developing online programs with impact

®

Carla Downing, Ph. D. Vice President of Product Development and Academic Support

October 2010

Introduction

At a recent gathering of provosts from across the nation, George Mehaffy, a vice president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, opened a meeting by challenging his colleagues to get serious about the process of change in American higher education. He went on to state, “It is important that we resolve to make substantive change —major changes, not changes around the margins—and that we do so with a fierce sense of urgency" (Lederman 2010).

Most adults over a certain age accept the fact that change is inevitable. However, change takes on a whole new meaning when you’re the person responsible for leading, managing, and ensuring the lasting impact of the changes being made. And, while you’d be hard pressed to find a well-informed supporter of the status quo, few are optimistic that easily implemented solutions are available to address the string of issues facing American higher education. However, many institutions of higher education are finding that partnerships are instrumental in the development of innovative, research-based, online learning solutions.

The IMPACT® Model for eLearning

Though the origin of the field of instructional systems design (ISD) can be traced back to the 1950s and the need for programmed instruction during World War II (Reiser 1998), ISD has not been widely accepted as the model by which traditional classroom-based instruction should be developed. However, it has been accepted and embraced by the corporate learning sector as the standard by which all learning material should be measured (Kemp, Morrison, and Ross 1998). Instructionally sound design of learning material is the goal of every educator at all levels; but few employ the principles and methods required to ensure their learners enjoy an instructionally sound experience. Why is this?

The answer lies in the fact that the success of a learning experience, in military and corporate settings, is determined by such things as how effectively and efficiently content can be learned and implemented, as well as how quickly the organization will see a return on the investment of the dollars spent on the learning experience. While such measures are not always at the forefront of traditional education, there are important principles and methods that have evolved out of the use of ISD that provide a more instructionally sound learning experience no matter the setting. Whether addressing the skills required to write a term paper, deliver a speech, or design a simulation of a manufacturing process, all learners deserve to learn using methods that best teach the skill and meet their individual learning needs.

A vast collection of journal articles, reports, and texts can be found to support the notion that there are valuable benefits to using a learning management system to deliver

1 Copyright ©2010, The College Network, Inc. All rights reserved.

instructional content and monitor the learning process. However, it’s likely that even after reviewing the research findings and reports available on the successes and failures of online learning, there are several questions that remain unanswered regarding the design, development, and implementation of a successful online program. Too few of the articles available provide step-by-step guidelines for implementation of a program that improves the quality of the instructional process, increases learner satisfaction, improves content mastery, and helps manage faculty workload through use of technology. Let’s examine a few of the strengths of online learning within the framework provided by The College Network’s IMPACT® model for development of successful online courses/programs. The IMPACT®model provides insight and best practices in six different areas where issues and missteps commonly occur in the development of online courses and programs.

n d

ividualized Learning

easurable Results

edagogy, Andragogy

, and SCORM

ppealing to Faculty/Subject Matter Experts

ognitive Support Strategies

echnology Based (not driven)

Individualized Learning

One of the most valuable benefits of online instruction is that courses can be designed and developed so that a learner can use resources based on how he or she learns. A report published by the U.S. Department of Education shared research findings to support the notion that allowing learners to control the learning experience through technology-based options improves learning (U.S. Department of Education 2009). While learners do not need to be offered seemingly unlimited options, the types of options offered should be determined by learner characteristics such as learning style or cognitive style. Since learning style generally receives much more attention than cognitive style, let’s focus on how an understanding of cognitive style can lend itself to the development of environments that support individualized learning.

NOTE: There’s much discussion regarding the accommodation of learning styles but far less understanding of the role of cognitive style in the development of an online learning experience. In addition to a learner’s sensory preferences for taking in the information (learning style), learners must also consider their cognitive or structural preferences as well as how they perceive different amounts of information (cognitive style).


When learners encounter new learning material, they generally want to approach in one of two ways—either they initially want to understand the big picture, or they prefer to focus on the details first. Those whose cognitive style is more global than analytical will probably want a high level of the situation before being presented the details. On the contrary, a person who is more analytic in nature may prefer to know the details first and then build to the big picture. Generally speaking, this directly corresponds to cognitive styles in which learning/understanding is involved.

Learners with a global cognitive style may want to read an overview or introduction to a topic first. Then they might go back and learn the key terms, concepts, etc. necessary to master the content. The analytic learner, however, may prefer to learn key terms first and then move on to key concepts. While in the past some researchers argued that one style was better than the other, today it is more generally accepted that as long as the learner can regulate the learning experience to meet his or her needs, both styles are readily found in successful learners.

The flexibility of today’s technology allows us to create environments in which the individual needs of a variety of learners can be readily addressed independent of learning style, cognitive style, social preferences, comfort with technology, personal/family schedules, or the availability of instructors. The extent to which we can combine faculty expertise, instructional systems design methodologies, and effective use of the technology available to facilitate, monitor, and evaluate learning will determine the extent to which a learning experience can be individualized. In a well-designed learning environment, learners with vastly different learning styles can study the same course material but tailor their approach to the content in a manner that best suits their cognitive style and learning style.

Measurable Results

The use of behavioral objectives is powerful from both the learning and teaching perspectives. From the learner’s perspective, a goal is always more effectively and efficiently reached if the goal is clearly understood (Gagne, Briggs, and Wager 1992). In an instructional situation, the behavioral objective is a statement that outlines what learners must do to demonstrate that they have reached the goal set forth in the lesson. From the instructor’s perspective, a behavioral objective clearly defines the behavior that must be exhibited by the learner to demonstrate mastery of the content. All too often that is where conversation ends when it comes to use of behavioral objectives.

The importance of behavioral objectives should be examined from several perspectives when developing coursework. Let’s use an analogy to explore the importance of behavioral objectives as they function similarly to the core of the human body—the many muscles that connect the stomach, back, and hips of the human form and provide


balance, stability, and support. It’s widely accepted among athletes and workout enthusiasts that exercises that focus on the core improve performance and reduce injuries (Purton 2007).

In studying equitation, one learns the importance of the core when learning to control the horse with ever-so-slight movements of shoulders, arms, fingers, and especially legs. The same is true of behavioral objectives when developing a course. An ever-so-slight change to a course’s objectives can make the difference between learners feeling they have been served well versus feeling they have merely been provided with useful information.

Figure 1: The Role of Behavioral Objectives

A strong set of behavioral objectives provides a solid core for each lesson in a course and ensures that program competencies, course outcomes, lesson objectives, and evaluations work together to strengthen the effectiveness of the learning experience. When developed in alignment with program and course competencies/outcomes, behavioral objectives guarantee that course materials support the successful achievement of the competencies/outcomes necessary for the learner to successfully complete the course/program (Figure 1). As such, when instructional strategies and evaluations are developed in alignment with behavioral objectives, it confirms that only those who master the necessary skills, concepts, and principles successfully complete each course and advance in the program. Effective use of behavioral objectives ensures that each test item of each course included in a program is actually measuring the learner’s mastery of the necessary material.

Pedagogy, Andragogy, and SCORM

Generally, pedagogy is still the term used to describe the methods and techniques used in the development of instructional content or learning experiences for children, while


andragogy is the term used to describe the methods and techniques used in the development of instructional content or learning experiences for adults. However, the assumptions upon which these theories are based are more widely attributed to cognitive style and individual differences than simply the age of the learner (Knowles 1980).

Consider the following basic andragogical and pedagogical assumptions put forth by Knowles in his text, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (1980).

Pedagogical Assumptions Andragogical Assumptions Learner takes a dependent approach to learning

Learner takes an independent/self-directed approach to learning

Learner does not have much personal experience upon which he or she can draw when reflecting on learning content

Learner has many experiences through which learning is filtered, making it more personally meaningful

Learner views education as a process of acquiring subject matter content

Learner views education as a process of developing increased competence

Combining the use of pedagogical and andragogical strategies is a manageable option through the use of SCORM (sharable content object reference model). SCORM has been used in corporate environments to facilitate, monitor, and evaluate learning for quite some time. By integrating use of SCORM-compliant packages into an online course, a learner’s level of dependence/independence can be better supported. This can be achieved using several strategies such as increasing the number of examples available to assist those with fewer life experiences or providing material that focuses on the importance of developing competence.

From the higher education perspective, the power of SCORM is found in that it allows for the needs of the learner and the requirements of the course or program to be met. With the use of SCORM, learners can function as dependently or independently as they choose, due to the fact that additional options can be provided to help learners make meaningful connections as they build their knowledge base. By using an online course development model that combines both andragogical and pedagogical methods, the course becomes more effective in its ability to meet the needs of a wide variety of learners. In fact, through combined use of andragogical strategies, pedagogical strategies, and SCORM, the experience can be customized by the learner based on how the learner learns best.

As seen in Figure 2, the combination of effective technology (SCORM), ISD, and faculty support/expertise creates the ideal learning experience for learners of varying cognitive styles, learning styles, communication and social preferences, and ability levels. According to the U.S. Department of Education report published in 2009 on


evidence-based practices in online learning, “available research evidence suggests that promoting self-reflection, self-regulation, and self-monitoring leads to more positive online learning outcomes.” This shouldn’t be at all surprising since research findings in the areas of adult learning and neuroscience also support the notion that reflection and metacognitive strategies lead to more positive learning outcomes in general; that is, independent of the medium used to deliver the instruction (Zull 2006; Knowles, Holton, Swanson 2005).

Figure 2: The Ideal Learning Experience

Appealing to Faculty/Subject Matter Experts

Being able to deliver more quality learning experiences with fewer resources seems to be the recurring topic of discussion at colleges and universities nationwide. Is it possible to do more with less? What role can technology play in achieving more with less?

For the most part higher education in America hasn’t changed much since the founding of the Colonial Colleges beginning in 1636 when it comes to delivery of information and who’s at the center of the teaching/learning process. Although it doesn’t feel good as an


educator to say these words, what takes place in the learning setting is often focused more on the educator than the student, which is odd since we know that learning takes place in one’s mind, not the classroom per se.

There is certainly a time and place when all eyes and ears should be focused on the professor, whether virtually or in a traditional classroom. However, allowing individual learners to learn as they learn best via a system that can deliver, monitor, and evaluate that learning according to the needs of the learner can only be a good thing, right? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” But again, too often the conversation stops there without addressing the fact that once you implement a course design model and system to accommodate the individual needs of learners, faculty members can enjoy the benefits of a more focused impact on the overall quality of the learning experience. This can be achieved by allowing faculty to bring their subject matter expertise to the forefront of the teaching experience and ensure that mastery occurs at appropriate cognitive levels

Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario I

Samantha Griffin is at the top of her professorial game. She’s the type of faculty member chairs and deans wish they could clone. She’s not only talented, collegial, and conscientious but also highly motivated and a team player. Students love taking her classes.

The Problem—Samantha is an integral part of a phenomenal program that is growing exponentially. She teaches core courses for the program and now her courses are gaining the attention of students completing other degree programs. Samantha and her colleagues want to be able to open up her classes to other students. However, they want to ensure that they continue to serve their students with the utmost care and attention. How can they take advantage of such a wonderful opportunity for their department to gain campus-wide attention without overloading Samantha or disserving her students?

Scenario II

Darryl Norton is another top-notch faculty member on the opposite side of campus. He approached earning tenure with such focus that he actually made it look easy. Now that he has tenure under his belt, he’s in a position to explore some extremely prestigious international opportunities.

The Problem—Darryl’s department chair has always told him that once he earned tenure he’d be happy to help Darryl take advantage of some of the opportunities coming his way; after all, Darryl’s success is good for the


department and university as well. However, now that the time has come for him to be able to make good on his commitment, his chair finds himself faced with the resignation of another member of Darryl’s specialization team. He can’t lose both of them during the same semester—even if one loss is temporary. How can he make this work for Darryl, the department, and the students?

Scenario III

So many first-year students show up on campus in need of remediation in one or more of the basics. Many of them struggle initially but find ways to keep their heads above water through use of campus-based tutorial services or private tutors. However, the student support infrastructure was not designed to provide so much assistance to so many for so long and now some of the services appear to be caving in under the added pressure. There must be a method for addressing the needs of these students while meeting the criteria set forth by the interdepartmental committee responsible for examining the situation and providing suggestions.

Different variations on these scenarios arise every day on campuses across the nation. The College Network can provide proven methods to increase learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, and the instructional viability of both online and traditional courses so that more students can be effectively served without overtaxing the faculty members or reducing the quality of the education provided. Imagine being able to increase the number of students enrolled in a course while also providing a more individualized learning experience.

Cognitive Support Strategies

Educational researchers have relied on an empirical approach to the design and improvement of instruction for centuries. As far back as the 1600s, Comenius suggested that inductive methods be used to analyze and improve the instructional process (Reiser 1989). Again, “in the mid 1800s Johann Herbart, a German educator, suggested that scientific research be used to guide instructional practice” (Travers 1962).

Our appreciation for research-based instructional methods grew in the 1900s with focused emphasis being achieved in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, the use of increasingly sophisticated technology in the study of instructional methods has opened entirely new dimensions for being able to monitor and examine learning behavior as it relates to cognitive load and support strategies. Unfortunately, at the same time, the ease of which information can be added to an online course has led to the seemingly unlimited inclusion of articles, YouTube videos, and other randomly


added components that may do more to distract than support learners. This wreaks havoc on the cognitive faculties of learners. When one considers the role of managing content in the self-directed learning process, an understanding of cognitive load is of particular importance.

Consider the following questions based on the work of Clark and Mayer (2008):

1. How much information can an individual handle in one lesson, module, or unit? 2. Does layout of the information affect what takes place in the learner’s mind? 3. Will the instructional components included in the lesson be attended to differently

based on cognitive load preferences and cognitive style?

How an educator/designer responds to these three questions during the design and development of online course material will have a measurable impact on the ability of learners to efficiently master the instructional content. According to research, we can support the generation of new neural networks and strengthen existing ones by designing learning experiences that facilitate learning. Educators can actually design instructional content in a manner that leads to change in a learner’s brain (Zull 2002, Iverson 2009).

Technology Based, Not Driven

Too often we focus on the ways in which technology decreases human interaction rather than how it can improve human interaction. After all is said and done, it’s important to keep in mind that technology should not be the focal point of the learning experience but rather the foundation upon which individualized, instructionally sound learning experiences are based. But what does that mean and how do we ensure that this is actually the case?

Here’s a few of the basic tenets utilized by TCN to ensure the effective use of technology in online learning:

Align all technology with an instructional goal (stated differently—integrate only those technological options that support or facilitate cognitive processing of information). Get a well-qualified instructional technologist to work with you as you consider the pros and cons of different technological features.

Increasing the timeliness and quality of feedback is a great reason to integrate more technology into online and traditional courses. There is a substantial pool of research available to help with best practices in this area of design/development.


Don’t be too quick to compromise from the instructional perspective. You can have it all more often than the IT team wants you to believe. The instructional integrity of a course or program is worth fighting for (if necessary).

It’s widely accepted that 40 to 65 percent of a given learner population will have a preference toward visual content (vuDAT 2009, Silverman 2005, Reed 2007). That being said, it is important to design learning environments and content that learners want to look at/interact with for long periods of time. The insight gained from the body of research on the visual design of learning environments should be integrated into all online learning projects; be sure to include a graphic/visual designer on your project team who understands everything from white space to the use of color and reading patterns.

Conclusion

The College Network has developed courses for adult learners based on the IMPACT model discussed throughout this paper. The model allows for better student outcomes by allowing learners to acquire knowledge in the way that is best suited for their individual behavioral and learning styles. Courses developed using the IMPACT model are ideal for institutions seeking a curriculum or individual courses that have the most beneficial student results with the least amount of faculty development effort.

The American Council on Education’s College Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT) has evaluated and recommended college credit for 45 of The College Networks courses. The American Council on Education, the major coordinating body for all the nation's higher education institutions, seeks to provide leadership and a unifying voice on key higher education issues and to influence public policy through advocacy, research, and program initiatives.

For more than 30 years, colleges and universities have trusted ACE CREDIT to provide reliable course equivalency information to facilitate their decisions to award academic credit. For more information, visit the ACE CREDIT website at http://www.acenet.edu/acecredit

By using The College Network’s IMPACT learning solution, not only will you receive access to the 45 courses recommended for ACE CREDIT, but an instructor module will provide your faculty with full control over the course content and student interaction as well. We also offer several options for customizing the learning environment to meet your specific university needs.

Contact The College Network for more information regarding this opportunity or visit our web site to learn more about our organization. www.collegenetwork.com


http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About1

http://www.acenet.edu/acecredit

http://www.collegenetwork.com/

Sources

Clark, R. C. 2008. Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance improvement. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Clark, R. C., and R. E. Mayer. 2008. eLearning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Clark, R., F. Nguyen, and J. Sweller. 2006. Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Gagne, R. M., ed. 1987. Instructional technology: Foundations. New York: Routledge.

Gagne, R. M., L. J. Briggs, and Wagner. 1992. Principles of instructional design.

Gagne, R. M. and Glaser, R. 1987. In Gagne 1987, Chapter 3.

Reiser, Robert A. 1987. Instructional technology: A history. In Gagne 1987, Chapter 2.

Iverson, K. M. 2009. The write brain: How to educate and entertain with learner-centered writing. Performance Improvement 48(7).

Knowles, M. 1980. The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Book Company.

Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., Swanson, R.A. 2005. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Lederman, D. 2010. Putting it to provosts. Inside Higher Education, August 2.

Morrison, G. R., S. M. Ross, and J. E. Kemp. 1998. Designing effective instruction. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.

Purton, J. 2007. The core of the matter. Runner’s World, May 2. http://www.runnersworld.com/article/1,7124,s6-393-394--11878-0,00.html (accessed September 14, 2010).

Reed, S. 2007. Learning your way. trainingmagazine.com (accessed September 14, 2010).

Silverman, L. K. 2005. Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon Publishing, Inc.


Travers, R. M. W. 1962. A study of the relationship of psychological research to educational practice. In Training research and education, ed. R. Glaser. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

U.S. Department of Education. 2009. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

vuDAT. 2009. vuDAT.msu.edu/learning_styles (accessed September 13, 2010).

Zull, J. E. 2002. The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
