DESIGN

**DESIGN**

// At this stage the designer develops learning objectives, chooses an instructional approach, develops an instructional strategy as well as assessment instruments. // **Learning objectives:**

‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍After analysis, the ADDIE model requires the designer to formulate learning outcomes. Based on the needs analysis outcomes, the learning activity to be designed should enable students to be able to:


 * access web-based resources, using a hyperlink provided
 * follow a hypermedia link to a google docs lesson
 * plan an essay collaboratively using google docs
 * revise an essay collaboratively using google docs
 * edit an essay collaboratively using google docs
 * share input with other google doc users
 * create knowledge as a team by providing correct answers ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍

7. Learning theory
‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍The needs or contextual analysis in the previous section prompts for a design that ‍draws upon behaviouristic, cognitivist and ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍constructivist approaches ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ to learning. ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ These are also the three categories of traditional learning theories that are traditionally used as foundation for many online learning design models. A learning strategy that provides guidance due to the low proficiency level of students would be ideal in this context. Learners in this context need to be provided with a different learning environment that might motivate them to learn better in order to improve their performance, which symbolizes the need for engagement in knowledge construction which can be equated to a learner centred approach to teaching and learning.

A good online learning design requires understanding of how people learn, because the way people learn has implications for online learning design. There are different theories on how people learn. Among others, Mayes and de Freitas(2004) in Beetham and Sharpe (2007) define learning as building concepts or competences step by step (associative), achieving understading through active discovery (constructive-individual), achieving understanding through dialogue and collaboration (constructive-social), and developing practice in a particular community (situative). This understanding shapes the way we design online learning courses that would consequently facilitate learning in particular contexts. Knowing how people learn, how does an <range type="comment" id="947838">‍‍insructional ‍‍ designer select what to include in instruction?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">It is learning objectives that guide the instructional designer on what is to include in the instruction. As clearly stipulated by Morris, Ross and Kemp, the instructional objectives enable the designer “to design appropriate instruction”, … “devise ways to evaluate student learning” and they “guide the learner” (2007: 104)‍‍. As pointed out by Morrison, Ross and Kemp (2007), learning objectives also guide the designer on how to measure the type of learning that takes place. Furthermore, Morrison, Ross and Kemp (2007) classify learning objectives in three key categories of domains: cognitive which deals with objectives at knowledge level, psychomotor which requires performing physical objectives, and the effective domain that deals with objectives about attitudes, values and emotions. This is valuable guidance to instructional designers when deciding on what to include in instruction.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Mayes and de Freitas point out clearly how adoption of a learning theory is a must in online learning design. They stipulate that “ for good pedagogical design, there is simply no escaping the need to adopt a theory of learning …” (2007:14). It is the theory of learning that gives rise to pedagogical models. Sharing the same sentiment is Dabbagh (2005) by highlighting the fact that pedagogical models enable us to link theory to practice as they guide us on what instructional strategy is suitable for our contexts. Contextual analysis informed the choice of learning theory as it sheds light on how learners in this specific context would learn better. The context described at analysis stage is indicative of a design that combines three key theories of learning: behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. The behaviourist approach focuses on behaviour of the learner that can be observed and reinforced, the cognitive approach concentrates on what happens to learners internally, i.e. in the mind of the learner, while the constructivist approach focuses on engaging learners in the process of constructing knowledge (Sink, 2005). As clarified further by Mayer, "in a constructivist approach the learner constructs knowledge, while the teacher provides guidance and modeling in an authentic situation" (Mayer, 1999 in Sink, 2005:208). The ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍cognitivist‍‍‍ approach is more concentrated on application of new knowledge, which makes it more product oriented (Der Thang, Hung and Wang, 2007).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">However, Der Thang, Hung and Wang (2007) indicate, the constructivist approach focuses on both process and product. This explains why cognitivist and constructivist approaches are more applicable for the learners in this context. A behaviouristic approach could be considered in the context of this design as well, as it is both action and skill oriented, though it does not promote cognition (Der Thang, Hung and Wang, 2007). This understanding, combined with understanding of the context in which the learning design took place, led to <range type="comment" id="843056">‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍favouritism ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ of the cognitive and constructivist approaches as an underpinning learning theory for this online learning design. Drawing on Mayes and de Freitas (2007), the constructivist approach facilitates understanding of learning as a means of constructing knowledge and meaning, which is more applicable to this context, as opposed to for example a behaviouristic approach that considers learning as a means of shaping behaviour in Mayes and de Freitas's (2007) view.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Behaviourist, constructivist and cognitivist approaches can be mapped with a variety of instructional strategies, such as authentic, problem-solving, collaboration, role-playing, articulation and reflection, multiple perspectives, modeling and explaining and scaffolding (Dabbagh, 2005). However, it should be noted that there is a close link between pedagogic models, instructional strategies and suitable learning technologies (Dabbagh, 2005). This is how scaffolding unfolded to be an appropriate instructional strategy for this context as reflected in the matrix hereby attached [] where learning theories are matched with instructional strategies. The context at hand requires supportive and exploratory <range type="comment" id="205157">‍‍startegies ‍‍ as reflected in the matrix, and it is the behaviourist, cognitivist and constructivist approaches that are effectivelly matched with these instructional srategies. The dialogic strategies are not therefore a good choice for my context as they do not support scaffolding. At this stage it is worth also pointing out the importance of authentic learning activities. Drawing on Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland, " promoting authentic learning activities is a focal or core instructional strategy that supports or enables all other instructional strategies" (2005:207). It was therefore crucial to consider the authenticity of the learning activity that was designed.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Formative <range type="comment" id="475853">‍‍assessment of the lesson would be carried out with the intent to guide students on their performance in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This was done by providing feedback for each group task.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">References

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Beetham, B. and Sharpe, R. (2007). Part 3: Resources. In B. Beetham and R. Sharpe (Eds). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning, 219-246. London: Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical models for e-learning: A theory-based design framework. //International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning//, 1(1), 25-44 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Der-Thanq, C. Hung, D. and Wang, Y. (2007). Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools. //British Journal of Educational Technology//, 38(5), 876-884. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Mayes, T. and de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham and R. Sharpe (Eds). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M. and Kemp, J.E. (2007). //Instructional objectives//. In G.R. Morrison, S.M. Ross and J.E. Kemp (Eds). Designing effective instruction (5th Ed.), 102-129. New York: John Wiley & Sons. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Sink, D (2005). Instructional Design models and learning theories. In E. Biech (Ed), ASTD Handbook for workplace learning professionals, 195-212. Alexandria: ASTD Press. Accessed 24/09/2011. Available online at: [|www.d**sink**.com/download/10**Sink**ASTDhandbook.pdf]