|
 |
 |
Instructional Design Model
The CLASS™ (Communication, Learning and Assessment in a Student-centered
System) instructional design model was created for efficacious incorporation
of input from a wide variety of sources, as well as meeting the evaluation
needs of the federal Department of Education Star Schools grant. Each
course in development followed a similar instructional design sequence.
Each course development was also unique, requiring varying levels of
input from different individuals and groups, depending upon the content,
content treatment, timeline, budget, members on the team and their
particular expertise. Below is a discussion of the CLASS course instructional
design model.
Identify Need
Instructional design for a Web-based distance education course begins
with identifying the need. What course will be created, and for whom?
Each demographic characteristic of the target student helps define
what content should be taught and how it should be taught. From the
onset, CLASS™ tailored instructional design for specific target
learner needs, including adult, rural, inner-city, isolated, at-risk,
home schooled, home bound, grade level, achievement level and learning
profiles. Understanding the target student is critical to many decisions
made later during the instructional design process.
Assemble Team
Being able to define the target student empowers decision making when
assembling the content development team. CLASS content development
teams were supervised by an Instruction Design Specialist (IDS).
The IDS was responsible for overseeing all phases of instructional
design and assembles a team that included:
- A teacher who ensures the instructional design meets the needs of the Independent Study High School (ISHS)
- A Nebraska Department of Education representative who ensured the instructional design met state frameworks and national standards
- A representative from the Center for Instructional Innovation who ensured the instructional design was founded in sound educational psychology
- The multimedia project manager for the course who ensured the instructional design was doable - and also supervised the production of the course
- A faculty representative with content area expertise
- Subject matter experts (SME’s) who write the content for the course.
Research
During the research phase of the CLASS™ instructional design,
the course development team surveyed the state frameworks, national
standards, applicable learning theory and existing content sources.
The course development team reviewed course specific CD-ROMs, videos,
audios, textbooks, other print sources, Web sites and print courses.
If the team decides to utilize the assets of an existing content source
(i.e., CD, video, audio, textbook, Web site, print sources), the CLASS™ Contracts
Specialist was notified, initiating the permissions process. Equally
important as to what content is taught, is how the content is taught.
The content development team also analyzed and selected applicable
learning theory, e.g. for an English course, the team might want to
consider 6-Trait Writing Process, Whole Language, Great Works, whole
texts, descriptive grammar, generative grammar, language acquisitions
processes, authentic assessments, and behavioral objectives, as well
as the independent learner model and constructivist theory.
Brainstorm
After gathering information, the content development team would brainstorm
what is to be taught–content, and how it will be taught–design.
- Content
- How will the student acquire knowledge?
- How will the student
demonstrate mastery?
- What outcomes will the student achieve?
- What skills will the
student practice?
- What processes will the student be able to
transfer from this course to his or her next level of involvement
with the subject
area?
- What processes will the student be able to transfer from
this course to other content areas?
- What life skills will the
student acquire from the course?
- What level of independence is
expected of a student completing the course?
- Design
- What teaching strategies will be used?
- Will the content be delivered
via metaphor? If so, what is the most appropriate metaphor?
- What
assessment strategies should be used–computer
graded, multimedia portfolios, written projects?
- How much teacher
time per student should be planned?
- How will the Web-based learning
environment affect student learning, e.g. delivery time, tone
of metaphor, text and
graphics?
- How is Web-based distance education different from
and similar to print-based distance education?
- How is Web-based
distance education different from and similar to classroom
education?
Answers to the above questions were then collated into a storyboard
of what is to be taught, how it will be taught and how it will appear
in Web pages.
- Assessment strategies
- Computer graded
- Multimedia projects
- Writing
- Teacher grading time per student
- Student in the Web-based learning
environment
- Delivery time/band width
- Tone
- How is Web-delivered different than print distance
education?
- How is Web-delivered different than classroom education?
Assign personnel
After storyboarding the content and its treatment, the personnel are
assigned to achieve specific tasks. The subject matter expert(s)
(SME’s) would be chosen to write the course text. The IDS and
ID work closely with the SME(s), designing the Web page look, metaphor,
activities and assessments. Other content development team members
review the course text and help revise. NET would then begin to develop
the look and interface for the course. Time and expertise are key
variables when selecting personnel roles.
Ascertain Resources
At this time, the Contracts Specialist would work on ascertaining resources
as identified by the content development team. Working within predetermined
use fee limits and budget parameters, the contracts specialist determined
copyright issues and permissions procedures, and then, hopefully
acquired permission to use the resource as requested.
CLASS™ development teams would select a theme and feasibility
for the course. Through research, they identified sources of media
and evaluated affordability. When researching a concept, key resource
providers were contacted to determine the best sources. This may involve
talking to individuals at the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, various
archives, museums, or libraries. Once a suitable collection was located,
the contracts specialist worked to develop a relationship with an individual.
Frequently, this archivist or media specialist would help find what
was needed from their institution's collection, and also suggest other
collections.
A letter stating the purpose, extent of use, and a description of
CLASS™ was mailed or emailed to the collection manager or owner
of the identified resource. The requested time frame, life of the specific
course, would be shortened to a specific timeframe by a few owners.
These were generally the more expensive permissions to obtain. A paper
file was maintained on each course with a database of the tracking
details. Paper was necessary because of the signatures process. The
database was used to create reports for the IDS so they could track
the permission activities and have access to the appropriate credit
line information for each resource.
Permission to use materials is a process. It requires research, processing
time, and recordkeeping. It is best to begin the process early in the
development process and continue to work throughout course development.
Create proposal
Before the actual writing of the course, a proposal document was created
and presented to an external team. The proposal specified the course
to be developed, described the target student group, and listed learning
outcomes or objectives. It also conceptually described the content
treatment, including media options, diversity, special needs, tracking
and teacher role. Additionally, the proposal described resources
surveyed and the list of chosen for inclusion. It also described
the units or Knowledge Webs and list of assessments. The course navigation
was specified via a flowchart or storyboard. The proposal also identified
specific beta course feature testing issues and the beta evaluation
process. Last, the proposal defined support needs, including course
development personnel time, expenses and future course maintenance
demands.
Once created, another team would review the concept and design of
the course. The actual review was accomplished by subject teachers,
the State Department of Education, department administration, NET project
managers, and a representative from CII. The reviewers could question
any part of the proposal. The final decision of whether to accept or
reject a proposed course, design and estimated budget was made by administration
and the production and development managers.
Create course
After acceptance of the proposal and prospectus, the content development
team focused their energy on producing all facets of the course.
The complete text of the course was written, in addition to descriptions
of the navigation, text, multimedia, external links, internal links
and communication. Once two units or Knowledge Webs were written,
revised and edited, NET would begin building the course in Web pages.
Alpha and Beta Testing
The course modules were put through Alpha tests to look for missing
content, bad Web links, misaligned presentation pages, etc. It would
be tested again when all aspects of the course were on a server in
complete form. The designers would read every Web page, verify the
permissions, notations, assessments and keys. Necessary changes are
identified and made before Beta testing. During Beta testing, The
Quality Assurance Lab would ‘try to break it’. The lab
staff checked every link, on every page on Mac and PC platforms using
both Netscape™ and Internet Explorer™ browsers. They
would play each audio and video, and try the ‘Notebook’ and
mail functions and then work each assessment to verify the answer
responses against the keys.
‘Trouble tickets’ (forms used to describe the problem)
were issued for each change or fix. The course would then go back to
NET for the changes. When the changes or fixes were complete, the course
and a copy of the ‘trouble ticket’ including notation of
what was changed or fixed, would go back to the QA lab and the Beta
process would start all over again. Sometimes, this process would go
for several rounds and take weeks to complete. The final product will
be more stable for the student and teacher to experience if rigorous
testing is accomplished before the course is put in the market.
Market product version 1.0
Following any necessary corrections, CII and the ISHS teachers would
have access to the course and assessment keys. If errors were found
then the course would go back to the QA lab and the process begins
again. Baring additional corrections the course was offered for enrollment.
Copyright 2004 - University of Nebraska Board of Regents - All Rights Reserved
|
 |
|
