructional strategy component. Instructional strategies must focus on memory and transfer skills. The instructional designer while considering learning theories, should also decide the medium for instructional delivery including lesson interactivity (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Develop and select instructional material. Depending on lessons taught and available supporting resources, instructional materials function as important resource for knowledge and skills. Learners are required to engage actively with the instructional material. By the end of this phase, the designer should have draft copies of materials, assessments and instructor manual. The designer can continue revising and improving lesson materials during the evaluation process (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Design and conduct formative evaluations. Gustafson and Branch (2002) state that the process of designing and conducting of formative evaluations can help assess the value of instructional goals. Three types of evaluations are recommended for the process, one-to-one evaluation, small group evaluation and field evaluation (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001).
7 5 Revise instruction based from formative evaluations. Data collected from formative evaluations is then used for instruction revision. This is the final step of the design process but also functions as the first step for the interaction process (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Design and conduct summative evaluation. Dick, Carey and Carey (2001) state the summative evaluation though is considered a culminating evaluation for examining instructional effectiveness; is not part of the nine basic stems of the systems approach model. It is also not an integral part because the designer of instructor in not involved in this process. The above descriptions clearly indicate the linear form for the Dick, Carey and Carey model. Each process cannot function as a stand-alone. Dick, Carey and Carey (2001), claims to say that the systematic approach of the model is an effective and successful approach because of its focus on learners objectives and final achievement prior to the planning and implementation stage. Next, there is a careful linkage between instructional strategy (targeted skills and knowledge) and desired learning outcomes (appropriate conditions must be supplied by instruction). The final and most important reason is the replicable and pragmatic design process where the product is usable for many learners and different occasions; time and effort revising the design product during the evaluation and revision process is recommended. The team involved in the above design process often times consist of the instructional designer and team of specialist comprised of the manager, content specialist, media producer and evaluator. The team draws on each other s skills to produce the product. Instructor with specialized skills can also be a stand-alone team (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). Morrison, Ross & Kemp Model (Kemp model) Kemp states that the instructional design approach that focuses on curriculum planning stems from the learner s perspective rather than content, making it different from traditional
8 6 design practice. The factors, which influences learning outcomes contributed to the constructs of Kemp s model, included the following: (a) level of readiness in dealing with lesson objectives, (b) instructional strategies related to objectives and student characteristics, (c) media and resource selection, (d) support for successful learning, (e) determination of objective achievements, and finally (f) needed revisions for program improvements (as cited in Gustafson & Branch, 2002b; Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004). Morrison, Ross & Kemp s complete model of instructional design plan consists of nine elements arranged in a circular manner (clockwise) in a form of an oval shape (see Figure 2). The elements are, (a) instructional problem identification and goal specifications of an instructional course, (b) examination of learner s characteristics based on instructional decisions, (c) subject content identification with task analysis related to goals and purposes, (d) instructional objective specifications, (e) instructional units in arranged in logical and sequential order for learning, (f) instructional strategies designed to meet the mastery of lesson objectives, (g) plan and develop instruction, (h) evaluation instruments for measuring course objectives and (i) resource selection for instruction and learning activities (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004). The introductory phase for Kemp s model places the most emphasis in the design process (Morrison Ross & Kemp, 2004). Morrison et al. state that the instructional designer must conduct a needs assessment and goal analysis, also known as performance assessment to see if instruction or training is required. This is the problem identification stage is required prior to the process of designing a course.
9 7 Kemp Model Figure 2. Kemp s Model with ADDIE components added for discussion analysis (Source from Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004 p. 29). Each non-linear element for design process (no connecting arrows or lines as shown in Figure 2) arranged in an oval pattern indicate is not predetermined; hence, it does not have a targeted starting point. The term element is used instead of the terms step, stage, level or sequential item since the model is not a true linear approach (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004 p. 10). The instructor can start from any point in the oval and proceed in any manner. This flexible arrangement allows the individual to select either one of the processes for the course needs. In addition, the two outer ovals additions to the diagram represent managerial and feedback procedures conducted during the design, development and implementation stages. This nonlinear structure again allows to designer to customize based on the organization or institutional needs. The purpose is having the flexibility structure is to ensure that the goals of learning objectives are not compromised (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004).
10 8 In reference to the evaluation process, the management and instructional designer has the option to utilize formative (reflective data of instructional objectives), summative evaluations (test program effectiveness, including cost and benefits) and confirmative evaluations (follow-up after students leave the program). Like Dick and Carey s model, the formative evaluations which is a measuring tool for quality control during the development process is made up of three stages, one-to-one, small group and field trials for evaluating larger student or participant population. Summative evaluations conducted at the end of the instructional program are followed up by confirmative evaluations for reviewing student competencies and performance outcomes (Morrison et al, 2004). In summary, the Kemp design model focuses on resource creation, implementation and delivery followed by evaluation and improvement (Sims & Jones, 2002). Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model The 3PD model is, an enhancement to the traditional instructional design process focuses on the creation of functional course delivery components, with evaluation and improvement activities integrated with scaffolding (support) for the teacher and learners to provide a dynamic teaching and learning environment in which resources or strategies can be developed or modified during the actual delivery stage (Sims & Jones, 2003, p. 8). The dynamic process requires ongoing communication with the support team for best implementation. As illustrated in Figure 3, the 3PD model team under each iteration phase comprises of the academic person (A), designer (D), and educational designer (ED) has a focus on developing successful online projects. The ultimate goal is for this model is to enable the academic while attending to content maintenance, to become less dependent on the developer and educational designer over a period of time, hence becoming an independent designer and developer (Sims & Jones 2002).
11 9 Three-phase Design (3PD) Model Figure 3. Three-phase Design Model with ADDIE components added for discussion analysis (source from Sims & Jones, p. 4). The 3PD model bases on the assumption that the design development is for a nontraditional setting but an online collaborative environment (Sims & Jones, 2003). The model proposes four critical factors. The first stated by Sims and Jones (2002), the instructional design development process must align with institutional expectation, contemporary pedagogies as well as available resources and skills (p. 3). Technology has indeed open doors to a variety of delivery options, hence does affect the approaches of online course delivery and teaching methods. The next factor relates to the academic professional development. New instructors with a lack of online teaching experience will need on going support through scaffolding processes. Scaffolding is a process where the instructor and learners can learn new concepts about the online environment through the support team. Herrington and Oliver (2001) stated that because
12 10 of the rapid implementation of learning management systems, increase growth of online learning as well as learner-centered environments, this has caused an increased need for scaffolding processes (as cited in Sims & Jones, 2002). The third factor refers to the approach of team-based work where communication and understanding among team members takes place during the development process reinforcing group collaboration (Sims & Jones, 2002). With the ongoing growth of information, knowledge sharing through communication and collaboration plays an important role. Finally, the last factor involves incorporation of scaffolding support units for both academic instructors and staff where skills learned can help ensure success in confronting new challenging and learning paradigms (Sims & Jones, 2002). The 3PD model comprises of 3 phases (see Figure 3). Phase 1 known as pre-delivery mode involves the preparation of online teaching components. This includes planning teaching and learning strategies (learner-centered, experiential or situated), learning outcomes, lesson materials and resources. Each member of the team has specific roles (Sims & Jones, 2002). Phase two, the enhancement mode is the delivery phase. During the delivery process, ongoing feedbacks and evaluation permits the opportunity for immediate enhancements to the learning environment, hence creating a scaffolding environment where participants can learn about the new processes. With the support through collaboration and communication from other team members including users (learners), the instructor gets to improve the learning environment in a proactive way (Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002). This is a great advantage of the proactive evaluation process because it can help take care of immediate concerns or problems while learning from the situation.
13 11 The educational designer is the major player in the development team while faculty and learners make up the other groups respectively. The educational designer (ED) is also responsible for giving educational and curriculum design guidance and advice and may have other managerial responsibilities. Prior entering into the third phase, the team prescribes changes and enhancements for subsequent delivery. Phase 3 then begins its maintenance mode with ongoing support and training that takes place over a long time where quality assurance is the key focus (Sims & Jones, 2003). Comparisons and Contrasting Differences of the Three Models The following section offers an account of observed similarities and differences in characteristics and qualities analyzed from the three model s process description and presentation. In particular, the following were noted: (a) the use of visuals that fits the model definition and processes; (b) the general constructs (conventional form) for each model with its goals and purposes; (c) the evaluation processes, and (d) the role of team collaboration. Use of Visuals to Represent Model Structure and Functions Each model process or system description is well represented and supported with diagrams by each author (see Figures 1, 2 & 3). What makes the models different from each other is the layout for the individual element or component as it applies and relates to each other, represented through the symbolic illustrations. For example, in the Kemp model, the use of nonconnecting lines indicate that the components do not relate to each other, while the Dick and Carey diagram shows the one-way linear application of the design stages. The 3PD model through the illustration of the vertical placements of all three phases represented the dynamic relationship of the model process (team collaboration and level of team influence) was also able to indicate the stages of its linear activity across (Phase 1-Phase2-Phase 3)
14 12 Conventional Form or Structure Brant (2001), Gustafson and Branch (2002) as mentioned earlier indicated that Dick and Carey model is based off the conventional core elements of the ADDIE model. The ADDIE model consisting of the components of learner analysis, design of instruction (including objectives and strategies), material development and media selection, course implementation, and evaluation is also found in Kemp and the 3PD model. ADDIE components are indicated in red text (see Figures 1, 2 & 3). Next, each model utilizes at least one form of traditional linear (step-by step process) approach. The Dick & Carey and Kemp models are more comprehensive and detailed compared to the 3PD model. Critics have said that the step-by step prescription is extensive and takes too long to apply; at times, the process is too costly (Nickols, 2000) and may not be appropriate for specific instructional task (Botturi, Cantoni, Lepori & Tardini, in press; as cited in Gordon & Zemke, 2000). Dick and Carey s steps build on each other and one cannot proceed to another without the prior step. In addition, the design process cannot begin until instructional goals are established. Kemp s model, however, containing all Dick and Carey s steps is less prescriptive and practical as the designer can select any applicable element. It offers a more heuristic approach where the flexibility allows adaptation for technology situation such as online environments (Botturi et al). The 3PD model though linear in format (Phase 1 to Phase 3) as shown in Figure 3, has iterations within each scheduled phase as well (Sims & Jones, 2003). The valuable feature includes further enhancement of the traditional development functionality through its evaluate/elaborate/enhance/maintain process. The strategies try-it approach is also cost effective compared to the other models requiring a longer time for iteration process (Sims & Jones, p. 16).
15 13 Evaluation Process All three models offer the component of evaluation, but may vary in functionality and purposes. The two noted observations are, first, evaluations that relate to technology concerns; and second, evaluations that have different emphasis at different stages of the process. Technology related issues. Based on Jones & Pallouci (1999) the most general form of an instructional system consist of there major components, instructional objectives (input), delivery system (process), and learning outcomes (output) (p. 3). Referring to examples of traditional ISD systems like Dick and Carey as well as Kemp s model, they stated the following, Although there are many ISD models that include system evaluation as a major component, none of them adequately addresses the complexities and dimensions of the technology and how these may relate to learning outcomes (p. 3). On the other hand, one of the 3PD model strategies relating to the evaluation, a proactive process infers that it is able address such issues. For example, during the phase of course implementation, concerns can be immediately taken care by technology-oriented as well as academic teams (Sims & Jones, 2003). As Sims, Dobbs and Hands, (2002) further affirms that through the proactive evaluation process while addressing critical issues associated with learning resources and course delivery, can increase the chances of building effective educational outcomes. Processes and emphasis differences. Morrison, Ross & Kemp offers an extensive prescription on the evaluation process. Within the evaluation process itself exist models of evaluation. For example, as indicated earlier, there are three stages within the formative evaluation process. This process takes place during the development phase (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004). Summative and confirmative evaluations are conducted at the end of the course instruction by team members. The Dick and Carey model emphasizes and utilizes the same
16 14 formative principles as Kemp s model. The only difference is that the summative evaluation is a culminating process reviews instructional effectiveness conducted by someone not involved with the design process. In addition, Dick and Carey s evaluation process does not have a confirmation (follow-up) evaluation. The evaluation process works differently in the 3PD model; the process is known as the proactive evaluation. As stated by Sims and Jones (2003) formative feedbacks take place between instructor and students during the implementation of the course. The difference in comparison to the other two models is that, the proactive evaluation in Phase 2 (the implementation phase) offers valuable opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning environment. The proactive evaluation process also allows immediate trouble shooting to take place for possible problems that may arise during the progression of online activities. The Role of Team Collaboration Each model supports the concept of individual, team collaboration and project management concerns, but varies differently at different stages of the design process. Dick and Carey s teamwork concept relies on group (manager and specialists) collaboration of skills for the production of the final product. Sometimes the instructor as a stand-alone can also be the team on condition that the instructor has all the skills needed for the project (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2002). The Kemp model assumes that the designer has strong meta-cognitive and leadership skills to be able to manage and revise changes during the development process (Botturi, Cantoni, Lepori & Tardini, in press; Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004). Morrison, Ross & Kemp states that the four essential roles are the instructional designer, instructor, SME and evaluator each having specific skills and responsibilities. The 3PD model discusses the support of skills as well as developing instructors and students skills and knowledge though shared
17 15 communication and working relationships (see Figure 4). Team members consist of administrators, technicians, designers, instructors and as well as learners (Sims & Jones, 2003). The inclusion of learners as well as focus on team (academic and technical staff) care and concerns contrast the 3PD model from the other models. 3PD Team model Figure 5. 3PD Team Responsibilities (source from Sims & Jones, 2003). Conclusion Three instructional design models, namely, Dick and Carey, Kemp and the 3PD model for educational initiatives were discussed and presented in this paper. Each model offered valuable benefits and guidance applicable to the instructional design process depending upon the institution s needs, purpose and setting. The characteristics and design for each model were compared and contrasted. Several similarities and differences were found during the analysis.
18 16 References Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (2001). Multimedia for learning, methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311. Retrieved Tuesday, April 11, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database. Battaiola, A. L., Elias, N. C., and Domingues, R. (2002). Edugraph: Software to teach computer graphics concepts. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Computer Graphics and Image Processing. SIBGRAPI. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 427. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from Beissner, K., Jonassen, D. H., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Belanger, F. & Jordan, D.H. (2000). Distance Learning Technology. Evaluation and Implementing of Distance Learning: Technologies, Tools and Techniques. Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing. Bill, D. (1997). Popular theory supporting the use of computer simulation for experiential learning. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from Botturi, Cantoni, L., Lepori, B., & Tardini, S. (in press). Fast prototyping as a communication catalyst for e-learning design. In M. Bullen & D. Janes (eds), Making the transition to e- Learning: Strategies and issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from Branch, R. M., & Gustafson, K. L. (1998). Re-visioning models of instructional development. Retrieved May 26th, 2006, from df Brandon, B. (2004). How do people learn? Some new ideas for e-learning designers. The elearning Developers' Journal. Retrieve June 10, 2006, from Brandt, D. (2001). Information technology literacy: Task knowledge and mental models. Library Trends, 50(1), 73. Retrieved Friday, May 26, 2006 from the MasterFILE Premier database.
19 17 Carswell, L. and Benyon, D. (1996). An adventure game approach to multimedia distance education. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, NY, Retrieved June 2, 2006, from Clark, R. (2003). Building expertise (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for the Performance Improvement. Clark, D. (2000) Developing instruction or instructional design. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagné, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD: Have we got instructional design all wrong? [Electronic version]. Training, Retrieved December 30, 2004, from XanEdu CoursePack database. Gustafson, K.L. & Branch, R.M. (2002a). Survey of instructional development models. (4 th edition). Retrieved May 24, 2006, from df Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002b). What is instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education. Jones, T., & Paolucci, R. (1999). Research framework and dimensions for evaluating the effectiveness of educational technology systems on learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 17. Retrieved Saturday, May 27, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database. Kearsley, G. (n.d.). Conditions of learning (R. Gagne). Retrieved June 1st, 2006, from
20 18 Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructive learning. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Volume II): A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Qureshi, E. (2004). Instructional design. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rourke, L. & Anderson, T., (2002) Using web-based, group communication systems to support case study learning at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [Online]. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Royer, R. (2002). Supporting technology integration through action research. Clearing House, 75(5), 233. Retrieved May 07, 2006, from the Academic Search Premier database. Ryder, M. (2006). Instructional design models. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill & Prentice Hall. Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Instructional Technology Research Online. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding design and planning through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23 (2), Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), Sims, R. & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptualising instructional design for online learning. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Smaldino, S.E., Rusell, J.D., Heinrich, R., Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning (8 th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
1 An exploration of Constructivist Learning Theories & Systems of Instructional Theories: Supporting Transfer of Learning in WBI courses 2 Abstract This paper will present an exploration and analysis of
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 12 December 2015 Comparative Analysis between System Approach, Kemp, and ASSURE Instructional Design Models By Ahmad Abdullahi Ibrahim Ahmad.email@example.com
Design 1 Running head: THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Instructional Design Teresa Hill University of Houston ClearLake In partial fulfillment of the requirements for INST 5131 Assignment 3 Caroline
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2007 ISSN 1302 6488, Volume: 8 Number: 2 Article: 5 IMPLICATIONS OF TWO WELL-KNOWN MODELS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNERS IN DISTANCE EDUCATION: DICK-CAREY
Essential Instructional Design Competences for Professional Driver Trainers This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author,
CGMB 123 MULTIMEDIA APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT Chapter 7 Instructional System Design Models T.J.Iskandar Abd. Aziz firstname.lastname@example.org Part I Instructional Design Terms & Definition Objectives 3 Upon
Instructional Scaffolding for Online Courses Helen M. Grady Mercer University email@example.com Abstract Instructional scaffolding is a process by which an instructor supports a student in executing a
Running Head: DIGITAL COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT Digital Communication Department Instructional Design Model Future Implications by Carolyn Tan A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN EDUCATION: NEW MODEL Prof. Dr. Aytekin İŞMAN Sakarya University, Turkey firstname.lastname@example.org & email@example.com, www.aytekinisman.com INTRODUCTION Instruction is a plan of teaching
Instructional Design Models UBC/KFUPM Workshop 2009 Instructional Design? The process for designing instruction based on sound practices. Instructional design is based on the assumption that learning is
Rapid prototyping: an efficient way to collaboratively design and develop e-learning content. Guy Boulet, MA Instructional designer Navy elearning center of Excellence Introduction Until recently, courseware
Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Computer Education and Instructional Technology A New Approach to Equip Students with Visual Literacy Skills: Use of Infographics in Education Pınar Nuhoğlu Kibar
Chapter 11 Design Models and Learning Theories for Adults Darryl L. Sink In This Chapter Define ISD models. Learn how to expand ISD models to meet current delivery systems. Understand how learning theories
Technology Integration and Instructional Design By Jennifer Summerville and Angelia Reid-Griffin We required that students consider how they will use the model to design, and plan their lessons to best
Exploring Three Instructional Development Models and a Review of the Case Against Model Use Forward Author s Note The mantra of every instructional designer is, Know your audience! There is good advice
ASSURE Model 1 Running head: ASSURE MODEL Deconstructing the Heinich, Moldena, Russell, and Smaldino Instructional Design Model Angela E. Megaw EDIT 6180 University of Georgia ASSURE Model 2 Unlike most
Proposed Models of Appropriate Website and Courseware for E-Learning in Higher Education: Research Based Design Models Jintavee (Monsakul) Khlaisang Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Educational
HMID 5003: Principles and Practices of Instructional Design Welcome and Introduction to the Course What a wonderful phrase this is: instructional design! Most times, students or people at large are curious
Instructional System 1 Running Head: INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DESIGN MODELS Instructional System Design Models: An Evaluation Francis O'Neill University of Houston Clear Lake Assignment 3 Caroline Crawford
Teaching & Media: A Systematic Approach The Gerlach & Ely Model A Critique by Sarah Grabowski February 27, 2003 Dr. Rob Branch EDIT 6180 The Gerlach & Ely Model From Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach,
Instructional Design for Online Educators Course Description Instructional Design for Online Educators focuses on the principles and best practices of successful online course design. Participants practice
REFLECTIONS ON LEARNING THEORIES IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 1 Reflections on the Learning Theories in the Instructional Design Process for the Utah Valley University Digital Media Portfolio Review Acceptance
Instructional Design: A Postcard View Brian Querry EDTECH 503 Spring 2011 List of Postcards SLIDES CONTENT 3-4 The History of Instructional Design 5-6 Definition of "Instructional Design" 7-8 Systematic
Jennifer M. Scagnelli Comprehensive Exam Question (O Bannon) Instructional Technology - Fall 2007 Instructional design is a system of procedures used to plan and develop instructional materials and activities
The Pedagogy of Medical Education Instructional Design Principles The best instruction is that which is: Effective - facilitates learners acquisition of the prescribed knowledge, skills and attitudes Efficient
ESE 6939 Instructional Design The mission of the College of Education is to prepare exemplary practitioners and scholars; to generate, use and disseminate knowledge about teaching, learning and human development;
The Systematic Design of Instruction Walter Dick, Florida State University Lou Carey, University of South Florida James O. Carey, University of South Florida Contents Preface xvii To the Instructor xxi
Incorporating Instructional Design Approaches into Library Instruction Dominique Turnbow, Undergraduate Services Librarian, University of California, San Diego Abstract Instructional design theories and
Instructional Design Course 1 Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN COURSE Syllabus Response: EPSY 350: Instructional Design Cognition and Instruction Comprehensive Exam Anthony R. Artino Jr. University of
Contact: Novita Training 1-773-590-3636 firstname.lastname@example.org www.novitatraining.com Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction (Dick & Carey) Brief description The Dick and Carey model prescribes
Instructional Design Spring Semester MEDT-7461-N01 Heather North 3/20/ Instructional Design has many definitions. Although each model is different, they all incorporate student centered components that
The Domain of Instructional Design In simple terms, instructional design is the process of asking questions to determine an appropriate solution for an instructional problem. During instructional design
Instructional Design Michael Molenda Associate Professor Instructional Systems Technology Indiana University Charles M. Reigeluth Professor Instructional Systems Technology Indiana University Laurie Miller
From Design Theory to Development Practice: Developing a Stronger Understanding of Our Field. Abstract Aaron Fried, Yongjin Lee, Karen Zannini, & Tiffany A. Koszalka Syracuse University How does one develop
Outcomes-based Taxonomy 1 An Outcomes-Based Taxonomy for the Design, Evaluation, and Research of Instructional Systems David Jonassen Penn State University Martin Tessmer University of South Alabama Note:
Conditions of Learning (R. Gagne) http://tip.psychology.org/gagne.html Overview: This theory stipulates that there are several different types or levels of learning. The significance of these classifications
Course Syllabus for EDIT 5317 Instructional Design Foundations Summer I, 2011 INSTRUCTOR: Steven Crooks OFFICE/PHONE: ED 264, 742-1997 ext. 297 OFFICE HOURS: T&TH2:00-4:30 p.m., and by appointment COURSE
Project DELTA: Improving Student Learning Through Interactive Course Design Peter J. Shapiro Director, Creative Learning Services Patti Levine-Brown Professor of Communications; Director, Project DELTA
A Study of Student Attitudes and Performance in an Online Introductory Business Statistics Class Sue B. Schou Idaho State University ABSTRACT Due to economic constraints, more and more distance education
. Educating for an Instructional Design and Instructional Technology Future Sonja A. Irlbeck, EdD Core Faculty, Instructional Design for Online Learning program Capella University 225 South Sixth Street
: An Instructional Design Model based on Knowledge Objects M. David Merrill and the ID 2 Research Group Department of Instructional Technology Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-2830, USA Educational
1 ADDIE Instructional Design Model Background information: Leshin et. Al. in 1992 labeled instructional design as instructional system development, in which an individual completes an ordered set of activities
Proposing a Layer Model for e-learning Design Katsuaki Suzuki 1, John M. Keller 2 Kumamoto University (Japan), Florida State University (U.S.A.) Key words: Layer model, e-learning, Instructional Design,
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT of LEADERSHIP & FOUNDATIONS COURSE SYLLABUS Course Prefix and Number: CCL 8153 Course Title: Credit hours: Type of course: Catalog description:
WHITE PAPER AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ADDIE INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DESIGN MODEL Jolly T. Holden. Ed.D. 2015 i Table of Contents Introduction to Instructional Systems Design...3 Instructional Systems Design
The Use of Traditional Instructional Systems Design Models for elearning December 2004 Table of Contents Glossary of Terms 3 List of Figures and Charts 5 Introduction 6 Instructional Design 7 Instructional
Introduction to Instructional Design: A Brief Primer By Nancy Wootton Colborn M any roles in libraries require that librarians teach, lead workshops, or give instruction to patrons in some way, but most
A Developmental Study of an Instructional Systems Design Model for Elementary School Teachers Lim, Cheolil (Seoul National University) Choi, Soyoung (Seoul National University) Hong, Miyoung (Seoul National
Multimedia Learning Theories and Online Instruction Nadaleen Tempelman-Kluit Online library instruction has not traditionally been designed based on educational learning theories. Rather, much of it has
Is Online Course Quality Predictive of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education? Stacey Clawson (Ph.D. expected June 2007) Manager, Next Generation Learning Capella University, Minneapolis, MN Dr. Sonja
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Volume 6, 2010 The Effect of Varied Visual Scaffolds on Engineering Students Online Reading Pao-Nan Chou and Hsi-Chi Hsiao (The authors contributed
Nancy B. Clark, M.Ed FSU College of Medicine The Pedagogy of Medical Education Instructional Design Principles The best instruction is that which is: Effective - facilitates learners acquisition of the
THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTIMEDIA- ASSISTED MASTERY LEARNING COURSEWARE IN LEARNING OF CELLULAR RESPIRATION Fazzlijan Mohamed Adnan Khan 1 and Mona Masood 2 1 Universiti Sains Malaysia,, email@example.com
An Overview of Teacher-Designers: How Teachers Use Instructional Design in Real Classrooms Patricia L. Rogers, Ph.D. Bemidji State University INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN REAL CLASSROOMS I ve learned how to
A STATISTICS COURSE FOR ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS Gary Kader and Mike Perry Appalachian State University USA This paper will describe a content-pedagogy course designed to prepare elementary
www.ncolr.org/jiol Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2007 ISSN: 1541-4914 Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach Sue-Jen University of North
Higher Education E-Learning Courseware: Pedagogical-Based Design and Development Jintavee Monsakul, Ed.D. Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Educational Technology, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS by JENNIFER L. TWILLEY B.S. University of Miami, 1992 M.B.A. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, 1996
Visual teaching model for introducing programming languages ABSTRACT Ronald Shehane Troy University Steven Sherman Troy University This study examines detailed usage of online training videos that were
CHAPTER 3 Learning and Instructional Systems Design The constructivist approach to learning is widely accepted by lecturers, but not always evident in their teaching practices, including web-based instruction.
First Principles 1 Running head: First Principles of Instruction First Principles of Instruction: A synthesis * Merrill, M. D. (2007). First principles of instruction: a synthesis. Trends and Issues in
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DESIGN N.J. Rao 1. Introduction Learning is part of everyday life. Typically the process of acquiring knowledge in an educational context involves two key elements: one (teacher) who
University of Wyoming ITEC 5160 Introduction to Instructional Design Class will be delivered online in an asynchronous format. The Fall 2013 semester lasts from 08/26/2013-12/06/2013. Instructor: Tonia
A Pebble-in-the-Pond Model For Instructional Design by M. David Merrill Instructional systems development (ISD) has recently come under attack to suggestions that it may not be an appropriate methodology
A Comparative Analysis of Preferred Learning and Teaching Styles for Engineering, Industrial, and Technology Education Students and Faculty Learning styles are personal qualities that influence the way
Essay: Educating for an Instructional Design and Technology Future Sonja A. Irlbeck, Capella University In the first issue of The Journal for Applied Instructional Design (April 2011), Wagner challenged
Establishing Conditions for Learning From Online Training Curricula By Dr. Richard H. Vranesh For Presentation at Virtual Educa 2003 Affiliated Computer Systems May 2003 1 Abstract Purpose For traditional
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY IN THE TEACHING OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING: A NEED ASSESSMENT ANALYSES Mohd Nasir ISMAIL, 1 Nor Azilah NGAH, 2 Irfan Naufal UMAR Faculty of Information Management Universiti Teknologi
Ellermann, Critical Thinking and Clinical Reasoning in the Health Sciences, Facione and Facione (eds.), California Academic Press. 1 Measuring Thinking Worldwide This document is a best practices essay
Volume 8, Number 10 April, 2005 ISSN 1099-839X Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities: Constructivism or Behaviorism? Marcee M. Steele University of North Carolina Wilmington There is much controversy
Instructional Systems Approaches: Criticisms and Responses Based on Theoretical and Empirical Evidences Graduate School Division of Education, Media and Society Doctoral Program 2008 October 10 2008 10
Instructional Design based on Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies for an Online Course Simone Conceição, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Education University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Karen Skibba
Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method Jason Haag Tolliver Group, in support of The ADL Initiative Peter Berking Serco, in support of The ADL Initiative What We ll Cover! Mobile Learning: Not
International J. Soc. Sci. & Education 2015 Vol.5 Issue 2, ISSN: 2223-4934 E and 2227-393X Print Evolutionary Nature of the Definition of Educational Technology By Ahmad Abdullahi Ibrahim Department of
1 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> Holistic Evaluation of an Academic Online Program Larry Schankman Instructional Designer Mansfield University Program evaluators
Research-Based Program Design Why Smart Tutor Works Al Lockett, M.Ed. Educational Technology Introduction Smart Tutor TM, published by Learning Today, is an advanced learning system designed to accelerate
42 Competencies for the New-Age Instructional Designer Roderick C. Sims Capella University, Woodburn, New South Wales, Australia Tiffany A. Koszalka Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York CONTENTS Introduction...570
Form 2B City University of Hong Kong Information on a Course offered by Department of Applied Social Sciences with effect from Semester A 2012/2013 Part I Course Title: Course Code: Course Duration: Educational
1 A letter to Friend Instructional Technology and Instructional Technology By Hamid Mohammed-Ahmed IST 524: Taught by Dr. Bude Su Dear Robert. Two months ago, I began studying another masters program called
Creating Effective Course Content in WebCT An Instructional Design Model By Randy L. Stamm and Bernadette Howlett As one part of its faculty development mission, the Instructional Technology Resource Center
An Overview of the Teacher Work Sample Introduction Brief History and Description of the TWS The Importance of Student Achievement Introduction The teacher work sample is both a product of student teaching
Constructivism: A Holistic Approach to Teaching and Learning Janet Giesen Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center Northern Illinois University Introductions Your name Your department or unit
Instructional Design Dr. James Smith Spring 2003 Instructional Design (ID) The systematic process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials and activities.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE PII: S232247701500028-5 Received 05 Jun. 2015 Accepted 10 Aug. 2015 2015, Scienceline Publication www.science-line.com ISSN: 2322-4770 Journal of Educational and Management Studies JEMS
1 Instructional Technology Foundations and Theories of Learning EDIT 704-3 credits, George Mason University, Spring 2004, Course Syllabus WebCT access is at http://webct.gmu.edu E-reserves access is at