ÍÑ¿ã°É

Abstract

Traditional instructional design models like ADDIE, ASSURE, and the Kemp Design Model were built for a single faculty member designing a single lesson - a linear, sequential process. They don't fit the reality of higher-education online course development, where instructional designers, faculty, program coordinators, and accreditation bodies all collaborate simultaneously across many programs.

After three years of online and hybrid course-redesign work at ÍÑ¿ã°É Bay, the authors propose a comprehensive system organized around five components - Status, Opportunities, Alignment, Development, and Reflection - that occur simultaneously rather than sequentially. The system explicitly accounts for accreditation standards, program requirements, quality assurance (Quality Matters), and the team-based nature of modern instructional design.

Introduction

Instructional design has significantly evolved in recent years. Currently more than 20 different instructional design models or theories have been developed for different situations, environments, and sectors. After World War II, Edgar Dale (1946) established the foundation of instructional design by creating a methodology for organizing instructional hierarchy, which helped inform the more recent empathic and integrated learning design framework (2009).

Models such as ADDIE, Kemp, Dick and Carey, ASSURE, ARCS and Goal Based Scenarios have commonly been referred to as traditional or frequently referenced instructional design models or theories. These models are still relevant to online course design; however, these traditional models or theories were generally designed in a linear fashion with limited feedback loops during the design process. The ADDIE Model and Kemp Design Model are sequential, starting with analysis and proceeding through specific steps toward evaluation. These models have long been regarded as the most practical instructional design theory for new lesson or course development.

In the late 1970s through the early 90s, many scholars focused on how students learn and how learning processes affect course development. These scholars developed theories such as Algo-Heuristic Theory, Conditions of Learning, and Elaboration Theory, designed to incorporate activity that facilitates students' reception of knowledge into the lesson design process. While student learning is an important design aspect, these models often overlook other components like tool compatibility, accreditation standards, and program-level requirements that shape online course development.

A majority of design models are well suited for face-to-face delivery, lesson-based design, or course development where a single faculty or trainer is the designer. For online curriculum development at the program-level or course-level, factors prevent designers from following traditional models like ADDIE. Most online instructional design models are designed for instructors or trainers who are designing for their own course and do not consider other stakeholders in the development process. There is a lack of appropriate models for instructional designers working with faculty and program coordinators to design course-level or program-level curriculum.

The authors come from a campus with over 15,000 FTE, more than 54% of students taking at least one online or hybrid course, and 25% in fully online or hybrid degree programs. The Office of Online Campus is part of Academic Affairs and serves nearly 1,000 faculty. With the demands of QA initiatives, quarter-to-semester conversion, and a small design team handling 20+ courses simultaneously, the team developed a system that accounts for the realities of higher-education instructional design - presented here.

The Online Course Redesign System

The proposed system maintains the spirit of ADDIE, ASSURE, and other design models while considering the ongoing life cycle of course design and development as a sustainable re-growth model. To illustrate this, the authors compare the system to a plumeria flower: the petals blossoming represent the life cycle of course development over time, while the sepal represents the design team's individualized care, support, services, and proactive approach to course rebuilding or redesigning.

The five petals represent the major system design components: Status, Opportunities, Alignment, Development, and Reflection. All components are in no particular sequence and may occur simultaneously - the same way a flower blossoms all at once rather than one petal at a time.

Five components of the system

All five components occur simultaneously throughout the design process. The system explicitly accounts for the team-based, multi-stakeholder reality of modern higher-education instructional design - something traditional linear models don't address.

Conclusion

Based on a review of available instructional design models and significant experience working in collaboration with faculty, the authors propose this revised online course redesign system for instructional designers in higher education. The focal point is an organic life cycle with five components - Status, Opportunities, Reflection, Alignment, and Development - supported by a foundation of design team, faculty, program support, and services working together to develop high-quality online courses for student success. Other universities are encouraged to apply this system or adapt it to their own contexts.

How to cite this work

Correspondence: Roger Wen, Office of the Online Campus, ÍÑ¿ã°É, East Bay, Hayward, CA 94542. Contact: roger.wen@csueastbay.edu

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Bibliography