No. 3: Designing for E-learning

Full text

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 1
E-Primer Series
No. 3: Designing for E-learning
Mark Nichols
E-learning specialist
Laidlaw College, Auckland, New
Zealand
Last updated March 2010
Copyright statement: Creative Commons Attribution-No
derivative works 3.0 New
Zealand. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nd/3.0/nz/
Authorship mus chols, Laidlaw
College, New Zealand.

t be attributed to Mark Ni
3. ..... 2 1 Instructional design and e-learning .........................................................
3.1.1 Instructional design – broad principles ............................................. 3
3.1.2 Instructional design models – ADDIE and OTARA ........................... 4
3.1.3 E-learning – specific tools and pedagogies ...................................... 7
3. ..... 9 2 Instructional design – art and science .....................................................
3.2.1 E-learning: artistic challenges and opportunities ............................ 10
3.2.2 The educational context ................................................................. 10
3. ... 113 Key concepts for practical instructional design .....................................
3.3.1 Presentation and process .............................................................. 11
3.3.2 Design and delivery ........................................................................ 12
3.3.3 Online and offline ........................................................................... 12
3. ... 134 Instructional design for e-learning ...........................................................
3.4.1 Constraint analysis ......................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Make or reuse? .............................................................................. 14
3.4.3 Instructional goals, over-arching statements and assessment ....... 15
3.4.4 Setting learning objectives and topics ............................................ 18
3.4.5 Determining student workload ........................................................ 20
3.4.6 Topic design ................................................................................... 21
3.4.7 Media and website preparation ...................................................... 29
3. ... 30 5 Summary – Designing for e-learning .......................................................
phy ............................................................................................ 30Bibliogra
Updates available from http://e-ako.blogspot.com
Author can be contacted at mnichols@laidlaw.ac.nz
Note: All URLs were active on date of retrieval.

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 2
3.0 Designing for E-learning
Faculty are often too busy to seriously consider learning design. Rather than embracing
its open-endedness and seeing the almost limitless potential for customising it to their
own educational purposes, we often hear comments such as ‘Just show me how it
looks and I’ll get on with it’, or ‘Do you have a sample that I could look at and use as a
template? (There is a clear parallel with ‘Just give me what’s in the exam’!) It is all too
easy to provide examples and templates, and so give the impression that instructional
design for e-learning is simply about filling in blanks and copying exemplars. But
instructional design and e-learning have too much potential and variety to even consider
a Model-T Ford approach to development. Faculty also tend to think of writing courses
rather than creating learning experiences. This e-primer aims to help you, as faculty, to
think creatively about how to match what you would like students to learn with an
enlightening learning experience.
This E-Primer provides a framework for deciding how you might apply instructional
design and e-learning to any given educational context. The framework is relevant to all
educational contexts, but the discussion assumes a tertiary education context in
humanities, and a distance education or hybrid delivery model. I do not consider Web
2.0 technologies and techniques in depth here (for that discussion, see E-Primer 5, E-
xtending Possibilities).
Recommended resource
The Commonwealth of Learning handbook, Creating Learning Materials for Open and
Distance Learning is a valuable resource. Freely available online
from http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/HB_DocTemplate_USER_GUIDE.pdf,
it is an excellent introduction to instructional design.
Terminology
In this E-Primer, the term instructional design encompasses the process of developing a
course of study for delivery, and planning for delivery. The term course (or paper) is a
single, credit-bearing unit of education; courses are passed by students to obtain a
qualification. Each course might consist of a series of topics or defined areas of study
that are sub-units of the course. Topics might be discrete or complementary to other
topics.
3.1 Instructional design and e-learning
In E-primer 1: E-Learning in context, I suggested that e-learning is pedagogy
empowered by technology. Instructional design is actually far broader than this.
Instructional designers make use of e-learning – not the other way around. Instructional
design gives purpose and shape to all forms of structured learning (Brown & Green
2006), and so encompasses formal e-learning. E-learning and instructional design are
inescapably intertwined.
The goal of instructional design is to help the teaching and learning process by ensuring
that education experiences are optimised for particular learning goals. All faculty are
actually instructional designers in that all plan their education interventions. Anything
from a lecture to an assignment is an intervention, and they all benefit from instructional
design. A course or paper could be considered a major education intervention, drawing
on a pre-determined selection of resources and events that are supplemented

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
throughout the instruction. But although all faculty engage in instructional design
activity, not all are effective instructional designers or able to maximise the lessons of
instructional design as a discipline. We use instructional design throughout course
preparation, from setting the curriculum to preparing assessment tasks, from setting
dates to choosing resources. Instructional design also determines, and is determined
by, the role of the faculty member throughout the period of learning.
Instructional design activity is especially significant when we use a mix of different
media for instruction. Most distance education courses supplement paper-based
resources (study guides, readings, books and so on) with electronic media such as
digital video and audio, online communications, and self-marking tests, and there is a
rich literature on how to apply such mixes. This e-primer draws on some of the major
themes and models in instructional design theory, and tailors some of them for e-
learning purposes.
Shearer (2003:275) explains that the traditional role of instructional design is ‘to bridge
the distance between the student, the instructor, and the learning organization’. This
distance might be physical or transactional. Transactional distance is the
‘communications distance’ between the faculty member and the learner (see Moore &
Kearlsey 1996), or ‘the degree to which a distance student perceives the availability of,
and connectedness with, other parties involved’ in their course (Shin 2002). Reducing
the transactional distance between faculty member and student improves student
achievement (Shin 2002). Even if a course is delivered on-campus and in person by the
faculty member, the transactional distance between them and the student may be such
that real communications and cognitive engagement are not possible beyond the
structured lecture. Large class numbers and highly structured learning environments
increase transactional distance. You could say that one of the major goals of
instructional design is to minimise the transactional distance between student, faculty
and institution as much as possible.
3.1.1 Instructional design – broad principles
We can only prepare topics for study once we have made the important decisions about
what ought to be learned and how it is to be assessed. I’m not suggesting that all
learning must be pre-determined; we do need to set boundaries so that learning can be
intentional and focused.
The following five guiding principles put instructional design in context.
1. Instructional design is the foundation of formal education
Some instructional design occurs in all forms of education. The lecturer preparing
overheads, the tutor preparing a discussion outline, and the teacher planning a thinking-
hats exercise are all engaged in instructional design. But because e-learning educators
are not always present when their students engage in learning, they can’t be as flexible
in the teaching and learning transaction as they might be in a classroom or seminar.
Instructional design for e-learning, then, tends to be more thorough and deliberate than
might be the case for a lecture or classroom discussion, and it tends to have a more
prominent role in e-learning than it does in classroom teaching.
2. Instructional design is probabilistic; it seeks to increase the likelihood of
educational success, rather than determine it.
Instructional design does not guarantee that learning objectives will be met, but
applying instructional design theory does increase the likelihood that they will be
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 3

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
(Reigeluth, 1999). We can set up learning topics in many ways; there are, as the saying
goes, many ways to get to Wellington. Different course designers will use different
instructional techniques; resource constraints and other contextual matters will vary,
even when the actual learning objectives themselves are the same. These different
techniques may be equally effective.
3. Instructional design is contextual; it seeks to match educational methods to
educational situations.
Formal education is not designed in a vacuum. Contextual factors (such as which
technologies can be used, the availability of an instructor, the time-frame of design,
awareness of pedagogical alternatives, institutional systems and policies, the level of
the course, the nature of expected students, and many other important considerations)
shape what might be appropriate for a given course or topic. Instructional design takes
a systems perspective on course design and delivery to ensure that the course is
optimised for its overall context.
4. Instructional design is iterative and dynamic throughout the course
development process.
All topics in a course needn’t look the same. Think of each topic as a fresh opportunity
to apply particular pedagogies. As you design a course you may make decisions or
adopt particular pedagogical approaches that will have implications for other topics.
Instructional design may appear straightforward and linear, but in practice it is
somewhat cyclical.
5. Instructional design is comprehensive in that it envelops all aspects of course
development.
Instructional design is more than just selecting from a list of activities and readings to
create a series of topics that, in turn, form a course. It is concerned with all of a course,
from setting the curriculum or major learning objectives, to setting assessment tasks,
selecting topics, choosing resources, and deciding between media and technologies. It
aims to make these components into a holistic learning experience for students.
3.1.2 Instructional design models – ADDIE and OTARA
There are a number of different instructional design models. One prominent one
internationally is ADDIE; another homegrown model is OTARA. Models are used to
simplify the decision-making process of course design.
Instructional design is usually associated with the ADDIE model, which describes the
process for entire courses – right down to individual media:
• Analyse the context, including the learning objectives and the characteristics of
prospective students.
• Design the learning objectives, assessment, content requirements, and media.
• Develop, or gather the required resources, and link them for instructional
purposes. This step includes the production of active activities.
• Implement or deliver the course to students (instruction takes place).
• Evaluate the course for effectiveness, based on feedback from students. The
feedback is then used to improve the course.
ADDIE is often criticised as being too systematic; however, it is a useful starting point
because instructional design looks at the ‘big picture’. It also provides a rough
representation of good practice. Other approaches (such as rapid prototyping, which
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 4

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 5
fast-tracks development to get valuable initial feedback [evaluation] on course structure)
modify the ADDIE process. One particularly significant alternative is that of Dick and
Carey (1990, in Gagne et al 1992), in Figure 1 (see also Dick et al 2005). This particular
model starts with instructional goals and progresses through to evaluation. It also
includes a clear feedback and revision loop.
• Instructional goals can be extremely broad, but they must be specific enough to
direct the design steps that follow. A goal might simply be ‘to get students thinking
critically about classroom management, or ‘to provide a comprehensive
introduction to aerodynamics’. A course will usually have a number of such goals.
• In instructional analysis we identify the skills that students need to meet the
instructional goal. This stage sets the broad and abstract academic aims for the
entire course, such as ‘Understanding the four Ps of marketing’ or ‘Exploring the
definition of classroom management’. There should be several such aims – these
form the basis for performance objectives (below).
• Entry behaviours considers the pre-requisites that students are likely to have or
require, and includes consideration of the sorts of learning requirements they might
have. Some courses might attract a variety of practitioners and non-practitioners,
with or without relevant prior experience or qualifications. It is useful to have a
general understanding of the target audience.
• Performance objectives, otherwise known as learning objectives, are more specific
outcome statements that reflect the instructional goals. Performance objectives
state the aims in concrete terms, indicating the tasks the student might be expected
to perform. These might range from ‘replace the toner cartridge in a laser printer’ to
‘critique Aristotelian dualism’.
• Criterion-referenced test items are developed for formative and summative
assessments. The items should link to the performance objectives. Think of these
as general assessment items rather than test-items, as the latter implies an exam-
type assessment. A criterion-referenced assessment might be, for example,
‘replacing the toner cartridge of a standard laser printer according to instructions
and disposing of the waste appropriately’, or ‘write a 1,000 word essay criticising
Aristotelian dualism, citing examples where dualism is not appropriate and
suggesting an alternative philosophy’.
• The instructional strategy is the ‘plan for assisting the learners with their study
efforts for each performance objective’ (Gagne et al 1992:27). It is similar to a
series of lesson plans or a study guide in which resources are introduced and
activities are prepared. The instructional strategy is a draft that shows how different
instructional resources might be assembled. An instructional strategy for e-learning
courses is suggested toward the end of this document.
• Instructional materials are the resources used in the course. They might be printed
readings, digital video on CD-Rom, or any other item used for instruction. Some
materials may be available from the internet.

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Figure 1 – The Dick and Carey model
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 6

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
• Ideally, formative evaluation takes place next in the process. This might involve
discussing a prototype with a student representative, or conducting a small group
tryout or a pilot. This evaluation provides feedback on the design before the course
is officially offered.
• The summative evaluation considers the effectiveness of the entire process, and
takes place after the course has been offered to enrolled students.
ADDIE and its variants may seem behaviorist at first glance; however, they don’t
actually prescribe a particular educational methodology. Instructional design based on
behaviourism, constructivism, and social-constructivism are all possible using the
ADDIE model. The model ensures that such methods are applied thoughtfully.
The OTARA framework (Hunt nd) is a useful one to apply when deciding on the design
and develop stages of ADDIE. OTARA focuses on activities, and is immediately
concerned with activity, topic, and assessment design and development. It also acts as
a template and record of development. The basic outline is shown in Table 1.
Objectives (or
Outcomes)
What students are intended to learn from the overall course; what
students need to know or do.
Topics (or
Themes)
The subjects or information headings.
Activities
The practical tasks students complete to meet the objectives.
Resources
The specific sources of information that students will use.
Assessment
The means by which students’ learning will be checked against the
objectives.
Table 1 – The OTARA framework
OTARA places considerable emphasis on what students will do to meet the learning
objectives. Like ADDIE, it ensures that assessment is lined up with objectives, topics,
learning activities and resources.
Several distance education providers have specialist instructional designers who work
with faculty and technologists. This practice pools expertise and opens up a larger
range of potential media and pedagogies. In other institutions, particularly those that
provide both on-campus and distance education, instructional design is left to faculty.
3.1.3 E-learning – specific tools and pedagogies
I have said that e-learning is sometimes seen as a sub-set of instructional design – that
e-learning is a partnership between pedagogy and digital technology. Debate
(pedagogy) using an online discussion forum (technology) is one example of this
partnership. Another would be verbal instruction (pedagogy) using a podcast or digital
audio file (technology). If you think of e-learning in these terms, you’ll have a scaffold to
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 7

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
implement it effectively, and you’ll be sure to consider the technology alongside the
educational opportunity.
It is possible to consider the various elements of course design using the categories
below, most of which are possible through the tools you’ll find in learning management
systems:
1. Presented resources
Presented resources are any reference media (text, audio, video) that you might use for
instruction, and that are stored in digital formats. They might include administrative tools
(such as a calendar, course outline, or assessment cover sheets) and instructional
materials (such as online library articles stored in a subscription-only database, specific
and relevant webpages, or specially designed digital files such as video-clip interviews,
animated illustrations, audio podcasts, and PowerPoint slideshows – with or without
voiceover). You can use both online (internet, email) and offline (CD-Rom and DVD)
media to distribute such files.
The development of internet browsers means that students can access all of these
electronic files through one interface, provided they have the necessary viewing
software. As a general rule, you can put files on the Web if they are not too big. Think
twice about posting up anything larger than a 2MB file, and anything larger than 5MB
should be distributed via an offline medium. If you have large or multiple digital files, or
you are going to produce a CD-Rom or DVD anyway, put as many resources as
possible on the offline media. However, if the information is time-sensitive, use online
media because they are more easily updated. Try to confirm your digital information and
resources before your course begins.
2. Interactive resources
The category of interactive resources comprises online quizzes and tests, interactive
case studies, problem-based learning scenarios, and computer simulations. These
might use standard tools within learning management systems (such as Blackboard or
Moodle), or they might require specialised applications. This category is very open-
ended. Exercises might use particular communication tools such as online bulletin
boards or discussion forums, wikis, glossaries, or even email (in which case they
overlap with asynchronous communications below). They might also include multiple
choice tests, wordfinds, fill-in-the blank exercises, crosswords, or a variety of other quiz
options. You can design webquests, case studies, and problem-based learning
exercises in webpages to add an exploratory element; it is even possible to give
students a limited resource (such as time or money) to explore a case or problem, or to
limit further exploration based on previous choices. Develop simulations that give
students virtual opportunities to experiment with science concepts, the operation of
technical equipment, or to experience different environments. A number of Web 2.0
applications also fit into this general category.
3. Asynchronous communication
We use the term asynchronous communication in the broadest possible sense. The
term ‘asynchronous’ means ‘without time’ or ‘not time-bound’ – the communicating
parties don’t have to gather at the same moment. Further, in contrast to digital
information and resources, which are generally finalized before the course is offered,
asynchronous communications are generated and made available as the course is run.
Specific examples include:
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 8

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
• new digital information and resources prepared or updated during the course itself
• written feedback on student work
• course or material updates provided during the study period
• email correspondence
• online discussion using asynchronous tools such as bulletin boards or discussion
forums
• RSS feeds (resources that are gathered automatically by syndication).
In traditional forms of distance education, asynchronous communication has been
costly in terms of administration and distribution, but e-learning makes it more
immediate and convenient. Asynchronous communication is a key element of e-
learning.
4. Synchronous communication
Synchronous communication includes all communication that requires participants to
gather at the same time. This has traditionally included classroom sessions, meetings,
teleconferences and videoconferences in specialised suites. E-learning tools now
enable computer-based text chat (using standard learning management system tools,
or services such as MSN), online telephony, and one-to-one and one-to-many
videoconferencing over the internet. Standard desktop videoconferencing applications
also allow you to record and archive presentations, which can then be available as
asynchronous events. Online telephony and desktop videoconferencing work best with
broadband (or better) internet access, so their use – though growing – is still fairly low
in mainstream education. Education providers are also very interested in synchronous
communication in virtual worlds such as Second Life; presented and interactive
resources can also be stored and used in such environments.
These four categories encompass a great deal of potential for education. Of course,
adopting e-learning approaches does not preclude using more traditional elements of
education such as textbooks, lecturers (or lecturing!), or paper. Indeed, paper is still a
mainstay of distance education instructional design and should remain so, particularly
for learning guides and compulsory readings (see Everland & Dunwoody, 2001).
3.2 Instructional design – art and science
You can see, then, that instructional design is both art and science. Instructional design
models enable course designers to work innovatively and openly within a broad
framework. The ADDIE and OTARA models ensure that the artistic elements are
meaningfully constructed and placed in a context suitable for student learning. The
models do not quash creativity; they place the art of instruction in a well designed
gallery, so that effective learning can take place.
Instructional design models do provide a template, but it is really a template of process.
Course designers must still make key decisions to ensure that structured learning takes
place, and they must emphasise particular learning outcomes. The course designer
decides which resources will be prepared, which topics are for significant discussion,
which exercises will be useful, and which presentations might help learning. Creativity
and innovation are not precluded from the process. The art of instruction is exercised
within a scientific framework.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 9

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
3.2.1 E-learning: artistic challenges and opportunities
Your challenge as an instructional designer is to develop an increasing awareness of e-
learning possibilities. Just as drawing with charcoal is different from painting with oils,
so course design for e-learning differs from course design for the classroom. Your basic
activity is much the same, but you will have different considerations, opportunities and
limitations. Your workflow may need to change. You will explore and experiment with
new techniques and ideas. Because e-learning is flexible, you’ll probably find that you
can transfer exercises that work in the classroom situations into the distance
environment. And, because e-learning is flexible, you will discover entirely new
educational possibilities.
Here are a few examples of e-learning’s possibilities:
• multiple presentations of important ideas through articles, video clips, audio files
and PowerPoint presentations
• group discussion at a distance, including academic discourse, debates, preparing
glossary or encyclopaedia entries as a class resource, and sharing experiences
and perspectives
• realistic and complex case studies that enable students to access video clips of key
characters
• learning key concepts or skills by manipulating virtual machines and other devices
• international experts presenting guest lectures to students’ homes or classrooms –
live from overseas
• electronic marking of student work, using typed comments inserted at relevant
points
• internet links to different points of view on topical events.
E-learning has staggering potential, and there are many examples of highly creative
(and effective) educational applications. Your educational context will determine which
possibilities are most useful for you.
3.2.2 The educational context
All instructional designers operate within a context of institutional requirements and
processes, student characteristics, the nature of the subject matter, and available time
and budget. Other factors that influence instructional design include decisions about the
level of interaction between students and their instructor(s) and how this will affect
autonomy and learner control; the type of learning required; and access to technology
(for both instructor and learner). The level of instructional design and media
development skill available to a course design team adds to the complexity – so no two
instructional design situations are ever the same.
Educational context differs from institution to institution, and from course to course. This
context shapes and limits the potential for course design. A post-graduate course in
humanities – with a 1-year lead time, an open-ended budget, and designed by a team
of specialists – will look very different from a certificate course in beginning computing,
developed by a single lecturer, with a 4-week deadline. Likewise, you would design a
post-graduate humanities course for a small group of five differently from that intended
for a large class of 500.
The diverse nature of educational context means that I can give only very general
advice.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 10

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Firstly, class size is an important – but not necessarily limiting – consideration. Although
the dynamics of the interaction might change, you might be able to use the same
exercise or discussion for both small and large classes. In a small class, for example, a
single online educator might be involved with students on a one-to-one basis. In a larger
class, the educator might interact with students as a group; the online educator
responding to a group summary rather than individual contributions. Group tutors, or
peer feedback, could meet the need for expert input. Either way, the actual exercise or
discussion could remain the same.
Secondly, the challenge to instructional designers is to move beyond a broadcast and
teacher-centred mindset toward one that is interactive and interpersonal (Tapscott
1998; Naidu 2003), though this assumes that social constructivism is the best
educational methodology. In some course contexts this may not be the case. A
research methods course or introductory course to a field of study, for example, might
justifiably take a behaviourist or individualistic approach. Still, in general, the goal for e-
learning enhanced instructional design should be to engage students with one another
and with the materials of the course itself as much as is appropriate.
Thirdly, the academic level of the course affects design decisions. The comprehensive
approach used for an introductory course will probably be inappropriate for a third- or
fourth-year course designed to explore particular issues within the subject. A novice
may lack the vocabulary and conceptual landmarks required for exploration in
introductory courses.
Finally, you must consider your students’ level of online access. Again, speaking
generally, it is best to assume dial-up internet access. Extended periods of time online
and substantial online traffic will therefore be barriers for students. Unfortunately, in
most cases this makes online telephony and desktop videoconferencing unrealistic.
3.3 Key concepts for practical instructional design
If we are to be practical about instructional design, we need to introduce some more
terminology. The pairs of presentation and process, design and delivery, and online and
offline will help you to actually design your course.
3.3.1 Presentation and process
It is helpful to think of instructional design in terms of presentation and process, both of
which can be managed and intentionally intertwined into an effective learning
experience for students.
Presentation relates to the information already available from experts – it recognises
that every subject domain has experts who are worth reading about and listening to. It
also recognises that knowledge can be stored and transmitted – lectures, libraries, and
the internet are classic examples of this principle in practice! For the purposes of
instructional design, we can think about presentation in terms of prime and
supplemental resources. Prime resources are compulsory; supplemental resources are
more optional.
Process recognises that learners are also important in education, because they
construct meaning for themselves. In instructional design, process describes those
elements of a course’s design that have students communicating with one another and
actively using the knowledge they gain from the presentation opportunities provided.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 11

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Process might therefore consist of interpersonal communication and activity.
Presentation (information)
Prime resources
Supplemental resources
Process (construction)
Interpersonal communication
Activity
Table 2 – Presentation and process
The main difference between presentation and process is largely one of engagement.
Presentation makes information and knowledge available for students to draw from and
think about. Process gets students to explore meaning and apply knowledge. Process
needn’t be confined to the information given in a paper. It can be any activity or
discussion that students use for learning. Presentation and process, with their
subgroups of prime and supplemental resources, and interpersonal communication and
activity, provide a useful basis for topic design (see p22).
3.3.2 Design and delivery
I use the terms design and delivery in this context to describe the elements that are
produced before a course begins (design), and those that are produced while the
course is actually taking place (delivery). Both have different instructional design
considerations.
A course’s design might consist of texts, articles, discussion opportunities, exercises,
PowerPoint slideshows, video clips, and assessment tasks prepared before you deliver
the course.
Course delivery is that online discussion, synchronous sessions, assessment marking,
additional instructional resources generated and released during the course.
There is usually a relationship between these two elements, in that a course with a high
design element tends to have a lower delivery element, and vice-versa. Highly designed
courses are largely pre-determined, whereas highly delivered courses are very open
and more flexible. They have very different dynamics.
The mix between design and delivery should be optimised according to the educational
context. A beginner-oriented course introducing a discipline might have a higher design
component, whereas a post-graduate course might emphasise delivery. Even if one
element is emphasised, good design will seldom make up for poor delivery, and nor will
good delivery gloss over sloppy design. Design and delivery must be combined into a
coherent and interdependent whole.
3.3.3 Online and offline
We know that many students rely on dial-up internet access. But even if all of your
students have high-speed internet, you must still decide on the best mix of online and
offline media.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 12

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Online media are accessible only through an internet or network connection. This
includes email, any activity provided through a learning management system, online
conferencing systems with shared whiteboards, text chat and voice.
Offline media don’t need an internet connection though students may still need a
computer. Video or digital audio on CD-Rom or DVD, printed materials, and science kits
are all examples of offline media.
It is widely held that online materials are very accessible. Unfortunately, until mobile
internet access is a reality for more people, we must assume that, for many learners,
internet access means using the family telephone line on a home computer, or using
computers at the learners’ institution. Even offline media such as digital video and
digital documents can be very inconvenient for many students because they require
computers. For these reasons, I suggest that you minimise students’ online time and
reserve computer-based activity (such as access to digital multimedia) for supplemental
resources. However, more extensive use of online and on-computer media will be
increasingly appropriate as connectivity to the internet becomes cheaper and faster.
The following mix will suit most student users:
• print (offline) for prime resources and study guides whenever possible
• CD-Rom (offline) for digital video, digital audio, and supplemental readings and
resources
• email (online) for one-to-one asynchronous communication
• internet (online) for online one-to-many presentations and discussions, course
updates, chats (at pre-determined times), and supplemental resources less than
2MB in size (up to 5MB if justified).
This mix doesn’t rule out synchronous communication provided you create archives for
students who can’t participate in the session. Synchronous online learning is becoming
increasingly viable (see, for example, Chen et al 2005).
3.4 Instructional design for e-learning
Having explored the nature of instructional design and of e-learning, and examined
some associated terminology and concepts, we can now take a practical look at an
instructional design process for e-learning. This process will consider everything from
determining the context and curriculum, to preparing assessment tasks, topic design,
and media preparation.
3.4.1 Constraint analysis
The following constraining factors will determine your design and delivery.
• The nature of the intended course: If your course is skills-oriented, for example,
you might not use paper-based readings or online discussion. Instead, a mix of
classroom-based learning, extensive simulation, and demonstration might be
more appropriate.
• Course level, scope and pre-requisites: These indicate the sort of student who is
likely to participate (and this information gives you further insight into appropriate
presentation and process, design and delivery, and online and offline mixes).
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 13

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
• The design and delivery mix of other courses: It’s usually best to be as consistent
with other courses as possible. Using novel approaches or technologies means
students have to learn new ways of doing things.
• Institutional policies: Your institution may have policies on online learning or
tutoring, course design and delivery, assignment submission, student privacy,
student support, internet use, and distance education. Your faculty job description
might provide additional constraints.
• Support tutors: Are they available?
• Technologies and support: Course designers, deliverers, and students must have
access to specific technologies, and support for those technologies.
• Time, budget, and design support from instructional design and technology
specialists.
• Your own limitations and experiences as an educator: Consider these limitations
specifically as a course designer and deliverer.
• Media availability: You will probably have an institutional learning management
system (such as Moodle or Blackboard), and you might be able to develop a CD-
Rom or DVD as well as traditional paper resources. Developing a CD-Rom or
DVD is recommended if you are planning to make extensive use of video clips
and extended slideshow presentations with voiceover.
Each of these constraints excludes some opportunities and encourages particular
approaches. Some constraints are worth challenging, but most will simply shape what
you can and cannot do.
3.4.2 Make or reuse?
Henry (1994) suggests three approaches to instructional design: buy-in, wrap around,
and originate (see also Rowntree 1994). These are on a continuum of increasing cost
and time to produce, but they are not mutually exclusive. To optimise your design time
and funding, find a worthwhile text book or two to ‘wrap-around’ (that is, to base
learning materials on), and supplement it with additional media that you can buy or
make. In general, it is far better to spend time ‘wrapping around’ than writing content
that is already available in accessible text books. Invest your development time in
drawing lessons out from texts and developing additional materials such as multimedia
presentations, online discussions, small group tutorial exercises, case studies, and
other activities.
You might even be able to use other course materials – particularly if, say, you are
redeveloping a lecture-based course into a distance education or hybrid delivery
course. While this strategy usually requires you to develop some extra resources and
exercises, it is usually far more cost-effective to adapt than to create from scratch (see,
for example, Dalsgaard & Godsk 2007). Littlejohn (2003) has documented the
difficulties of using learning objects, or reusable e-learning material available from
online repositories. Even if you can find a promising learning object, you often need to
provide significant context before it will fit into your course.
Another option is to ‘buy-in’ an entire course (Willhelm & Wilde 2005).
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 14

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
3.4.3 Instructional goals, over-arching statements and assessment
Once you have an idea of the limitations and opportunities afforded by your course’s
context, you can focus on the course’s instructional goals and assessment tasks.
In the earlier discussion about the Dick and Carey model for instructional design, I
noted that instructional goals tend to be rather broad. For most courses it would be
sufficient to list four to six of these goals. Abstract and high-level language (even
teacher-centred language) is perfectly appropriate. Consider these, which might be
instructional goals for a course on e-learning:
• For learners to understand what e-learning is, and the issues surrounding its
potential benefits.
• For learners to appreciate the likely changes that e-learning assisted education
might require of faculty.
• For learners to be able to design effective courses that make sound use of
instructional design principles and e-learning.
• To enable learners to cultivate an effective online presence for online discourse.
• For learners to become confident users of a learning management system.
• To provide learners with a scaffolded experience in adopting new e-learning
techniques.
Clearly, setting instructional goals requires an excellent understanding of the field.
Seasoned faculty will have little difficulty in formulating the instructional goals for their
courses, though they may need to prioritise them. Each goal is general enough to
permit more specific objectives, while also being specific enough to give the course its
shape.
Ideally, instructional goals determine the topics within a course. An over-arching
statement is also useful:
To enable learners to become confident designers and deliverers of e-learning
assisted courses by immersing them in an effective course that models good practice.
An over-arching statement can either be used as the basis for instructional goals, or to
summarise them once they have been prepared.
The over-arching statement and instructional goals also shape assessment.
Assessment tasks must address the learning outcomes set for the course. You can do
this by explicitly mapping the outcomes of a course to assessment tasks to ensure that
all are adequately covered.
Assessment tends to represent the curriculum from the perspective of the student, so
assessment means and ends are actually educational tools and not merely devices to
measure student ability. Indeed, assessment is one of an instructional designer’s most
potent tools for encouraging particular types of learning. Ramsden’s (2003:204–205) 14
rules for better assessment in higher education continue to provide a very pragmatic
and strategic perspective of assessment.
1. Link assessment to learning: focus first on learning, second on encouraging effort,
and third on grading; assess during the experience of learning as well as at the end of
it; set tasks that mimic realistic problems whenever possible; reward integration and
application.
2. Never assess without giving comments to students as to how they might improve.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 15

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
3. Learn from your students’ mistakes. Use assessment to discover their
misunderstandings, then modify teaching to address them.
4. Deploy a variety of assessment methods.
5. Try to get students participating in the assessment process, through:
 Discussion of appropriate methods and how the methods relate to course
goals
 Joint staff-student design of assessment questions and negotiation of criteria
for success and failure
 Self and peer assessment activities
 Offering students responsible choice among different methods.
6. Give lucid and frequent messages, both in the assessment questions you set and in
your course goals that memorisation, reproduction, and imitation will be penalised and
that success in your courses will only be achieved through decisive demonstrations of
understanding.
7. Think about the relation between reporting and feedback; justify on educational
grounds either the separation or the combination of the diagnostic [formative] and
summative functions of a particular test, rather than blindly applying an algorithm such
as ‘No assessment for feedback should count for a mark’ or ‘Every assessment
should count or students won’t bother with it.’
8. Use multiple-choice and other ‘objective’ tests very cautiously, preferably in
combination with other methods. When numbers of students and time permit
alternative techniques, use these.
9. In subjects involving quantitative manipulations, always include questions requiring
explanations in prose (such as ‘what does it mean in this case to say that the
standard deviation is 1.8?’) as well as numerical examples.
10. Focus on validity (is what you are measuring important?) before reliability (is your test
consistent?). Try to avoid the temptation to test trifling aspects because they are
easier to measure than important ones.
11. Do everything in your power to lessen the anxiety raised by assessments.
12. ‘Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask
more than the wisest man can answer’ (Colton). Never set an assignment or
examination question you are not ready to answer yourself. Practice the habit of
writing model answers to your questions and using them to help students appreciate
what you want.
13. Reduce the between-student competitive aspects of assessment while simultaneously
providing inducements to succeed against a standard (through using assessment of
group products and deriving standards from several cohorts of students, for example).
14. Be suspicious of objectivity and accuracy of all measures of student ability and
conscious that human judgement is the most important element in every indicator of
achievement.
Use these 14 rules when you consider your assessment mix. Ramsden’s stance is that
assessment should be directed at understanding rather than recall. The potential for
creative and innovative assessment tasks is implicit in Ramsden’s work. Validity
(number 10), in particular, requires instructional designers to consider how relevant an
assessment task is to the ‘real world’.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 16

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Assessment workload is another critical consideration at this stage of course design. In
formal education, hours are usually assigned to courses in point values. At Massey
University, for example, each point relates to 1 hour’s study in each week of the
semester. A 12.5-point paper or course should therefore comprise about 160 hours of
activity, which calculates to about 12 hours per week across a 13-week semester (or
about 6 hours per week across a 26-week full-year offering. More than half of this time
could be allocated to assessment activity, the rest to directed study. In other institutions
a single credit might equate to 10 hours’ work by the student, a 15-credit course
therefore implying a workload of 150 hours spread over about 13 weeks. Again,
assessment time must be factored into this overall load (workload determined topic by
topic is addressed later (see pp21-22)).
Unfortunately it’s not possible to give a more detailed treatment of assessment
development in this e-primer, but I offer the following ideas for further thought.
• Make your expectations and marking criteria clear in your assignment guidelines.
A marking matrix helps you and your students to understand expectations. You
might even invite students to provide some reflective comments to accompany
their assignment submission. This gives them an opportunity to express their
thoughts on their performance, and the strengths and weaknesses of their work
as they perceive them.
• Consider how students might engage with the assessment tasks you have set.
This gives you some insight into the types of learning that your assignment
task(s) will reward. By varying assessment tasks, you encourage different types
of activity and, therefore, different types of learning.
• Consider an assessment process that requires students to submit their written
work electronically in a standard word processor format, either through a learning
management system or by email. You can then provide detailed feedback with
electronic mark-up (that is, inserting comments directly in the students’ own
electronic submissions), commenting on the structure, logic and formatting of
their work. There is a great deal of potential for this approach.
• E-learning offers many new forms of assessment (both formative and summative)
and some twists on existing methods. You can grade online discussion according
to its value (see E-Primer 4, Online Discourse); students might use wikis and
glossaries for collaborative assignments. Online quizzes are effective, particularly
if they are well designed. Such quizzes are sometimes used for summative
assessment in supervised computer labs. Simulations can immerse students in
conditions that represent real-life. Traditional case studies, portfolios, problem-
based learning, and assessment techniques can also be enhanced through
multimedia and hyperlinked resources.
• There are many creative means for assessment outside of e-learning. Projects,
video evidence, journalistic writing, portfolios, expert interviews, annotated
bibliographies, and learning contracts can complement the traditional mix of
essay and exam. The ‘patchwork text’ (a series of small written assignments that
students share with their peers then revise and assemble at the end of a course),
is another example of creative assessment that highlights learning as an ongoing
activity (see Parker 2003; Winter 2003).
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 17

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Considering the learning outcomes from a practical perspective should yield a number
of effective assessment ideas. Combine these with some innovative thought to design
workable and valid assessments.
3.4.4 Setting learning objectives and topics
In the earlier commentary on the Dick and Carey instructional design model, I pointed
out that learning objectives are specific outcome statements that build on course aims.
Some examples of this relationship are given in Table 3.
Instructional goals Learning objectives
Characteristics
Abstract
All-encompassing
Theory-based
Cognitive
Based on curriculum
Determine objectives
‘Teacher objectives’
Characteristics
More concrete
Expresses aim in terms of broad
activities that the learner should be able
to perform
Break-down of aim into broadly defined
practical tasks
‘Learner objectives’
Examples
For you to understand the
importance of learning objectives
and be able to use them effectively
in your learning materials.
For learners to be able to design
effective courses that make sound
use of instructional design
principles and e-learning.
Examples
At the end of this topic, you should be
able to:
• Discuss the importance and role of
learning objectives
• Use learning objectives to
structure a section of your course
material
• List the components of an effective
objective
• Write learning objectives in a
practical, student-centred style.
At the end of this section, you should
be able to:
• Define instructional design and its
relationship to e-learning
• Define the constraints that shape
course design and delivery
• Design an effective course that
reflects good practice.
Aims
Objectives
Table 3 – Comparison of instructional goals and learning objectives
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 18

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
If instructional goals provide the overall topic framework for a course, learning
objectives shape individual topics. Learning objectives are clear and direct
statements of what the learner should be able to do once they have completed
the topic. The verb you choose for a learning objective is more important than it
is for an instructional goal. Table 4, from Forsyth et al (1999), will help you to
ensure that the verbs you choose indicate the level of cognitive development you
want your learners to achieve.
Knowledge Comprehension
Arrange
Define
Duplicate
Label
List
Memorise
Name
Order
Recognise
Recall
Relate
Repeat
Reproduce
Classify
Describe
Discuss
Explain
Express
Identify
Indicate
Locate
Recognise
Report
Restate
Review
Select
Translate
Application
A
nalysis
Apply
Choose
Demonstrate
Dramatise
Employ
Illustrate
Interpret
Operate
Practice
Schedule
Sketch
Solve
Use
Analyse
Appraise
Calculate
Categorise
Compare
Contrast
Criticise
Differentiate
Discriminate
Distinguish
Examine
Experiment
Question
Test
Synthesis Evaluation
Arrange
Assemble
Collect
Compose
Construct
Create
Design
Formulate
Manage
Organise
Plan
Prepare
Propose
Set up
Write
Appraise
Argue
Assess
Attach
Choose
Compare
Defend
Estimate
Evaluate
Judge
Predict
Rate
Score
Select
Support
Value
Table 4 – Learning objective verbs based on cognitive domains
Topics should generally be guided by about four learning objectives, which might even
serve as topic subheadings.
In general, a topic learning guide will have the following structure:
• Introduction: The introduction lists the learning objectives and might also include
some warm-up reflective questions and introductory commentary.
• Sub-headings: The content under each sub-heading consists of a mix of
presentation and process elements.
• Conclusion or summary.
A topic is not a scholarly article. The idea of ‘writing a course’ won’t help you to prepare
a topic. Rather, topic learning guides tie resources together in a meaningful and
coherent way. Topics are best written in the form of a ‘guided didactic conversation’, a
term created by Holmberg (1977) to describe a flowing monologue. This conversational
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 19

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
writing style resembles a faculty member actually talking to a student in a one-to-one
setting.
You might also base topics on a literature review or a monograph like this document.
But note that this document is not a learning guide. Rather it is a learning resource that
might be part of a topic’s presentation mix. A learning guide, for example, might direct a
learner to read the parts of this document that relate to particular learning objectives.
3.4.5 Determining student workload
Before we address the specifics of preparing a topic, consider the time that students will
spend on different learning activities. In distance education, workload has traditionally
been determined by the number of pages students have to read. In contrast, on-campus
courses measure the number of hours a student spends in class. When you design for
e-learning, you also need to consider interpersonal interaction and activities.
Rowntree (1997) suggests that students can study 80 to 200 pages of text every 10
hours, depending on the complexity of the text. Without careful planning, course
designers can overload students with unrealistic workloads of reading and interaction.
Though workload estimates are invariably subjective (Chambers 1994), the following
rules of thumb should prove reliable.
• Readings: Eight to twenty pages per hour, depending on the text (this is study
pace rather than reading pace)
• Asynchronous discussion: One to three hours per exercise, depending on scope
• Presentations (multimedia) or lectures: Double the time it has taken taken to
present the material.
• Activities: Very dependent on scope – consider the level of familiarisation
students must have before starting, and any necessary collaboration as well as
time for the task itself.
Collaboration usually requires significant student effort, so make a generous time
allowance for collaborative tasks. If a typical 15-credit course comprises 150 hours over
13 weeks, you might budget about 12 hours per week for course-related activity.
Allocate about half of this to assessment, leaving about 6 hours per week. If the topic
consists of readings and online discussion, the time might be broken down as in
Example 1.
Assessment allowance (including compulsory online
discussion) 6.0 hours
8 pages Learning guide, easy read 0.5 hours
25 pages Text book chapter, moderate complexity 2.0 hours
10 pages One journal article, complex 1.0 hours
15 minutes Pre-recorded presentation, on CD 0.5 hours
200 words Online discussion – optional initial post 1.5 hours
50 words Online discussion – optional follow-up post 0.5 hours
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 20

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
TOTAL 12.0 hours
Example 1 – Emphasis on reading
In Example 1, we allowed time for taking notes from the pre-recorded presentation, and
considered each reading’s complexity. You can see that more is expected of the initial
online discussion post than of the follow-up post.
You could also build a whole topic’s work around an activity. In Example 2, the activity
is a computer simulation exercise:
Assessment allowance 6.0 hours
4 pages Learning guide, easy read 0.5 hours
12 pages Simulation brief, complex 2.0 hours
Simulation exercise 2.5 hours
100 words Online discussion – optional ‘lessons learned’ post 1.0 hours
TOTAL 12.0 hours
Example 2 – Emphasis on activity
Giving students time breakdowns for each topic means they have a clear idea of what is
expected and the time it will take – but be clear that such breakdowns are inevitably
estimates.
3.4.6 Topic design
I mentioned earlier that instructional design is both an art and a science. So far, you
might have the impression that instructional design is little more than following a
template. But here, at the level of topic design, course designers can express their
artistic flair. The following advice is not restrictive. My aim is to provide a useful
framework to help artists choose a medium.
In our earlier discussion on presentation and process, I introduced four different
elements (see Table 2). These elements provide a useful framework for designing
topics.
Presentation (information)
• Prime resources – essential for learners.
• Supplemental – optional for learners.
Process (construction)
• Interpersonal communication – interaction with others.
• Activity – working with knowledge in an applied context.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 21

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Each element presents several options for actual design, as outlined below.
Prime and supplemental resources
Text book (or chapters)
Monograph
Hypertext document
Guided didactic conversation
Lecture (various media)
Webpages or websites
Journal articles and reports
Video clips (interview or documentary)
Podcast (audio file of lecture, commentary or interview)
PowerPoint slides (with or without commentary)
Handout summary
Animations
Interpersonal communication
A
ctivity
Sharing perspectives or experience
Debates
Question and answer
Role play
Investigative reporting
Guest experts
Open-to-class journalling
Anonymous critique
Live chat session (text)
Simulation
Case study
Reflective questions (personal)
Application
Exercises and quizzes (tutor or self-
marking)
Problem-based task
Personal journal
Investigative reporting
Table 5 – Elements of topic design
The difference between prime and supplemental resources is their role as compulsory
or optional elements of the topic. Prime resources contain everything the student needs
to know from the topic; supplemental resources present perspectives of interest or
further things to consider.
The key question for effective topic design is this: Which of the four elements will drive
the topic, and how will the other three contribute?
If you want to emphasise established principles and concepts, you are likely to choose
prime resources as the driver. If you want to expose learners to the diversity of ideas in
a topic by addressing a specific element in depth, you might use supplemental readings
as the driver. If you want learners to share experiences or discuss and debate key
ideas, interpersonal communication becomes the driver. Finally, if your focus is
application, activity will drive to your topic design.
To help you decide on the driver, you may want to consider which particular learning
objectives, if any, you want to highlight.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 22

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Drive
r
Characteristics
Prime resources
‘What you need to know’
Familiarisation with central concepts and ideas
Getting to know terminology
‘Big picture’ of the topic
Getting to know what is known
Supplemental resources
‘What you need to consider’
Guided teaching
Exploring specific sub-topics in-depth
Focus on the perspectives of experts
Exploring the complexities of what is known
Interpersonal communication
Social constructivism
Collaboration and perspectives of peers
Self-disclosure
Sharing experience
Debating and exploring meaning with others
Activity
Discovery learning
Application and implementation
Problem-based learning and simulation
Reflecting on experience
Table 6 – Presentation and process drivers, and key characteristics
Remember that these categories are only a guide. It is recommended that only one
driver be selected, even if elements of the other three are used as passengers! Having
a driver does not discount the use of the other three categories. It is just useful to
decide on an emphasis (the driver), so that each topic has a clear and central form of
engagement for students.
The examples in Table 7 are based on a topic called ‘e-learning in context’. As you can
see, each driver lends itself to particular objectives. Or you could say that the objectives
lend themselves to particular drivers!
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 23

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Drive
r
Objectives
Prime resources
Define e-learning
Describe the benefits of e-learning
Choose the benefits of e-learning that are most appropriate
to your own context
Supplemental resources
Define the role of the government strategy
Analyse the government strategy for e-learning
Describe various perspectives of the strategy
Interpersonal communication
Explore and contrast the perspectives of various
stakeholders in e-learning
Describe the context of e-learning in your own organisation
Defend an e-learning strategy based on your organisational
context
Activity
Analyse an organisation’s e-learning context
Discover potential barriers to e-learning
Propose an e-learning strategy for your own organisation
Table 7 – Presentation and process drivers, and key characteristics
The following models show how the topic in Table 7 might be designed, depending on
the driver. (Paper, a CD-Rom and the internet are assumed as offline and online
elements, and the educator is involved in the delivery of the course.)
Model 1 – Prime information
In Model 1, the prime information led design, a monograph provides a comprehensive
overview to the topic. It is supplemented by video clips of the subject expert (faculty
member) and a Ministry of Education representative, and a presentation of the
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 24

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
summary. The supplemental information is linked to on the internet rather than provided
in the course materials. An optional online discussion and some reflective questions
round off the topic.
Model 2 – supplemental information
Model 2 is led by supplemental information. It focuses on the Ministry of Education’s e-
learning strategy. As in Model 1, a monograph is provided as prime information;
however, this one is shorter. The focus is instead on a specific report, an associated
commentary, and three supplemental articles (all provided on paper). This model uses a
compulsory online discussion in which students are asked to discuss the practicality of
the report.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 25

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Model 3 – interpersonal communication
Interpersonal communication is the driver in Model 3, and the focus is on students’ own
institutional context and an online role play. A short monograph is still provided as prime
information (as in Model 2) and the supplemental information is linked (as in Model 1).
Model 4 – Activity
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 26

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Finally, Model 4 shows how an activity-led topic might be based on the case study of an
organisation that has successfully implemented e-learning. The case study has some
questions that form the basis of a compulsory online discussion.
These models show how the same topic might consist of very different learning
experiences and encourage different types of student engagement. Your choice
depends on your objectives and the constraints we considered earlier.
Each topic might be presented in the following format:
• Topic title
• Suggested workload
• Learning objectives
• Relation to assessment
• Introduction
• Sub-topic
• Introduction
• Prime information
• Supplemental information
• Interpersonal communication
• Activity
• Next sub-topic…
• Reflection questions
• Summary.
There are many ways to prepare topics and, of course, there are exceptions to any
template. Melton (1997) suggests a format based on units (topics), each made up of
different sessions (sub-topics). Melton’s diagrams are adapted here to suit our
terminology and ‘topic driver’ emphasis.
Advance organiser
Driver materials
Central element Contributing materials
Further prime,
supplemental,
interpersonal, activity
options and suggestions
Summary
Objectives and
self-assessment
Figure 3 – Sub-topic organisation, based on Melton (1997:67)
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 27

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
A sub-topic consists of an advance organiser or introduction. The driver materials make
up the central element of instruction; the contributing materials are from the other three
elements, and are either optional or subsidiary. The summary is a brief overview of the
main ideas of the sub-topic and gives students an opportunity to reflect or answer some
self-assessment questions. How these sub-topics might fit within an overall topic is also
suggested by Melton (1997), below. Here, there is an advance organiser for the bigger
picture (the overall topic) which then proceeds to each discrete sub-section (the sub-
topics).
Topic
Advance organiser
Driver sub-topic 1 Contributing materials
sub-topic 1
Summary sub-topic 1
Sub-topic 1
Advance organiser
Topic
Summary
Assessment
Driver sub-topic 5 Contributing materials
sub-topic 5
Summary sub-topic 5
Sub-topic 5
Advance organiser
Reinforcement
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 28

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Figure 4 – Topic organisation, based on Melton (1997:70)
There are summaries at the end of each sub-topic, and an overall summary at the end
of the topic. This overall summary leads into an assessment task and further
reinforcement, which might consist of additional or recommended reading, further
practice, further problems, further examples, or alternative perspectives and
approaches. Melton’s (1997) format clearly illustrates how topics can be matched to
assessment tasks.
You can see now that the relationship between topics and sub-topics is an important
one in instructional design. So far, I have suggested that drivers apply to topics; they
could just as easily be applied to sub-topics, depending on the scale of those sub-
topics. I have experienced well-designed full-year distance education courses that
consisted of four blocks (topics), each consisting of multiple sub-topics, as in Melton’s
(1997) format in Figure 4. I have also designed courses with twelve topics, each with
smaller sub-topics; with an assessment after several topics have been covered.
Practice (and terminology!) varies from institution to institution.
It is best to select driver elements for discrete blocks of study, perhaps on the basis of a
6-hour time slot (approximately 1 week’s work in a 15-credit course). Whether this 6-
hour block represents a sub-topic of a larger topic or a series of sub-topics within the
same topic depends on the context the instructional designer works within.
3.4.7 Media and website preparation
In E-Primer 2, E-Education and Faculty, I argued that faculty not be expected to
undertake instructional design on their own (see also Oblinger 2006). Rather, I
suggested a team of faculty member, instructional designer, and media specialist. This
approach will usually improve the quality of the overall course design and any media
that are developed. While faculty can develop their own media and formulate their own
mix of topics and drivers, don’t underestimate the benefits of pooling a team of
specialists.
Here is one suggestion of how a team might work:
• Course outline development: faculty member, with peer input
• Overall development plan: negotiated between the faculty member (who ‘owns’
the process), instructional designer and media specialist
• Learning guide development: faculty member negotiates drafts with instructional
designer; instructional designer prepares final copy, acting on feedback from the
faculty member.
• Multimedia resource development: instructional designer acts as a project
manager; faculty member provides content and is recorded presenting the
materials; media specialist edits the footage, digitally renders the finished clip into
the required format and provides final copy
• Website design (in LMS): instructional designer sets up the initial site according
to a plan agreed with the faculty member
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 29

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
• Ongoing maintenance: faculty member maintains the course and website, after
professional development.
This proposal acknowledges the expertise of all team members, ensuring a solid initial
design that can be maintained by the faculty member. Major redesign would involve the
instructional designer and media specialist.
3.5 Summary – Designing for e-learning
Instructional design has a rich history. E-learning is best applied within a carefully
considered instructional design framework. The concepts of presentation and process,
design and delivery and online and offline are crucial for instructional design practice.
Instructional design is both an art and a science. Within the general principles and
models for instructional design there is ample scope for innovation and creativity,
particularly if an instructional design team consists of faculty, an instructional designer
and a media specialist.
There are four potential drivers for instructional design: prime information, supplemental
information, interpersonal communication, and activity. One way of effectively using the
opportunities afforded by e-learning is to consider which one of the drivers will be
emphasised for any particular topic. It is important that all topics form a coherent whole
that meets the stated goals of the course.
Bibliography
Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2006). The essentials of instructional design. NJ: Pearson.
Chambers, E. (1994). Assessing learner workload. In F. Lockwood (ed), Materials
production in open and distance learning. London: Paul Chapman, 103-111.
Chen, N., Ko, H., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using
the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 42(2), 181-194.
Dick, W., Carey, L; & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed).
USA: Pearson.
Dolsgaard, C., & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem-
based blended learning: Challenges and experiences. Open Learning 22(1), 29-
42.
Everland, W., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or
disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print.
Communication Research 28(1), 48-78.
Forsyth, I., Jolliffe, A., & Stevens, D. (1999). Planning a course (2nd ed). London:
Kogan Page.
Henry, J. (1994). Resources and constraints in open and distance learning. In F.
Lockwood (ed), Materials production in open and distance learning. London: Paul
Chapman, 7-17.
Hunt, K. (nd). Guide to using OTARA.
Littlejohn, A. (2003). Reusing online resources. London: Kogan Page.
Melton, R. (1997). Objectives, competences and learning outcomes: Developing
instructional materials in open and distance learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 30

E-Primer Series – Designing for E-learning
Mark Nichols, Laidlaw College Page 31
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. USA:
Wadsworth.
Oblinger, D. (2006). The myth about online course development. Educause Review,
January/February, 14-15.
Parker, J. (2003). By way of conclusion: Some general implications of patchworking.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 40(2), 216-226.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory, and how is it changing? In
C. M. Reigeluth (ed), Instructional design theories and models, Vol. II. USA:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 5-29.
Rowntree, D. (1994). Existing material: How to find it, evaluate it and customize it. In F.
Lockwood (ed), Materials production in open and distance learning. London: Paul
Chapman, 79-88.
Rowntree, D. (1997). Making materials-based learning work. London: Kogan Page.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of ‘transactional
presence’. Open Learning 17(2), 121-137.
Shearer, R. (2003). Instructional design in distance education: An overview. In M.
Moore & W. G. Anderson (eds), Handbook of distance education. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 275-286.
Wilhelm, P., & Wilde, R. (2005). Developing a university course for online delivery
based on learning objects: From ideals to compromises. Open Learning 20(1), 65-
81.
Winter, R. (2003). Contextualising the patchwork text: Addressing problems of
coursework assessment in higher education. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International 40(2), 112-122.