Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology
ISSN: 1823-1144
Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2004
A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing the Instructional Design Process
Norliana Ab Maleh1, Chien-Sing Lee2, Chin-Kuan Ho3 and Hwee-Reei
Chong4
Faculty of Information Technology,
Cyberjaya, Selangor,
Malaysia.
norliana.maleh@mmu.edu.my1, cslee@mmu.edu.my2, ckho@mmu.edu.my3, hrchong@mmu.edu.my4
Abstract
Learning Management Systems (LMSs)
and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMSs) are
platforms which enable meaningful interaction between instructors,
administrators and students with regards to Web-based and classroom training. The
distinction between the two management systems lies in the added authoring
functionality in LCMSs. This paper examines the
differences between LMS and LCMS, compares the latest authoring tools in the
market and finally presents automated instructional design in the Ontological
Instructional Design (OntoID) authoring tool, a Java and XML-based
Authoring Tool. The ultimate aim is to scaffold the instructional design
process.
INTRODUCTION
Instructional Design is a systematic approach
to developing effective learning materials for different learning contexts
through the process of analysing, designing, developing and evaluating
instruction. The Ontological Instructional Design (OntoID), an automated instructional
design tool aims to achieve the above goal. The OntoID serves to provide
instructors with an integrated modelling and development interface. The
modelling interface helps the instructor to visualise the association of concepts in order to systematically design and
develop learning materials. On the other hand, the development interface provides
tools for designing Web pages without the need to know Hyper Text Markup
Language (HTML) programming. Reuse of learning materials from a learning
objects repository further facilitates the development process and enables
faster deployment.
This paper first presents the framework for
authoring tools, the Learning Content Management System (LCMS) as contrasted to
the more popularly known Learning Management System (LMS). The second section
compares different authoring tools in the market which incorporates automated
instructional design. The aim is to compare
the degree in which instructional design and reusability have been incorporated
into these authoring tools. This is followed by a discussion on modeling,
development and reusability in the OntoID authoring tool.
The paper concludes with results from a pilot test.
FRAMEWORK
FOR AUTHORING TOOLS
Learning
Content Management System
International Data Corporation (IDC), a premier
global market intelligence and advisory firm in the IT and telecommunication
industries defines LCMS as a system that creates, stores, assembles and
delivers personalised e-learning content in the form
of learning objects (IDC, 2004). A learning
object is a “standing piece or chunk of education that contains content and
assessment based on specific learning objectives” (Figure 1). Learning objects are described by metadata. Retrieval
and reuse of learning objects from a central repository (or knowledge base)
ensures higher relevancy and saves development time. If the learning materials are already categorised according to the student’s knowledge states
(e.g. weak, moderate and advanced), then personalising
learning materials to different student needs becomes even easier.
Figure 1
Components of learning objects
According to Learning Circuits (Learning Circuits,
2002), other than support for reusable learning objects, LCMSs
provide:
a)
Content
creation tools for novice developers
b)
Communication
and collaboration tools (asynchronous and synchronous such as white boards and
group chats)
c)
Assessment
tools for different levels of students
d)
Administration
tools to manage registration and monitoring of students’ progress, student log
and course content
e)
Interoperability
with any LMS or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and support basic
integration formats such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) and other industry standards (IMS
Global Learning Consortium (IMS),
Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM)
and Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC)
f)
Security to
protect content and user data, including a secure set of user privileges and
permission levels to control, manage and update content
g)
Facilities
for content migration to re-purpose content for faster online deployment
h)
Automated
implementation processes whereby features can be enabled or disabled, thus
facilitating easier and quicker customisation
In this paper, we focus on one of the LCMS features,
i.e. content creation through an authoring tool.
An LCMS also concentrates on online learning content, usually in the form of
learning objects. However, an LMS
manages and administers all forms of learning within an organisation
as explained in the following subsection.
Learning
Management System
There are two definitions that are may be most
useful. According to Rengarajan
(2001), an LMS manages the organisation’s learning
activities in contexts that range from an instructor-led classroom to Web-based
on-line training. It allows registration of courses, tracks individual skills
and competencies, enables easy access to learning materials, tracks student
performance and generates reports on learning activities and performance. An
LMS does not enable creation, reusability, management or improvement of content
itself. The second definition comes from e-learningsite
(2004) which defines LMS as software that deploys, manages, tracks and reports
on interaction between learner and content and between learner and instructor.
Hence, a LMS provides a single point of access to
different learning sources. It automates the administration and personalisation of learning programmes,
executes tests for different levels of students and generates tests results and
reports. However, it is noted that an
LMS does not provide for reusability, a value-added feature in LCMSs.
Learning Circuits point out that common features
in any LMS are (Learning Circuits, 2002):
a)
Support for
blended learning whereby classroom and virtual learning are synergised
for prescriptive and personalised training
b)
Integration
with the human resource department to enable automatic update of a staff
profile
c)
Administration
tools to enable registration, updating of profiles, setting of curriculum,
assignment of tutors, authoring of courses, management of content and
administration of internal budgets, scheduling of timetables, user payments and
refunds and generation of individual and group performance
d)
Content
integration to provide native support for a diverse range of third-party
courseware
e)
Compliance
with learning standards such as SCORM and
AICC to enable easy import and
management of content
f)
Assessment
tools to enable evaluation of a programme, course or
lesson over time
g)
Identification
of training needs and management of skills as a resource
h)
Easy
configurability with third-party systems
The primary objective of a learning management
system (LMS) is to manage learners, and keep track of their progress and
performance across all types of training activities. By contrast, a learning content management
system (LCMS) manages the flow of content that is served to the learner. In the
simplest terms, an LCMS manages the “content” and the LMS manages the “learners”.
Understanding the difference between the LMS and
LCMS can be very confusing because most of the LCMS systems also have built-in
LMS functionality. Chapman & Hall (2001) report that 81% of LCMS
systems include LMS functionality as part of their system. Almost 100% of the
LCMS list themselves as being interoperable with third-party LMS. More than
half (54%) have actually performed interoperability tests with leading LMS
products such as Mindflash,
IBM Lotus Learning Management System and TopClass (WBT Systems). Hence,
the LMS and LCMS should be regarded as complementary integrated solutions to
e-learning.
As mentioned earlier, the distinguishing feature
between an LMS and an LCMS is the authoring aspect. What is an authoring tool? An authoring
system is defined as a software package that supports trainers and developers
so that they can produce interactive multimedia courses efficiently (Dean, 2002). Essential components are:
·
Facilities
that allow developers, who may not be computer experts, to enter the training
content onto screens in an attractive way.
·
Support for
linking screens of training material together into modules.
·
Support for a
range of question types so that the course designers can choose the most
appropriate for a particular situation and provide variety for the student.
·
Responsive
analysis that takes the student’s answers to questions and provides feedback
and makes branching decisions based on the students responses.
In view of the differences between an LMS and an
LCMS, a summary of the differences between LMS and LCMS is tabled in section
2.3.
Differences
between LMS and LCMS
LCMSs and LMSs are not only
dissimilar from one another but complement each other well. Information from the two systems can be
exchanged, ultimately resulting in a richer learning experience for the user
and a more comprehensive tool for the learning administrator. An LMS can manage
communities of users, allowing each of them to launch the appropriate objects
stored and managed by the LCMS. In delivering the content, the LCMS also tracks
the individual learner’s progress, generates test scores and returns these
values back to the LMS for reporting purposes.
The differences between LMS (Netg,
2004) and LCMS (Brandonhall, 2004) are presented in
Table 1. Having considered the framework for authoring tools, we will now look
into the various authoring tools in the market.
Table 1
Differences between LMS & LCMS
|
|
LMS |
LCMS |
|
Primary
target users |
Training
managers, instructors, administrators |
Content
developers, instructional designers, project managers |
|
Primary
management |
Learners |
Learning
Content |
|
Management
of classroom, instructor-led training |
Yes
|
No |
|
Performance
reporting of training results |
Primary
focus |
Secondary
focus |
|
Learner
collaboration |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Maintain
learner profile or data |
Yes |
No |
|
Sharing
learner data with other system |
Yes |
No |
|
Training Event scheduling |
Yes |
No |
|
Competency
mapping – skill gap analysis |
Yes |
Yes
in some cases |
|
Content
creation or authoring capabilities |
No |
Yes |
|
Organising reusable content |
No |
Yes |
|
Creation
of test questions and test administration |
Yes
(73% of all LMS tools have this capabilities) |
Yes
(92% of all LCMS tools have this capabilities) |
|
Dynamic
pre-testing and adaptive learning |
No |
Yes |
|
Workflow
tools to manage the content development process |
No
|
Yes |
|
Delivery
of content by providing navigational controls and learner interface |
No |
Yes |
|
Author,
create, store and manage learning content from a central repository |
No |
Yes |
|
Reduces
interoperability issues with third party vendors |
No |
Yes |
COMPARISON
BETWEEN AUTHORING TOOLS
There are many authoring systems in the market,
and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Some, for example, are very
good at delivering classical CBT (Computer Based Training), but are not as good
at implementing hypermedia. Others are good at handling text and graphics, but
are less efficient at handling sound and movie. The following section will
focus on differences and between leading authoring systems in the market. Comparison
is made based on their instructional design (if any) and reusability features.
In this paper, we focus on 3 authoring systems, i.e., Designer’s Edge, Elicitus Content
Publisher and Reactor XC. These
tools are chosen because they provide very extensive features in creating and
managing content for the instructor. This review forms the requirements for
developing our OntoID authoring tool.
Designer’s Edge
Designer's
Edge (Figure 2) provides a set of
integrated pre-authoring toolsets and wizard to speed up the analysis, design
and evolution of effective technology-based training (Allen
Communication, 2004). Designer's Edge
performance support approach to instructional design provides a step-by-step
process that speeds productivity, standardises design
and processes across organisations and facilitates
effective design and development for trainers.
Figure 2
Main window of Designer’s Edge
Designer's Edge combined with NetSynergy allows trainers to
export their Designer's Edge's story
board to HTML or JAVA templates for full cross platform delivery on the Web or
corporate Internet. An added advantage is Designer's
Edge Enterprise Edition has their own extension for Dreamweaver to allow Dreamweaver
developers to access Designer's Edge
project design information directly from within Dreamweaver.
There are 12 phases in this authoring tool to
follow in order to create learning content. These are analyse
needs, create mission statement, create audience profile, write objectives, analyse and outline content, create course layout map, define
treatment, select learner activities, create detailed plan, produce media,
author course and evaluate course. Designer’s
Edge also has its own customiser and wizard
editor. Besides its advantages mentioned previously, there are some
disadvantages with this authoring tool. Even though Designer’s Edge has instructional design features in its software,
it does not address the issue of reusability in the authoring of content.
Elicitus
Content Publisher
Elicitus Content Publisher (Figure 3) is another interesting authoring tool
in the market. It is claimed to be an inexpensive authoring tool for quickly
creating e-learning courses. Instructors can create courses using templates and
then can deliver the courses via CD-ROM, Intranet, and Internet or integrate it
with a Learning Management System (LMS). Elicitus enables instructors to publish courses and host them on
their Learning Management System with AICC
or SCORM compliance. This way they
can track their learners' progress closely, and reuse course contents (Elicitus, 2004).
A course can have several learning
units. Each learning unit can have many lessons and each lesson will have topic
pages. The topic pages contain the content of the course. The entire course can
have a multimedia glossary created through Elicitus’s Glossary Builder. A
course can end with an assessment to check the student’s
understanding of the subject. An exercise is an optional component of a
topic page, meant to assess the student’s understanding of the topic. Once an
exercise is attached to a topic page, it will be displayed to the student
before the student goes to the next topic page. The student can quit from the
exercise and go the next topic page without doing the exercise.
Main features of this authoring tool are
Course Outline Editor, Question Bank Editor and Glossary Builder. Besides these
three important features, they also have assessment, import learning object and
templates. Although Elicitus has good
features in creating content, online self assessment and reusability issue is
addressed, it does not have any instructional design features to enable
instructors to plan, design, analyse and evaluate
while they author the content.
Figure 3
Main window of Elicitus
content publisher
Reactor
XC
Reactor
XC (Figure 4) is a content
creation tool for the e-learning industry, offering end-to-end authoring and
distribution with a full range of powerful features that enable instructors to
efficiently produce rich interactive e-learning on any scale. It is compliant
with SCORM 1.2 and fully supports the
core sentiment of “interoperability, accessibility and reusability”. It allows the
user to merge any combination of media and complex data sources such as Microsoft NetMeeting or PowerPoint into interactive learning
experience to be viewed in a standard Web browser (Etiro,
2004).
Reactor XC uses XML and
XHTML to package a powerful
combination of Web-technologies (Etiro, 2004)
·
Microsoft VML for vector graphics
·
Microsoft HTML+TIME for dynamics
·
JavaScript for interactivity
·
SCORM
and Microsoft LRN for course
structure and LMS interfacing
Main features of this authoring tool are course structure, templates, dynamic content and animation, working with LMS and creating interactivity using JavaScript.
Figure 4
Main window of Reactor XC
Similar
with Elicitus,
Reactor XC also does not have any instructional
design feature to enable instructors to plan, design, analyse
and evaluate while they author the content. Nevertheless, they do have reusable
feature.
The above framework and requirements form the basis for our own authoring tool, the OntoID described in the next section. Our focus is not merely on the development of Web pages but rather on the facilitation of the whole instructional design process. Two main aspects are discussed: automating instructional design and reusability.
AUTOMATED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (AID) & REUSABILITY
The design of quality
learning materials depends on two aspects: good instructional design and
easy-to-use Web development tools. Instructional
design can be defined as the “science of
creating detailed specifications for the development, evaluation, and
maintenance of situations, which facilitate the learning of both large and
small units of subject matter” (Richey, 1990). Instructional
design grew out of the systems approach to training developed by the military
during World War II. It was based on the premise that learning should not occur
in a haphazard manner but should be developed in accordance with orderly
processes and has measurable outcomes (Gustafson
& Branch, 1997).
The role of models in
instructional design is to provide conceptual and communication tools that can
be used to visualise, direct, and manage processes
for generating episodes of guided learning. Analysis, design, production, evaluation,
and revision steps are included in virtually all instructional design models
created in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. However, some authors of this period (Hassan, 1978; Merrill, 1981)
used the term instructional development in a much more limited way, typically
to describe only the design element (Gustafson
& Branch, 1997).
Instructional design is
usually very time-consuming and laborious. Two hundred hours of manual
instructional design is required for one hour of instruction (Lippert, 1989). Programming
computer-based instruction requires an even more astounding 500:1 ratio (Bourdeau et al., 1993). A possible solution to both
problems will be to automate instructional design. In such learning
environment, the learner would have maximum flexibility as to what would be
learned, in what sequence, and perhaps in how it was even measured. Automated
instructional design (AID) can be defined as “the processes identified for
manipulating the knowledge objects in a knowledge structure provide the bases
for computer algorithms that can emulate some of the processing done by a
learner” (Merrill, 2000).
The second aspect
addressed in this paper, reusability, revolves around the reuse of codes and
modular programming. Reusability deals with the issue of laborious Web
development, a deterrent to the novice instructor. Reuse-based software engineering
includes three methods (Sommerville, 2000). Firstly is application system
reuse where the entire application system may be reused either by incorporating
it without change into other systems (COTS reuse) or by developing application
families. Secondly is component reuse where components
of an application from sub-system to single objects may be reused. Thirdly is function
reuse where software components that implement a single well-defined
function may be reused (Sommerville, 2000).
The advantages of
reusability are (Sommerville, 2000):
·
increased reliability where components are exercised in a
working system
·
reduced process risk, due to less uncertainty in
development costs
·
effective use of specialists where we reuse the
components instead of people
·
standards
compliance in reusable components, and
·
accelerated development
The major technology
contributing to reusability that is extensively used today is the eXtensible Markup Language (XML). XML is fast
becoming a standard format for Internet/intranet data information
exchange. It serves as an excellent
means for representing data to provide an open, Internet-based integration of
cross-enterprise applications especially in e-learning applications (Lakshmi et al., 2004). How this XML technology will be put into practice and in what fashion it
promotes reusability will be described in the subsequent section.
One of the components of Multimedia Knowledge Base
e-learning (MKBe), an ongoing project developed in
OntoID’s Automated Instructional Design
Automated instructional design helps the
instructor model instructional design systematically. The instructor can create
a new concept, view existing concept, update a concept, remove a concept and add concept from the central repository
(knowledge base) to the OntoID
interface shown in Figure 5. When the instructor wishes to create a new
concept, first he or she will select the lesson or parent concept from the OntoID conceptual
tree. This will indicate the position of the new concept in the tree. Next, the
instructor will provide metadata to the new concept. Metadata involved are
concept name, objectives, pre-requisite concepts, related concepts, media files
and tasks (Figure 6). This new concept will be saved in a knowledge base. To
view existing concepts which are stored in the knowledge base, the instructor
needs to select the concept from the OntoID interface and information corresponding to the
selected concept will be displayed.
Figure 5
Main window of OntoID
Concepts in the concept
tree can be modified and updated by the instructor. He or she has to select
which concept he or she wishes to update, update the concept and save the
updated concept in the knowledge base. Removing a concept from the interface
requires the instructor to choose the concept he or she wishes to remove,
confirm the removal and the chosen concept will be removed.
In addition to creating a new concept, the
instructor can add concepts from the knowledge base. First, the instructor
determines the position of the concept by selecting the lesson or parent
concept. Next, the instructor can specify the course name and concepts related
to the selected course will be retrieved and displayed. The instructor can then
choose the concept and add it to the OntoID tree.
Figure 6
The concept
of metadata
The development in the OntoID authoring tool is
facilitated by its reusable aspect addressed in the following subsection.
Reusability in the OntoID Authoring
Tool
Java is used as the main
language for developing the application and GUIs for the OntoID authoring tool. By combining the Java and XML technologies
when creating application or working with information gives us portability,
well-defined standards, extendibility, Internet compatibility, a variety of
application and very important advantage we have is the option of reusing the
code. We can create both Java
application and XML document using a
modular design, allowing for the reuse of both Java code and XML information.
In reusing Java code and XML information, we break the code into a number of modules, each
of which performs a specific task. For example, in an assessment, we classify
the modules for each type of question so that we can have a question bank. A
question bank is a pool of questions which the instructors key in when they
create an exercise or assessment for their students. Figure 7 shows an example
of creating Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ).
Figure 7 Multiple choice question template
The questions in our
online self assessment based on concept were organised.
Each assessment is tightly integrated with the concept. For example, if the instructor
creates an assessment for an object concept, all the questions together with the
information associated with it will be saved into an object XML file. When the instructor wants to
reuse again questions in the object concept in his or her new concept, he or
she can simply search the question bank (XML
tree). Suitable assessment types (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blanks,
subjective or true/false) and corresponding questions for a particular object
concept will be retrieved. The instructor can either reuse the whole assessment
or choose only particular question(s) that suits his or her new assessment for
a concept. The benefit of having such design is that it facilitates higher
reusability. The instructor can easily
reuse any question and the corresponding information without having to search
the entire question bank.
User Feedback
The usability testing
for a pilot test on 4 respondents was conducted. All of them were given a set
of questions which mainly asked about ID and reusability. From the testing,
essentially about 90% from the respondents did not know and have never heard
about automated instructional design previously. Feedback collected mostly shows that automating
instructional design helped them layout their content very well. They also found that automating instructional
design makes the system more user-friendly and easy to learn, especially in
outlining the concept in the OntoID interface.
Responses from the users also
indicated that our features are understandable and easy to learn. Majority of
them prefer the wizard approach in creating the online self assessment test.
The users are guided by the system step by step in designing the assessment. Having
standard templates for each question type promotes user flexibility and saves
time.
CONCLUSION
The definition and differences between LMS and
LCMS have been discussed in the first part of this paper. Even though they
varied, they support each other very well. When integration is successful,
information between them can be exchanged and shared between each other. We
have emphasised more on the LCMS as it provides a
framework or requirements for the creation of authoring tools. Comparison with commercial
authoring tools has further supported and refined the LCMS framework.
The OntoID authoring tool version 1 meets some of the requirements stated in the LCMS framework which are content creation tools for novice developer and assessment tool for different levels of student and reusability of content. The LCMS framework emphasises on content development. An added value to the OntoID is that it incorporates instructional design with content development. Pilot tests indicate that automating instructional design in the OntoID is not only user-friendly and easy, but reduces development time and cost. With continuous research and review, we hope to further refine the system for user testing on a wider scale and further improve on the OntoID.
REFERENCES
Allen Communication – Designer’s Edge. (2004). http://www.allencomm.com/
Bourdeau J., Junginger S., Kuyper M., Marchall I., Schwab S.
& Sorg B. (1993).
Automating instructional planning. In NATO ASI Series,
Series F. Computer and Systems Sciences,
Vol. 140, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,
pp559-569.
Brandonhall. (2004). http://www.brandonhall.com/public/resources/lms_lcms/
Chapman, B. & Hall, B.
(2001). Learning
content management system: Comparative analysis of systems used to constrct, organize, and re-use learning objects. Bradon-Hall.com report.
Dean C. (2002). An Overview of Authoring Systems and Learning Management Systems
available in the
e-learningsite. (2004). http://www.e-learningsite.com
Elicitus – Elicitus
Content Publisher. (2004). http://www.elicitus.com/
Etiro – Reactor XC. (2004). http://etiro.pro.dir.dk/
Gustafson K. L. & Branch R. M. (1997). Revisioning
models of instructional development. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 45(3), 73-89.
Hassan, N. (1978). A complemental approach to instructional development.
Paper presented at the Congress on Education,
IDC. (International Data Corporation). (2004). http://www.idc.com
Lakshmi E., Shince
T., Davesh, N. & Sarat
C. B. (2004). XML and Component Technology in E-Learning Tool
Development.
Learning Circuits. (2002). http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002
Lippert, R. (1989). Tutors, tools and tutees. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 16(1), 11-19.
Merrill, M. D. (1981). Toward a theory- based approach to instructional
development. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for Education Communications and Technology,
Merrill, M. D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. Paper presented at the IWALT
Palmerston North,
http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/KnowObjMentalModels/tsld030.htm
Netg. (2004). http://www.netg.com/netgnews/Archive/10_02/rightforyou.asp
Rengarajan, R. (2001). LCMS and LMS taking
advantage of tight integration. Click2Learn Internal
Report.
Richey R. C. (1990). The Theoretical and Conceptual Bases of
Instructional Design.