a conceptual framework for enhancing the instructional design process

8/8/2019 A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing the Instructional Design Process

1/14

Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT) Vol. 1, No. 2, pp 35-48December 2004ISSN: 1823-1144

A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing the Instructional Design Process

1Norliana Ab Maleh, 2Chien-Sing Lee, 3Chin-Kuan Hoand 4Hwee-Reei ChongFaculty of Information Technology

Multimedia University

Cyberjaya, Selangor, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

AbstractLearning Management Systems (LMSs) and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMSs) areplatforms which enable meaningful interaction between instructors, administrators and studentswith regards to Web-based and classroom training. The distinction between the two managementsystems lies in the added authoring functionality in LCMSs. This paper examines the differencesbetween LMS and LCMS, compares the latest authoring tools in the market and finally presents

automated instructional design in the Ontological Instructional Design (OntoID ) authoring tool, aJava and XML-based Authoring Tool. The ultimate aim is to scaffold the instructional designprocess.

INTRODUCTIONInstructional Design is a systematic approach to developing effective learning materials for differentlearning contexts through the process of analysing, designing, developing and evaluating instruction. The Ontological Instructional Design (OntoID ), an automated instructional design tool aims toachieve the above goal. The OntoID serves to provide instructors with an integrated modelling anddevelopment interface. The modelling interface helps the instructor to visualise the association ofconcepts in order to systematically design and develop learning materials. On the other hand, thedevelopment interface provides tools for designing Web pages without the need to know HyperText Markup Language (HTML) programming. Reuse of learning materials from a learning objectsrepository further facilitates the development process and enables faster deployment.

This paper first presents the framework for authoring tools, the Learning Content ManagementSystem (LCMS) as contrasted to the more popularly known Learning Management System (LMS).The second section compares different authoring tools in the market which incorporates automatedinstructional design.The aim is to compare the degree in which instructional design and reusabilityhave been incorporated into these authoring tools. This is followed by a discussion on modeling,development and reusability in the OntoID authoring tool. The paper concludes with results from apilot test.

FRAMEWORK FOR AUTHORING TOOLS

Learning Content Management SystemInternational Data Corporation (IDC), a premier global market intelligence and advisory firm in theIT and telecommunication industries defines LCMS as a system that creates, stores, assembles anddelivers personalised e-learning content in the form of learning objects (IDC, 2004). A learningobject is a standing piece or chunk of education that contains content and assessment based onspecific learning objectives (Figure 1). Learning objects are described by metadata. Retrieval andreuse of learning objects from a central repository (or knowledge base) ensures higher relevancy andsaves development time. If the learning materials are already categorised according to the students


2/14

MOJIT A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing the Instructional Design Process

36

knowledge states (e.g. weak, moderate and advanced), then personalising learning materials todifferent student needs becomes even easier.

Figure 1: Components of Learning Objects

According to Learning Circuits (Learning Circuits, 2002), other than support for reusable learningobjects, LCMSs provide:

a) Content creation tools for novice developersb) Communication and collaboration tools (asynchronous and synchronous such as white boards

and group chats)

c) Assessment tools for different levels of studentsd) Administration tools to manage registration and monitoring of students progress, student logand course content

e) Interoperability with any LMS or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and support basicintegration formats such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) and other industry standards(IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS), Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM)and Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC)

f) Security to protect content and user data, including a secure set of user privileges and permissionlevels to control, manage and update content

g) Facilities for content migration to re-purpose content for faster online deploymenth) Automated implementation processes whereby features can be enabled or disabled, thus

facilitating easier and quicker customisation

In this paper, we focus on one of the LCMS features, i.e. content creation through an authoringtool. An LCMS also concentrates on online learning content, usually in the form of learning objects.However, an LMS manages and administers all forms of learning within an organisation as explainedin the following subsection.


3/14


37

Learning Management System There are two definitions that are may be most useful. According to Rengarajan (2001), an LMSmanages the organisations learning activities in contexts that range from an instructor-led classroomto Web-based on-line training. It allows registration of courses, tracks individual skills andcompetencies, enables easy access to learning materials, tracks student performance and generatesreports on learning activities and performance. An LMS does not enable creation, reusability,

management or improvement of content itself. The second definition comes from e-learningsite(2004) which defines LMS as software that deploys, manages, tracks and reports on interactionbetween learner and content and between learner and instructor.

Hence, a LMS provides a single point of access to different learning sources. It automates theadministration and personalisation of learning programmes, executes tests for different levels ofstudents and generates tests results and reports. However, it is noted that an LMS does not providefor reusability, a value-added feature in LCMSs.

Learning Circuits point out that common features in any LMS are (Learning Circuits, 2002):

a) Support for blended learning whereby classroom and virtual learning are synergisedfor prescriptive and personalised trainingb) Integration with the human resource department to enable automatic update of astaff profilec) Administration tools to enable registration, updating of profiles, setting ofcurriculum, assignment of tutors, authoring of courses, management of content and administrationof internal budgets, scheduling of timetables, user payments and refunds and generation ofindividual and group performanced) Content integration to provide native support for a diverse range of third-partycoursewaree) Compliance with learning standards such as SCORM and AICC to enable easyimport and management of content

f) Assessment tools to enable evaluation of a programme, course or lesson over timeg) Identification of training needs and management of skills as a resourceh) Easy configurability with third-party systemsThe primary objective of a learning management system (LMS) is to manage learners, and keep trackof their progress and performance across all types of training activities. By contrast, a learningcontent management system (LCMS) manages the flow of content that is served to the learner. Inthe simplest terms, an LCMS manages the content and the LMS manages the learners.

Understanding the difference between the LMS and LCMS can be very confusing because most ofthe LCMS systems also have built-in LMS functionality. Chapman & Hall (2001) report that 81% of

LCMS systems include LMS functionality as part of their system. Almost 100% of the LCMS listthemselves as being interoperable with third-party LMS. More than half (54%) have actuallyperformed interoperability tests with leading LMS products such as Mindflash, IBM Lotus LearningManagement System and TopClass(WBT Systems). Hence, the LMS and LCMS should be regardedas complementary integrated solutions to e-learning.

As mentioned earlier, the distinguishing feature between an LMS and an LCMS is the authoringaspect. What is an authoring tool? An authoring system is defined as a software package thatsupports trainers and developers so that they can produce interactive multimedia courses efficiently(Dean, 2002). Essential components are:


4/14


38

Facilities that allow developers, who may not be computer experts, to enter the training contentonto screens in an attractive way.

Support for linking screens of training material together into modules.Support for a range of question types so that the course designers can choose the most

appropriate for a particular situation and provide variety for the student.

Responsive analysis that takes the students answers to questions and provides feedback andmakes branching decisions based on the students responses.In view of the differences between an LMS and an LCMS, a summary of the differences betweenLMS and LCMS is tabled in section 2.3.

Differences between LMS and LCMSLCMSs and LMSs are not only dissimilar from one another but complement each other well.Information from the two systems can be exchanged, ultimately resulting in a richer learningexperience for the user and a more comprehensive tool for the learning administrator. An LMS canmanage communities of users, allowing each of them to launch the appropriate objects stored and

managed by the LCMS. In delivering the content, the LCMS also tracks the individual learnersprogress, generates test scores and returns these values back to the LMS for reporting purposes.

The differences between LMS (Netg, 2004) and LCMS (Brandonhall, 2004) are presented in Table 1.Having considered the framework for authoring tools, we will now look into the various authoringtools in the market.

Table 1: Differences between LMS & LCMS

LMS LCMS

Primary target users Training managers,instructors, administrators

Content developers,instructional designers,

project managersPrimary management Learners Learning Content

Management of classroom,instructor-led training

Yes

Performance reporting oftraining results

Primary focus Secondary focus

Learner collaboration Yes YesMaintain learner profile or

data Yes

Sharing learner data withother system

Yes

Training Event scheduling Yes NoCompetency mapping skill

gap analysis Yes Yes in some cases

Content creation orauthoring capabilities

No Yes

Organising reusable content No YesCreation of test questions

and test administrationYes (73% of all LMS tools

have this capabilities)Yes (92% of all LCMS tools

have this capabilities)Dynamic pre-testing and No Yes


5/14


39

adaptive learningWorkflow tools to manage

the content developmentprocess

No Yes

Delivery of content byproviding navigational

controls and learner interface

No Yes

Author, create, store andmanage learning contentfrom a central repository

No Yes

Reduces interoperabilityissues with third party

vendors

No Yes

COMPARISON BETWEEN AUTHORING TOOLSThere are many authoring systems in the market, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.Some, for example, are very good at delivering classical CBT (Computer Based Training), but arenot as good at implementing hypermedia. Others are good at handling text and graphics, but are lessefficient at handling sound and movie. The following section will focus on differences and betweenleading authoring systems in the market. Comparison is made based on their instructional design (ifany) and reusability features. In this paper, we focus on 3 authoring systems, i.e., Designers Edge,Elicitus Content Publisherand Reactor XC. These tools are chosen because they provide very extensivefeatures in creating and managing content for the instructor. This review forms the requirements fordeveloping our OntoID authoring tool.

Designers Edge

Designer's Edge(Figure 2) provides a set of integrated pre-authoring toolsets and wizard to speed up

the analysis, design and evolution of effective technology-based training (Allen Communication,2004). Designer's Edge performance support approach to instructional design provides a step-by-step process that speeds productivity, standardises design and processes across organisations andfacilitates effective design and development for trainers.


6/14


40

Figure 2: Main Window ofDesigners Edge

Designer's Edge combined withNetSynergyallows trainers to export their Designer's Edge'sstory boardto HTMLorJAVA templates for full cross platform delivery on the Web or corporate Internet. Anadded advantage is Designer's Edge Enterprise Edition has their own extension for Dreamweaver toallow Dreamweaver developers to access Designer's Edge project design information directly fromwithin Dreamweaver.

There are 12 phases in this authoring tool to follow in order to create learning content. These are

analyse needs, create mission statement, create audience profile, write objectives, analyse and outlinecontent, create course layout map, define treatment, select learner activities, create detailed plan,produce media, author course and evaluate course. Designers Edgealso has its own customiser andwizard editor. Besides its advantages mentioned previously, there are some disadvantages with thisauthoring tool. Even though Designers Edgehas instructional design features in its software, it doesnot address the issue of reusability in the authoring of content.

Elicitus Content Publisher

Elicitus Content Publisher(Figure 3) is another interesting authoring tool in the market. It is claimed tobe an inexpensive authoring tool for quickly creating e-learning courses. Instructors can createcourses using templates and then can deliver the courses via CD-ROM, Intranet, and Internet orintegrate it with a Learning Management System (LMS). Elicitus enables instructors to publishcourses and host them on their Learning Management System with AICCor SCORMcompliance.This way they can track their learners' progress closely, and reuse course contents (Elicitus, 2004).

A course can have several learning units. Each learning unit can have many lessons and each lessonwill have topic pages. The topic pages contain the content of the course. The entire course can havea multimedia glossary created through Elicituss Glossary Builder. A course can end with anassessment to check the students understanding of the subject. An exercise is an optionalcomponent of a topic page, meant to assess the students understanding of the topic. Once an


7/14


41

exercise is attached to a topic page, it will be displayed to the student before the student goes to thenext topic page. The student can quit from the exercise and go the next topic page without doing theexercise.

Main features of this authoring tool are Course Outline Editor, Question Bank Editor and GlossaryBuilder. Besides these three important features, they also have assessment, import learning object

and templates. Although Elicitushas good features in creating content, online self assessment andreusability issue is addressed, it does not have any instructional design features to enable instructorsto plan, design, analyse and evaluate while they author the content.

Figure 3: Main Window ofElicitusContent Publisher

Reactor XC

Reactor XC (Figure 4) is a content creation tool for the e-learning industry, offering end-to-endauthoring and distribution with a full range of powerful features that enable instructors to efficiently

produce rich interactive e-learning on any scale. It is compliant with SCORM 1.2and fully supportsthe core sentiment of interoperability, accessibility and reusability. It allows the user to merge anycombination of media and complex data sources such as Microsoft NetMeetingor PowerPoint intointeractive learning experience to be viewed in a standard Web browser (Etiro, 2004).

Reactor XCusesXMLandXHTMLto package a powerful combination of Web-technologies (Etiro,2004)

Microsoft VMLfor vector graphics Microsoft HTML+TIME for dynamics


8/14


42

JavaScriptfor interactivity SCORMandMicrosoft LRNfor course structure and LMS interfacingMain features of this authoring tool are course structure, templates, dynamic content and animation,working with LMS and creating interactivity usingJavaScript.

Figure 4: Main Window ofReactor XC

Similar with Elicitus, Reactor XCalso does not have any instructional design feature to enableinstructors to plan, design, analyse and evaluate while they author the content. Nevertheless, they dohave reusable feature.

The above framework and requirements form the basis for our own authoring tool, the OntoIDdescribed in the next section. Our focus is not merely on the development of Web pages but ratheron the facilitation of the whole instructional design process. Two main aspects are discussed:automating instructional design and reusability.

AUTOMATED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (AID) & REUSABILITY

The design of quality learning materials depends on two aspects: good instructional design and easy-to-use Web development tools. Instructional design can be defined as the science of creating detailedspecifications for the development, evaluation, and maintenance of situations, which facilitate the learning of both largeand small units of subject matter(Richey, 1990). Instructional design grew out of the systems approachto training developed by the military during World War II. It was based on the premise that learningshould not occur in a haphazard manner but should be developed in accordance with orderlyprocesses and has measurable outcomes (Gustafson & Branch, 1997).

The role of models in instructional design is to provide conceptual and communication tools thatcan be used to visualise, direct, and manage processes for generating episodes of guided learning.


9/14


43

Analysis, design, production, evaluation, and revision steps are included in virtually all instructionaldesign models created in the 60s, 70s and 80s. However, some authors of this period (Hassan,1978; Merrill, 1981) used the term instructional development in a much more limited way, typicallyto describe only the design element (Gustafson & Branch, 1997).

Instructional design is usually very time-consuming and laborious. Two hundred hours of manualinstructional design is required for one hour of instruction (Lippert, 1989). Programming computer-based instruction requires an even more astounding 500:1 ratio (Bourdeau et al., 1993). A possiblesolution to both problems will be to automate instructional design. In such learning environment,the learner would have maximum flexibility as to what would be learned, in what sequence, andperhaps in how it was even measured. Automated instructional design (AID) can be defined as theprocesses identified for manipulating the knowledge objects in a knowledge structure provide thebases for computer algorithms that can emulate some of the processing done by a learner(Merrill,2000).

The second aspect addressed in this paper, reusability, revolves around the reuse of codes and

modular programming. Reusability deals with the issue of laborious Web development, a deterrentto the novice instructor. Reuse-based software engineering includes three methods (Sommerville,2000). Firstly is application systemreuse where the entire application system may be reused either byincorporating it without change into other systems (COTS reuse) or by developing applicationfamilies. Secondly is component reusewhere components of an application from sub-system to singleobjects may be reused. Thirdly is function reusewhere software components that implement a singlewell-defined function may be reused (Sommerville, 2000).

The advantages of reusability are (Sommerville, 2000):

increased reliability where components are exercised in a working system reduced process risk, due to less uncertainty in development costs effective use of specialists where we reuse the components instead of people standards compliance in reusable components, and accelerated development The major technology contributing to reusability that is extensively used today is the eXtensible Markup Language(XML). XML is fast becoming a standard format for Internet/intranet datainformation exchange. It serves as an excellent means for representing data to provide an open,Internet-based integration of cross-enterprise applications especially in e-learning applications(Lakshmi et al., 2004). How this XML technology will be put into practice and in what fashion itpromotes reusability will be described in the subsequent section.

One of the components of Multimedia Knowledge Base e-learning (MKBe), an ongoing projectdeveloped in Multimedia University is the OntoID authoring tool. The OntoID is an essential part ofthe LCMS (Learning Content Management Systems) as creation and content management is donethrough the authoring tool. The OntoID authoring tool includes instructional design as a precursor tothe design and development of Web pages. The authoring tool provides a Graphical User Interface(GUI) to enable the user to create learning objects and store them in central repositories. Ideally,once created, these learning objects should function in two or more instructional contexts.Highlights are given to the reusability of the templates and online self-assessment tool in thisauthoring tool.


10/14


44

OntoIDs Automated Instructional DesignAutomated instructional design helps the instructor model instructional design systematically. Theinstructor can create a new concept, view existing concept, update a concept, remove a concept andadd concept from the central repository (knowledge base) to the OntoID interface shown in Figure 5.When the instructor wishes to create a new concept, first he or she will select the lesson or parentconcept from the OntoID conceptual tree. This will indicate the position of the new concept in the

tree. Next, the instructor will provide metadata to the new concept. Metadata involved are conceptname, objectives, pre-requisite concepts, related concepts, media files and tasks (Figure 6). This newconcept will be saved in a knowledge base. To view existing concepts which are stored in theknowledge base, the instructor needs to select the concept from the OntoID interface andinformation corresponding to the selected concept will be displayed.

Figure 5: Main Window ofOntoID

Concepts in the concept tree can be modified and updated by the instructor. He or she has to selectwhich concept he or she wishes to update, update the concept and save the updated concept in theknowledge base. Removing a concept from the interface requires the instructor to choose theconcept he or she wishes to remove, confirm the removal and the chosen concept will be removed.

In addition to creating a new concept, the instructor can add concepts from the knowledge base.First, the instructor determines the position of the concept by selecting the lesson or parent concept.Next, the instructor can specify the course name and concepts related to the selected course will beretrieved and displayed. The instructor can then choose the concept and add it to the OntoID tree.


11/14


45

Figure 6: The Concept of Metadata

The development in the OntoID authoring tool is facilitated by its reusable aspect addressed in the

following subsection.

Reusability in the OntoIDAuthoring ToolJavais used as the main language for developing the application and GUIs for the OntoID authoringtool. By combining the Java and XML technologies when creating application or working withinformation gives us portability, well-defined standards, extendibility, Internet compatibility, avariety of application and very important advantage we have is the option of reusing the code. Wecan create bothJavaapplication andXMLdocument using a modular design, allowing for the reuseof bothJavacode andXMLinformation.

In reusingJavacode andXMLinformation, we break the code into a number of modules, each ofwhich performs a specific task. For example, in an assessment, we classify the modules for each type

of question so that we can have a question bank. A question bank is a pool of questions which theinstructors key in when they create an exercise or assessment for their students. Figure 7 shows anexample of creating Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ).


12/14


46

Figure 7 Multiple choice question template

The questions in our online self assessment based on concept were organised. Each assessment istightly integrated with the concept. For example, if the instructor creates an assessment for an objectconcept, all the questions together with the information associated with it will be saved into anobjectXMLfile. When the instructor wants to reuse again questions in the object concept in his or

her new concept, he or she can simply search the question bank (XML tree). Suitable assessmenttypes (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blanks, subjective or true/false) and corresponding questions for aparticular object concept will be retrieved. The instructor can either reuse the whole assessment orchoose only particular question(s) that suits his or her new assessment for a concept. The benefit ofhaving such design is that it facilitates higher reusability. The instructor can easily reuse any questionand the corresponding information without having to search the entire question bank.

User FeedbackThe usability testing for a pilot test on 4 respondents was conducted. All of them were given a set ofquestions which mainly asked about ID and reusability. From the testing, essentially about 90%from the respondents did not know and have never heard about automated instructional designpreviously. Feedback collected mostly shows that automating instructional design helped themlayout their content very well. They also found that automating instructional design makes thesystem more user-friendly and easy to learn, especially in outlining the concept in the OntoIDinterface.

Responses from the users also indicated that our features are understandable and easy to learn.Majority of them prefer the wizard approach in creating the online self assessment test. The usersare guided by the system step by step in designing the assessment. Having standard templates foreach question type promotes user flexibility and saves time.


13/14


47

CONCLUSIONThe definition and differences between LMS and LCMS have been discussed in the first part of thispaper. Even though they varied, they support each other very well. When integration is successful,information between them can be exchanged and shared between each other. We have emphasisedmore on the LCMS as it provides a framework or requirements for the creation of authoring tools.Comparison with commercial authoring tools has further supported and refined the LCMS

framework.

The OntoID authoring tool version 1 meets some of the requirements stated in the LCMSframework which are content creation tools for novice developer and assessment tool for differentlevels of student and reusability of content. The LCMS framework emphasises on contentdevelopment. An added value to the OntoID is that it incorporates instructional design with contentdevelopment. Pilot tests indicate that automating instructional design in the OntoID is not only user-friendly and easy, but reduces development time and cost. With continuous research and review, wehope to further refine the system for user testing on a wider scale and further improve on theOntoID.

REFERENCES

Allen Communication Designers Edge. (2004). http://www.allencomm.com/

Bourdeau J., Junginger S., Kuyper M., Marchall I., Schwab S. & Sorg B. (1993). Automatinginstructional planning. In NATO ASI Series, Series F. Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 140, BerlinHeidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp559-569.

Brandonhall. (2004). http://www.brandonhall.com/public/resources/lms_lcms/

Chapman, B. & Hall, B. (2001). Learning content management system: Comparative analysis ofsystems used to constrct, organize, and re-use learning objects. Bradon-Hall.com report.

Dean C. (2002). An Overview of Authoring Systems and Learning Management Systems available in the UK:Sheffield, UK: PeakDean Interactive Ltd.

e-learningsite. (2004). http://www.e-learningsite.com

Elicitus Elicitus Content Publisher. (2004). http://www.elicitus.com/

Etiro Reactor XC. (2004). http://etiro.pro.dir.dk/

Gustafson K. L. & Branch R. M. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(3), 73-89.

Hassan, N. (1978). A complemental approach to instructional development. Paper presented at theCongress on Education, Toronto, Canada. (Available as ERIC document ED 160029).

IDC. (International Data Corporation). (2004). http://www.idc.com

Lakshmi E., Shince T., Davesh, N. & Sarat C. B. (2004). XML and Component Technology in E-LearningTool Development. Hyderabad, India: Center for Development of Advanced Computing.

Learning Circuits. (2002). http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002


14/14


48

Lippert, R. (1989). Tutors, tools and tutees.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(1), 11-19.

Merrill, M. D. (1981). Toward a theory- based approach to instructional development. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education Communications andTechnology, Philadelphia, P A, USA.

Merrill, M. D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. Paper presented at the IWALTPalmerston North, New Zealand December 4-6.http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/KnowObjMentalModels/tsld030.htm

Netg. (2004). http://www.netg.com/netgnews/Archive/10_02/rightforyou.asp

Rengarajan, R. (2001). LCMS and LMS taking advantage of tight integration. Click2Learn InternalReport.

Richey R. C. (1990). The Theoretical and Conceptual Bases of Instructional Design. London: Kogan Page

Sommerville I. (2000). Software Engineering. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.

a conceptual framework for enhancing the instructional design process

Documents