Month: November 2021

image source

In 1967 Barson introduced the term ‘instructional development’ as a systematic process for improving instruction (as cited in Dousay, 2017). Since its inception, many different methods have evolved that aid instructional design professionals in their approach to the development of learning material. Most instructional design methods include a design phase, a development phase, and often some variation of the popular ADDIE instructional design method which is made up of the following steps: analyze, design, develop, implement, evaluate. Although the popular ADDIE instructional design method is still widely used, many more instructional design methods have since emerged (Dousay, 2017). In this paper I will discuss two instructional design models that have emerged for e-learning, and provide a critical evaluation of both.

The TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact) instructional design model was developed by Robert Moore and publicly presented in 2016. TAPPA is primarily built on an instructional model called the Generic Model for Design Research (GMDR) originally created by Susan McKenney and Thomas Reeves in 2012. The TAPPA model focuses more on the microinstruction strategies (multimedia documents and interactive activities) and is designed to be more suited to e-learning and distance education (Bourdeau & Bates, 1996; Moore, 2016). TAPPA uses concepts from several instructional design models including ADDIE, the Dick and Carey Model, Backwards Design, and the non-linear approach of the Rapid Prototyping model (Moore, 2016). ADDIE and Dick and Carey models are highly focused on the front end, or the design and planning of instructional design, whereas the TAPPA model is more reflective and adaptive, allowing it to be more flexible, a strength when designing predominantly e-learning material as the environment is quite dynamic. (Dick, 1996; Molenda, 2003; Moore, 2016).

The prototype step of the TAPPA model allows for many useable variations to be developed within a short amount of time, and those prototypes to be tested, altered, and varied according to their successes and failures. TAPPA model uses three phases from McKenney and Reeves’ GMDR model: analysis and exploration, design and construction, and evaluation and reflection (Moore, 2016). This also allows the model to be more reactive to follow the ever-changing environment of digital learning material. To put another way, the TAPPA model allows instructional designers a method of quickly putting their work to practice, receiving feedback, and altering their design according to that feedback.

The author chose to develop the TAPPA process using webinars because they were the platform most frequently chosen by the developing school’s faculty (Moore, 2016). Exclusively using webinars provided a large volume of feedback within a short amount of time, and that student feedback was then refed into the development of the TAPPA method. This may have positively selected traits specific to webinars, therefor the TAPPA method may be most useful in a webinar medium and less useful when applied to other digital learning environments such as group collaborative projects, multimodal course content, or large scale instruction. Another limitation of the TAPPA model is that it was designed for use with government officials, and therefore may be more successful with adult learners, or learners with similar environments to government workers receiving webinar instruction (Moore, 2016). The TAPPA model has however, been successfully used in the development of more than 25 webinars and 12 e-learning modules (Moore, 2016). Overall, the TAPPA method is a strong design method that allows for an adaptive and responsive process useful for both novices and experienced practitioners.

The KEMP instructional design model is unique in its design due to its non-linear structure and the interconnectedness of its components. Also known as the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp Model, it was designed by Jerrold Kemp in 1971 (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). The current model is the 8^th edition, adapted from the original, and is made up of 9 key components: instructional problems, learners characteristics, task analysis, instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies, designing the message, instructional delivery, and evaluation instruments (Kurt, 2016). Each component is independent of each other rather than connected in a step by step model; designers can enter into the model at any step or work simultaneously on any number of steps making this a very flexible model to use (Bajracharya, 2020; Kurt, 2016). The cyclic component structure is heavily learner dependent, with a focus on how to improve the learner’s performance rather than learning content (Morrison et al, 2013 as cited in Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). Including a step devoted solely to learner characteristics addresses the uniqueness of the learner, while the ‘instructional problems’ step provides a space for reflection and adaptation. Designing the Message, and Instructional Delivery are steps in the KEMP model that can be easily adapted to include e-learning or digital resources: this model is highly adaptable for online learning instructional design.

Although the KEMP model is highly flexible, it lacks an official start to finish algorithm, possibly making it more challenging for novice instructional designers to ‘dive in’ per say without knowing where to start or having a clear path through the design model (Bajracharya, 2020). The KEMP model focusses on the learner and curriculum design in general rather than on a small lesson plan as previously discussed with the TAPPA model.  The KEMP model does, however, allow for individual instructor strategies and resources by including the steps Instructional Strategies, and Instructional Delivery (Bajracharya, 2020). Both steps can easily accommodate digital resources in an e-learning environment.

Instructional design models aim to help develop learning material that is reproduceable, applicable, and free of individual bias that may occur due to resources or individual instruction methods (Dousay, 2017). Many different instructional design methods are available to choose from, and although it is impossible to remove all bias, matching an instructional design model with the goals, values, and practices of the user is possible if a critical evaluation of the instructional design model is done (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). Each model employs different theories, it is important to carefully analyze the model, especially when designing specifically for e-learning or diverse learners. Using more than one instructional design method may help to decrease the bias and increase the effectiveness of the design, however, an overall critical evaluation of the instructional design being used is important (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020).

References

Bajracharya, J. (2020). Instructional Design and Models: ASSURE and Kemp. Journal of Education and Research. 9(2),1-8. 10.3126/jer.v9i2.30459

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

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

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.)

Heaster-Ekholm, K. L. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: Their Theoretical Roots and Cultural Considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65

Kurt, S. (2016). Kemp Design Model. https://educationaltechnology.net/kemp-design-model/

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

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction. (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

 

When we talk about learning methods or modalities it is natural to assume they are a product of their predecessor, unfortunately for e-learning there is only so much history to build on and most of the time we are pioneering the learning methods as none have previously been defined as applying solely to e-learning. With emerging new technology, we may need to shift our focus and develop new learning methods that have never been seen before. The concepts of learning and teaching that have succeeded in traditional classrooms may or may not be relevant or transferable to an e-learning or distance environment, especially when we consider very recent technologies such as the use of AI. New or old, learning environments must do something that enable people to learn. They need to facilitate some method that makes learning occur, or employ a method for bringing about learning (Dron, 2014). With learning environments changing so quickly, are we keeping up? And has the way we learn changed? Should we radically change the way we look at instructional design?

Rothwell et al (2015) purpose instructional design starts with analyzing human performance problems systematically and responding in a way to find and apply solutions. The increasing use of distance education in healthcare has created a need to blend online learning i.e. open learning or distance online learning, with practical skills instruction. Competencies need to be both understood and displayed, meaning the instructional method needs to be able to satisfy both online and in person environments. The method for selecting an overall instructional design to fit the needs of a healthcare program is a complex ask. My own experience in the use of instructional design in healthcare uses the MPI (Merrill’s principles of instruction) model. Merrill’s design theory centers around a problem or task and integrating the following principles in relation to that task: activation, demonstration, application, and integration. This design strategy applies the simple to complex learning model; students face a problem with their existing knowledge, demonstrate their knowledge, apply it to a scenario, and learn how to integrate that knowledge into a more complex situation. The flexibility of this model allows it to apply to practical scenarios or skills instruction, as well as case studies and academic lessons. I have had success with instruction that follows this method, however there is a reflection principle missing from this model that may be valuable in designing curriculum.

 

Dron, J. (2014). Chapter 9: Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press

Rothwell, W. J., Benscoter, B., King, M., & King, S. B. (2015). Chapter One – An Overview of Instructional Design. In Mastering the Instructional Design Process: A Systematic Approach. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Alternate link