Research Network
Report X - Theme 6.3
ID processes, Pedagogical Objects and the eLearning Reality
Principal authors:
Karin Lundgren-Cayrol
Diane Ruelland
Ileana de la Teja
Contributors:
France Henri
Marc Couture
Marcello Maina
Janvier 18, 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Conceptual Framework 4
2.1. Instructional Design Methods 4
2.2. Learning Object Reconceptualized 6
2.3. Research Rationale and Objectives 6
3. Method 7
3.1. Subjects 7
3.2. Procedures 7
The analysis was carried out in five stages: 7
4. Results from Transcript Analysis 8
4.1. Pedagogical Case Profiles 8
4.2. List of inferred needs 8
4.3. List of potential Pedagogical Objects 9
5. Results from MISA Mapping Exercise 10
5.1. The MISA Method Axes 10
5.2. the MISA method Phases 11
5.3. Mapping Practitioners ID Processes to the MISA Phases 13
5.4. Tendencies 14
5.5. Recommendations for TELOS Development Teams 14
6. Future Research Venues 15
7. References 16
8. Acknowledgement: 17
9. Appendice A – Case Profiles 18
10. Appendice B – Summary table of contextual factors 23
ID processes, Pedagogical Objects and the eLearning Reality
Abstract: Given the increased importance of learning objects for designing, producing and delivering online courses, concerns arise about reusability and more specifically how practitioners could effectively use them to facilitate the design process. To shed some light on practitioners’ use of existing learning resources and how these may potentially affect their ID processes, transcripts of six interviews with practitioners were analyzed from this point of view. Key results from this study provide a list of potential learning objects and how their use might facilitate the ID process. Further, five main tendencies could be discerned from these transcripts. These are discussed in light of general recommendations that can be made in terms of ID processes using pedagogical objects in innovative eLearning contexts. This report presents a conceptual framework, research objectives, the method, followed by results, ideas for future research perspectives and a general conclusion.
1. Introduction
Most educational institutions of today have their own websites, in many cases their own portal offering all kinds of services as well as online courses and most often managed through the use of commercial Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), such as e.g., WebCT and Blackboard. This new reality offers a wide variety of tools, but it also necessitate new instructional design methods relying on readily available learning resources, which can easily be adapted to new contexts (see e.g., JISC[1]; LORNET[2], Douglas, 2001; Lowerison, Gallant & Boyd, 2003; Wiley, 2000; Duval, 1999 ). For this to happen, not only must machines be able to talk to each other, which they do through standards, but also these environments must entail new instructional design methods and instructor competencies (Klein, Spector, Grabowski & de la Teja, 2004).
Given the increased importance of learning objects for designing, producing and delivering online courses (Wiley, 2000; Pernin, 2003) concerns arise about reusability and how practitioners could effectively use them to facilitate the design process. As expressed by Paquette, Lundgren-Cayrol, Miara & Guérette (2004), the main challenge for the acceptance of learning objects by practitioners lies in understanding their instructional design processes so as to be able to propose solid instructional design support (Flamand, 2004) rather than only proposing methods and tools on how to reference learning objects. Initially, work on learning objects focused on metadata standardisation initiatives aiming at how to reference (object metadata tagging) and categorize objects in order to make them readily available through repositories (c.f., ARIADNE, MERLOT, CanCore, DublinCore, EdNa, eduSource.). However, the practitioners’ instructional design process has often been overlooked. This study pursues the idea that a systemic and systematic instructional design method must be meaningful (Tozman, 2004) for practitioners to embrace a learning object design approach. To elaborate such a method, we must start by investigating practitioners’ practices, their needs and problems as well as how best to remedy them, whether by tools or methods.
This report presents the conceptual framework, research objectives, the method followed by results, ideas for future research perspectives and a general conclusion.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Instructional Design Methods
Using an instructional design method increases coherence and quality of courses, which in turn improves the conditions for learning, whether online or not. According to Paquette (2004, p. 61) Instructional Design is based on “a collection of theories and models permitting to understand, improve, and apply instructional methods that favor learning.” Further, if the course design aims at eLearning, many more factors add to the design complexity. For example, innovative media, production and delivery tools require many types of expertise and cater more to team work than when designing face to face courses. For this reason, a systemic and systematic design method is essential to ensure good eLearning design.
The general idea of instructional design can be illustrated by the ADDIE model, which in its simplest form, takes on the following procedures[3]:
§ Analysis and Description – Identify target group, training problem, content and main activities;
§ Design – Elaborate objectives, instructional strategies, tactics, assessment, motivation;
§ Development – Produce materials, tools, tests;
§ Implementation - Pilot test with end-users, provide tutor & learner technical training;
§ Evaluation – Provide diagnostic, formative, summative evaluation logistics and materials.
Morrison (2004) describes instructional design from four points of view, namely as a process, a discipline, a science and a reality, further adding that “if properly used, ID ensures our efforts to create learning that is learner centric, engaging relevant and performance oriented result in a form and structure that leverage both the best practice and creativity.”
For the purposes of this study, the MISA Learning System Engineering Method was chosen, since it caters to the design of complex learning and teaching situations integrating new communication and information technologies. This method will serve as the reference to describe pedagogical practices carried out by practitioners in the field. MISA applies cognitive science principles to the field of pedagogical design, which involves learning systems design to produce blueprints facilitating the development, implementation and upgrading of Learning Systems (LS). The MISA method is innovative; it applies management principles to the field of education; it uses cognitive modeling techniques to represent knowledge, pedagogical scenarios, media processing and delivery planning.
MISA leads to the production of 35 documentation elements distributed among 6 phases and 4 axes. The phases cover the didactic engineering process, from analysis to learning system implementation, while the axes cover: 1) Knowledge modeling defining and organizing content or learning topics; 2) Pedagogical design focusing on activities and instruments that are required for learning to take place efficiently; 3) the Material design providing the learning system with the pedagogical materials and tools ; 4) the Delivery planning providing a description of the LS actors, their roles and resources. The notion of axes permits the designer to focus on different aspects of the course to be delivered, which is how this method differs from other methods and is an added value when designing online complex learning environments. Moreover, each axis refers to a different but essential role in the instructional design process, such as content expert, project manager, media producer and delivery manager, requiring some type of domain expertise, and therefore is not necessarily performed by the same person. The table below shows the MISA method in phases and axes.
Figure 1 MISA Broken Down by Axes and Phases
All aspects of learning system engineering can be described and planned using this method; however, it does not include the actual production phase nor project management. Its iterative nature is illustrated by its many feedback loops, which take into account necessary modifications completed during the production and delivery phases. The advantage of this method is twofold:
§ It facilitates the development of complex blended and online environments.
§ It documents all original as well as modified versions of a system.
Moreover, it can be used as a checklist for course designers developing, for example, only one online course or learning event. As such it provides details on the many facets of eLearning environments, thus ensuring coherence and quality of design. Figure 1 below shows the relationship between ID processes, documentation elements and main roles intervening in the ID process.
Figure 2. External and Internal ID process in the MISA Learning System Engineering Method
This approach promotes a structured graphical engineering process that facilitates quality control of resulting products. It also contributes to a better understanding of the various specialists’ roles in online design as well as to the documentation and reusability of a learning system’s components. Moreover, it facilitates progressive delivery of an online course or module, while ensuring efficient co-ordination of the development axes. It is those characteristics that may enhance ID processes.
2.2. Learning Object Reconceptualized
Based on the IEEE and the LORNET (http://www.lornet.org/eng/glossaire.htm ) Learning Object definitions, we propose to use the term pedagogical object (PO), modifying the original LORNET definition by both restricting it and by extending the definition to include objects supporting the instructional design process. We thus define a pedagogical object as:
“Any resource or asset, digital or otherwise that has been used in a learning or learning design context, and has potential for reuse. Furthermore, it must have metadata, be discoverable through a digital repository, and it can – by itself or through its representation – be displayed using an eLearning application.” (Couture, Henri, Ruelland & Chabour, 2003).
This definition of pedagogical objects is adopted for the purpose of our study; it is highly compatible with other existing definitions (cf. Mills, 2002). We want to draw attention to the fact that this definition embraces the idea of reusable Units of Learning (Koper & Olivier, 2004). Both the SCORM[4] and the IMS Learning Design[5] specifications propose standardized schema for creating interoperable learning scenarios.
2.3. Research Rationale and Objectives
Using pedagogical objects have not yet really permeated ID practices or methods, nor has appropriate tools been designed for this purpose. Since one of the aims of this study is to provide guidelines to tool developers, it is essential to investigate what practitioners’ actually do, since they are the ultimate users. This type of investigation will eventually result in a thorough understanding of their day to day practice, which in turn will provide indicators on how to develop a user-friendly ID method and supporting tools. Adhering to this perspective, our research intends to:
1) Describe ID processes carried out by practitioners and how they correspond to a recognized ID method:
a) Which phases or components of the MISA method are applied by practitioners?
b) Which phases or components of the MISA method need revision or transformation in order to implement ID processes from a PO perspective?
2) Identify potential pedagogical objects:
a) What types of existing learning resources did practitioners use?
b) How do they use existing resources?
c) What needs could be inferred from the analysis of their practice regarding pedagogical objects?
3. Method
3.1. Subjects
This study relies on practitioners in the field having no or some pedagogical background, designing online learning events. Six subjects were found and interviewed.
Two of the 6 practitioners were designing their first online course and 4 had little or more experience, 5 were subject matter experts and course facilitators (3 at university level, 1 at college level, 1at high school level) and one was an instructional designer in the work place. Four of them produced courses describing a blended learning approach complementing face-to face teaching, 1 designed a set of self-directed learning modules and 1 designed an online course with tutor assistance and online collaboration.
In five of the contexts an online learning environment was provided by the institution, imposing some design constraints and many help features. Only in one case, the teacher had to learn FrontPage and construct her own website. Five out of six appear to be favorable towards exchange of learning resources, strategies and tips and have already made use of existing pedagogical resources. Three of teachers have established ways of sharing their course material and expressed a need for a tool that would make this process easier.
3.2. Procedures
The analysis was carried out in five stages:
1) Description of a structured case profile. For of each case, a grid was used to gather the following data: expertise (domain, online and pedagogical), roles (e.g., teacher, professor, instructional designer, etc) and training sector. To describe the final course product the following descriptors were used: title (subject-matter), target audience, scope, intervention type, certification (yes/no), collaboration (yes/no), type of support (none, machine, human), delivery mode (blended, online) delivery system, type of instructional materials (printed, multimedia, video, etc.). In terms of their ID processes, the type and order of execution was noted.
2) Mapping practitioners’ ID processes onto the MISA method’s axes and phases, based on the graphical representation of each subject’s ID process
3) Analysis of practitioners’ expressed needs. A list of problems and needs was extracted from the transcripts and from former attempts to identify all kinds of needs (Henri, Gagné, & Maina, 2004).
4) Identification of types of pedagogical objects. From the list of problems and needs, we identified the pedagogical objects that appear to remedy some problem or respond to the needs declared.
5) Synthesis of practitioners’ experience to identify some common tendencies and formulate recommendations on methods and reusability of pedagogical resources.
4. Results from Transcript Analysis
4.1. Pedagogical Case Profiles
The table below attempts to give a quick overview of the characteristics describing the practitioners and the learning system that they developed. Shaded area refers to the product of the design process. The last category synthesizes the main ID processes carried out by each of the participants.
CaseFeature / A / B / C / D / E / F
Online Course ID Experience / Novice / Advanced / Intermediary / Novice / Novice / Intermediary
Situation / Subject-Matter expert/Professor / Subject-Matter expert/Professor / Instructional Designer / Subject-Matter expert/Teacher / Subject-Matter expert/Teacher / Subject-Matter expert/Professor
Training Sector / University / University / Enterprise / High School / College / University
Subject-matter / Learning Theories / Educational Technology / Product Information / French Grammar / Chemistry / Physics
Scope / 3 months / 15 weeks / 6 modules, 5-10 minutes / 1 semester / 15 weeks / 15 weeks
Intervention Type / Initiation/Obligatory / In-service Training/Optional / Initiation / Optional / Initiation/Obligatory / Initiation/Obligatory / Initiation
Certification / Yes / Yes / No / Yes / Yes / Yes
Collaboration / Yes / Yes / No / Yes / Yes / No
Human Support / Teacher / Teacher / No / Teacher / Teacher / Online Tutor
Delivery Mode / Blended / Blended / Online / Blended / Online / Online
Delivery System / University Portal / University Portal / Learning Space / College Web / College web / Personal Web
Instructional Materials / Online Multimedia Materials / Online Multimedia Materials / Online Multimedia Materials / Print materials Online Multimedia Materials and exercices
Web site / Print materials, video Online Multimedia tests
Web site, glossary / Multi-media materials
Target Audience / Master Students / Master Students / International / Girls 12 ot 16 / Cegep students, Chemistry teachers / B.A. students in Science
Main ID Processes / Revise Content
Pedagogical Scenario
Media Scenario
Delivery
Maintenance / Reorganize content
Pedagogical Scenario
Media Scenario
Plan course evolution through built-in evaluations / Design LMS scenario
Collaborate with media designers
Maintain site / Content design
Design scenario
Media scenario
Delivery and Maintenance / Content Design
Pedagogical scenario
Media Scenario Revision / Content Design
Pedagogical scenario
Media Scenario Revision
Table 1. The Six Participant Profiles