Seels and Glasgow Model: Discovering Instructional Design 20

And so my friends, we reach Number 20 in our journey of discovery around Instructional Design. That's a month's solid blogging, investigating one of the fundamental domains associated with our profession.

What have we learned? More of that anon, but for now I'm going to cover the the Seels and Glasgow Model in this E-Learning Curve Blog series on a systems approach to instruction design.

Now read on…

In a 2008 article called Can we reinvent e-learning? I asserted that

ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resembles the philosophy and practice to this discipline's methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.

In my view this is no bad thing: the reality is that Learning & Development is a pragmatic discipline, tasked with facilitating individuals in their endeavors to learn, educators would be poorly served if the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical epistemologies of the domain did not at least tacitly acknowledge the practical challenges associated with implementing learning programs.

Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow's Model (see Figure 1) reflect this assertion; they situate their understanding of ISD and their model on the thesis that design occurs in the context of project management (p. 177).

Figure 1. The Seels and Glasgow Model
[Click to enlarge]

Their model is distributed across the three phases of project management:

1. Needs Analysis Management
2. Instructional Design Management
3. Implementation Management

This distribution allows a learning program (or project) to be planned, resourced, and managed much as any other project in an organization is arranged.

In this model, the first phase (Needs Analysis) includes the establishment of the instructional goals, requirements, and context for the courseware. Next, the Instructional Design phase begins when Needs Analysis is completed: this second phase consists of six activities:

1. task analysis
2. instructional analysis
3. objectives and tests
4. formative evaluation
5. materials development
6. instructional strategy and delivery systems

- all of which are linked via feedback and interaction communications channels. In Phase Three of the model (Implementation and Evaluation) the development and production of materials, training delivery, and summative evaluation are undertaken.

As is usual in a systems-based approach to ID, the phases in this model can are typically applied in a linear fashion, but they are often applied iteratively. As Gustafson and Branch highlight, the steps in the instructional design phase are interdependent and concurrent, and multiple iterations of this process may occur during this part of the development lifecycle (2001, p.43).

In this sense - and reflecting on my ADDIE/PM remarks, we can say that this is a product-oriented approach to content development. According to Chen

Developing an instructional project involves skill sets ranging from project management and interface design to sound preparation and programming...Design teams represent various fields of expertise (producers, instructors, editors, etc.).

(2007 pp.2-3)

Managing potentially large teams and and hundreds (if not thousands) of media assets needs substantial resources and commitment, and requires strong project management to stay on time and budget at the appropriate quality of outputs. To support this objective, Seels and Glasgow focus on the importance of well-designed materials, the need to identify and understand communication patterns within organizations, develop strategies for diffusion of innovations, and the importance of supporting learners.

Interestingly, Seels and Glasgow also include the concept of diffusion of innovations in their model:

The strategies that lead to diffusion are most effective if used during all the phases of a project.

(1998, p. 178)

They consider that when their model is applied ,the phases are generally linear in nature but

it is not necessary to complete a step before proceeding, and the order can be changed so that steps can be performed concurrently.

(1998, p 179)

We can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems philosophy epitomized in ADDIE quite will, while acknowledging the needs and limitations of the practical application of instructional design. Much like 3PD, formative evaluation via a feedback mechanism (multiple iterations rather than recursion) is a distinguishing (but not unique) characteristic of Seels and Glasgow's approach.

Next time: What have we learned? The implications of Instructional Systems Design for E-Learning
___________

References:

Chen, I. (2007) Instructional Design Methodologies. In: Kidd, T. & Song, H. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology. IGI Global

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional Technology. Columbus OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

--

Gagne and the Events of Instruction: Discovering Instructional Design 19

In yesterday's post, I looked at the ASSURE instructional design model, which was originally developed by Heinich et al in the 1990's, and is now popularly and widely-used in both classroom and e-learning environments.

Given the ASSURE Model's constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it's roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers ...focus [...] on the outcomes - or behaviors - that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn't feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding "the process of learning" (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne's text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which "correlate to and address the conditions of learning" (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

Instructional Event	Internal Mental Process
1. Gain attention	Stimuli activates brain's receptors
2. Inform learners of objectives	Creates level of expectation for learning
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning	Retrieval and activation of short-term memory
4. Present the content	Selective perception of content
5. Provide "learning guidance"	Semantic encoding for storage long-term memory
6. Elicit performance (practice)	Responds to questions to enhance encoding and verification
7. Provide feedback	Reinforcement and assessment of correct performance
8. Assess performance	Retrieval and reinforcement of content as final evaluation
9. Enhance retention and transfer to the job	Retrieval and generalization of learned skill to new situation

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

--

ASSURE Model: Discovering Instructional Design 18

As we saw when we investigated the Three-Phase Design Model, a number of stakeholders including subject matter experts, educationalists, and technical experts need to work together to design and develop learning programs and educational courseware.

The ASSURE Model is a constructivist approach to training design developed by Robert Heinich and Michael Molenda of Indiana University and James D. Russell of Purdue University in the 1990's.

ASSURE is an acronym derived from the key verb descriptor of the tasks associated with the approach. As such, the model proposes a six-step guide for planning and delivering instruction; while not specifically designed for e-learning, in practice it the methodology seems to align to the requirements of designing courseware for that modality.

The steps (or tasks) are described in detail in Table 1:

Table 1 ASSURE Model components (after Human Resource Development website)

A	Analyze Learners	Prerequisite skills or knowledge What courses are taken prior to this one? What knowledge is assumed? Learning Styles of the students - This model emphasizes teaching for different learning styles. Motivations - Why is the learner taking the course?
S	State Objectives	Statements describing what the learner will do as a result of instruction. Things to keep in mind as you write your objectives are: Focus on the learner, not the teacher Use behaviors that reflect real world concerns Objectives are descriptions of the learning outcomes and are written using the ABCD format. Audience: Who is the audience? Specifies the learner(s) for whom the objective is intended. Behavior: What do you want them to do? The behavior or capability needs to be demonstrated as learner performance, an observable, measurable behavior, or a real-world skill. Use an action verb from the helpful verbs list if you have difficulty doing this. Condition: Under what circumstances or conditions are the learners to demonstrate the skill being taught? Be sure to include equipment, tools, aids, or references the learner may or may not use, and/or special environmental conditions in which the learner has to perform. Degree: How well do you want them to demonstrate their mastery? Degree to which the new skill must be mastered or the criterion for acceptable performance (include time limit, range of accuracy, proportion of correct responses required, and/or qualitative standards.)
S	Select Methods, Media and Materials	You need to decide what method you will primarily use to support the learning objectives: for example: lectures, online collaboration, group work, a field trip, etc. What media you will use: photos, multimedia, video? Are you using store bought materials, getting an outside resource to provide materials, modifying something you already have, or develop something from scratch? Selection Criteria: Media Selection - Media should be selected on the basis of student need. - We must consider the total learning situation. - Should follow learning objectives. - Must be appropriate for the teaching format. - Should be consistent with the students' capabilities and learning styles. - Should be chosen objectively. - Should be selected in order to best meet the learning outcomes. - No single medium is the total solution. - Does it match the curriculum? - Is it accurate and current? - Does it contain clear and concise language? - Will it motivate and maintain interest? - Does it provide for learner participation? - Is it of good technical quality? - Is there evidence of its effectiveness (e.g., field-test results)? - Is it free from objectionable bias and advertising - Is a user guide or other documentation included?
U	Utilize Media and Materials	Plan how you are going to implement your media and materials. For each media type and/or materials listed in the Select step, describe in detail how you intend to implement them into your lesson to help your learners meet the lesson's objective. Do this for each item. In order to utilize materials correctly there are several steps to creating good student-centered instruction. 1. Preview the material- Never use anything in class you have not verified and validated. 2. Prepare the material- Make sure you have everything you need and that it all works. 3. Prepare the environment- Set up the classroom so that whatever you’re doing will work in the space you have. 4. Prepare the learners- Give the students an overview, explain how they can take this information and use it and how they will be evaluated up front. 5. Provide the learning experience- Teaching is simply high theatre. Showmanship is part of the facilitator's job. Teaching and learning should be an experience not an ordeal.
R	Require Learner Participation	Describe how you are going to get each learner "actively and individually involved in the lesson. Ex: games, group work, presentations, etc. All activities should provide opportunities to manipulate the information and allow time for practice during the demonstration of the skill.
E	Evaluate and Revise	Describe how you will evaluate and measure whether or not the lesson objectives were met. Were the media and the instruction effective? Evaluate student performance: How will you determine whether or not they met the lesson's objective? The evaluation should match the objective. Some objectives can be adequately assessed with a pen and paper test. If the objectives call for demonstrating a process, creating a product, or developing an attitude, the evaluation will frequently require observing the behavior in action. Evaluate media components: How will you determine the media effectiveness? Evaluate instructor performance: How will you determine whether or not your own performance as instructor/facilitator was effective?

While the learner's needs, the instructional goals, and the availability or desirability of particular media are the drivers for the design and development, Gunter and Baumbach (Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia, 2003) state that

The instructional goals should be the focus, not the goal. When integrating technology, it should always be viewed as a tool that assists... the learning needs of the student. The teacher becomes a mentor and colearner, who is actively engaged in enabling students to access, analyze, apply, and create information electronically.

(pp.193-194)

More…

___________

References:

Gunter, G. & Baumbach, D. (2004). Curriculum Integration. In: Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. (Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. Eds). ABC-CLIO; illustrated edition

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development [Internet] Available from: http://itchybon1.tripod.com/hrd/id15.html Accessed 10th June 2009

--

Factors Influencing Learning Design: Discovering Instructional Design 17

One of the more interesting outcomes of the Three-Phase Design (3PD) model has been that, while in and of itself, it describes a strategic context from which to build and maintain online teaching and e-learning environments, it does not focus on more granular aspects of the design process proper.

According to Rod Sims (2008) there are six factors are essential to achieving engaging, interactive and memorable learning experiences (see Figure 1). The 3PD Model supports these factors by establishing the build-enhance-maintain process as core to successful project implementation.

Figure 1. Six factors influencing e-learning design (after Sims, 2008)
[Click to enlarge]

Sims called this model Proactive Design for Learning (PD4L): the six factors that enable the design of effective online teaching and learning are:

1. Theory-based, ensuring that decisions are based on contemporary approaches to teaching and learning.
2. Innovative and relevant (incorporating elements of proactive evaluation documented by Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).
3. Team-based, with team members having the relevant and appropriate competencies to engage with and complete the design tasks (Sims & Koszlaka, 2008).
4. Emergent, allowing (where appropriate) the interactions between course participants to establish and introduce course content (Irlbeck, Kays, Sims & Jones, 2006).
5. Interactive, enabling participants to actively explore the relevance and application of the course content (Allen, 2003; Sims, 2006).
6. Personalized, such that participants are able to apply their own context and situation to the learning outcomes (Sims & Stork, 2007).

People (and organizations) do not adopt new ideas at the same time. Some adopt ideas when they are first introduced; others wait for varying periods of time; some never adopt an idea. In The Diffusion Process (1957), Bohlen and Beal maintain that

...the time span over which people adopt ideas will vary from practice to practice.

(p.4).

The authors' research indicated that complexity of practice is a significant factor in determining the value of a diffused idea or technology in organizations. They defined the following categories of complexity:

• Change in material and equipment
• Improved practice
• Innovation
• Change in enterprise
• Cost

Three-Phase Design and it's subsequent iterations are representative of educators' responses to the challenges and opportunities afforded by the introduction, diffusion, and adoption of Web-based technologies in education: traditional approaches to instructional design do not necessarily fit the requirements of online learning. Of particular note in this context is the emergence of Constructivism as a theoretical framework for the development of online learning programs. In the PD4L Model, for example, Sims cites

theories including the social formation of the mind (Vygotsky, 1978), meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968), situated cognition (Clancey, 1997), constructivism (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivism (Siemens, 2004).

(p.9)

He continues:

Together with a pragmatic, interpretivist epistemology, the PD4L model focuses on creating teaching and learning environments where relevant, meaningful knowledge is constructed by the individual.

When compared to the purely Functionalist (in the anthropological sense of the term) methodology of ISD, we can see that models like Sims and Jones' are attempting to accommodate the power and flexibility afforded by digitally mediated technologies in the context of acquisition of skills, knowledge construction, and a more experiential view of learning, that the traditional systems-based approach.

More…
___________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957). The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Malinowski, B. 1990. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Reissue edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster International.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-147.

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), 3-20.

--

3PD Approaches to Evaluation: Discovering Instructional Design 16

We're approaching the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. I’ve no doubt that there will be a bombard of documentaries, retrospectives, and "why aren't we there now?" features coming this July, surrounding the big day itself. This will brighten up my summer no end. Despite its Cold War beginnings, I happen to think that the Apollo-era US Manned Space Program represents the epitome of human vision and endeavor.

What has this got to do with instructional design, say you?

Well, read on...

NASA wouldn't have got to the Moon, or even to the next town, without gimbals. Not only does NASA use gimbals for orienting rocket engines, but also when designing navigational systems and instrument panels. Without gimbals, it would have been very difficult for NASA to find a way to send astronauts safely into space.

A gimbal is a mechanism that helps to keep an object on target: it's built into the platform's systems to correct deviations from a pre-determined goal.

On the Saturn V rocket, for example, gimbals were used to set the rocket at the correct pitch and yaw angles to safely "clear the tower" - that is, not bump into the rocket's support gantry on lift-off. Later in the flight, gimbals pitched the rocket's trajectory to align with the Earth's curve for it's journey into orbit (rockets don't go "straight up" but rather ascend in an arc until they attain the required altitude).

So what space nerd. What has this to do with instructional design, say you again, losing patience?

In my view, the task gimbals* perform space flight is similar to the role evaluation performs in instructional design.

According to Donald Clark (2009)

Evaluation is the systematic determination of merit, worth, and significance of a learning or training process by using criteria against a set of standards.The evaluation phase is ongoing throughout the ISD process. The primary purpose is to ensure that the stated goals of the learning process will actually meet a required business need. Thus, it is performed during the first four phases of the ISD process.

Indeed, we can see that this strategy is codified in Dick and Carey's approach (see Figure 1), where an ongoing review process indicated during the first six phases of the process.

Figure 1. Dick and Carey's Model
[Click to enlarge]

Formal evaluations proper are undertaken in steps 7-9 of their model:

1. Determine the instructional goal
2. Analyze the instructional goal
3. Analyze the learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
8. Revise instruction
9. Undertake summative evaluation

Dick and Carey (2001) recommend three categories of of formative evaluations to support this process: one-to-one (or clinical) evaluation, small-group evaluation, and field evaluation, but in my view they don't suggest a mechanism for evaluation per se, as the activities they suggest are standard ethnographical research methodologies. Similarly, while they consider on-going reviews to be a component the their ID model, the research suggests that In her 1989 article Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature, Marguerite Foxon describes herself as "surprised" at the "general" and "superficial" nature of the research undertaken on evaluation, and considered that what was there was "difficult to understand and apply."

She continues:

Where evaluation of programs is being undertaken it is often a 'seat of the pants' approach and very limited in its scope. ...trainers often revert to checking in the only way they know - post-course reactions - to reassure themselves the training is satisfactory.

If the literature is a reflection of general practice, it can be assumed that many practitioners do not understand what the term evaluation encompasses, what its essential features are, and what purpose it should serve. ...Many practitioners regard the development and delivery of training courses as their primary concern, and evaluation something of an afterthought."

She suggests that many practitioners prefer to "remain in the dark," concerned that any actual evaluation will "confirm their [the instructional designers'] worst fears" about the educational quality of the courseware they deliver, with the result that they "choose to settle for a non-threatening survey” of Kirkpatrick Level 1-style trainee reactions.

As we have seen in our look at the Three-Phase Design (3PD, in this model evaluation is not viewed as a post-delivery activity (Sims, 2008 p.5): the nature of Web-based education is such that changes can be made immediately (that is, during Phase 2 - Evaluate, Enhance, Elaborate), as long as those changes don't affect the integrity of the learning program's objectives. The second phase can be

"conceptualised to take place during course delivery, with feedback from both teachers and learners being used to modify and/or enhance delivery.

(p5)

Sims and Jones (2003) call this process "proactive evaluation" (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proactive evaluation in 3PD
[Click to enlarge]

Using this approach, formative "feedbacks" occur between instructor and students during course implementation. The authors assert that this mechanism continues the dynamic collaboration between the members of the development team enhances. The second phase enables

generational changes in the course structure, with emphasis on the production (completion) of resources, and where learners can take a role of research and evaluation assistants. By developing and building effective communication paths between each of these three roles, a shared understanding of the course goals and learning outcomes can be established, thereby minimising and compromise in educational quality and effectiveness.

In my view, (as shown in Figure 3), the evaluation in this model is founded upon recursion. The enhancement process is undertaken by the actors (instructors, designers, and learners) using a strategy similar to the concept of optimal (or dynamic) programming, where complex problems are solved by breaking them down into simpler sub-problems.

Figure 3 Recursive evaluation in the 3PD Model
[Click to enlarge]

In essence, the enhancement process is repeated until the learning program is considered complete.

Even during the Maintenance Phase, the ongoing process of

gathering and incorporating evaluation data caters for the sustainability of the course.

(Sims, 2008 p.6)

Unlike the Dick and Carey and Kemp Models, 3PD supports overlapping roles, skills, and responsibilities. These contributions may well change through the lifecycle of a learning program, as the model promotes and supports the development of instructors and students' knowledge, skill and experience via the virtuous circle of ongoing collaboration and communication between the actors, and the development of working relationships. The inclusion of learners in the content development process differentiates 3PD from the other models discussed here.

More...

*(Note to hardcore design-heads: this is a metaphor†: I'm not suggesting they're literally equivalent. Go with it).

†Metaphor (n) - a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

___________

References:

Clark, D. (2009). Evaluation in Instructional Design. [Internet] Available from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat6.html Accessed 12 June 2009

Foxon, M. (1989). Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 89-104. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet5/foxon.html Accessed 12 June 2009

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), 3-20.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

--

Phases of the 3PD Approach: Discovering Instructional Design 15

The intent of the Three-Phase Development (3PD) Model was to provide a new focus for the end-to-end learning content and evaluation development process, especially for Web-based teaching and learning. As discussed yesterday, a central tenet of 3PD was that course creation could not be viewed as a short-term development process, but rather as a long-term collaborative process which would

generate and evolve into focused communities of practice with shared understanding and a philosophy of continuous improvement

(Sims & Jones, 2003 , p. 18)

Three-Phase Design is configured to elicit learning content through a three-step process of developing functionality, evaluating, elaborating, and enhancing and maintaining materials, rather than the more traditional systems approach of analyze, design, develop, implement, evaluate. The approach also aims to align the "three essential competency sets" for courseware development - course design, subject matter exposition, and content production - in an integrated fashion rather than as a set of uncoordinated activities.

Rather than process driving development, it is the context of the educational components which determine the members of development teams in a targeted and effective manner. Ideally, these teams would remain for the duration of the project, potentially over a number of semesters.

(Sims, 2008 p.3)

To achieve this goal, 3PD specifies a series of "baselines" (2008 p.4) that align with implementation iterations – the first focusing on building functional and essential course components, the second on enhancement or interactivity, and the third to ongoing maintenance of the courseware (see Figure 1). These three phases of development integrate systems-based methodological approaches to content development, scaffolding of contributors, and quality assurance.

Figure 1: Three-Phase Design & Scaffolding
(after Sims & Jones, 2003)
[Click to enlarge]

According to Sims and Jones, Phase 1 is a predelivery mode, which involves the gathering and preparation of web-based teaching resources, learning channel, specifying assessment-based outcomes, preferred teaching modality, and learning/learner activities designed to attain the prescribed outcomes. Three-phase Design enables a teacher with minimal experience in Web-based training and learning environments to access "functional learning structures" (Sims, 2008 p.4) and in-team expertise from the Developers and the Educational Designers in the group.

Phase 2 (Enhancement) is the delivery stage in 3PD. The asynchronisity of digital network supported learning, and the object-oriented nature of e-learning is such that modifications can be implemented in courseware on an ongoing basis (for example to take account of new learning materials or new knowledge) to enhance the student's ability to achieve the learning objectives. The second phase can be in this way to take place during course delivery, with Kirkpatrick Level 1 and Level 2-style feedback from both instructors and learners being used to modify and/or enhance delivery either continuously. or in a staged manner. For example modifications may be implemented before the beginning of each new semester, based upon the reactions of learners who took the course during the previous semester.

The third stage of 3PD - the maintenance phase - occurs during the "main sequence" (to borrow a term form astronomy) of the course lifecycle. In time, a course will attain a stable state where the teaching strategies and learning activities are working effectively, it’s materials are up-to-date, and the course is taken by sufficient number of learners to make delivery and maintenance cost-effective for the host institution.

Sims (2008) considers that:

The implications of applying the 3PD model is that the original functional system will always be subject to change, and that development environments need to schedule resources for the life-time of that course. The continual process of gathering and incorporating evaluation data caters for the sustainability of the course.

(p.6)

Phase 3 provides an opportunity for a rigorous quality assurance process to be undertaken, and for stakeholders in the course development project to consolidate the instructional design and collaborative skills acquired during the 3PD process: ideally these skills are then applied to the development of a new learning program, where they continue to be refined, with remediation taking place as necessary.
___________

References:

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality.Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Internet: Available from: http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/ Accessed 3 June 2009.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

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), 3-20.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, in J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R. Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models. Internet: Available from: http://www.de-research.com/PhDFinalPapers/CT_3IDModels.pdf Accessed 1 June 2009

--

Discovering Instructional Design 14: the Three-Phase Design Model

In the field of education, instructional design has traditionally been applied using established models, typically using a top-down approach, that focus on explicit definitions of audience, environment, strategies, activities and outcomes. However, when different traditions of design are considered, more creative and organic elements are emphasised, which also embrace a ‘bottom-up’ strategy.

Kays, E, & Sims, R. (2006).

The growth of e-learning has motivated educators to re-examine the theory and practical application of instructional design models to the task of courseware design, development, and delivery.

As we have seen, the ICARE model takes a 'traditional' linear systems approach to course design, but has also been used as the basis for migrating content to an online environment. As we know, migration is a directed, systematic movement of a group of objects, organisms, or people. If we step outside the ICT world for a moment, what else can we say about migration? We know that it is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and risky, with no guarantee that the migrant will reach their destination, and if they do, that they will survive and thrive in their new environment. Returning to the world of digital technology, Gregory Muira (2007) asserts that there are a number of other disadvantages associated with migration:

• Migration addresses the possible obsolescence of the data carrier, but does not address the fact that certain technologies which run the data may be abandoned altogether, leaving migration useless.
• It's time consuming - migration is a continual process, which must be repeated every time a media reaches obsolescence, for all data objects stored on a certain media.
• It's costly - an organization must purchase additional data storage media at each a migration.

Migration can be confused and messy

As a result of these disadvantages, technology professionals have begun to develop alternatives to migration, such as emulation. However, emulation per se is not an effective solution for educational technologists - we know the issues and complications inherent in attempting to replicate the classroom or instructor-led environment in an online milieu. So whither instructional design in the Digital Age?

One well-developed approach is Sims and Jones’ Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model. Three-Phase Design is

an enhancement to the traditional design process [that] 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 and strategies can be developed or modified during the actual delivery stage.

(Sims & Jones, 2002 p.8).

As illustrated in Figure 1, the process is supported by a "team" (p.8) consisting of an academic (A), a developer (D), and an educational designer (ED) who all contribute to each part of a learning program's iterative progression through the model. The authors' consider that the "ultimate goal" of the model is to disintermediate the Developer and the Educational Designer, enabling the Academic to function as an independent Developer and Educational Designer over time.

Figure 1. The 3PD model including ADDIE components (after Sims & Jones, 2002)

I would assert that in its stated goal, and to a certain extent in it's execution, that the 3PD model is a direct-line antecedent of the Rapid E-Learning approach to courseware design, development and delivery. It's important to point out thought that Sims and Jones themselves view online course creation

not ...as a short-term development process, but rather as a long-term collaborative process which would “generate and evolve into focused communities of practice with shared understanding and a philosophy of continuous improvement” the value of 3PD would be realised through a three-step process of develop functionality, evaluate/elaborate/enhance and maintain rather than the more traditional sequence of design, develop, implement, evaluate.

(2003, p. 18)

Three-Phase Design also integrates the three "essential competency sets for unit or course development" (Sims, in press) - design, subject matter exposition, and production, in a cohesive rather than disparate fashion. Here, development is not driven by a an overarching and inflexible process, but rather it is the context of the learning materials which determines the development in a targeted and effective manner. The approach is based upon the assumption that learning takes place in an online an collaborative environment. Sims and Jones state that 3PD "proposes four critical factors:"

1. Instructional design must align with institutional expectation, contemporary pedagogies, and available resources and skills
2. Skills building is facilitated through the scaffolding process to enable those less proficient in design and development to develop the appropriate competencies.
3. A team-based approach is used to develop communication and collaboration among group members. Sims and Jones (2002) point out that the growth in social media reinforces the importance of this factor.
4. Scaffolded support is incorporated into content design-time to enable instructors and staff to confront new and learning paradigms.

Next time: A closer look at 3PD's phases

___________

References:

Kays, E, & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design:A theory for emergent learning. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p197.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

Muira, G. (2007). Pushing the Boundaries of Traditional Heritage Policy: maintaining long-term access to multimedia content. IFLA Journal 33: 323-326.

Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality.Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Internet: Available from: http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/ Accessed 3 June 2009.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf Accessed 3 June 2009

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), 3-20.

Sims, R. (in press). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, in J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R. Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models. Internet: Available from: http://www.de-research.com/PhDFinalPapers/CT_3IDModels.pdf Accessed 1 June 2009

--

Discovering Instructional Design 13: ICARE Model – Middlesex University’s experience

We have now reached the “precipice of the crossroads” as Sopranos’ character Little Carmine said.

So far, all the models I've talked about in this E-Learning Curve Blog series have described a linear process in the design of learning events, for the purpose of delivering the content in a classroom environment.

This approach has been variously categorized as "phased," "stepped," and "unit-based." It assumes a pretty sophisticated knowledge of pedagogy, as well as a degree of experience in instructional design. In the classroom context, instructors, trainers, and lecturers do not necessarily have an instructional design background, and typically do not follow a linear method of planning and learning event decision-making. From a development perspective, we find educators undertaking instructional design who rarely work according to theory. More often than not, the design of instruction is not a linear activity - an idea developed in the Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model, where the application of an instructional design model could be initiated at any point during the design process.

Experience tells learning professionals that an idea of what needs to be developed already exists, and this often provides the basis of the design. The instructional designer then reviews the design to ensure all components of the "model" have been accounted for, and refines the design if necessary to "check all the boxes." The process is then written up as if it occurred in a linear and systematic fashion. I would assert that the substantial majority of educators under time-pressure and with high demands on their skills would admit that they have done this - if not publicly, then certainly in the wee small hours, in the darkness of their souls.

As I discussed yesterday, the ICARE approach is a distillation of the Dick and Carey Model for instructional design. Today, we'll look at how Middlesex University in the UK modified the ICARE model for their Global Campus initiative.

The higher education must undergo a paradigm shift from an environment and culture shaped by the brick and mortar facilities and faculty-centred activities, to an environment defined by “learner-centred” processes shaped by information technology and ubiquitous asynchronous access to subject content material, learner support activities and technology-literate resource personnel.

(Dubois,1998)

In response to the Jacques Dubois’ challenge, Middlesex University established a “Global Campus”. The Global Campus offers distance learning education in countries including Egypt, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK.

In the conventional mode, the [Middlesex] University staff interacts with students in lectures, seminars, and labs. Initially, the elimination of all staff interaction with students was considered; however, it was felt that staff provide necessary support for the student including instructional support, and study direction. Additionally, meeting in seminars allowed the students to meet with each other leading to more peer interaction which is considered desirable. In this every student would be required to manage their own learning, but be able to interact with both tutors and other students.

(Mojab & Huyck, 2001)

In the Global Campus framework, courseware is distributed asynchronously via the on-line Global Campus WebCT LMS (now owned by BlackBoard), or via a CD-ROM which is issued to all the students registered on the distance learning program. The Global Campus’ instructional framework was developed at Middlesex University based on the ICARE Model (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Original ICARE Model
[Click to enlarge]

The Middlesex ICARE framework (MDX-ICARE) departs from the base model in both pedagogy and implementation. Pedagogically, the second phase ("Connect") has been changed to "Content." According to Mojab and Huyck it was changed for "clarity." So, introduction is followed by the content - in which the main lesson is presented with intermittent activities to engage the student and make the learning an active rather than a passive process. The activities are often linked to the Apply component of the unit (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 ICARE-MDX Framework
[Click to enlarge]

The Global Campus development team implemented a seven-phase process to convert their materials for delivery over digitally mediated channels.

1. A 20-unit breakdown of the module is provided by the module leader; this includes a brief introduction and list of objectives for each unit. This was considered an important and difficult stage in the development of a new module, with little history of previous runs.
2. The plan is considered and approved by the Global Campus academic board chaired by the Distance Learning Curriculum Leader.
3. The introduction unit (unit 01) is written by the module leader to provide the authoring team with an overall picture of the module and its objectives.
4. The remaining units are divided between a team of authors with a schedule of delivery.
5. Authored units are sent to the internal reviewers and back to the authors for final consideration and amendment.
6. The final version is fully piloted to a small cohort of students.
7. If necessary, further revision is made and the final product is sent to the host campus for implementation.

According to the authors, the Global Campus material was also used for the conventional students. These students had a hard copy of the material in the form of a 500-page handbook (requested by the students), a CD version of the web site, and access to the WebCT site. According to Mojab and Huyck "this material was very beneficial for the conventional students. It provided a great deal of information, and pointers to other information for these students.

The authors continue:

Having said that, initially, some students expressed their unhappiness with information overload. The above material along with the conventional lectures and faculty contact was too much for the students. Some felt that they had to read all of the work and do all of the activities. It had to be pointed out that they were responsible for particular issues in each unit that were specified in the introduction. The unit included material to expand and explore these issues. They were relieved. Indeed the feedback from the students has been very positive.

(2001 p.12)

As a result of course conversion to a Global Campus module, both distance and conventional students had access to a comprehensive set of lecture notes produced for the online modules, meaning that a significantly greater amount of lecture time can be spent on interacting with the students rather than on presenting the lecture material.

In this context,

Not having to present the material, which is provided in print, presents a real opportunity to introduce to and extensively discuss with students additional but related topics which would greatly enhance their understanding of the subject. The absence of this opportunity in the distance learning mode suggests that the conventional students appear to be at advantage.

(Mojab & Huyck, 2001 p.12)

The Global Campus team concluded that the process of refactoring their courseware for e-learning had the following results:

• Higher quality content for students
• Inter-discipline and cross-discipline academic collaboration
• Opportunity for research and publication
• Administration and management infrastructure operational efficiency
• More effective use of time
• Student expectations increased

According to Michael Moore’s (1993) theory of ‘transactional distance,’ the greater distance there is between the learner and the instructor, the more responsibility the learner has to take in the instructional process.

This theory suggests that distance learning models should provide a better model for developing autonomy in the learner than the conventional model of learning. The Middlesex University team recommend that a suitable qualitative and quantitative survey of transactional distance theory could be carried out to measure and compare the development of autonomy in distant and near learner by testing for the following four conditions:

• Students are actively involved in all decisions made about their learning.
• Students are able to learn without the continuous involvement of teachers.
• Students are active rather than passive.
• Students are able to take responsibility about their own learning.

Next: We move into the domain of Instructional Design in the context of e-learning proper.

__________

References:

Dubois, J. (1998). Distance Learning: A transformation Model for Higher Education. 4th International Conference on Technology Supported Learning, Berlin, Germany.

Mojab, D. & Huyck, C. (2001). The Global Campus at Middlesex University: A Model for E-Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cwa.mdx.ac.uk/chris/draft6.doc Retrieved 3 June 2009

Moore, M. (1993), Theory of transactional distance. In: Desmond Keegan (Ed.): Theoretical principles of distance education. London, New York: Routledge 1993, p.22-38.

--

Discovering Instructional Design 12: the ICARE Model

In the broadest sense of the term, 'instructional design' has been described as

…an emerging profession, (2) focused on establishing and maintaining efficient and effective human performance, (3) guided by a model of human performance, (4) carried out systematically, (5) based on open systems theory, and (6) oriented to finding and applying the most cost-effective solutions to human performance problems and discovering
quantum leaps in productivity improvement through human ingenuity.

(Smith & Tillman, 2004 p.1)

More prosaically Gustafson & Branch consider instructional design (ID) as

a system of procedures for developing education and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion. Instructional design is a complex process that is creative, active, and iterative.

(What is Instructional Design? 2002, p. 17)

The latter assert that instructional design is a complex systematic process with the following characteristics;

• interdependent - no elements can be separated from the system
• synergistic - all the elements can achieve more than the individual elements alone
• dynamic - systems can adjust to changing conditions in environments
• cybernetic - elements communicate among them efficiently

According to Gustafson and Branch, adhering to a instructional systems design process and can make instruction more effective and relevant to learners.

With these parameters in place, let's take a look at the ICARE approach to designing instruction. Based on the venerable Dick and Carey Model and pioneered by San Diego State University in 1997, the model has found a place in the higher education sector. According to Vincent Salyers (2006) ICARE has potential "as one possible means for structuring and organizing course content." As we'll see in my next blog post, the Centre for Learning Development at Middlesex University have adapted the ICARE framework, designed templates with built-in guidelines for use by academics with little experience in instructional design, and extended the model as the basic pedagogy for their ‘Global Campus’ instructional framework for distance education (Mojab & Huyck, 2001).

According to the ICARE Model's main proponents Hoffman and Ritchie (1998), the model is distilled from basic instructional design practice (see Table 1), and adapting various systems to what seemed to be particularly useful components for e-learning course design and development.

Table 1. The ICARE Model

Phase	Description
Introduction	This phase consists of the introduction to the unit of instruction including: Context Objectives Prerequisites Required study time Equipment required Essential reading materials
Connect or Content (MDX interation)	Almost all content will reside in this section
Apply All activities	Exercise, thinking questions, etc are implemented in this phase
Reflect	This phase provides an opportunity for learners to reflect on their acquired knowledge and articulate their experience. This section may include: topics for discussion, a learning journal/log, a self test, formative and summative assessment
Extend	An amalgamation of all the previous phases which offers materials and learning opportunities which can be remedial, supplemental, or advanced, depending on learner performance

In this context for example, when refactoring course content into online modules (what the authors term "distance learning units") a conventional 20-credit module is deconstructed into twenty units worth nine hours of study each. The model has the following five distinctive but interrelated components that are applied to individual lesson/lecture 'unit.'

More…

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In: R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D.C (1998). (2005). Teaching and learning online: Tools, templates, and training. In: J. Willis, D. Willis, & J. Price (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual - 1998. Charlottesville, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mojab, D. & Huyck, C. (2001). The Global Campus at Middlesex University: A Model for E-Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cwa.mdx.ac.uk/chris/draft6.doc Retrieved 3 June 2009

Salyers, V. (2006, July). Using the ICARE Format for Structuring Online Courses. Impact 2006, WebCT, 8th Annual Users Conference; San Antonio, TX.

Smith, P.L., & Tillman, J.R. (2004) Instructional Design (3rd Ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Books.

--

Discovering Instructional Design 11: The Kemp Model

The Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model, more commonly known as the Kemp Model defines different elements – not “step, stage, level, or sequential item” (Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.10) of an instructional design, and emphasizes the adoption of continuous implementation and evaluation through the instructional design process.

According to Morrison et al, there are nine key elements to instructional design:

1. Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.
2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.
3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.
4. State instructional objectives for the learner.
5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning.
6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.
7. Plan the instructional message and delivery.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

These elements are independent of each other, in that they do not need to be considered in a linear fashion and there is no particular start- and end point. The oval shape of this model (see Figure 1) is constructed to convey the idea that the design and development process is an iterative cycle that needs constant planning, design, development and assessment to ensure effective instruction.

Figure 1. The Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model
[Click to enlarge]

The model is systemic and nonlinear; it encourages designers to work in all areas of ID as appropriate. The use of ovals emphasizes this flexibility visually; the graphical design communicates a continuous non-linear cycle that requires iterative planning, design, development and assessment. The inner oval (surrounding the core) illustrates that revision/formative evaluation activities can be undertaken at each stage of the development process, something that is not always built into other models, usually because of the constraints of time and money.

The outer oval includes a typical post-instruction activity (summative evaluation) and also highlights three elements usually absent from other models – namely project planning, project management, and support services. The latter are required both for the project itself while it is in development, and afterwards to support the actual instruction.

We can say that it describes a holistic approach to instructional design that considers all factors in the environment; the starting point and order in which the designer addresses them is not prescribed, though the elements in the model may form a logical design sequence when read anti-clockwise (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. The ADDIE steps applied to the M-R-K Model
(after Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.29)
[Click to enlarge]

The flexibility of this approach is reinforced by the absence of lines or arrows that would dictate a specific design sequence (see Dick and Carey's Model) as a comparison. According to Presenera (2002) the Kemp Model is designed to primarily to appeal to (classroom-based) teachers, who may not have specific instructional design experience.

The Morrison-Ross-Kemp model has three characteristics that differentiate it from some other models:

• instruction is considered from the perspective of the learner
• the model takes a general systems or even object-oriented view towards instructional development
• the model emphasizes management of the instructional design process

Using the model

Using this model the instructional designer begins by asking six questions related to the skills or knowledge to be learned: required level of learner readiness; instructional strategies and media that are be most appropriate for the content and the target population; level of learner support required; measurement of achievement; and strategies for formative and summative evaluation.

(Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2004, p. 4).

Because of the lack of connectivity between elements and the facility for IDs to start at any place within the model, a designer can examine the entire scope of a project - or just as effectively work on a single learning object or lesson. Using this classroom-oriented model, an individual with little instructional design skill can develop a piece of instruction using few or no additional resources and with minimal front-end analysis. Similarly, there is no requirement to conduct formative and summative evaluation on the final materials (Gustafson and Branch 2002, p.16). A more experienced designer (or one with access to more resources) can also use this model in the design of a complex and widely-distributed learning program.

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction, (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons

Prestera, Gus. (2002). Instructional Design Models [Internet]. Available from: http://www.effectperformance.com/sites/prestera/html/M4/L1%20-%20ISD/M4L1P1.htm#kemp Accessed: 3rd June 2009

--

Discovering Instructional Design 10: the Dick and Carey Model

According to the Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (Boettcher et al, 2005)

Design models can be defined as the visual representations of an instructional design process, displaying the main phases and relationships. Each phase has an outcomes that feeds the subsequent phase. Currently, there are more than one hundred different ISD models.

(p.164)

The most commonly known models include:

• The Dick and Carey Model
• The Kemp Model
• The iCARE Model
• The ASSURE Model

I will be looking at these models over the next few posts, beginning today with the Dick and Carey Model.

In discussing the Dick and Carey Model, Boettcher et al describe Walter Dick and Lou Carey as the "torchbearers" (p.164) of the Systems Approach, as outline in the former's "authoritative" text The Systematic Design of Instruction.

The Encyclopedia asserts that the Dick and Carey model is "very popular" in current ISD development. This model is based upon the Behaviorist assumption that there is a predictable link between a stimulus and the response that it elicits in the learner. It describes the phases of instruction (see Figure 1) as an iterative process that starts by identifying instructional goals and concludes with evaluation.

The Dick and Carey method is to break instruction down into smaller components or granular objectives that collectively constitute the competency to be acquired. Next, the stimulus and strategy for its presentation that builds each sub-skill are defined. The steps in the model are shown in the Figure 1, and described briefly below.

Figure 1 The Dick and Carey Model
[Click to enlarge]

Phases in the Dick and Carey method:

1. Determine the instructional goal
2. Analyze the instructional goal
3. Analyze the learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
8. Revise instruction
9. Undertake summative evaluation

Phases 1 and 2 align very closely with Robert Mager’s approach (1988). He suggests a five-step process in the translation of a vague instructional goal to a set of rigorously defined desired performances, which the author elucidates in a very practical manner:

1. Write down the goal using whatever abstract terms express the intent and be sure the statement is written in terms of outcomes rather than process. For example, “Have a favorable attitude to…” rather than “Develop a favorable attitude to…”.
   
2. Think about achieving the goal in terms of people performance. What would people have to do or say or stop doing and saying before you would be willing to say that they represent the goal? List as many performances as you can think of.
   
3. Sort the list. Many of the items will be ‘fuzzy’ and not describe anything about performance per se. As SMEs to undertake steps 1 and 2 again. Continue until there is a list of performances that collectively represent the goal – until it can be said that if someone did these things and did not do these other things that would represent the goal.
   
4. Expand the words and phrases on the list into complete sentences that tell when or how often the performance is expected to occur. This will help to establish limits around the expected performance. It will enable the instructional designer to say “how much" performance is satisfactory to undertake the task successfully. For example, a goal analysis on security consciousness might include the item ‘no unattended documents’. When expanded into a complete sentence it may read “Employee always locks sensitive documents in safe before leaving room.”
   
5. Test for completeness. Review the performances on your list and ask:

If someone did these things would I be willing to say that he or she is _____________”.

(Mager, R. Making Instruction Work. 1988, pp 45-46)

If this is the case, the goal analysis is finished. If not, return to step 2 and add the missing performances.
___________

References:

Boettcher, J. V., Justice, L., Schenk. K., Rogers P. L., & Berg, G. A (2005). Encyclopedia of Distance Learning. Idea Group Reference

Carey, L. and Dick, W. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont , CA: Lake Publishing Co.