connecting instructional design to the development & application of reusable learning objects to...

Connecting Instructional Design to the Development & Application of Reusable Learning Objects to Support Information Literacy Skills in Higher Education

Dr. John D. Solis, Assistant Professor

Lisa Baures, Public Services Librarian

Minnesota State University, Mankato

AECT Standards

Standard 1: Design1.1 Instructional Systems Design

1.1.1 Analyzing: triangulation of standards

1.1.2 Designing: no seat time, available 24/7

1.1.3 Developing: collaboration

1.1.4 Implementing: learning objects

1.1.5 Evaluating: rubrics

AECT StandardsStandard 1: Design

1.2 Message Design

Learning

Objects

Instructional Development

Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)

Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)

Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)

Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies

Learning Theories

Development of LO

Theory

Application

AECT Standards

Standard 1: Design1.3 Instructional Strategies

Sequencing of learning objects to create Web-based module

AECT Standards

Standard 1: Design1.4 Learner Characteristics

1st year freshman English composition course

Learning stylesVisualAuditoryHands-on

Access to technology

Assumed no mastery of information literacy skills

AECT Standards

Standard 2: Development2.1 Print Technologies: required reading

2.2 Audiovisual Technologies: streaming media

2.3 Computer-based Technologies: Video capturing/editing software, word processing, audio recording equipment, and computer system

2.4 Integrated Technologies: Word Wide Web, hypertext linking, and Desire 2 Learn

AECT Standards

Standard 3: Utilization3.1 Media Utilization: matching appropriate

multimedia application to specific student learning outcome

3.2 Diffusion of Innovations: grant project

3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization: demonstrate creative use of multimedia technology to provide instruction for a multi-section general education course

3.4 Policies and Regulation: copyright, ownership of instruction

AECT StandardsStandard 4: Management

4.1 Project Management: grant administrator duties

4.2 Resource Management: stipulations of grant

4.3 Delivery System Management: Desire 2 Learn

4.4 Information Management: information technology infrastructure

AECT Standards

Standard 5: Evaluation5.1 Problem Analysis: need for

information literacy instruction5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement:

ACRL information literacy standards, WPA, and general education learning outcomes

5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation: development of rubrics

5.4 Long-Rang Planning: revision of writing program curriculum

TermsLearning Object

The main idea of ‘learning objects’ is to break educational content down into small chunks that can be reused in various learning environments. (David Wiley)

Learning Objects are small or large resources that can be used to provide a learning experience. These assets can be lessons, video clips, images, or even people. The Learning Objects can represent tiny ‘chunks’ of knowledge, or they can be the whole courses. (Claude Ostyn)

Instructional DesignThe systematic and

reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation. This process usually results in some type of end-product. (Smith & Ragan)

Introduction & Purpose of Grant

Triangulation of standards based on confluence

Identification of instructional paradigm shift through technological innovationInternetEnhancing learning environmentInstructional design practices

Implementation of instructional systems design

Utilization of technology

Learning Objects = paradigm shift + technology + ID

Implementation Context

Impetus Situation

Acknowledge information literacy skills as core subject content in the writing curriculum

Curriculum redesign

Innovative use of technology

Alternative medium for delivering instruction outside of classroom

Mid-western comprehensive 1 university

Freshman English composition student

Approximately 80 sections a year

Approximately 15 face-to-face sections

Teaching assistants taught all sections

NeedsExamine current curriculum

Course student learning outcomes

General education goals and objectives

Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA)

Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) information literacy standards

Needs

Triangulation of standards

General education goals and objectives

WPA writing standards

ACRL information literacy standards

Needs

Course Redesign

Information literacy as core content

Achievement of course competencies

Refocus on expertise of instructor

Efficient use of in-class time

Implementation of Triangulation of ACRL/WPA/MSU

Preliminary Research: Module 1Sequencing overview

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/students/module_1.html

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/instructors/instructors.html

Original student and instructor version used for English Composition.

Development of LO

Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)

Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)

Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies

Learning Theories

Conceptual Framework for Learning Object Development (Koohang & Harman, 2007)

Learning Objects

Instructional Development

Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)

Learning

Objects

Instructional Development

Student Learning Outcomes (AASL/AECT, KSUS , ACRL standards)

Taxonomy of LO (D. A. Wiley)

Systematic Instructional Design (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (R. Gagne)

Taxonomy of Learning & Instruction (B. Bloom)

Learning Frameworks or Interpretative Pedagogies

Learning Theories

Develop-ment of

LO

Theory

Application

Triangulation of MSU, WPA, and ACRLInformation Literacy Learning OutcomesExample

Learning Object: Identify What Is Known—Student Learning Outcomes

MSU General Education CompetencyCategory 1: Communication, Part A: English CompositionTo develop writers who use the English language effectively and who read and write

critically.Goal a. Students will be able to demonstrate and practice strategies for idea

generation, audience analysis, organization of texts, drafting, evaluation of drafts, revision, and editing. (For this exercise, students will be able to demonstrate and practice strategies for idea generation.)

WPA OutcomesCritical Thinking, Reading, and WritingUse writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating

ACRL Performance Indicators1.1. The information literate student defines and articulates the need for

information. a. Confers with instructors and participates in class discussions, peer workgroups,

and electronic discussions to identify a research topic, or other information.3.1. The information literate student summarizes the main ideas to be extracted

from the information gathered. a. Reads the text and selects main ideas. b. Restates textual concepts in his/her own words and selects data accurately.

Instructional Development

Dick, Carey, and Carey I.D. Model (2005)

Instructional Module with Learning Objects

Preliminary Research: Module 1Example of a learning object

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/solisj/grant_project/students/module_1.html

What is Known (student version)

Assessment: Instructor Feedback

Unsure how to implement the module

Infringement of academic freedomProgram agenda vs. instructor agenda

Overload of course content

Appreciated timely feedback

Example of completed exercise helpful when providing feedback

If skill were not mastered, they were able to refer back to previous feedback to help complete next assignment

Extra class work

Assessment: Student Feedback

Grant Team FeedbackLack of common core curriculum

T.A. limited knowledge of information literacy as core course content

Disconnect between the triangulation of standards and development of core course content student learning outcomes

Lack of students assuming responsibility for their own learning

ConclusionsRevise module

Identify prerequisite skills

Fewer student learning outcomes per learning object

Identify time commitment

Reexamine visual design of module

Need to measure for interactivity

Need for common core course curriculum and assessment

Recognition of limitations to using learning objects

Need for effective and efficient coordination

RecommendationsImplement

revisions

Expand sample size (course sections)

Commitment to developing and implementing core course student learning outcomes

Recognize the importance of implementing professional standards

ReferencesDick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The

systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hudak, C. A. (2007). Linking instructional theories and instructional design to learning objects: A proposed conceptual framework. In A. Koohang K. Harman (Eds.), Learning Objects and Instructional Design. (pp. 1-38). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.