IDEAS: Instructional Design for Elearning ApproacheS

Designing Effective Learning Objects

My presentation on Designing Effective Online Learning Resources (high fidelity version, IE 4.0 and above) will illustrate the process used to design an interactive learning object developed by the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto to help students learn about the therapeutic principles of pharmacology.

The design process can be easliy transferred to the development of learning objects in other disciplines.

The learning models and instructional strategies used to design the learning object will be examined and the results from the peer review evaluation and learning impact study will also be shared.

This powerpoint presentation which I am delivering to University of Toronto faculty today, is a condensed version of the detailed information that I have posted at my weblog documenting this project. You may not want to view the presentation full screen as there is quite a bit of information in the notes section beneath each slide.

March 22, 2004

I have also created an Adobe PDF version of the presentation with notes and embedded links and a more browser friendly format.

Inquiry Approach for Learning Object

The fourth learning objective corresponds to an inquiry approach in which the learner uses trial and error to learn about the basic therapeutic principles. Student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation.

Inquiry Approach

Using the ‘drug options’ tab the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages and try to induce the principle which applies to that situation.
In order to apply a principle the student engages in the following steps;

1. Determine which concepts or variables are involved. Using trial and error, the student can randomly select a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. In figure 5 the drug dosage has been increased from 10 to 20 mg (type 20 in the dose box and click on plot). The area underneath the blue curve and above the red curve represents the magnitude of the change caused by the increase in the dosage.

2. Try to determine the principle that explains the relationship between the concepts which apply to the variables you have chosen. Describe the effects that this might have on the patient.

3. Recall the principle. If it is necessary the learner can return to the “Basic Principles” tab.

4. Determine which concept or variable has changed and the direction or magnitude of its change (i.e. increasing dose by 10 mg). By clicking the coloured numbers which appear next to the charted data the learner can review the patient variables that were selected for that example.

5. Determine which concept or variable has been affected (i.e. protein binding when phenytoin dose is increased).

6. Then determine the magnitude and direction of the effect (AUC) on the affected concept or variable.

7. Confirm that the value is reasonable. Practice determining whether or not the principle has been correctly applied.

The above strategies are based on steps outlined by Smith & Ragan (1999).

Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Practice Strategies for Learning Object

Practice Phase

Once the learner has completed viewing the demonstrations of each principle they can practice recognizing situations in which the principle is applicable. The practice of retrieving this information will help the learner to retain the information in long term memory.

1. Using the “Drug Options” tab the student can practice replicating the basic principles by selecting a range of patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosages. The learner begins by stating the principle they want to replicate.

2. As the learners experience the applications of the principles they are encouraged to focus their attention on the direction and magnitude of change which occurs in the ‘blood concentration time curve’ (see green arrow in figure 3) or area under curve (AUC) as a result of a variable being changed. Unless attention is given to this information it will be lost from memory.

3. After sufficient practice the student will be able to identify the features of the situation that suggest a particular principle is being applied and become proficient in correctly explaining, predicting and controlling the effect of these changes on the patient. In order to shift the principle that is being learned from short-term memory to long-term memory the steps which were taken to generate the principle must be rehearsed within 30 seconds.

The memory model for the 3 steps of the practice phase are illustrated in figure 4.

Instructional Strategies for Learning Object

Over the next few days, I will demonstrate the application of the learning theories that were used to design the instructional strategies for the pharmacology learning object. As Bannan-Ritland et. al (2000) state, "learning object systems present yet another technology-based instructional delivery environment with exciting features and attributes that can empower learner-driven experiences and promote cognitive processing if pedagogical considerations are taken into account in their development and evolution" (pg 1).

The following learning objectives were identified for the pharmacology learning object.

i. The learner will be able to list and describe the major therapeutic principles of drug administration.

ii. Given a demonstration of a therapeutic principle the learner will be able to identify and replicate the relationship between the concepts (i.e. absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) that underlie the principle.

iii. The learner will be able to identify the relevant principles which describe the magnitude and direction of change plotted in the blood concentration time curve as well as a visual representation of the area under the curve (AUC).

iv. By manipulating the patient variables, routes of administration and drug dosage the learner will be able to correctly explain, predict and control the effect of these changes on the patient.

Explicitly stating the learning objectives made it easier for the instructional designer to determine the type of learning outcome the goal represented and to prescribe the necessary strategy. The first three learning objectives above corresponded to an expository approach in which the “Basic Principles” tab was designed to demonstrate each principle graphically.

Expository Approach: In this approach the principles were presented and demonstrated, and then learners had an opportunity to practice applying them.

Demonstration Phase (the steps below correspond to figure 2 of the Basic Principles Tab). If you mouse over the image presented in figure 2 you should be presented with a small icon (in the bottom right corner) that will allow you to expand the image to its original size.

1. In the “Basic Principles” tab each principle is stated and then presented visually. At this point it is useful for learners to practice stating the principle. They may want to re-write the principle or attempt to put it into their own words.

2. The demonstrations illustrate how these rules can be used to explain, control and predict the effects of drug administration. The results are plotted in the “Blood Concentration Time Curve”.

3. The description that accompanies the animation explains the ‘whys’ of the principle.

4. The demonstrations refer to concepts (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs) and terminology (physiology/ anatomy) that the learner may have previously acquired. During this phase, learners retrieve this prior knowledge in order to understand the principles.

Next's weeks post will explain the steps for the practice phase.

REFERENCES

Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., Murphy, K. (2000). Learning Object Systems as Constructivist Learning Environments: Related Assumptions, Theories and Applications. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Available online http://reusability.org/read/chapters/bannan-ritland.doc

Design Research

In the doctoral seminar I am taking right now we are discussing, 'design research' and "whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research."

Having read both Edelson and Friedman, I believe that what I have been recently engaged in would constitute design research as outlined by Edelson. While I was conducting my study on the design and evaluation of the pharmacology learning object, I was not aware of the term 'design research' or the steps involved. My colleague, Celynn Klemenchuk has kindly agreed to share her mindmap which effectively illustrates the relationships Edelson identifies in his approch to design research (you may have to expand the image to its original size in your browser).

Upon reflection, I think we should "begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms".

As the instructional designer involved in the development of the pharmacology learning object, I became interested in the implications of using a design methodology specifically prescribed for learning objects.

The purpose of my study was to contribute to a better understanding of how instructional designers make decisions about developing learning objects. The examination was expected to reveal issues and challenges that instructional designers face when engaging in this type of activity. The goal was to develop an "outcome theory" in which I would characterize the problems and the results of implementing a specific theory of design.

This is consistent with Edelson's notion of research design which "explicitly exploits the design process as an opportunity to advance the researchers understanding of teaching, learning, and educational systems."

My design research also consisted of the four features identified by Edelson.

Research Driven

My research was informed by existing theories of instructional design and I had identified a specific goal.

I was curious to find out if subsequently applying Wiley's Learning Object Design and Sequencing (LODAS) theory to the development of the pharmacology learning object would reveal different design decisions about the scope and sequence of the learning resources that were created.

Systematic Documentation

The process of applying the prescribed steps of the chosen theory was documented. The steps for the principled skill decomposition and work model synthesis were explicity illustrated and shared for critical reflection and discussion.

Formative Evaluation

A peer review of our learning object was undertaken in order to identify "gaps in understanding of the design context".

Three main strategies were used to assess the quality of the learning object and to collect formative date for improving the resource. Early in the design stage the instructional designer conducted usability testing with a third year pharmacy student to obtain feedback on design and navigation issues. This informal meeting was conducted as a 'think-aloud session' where the instructional designer recorded the reflections of the student as she interacted with the learning object. Secondly, peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the quality of the learning object using an established rating instrument and to provide feedback for improvement using an instructor survey. Thirdly, questionnaires were distributed to students in order to carry out a learning impact study based on their use of the learning object.

Generalization

In my discussion of the research results, I attempted to generalize the implications of applying the theory to the practice of instructional design and the quality of learning resources developed.

As it was an illustrative case study, no statistically significant results were generated. However, it still has potential value to many educational practitioners. To my knowledge, this research was the only example of a practical application of the Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory (LODAS) developed by Wiley (2000) to a medical context. The results from this research could be used to inform educators about some of the serious challenges involved in designing a learning object that can be reused and repurposed. An examination of the process and instruments used for evaluation could provide valuable insights about methods that could be employed for the peer review of learning objects.

Having thought about it some more, the example I provided above, about Edelson's approach to design research, complements what Friedman outlined in his paper on theory construction.

Wiley, the author of the design methodlogy that I was applying had combined a number of existing instructional design theories; Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999), Work Model Synthesis (Gibbons, et al., 1995), Domain Theory (Bunderson, Newby, &Wiley, 2000), and the Four-Component Instructional Design model (van Merriënboer, 1997) in an attempt to extend these theories in order to address two fundamental issues in the design of learning objects: scope and sequencing. The end result was the creation of his own Learning Object Design and Sequencing theory (LODAS).

This is consistent with Simon's quote (as cited in Friedman) "...design as the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones."

The theory developed by Wiley provided me with an opportunity to apply an existing model and derive lessons which I could use to develop theories that are generalizeable in other contexts.

So.... in response to the question, whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design research based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research I would have to say that there appears to be a natural complement between the two.

REFERENCES

Edelson, Daniel C. (2002) Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

Friedman, K. (2003) Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies Vol 24 No. 6,

Learning Theory Analysis

Below is an examination of the theories of learning and cognition that influenced the design of the learning object.

Smith and Ragan (1999) stated that it is imperative for authors writing about instructional design to acknowledge the beliefs and values represented in their educational philosophy and that they be based upon theories that have been substantiated by empirical research.

For the development of the pharmacology learning object a pragmatic approach was taken and a combination of learning theories were used, including elements of; behaviourism, generative and cognitive theories and constructivism. Smith and Ragan (1999) defined pragmatists in the following manner. "Pragmatists are inclined to believe that although knowledge is acquired through experience [objectivist], it is personally interpreted through reason and is tentative in nature. Knowledge in a particular field is negotiated based upon an agreement of experts as to a common interpretation of experience or "truth for now". Knowledge built by testing truth for now hypothesis and revising truth as common experience and interpretation implies it should be modified [constructivist]."

I agree with a number of other writers (Ally, 2003; Hannafin, et al., 1997; Wilson, 1997; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) that there is limited value in asserting which theory of learning is better. Rather, the adoption of a combination of instructional approaches was based on the belief that different instructional conditions are necessary to effectively promote a given type of learned performance. The role of the instructional designer is to prescribe an appropriate strategy and context for learning based on the learning objectives.

Pharmacokinetics is a very complex subject and as a result is one of the most poorly taught areas of the medical curriculum. A radical constructivist would have suggested that articulating goals for learning this subject was inappropriate because educators do not know what learners' need or want to learn (Smith & Ragan, 1999). However, one can't assume that individuals who are novices in this area would have been able to devise an approach to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Therefore, learning objectives were developed.

The design of the learning object adopted the following behaviourist attributes. Learning goals were explicitly stated in observable terms in order for the learners to establish whether or not they had achieved the desired outcomes. The learning object was sequenced so that students could progress from knowledge acquisition (using basic principles tab to view demonstrations of the principles) to higher order domains (application of principles using the drug options tab). Feedback was presented to students in the form of a graph which plotted the blood concentration time curve and served as feedback to indicate if the student had applied the theory correctly.

Characteristics of generative learning theory were also evident in the design of the learning object. The learner was actively engaged and assumed primary responsibility for processing the information. The pharmacology learning object required the students to interact with the resource to create an outcome (graph on blood concentration time curve). As a result they were more likely to recall the information than if they had merely read it (Houston, 1991). During the process of gathering data using the inquiry approach the learner was required to isolate relevant variables and form a hypothesis about the example. Students reflected on whether or not the instructional content being presented was consistent with previous experiences or prior knowledge (basic physiology and anatomy, pharmacological concepts). 80% of the students that responded to the learning impact study agreed that the learning object encouraged them to reflect on the material.

In order for learners to register information in their sensory systems, strategies consistent with cognitivist and constructivist approaches were applied. Learners were able to control the pace of the information and were directed to attend to specific information. Color was used to highlight the explanations of principles. The plotting of results in the blood time concentration curve was animated. As the curve was being drawn, a green arrow focused the learners attention on the direction and magnitude of change in the graph. A three step memory model was suggested in order for the learners to transfer the information from short-term to long-term memory.

To promote deep processing of the pharmacology principles the information was presented using the spreading activation model in which the students were able to see the relationship between the variables involved in drug administration and the effect this had on the patient. This approach was in direct contrast to the textbook where the principles are treated as individual concepts. Processing the network of related information provided the students with multiple pathways for assimilating or accommodating prior knowledge with new information and therefore makes it personally more meaningful. The opportunity to interpret their knowledge helped them to understand the context in which the different parameters operated.

REFERENCES

Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In Elloumi, F. & Anderson. T. (Eds). Online Learning Handbook. Athabasca University
.
Duffy, T. M., and Cunnigham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K., Land, S.M. & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.

Houston, J.P. (1991). Fundamentals of learning and memory. 4th ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. R. Dills, A.J. (Ed.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.