Instructional design literature for distance learning usually presents an approach deploying multi-disciplinary teams in course development. This model has been used extensively at distance learning universities for course and program development. Unfortunately, conventional instructional design views often ignore the role of the instructional designer when that designer is the sole course team member (i.e. the faculty member engaging in all functions of the process). Some conditions suggest that a single faculty-driven model may be a preferable to the team design approach. This article compares these two approaches to determine what those implementation conditions might be. The context for analysis is three online graduate degree programs in two disciplinary areas. The comparison of the team-based and faculty-driven approaches results in a discussion of design considerations for online education, graduate distance education, and the expanded faculty roles in design.
Introduction
The proliferation of online degree programs in the last several years accentuates the importance of distance education methods, systems, and design (Coldeway & Spencer, 1995; Erdelyi et al., 2001). The design lens is usually fixed on team-based approaches. However, an emerging faculty-driven design model hints of an equally dynamic approach to course and program development.
This article examines the team-based and faculty driven approaches in the context of graduate education. A description of the variables that impact team-based instructional design are reviewed and discussed. Next, the faculty-driven approach to course and program design is analyzed as an alternative model to the team approach. The article concludes with a discussion of the expanded concept of instructional design for distance education informed by these models. The discussion is complemented with a description of the many roles and tasks required of instructional designers (or faculty serving as instructional designers).
Graduate Level Objectives
Most faculty teaching at the graduate level would agree that graduate programs and courses have at least two major goals. First, the programs must be capable of meeting course and program objectives as represented by the field of study. Second, a series of objectives that both interact and go beyond the content objectives must also be met. These objectives include the following:
Interpersonal interaction
Group work
Written prose
Analytical and interpretative skills
Facility with distance delivery systems
Use of outside resources for learning and instruction
Presentation and discussion skills
Taken together, the above list suggests offering courses that cover only content is necessary but not sufficient at the graduate level. Moreover, in some cases, going beyond the fixed curriculum is sometimes more important than what is covered in course materials (i.e. thesis, project, and independent study activity).
Graduate course objectives and goals change the instructional design activities required for preparing both courses and programs. An instructor or instructional designer working at the graduate level must consider the following: sufficient analysis of learner needs, course materials meet minimum instructional design requirements, faculty readiness to teach at a distance, and a clear understanding of instructional technology for design and delivery of courses.
Coldeway and Hawkes (2001) discussed alternative ways by which distance-delivered graduate programs and their courses are designed and decisions regarding delivery of those courses are made. Using a somewhat simplified dichotomy, they suggest that instructional design decisions and resulting instructional development plans are accomplished in two distinct approaches. The details of this dichotomy and an evaluation of implementation results form the basis for a comparison, stipulating that the role of faculty, combined with distance delivery infrastructure and support for instructional delivery, come together to form a model for graduate education instructional design and delivery at a distance. Given that the instructional design role is often confounded with the faculty member's role in course design and delivery, a brief discussion of design basics precedes the comparison.
The Basics of Instructional Design in Distance Education
At the genesis of technology-supported distance education (DE), instructional designers were frustrated by their role in the course design and development process. This frustration was attributed to general confusion regarding their role in the wide scope of instructional design (ID). Most master's- and doctoral-level trained instructional designers learned the importance of systems thinking in the process of creating a learning environment. Their systems view, often referred to as instructional systems design (ISD), dealt with much more than the writing of objectives, organization of instructional materials, and helping with practice and test construction. In fact, the ISD process deals with every aspect of the teaching and learning process, beginning with content and learner analysis and continuing in a cybernetic fashion through instructional implementation (i.e., course delivery) and evaluation. Based on this ISD expertise, ID experts worked with content experts in subject matter they did not fully understand. This was important, because high-level ID expertise was not necessarily in the repertoire of a majority of content experts. Moreover, it was not, and currently is not clear that those responsible for distance delivery of courses have all the requisite skills required (hence the team approach used in many DE institutions that purport to span the spectrum of the ISD approach). Graduate programs at a distance emerged with differing views on the source, and sometimes importance, of instructional design and distance learning expertise in their efforts to design and deliver courses and programs. In an effort to characterize these differences, two approaches used in graduate course and program design are described in the following sections.
Characteristics of Two Distance-Delivered Graduate Programs
The Team-Based Design
The team-based design approach is somewhat typified by the large course teams represented by broad-scale distance educational institutions (e.g., the UK Open University). In these large scale approaches, a team of experts is assembled to plan, design, develop, produce, and eventually deliver the course. A conventional list of team participants include the following:
Subject matter expert (faculty expert)
Instructional designer
Editor
Team manager (may be one of the above or someone else, usually someone responsible for the program)
Graphics and media designer
Webmaster
Library consultant
Outside reviewer (someone to provide quality control over content and design)
The merits and difficulty of the team-based approach to course and program design are illustrated in the development of graduate programs at two distinctly different universities. The Athabasca University Master of Distance Education Degree (MDE) Program (Alberta, Canada) began in the mid-1990s using a team approach that varied in composition, depending upon the experience and expertise of the faculty subject matter expert. Given that core faculty in the program are fairly experienced instructional designers, they often serve as both content and design experts in the development of new courses. Quality control involved a two-stage review process in which stage one calls for the review of the course blueprint by all university departments and individuals having a stake in the course. The purpose of this process is to appraise the course design draft before faculty is released to work on the full-scale version of the course. Stage two of the process invites experts to assist in various stages of the development, production, and delivery of the course as required. Computer programming experts, library technicians, media designers and artists, and support/management personnel are involved in a majority of courses that are eventually delivered to the MDE students at a distance.
This two-stage review process results in a physically and academically consistent product. Moreover, plans for delivery of that product are clearly understood before delivery begins. When outside faculty are used as instructors, they are typically given instructional packages and systems to use in the course. This level of quality control is atypical of conventional university courses at any level, but very consistent with large-scale distance educational delivery, especially at experienced distance education universities (e.g., in this case an educational institution with a 30-year history of distance education delivery without on-campus students).
A second approach to distance-delivered graduate education illustrating the team design model is the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son's Master of Engineering Professional Practice (MEPP) Program. MEPP began course delivery in the late 1990s. Although vastly different in content and structure from Athabasca University's MDE program, it shares some similar team design characteristics.
The MEPP program has a fixed curriculum that all students take in sequence over a two-year period. Such progression makes it possible to identify all courses in the program, select faculty experts to design the course, and set up teams to help in the overall process. In this approach, the instructional design experts are not content experts (with limited exception). The design team consists of a compliment of the following:
A faculty expert (in limited case more than one)
An instructional design expert
An editor
A Webmaster or computer consultant (not a full-time team member, but used as needed)
A team manager (the MEPP program director was an active team member in most courses)
Support staff as needed
Student counselor as a team member upon request (usually working on the entire program issues)
The MEPP program also uses a unique version of quality control. Each course is designed by the team and then tested with a comparable group of students before being offered in the regular curriculum to MEPP graduate students. This developmental test is useful for several reasons:
Design teams achieve a sense of the quality of instruction
Teams appreciate the volume and complexity of content
Faculty members (not typically an expert in DE) gains skills in the delivery of distance instruction before the actual course is offered
Dress rehearsal for technical and logistical problems can take place in preparation for problems students and faculty might encounter
Homework, assignment, and exam structures can be piloted in a way that doesn't affect regularly enrolled program students
The team process, coupled with the developmental test approach, proved extremely valuable to the MEPP program success. The results of this approach suggest the following design considerations:
The design team cannot anticipate all problems with the course before testing
Teams are very good at finding problems and correcting them before testing and after testing for the regular course offering
Team management is crucial, and having the program director as manager helped when persons in varying locations with varying needs were involved in a complex design process.
Both of the above programs utilizing a team design approach benefit from the expertise of team participation. However, in some cases the team complexity and interpersonal issues became difficult to deal with in day-to-day operations. It should be noted that in much of the above MDE and MEPP course design, team members are not working together in the same location. The value of working at a distance proved important, and communications systems such email, conferencing, and audio teleconferencing play a key role in all aspects of this work. When team members could meet in real time in the same location, issues such as team rapport, effective use of time, and future planning became important objectives.
Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Not always, especially when the above cases suggest the team approach can be effective when strong leadership, clear objectives, and substantial resources are available. But, when faculty lacking in DE experience take control of the design and delivery process, large-scale problems can arise. That does not suggest, however, that faculty alone cannot drive the design process.
Faculty-Driven Design
Faculty-driven design puts the instructor in the roles of the subject matter expert, the course designer, manager, and implementer. Very often in online programs, the faculty model requires the instructor to be the graphic artist, Web page designer and, occasionally, the programmer too. On the outset, the prospect of the “lone ranger” faculty as distance educator seems hazardous. But, this model may be necessary, or attractive—depending on the circumstances—when one of two conditions exists: when there is a lack of availability of experts with supplemental design skills, or when a faculty possesses the required development skills. For Dakota State University's (DSU) graduate program in educational technology, both conditions are present at some level.
Dakota State University built its masters degree program in educational technology on several foundational characteristics of the faculty design model. DSU is an institution specializing in programs in computer management, computer information systems, and other related undergraduate and graduate programs. The pervasive technological culture provides a solid foundation for a graduate degree in educational technology. And, since online courses have been provided by DSU since 1989, the delivery of a graduate program in the late 1990s was a natural evolution.
When the process of institutional application, self-study, and external review finally led to program approval, faculty scheduled to deliver program courses began the course development process with departmental review of their syllabi. Faculty course developers have extensive disciplinary knowledge and instructional design skill, and more than a general knowledge of Web site development, the use of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools, and online pedagogy. Given these tools, faculty work independently through the processes of course planning and course Web site development. Occasionally, technical expertise from campus computing support is provided. With a predetermined time set for course delivery, faculty aimed to reach those due dates. Courses were delivered, and processes and tools were often experimented with as the course progressed. Faculty pressed for real-time feedback from their students and often instituted revisions “on the fly.”
The mostly K-12 educator and business trainer client base made for a tough audience on which to test the faculty-driven model. Yet, evaluation data collected over the first few years of program show some interesting results from both the student and faculty experience. These results are summarized in the points below:
Short timelines to course development and implementation are usually observed
Formative course evaluation information from students is rapidly transitioned into the course to improve the learner experience
Course activities and communication modalities customized to students’ unique skills and interests result in high student satisfaction
Faculty as the primary source for addressing most content, pedagogical, and technical problems keeps student frustration low
Flexibility to manage course pacing, scope, depth, interaction, and media partially offsets the pressure of an increased workload faculty feel in delivering an online course
As attractive as faculty-driven distance delivery of courses is, distance-delivered courses continue to remain extremely time-consuming even when repeated delivery of the same course provides content and process familiarity.
Do too few cooks make the banquet a one-course meal? The evaluation data indicate probably not. Neither should the faculty-driven model of course development be regarded as the default model. Because the faculty-driven approach is the one-stop help center for content, assessment, technical, and procedural questions, it may in some cases be preferred if faculty have the necessary skills.
Design Considerations for Online, Graduate Distance Education
It's a broad generalization to describe the contrast between team-based and faculty-driven approaches to online program development as one typifying the team-based approach as mostly concerned with quality control and course standardization, while the faculty-driven model values short development timelines enhanced by the quick turnaround of formative feedback. Still, that simplification will have to suffice, because the key findings resulting from this analysis indicates that a fundamental understanding of the following instructional design principles for online programs at this level is useful, necessary, and relevant to both models. It is also important to note that these considerations are not often represented in conventional graduate course and programs, but take on added importance in programs at a distance with adult learners participating.
Needs and learner analysis. Numerous traits differentiate learners. An important design task is to identify significant characteristics that will lead to the acquisition of the learning objectives. Because online graduate-level learners are adults who are returning to higher education the working environment, there are several points to keep in mind. Adult learners have a high level of motivation to learn and appreciate a program that clearly articulates requirements and objectives. Adult learners have a high need to know how the content will benefit them, and will test that content in their work environments. They bring extensive experience from personal and working lives and feel less restrained than young adults in sharing that information. Adults also seek flexibility in their learning experiences, which requires some level of shared decision making in the class environment.
Content and Task Analysis. The selection of appropriate and relevant content and eventual task performance at the graduate level is often difficult. Moreover, given the published nature of syllabi and requirements, faculty are compelled to spend more time on content analysis and determining relevant measurement of content and skill acquisition than on truly engaging the students in a professionally developmental experience. Quality design, often facilitated with outside instructional design assistance, can help avoid the fixation on objectives and assessment. However, as was described earlier, in some cases that outside assistance is simply not available.
Media selection and design. There is no shortage of Web site development standards. These standards are driven by good graphic design as well as the ergonomics of computing. Yet, just a few key design attributes of student/Web site interface pay large dividends. Students value minimum depth access to information. Server log files linked to courses show that resources requiring students to wade through several layers of Web pages see very little use. In all practicality, students prefer longer lists and menus to deeper layered sites. This principle holds true when designing for user diversity (desktops, TV, handhelds, etc.). Usability-focused Web-based course resources also suggest that commercial electronic course development products (WebCT, BlackBoard) have less appeal to DE students than self-developed and maintained Web sites. While commercial products may be more advantageous for the less technologically literate faculty to use, commercial products also fail to accommodate and support complete user-controlled navigation.
The use of graphics should be as robust as can reasonably be made. Jonassen (2000) presents graphics as visualization tools that have immense power to convey meaning and communicate a set of beliefs. Yet, for low-bandwidth users, quality visuals can be a problem to access. A good guiding rule is to use visuals, media and other communication tools to improve the comprehensibility of ideas, and when they directly contribute to key ideas of the instruction. Designers should match graphics specifically to the context in which they are being used. Finally, message redundancy, using various forms of communication to reduce the event of overlooked content or key ideas, should be dutifully practiced.
Practice, feedback, and cybernetic systems within courses and programs. Often undergraduate-level courses use unit activity and exams to determine performance levels and recommend remediation. Given the less structured nature of many graduate-level courses, this form of design is often inappropriate. In contrast, methods that allow adult students to learn skills, demonstrate learning, and even add to the content knowledge base generate best results.
Smaller units of instruction with built-in evaluation. The distance learner is generally viewed as studying in isolation. Theories of distance learning have suggested that bridging this isolation through social interaction is essential to successfully engaging the remote learner. Because learners will use varying approaches to their study, depending on the their unique views and skills, Wheeler (2000) suggests interactions should be multi-modal. This analysis of team-based and faculty-driven development models supports this assertion and adds that increased interaction can be achieved by designing instruction into smaller segments that require asynchronous and synchronous reactions from the learner on a more frequent basis. The interaction itself can be formatively evaluative in determining the adequacy of the content, the practicality of the design, and the progress of the learner.
Discussion and interaction. Clark (1998) identified four different instructional styles (receptive, directive, guided discovery, and exploratory) that shed light on possible instructional architectures. The receptive style puts the learner in a passive role as end-user, for instance, of lecture material or Web site narrative. Directive instruction applies a very programmed mode of interaction like a computer-based tutorial, for instance, in which iterative cycles of information presentation are followed by installments of structured feedback experiences. Guided discovery is similar to the “hands-on” instructional strategy of primary-school-ers, in which the learner is encouraged to manipulate elements of his or her environment. Exploratory instruction poses issues and problems that require the learner to format and address using the array of networked and tangible resources at their disposal.
In explaining the interaction between instructional architectures and learner characteristics, Clark suggests that a directive style is more appropriate for novice learners, while guided discovery may be more appropriate for more experienced learners, and the exploratory style more suited to expert learners. Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) contend the same by citing studies that show that cognitive-flexible learners do better in a guided discovery or exploratory style. The characteristics of the adult learner, coupled with information about preferred learning styles, and our experience in developing and delivering online coursework at three institutions confirms a guided discovery or exploratory style appears best matched to adult-learner, graduate level needs. This approach suits the adult learners’ experientially wide knowledge base and the flexibility, independence, and applicability of content they desire in a course of study. The approach requires an instructor who is fully knowledgeable about the subject and who has the skills to provide an adaptive learning environment.
Going beyond stated objectives through interaction. Objectives guide the learner, they provide a framework for evaluating student learning, and they offer a means for both instructional designer and teacher to select and organize instructional activities and resources that will facilitate effective learning. Our experience in developing instructional activities for online learners suggests that both the team and faculty approach view instructional objectives as a beginning, not an end. Learners value opportunities that allow them to linger on a subject of interest as long as the discussion remains relevant to the goals of the course. This type of interaction with content and peers is especially pertinent to expert-style learners for whom design flexibility is critical.
Meta-objectives (writing, numeracy, clarity, analytical skills, search strategies, library use, etc.). Often referred to as standards for graduate level work, these meta-objectives are often as important as content objectives in graduate courses. However, some of these require careful planning for distance delivery and evaluation.
Expanded Faculty Roles in DE Design
Whether a part of the team or working alone, online delivery of courses requires familiar and unfamiliar roles of the faculty-developer. These roles are identified and discussed as they emerge from the study of course development experiences in which both the team and faculty-driven models are applied.
Designer as editor and reviewer of work. Few faculty or designers are specifically trained to effectively function as text editor and content reviewer. Although many experienced instructional designers have developed editorial skills and can write effectively, they are not trained editors.
Optimal team-based design approaches employ an editor to increase the level and quality of instructional products. But, since the instructional designer is obviously connected to the subject matter expert in key ways during the instructional design and development process, they, too, take on the role of content and structural review of the course materials and content. In some cases, the designer serves as a type of test student by providing feedback to the faculty member or author regarding the clarity and instructional effectiveness of the materials. A single faculty member working alone in this situation relies on his or her best editorial skills in product development, and leaves additional editorial review to the learners.
Designer as surrogate or test student. In many cases, the instructional designer can serve the role of surrogate student during the course development process. The designer can provide input to sequencing, instructional activities, and assessments that can be helpful. For example, if the instructional designer cannot determine how to proceed on assignments, or cannot answer questions on exams, superficial evidence shows that these course components may not be well designed or written. Obviously, the capacity of the designer to give this type of feedback varies and is a function of the complexity of the design and experience with course content.
Designer as coach to other faculty. In a fairly comprehensive overview of some of the recent research and evaluation studies on hypermedia in distance education, Dillon and Gabbard (1999) pointed out a serious problem with the ability of these studies to identify learning impacts. Lack of ability to identify impact can most certainly mean the designer/faculty member has little knowledge of what strategies, practices, and processes best service distance learning and instruction. Much of what works in distance learning is procedural knowledge. The proliferation of good practice in online learning requires agents of good practice to share their expertise.
Designer as project manager. In distance education, the role of the instructor expands to assume the responsibilities of project manager because student interaction with fellow students, the content, and the instructor are priority. In the design process, teaching methods are organized according to the intended instructional outcomes. The instructor rightfully assumes the designer role of identifying any methods, instructor-centered, programmed, or experiential, effectively engaging the distance learner. And because the world of online learning requires an interaction medium, the instructor must also play a role in determining the media best suited to facilitate chosen teaching methods.
Designer as graphical consultant and media designer. This category of expertise is usually reserved for professionals in this area. However, ongoing experience helps instructional designers become aware of graphical and media options. In their role, designers should feel confident making recommendations in these areas. Moreover, in some cases they actually become designers through skills in Web page design, multimedia, etc.
Designer as evaluator. A recent analysis of the literature on distance learning by Wisher, Curnow, and Drenth (2001) indicated that only 21% shows any evidence of systematic evaluation._ Unfortunately, distance learning experiences all too often take place unaccompanied by quality evaluation. Evaluation that does take place is generally linked to student assessment and fails to look at other elements of the online delivery environment.
As a part of the design process, evaluation can proceed by first asking illuminative questions that determine if the individual components of the system, such as communication tools and university resource services, are operating. This stage of the evaluation is focused on observing and detecting functional problems. From the illuminative stage, the evaluation evolves to an integrative, summative stage and tends to look at the student learning experience holistically. Learning impact and performance outcomes are relevant at the integrative stage.
From multiple data sources that are both comparison- and criterion-based, evaluation in both the team and faculty design contexts suggest the lens of evaluation can be brought to bear on at least the five following distinct components of the distance learning environment:
Infrastructure/System—examines the compatibility of online learning tools with network speed and connectivity. Technical support systems on either end of the connection are also examined for quality of service to the student/client.
Course and program design—distance learning environments are uniquely situation-dependent and should be examined as such. Instructional sequencing in a project-based curriculum would do well to be world-related. Check for alignment between objectives and assessment activities, and examine the motivational strategies embedded in the instruction.
Work Flow—examines how users navigate and utilize online resources. Do learners progress through their work in a linear fashion (novice-like), or in an opportunistic fashion (expert-like)? Web server log files are generally of excellent help in understanding how students navigate the course Web site. Are directions clear for students and is message redundancy among communication media observed?
Interaction—can take place between instructor and learner, learner and learners, learner/instructor and content, learner/instructor and technology. Both social and instructional interactions are relevant to evaluation.
Impact—tells designers what influence the learning experience has on learner behaviors. Course performance and learner productivity are two ways to measure impact, as are student retention/attrition. Longer-term impact measures might include self- and supervisor-rated professional performance.
Designer as student and faculty help-desk consultant. Instructional designers are often placed in a role as an on-call consultant during course design, development, delivery, and evaluation. This role is natural in the faculty-driven approach, but atypical in the team-based approach. Rarely do instructional designers work with students directly, but in an unusual design fashion, the MEPP program in Wisconsin closely connected designers to both test students and early cohorts to learn more about the program and course design first-hand. In this case, the connection was an attempt to merge the evaluation and formative design process more closely.
The help desk function is usually represented by a central phone-in or e-mail in consulting service. Team-based approaches centralize help desk support through computing services related departments. However, many of the questions of students are not well handled by these centralized services and, therefore, the “help desk” style support is required of the program or even within a course. These extra services can be resource-consuming for small-to-moderate programs. The formalized nature of this task is rarely the domain of the instructional designer.
Issues with Online Instruction at the Graduate Level
Although programs vary in their values and views on program and university objectives at the graduate level, experiences working in diverse environments shows that the objectives outlined here are critical to the academic success and integrity of graduate level programs that purport to represent education, distance education, and instructional design (at a minimum). To achieve these “meta-objectives,” a program must create both a value system and an infrastructure to allow students and faculty to work toward these goals. Therefore, the integrity of the course content is not exclusively the end goal of the process. Sometimes the above objectives require that a superstructure or infrastructure be in place that allows for these objectives to be met, e.g., a means of interaction in asynchronous and synchronous time, file exchange capability, etc.
Conclusions
This discussion has elaborated on the role of the faculty member in the many aspects of the course design, development, and delivery, and the availability of support for these processes. Whether the development model is team-based or whether a single faculty drives the development, new design considerations for the faculty member are significant. Both models also suggest that a more involved faculty approach results in serious investment and ownership in the course and learner development process, and online instructional skills are honed in new learner interaction modes.
Quality DE learning experiences take place when new pedagogies are designed to engage the distance learner. The simple conversion of a traditional course to an online format is not advocated here. The online course requires a complete new set of student engagement strategies that do not naturally follow from the face-to-face environment.
Where the design of online learning takes place, further research in this area should study the following:
Design in open versus closed programs
Independent versus group delivered design considerations
Fixed time control versus more individualized control over time and rate of progress.
As a final statement, it should be noted that although distance education is often referred as one type of instructional or teaching method, it is not. Many variations of distance education range from totally individualized instruction to group-based, real-time teaching. In many cases, DE becomes a mixture of both extremes and everything in between the two. The application of instructional design will differ given the DE “plan of attack” selected by the instructor or institution. However, the expanded role of the instructional designer in distance education is clearly called for in most applications.
