Literature Analysis
Instructional Design Strategies for On-line Learning
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of instructional design strategies for on-line learning. Instructional design strategies refer to the processes and methodologies of designing instruction and are often focused on improving learners’ efficiencies (Roytek, 2010). An instructional design approach that integrates technology and traditional elements is blended learning (Adams, 2013). Instructional designers are challenged to create effective training programs by using efficient design strategies with more emphasis on web-based training (Roytek, 2010). The current global economic turbulence has made it necessary for organizations with limited resources to demand effective instructional design principles be leveraged to create blended, on-line learning solutions (Adams, 2013). As indicated by Hastie (2009), the incorporation of instructional design best practices, in an on-line synchronous cyber classroom, created a collaborative learning environment that resulted in greater learning achievements for the participants. In addition, the integration of new online methods of delivery has provided instructional designers with innovative options such as mLearning (Gedik et al., 2012) and learning communities (Defazio, 2009).
Organization of the paper
This paper begins with a methods’ section that describes how the analysis was conducted. The findings’ section outlines the results of the 10 studies reported on in this literature review and identifies the themes that emerge. The discussion section provides a deeper view of the results by comparing, assessing and evaluating the findings of the 10 studies. The concluding section outlines the main findings about instructional design strategies for on-line learning and will discuss the limitations of this analysis. In addition, relevant implications towards practice and policy in relation to instructional design strategies will be identified.
METHODS
The 10 sources were selected from nine peer-reviewed educational technology journals. Because all sources were selected from educational technology journals, they all included an electronic medium. The analysis only included sources with the words instructional design or instructional designers as part of the title. To figure as part of the analysis, the journal sources had to include research participants. This means that meta-analyses, literature reviews and book reviews etc., were excluded. The studies selected ranged from 1998 to 2013.
The studies were conducted across the globe and participants were located in different countries including USA, Canada, Australia, Turkey and Sri Lanka. Three of the studies (Gedik et al., 2012; Kulaselkara et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2008) employed a mixed-methods approach. The remaining studies used a qualitative methodology with two of the studies using a case study genre (Roytek 2010 and Macpherson 1998). Roytek’s case study utilized qualitative data collected through taped interviews and a pre-interview activity. Macpherson’s case study also relied on qualitative data collected via questionnaire. The list of journals used for the meta-analyses included the following:
International Journal on E-Learning
International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning
Journal of Educational Technology & Society
Open Learning
Distance Education
British Journal of Educational Technology
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education
Computers in the Schools
Journal of Distance Education
The purpose of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences, to identify patterns and to search and compare common themes on instructional design strategies for on-line learning. A qualitative meta-analysis approach was used. Creswell (2012) defined meta-analysis as “a type of research report in which the author integrates the findings of many (primary source) research studies” (p. 623). The qualitative meta-analysis was selected as it objectively analyzes text and uncovers new interpretations, in addition to creating a holistic perspective on this topic (Ke, 2009). Criteria were established to identify relevant research for this study. It included content that was focused on instructional design, extracted from peer-reviewed educational technology journals and contained research participants. As part of the analysis, studies had to have a purpose, methods, findings and implications outlined. From this process, similar themes were identified and from this analysis patterns and comparisons were explored.
The nature of the studies used in this analysis reflected a number of distinguishable characteristics. Instructional design was recognized as an important element in developing successful learning outcomes. Training was delivered in a variety of on-line forums, primarily web or computer based training. There were individual studies that utilized blended learning (Adams, 2013) and another that used a mobile learning platform (Gedik et al., 2012). The number of students and employees ranged from 11 to 200 participants. The majority of learners were post-secondary or graduate students with a diverse portfolio of subjects being studied. There were two studies that focused on corporations that were located in the private sector (Adams, 2013; Roytek, 2010).
Table 1: Descriptive characteristics of the studies
(see sub-page)
FINDINGS
The analysis of the 10 studies uncovered five main sub-themes related to the instructional design strategies for on-line learning. The themes that were highlighted from the analysis were 1) adherence to best practices 2) understanding learners’ needs 3) collaboration and consultation 4) role clarity and 5) selecting the right medium.
Adhering to Best Practices
Adhering to established best practices for the design and development of on-line training has proven effective for instructional designers, facilitators and participants (Adams, 2013; Gedik et al., 2012; Hastie et al., 2007; Roytek, 2010; Schneider, 2009). Roytek (2010) identified 47 separate best practices to follow when creating instruction, including web-based training. Leveraging these practices increased designer efficiency. Roytek also recommended the implementation of electronic tools for instructional design to further increase efficiency. Best practices were also determined to be a factor in creating a positive learning interaction. Hastie et al. (2007) outlined ten best practices for designing instruction for on-line synchronous learning. When these were followed, the students’ level of interaction and engagement increased, which resulted in better learning outcomes. Inclusion of best practices was identified as positively influencing job performance. Adams (2013) found that the best practice of designing training for smaller, more manageable time segments (i.e. 20 minutes) had a positive job impact for the learners. The results of a study by Hastie et al. (2007) indicated that there was increased confidence noted for teachers with on-line learning when best practices were followed. Gedik et al. (2012) stated that integrating a pedagogical approach into a well-defined framework was a necessary best practice for mLearning. This practice created clarity for the learners, allowed staggered delivery and the ability to customize content. Schneider (2009) indicated that teachers required a defined framework for successful technology learning.
Understanding Learners’ Needs
Another sub-theme that was noted is that instructional design strategies must seek to understand and incorporate the learners’ needs. Adams (2013) discovered that to ensure a valuable learning experience, designers must create courses that are focused on learner requirements. She concluded that blended learning interventions that are learner-focused result in a targeted, unique and beneficial interaction. This also created flexibility and a customized learning approach for individual learners. Similarly, Schneider (2009) determined that technology-based training is not always created with the learners’ considerations. She recommended that instructional design strategies transition from the more conventional teacher-centric to a learner-centric approach. However, Schneider’s study indicated that the 23 teacher participants were satisfied with the opportunity and benefits of on-line learning. Incorporating specific elements that considered the perspective of the learners into an on-line learning situation proved to be effective. Kulaselkara et al. (2011) found that by integrating particular items (included navigation page, narrations, coloured graphics) into the design of a multi-media distance course, the material was positively received by the participants. Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2002) noted in their study that instructors must remain vigilant and aware of their students’ efforts to adapt to new technology. It was beneficial to the learners, when instructors attempted to better understand the on-line learning format.
Collaboration and Consultation
The sub-theme of collaboration and consultation between learners, instructors and instructional designers featured prominently in the literature reviews. Defazio (2009) observed that participation in a learning community resulted in an increase in knowledge and that the level of collaboration between the 16 graduate students in the learning community contributed to their success. Hastie et al. (2007) reported that collaboration between teachers and students improved through the use of synchronous on-line learning. She reported that this increase in collaboration was evident when the teachers followed the minimalist instructional design principles recommended for this learning environment. The teachers in Hastie’s study reported greater student engagement. Gedik et al. (202) noted that when designing mLearning, designers should integrate opportunities for peer learners to collaborate and provide technical support to each other.
This sub-theme also applies to instructional designers and as Roytek (2010) noted, a level of flexibility and collaboration was required within instructional design teams to function effectively and efficiently. Smith et al. (2008) advocated that in advance of creating any eLearning courses, instructional designers and instructors should consult and partner together to ensure that specific discipline considerations were accommodated.
Role Clarity
Another sub-theme that surfaced in relation to instructional design strategies for on-line learning was the imperative to establish role clarity. Macpherson and Smith (1998) stated that role clarity between the instructional designer and instructor / author of the training material must be defined. The majority of the 54 academic authors in their research study indicated that they did not partner with their assigned instructional design resource. Gedik et al. (2012) contended that instructional designers that are tasked with creating on-line learning require adequate technical skills. Within the context of workplace learning, Roytek (2010) reported that specific and appropriate role clarity within a design team was necessary to achieve efficiency in creating on-line content. Another area that required parameters regarding roles was in designing eLearning for different disciplines. Smith et al. (2008) indicated that specific disciplines experienced eLearning issues that were isolated to that area of study. It is necessary for instructional designers to establish roles and responsibilities when addressing individual professional disciplines.
Selecting the Right Medium
A final sub-theme related to instructional design strategies for on-line learning is the importance of selecting the right technological medium. Adams (2010) contended that blended learning (specifically a combination of eLearning / classroom and eLearning / collaboration) was considered most valuable by the learners. Hastie et al. (2007) stated that synchronous classroom environments resulted in better student performance and was the most effective method of instruction. Gedik et al. (2012) reported that the selection of software / hardware with mLearning directly impacted the teaching approach. The 13 students that participated in his study indicated that the “push” notification feature of the smart phone was most beneficial. Schneider (2009) concluded that new practices for on-line learning were needed and that planning for the type and use of technology must be considered.
DISCUSSION
This analysis presented evidence to conclude that it is necessary to develop instructional design strategies for on-line learning. A majority of the studies articulated the perceived value of on-line learning from the perspectives of the participants, instructors and instructional designers. Studies by Defazio (2009), Hastie et al. (2007), Adams (2013), Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2002), Kulaselkara et al. (2011), Gedik et al. (2012) and Schneider (2009) highlighted the positive experiences and outcomes that were attributed to on-line learning.
Throughout this analysis, it was reinforced that there are a number of established and accepted best practices for on-line instructional design that currently exist. These best practices were discussed in the studies by Roytek (2010), Hastie et al. (2007), Adams (2013) and Gedik et al. (2012). These studies bare out that accessibility to these specific techniques and practices is important as it creates consistency, drives efficiencies in the design cycle and results in an effective on-line learning experience.
Many of the studies also confirmed that instructional design strategies for on-line learning require collaboration and flexibility to be successful (Defazio, 2009; Hastie et al., 2007; Gedik et al., 2012).
There were mixed or inconclusive results on the most effective on-line platform or method for delivering on-line training. A number of different methods were included in the studies and the methods ranged from synchronous (Hastie et al., 2007), blended learning (Adams, 2013), eLearning (Schneider, 2009), learning communities (Defazio, 2009) and mLearning (Gedik, et al., 2012). Hastie stated outright that synchronous classrooms out performed all other delivery forms but this claim was not substantiated.
Schneider’s (2009) study presented a different viewpoint as the explicitly stated goal for the participants was to leverage on-line learning (video conferencing, online synchronous and personal web pages) to decrease in-person meetings but not to eliminate them. This was in contrast to most other studies that used on-line learning to replace classroom training (Adams, 2013; Gedik et al., 2012; and Kulaselkara et al., 2011).
There were two studies that were very unique in both their perspective and contributions. The first one was Smith et al. (2008) who examined the design of eLearning for different disciplines, primarily comparing mathematics and nursing / healthcare. He reported that non-eLearning themes were consistent across different disciplines but noted that there were very specific and intricate eLearning differences between disciplines. Roytek’s (2010) study contributed 47 specific instructional design best practices that have been proven to increase efficiencies. Her study also discovered 14 additional supporting competencies for instructional designers that focused on beneficial knowledge, skills and attitudes. Within the competencies, authoring tools and knowledge of programming return on investment were identified as very important.
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of the 10 sources indicate that clearly defined instructional design strategies are required to create effective on-line learning. Incorporating best practices for instructional design can result in a collaborative learning experience, inclusion of the learners’ needs to improve learning outcomes and the selection of the right technological solution.
This analysis used sources that included a diverse group of participants ranging from primary school students, high school students, post-secondary students (undergraduate and graduate) as well as, workplace scenarios. Narrowing the scope to a specific and homogenous participant group could have changed the results of the analysis. Removing reference to Adams (2013) and Roytek (2010) would have left instructional design strategies / on-line learning for students only, with no workplace influence. These studies were included in the discussion and affected the comments on efficiency and detailed, comprehensive best practices. Another boundary that could have been changed was to review only sources that were of one singular technology platform. For example, reviewing only blended learning or only on-line learning would have produced different results.
A number of implications for instructional design strategies for on-line learning emerged from this analysis. There is a requirement to equip and support instructors, instructional designers and learners with the necessary tools and resources to execute effective on-line training. These resources include user-friendly technology for both designers and participants (Adams, 2013) and electronic tools for instructional designers to increase design efficiency (Roytek, 2010). For workplace learning, instructional designers must consider an organization’s corporate culture and openness to technology when deciding on the best approach for implementing on-line training (Adams, 2013). Adams also suggested that effective instructional design methods must strive to connect on-line learning with job performance. Defazio (2009) advocated a new model for learning communities, which was a fusion of the peer-assisted and ADDIE models. He recommended additional research be conducted as this was based on a one-event group. Several studies (Adams, 2013; Schneider, 2009; Kulaselkara et al., 2011; Schmertzing et al.,2002), emphasized the importance of a learner-centric focus for on-line learning and suggested that this must be incorporated in the design of on-line learning. Finally, Smith et al. (2008) asserted that different disciplines have diverse eLearning requirements and this deserves more focus and consideration in the instructional design process.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (2013). Blended learning: Instructional design strategies for maximizing impact. International Journal on E-Learning, 12 (1), 23-44. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/35484
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Defazio, J. (2009). Collaborative learning communities: Evidence of theory-into-practice in instructional design. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(12), 37-46. Retrieved from http://wwwitdl.org/journal/Dec_09/article04.htm
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. Retrieved from http://kanagawa.lti.cs.cmu.edu/11780/sites/default/files/GameSurvey1.pdf
Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademiri, A., Kusun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149-1159. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002
Hastie, M., Chen, N-S., & Kuo, Y-H. (2007). Instructional design for best practice in the synchronous cyber classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 281-294. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/journals/10.4/24/pdf
Kulaselkara, G., Jayatillelle, B., & Coomaraswamy, U. (2011). Learner perceptions in instructional design of multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning, 26(2), 113-126. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2011.567459
Macpherson, C., & Smith, A. (1998). Academic authors’ perception of the instructional design and development process for distance education: A case study. Distance Education, 19(1), 124-141. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/87206
Roytek, M. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.009.x
Schneider, R. (2009). Examining the instructional design of a technology enhanced course for new mentor teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 85-107. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/26111
Schmertzing, L., & Schmertzing, R. (2002). Adapting to distance education: How an ethnographic look at student experiences can inform instructional design. Computers in the Schools, 19 (3/4), 9-22. doi 10.1300/J025v19v03_02
Smith, G., Torres-Ayala A., & Heindel, A. (2008). Disciplinary differences in e-learning instructional design, Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 63-88. Retrieved from http://jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/91/704
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of instructional design strategies for on-line learning. Instructional design strategies refer to the processes and methodologies of designing instruction and are often focused on improving learners’ efficiencies (Roytek, 2010). An instructional design approach that integrates technology and traditional elements is blended learning (Adams, 2013). Instructional designers are challenged to create effective training programs by using efficient design strategies with more emphasis on web-based training (Roytek, 2010). The current global economic turbulence has made it necessary for organizations with limited resources to demand effective instructional design principles be leveraged to create blended, on-line learning solutions (Adams, 2013). As indicated by Hastie (2009), the incorporation of instructional design best practices, in an on-line synchronous cyber classroom, created a collaborative learning environment that resulted in greater learning achievements for the participants. In addition, the integration of new online methods of delivery has provided instructional designers with innovative options such as mLearning (Gedik et al., 2012) and learning communities (Defazio, 2009).
Organization of the paper
This paper begins with a methods’ section that describes how the analysis was conducted. The findings’ section outlines the results of the 10 studies reported on in this literature review and identifies the themes that emerge. The discussion section provides a deeper view of the results by comparing, assessing and evaluating the findings of the 10 studies. The concluding section outlines the main findings about instructional design strategies for on-line learning and will discuss the limitations of this analysis. In addition, relevant implications towards practice and policy in relation to instructional design strategies will be identified.
METHODS
The 10 sources were selected from nine peer-reviewed educational technology journals. Because all sources were selected from educational technology journals, they all included an electronic medium. The analysis only included sources with the words instructional design or instructional designers as part of the title. To figure as part of the analysis, the journal sources had to include research participants. This means that meta-analyses, literature reviews and book reviews etc., were excluded. The studies selected ranged from 1998 to 2013.
The studies were conducted across the globe and participants were located in different countries including USA, Canada, Australia, Turkey and Sri Lanka. Three of the studies (Gedik et al., 2012; Kulaselkara et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2008) employed a mixed-methods approach. The remaining studies used a qualitative methodology with two of the studies using a case study genre (Roytek 2010 and Macpherson 1998). Roytek’s case study utilized qualitative data collected through taped interviews and a pre-interview activity. Macpherson’s case study also relied on qualitative data collected via questionnaire. The list of journals used for the meta-analyses included the following:
International Journal on E-Learning
International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning
Journal of Educational Technology & Society
Open Learning
Distance Education
British Journal of Educational Technology
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education
Computers in the Schools
Journal of Distance Education
The purpose of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences, to identify patterns and to search and compare common themes on instructional design strategies for on-line learning. A qualitative meta-analysis approach was used. Creswell (2012) defined meta-analysis as “a type of research report in which the author integrates the findings of many (primary source) research studies” (p. 623). The qualitative meta-analysis was selected as it objectively analyzes text and uncovers new interpretations, in addition to creating a holistic perspective on this topic (Ke, 2009). Criteria were established to identify relevant research for this study. It included content that was focused on instructional design, extracted from peer-reviewed educational technology journals and contained research participants. As part of the analysis, studies had to have a purpose, methods, findings and implications outlined. From this process, similar themes were identified and from this analysis patterns and comparisons were explored.
The nature of the studies used in this analysis reflected a number of distinguishable characteristics. Instructional design was recognized as an important element in developing successful learning outcomes. Training was delivered in a variety of on-line forums, primarily web or computer based training. There were individual studies that utilized blended learning (Adams, 2013) and another that used a mobile learning platform (Gedik et al., 2012). The number of students and employees ranged from 11 to 200 participants. The majority of learners were post-secondary or graduate students with a diverse portfolio of subjects being studied. There were two studies that focused on corporations that were located in the private sector (Adams, 2013; Roytek, 2010).
Table 1: Descriptive characteristics of the studies
(see sub-page)
FINDINGS
The analysis of the 10 studies uncovered five main sub-themes related to the instructional design strategies for on-line learning. The themes that were highlighted from the analysis were 1) adherence to best practices 2) understanding learners’ needs 3) collaboration and consultation 4) role clarity and 5) selecting the right medium.
Adhering to Best Practices
Adhering to established best practices for the design and development of on-line training has proven effective for instructional designers, facilitators and participants (Adams, 2013; Gedik et al., 2012; Hastie et al., 2007; Roytek, 2010; Schneider, 2009). Roytek (2010) identified 47 separate best practices to follow when creating instruction, including web-based training. Leveraging these practices increased designer efficiency. Roytek also recommended the implementation of electronic tools for instructional design to further increase efficiency. Best practices were also determined to be a factor in creating a positive learning interaction. Hastie et al. (2007) outlined ten best practices for designing instruction for on-line synchronous learning. When these were followed, the students’ level of interaction and engagement increased, which resulted in better learning outcomes. Inclusion of best practices was identified as positively influencing job performance. Adams (2013) found that the best practice of designing training for smaller, more manageable time segments (i.e. 20 minutes) had a positive job impact for the learners. The results of a study by Hastie et al. (2007) indicated that there was increased confidence noted for teachers with on-line learning when best practices were followed. Gedik et al. (2012) stated that integrating a pedagogical approach into a well-defined framework was a necessary best practice for mLearning. This practice created clarity for the learners, allowed staggered delivery and the ability to customize content. Schneider (2009) indicated that teachers required a defined framework for successful technology learning.
Understanding Learners’ Needs
Another sub-theme that was noted is that instructional design strategies must seek to understand and incorporate the learners’ needs. Adams (2013) discovered that to ensure a valuable learning experience, designers must create courses that are focused on learner requirements. She concluded that blended learning interventions that are learner-focused result in a targeted, unique and beneficial interaction. This also created flexibility and a customized learning approach for individual learners. Similarly, Schneider (2009) determined that technology-based training is not always created with the learners’ considerations. She recommended that instructional design strategies transition from the more conventional teacher-centric to a learner-centric approach. However, Schneider’s study indicated that the 23 teacher participants were satisfied with the opportunity and benefits of on-line learning. Incorporating specific elements that considered the perspective of the learners into an on-line learning situation proved to be effective. Kulaselkara et al. (2011) found that by integrating particular items (included navigation page, narrations, coloured graphics) into the design of a multi-media distance course, the material was positively received by the participants. Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2002) noted in their study that instructors must remain vigilant and aware of their students’ efforts to adapt to new technology. It was beneficial to the learners, when instructors attempted to better understand the on-line learning format.
Collaboration and Consultation
The sub-theme of collaboration and consultation between learners, instructors and instructional designers featured prominently in the literature reviews. Defazio (2009) observed that participation in a learning community resulted in an increase in knowledge and that the level of collaboration between the 16 graduate students in the learning community contributed to their success. Hastie et al. (2007) reported that collaboration between teachers and students improved through the use of synchronous on-line learning. She reported that this increase in collaboration was evident when the teachers followed the minimalist instructional design principles recommended for this learning environment. The teachers in Hastie’s study reported greater student engagement. Gedik et al. (202) noted that when designing mLearning, designers should integrate opportunities for peer learners to collaborate and provide technical support to each other.
This sub-theme also applies to instructional designers and as Roytek (2010) noted, a level of flexibility and collaboration was required within instructional design teams to function effectively and efficiently. Smith et al. (2008) advocated that in advance of creating any eLearning courses, instructional designers and instructors should consult and partner together to ensure that specific discipline considerations were accommodated.
Role Clarity
Another sub-theme that surfaced in relation to instructional design strategies for on-line learning was the imperative to establish role clarity. Macpherson and Smith (1998) stated that role clarity between the instructional designer and instructor / author of the training material must be defined. The majority of the 54 academic authors in their research study indicated that they did not partner with their assigned instructional design resource. Gedik et al. (2012) contended that instructional designers that are tasked with creating on-line learning require adequate technical skills. Within the context of workplace learning, Roytek (2010) reported that specific and appropriate role clarity within a design team was necessary to achieve efficiency in creating on-line content. Another area that required parameters regarding roles was in designing eLearning for different disciplines. Smith et al. (2008) indicated that specific disciplines experienced eLearning issues that were isolated to that area of study. It is necessary for instructional designers to establish roles and responsibilities when addressing individual professional disciplines.
Selecting the Right Medium
A final sub-theme related to instructional design strategies for on-line learning is the importance of selecting the right technological medium. Adams (2010) contended that blended learning (specifically a combination of eLearning / classroom and eLearning / collaboration) was considered most valuable by the learners. Hastie et al. (2007) stated that synchronous classroom environments resulted in better student performance and was the most effective method of instruction. Gedik et al. (2012) reported that the selection of software / hardware with mLearning directly impacted the teaching approach. The 13 students that participated in his study indicated that the “push” notification feature of the smart phone was most beneficial. Schneider (2009) concluded that new practices for on-line learning were needed and that planning for the type and use of technology must be considered.
DISCUSSION
This analysis presented evidence to conclude that it is necessary to develop instructional design strategies for on-line learning. A majority of the studies articulated the perceived value of on-line learning from the perspectives of the participants, instructors and instructional designers. Studies by Defazio (2009), Hastie et al. (2007), Adams (2013), Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2002), Kulaselkara et al. (2011), Gedik et al. (2012) and Schneider (2009) highlighted the positive experiences and outcomes that were attributed to on-line learning.
Throughout this analysis, it was reinforced that there are a number of established and accepted best practices for on-line instructional design that currently exist. These best practices were discussed in the studies by Roytek (2010), Hastie et al. (2007), Adams (2013) and Gedik et al. (2012). These studies bare out that accessibility to these specific techniques and practices is important as it creates consistency, drives efficiencies in the design cycle and results in an effective on-line learning experience.
Many of the studies also confirmed that instructional design strategies for on-line learning require collaboration and flexibility to be successful (Defazio, 2009; Hastie et al., 2007; Gedik et al., 2012).
There were mixed or inconclusive results on the most effective on-line platform or method for delivering on-line training. A number of different methods were included in the studies and the methods ranged from synchronous (Hastie et al., 2007), blended learning (Adams, 2013), eLearning (Schneider, 2009), learning communities (Defazio, 2009) and mLearning (Gedik, et al., 2012). Hastie stated outright that synchronous classrooms out performed all other delivery forms but this claim was not substantiated.
Schneider’s (2009) study presented a different viewpoint as the explicitly stated goal for the participants was to leverage on-line learning (video conferencing, online synchronous and personal web pages) to decrease in-person meetings but not to eliminate them. This was in contrast to most other studies that used on-line learning to replace classroom training (Adams, 2013; Gedik et al., 2012; and Kulaselkara et al., 2011).
There were two studies that were very unique in both their perspective and contributions. The first one was Smith et al. (2008) who examined the design of eLearning for different disciplines, primarily comparing mathematics and nursing / healthcare. He reported that non-eLearning themes were consistent across different disciplines but noted that there were very specific and intricate eLearning differences between disciplines. Roytek’s (2010) study contributed 47 specific instructional design best practices that have been proven to increase efficiencies. Her study also discovered 14 additional supporting competencies for instructional designers that focused on beneficial knowledge, skills and attitudes. Within the competencies, authoring tools and knowledge of programming return on investment were identified as very important.
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of the 10 sources indicate that clearly defined instructional design strategies are required to create effective on-line learning. Incorporating best practices for instructional design can result in a collaborative learning experience, inclusion of the learners’ needs to improve learning outcomes and the selection of the right technological solution.
This analysis used sources that included a diverse group of participants ranging from primary school students, high school students, post-secondary students (undergraduate and graduate) as well as, workplace scenarios. Narrowing the scope to a specific and homogenous participant group could have changed the results of the analysis. Removing reference to Adams (2013) and Roytek (2010) would have left instructional design strategies / on-line learning for students only, with no workplace influence. These studies were included in the discussion and affected the comments on efficiency and detailed, comprehensive best practices. Another boundary that could have been changed was to review only sources that were of one singular technology platform. For example, reviewing only blended learning or only on-line learning would have produced different results.
A number of implications for instructional design strategies for on-line learning emerged from this analysis. There is a requirement to equip and support instructors, instructional designers and learners with the necessary tools and resources to execute effective on-line training. These resources include user-friendly technology for both designers and participants (Adams, 2013) and electronic tools for instructional designers to increase design efficiency (Roytek, 2010). For workplace learning, instructional designers must consider an organization’s corporate culture and openness to technology when deciding on the best approach for implementing on-line training (Adams, 2013). Adams also suggested that effective instructional design methods must strive to connect on-line learning with job performance. Defazio (2009) advocated a new model for learning communities, which was a fusion of the peer-assisted and ADDIE models. He recommended additional research be conducted as this was based on a one-event group. Several studies (Adams, 2013; Schneider, 2009; Kulaselkara et al., 2011; Schmertzing et al.,2002), emphasized the importance of a learner-centric focus for on-line learning and suggested that this must be incorporated in the design of on-line learning. Finally, Smith et al. (2008) asserted that different disciplines have diverse eLearning requirements and this deserves more focus and consideration in the instructional design process.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (2013). Blended learning: Instructional design strategies for maximizing impact. International Journal on E-Learning, 12 (1), 23-44. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/35484
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Defazio, J. (2009). Collaborative learning communities: Evidence of theory-into-practice in instructional design. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(12), 37-46. Retrieved from http://wwwitdl.org/journal/Dec_09/article04.htm
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. Retrieved from http://kanagawa.lti.cs.cmu.edu/11780/sites/default/files/GameSurvey1.pdf
Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademiri, A., Kusun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149-1159. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002
Hastie, M., Chen, N-S., & Kuo, Y-H. (2007). Instructional design for best practice in the synchronous cyber classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 281-294. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/journals/10.4/24/pdf
Kulaselkara, G., Jayatillelle, B., & Coomaraswamy, U. (2011). Learner perceptions in instructional design of multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning, 26(2), 113-126. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2011.567459
Macpherson, C., & Smith, A. (1998). Academic authors’ perception of the instructional design and development process for distance education: A case study. Distance Education, 19(1), 124-141. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/87206
Roytek, M. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.009.x
Schneider, R. (2009). Examining the instructional design of a technology enhanced course for new mentor teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 85-107. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/26111
Schmertzing, L., & Schmertzing, R. (2002). Adapting to distance education: How an ethnographic look at student experiences can inform instructional design. Computers in the Schools, 19 (3/4), 9-22. doi 10.1300/J025v19v03_02
Smith, G., Torres-Ayala A., & Heindel, A. (2008). Disciplinary differences in e-learning instructional design, Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 63-88. Retrieved from http://jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/91/704