Reading 8 (Theme 4)

Reading 8 : first reading on theme 4: Development and Design of Courses

Barbour, M.(2005).Design of Web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning. 9(1), 27-36. Downloaded on 29 June 2008 from http://deanz.org.nz/journal

About the author: Michael Barbour is currently Assistant Professor in Instructional Technology at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Further details are available on his website at http://www.michaelbarbour.com/index.htm

The paper reports the initial findings of a study that investigated design characteristics of a web-based distance education programme for rural secondary school students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Participants were course developers and teachers in a virtual high school context. Research involved interviews and document analysis. Secondary data came from the CDLI homepage, server and developer’s template.

Literature review justifies the need for this research. Post secondary experimenting with technologies is outpacing collection of data to test mediational effects of tools. Adult learners value structure, clear guidelines, increased student-instructor communication and increased opportunities to suggest alternative approaches. (Callini and Barron ,2001-2002; Stein ,2004). Difference between pedagogy and androgogy (Knowles, 1970) – adults are more self-directing; are more experienced; have greater readiness to learn; have more immediacy of application; are more problem-centred.

Earlier research (Collis, 1999) on Web-based course design yielded 10 guidelines for instructional designers.
1. Plan for flexibility and adaptation
2. Design for a variety of interchangeable roles for instructors and students
3. Do not assume use of the course-support site as a primary source of course content
4. Use course-support site to supplement study materials, integrate and manage study activities
5. Design for student and instructor input and use of a variety of combinations of supplemental media and resources
6. Design for minimum levels of technical support, computer-related skills, competencies and online time.
7. Use minimum fixed-text, graphic and iconic elements; provide context-sensitive help
8. Offer a flexible assortment of tools for different communication configurations
9. Design to organisational flexibility
10. Be realistic about what instructors can/will do


This Research found:
a) contradiction between the developer’s constructivist design perspective and the behaviourist-based CDLI template used for lesson development . A comparative table comparing the template with Gagne’s 9 events of instruction is given.
b) 10 initial guidelines developers seem to use when designing secondary courses :
1. Develop a good sets of notes and worked examples
2. Students rarely use “You will learn” / “You should know” sections in the developer’s template but go straight to the activities- include lesson objectives in their lesson rather than separately
3. Lesson should provide student with clear instructions and expectations
4. Limit text
5. Include image or visual cue
6. Include interactive items with selections based on solid content or pedagogy – minimise distractions
7. Use real-life examples
8. Avoid the same format for every lesson; each lesson should offer a sense of choice
9. Design for average or below average student; keep it simple as possible
10. Plan entire course before beginning


DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS:
Of particular interest to me is the appropriacy of using research on post-secondary to inform secondary teaching. Justification based on Knowles’ 4 assumptions of pedagogy as opposed to androgogy was thus interesting but Barbour ambiguously notes that “Many of these assumptions were counter to the picture presented by the interviewees of their experiences with adolescent learners” but disappointingly, does not elaborate other than to note the relative immaturity. To what extent is immaturity sufficient justification for design practice 9 (cater to average/below average)? To what extent would practice 9 also justify exclusion of possible collaborative activities in the design?

With implied criticism Burbour notes that the behaviourist template did not match the constructivist approach of the developers. Does this matter? I am reminded of the observations of Cronje (2006) who suggested that any learning event may draw from both objectivism and constructivism if not simultaneously, then sometimes in such rapid succession that it simultaneous. Can strategies born in objectivist and behaviourist activities not be integrated with constructivism? Could learning objects based on behaviourist strategies embedded in a constructivist design be extraneous cognitive overload for some secondary students and scaffolding for others?

References:
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and
Constructivism in Instructional design and the Learning Sciences.
Educational Technology Research and Development . 54 (4): 387-416.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 32 (2): 183 - 194.