as expert model
as primary source
instructional design concepts shown in Table 1 consolidate the instructional
design activities of Dear (1987), the events
of instruction proposed by Gagne, Briggs & Wager (1988) and
Gagne, Wager, & Rojas (1981), the design guidelines of Hannafin and
Peck (1988) and the strategies of
instructional design by Merrill (1997).
1. Summary of Instructional Design Concepts for the Behavior,
Cognitive and Resource Learning Theories
learning principles shown in Figure 1 consolidate and enhance the
instructional design models of the above-mentioned authors with
additional design concepts. These design concepts take advantage of the
Web's interactivity as well as the capability for student control and
navigation through a learning module.
Additional principles include the changing role of instructors in
Web-based training, the learner's control of the learning experience,
and variation of learning styles.
to the success factors shown in Figure 1, which was developed by
consolidating the findings of instructional design researchers,
Web-based researchers have found additional factors affecting learning
important is the concept of a non-linear approach to a lesson.
A non-linear approach is defined as the capability to move
through a lesson plan with a variety of learning paths.
The user is presented alternative paths other than that of just
clicking the "NEXT" button.
This non-linear approach permits the student to control the flow of the
lesson to some degree (Molina, 1995).
the design phase, the overall flow and the degree of independence given
to the student
are important. The flow is
truly independent in that the learner is given the navigation tools to
skip or choose modules. However,
on the negative side of independent
navigation, students might avoid particular learning goals.
Garrison (1989) reports a mixture of independence as well as
control where learners can choose their learning path, once evidence of
competency has been shown in particular areas
impact of using a variety of
media styles cannot be underestimated.
Ward and Lee (1995) report the average adult attention space is
twenty minutes, therefore a combination of slides, overheads, audio,
video, hands on exercises are vital in design considerations. While much
of the earlier theory of learning was based on studies of infants,
juveniles, and the intellectually impaired, Ward and Lee put forward
their work on the basis of studies of adult learners, thereby adding to
etal (1990), also stress the importance of variation in teaching. The potential of an adaptive Intelligent Tutoring System
(ITS) depends upon having a variety
of presentation techniques for the learner.
Jonassen et al (1995) expand the concept of a variety of
presentation styles. They
show that the computer provides the opportunity to develop problems for
students that either replicate or are analogous to the kinds of real
world problems faced by citizens, consumers, or business professionals.
They argue further that these problems provide challenging
situations for students to work together to solve real problems as
contrasted to the traditional classroom where the resource information
may not be available.
Martin (1995) offers suggestions for the design of
Web-based modules, which he believes, is basically navigation through a
cluster of interlinked nodes. His suggestions may seem intuitive, but it
is important that his work validates what others have surmised from
anecdotal evidence. The
Provide consistent navigation aids, these aids (back, forward,
glossary) should be found at the same location on every page.
every major node less then five clicks away
a limited use of graphics
large quantities of on-line text
templates to create each page to facilitate the process
Make printed copy valuable and easy to print (implying that
external links are minimal and nested links within a page are desired)
of the model
is a need for a methodology and system to support educators, IS
professionals and corporate trainers in the development of more
effective tutorials. This
model should assist in building of an individual learning concept or one
tutorial; it is not
intended to be a course management tool.
authoring systems for individual tutorials (FrontPage, PowerPoint,
Authorware, Director) support the HTML (HyperText Markup
Language) component of building tutorials.
Course management authoring tools such as WebCT, BlackBoard, and
TopClass facilitate the migration of learning materials to the Web, as
well as the management of these materials on the Web.
These course management tools provide the capability for building
effective pedagogy, but they do not automatically prompt the author for
the concepts shown in Figure 1. If
the course developers know effective learning theory then they will
build effective courseware, however course management tools do not
assist in the development of instructional materials (Janicki and Liegle,
are many tutorial-building efforts by independent IS professionals that
incorporate the success factors detailed in the previous section, but
all in all the IS professionals lack the expertise, time and guidance to
implement them effectively (Murray, 1998).
In effect these are single use modules and the process of design
starts over with each new learning module.
help replace or supplement this single use model, a new model is
proposed that could be used by many disciplines for the creation of
Web-based learning tutorials. Shown
in Figure 2 the Computer Supported Learning System (CSLS) model merges
the instructional design concepts shown in Figure 1 with the Web-Based
concepts detailed earlier in this section. An authoring system could be
developed to prompt the developer to build a Web-based learning model
based on pedagogy.
Figure 2. Computer
Supported Learning System (CSLS) Model
Table 2 details the learning theory that each of the
major components of the CSLS supports and promotes. Not shown in the model is the management of the HTML coding
process. It is recognized
that the CSLS should facilitate a consistent layout to the screens,
incorporate help menus, and link to test taking routines in course
Pedagogy promoted via the Computer Supported Learning System
Model Concept (Automatic Prompting)
Learning Theory Supported
of Learning Objectives
of learning styles for lesson content
Cognitive, Resource, with interactivity of Web-Based capabilities
with Web-Based capabilities
of the flow by the
learner (learner may select one or all of the presentation styles
of the lesson material
Resource with Web-Based capabilities
common interface and set of navigational features allowing the
learner to focus on the learning objectives instead of learning
and re-learning instructional interfaces
would be managed by the system
CSLS model incorporates the following learning and design concepts that
combine the interactivity, tracking, multimedia and self-navigation
features of CBT and Web-Based modules with effective pedagogy:
Gain user attention with clear and understandable designs,
consistent navigation tools, and a feeling of a personalized session.
Inform the learner of the objectives of the tutorial
List any prerequisites that should be accomplished before
executing this session.
Maintain student interest/engagement through a variety of
presentation styles (text, graphics, video, and audio).
Provide feedback for learners through enhanced help menus, and
the capability to ask questions.
Adapt to the needs of individual students with more than one
method to present a concept
Strengthen learner performance through problem sets and projects.
Provide feedback about performance to the learner and the
Assess performance through testing.
Monitor and track progress for the instructor.
The key benefits to both the developer and learner in
a Web-based environment are envisioned as:
Learning pedagogy – follows accepted learning concepts.
Design – automatically provides the author with screen images based on design
concepts that have been shown to impact learning in a positive manner.
Flexibility – provides the instructor the capability to offer many types of
tutorial content (text, audio, video).
Interactivity and self direction - where both the student and instructor may
modify the path (non-linear approach) of learning. Focuses the learner on the problem and steps to its solution,
not just the ‘right answer’.
Stakeholders - help the instructor build the models at a reasonable amount of time and effort, as well as being easy
for the learner to utilize.
Testing and Feedback – provides the student self-evaluation techniques,
and provides the author a means to incorporate feedback into the model.
of Learning Styles
we propose the CSLS model support three variations of learning styles as
shown in Table 2. These
variations are: narrative (tell), example (show), and exercise (do). Learners have different preferences in the manner they learn
best. Some learners like to
learn by reading a narrative of new information, as in reading a
textbook or article. Collins
and Brown (1997) encourage a second view of learning style, that being
the inclusion of examples. They
discuss this style of learning as similar to the way crafts are learned
from an expert in the field. In
the real world, the craft apprentice begins by watching an expert in
action and asking questions. Further
students may begin the learning process by watching an expert involved
in a process or strategy. Then
the students will incorporate this experience into their knowledge base
and eventually become the craftsperson themselves.
In a similar view, Ives and Jarvenpaa (1996) agrees that
conceptual knowledge can be closely linked to concrete examples via the
multidimensional nature of the World Wide Web.
A third view of
learning is the doing of mini-quizzes or exercises. Schank (1998) is a
proponent of doing. He
views the computer as an excellent device to get learners to do and
Schank notes that this doing cannot be accomplished in a traditional
classroom. Leinder &
Jarvenpaa (1993), Cole et al (1997) and Jonassen et al (1995) all agree
and report that the computer provides the opportunity to provide
learners with exercises similar to real world situations
three variations were chosen because of the ease of implementation.
Authoring tools can be built to assist the developer in the tell,
show and do methods of learning.
These three variations also support learning theories from the
cognitive, behavior and resource based learning styles as shown in Table
2. From the learner
viewpoint, the Web can support interactivity of quizzes, demonstrations
of examples (such as a video) and tell (textbook and PowerPoint)
many disciplines computer aided instruction has been demonstrated to be
an improvement for effective learning due to its capability to be
personalized to a learner's needs as well as time independence. Computer assisted learning has evolved from a focus on drill
to one of learning environments in which the student determines the
sequence of what happens in the pursuit of learning. Some recent
Web-based learning modules have an approach in helping the learner not
just get the right answer but understand the path to that answer through
self discovery and the taking advantage of the Web's resources and
paper has detailed the development of a model that may be used as a
guide in the creation of computer-based and Web-based learning
tutorials. Many researches
have called for an increased pedagogical foundation in authoring tools
for computerized aids to learning (Hamalainen et al., 1996 and Robin
& McNeil, 1997) . However
the average faculty member in higher education lacks the background in
educational theory (Murray, 1998 and Kearsley, 1998).
We propose that learning module developers may be aided in
enhancing their instructional presentation through the use of increased
learning theories in their development.
methodology for the CSLS framework is based on recognized learning
principles and provides a developer a guide to building more effective
learning modules. The model
matches the characteristics of effective pedagogy with a method to
implement these principles into an interactive learning medium. It encourages the transfer of knowledge in a more stimulating
and interesting manner; engages learners at their level of learning;
provides for a variety of learning styles; and finally provides detailed
assessments and feedback. Research
has shown that this pedagogy does not exist in the current authoring
systems and course management systems.
next step in this research would be to develop a computerized authoring
system based on the concepts in the model.
This computerized system should then be tested to measure the
learning effectiveness and practicality of the model.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer mediated collaborative learning: an empirical
evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18 (2), 159-174.
Anderson, J. and Reiser, B.(1985) The LISP tutor. Byte
Magazine, 10 (4), 159-175.
Barrett-Murie, D. (1995). Distance Learning spurs growth in VSAT Market Satellite Communication, 19 (9), 87-90.
Bork, A. (1986). Advantages of computer based learning. Journal
of Structured Learning, 9 (1), 63-76.
Brandt, S. (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for Understanding of the
Internet Communications of the ACM, 40 (10), 112-117.
Brevik, P. (1992). Education for the Information Age. In Farmer and Mech
(Eds.) Information Literacy: Developing Students as Independent Learners.
San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass Publishing.
Byrne, J. (1995). Virtual B Schools. Business
Week, n3447, 64-68.
Cole K.; Fischer, O.; and Saltzman, P.(1997), Just-In-Time Knowledge
Delivery, Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 49-53.
Collins, A. and Brown, J.S. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
students in the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Cognition
and Instruction. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dear, B. (1987). AI and the Authoring Process. IEEE
Expert, 2 (4), 17-23.
Filipczak, B. (1995). Putting the Learning into Distance Education. Training, 32 (10), 111-117.
Fletcher-Flinn, C. and Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer
assisted instruction: a meta analysis. Journal
of Educational Computer Research, 12(3), 219-242.
Frasson C. and Aimeur E. (1996). A comparison of three learning
strategies in intelligent tutoring systems. Journal
of Educational Computer Research, 14 (1), 363-371.
Garrison, D. (1989). Understanding
Distance Education. London: Routledge Publishing.
Gagne, R.; Briggs, L. and Wager, W. (1988). Principles of Instruction
Design Third Edition. New York: Holt, Reinhard, & Winston.
Gagne, R.; Wager, W. and Rojas, A. (1981). Planning and Authoring
Computer-Based Instruction Lessons. Educational
Technology, 21 (9), 17-26.
Gubernick L. and Ebeling A. (1997). I got my degree through E-mail. Forbes
Hamalainen, M.; Whintson, A. and Vishik, S. (1996). Electronic markets
for learning: education brokerages on the Internet Communications
of the ACM, 39 (6), 51-58.
Hannafin, M. and Peck, K. (1988). The Design Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New
York: MacMillian Publishing.
Ives, B. (1994). Transforming the Learning Industry, MIS
Quarterly, 18 (1), v-vii.
Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S. (1996). Will the Internet revolutionize
business education and research? Sloan
Management Review, 37 (3), 33-40.
Janicki, T. and Liegle J. (2000). More than Class Notes? A features
review of current Web-based courseware and their adherence to accepted
learning pedagogy. Proceedings
of the Allied Academy of
Educational Leadership, April 2000.
Jonassen, D.; Davidson, M.; Collins, M.; Campbell J.and Haag, B. (1995).
Constructivism and Computer Mediated Communication in Distance
Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 7-25.
Kearsley, G. (1998). Educational Technology: A Critique. Educational
Technology, 38(3), 47-51.
Leidner, D. and Jarvenpaa, S.(1993), The Information Age Confronts
Education: Case Studies on Electronic Classrooms, Information Systems
Research, 4 (1), 24-51.
Martin, T. (1995). The development of interactive WWW courseware for
students of engineering and technology at deakin university. Proceedings
of the Australian World Wide Web Conference. Lismore Australia:
McGee, M. (1998). Save on Training, Information
Week, n708, 141-146.
Merrill, M.D. (1997). On Instructional Strategies. Instructional
Technology Magazine, 2 (1).
Molina, C. (1995). Transitioning to CBT. Performance
& Instruction, 35 (9), 26-33.
Murray, T. (1998). Authoring Knowledge Based Tutors:
Tools for Content, Instructional Strategy, Student Model, and Interface
Design. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 7(1) 5-64.
Murray, T. (1996). Special Purpose Ontologies and the
Representation of Pedagogical Knowledge. Proceedings of the International Conference for the Learning Sciences.
Charlottesville VA: AACE.
Rakes, G. (1996). Using the Internet as a tool in a resource based
learning environment. Educational
Technology, 6 (2), 52-29.
Robin, B. and McNeil, S. (1997). Creating a course-based Web site in a
university environment. Computer
& Geosciences, 23
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective, some common
sense conceptions. Reports from
the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, 76.
Schank, R. (1993). Learning Via Multimedia Computers. Communications
of the ACM, 36 (5), 54-56.
Schank, R. (1998). Horses for courses. Communications
of the ACM, 41 (7), 23-25.
Solso, R. (1984). Cognitive
Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Spensley, F.; Elsom-Cook, M.; Byerley, P.; Brooks, P.; Federici, M. and
Scaroni, C. (1990). Using Multiple Teaching Strategies in ITS. In
Frasson and Gauthier (Eds). Intelligent
Tutoring Systems (pp. 188-205). Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing
Suchman, J. (1962). The elementary school training program in scientific
inquiry. Report to the U.S. Office of Education. Project Title VII. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois.
Ward, E. and Lee, J. (1995). An instructors guide to distance learning. Training
& Development, 49 (11), 40-44.
MSNBC On-Line News - http://www.msnbc.com/news/248039.asp
Southern Regional Electronic Campus - http://www.srec.sreb.org/
Copyright © 2002. All rights reserved.
Last Updated on 14 December 2002