development of a distance learning application. However, it was verified that amongst the existing training models (by 2003), no one had been specially developed for distance learning. Thus, we analyzed three instructional design models that were considered in terms of their appropriateness for use in e-learning design: 1- Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model [6]; 2- Smith and Ragan model [15]; 3- Dick and Carey model [4]. Each one of these models contains the five main instructional systems design (ISD) components [7]: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation although not all in the same order or as discrete steps unto themselves. The Morrison, Ross and Kemp model is classroom-oriented and has three elements that differentiate it from some other models: i. the development of the instruction is based on the learner perspective; ii. the model takes a general systems view towards development (model components are independent of each other) with instructional design being presented as a continuous cycle; iii. the management of the instructional design process is the main aim of the model [6]. These elements of the model are independent of each other in that they do not need to be considered in order nor must one start with a particular element. The Smith and Ragan’s model is systems-oriented and was developed as a linear, procedural, instructional design model. Their instructional design model answers the questions “Where are we going?”, “How will we get there?” and “How will we know that we’ve arrived?” [15]. The Dick and Carey model is systems-oriented and have also developed a linear, procedural model with a series of steps. Instructional goals serve as the point of origin and the first step of the instructional design process. This model focuses the designer on the goal of the instruction by requiring a needs assessment and the documentation of clear and measurable learning objectives [4]. Based on these models, we made one comparative table based on five components to find a suitable model for instructional design in e-learning systems (Table 1).
Component
Morrison, Ross and Kemp - Instructional Problems. - Learner’s Characteristics. - Task Analysis.
Smith and Ragan - Learning Environments. - Learners. - Learning Tasks.
Design
- Instructional Objectives. - Content Sequencing. - Planning.
- Write Tests Items. - Organizational Strategy. - Delivery Strategy. - Management Strategy.
Development
- Instructional Strategy. - Support Services. - Designing the message. - Revision. - Project Management.
- Write and Produce Intructions.
- Develop Instructional Strategy. - Develop & Select Inst. Material. - Revise Instruction.
Implementation
- Instructional Delivery.
-
-
Evaluation
- Evaluation Instruments. - Formative Evaluation. - Summative Evaluation.
- Conduct Formative Evaluation. - Revise Instruction.
- Develop & Conduct Formation Evaluation. - Develop & Conduct Summative Evaluation.
Analysis
Dick and Carey - Identify Instructional Goals - Conduct Instructional Analysis. - Write Performance Objectives. - Develop Criterion Ref. Tests
Table 1. Comparative Table of Instructional Design Models
Based on Table 1, we analysed which steps could be used in e-learning systems and designed our own approach by integrating facets of the different models. In Figure 1 we represent this model. It resulted in a tailored methodology of instructional design for the development of distance training courses.
153