E-Learning Development Project Lifecycle 2: I3D Model
As long ago as 1996, instructional design guru David Merrill et alia asserted that there were indicators to demonstrate that educational instructional design (ISD) had gone awry:
Too much of the structure of educational technology is built upon the sand of relativism, rather than the rock of science. When winds of new paradigms blow and the sands of old paradigms shift; then the structure of educational technology slides toward the sea of constructo-babble.
It was not until the Wright brothers discovered the correct principles of aerodynamics that they could invent an airplane that would sustain powered flight; it is not until we discover the correct instructional strategies that we can invent instructional design procedures and tools that will promote student learning.
(Merrill, Drake, Lacy & Pratt)
The instructional design applied in the Open Environment I propose is quite closely aligned to the model developed by Roderick Sims in the mid-1990’s, and described in his 1997 article Interactive learning as an “emerging” technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies.
[N]o … consensus has been established for interactive learning materials. There appears to be no common set of standards for the learner-computer interface, the strategies for presentation of interactive material is variable and the influx of newer technologies (such as multimedia and web-based resources) have only added to the complexity of developing effective interactive learning materials.
(Sims, 1997)
In this context and to provide a degree of “failover”, I recommend aligning the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional framework (see Figure 1) and Aubrey’s Interactive Instructional Influence Development (I3D) model.
Figure 1. An ISD model featuring the ADDIE processes
The I3D model (see Figure 2) presents a pragmatic approach to the development of courseware, “incorporating elements… of instructional design and project management ” (Sims) through integrating the “…deliverables, techniques and skills of courseware development” (Burford & Cooper, 1997) to enhance the likelihood of developing effective interactive courseware.
Figure 2. Aubrey’s I3D model
[Click image to enlarge]
Aubrey designated the four deliverables in the I3D model as:
- Proposal
- Prototype
- Produce
- Package
which broadly aligns with the development lifecycle advocated in the Open Environment for E-Learning approach.
More next time.
______________
References:
Aubrey, J. (1992). The interactive instructional influence model. Paper presented as part of the requirements for completion of the Graduate Diploma in Computer Based Learning. University of Technology, Sydney.
Burford, S. Cooper, L. (2003). Online development using WebCT: A faculty managed process for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 16(3) [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/burford.html Accessed 16 Apr 2008
Merrill, M.D. Drake, L. Lacy, M.J. Pratt, J. & ID2 Research Group Utah State University (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design Instructional Design Resources [Internet] Available from: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra2/extra2.html Accessed 16 April 2008
Morrison, D. (2003). E-learning Strategies How to get implementation right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sims, R.C.H. (1997). Interactive learning as an “emerging” technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 13(1) 68-84. [Internet] Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet13/sims.html Accessed 16 Apr 2008
–
January 11 2010 03:30 pm | e-learning
4 Responses to “E-Learning Development Project Lifecycle 2: I3D Model”
virginia Yonkers on 11 Jan 2010 at 5:37 pm #
I was waiting to see what this post would be before I commented on this topic. I think you are missing a step. I think there are more questions that need to be answered even before instructional design is addressed (I wrote about this last year in a series I did on integrating elearning in the classroom. However, I use this to teach distance learning whether it is hybrid-blended learning, elearning, or “distance learning”).
Michael Hanley on 12 Jan 2010 at 11:06 am #
Hi Virginia,
In this current series of articles, I’m primarily focusing on the processes of development and production, but you raise a good point in that I probably should have linked to the posts I wrote on defining learner motivation, objectives, and goals, as part of a larger series on instructional design I published back in May 2009.
I think that these two posts here and here cover most (if not all) of the points you make in your post. At some point in 2010, I will write about strategies to garner and maintain support for learning projects in organizations, but I think that such a topic merits a series of its own, rather than being subsumed into a series to which is critically (but slightly tangentially) related.
No harm to remind readers that there’s more to creating learning resources than merely producing them. though…
Michael
–
virginia Yonkers on 13 Jan 2010 at 2:28 pm #
I guess my point was that as you begin to design, those preliminaries will affect your choices, even of the instructional design model you want to use.
I look forward to the series on series of garnering and maintaining support for learning projects in organizations.
Michael Hanley on 13 Jan 2010 at 2:54 pm #
I’m tempted to subtitle that series “…Or the art of schmoozing”!
–