Analysis Phase

Studying target population of learners:
E-learning attempts to reach out to a wide-ranging population of learners, some of whom may be housed within the boundaries of the same location whilst others may be situated geographically far apart. The latter would be the case especially for higher learning institutions that offer an array of long-distance educational programs. In present times, this entails reaching out to a target audience whose demographics are ever changing and becoming heterogeneous in terms of ages, cultural background, intellectual capabilities and educational combined with working experiences. Thus it is imperative that the e-learning courseware be designed such that it reaches out to the diverse needs of its intended audience. Some of the questions that the e-learning courseware designer needs to bear in mind during the analysis phase would be:

• Who are the prospective users of this courseware?
• What are the prospective users’ learning needs?
• What are the learner styles?
• What are the learners’ expected objectives and outcomes?
• What prior knowledge/experiences are they likely to have?
• What factors might affect their success in the course?
• What types of student support will be essential?

Design Phase

1.   Selecting e-learning content. Once the detailed analysis phase has been completed, the instructional designer has to approach the content specialist to define relevant content materials that need to be inputted into the shell of the e-learning framework. Table 1 by Ruth Clark (1999) defines the different classifications of e-learning content.

   Table 1. Five types of Content in e-learning

   Content Type	Definition
   Fact	Specific and unique data or instance
   Concept	A category that includes multiple examples
   Process	A flow of events or activities
   Procedure	Task performed with step-by-step actions
   Principle	Task performed by adapting guidelines

   
   
2.   Determining e-learning goals. After the broad discussions with the users in the introductory encounter, the e-learning designers frame the learning goals based upon which the design framework for the courseware is anchored by. E-learning goals can be classified generically as inform and perform goals. Inform programs are those primarily meant to disseminate and share information. Perform goals can be further compartmentalized as perform-procedure and perform-principle goals. Perform programs are crafted to build specific performance skills with procedural programs being those that build skills in training that mirror closely those needed in professional practice whereas perform-based programs are those that provide training for situations and tasks which do not have one simple solution or approach to them (Clark & Mayer, 2003). They have succinctly summarized the typologies of e-learning goals in Table 2.

   Table 2. Inform and Perform e-Learning Goals

   Goal	Definition	Example
   Inform	Lessons that communicate information	Company history New product features
   Perform-Procedure	Lessons that build procedural skills (also called near transfer)	How to log on How to complete an expense report
   Perform-Principle	Lessons that build principle- based skills (also called far transfer)	How to close a sale How to design a Website

   
   
3.    Instructional Methods. Though e-learning is delivered primarily via computers, the learner styles and characteristics can vary drastically and these differences need to be borne in mind whilst brainstorming for effective instructional strategies in producing e-learning materials. Further variables that would alter the matrix of instructional methods would be prior knowledge of the learner and the learning goals, objectives and experiences determined for the courseware. Most of this information can be gleaned through the introductory encounter between the courseware developers/designers and the users that takes place during the analysis phase.
   
     Three types of e-learning described by Clark (2000) and called as architectures of instruction are described in Table 3 Clark & Mayer, 2003).

   Table 3. Three Types of e-learning

   Type	Builds Lessons That	Used for
   Receptive : Information Acquisition	Include lots of information with limited practice opportunities	Inform Goals
   Directive: Response Strengthening	Require frequent responses from learners with immediate feedback	Perform-Procedure Goals
   Guided Discovery: Knowledge Construction	Provide job-realistic problems and supporting resources	Perform-Principle Goals

  Perform-procedure programs. The response strengthening view stipulates that learning is appropriated through drill and practice (Clark & Mayer, 2003). Ample examples are incorporated as reinforcing agents to the concepts being taught. The instructing software also offers practice by posing questions which serve as stimuli and the responses by the learner gauged promptly with the correct answer being rewarded and the incorrect answer being penalized. Corrective feedback is provided at relevant junctions to scaffold the learning process of the students. This instructional method is largely based upon behavioral epistemology and is widely adopted in learning contexts where step-by-step procedures need to be taught such as being trained to use a software.

  Perform-Principle Programs. The guided discovery approach is drawn largely from constructivist theories of learning and is rooted in the precepts of situated, contextual and experiential learning. Constructivism promulgates that learning is linked to prior knowledge and ought to be based on real-life experiences. Learners are empowered to be purveyors of their own knowledge and encouraged to evoke new meanings to the learning experiences they come. From the sensory input of what they see and hear, learners build mental schemas through cognitive processes to interpret the information garnered thus engaging in knowledge construction. Learning is not understanding the “true” nature of things but a personal and social construction of meaning (Gottlieb, 2000). Teachers and teaching aids such as computers are viewed as facilitators who bridge the gap between what the learners already know and what they are able to make out from the exposure to new learning situations. Thus in e-learning this calls for inclusion of authentic, high quality tasks based upon real-life contextual experiences and supported by appropriate cognitive tools. This is especially imperative for e-learning architectures driven by perform-principle goals wherein training provided through the courseware needs to be dynamic and varied enough to be adapted in real-life situations which are normally unpredictable with more than one solution pathways. Such a teaching methodology suits training needs for evolving and constantly upgrading professional environments such as customer service, sales and marketing. Often e-learning designers accomplish such training needs through the use of simulations to depict problem-based scenarios which will mirror closely real-world situations. As the learners are guided through the phases of online problem solving, they become immersed in the intricacies, conflicts and complexities that are existent in the real world thus mediating the enculturation and transfer of knowledge processes into becoming members of the professional community.

  Jonassen (in press) describes an array of problem solving types which can be tapped upon by designers to scope constructivist learning environments facilitated by technology. Which type of problem solving is selected should be predicated upon the targeted learning goals and the learning activities and tasks most conducive for the the achievement of these goals. The learners ought to be first exposed to examples and solutions of problems of a similar nature but rooted in different contexts so that they build a conceptual schema of the cognitive and analytical processes involved in tackling such problems. Thereafter practice is provided wherein the learners attempt to solve a continuum of problems with increasing levels of complexities and are aided along the way with prompt automated feedback. Defined and constrained by the parameters of the problem space, the learners try to manipulate the problem space with the scaffolding provided by cognitive tools to successfully solve the problems thus realizing the learning objective. In so doing the learner becomes familiarized and acculturated into dealing with and tackling similar problems they might encounter in real-life situations.

  The different types of problem solving that could be utilized for this purpose are listed in Table 4 (Jonassen, in press).

Table 4. Types of problem-solving for authentic learning tasks

  Savery and Duffy (as cited in Hedberg, 2003) enumerated four principles that should be applied to modern technology-based learning environments based on constructivist views :

1. Learning is an active and engaged process.
2. Learning is a process of constructing knowledge
3. Learners function at a metacognitive level. Learning is focused on thinking skills rather than working on the “right answer the teacher wants.”
4. Learning involves “social negotiation.” ……challenge their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions and existing knowledge by collaborating with other students.

Conclusion

  E-learning ontology being rather recent and nascent is gaining rapid popularity with the upsurge in technological developments. However it has largely been used with pedagogical underpinnings similar to those used in traditional classroom teaching. As such this calls for a radical change of mind-sets and instructional epistemologies since innovativeness needs to be married with e-learning strategies to overhaul the traditional absolutist perspective of teaching entailing reproduction of ‘knowledge’ and instead herald the power of e-learning. I have attempted in this article to delineate some principles that could be of utility to e-learning courseware designers in developing and implementing capable and accomplished e-learning systems.

  For e-learning to be viable and competent, its models and methods must not contradict reality but rather facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the real world in a pragmatic and thoughtful manner. When designed based upon sound instructional precepts that incorporate seamless integration of appropriate technology, e-learning promises great potential in delivering high quality learning outcomes from the learners' perspective. Rather than obscure or compromise learning outcomes and objectives, e-learning can in fact accentuate learning gains through a series of just-in-time simulation activities and problem-solving tasks that replicate real-world situations. This is attainable provided proper analysis and design is undertaken in framing the e-learning architecture. It is not an understatement to proclaim that e-learning is bound to explode in the future and become the overwhelmingly favoured mode of learning, both in educational institutions and corporate settings since it obliterates to a very good extent the constraints of time, space, expertise and distance wrought about by traditional methods of classroom teaching. However this hypothesis needs to be emphasized in tandem by the dire need for rigorous and efficacious analysis and design considerations to be drawn upon as the bedrock of the e-learning developmental framework.

REFERENCES

 • Braxton, S., Bronico, K., & Looms, T. (2000). Instructional System Design (ISD) : Using the ADDIE model. Retrieved September 14, 2003, from http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~sbraxton/ISD/general_phases.html
 • Clark, R. C. (1999). Developing technical training. Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.
 • Clark, R. C. (2000). Four architectures of learning. Performance Improvement, 39(10), 31-37.
 • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning: Promise and pitfalls. In e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
 • Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
 • Ford, D. J. (1996). Instructional Systems Design Model. In Action: Designing training programs.
 • Gottlieb, M. (2000). Foundations of E-learning. Communications Project Magazine, 3.1.
 • Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Creating, growing and sustaining learning environments.
 • Hedberg, J. G., & Sims, R. (2001). Speculations on design team interactions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2/3), 189-214.
 • Johnson, D. J. a. R. (1993). What we know about cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning, 13(3).
 • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (in press). Learning to solve problems online (Vol. 1:Distance Learning). Macomb, IL: Center for the Application of Information Technologies, University of Western Illinois.
 • Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.
 • Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 • Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional Design in E-learning. Teaching Learning Technology News.
 • Svetcov, D. (2000). The virtual classroom vs the real one. Forbes, 166, 50-54.