Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The proliferation of distance education has occurred alongside the emerging technologies of the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 environments, changing the way instructors approach, design, and deliver their instructional materials. In the past, instructional design (ID) practitioners relied on instruction system design (ISD) models that focused primarily on macroinstruction. It is now important for these practitioners to use microinstruction strategies to keep pace with the technology evolution. This case study describes the TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact) Process which was created using the Generic Model for Design Research (GMDR) proposed by McKenney and Reeves (2012) and uses selected ID concepts from the ADDIE (Molenda Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–37, 2003) framework, and the Dick and Carey (Dick Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63, 1996), Backwards Design (McTighe n.d), and Rapid Prototyping ID Models (Tripp and Bichelmeyer Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44, 1990). The TAPPA Process is ideally suited for the microinstruction development typical of distance education environments and has been used to create more than 25 webinars and 12 e-learning modules over the past four years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amiel, T., & Reeves, T.C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29.40.

  • Arshavskiy, M. (2013). Instructional design for elearning: essential guide to creating successful elearning courses. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdeau, J., & Bates, A. (1996). Instructional design for distance learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(4), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K. (2008). The role of theory in instructional design: some views of an ID practitioner. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 25–32. doi:10.1002/pfi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C. (2002). The new ISD: applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 10–16.

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey Model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabac, J. N. (2006). Project management for systematic training. Advances in Development Human Resources, 8(4), 540–547. doi:10.1177/1523422306293010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The phoenix rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171–185. doi:10.1080/01587910600789514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy-Clark, S. (2013). Research by design: Design-based research and the higher degree research student. Journal of Learning Design, 6(2), 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTighe, J. (n.d.). Understanding by design: three stages of backward design frequently asked questions. McGraw-Hill Networks. Retrieved from http://mcgrawhillflnetworks.com/pdf/White_Papers/8352_networks_UnderstandByDesign_WhitePaper2.pdf on March 23, 2013.

  • Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2010). The implications of the differences between design research and instructional systems design for educational technology researches and practitioners. Educational Media International, 47(4), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: earning ID Fast and Right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2006). Functional contextualism: An ideal framework for theory in instructional design and technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, J., & Anderson, T. (2013). Using a design-based research study to identify principles for training instructors to teach online. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 186–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptualising instructional design for online learning. Winds of change in the sea of learning: Charting new course of digital education. ASCILITE 2002, Aukland, New Zeland. Retrieved from: https://ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf.

  • Teras, H., & Herrington, J. (2014). Neither the frying pan nor the fire: In search of a balanced authentic e-learning design through an educational design research process. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 232–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi:10.1007/BF02298246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Patten, J., Chao, C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1986). A review of strategies for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 437–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Jamar Jones for his assistance in creating the graphics which appear within this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Robert L. Moore

Authors
  1. Robert L. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert L. Moore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, R.L. Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process. TechTrends 60, 425–432 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0094-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0094-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation