Technology-based instructional design

Chapter 56: Technology-Based Instructional Design – Evolution and Major Trends

Gilbert Paquette

CICÉ Research Chair, LICEF Research Center, Télé-université, Montreal, Canada [email protected] www.licef.ca/gp

Abstract

This chapter surveys ICT-based tools and methods that support instructional designers in

planning the delivery of learning systems. This field has evolved since the seventies

through several paradigms: authoring tools, expert systems and intelligent tutoring

systems, automated and guided instructional design, knowledge-based design methods,

eLearning standards and social/cognitive Web environments. Examples will be given to

illustrate each paradigm and the major trends will be uncovered. ICT has evolved rapidly,

enabling new approaches to emerge, helping more people to design learning

environments and building learning design repositories. More and more people are

learning on the Web, using learning portals, information pages and interacting with other

people, but still with insufficient educational support. New challenges make this field an

exciting and blooming research area that has a bright future.

Keywords

Instructional Design, Instructional Engineering, Knowledge-based Design, Educational

Modeling, eLearning Standards, Web-based Learning Environments.

Paquette

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 3 of 28

Chapter 56: Technology-Based Instructional Design – Evolution and Major Trends

I n t r o d u c t i o n – D e f i n i n g t h e f i e l d

Some authors trace the origin of Instructional Design to John Dewey, who, a century ago,

“called for the development of a linking science between learning theory and educational

practice” (Reigeluth 1983, p. 5; Dewey 1900). Others (Dick 1987) situate the beginning

of ID after World War II. But it is really at the beginning of the Sixties, that we see the

beginning of the new discipline, mainly under the influence of the work of B.F. Skinner

on programmed instruction, Jerome Bruner on the cognitivist approach and David

Ausubel (Reigeluth, 1983). In the Seventies and Eighties, research on instructional

theories blossomed: the development of a cybernetic approach (Landa, 1976), the

exposure of learning conditions (Gagné, 1985), the identification of instructional

strategies based on structural learning theories (Scandura, 1973), the development of a

cognitive teaching theory based on enquiries (Collins and Stevens, 1983), the analysis of

instructional strategy components (Merrill, 1994).

Based on these various research efforts, Instructional Design is today a collection of

theories and models helping to understand and apply instructional methods that favor

learning. Instructional Design as a method or a process helps produce plans and models

describing the organization of learning and teaching activities, resources and actors’

involvement that compose an Instructional System or a Learning Environment.

Compared to the theories developed in educational psychology, instructional design can

be seen as a form of engineering aiming to improve educational practice. Its link with

Paquette

educational science is analogous to the link between engineering methods and the

physical sciences, or between medicine and life sciences.

The life cycle of a Learning Environment is presented on figure 1. This figure shows four

main processes going from creation or design, production of a learning environment, and

then to its delivery. Finally, a maintenance and revision process serves to detect

deficiencies revealed by the delivery of the learning system, leading to improvements

proposed to the instructional designers, closing up the loop and starting a new cycle.

Figure 1. The basic life cycle of a learning environment

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 5 of 28

Figure 1 also shows the products of each process and the main actors that produce them.

While there is a sequential progression between these main processes, it is best to picture

the global process with sub-processes more or less parallel, sharing information between

them with frequent interaction between the actors. In this chapter, we will focus on the

Instructional Design process, methods and support tools, but in some case, we will

identify the interaction of “pure” ID with the other three processes, in particular with the

production process.

Using this general picture of an instructional system, the following sections will present

the main paradigms that propose ways to use information and communication

technologies (ICT) to support the instructional design process. These paradigms are

authoring tools and languages, knowledge modeling of instructional design methods,

automated and guided instructional design, eLearning standards and social/semantic

Web environments. Finally, in the last section, we identify the major trends and issues,

synthesizing the evolution of Technology-based Instructional Design.

5 6 . 1 A u t h o r i n g T o o l s a n d L a n g u a g e s

The use of computers in education started fifty years ago, at the beginning of the 1960s.

The first applications were influenced mainly by programmed instruction strategies

(Skinner 1954; Crowder 1959). Most authoring tools and languages for Computer-

assisted Instruction were limited to present information, ask a question and branch to

another unit. Two early authoring systems attempted to go beyond such simple templates,

in order to provide more complete learning strategies.

One specialized programming languages, TUTOR, was developed starting in 1965 for

use on the PLATO system at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. TUTOR

Paquette

had powerful answer parsing and answer judging commands, and it had features to

simplify student records by instructors. TUTOR's flexibility, in combination with

PLATO's computational power (running on what was considered a supercomputer in

1972), also made it suitable for the creation of games and simulations that could be used

for learner-centered education. Later on, templates were developed to ease the

programming part of courseware creation. For example, (Schulz 1975) presents

MONIFORMS, a set of partially completed coding formats in the TUTOR language that

could be adapted by instructional designers in order to implement instructional tactics.

The TICCIT system (Merrill et al., 1980) attempted to provide built-in complex

instructional templates in the mid 1970’s. The student had access to a set of learner-

controlled keys: Rule, Example, Practice, Objective, Help, Advice, Easy, Hard and Map.

The author provided information accessible behind these keys, to be displayed to the

student studying some the rules and concepts for which the information provided. The

system also provided a map or hierarchy diagram from which the student could choose

the next content to study, but with some help from the system.

With the advent of multimedia and Internet technologies, there has been and explosion of

the number of authoring tools. Widely used commercial tools have included

Macromedia’s Authorware, IconAuthor and Click2Learn’s ToolBook. More recent

Learning Content Management System (LCMS), such as BlackBoard, Learning Space,

TopClass, WebCT and Moodle, are totally oriented towards building Web-based courses.

There has been also a proliferation of authoring tools providing templates. However, not

many of them offer multiple instructional strategies (Liao et al., 2003).

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 7 of 28

Moreover, while LCMSs, authoring tools or templates help produce resources for

delivery environments based on the more or less limited set of strategies they support,

they are essentially helping in the production process. They do not provide much support

for instructional designers to analyze learning needs, structure target knowledge and

competencies, integrate resources in learning scenarios or plan the production of resource

and delivery environment. In particular, they provide no help to select teaching/learning

strategies before deciding which authoring tools or templates should be used.

5 6 . 2 M o d e l i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l D e s i g n a n d J o b A i d s

With the evolution of technology-based learning, the instructional designer must make a

larger set of interrelated decisions. What kind of delivery model shall we use: classroom,

Web-based, blended? What kind of learning activities do we need for this course? Should

it be predefined, offer multiple learning paths or be learner-constructed? Which actors

will interact at delivery time, what are their roles, what resources do they need? What

kind of interactivity or collaboration should be included? What materials can be reused,

adapted or built anew? How distributed resources are to be managed on the networks?

What kind of eLearning standards will be used? How can we support interoperability and

scalability of the learning system? How can we promote their reusability, sustainability

and affordability? To cope with all these decisions and others, an instructional design

methodology and a tool set are needed more than ever.

The MISA instructional systems engineering method (Paquette et al, 1994, 1999, 2004) is

a long-term effort to address these new needs of the instructional designers. It has

provided a mature methodology at the turn of the century that continues to evolve. As

shown on figure 2, MISA is structured into six phases and four axes under which the

main 35 design tasks and their subtasks are distributed. The four axes are deployed from

Paquette

phase 2 to 6. Each axis is based on one or more visual model built with the MOT

language and editor (Paquette 2002, 2010). The other tasks either prepare the

construction of the model or document its properties.

Figure 2. Overview of the MISA instructional system design method.

The MISA method is the result of applying knowledge engineering to the instructional

design domain. Using the MOT language and editors, the products, the task and the

principles of instructional design have been modeled and their interactions identified. The

relationship between tasks is represented using a process graph for each of the phases and

each of the axes. The design documents produced by each of the 35 main tasks are

modeled as concept objects with a certain number of attributes that have well-defined

values. The knowledge model describing MISA ensures the consistency of the method. It

also help guide the navigation of the designer through the method. Contextual help or

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 9 of 28

intelligent advice can be given by a supervisor or a software agent for each design task,

based on the relationships between it and the other tasks in the method and also on the

consistency of values for the different attributes in a design document.

The complete model of the MISA method enabled the production of computerized Job

aids or design tools. The first one was AGD, a standalone performance support system

for ID (Paquette et al., 1994). Later on, an improved version of MISA enabled the

construction of Job aids as a set of Word and Excel templates, supplementing the MOT

visual knowledge editor. In 2001, a WEB tool, ADISA was built and will be presented in

the next section. More recently, MISA/ADISA design scenarios can be edited and

processed by the ontology-driven TELOS system (Paquette and Magnan, 2008).

5 6 . 3 E x p e r t S y s t e m s a n d A u t o m a t e d / G u i d e d I D

Beginning also in the 1990s, expert systems and Artificial Intelligence techniques started

to be applied to the field of Instructional Design (ID) to provide methodological support

and intelligent help (Winkels 1992) to instructional designers. Many expert systems were

built for focused ID tasks where they have had generally more success than more general

applications (Locatis and Park, 1992). A second category of systems is concerned with

helping designers construct Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Wenger 1987); the Generic

Tutoring Environment (GTE), is a good representative of that category of system (Elen,

1998). We will here focus on a third category of Expert System applications that aim to

support the general Instructional Design process. We present here three of them:

• ID Expert (Merrill, 1998), an expert system for designing courseware, which

evolved into a commercial system called Electronic Trainer;

• GAIDA/GUIDE (Spector et al., 1993) provides a guided approach to ID

Advising;

Paquette

• ADISA (Paquette et al. 2001) that supports the operation of the MISA

Instructional System Engineering method (presented above) with linked models

and templates, and the intervention of an intelligent advisor.

The purpose of ID Expert and Electronic Trainer is to provide a consultation system that

could be used by inexperienced instructional designers to assist in instructional design

decision-making, prior to the programming stage. The expert system gathers information

from the user/designer and makes recommendations on the goal of instruction, the

content structure that corresponds to the goal, the elaboration of the content structure, the

modules that are necessary for teaching the content, the instructional transactions that are

best for each module and guidance for elaborating and instantiating each transaction. The

output of the consultation is a design specification that provides a skeleton from which

instructional materials can be built. The domain of the first ID Expert was limited to

goals involving concept classification with a kind-of taxonomies content structure and

goals involving procedures for device operation with a path algorithm content structure.

ID expert 2.0 extended the initial set of goals and provided a delivery interface. The

commercial Electronic Trainer linked the ID expert to authoring capabilities that

produced the corresponding learning material. Unlike many expert systems, which are

directed toward a single main decision, the ID expert makes recommendations on a series

of decision and allows the designer to confirm each recommendation as the reasoning

proceeds.

The GAIDA advisory system was developed to support lesson design as part of the

Advanced Instructional Design Advisor project at Armstrong Laboratory (Spector et al.,

1993). The system uses completely developed sample cases to help less experienced

instructional designers construct their lesson plans. GAIDA is designed explicitly around

the nine events of instruction (Gagné, 1985). It allows users to view a completely worked

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 11 of 28

example, shown from the learner’s point of view (see Figure 3). The user can shift from

this learner view to a designer view that provides an elaboration of why specific learner

activities were designed as they were.

Figure 3. A screen from GAIDA/GUIDE.

ADISA is the successor of the AGD system. It is a Web-based system developed to

enhance the performance level of instructional designers, in particular to assist teams who

create Web-based distance learning courses. It embeds a large set of educational

knowledge including 17 typologies of educational concepts from the MISA 4.0 method,

each offering a set of options for the designer to choose from. It provides an editing part

for 35 documentation elements (DE), either forms or graphic models to be produced by

tasks of the MISA method. An important feature is the data propagation from one DE

form or model to another, based on the MISA 4.0 process models.

What can be learned from the research on automated or semi-automated ID systems?

First, productivity improvements have been observed due to performance support

Paquette

functionalities and/or automated ID knowledge (Merrill, 1998; Spector et al., 1993).

While results vary, using design support tools can achieve an order of magnitude

improvement in the productivity of a design team. Second, learning can result for

designers using such systems. GAIDA has been evaluated in numerous settings with both

novice and expert designers (Gettman, McNelly & Muraida, 1999). Findings suggest that

expert designers found little use for GAIDA, whereas novice designers made extensive

use of it for about 6 months and then no longer felt a need to use it. MISA/ADISA has

been used by novices and experienced designers for a variety of domains ranging from

well structured to ill-structured knowledge domains (e.g., training lawyers). Paquette and

colleagues (2004, 2010) found consistent improvements in both productivity and

consistency of the ID products. But probably the most important result gained from these

systems is the deeper understanding of ID concepts, processes and principles. To build

these systems, operational expertise in ID must be uncovered, implemented, validated

and again improved in successive versions of a system through its use in various

knowledge domains.

5 6 . 4 e L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d s f o r I D

As the number of ICT-based learning platforms or authoring tools increases during the

years, reusability has become more important. The goal is to enable the reuse of learning

objects (or resources) in new educational contexts across a variety of e-learning delivery

systems. This goal requires standard ways to describe and store learning objects or

educational resources. The elaboration of international standards for learning resources

has been initiated by organizations such as IMS global, IEEE-LTSC, AICC and ISO.

Duval & Robson (2001) presented a review of the earlier phases in this evolution of

standards including the Dublin Core metadata initiative up to the publication of the

Learning Object Metadata (LOM) standard by IEEE in 2002. Since then a host of other

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 13 of 28

specifications have been published by IMS Global1. ISO has started publishing at the end

of 2010 the first documents of its new Metadata for Learning Resource (ISO-MLR 2012)

standard, based on the W3C (2004) Resource Description Framework (RDF) 2.

The work on Educational Modeling Languages (Koper 2001), and the subsequent

publication of the IMS Learning Design Specification (IMS-LD 2003; Koper and

Tattersall 2004, Griffiths et al., 2005), is the most important initiative to date, to integrate

Instructional Design modeling into the international standards movement. This

specification is a formal way to represent the structure of a Unit of Learning and the

concept of a pedagogical method. A Basic Learning Design involves three kinds of

entities with relations between them: actor’s roles, activities and environments grouping

learning resources and services. Activities, performed by actors are organized in a tree

structure called a method, decomposed into alternative plays, each decomposed into a

series of acts, further decomposed into activity structures down to terminal learning or

support activities.

IMS-LD embeds and generalizes other IMS specifications such as MD (metadata), SS

(simple sequencing), CP (content packaging), RDCEO (learning objectives and

prerequisites), QTI (questionnaires and tests), LIP (learner information profile) and

others. SCORM, the Sharable Content Object Reusable Model supported by the ADL

Technical Team (2004), can be seen as a specialization of IMS-LD to single-user simpler

hierarchical activity structures. IMS-LD expands SCORM specifications in many ways:

• IMS-LD describes methods as multi-actor workflow processes;

1 All available at http://www.imsglobal.org/specifications.html 2 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/sws-pressrelease.html.fr

Paquette

• IMS-LD can provide alternative plays adapted to different target populations;

• IMS-LD integrates the description of collaboration services;

• IMS-LD integrates (at Level B and C) some user modelling and cross-users

notifications;

• Most important, IMS-LD favours instructional strategies like collaborative

learning, problem solving, project-based learning, communities of practices, and

multi-facilitators support as found in more advanced learning strategies.

With regard to the tool set, a form-based tool, RELOAD (2004), was an improvement

from previously used XML editors, but it imposes too many constraints on the design

process. Visual representation techniques and tools aim to free instructional designers

from these constraints. Although well suited for software engineering purposes, UML

graphs and diagrams, as proposed by the Best Practice and Implementation Guide (IMS-

LD 2003), pose many difficulties for instructional design. There exists more user-

friendly instructional visual design software like LAMS (Dalziel 2005), or the first MOT

knowledge editors. These are useful in an inception phase, but cannot produce compliant

IMS-LD executable files. This has led the construction of new visual design tools like

the MOT+LD specialized editor (Paquette et al, 2005) and, more recently, the G-MOT

scenario editor, the central aggregation tool in TELOS (Paquette, 2010).

Besides their strong influence on the standardization and interoperability of authoring

tools, IMS-LD and other eLearning standards have also helped stress the importance of

Instructional Design. IMS-LD is just a reusability format, but it has opened the spectrum

of possible learning strategies that can be supported by standardized authoring tools. So

the need becomes more evident for front-end methods and tools to support designers in

producing high quality Learning Designs. Furthermore, the Learning Object Paradigm

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 15 of 28

has move the focus towards aggregating resources and interactions, instead of producing

more text, multimedia or web-based document. In this new approach to ID, the learners

and the facilitators as resources themselves, interacting together within activities using

and producing learning resources, a more cognitive and constructivist process than

simple information transmission.

5 6 . 5 S o c i a l / S e m a n t i c W e b E n v i r o n m e n t s

In the last decade, the now ubiquitous Web has evolved through overlapping generations

that are most of the time called the Information Web, the Social Web (Web 2.0) and the

Semantic Web (Web 3.0). Web 2.0 technologies are there to stay because they make the

use of Internet a brand new social experience, just as the first Internet browser did fifteen

years ago with information access. Semantic Web technologies have the same potential to

dramatically improve Web 2.0 activities that are often limited to superficial chats or

simple information transmission. The new Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies have an

enormous potential if they are blended to support knowledge-intensive social processes.

This is now a very active research area internationally that corresponds to individuals’

and organizations’ needs. Here are a few research orientations that will orient the future

of Web 2.0/3.0 learning environments and learning design:

1. Modeling knowledge-Intensive social processes. Both for work and educational

scenarios, much attention is given today to multi-actor workflows, but leaving aside

the crucial issue of knowledge and competency acquisition that occur during these

processes. On the contrary, Knowledge and competency models must be at the

forefront of the new learning environments to enable a transfer of competency from

content experts to learners or to novice workers through collaborative knowledge

exchanges. Unexplored research problems occur when the scenario or workflow is

Paquette

built while collaborating, in an emergent way such as in project-based learning where

the learners becomes their own designer.

2. Taking in account knowledge contexts of use, privacy and trust issues in collaborative

learning processes. A huge amount of information is available for learning but it is

locked from potentials users due to security and privacy concerns. These problems

must be solved especially for the mobile learners whose location, device limitations,

and task at hand change all the type. Context model must be linked to task models and

knowledge/competency models.

3. Personalizing learning environments and creating more intelligent tools. Nowadays,

the abundance and popularity of Web applications, such as blogs, discussion forums,

social and professional networks pose a great challenge. Web personalization and

recommender systems are two important areas that attempt to cope with such

information overload problems. Web personalization systems organize the Web

environments based on the users personal interests and preferences. Recommender

systems suggest information, products or peer-to-peer communication in accordance

with the user’s personal demands and properties.

4. Building Semantic Media User Interface. The continued growth and importance of the

Social Web has resulted in information taking many forms, including text, images,

video and more recently augmented or virtual reality environments such as Second

Life. Furthermore, this information is accessible through desktop and laptop

computers, and through “intelligent” mobile phones or tablets that bring unique

constraints in terms of computing resources and user interfaces. The vast amounts of

data coming out of the Social and Semantic Web entails a need for more intelligent

human interfaces and visualization capabilities.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 17 of 28

5. Aggregating Social-Semantic tools into Learning Environments. Data “Mashups”

have been identified by the Horizon study (2008)3 as one of the leading trends for

2010-2011. Using social environments like Facebook or Wikipedia, users become

Web designers, assembling text, picture, sound according to their needs. The quality

for learning issuses then comes at the forefront, while the impact of these new

situation on ID methods and tools must be investigated.

The Social and Semantic Web shapes the new learning environments, posing new

challenges to Instructional Designers, fostering the need for new advances in the ID

methodology and tool set. One interesting approach is to see Instructional Design as a

knowledge-intensive collaborative multi-actor process where the actors interact within a

Web 2.0/3.0 environment to assemble actors, activities and resources for learning or

knowledge management.

In such a setting, personalized assistance must be given both to designers and to the user

of the learning environments they produce based semantic Web techniques, an area part

of the Adaptive Semantic Web (Dolog and al 2003) that we call Ontology-based

Assistance Systems. Recent research on assistance systems at LICEF (Paquette and

Marino, 2011) proposes that advisor agents be grafted on environments/scenarios, built in

the context of the TELOS system (Paquette, Rosca et al, 2006; Paquette and Magnan,

2008). TELOS is a service-oriented, ontology-driven system that helps build on-line

environments for learning or for work. Its basic principle is the aggregation of resources

into visual activity scenarios. In TELOS, the task model (the scenario) may represent

multi-actor processes or workflows integrating a variety of control patterns between tasks

3 http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf

Paquette

or activities such as splits and joins. These scenarios can be intended for any kind of

actors: for engineers who aim to extend the services given by the system, for

technologists who build designers’ platforms, for designers who built courses or work

scenarios and for the final users who interact in these scenarios.

Figure 4 presents the upper graph of a design process (build by an educational

technologist) to help designers produce IMS-LD compliant designs: in the first activity, a

designer produces the upper structure of a learning scenario (i.e. a method); in the second

one, each Act in a Method is identified and defined; in the third one, a scenario model is

build of each act as well as a knowledge/competency model and the association between

the two structures. This third activity has a complex sub-model not shown on the figure

where knowledge and competencies are associated to actors, activities and resources,

Figure 4. A multi-actor design scenario.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 19 of 28

When such a scenario is executed by TELOS, a Web environment is produced for the

members of a design team to help them produce a learning environment model intended

for learners and facilitators, to be run in the same way by the TELOS system.

5 6 . 6 T r e n d s a n d I D I s s u e s

As a conclusion, I present here four trends in methods and tools for Instructional Design

with a set of corresponding issues that present today a challenge to the field.

From Tutoring to Open Learning Design. As shown in section 1, at the advent of ICT

in learning, it seemed natural to use ICT for the creation of learning programs. The terms

CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) and CBT (Computer-Based Training) put the focus on

instruction instead of learning. In this paradigm, the computer program was the teacher or

a teacher aid, displaying information, asking questions and presenting more information

depending on the learner’s answers to previous question. Respecting the learners’ pace

and adapting to its answers was advocated in support for this approach. But soon, ICT in

education evolved towards a more learner-oriented focus. Typically, learners would

interact with computerized simulations and games, solve problems by programming the

computer, search for relevant information or realize projects using software tools like

text/graphic editors, database or spreadsheets. Nowadays, even though there are many

programmed instruction coursewares, useful in limited cases, the trend is clearly towards

more open environments where the learner uses the computer as a tool instead as a static

and rigid teacher. Typically, a set of ordered activities, a scenario, is provided on the

Web, where the learner is invited to find useful information on the Web, to use computer

tools or to program the computer to address some question. Supporting this trend, the

Web acts as a universal encyclopedia, provides a highly interactive communication

Paquette

system between learners and teachers, presents aggregation functions for the end user to

assemble it own environment and e-portfolios.

This evolution brings to light some provocative ID issues. The first one is the challenge

made to instructional design as a process distinct from delivery, some proponents even

advocating the end of ID. On the contrary, others pretend that the new possibilities

offered by the Web must be planned even more carefully if we want open environments

to provide quality learning. Just like software engineering has brought quality that could

not result from hasty coding, shouldn’t instructional engineering provide support to cope

with complexity, with the larger set of decisions that face designers? But the emphasis in

ID now has to shift from simply organizing information to designing activity scenarios

and communication between learners and facilitators based on sound and well-proven

instructional strategies and methods. A second important issue is the quality of the

information available for learning, whether the learner or teacher selects it. We are in an

expanding context of billions of pages available on the Web, some providing unreliable

information. On the Web, we find the good, the bad and the ugly. One solution that has

been proposed is the use of learning object repositories composed of high-quality

educational resources, available using metadata standardized descriptions. But this

solution still has a long way to go to become mainstream. A third issue is the support of

learners in their Web-based activities. Too many times, teachers or designers will

propose Web-based activities without any support, relying on the younger generation’s

abilities to use the Internet. Young or adult learners need support to find useful and

reliable information, to learn how to communicate within the social Web, to understand

the possibilities and limit of technology and their own meta-competencies in using it.

Instructional designers must be supported in providing guidance on these questions, even

more if the learning environment that they are planning is open and learner-centric.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 21 of 28

From Automating to Supporting Instructional Design. Most persons designing

instruction are not trained in Instructional Design. To address this problem, a number of

researchers started building systems that could be used by inexperienced designers in

their instructional design decision-making process, prior to the production stage. The

general idea in the systems presented in section 3 was to have a designer interact with an

expert system enhanced with ID knowledge that could recommend design components to

be used for the definition or production of a learning environment. So the term

“automated design” seems a bit exaggerated. In fact, the design was the result an

interaction between the designer and the system acting as a companion or as a tool. So

the process was semi-automated. As mentioned earlier, these semi-automated systems

have been used in a number of organizations where they have increased the productivity

of designers and helped train new designers. Their main achievement was the production

of a considerable amount of ID knowledge, but they were only marginally successful,

mainly because of their complexity and their lack of flexibility and adaptivity.

These issues can be addressed by building support environments for designers in the form

of mash-ups produced using workflow or scenario editors. Such editors produce

executable sets of design tasks linked to tools and documents from various sources,

operated by the actor(s) that perform the tasks. These scenarios can be limited in

complexity, adapted to individual or team work, range from a single task to larger series

of design tasks, adapted to the needs of a designer, a design team or an organization.

From time to time, tasks can be reordered in the design scenario, support documents and

tools can be replaced, participating actors can be added, deleted or tasks can be

redistributed among actors, thus providing the needed flexibility for adaptation to a

design context.

Paquette

From Individual to Distributed and Collaborative ID. The first generation of

Instructional Design tools and methods were intended for individual teachers at the

design phase or in the production phase of a learning environment. Typically, an

individual would sit in front of a single computer and interacts with a single software,

building a design model and/or producing a CBT courseware. In more recent distance

learning systems or Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), the focus is also on

individual designers but the design software is Web based and can integrate resources

available anywhere on the Web in addition to the tools provided by the LCMS. Still, the

most widely used design/production environments like WebCT or Moodle do not support

teamwork. They do not integrate an ID method. In fact, they provide generally a single

set of design tasks aiming at the rapid production of a Web-based environment.

Methods like MISA and the IMS-LD specification presented above integrate a multi-

actor design process, taking in account the fact that in distance education and company

training, the learning environments are usually designed and built by a team with

members playing different roles. This links well with Web 2.0 software such as

Wikipedia or GoogleDocs where documents can be built collaboratively. Flickr and

YouTube offer repositories of pictures or videos to be populated by a design team.

Facebook can provide some collaborative support to a design team. These social software

tools must of course be integrated into design scenarios implementing parts of an

Instructional Design method to produce, for example, SCORM or IMS-LD interoperable

learning environments. Bringing all these elements together can provide a stimulating

distributed and collaborative ID environment.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 23 of 28

From Information-based to Knowledge Model-based ID. If we go back in history,

preparing instruction has been mainly based on information processing. A scholar would

read extensively, think a lot and synthesize large amounts of information into content

documents or lectures that could be communicated to learners and novices, hopefully in a

pedagogical way. Preparing lectures has been done and is still being done by most

professors in much the same way, except that now the Internet provides a web of

information sources. But we are now in the knowledge age where the exponential growth

of available information is the rule. The use of an ever larger set of components makes

the task of designing instruction much more difficult.

There are many reasons for Instructional Design to evolve towards ontology-based

educational modeling (Paquette 2010). First, within the Semantic Web framework,

resources on the Internet can be described by the knowledge they support using domain

ontology models. Moreover, learning environments must have a structured executable representation of the knowledge to be processed in order to help users based on their present and expected state of knowledge and competency. A third reason is that the learning process or scenario is also the result of a knowledge modeling activity using an

educational modeling language. Knowledge-based ID focuses on the interaction between

two models: a knowledge model of a domain (usually an ontology) that is the subject of

learning and instruction, and a process model (generally a multi-actor workflow or

scenario) of the learning and teaching activities grouping tasks, resources used and

produced by actors in the scenario. These scenario components are referenced by

knowledge and competencies described in domain ontologies. Such model-based ID is

necessary to cope with the inherent complexity of instructional design today, while

providing flexibility and adaptability.

Paquette

C o n c l u s i o n

We have underlined some of the difficulties of instructional engineering, taking into

account the great number of factors the designer must consider, and the constraints he

must work with. Beyond the possible improvements mentioned above, it is important to

develop various means of adaptive assistance for instructional engineering and to

integrate them to computerized tools that support designers. This assistance cannot rest

only on templates and model libraries. The implementation context must also be taken

into account.

It is not easy to implement any method in an organization. It suffices to consider the time

it took to convince programmers and their customers to adopt software engineering

methods. The increasingly complex and vital character of information processing

systems, however, provides strong arguments in favor of the adoption of such methods,

making gradually anachronistic the spontaneous programming approach that marked the

first decades of software production. In the field of instructional engineering, we haven’t

reached this point yet, although we can already see that during the next years, the same

type of evolution will be increasingly necessary due to the demands of the knowledge

economy. Still, ICT-based instructional engineering has a promising future for practical

use in organizations. It remains also a challenging and rewarding research field.

R e f e r e n c e s

Collins, A. & Stevens, A.L. (1983). A Cognitive Theory of Inquiry Teaching. In (C. Reigeluth Ed) Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp 247-278,1983

Crowder, N. (1959). Automatic Tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In E. H. Galanter (Ed.) Automatic Teaching: The state of the Art. New york: Wiley and Sons.

Dalziel, J.R. (2005) LAMS. Learning Activity Management System 2.0. http://wiki.oamsfoundation.org/display/lams/Home.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 25 of 28

Dewey J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. The psychological Review. 1900, 7, pp 105-124 Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J.

Glover & R. Roning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology. New York: Plenum.

Dolog P.; Henze N.; Nejdl W.; Sintek M. (2003). Towards the adaptive semantic web. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer Berlin.

Duval, E. & Robson, R. (2001). Guest Editorial on Metadata. Interactive Learning Environments. Special issue: Metadata, Volume 9-3, December 2001, pp. 201-206

Elen,  J.  (1998).  Automating  I.D.:  The  impact  of  theoretical  knowledge  bases  and  referent   systems.  Instructional  Science,  26(3/4),  281–297.  

*Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York, Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1970

Girard, J., Paquette, G., Miara, A. and Lundgren-Cayrol, K (1999). Intelligent Assistance for Web- based TeleLearning. Proceedings of AI-Ed’99, in S. Lajoie et M. Vivet (Eds), AI and Education, open learning environments, IOS Press, pp 561-569

Gettman, D., McNelly, T., & Muraida, D. (1999). The guided approach to instructional design advising (GAIDA): A case-based approach to developing instructional design expertise. In J. V. D. Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 175–181). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Griffiths, D., Blat, J., Garcia, R., Votgen, H., & Kwong, KL. (2005). Learning Design Tools, in R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.). Learning Design - A Handbook on Modeling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, Springer Verlag, pp. 109-136

IMS-LD(2003). IMS Learning Design - Information Model, Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Binding document, Schemas. Retrieved October 3, 2003, from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm

ISO-MLR (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_19788 *Jonassen D.H., Beissner K., & Yacci, M. (1993) Structural Knowledge – Techniques for

Representing, Conveying and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Laurence Earlbaum Associates, New Jersey, ,265 pages, 1993

Landa, L. Instructional regulation and control: Cybernetics, algorithmization, and heuristics in education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1976

Liao, M.C., Lo, S., Oyuki, M. & Wing Li, K.W. Authoring Tool for Multiple Instructional Strategies: Advance Organizer, Concept Mapping and Collaborative Learning. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN-2003)

*Koper R. and Tattersall, C. (2004) Ed(s) Learning Design: A Handbook of Modelling and Implementing Network-based Education & Training. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Koper R. (2001) Modeling Units of Study from a Pedagogical Perspective, the Pedagogical Meta- Model Behind EML. Technical Report First draft, version 2, Educational Technology Expertise Center - Open University of Netherlands

Locatis C., & Park, O. (1992). Some uneasy inquiries into ID expert systems. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 87–94.

Paquette

Merrill M. D. (2001). First principles of instruction. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14(4), 459–466

Merrill M. D. (1998). ID Expert: A second generation instructional development system. Instructional Science, 26, 243–262.

*Merrill M.D. (1994) Principles of Instructionnal Design. Educationnal Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 465 pages, 1994

Merrill M.D., Schneider, E. W., and Fletecher, K. A. (1980). TICCIT. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology Publications.

*Paquette, G. (2010) Visual Knowledge Modeling for Semantic Web Technology. 463 pages, IGI Global.

Paquette G. (2010) Ontology-Based Educational Modelling - Making IMS-LD Visual, Technology, Instruction., Cognition and Learning , Vol.7, Number 3-4, pp.263-296, Old City Publishing, Inc.

Paquette, G. and Magnan, F. (2008) An Executable Model for Virtual Campus Environments in H.H. Adelsberger, Kinshuk, J.M. Pawlowski and D. Sampson (Eds.) International Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, 2nd Edition, Springer, Chapter 19, pp. 365-405, June 2008

Paquette, G., Rosca. I, Mihaila S. and Masmoudi A. (2006) TELOS, a service-oriented framework to support learning and knowledge Management, in S. Pierre (Ed) E-Learning Networked Environments and Architectures: a Knowledge Processing Perspective. Springer-Verlag.

Paquette, G. M.Léonard, K. Lundgren-Cayrol, S. Mihaila and D. Gareau. (2006) Learning Design based on Graphical Knowledge Modeling, Journal of Educational technology and Society ET&S, Special issue on Learning Design, January 2006.

*Paquette, G. (2004) Instructional Engineering for Network-Based Learning. Pfeiffer/Wiley, 262 pages.

Paquette G., Rosca I., De la Teja I., Léonard M., and Lundgren-Cayrol K. (2001) Web-based Support for the Instructional Engineering of E-learning Systems, WebNet’01 Conference, Orlando 2001.

Paquette, G., Aubin, C., & Crevier, F. (1994). An intelligent support system for course design. Educational Technology, 34(9), 50–57.

*Reigeluth C.M (1983) Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 487pp, 1983

Schultz, R. E. Lesson Moniform – An authoring Aid for the Plato IV CAI System, www.eric.ed.go:80/PDFS/ED127.926.pdf

Scandura, J.M. Strutural Learning I: Theory and research. London/New York: Gordon & Breach science Publishers, 1973

SCORM, ADL Technical Team (2004) Skinner, B.F. (1954) The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review,

1954, 24(2), pp. 86-97. Spector J.M. and Ohrazda C. (2004) Automating Instructional Design: Approaches and

limitations, in Jonassen, David H. (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications Technology. Second edition. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pp.1210.

Chapter 56: ICT-Based Instructional Design

Page 27 of 28

*Spector J.M., Polson M.C., Muraida D.J. (Eds) (1993) Automating Instructional Design, Concepts and Issues, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 364 pages.

W3C (2004) Ontology Web Language (OWL) Overview Document, www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC- owl-features-20040210/

Wenger, E. (1987) Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems- Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan-Kaufmann Pub. Co, 1987, 486 pages

Winkels, R. (1992). Explorations in intelligent tutoring and help. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Paquette

A u t h o r I n f o r m a t i o n

Gilbert Paquette,

CICE Research Chair, LICEF Research Center

Télé-université du Québec

100 Sherbrooke St., West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Email : gilbert.paquette@licef .ca

Web sites : www.licef.ca/gp and www.licef.ca/cice

Phone : 1-514-840-2747 ext. 2818

Gilbert Paquette holds a Ph.D from the Université du Maine (France) in Artificial Intelligence and Education. Researcher at the LICEF research center he has founded in 1992, he holds a Canada Research Chair in Instructional and Cognitive Engineering (CICE), has acted as the Scientific Director of the LORNET Canadian research network (2004-2009) and is a full professor at Télé-université du Québec in Montreal since 1986. In 2007, he received an Honoris Causa Doctorate from the University Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI) for pioneering strategic projects in the field of knowledge-based systems, instructional Design and distance education, and also for his political involvement as Minister for Science and Technology in the Quebec Government. Recent publications include four books on Instructional Design and Knowledge Modeling. He has given invited conferences in many parts of the world and sits on the advisory committee for six Journals, three in France, one in the US and two in Canada. He represents Canada on the Globe consortium for learning objects repositories. He has also participated in advisory committees for two European networks: TENCompetence and Share-TEC.