A living-systems design model for web-based knowledge management systems

Development

Abstract

Most of the currently available instructional design models were conceptualized to develop instructional solutions to needs and requirements that remain relatively stable over time. Faced with the problem of designing a knowledge management (KM) system that needed to accommodate continuously changing requirements over its fielded lifetime, we developed a new design model that is based on a living-systems approach. In this article, we briefly review currently available instructional systems design models and describe this new model and the mechanisms it contains for accommodating change and growth. We illustrate the application of the phases of the model (analyze initial requirements, design the information architecture, develop the information design, develop the interaction design, implement the Web-based system, and conduct a developmental evaluation of the system) in the development of a KM system with living-system features.

Keywords

Target Audience Interaction Design Information Design Metacognitive Knowledge Knowledge Management System 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (1991).Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977).A pattern language. Towns, buildings, construction, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R.; Airasian, P.W.; Cruikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.D.; Wittrock, M.C. (1998).Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Banathy, B. (1991).Educational systems design: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956).Taxonomy of behavioral objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  6. Boar, B. (1984).Application prototyping. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, T. (1997).Design for multimedia learning. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, January–February.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coad, P., & Yourdon, E. (1991).Object-oriented design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Hoog, Robert (1994). Constraint-driven software design: An escape from the waterfall model.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade?Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dick, W., & Carey, L (1990).The systematic disign of instruction (3rd Ed). Glenville, IL: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  14. Dynamic systems development method, Version 2. 1995. Tesseract Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D (1991). Constructivism: New implications for educational technology?Educational Technology, 31(5), 7–12.Google Scholar
  16. Edmonds, G.S., Branch, R.C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fenrich, P. (1997).Practical guidelines for creating instructional multimedia applications. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1979).Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rineholt, & Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Hannafin, M. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirkpatrick, Donald, (1994).Evaluating training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Koper, R. (1995). PROFIL: A method for the development of multimedia.British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 94–108.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J. (1988).Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lesgold, A. (2000). On the future of cognitive task analysis. In J.M. Schraagen, & S.F. Chipman (Eds.),Cognitive task analysis (pp. 451–465). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer and J. Van de Zouwen (Eds.)Sociocybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control, and evolution of self-steering systems, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Mandl, H., & Levin, J.R. (Eds.). (1989).Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  28. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980).Autopoiesis and cognition, London: Reidl.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. Cambridge, MA: Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Moody, S., Hudson, T., & Salisbury, M. (1988). RAPID: A prototyping environment for battle management information systems.Proceedings of the Third Annual User-System Interface Conference, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  31. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Passini, R. (1999). Information design: An old hag in fashionable clothes? In R. Jacobson (Ed.),Information Design (pp. 83–98). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Patton, M.Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Special invitational volume: Past, present, future assessments of the field of evaluation.Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plass, J.L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach.Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  35. Plass, J.L., Chun, D.M., Mayer, R.E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning environment.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plass, J.L., Salisbury, M.W., & March, J. (2000). Integrated instruction as a component of a knowledge management system: A case example.Proceedings of Webnet '00, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  37. Preskill, H., & Torres, R.T. (1999).Evaduative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Reigeluth, C. (1993). Principles of educational systems design.International Journal of Educational Research, 19(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roblyer, M. (1988). Fundamental problems and principles of designing effective courseware. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for micro-computer courseware (pp. 7–33). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenfeld, L., & Morville, P. (1998),Information architecture for the World-Wide-Web. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.Google Scholar
  41. Rothwell, W.J., & Kazanas, H.C. (1997).Mastering the instructional design process (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Salisbury, M. (1988). PARGEN: A prototyping tool for natural language interfaces.Proceedings of the Third Annual User-System Interface Conference, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  43. Salisbury, M.W., & Plass, J.L. (in press). A conceptual framework for a knowledge management system.Human Resource Development International.Google Scholar
  44. Salisbury, M.W., & Plass, J.L. (2001).Utilizing decision support and case examples for capturing and disseminating knowledge in organizations. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  45. Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Schnotz, W., & Kulhavy, R.W. (Eds.). (1994).Comprehension of graphics, New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  47. Schraagen, J.M. Chipman, S.F., & Shute, V.J. (2000). State-of-the-art review of cognitive task analysis techniques. In J.M. Schraagen, & S.F. Chipman (Eds.),Cognitive task analysis (pp. 467–487), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993).Participatory design: Principles and practices, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Schwier, R.A. (1999). Constructivist approaches to instructional design. [On-line], Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 9/6/2000. Available: http://members.home.net/rschwier/presentation s/construct/Google Scholar
  50. Shneiderman, B. (1992).Designing the user interface. Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  51. Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tennyson, R.D. (1997). A system dynamics approach to instructional systems development. In: R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.),Instructional design: International perspectives. Volume 1: Theory, research and models, (pp. 413–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Tessner, M., McCann, D., & Ludvigsen, M. (1999). Reassessing training programs: A model for identifying training excess and discrepancies.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tidwell, J. (1999).Common ground: A pattern language for human-computer interface design. [On-line], Retrieved from the World Wide Web on September 18, 1999. Available: http://www.mit.edu/jtid-well/common_ground.htmlGoogle Scholar
  57. von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Slocum, K. (1996). An essay on corporate epistemology. In G. von Krogh & J. Roos (Eds.),Managing knowledge: Perspectives on cooperation and competition. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Wager, W., & Gagné, R. (1988). Fundamental problems and principles of designing effective courseware. In Jonassen, D. (Ed.),Instructional designs for micro-computer courseware (pp. 7–33). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory.Educational Technology, 30, Nov–Dec, 5–23.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, A.L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 71–79.Google Scholar
  61. Yourdon, E., & Constantine, L. (1978).Structured design (2nd Ed). New York: Yourdon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Communication and Technology ProgramNew York UniversityNew York
  2. 2.Organizational Learning and Instructional Technologies ProgramUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque

Personalised recommendations