Advertisement

Foundations of Online Learning and Instructional Design

Chapter

Abstract

The remaining four foundational areas of the Web-Based Instructional Design (WBID) Model are learning theories, systems theories, communication theories, and instructional design (ID) models. Principles within each of the learning paradigms provide the theoretical basis for the integrated, multi-theoretical approach to learning used in the WBID Model. Systems theories identify aspects of systematic and systemic processes that underlie most ID models. Communication theories provide general principles related to message and visual design. Conventional and Alternative ID models are fundamental to the stages within the WBID Model.

This chapter begins with a brief description of each of these four remaining foundational areas of the WBID Model. These descriptions are followed by an overview of the WBID Model that highlights its interrelated stages. The case example, GardenScapes, which is used throughout the book, is introduced in a section entitled, Meet the Players. The chapter ends with a new section, Extending Your Skills, which contains four other case studies that will continue to develop throughout the remaining chapters.

Keywords

Learning theories Behaviorism Cognitivism Constructivism Multi-theoretical learning approach General systems theory Systematic Systems Communication theory Instructional design models Conventional ID models Alternative ID models Web-based instructional design model Analysis stage Evaluation planning stage Concurrent design stage Summative evaluation and research stage 

References

  1. American Educational Research Association. (2017). Special interest group directory. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/Member-Constituents/SIGs.
  2. Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banathy, B. B. (1987). Instructional systems design. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Educational technology foundations (pp. 85–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Batane, T. (2010). Rapid prototyping for designing and delivering technology-based lessons. In M. Orey et al. (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook, Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 35 (pp. 45–55). Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boling, E., & Frick, T. W. (1997). Holistic rapid prototyping for web design: Early usability testing is essential. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 319–328). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Branch, R. M. (2018). Characteristics of foundational instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 23–30). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, G. V. (1990, October). The role of educational theory in computer mediated instruction. The CTISS File, Number 7 (pp. 33–38). London: Computers in Teaching Initiative Support Service.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. (1999). Designing instruction for the WWW: A model. Paper presented at the meeting of Ed-Media ’99, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  9. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from a design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleming, M. L. (1987). Displays and communication. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 233–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Gagné, R. M. (1985). Conditions of learning and theory for instruction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  15. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.Google Scholar
  16. Grabowski, B. L. (1995). Message design: Issues and trends. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (2nd ed., pp. 222–232). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  17. Gustafson, K. L. (2002). The future of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Merrill/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2003). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  19. Horton, W. (2012). e-Learning by design (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Volume II) (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H., Hannum, W. H., & Tessmer, M. (1989). Handbook of task analysis procedures. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  22. Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy: That is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lafrançois, G. R. (2012). Theories of human learning: What the professor said (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cenage.Google Scholar
  24. Lohr, L. (2008). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  25. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a learning theory versus constructivism as an instructional theory. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 184–200). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. McCombs, B. (2015, Winter). Learner-centered online instruction. New Directions for teaching and learning, no. 144. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20163.
  28. McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Child development and education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  29. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Nichols, G. W. (1997). Formative evaluation of web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 369–374). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Human learning (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  32. Ragan, T. J., Smith, P. L., & Curda, L. K. (2008). Outcome-referenced, conditions-based theories and models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (3rd ed., pp. 383–399). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Rasmussen, K. L. (2002). Online mentoring: A model for supporting distant learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Ed-Media 2002, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  34. Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Volume II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Richey, R., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Richey, R., & Morrison, G. (2002). Instructional design in business and industry. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 197–210). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Rossett, A. (1999). Analysis for human performance technology. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed., pp. 139–162). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  41. Rossett, A. (2002). From training to training and performance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 123–132). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2008). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  43. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  44. Salomon, G., & Gardner, H. (1986). The computer as educator: Lessons from television research. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheurman, G. (2000). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching. In D. Podell (Ed.), Stand! Contending ideas and opinions. Madison, WI: Coursewise Publishing Inc..Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, B. F. (1986). Programmed instruction revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(2), 103–110.Google Scholar
  47. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Mims, C., & Russell, J. D. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  49. Tripp, S., & Bicklemyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Department of Justice. (1990). American with Disabilities Act (homepage). Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm.
  51. Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement interventions: Optimizing results through people, processes, and organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  52. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). In C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. World Wide Web Consortium [W3C]. (2016). Accessibility, usability, and inclusion: Related aspects of a Web for all. Web accessibility initiative. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/usable.

Copyright information

©  Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Counseling and Instructional ScienceUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.Division of Research and Strategic InnovationUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational TechnologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations