Instructional Design Principles for an eLearning Environment

The growth of eLearning is bumping up against Web standards; some of these standards do not adhere to learning standards. The way the Web organizes information is different than sound instructional strategies for teaching content. Valorie Beer (2000) argues that, unless organization is applied to content, the Web is not an environment from which learners learn. Further, Gordon (1997) challenges the field of instructional technology by attacking the linked approach to learning: “What bothers skeptics is not the threat of page-turners so much as the idea of cobbling together training courses from a collection of found objects” (p. 31). Users of the Web explore information through browsing techniques. This explore, find, and retrieve methodology is not a sound instructional strategy for teaching and learning. Yet, eLearning, while in its infancy, is driven by Web standards. These same Web standards are driven by information technology. In fact, Quigley (2002) claims that “Established sets of principles of what ‘works’ for online learning, based on research findings or industry best practices, do not yet exist” (p. 1). This article explores research on self-paced hypermedia design and introduces pedagogical ideas for self-directed courses in an eLearning environment delivered on the Web.From a design perspective, links within a Webbased learning environment are conceptual and not referential. Instructional design on the Web utilizes attention and motivation (Gagne learning events) by exploiting links to an existing knowledge base. Instruction is organized and sequenced to maximize transfer of knowledge and skills from stand-alone content to learner. From a human-computer interface (HCI) perspective, human factors interacting with a computer embody user reactions to meet usability requirements. Beyond this, Dillon and Zhu state thatWhen the Internet was introduced to the world of learning (long after technology training was in place, dating back to Plato) there was a bandwidth constraint. Once this challenge was solved with broadband connections, most eLearning solutions were met from taking organizational content and porting this to the Web. This article explores how to separate organization IT standards and incorporate and build upon traditional user interface design principles. Dillon and Zhu (1997) argue that,The design of Web-based instruction must, therefore, take into account cognitive processing of information, learning tasks, the learner, and ultimately, an instructional system as a tool. As Dillon and Zhu argue, “Once operationalized, it must be tested on real learners performing real tasks, so that we may advance the state of Web-based instruction beyond mere presentation and hot-linking of text and graphics” (p. 224).Additionally, in a heuristic and formative evaluation of Web-based instruction, Schnackenberg, Chin, and Luppicini (2000) report participants’ overall dissatisfaction with the design of Web-based instruction, indicating a desire for page numbers and learning modules to be contained on main menu bar to enable users to move from one point to the next. Clearly, the emphasis with regard to hypertext design practice is on links rather than on nodes of content. Stanton and Baber (1994) have noted thatIndeed, this is evident by the ever-growing number of corporate portals.But consider the evolution of technologybased training interface design, long before the Web. Sound instructional technology has its roots in computer-based, interactive videodisc and a windows delivery system. All these modalities required sound interface design in terms of navigation structure and interaction design for the learner. Instructional designers work closely with graphic designers to mind the interface. Over time, long before the Web, we learned how to carefully use screen real estate to navigate content. We have also had to design learner interactions and consider all the while usability issues from the learner’s perspective. These are experiences and guiding principles that can be transferred to Web technology.One of these is using a simple metaphor of the learning interface as a cognitive dashboard (Jones, Farquhar, & Surry, 1995). The learner uses the dashboard as a way to control instruction and information to monitor his or her learning progress. As the Web grows beyond what we’ve seen so far, the temptation will be to present to the learner options. Lots of options. But think about how confusing it is to rent a car. In a simple dashboard metaphor, as long as there is always a gas gauge, it’s just a matter of finding it to the right or left (which can be challenging unto itself).But how challenging, then, if there were five different gas gauges in the new dashboard? The Web presents a wonderful temptation of presenting customization and information overload. We can use metacognition principles to build multi-complex user interfaces on the Web, in terms of how the learner perceives and processes content. Metacognition exasperates learner interface control by presenting content and asks learners to manage their process of learning. Jones, et al. (1995, p. 14) suggests the learner processes three metacognition questions:The following list provides design guidelines for each metacognition question.Can the Web promote learning? Yes. We are beginning to see information dissemination distributed to learners as either prerequisite content or, in some cases, information is used as support during performance on the job. This changes our craft, in terms of blending information and instructional solutions. True eLearning exploits the Internet in terms of allowing peer-to-peer teaching separated by place and time; mentoring; self-paced instruction; and professional development. Yet, there’s an overwhelming debate in the industry, and this is why sound interface design and usability grounded in instructional design is critical. Too much information, too little time. Owston (1997) contends thatFurther, Owston states, “The key to promoting improved learning with the Web appears to lie in how effectively the medium is exploited in the teaching and learning situation” (p. 29). Therefore, it is important for instructional designers to peel instructional design from information science. Ken Myers (1999) describes the difference between the two worlds, and quotes David Merrill, writing,Finally, Myers provides instructional designers with a road map to separate instructional design from the distribution of information science (see Table 1).The plethora of information contained on a Web site should be designed differently than that of learning paths. One technology design consideration for instructional designers is to always consider the notion of disorientation. Evans and Edwards (1999) describe this problem as “...extra pressure or cognitive overhead placed on the user when navigating large quantities of information” (p. 152). It was once thought that the Web provided a random map to information and, therefore, reduces navigational problems. Conversely, Evans and Edwards report argument statements, claiming thatCognitive overhead is due to the limited capacity of human information processing (Thuring, 1995). In an effort to reduce cognitive overhead, orientation, navigation, and user-interface adjustment must be considered. Orientation facilities assist learners to find their way while navigation facilities assist learners to make their way. Thuring (1995) breaks navigation facilities into two categories: direction and distance. Direction helps the learner to distinguish forward and backward navigation. Distance helps learners to distinguish between steps (following a link) and jumps (how a learner got to his or her current location). Finally, Thuring (1995) suggests that a third potential source of cognitive overhead lies within adjusting the interface. Examples of cognitive overhead are affected by needing to move, resize, or manually close windows on the screen or the necessity to switch from one presentation format to another.Lyardet, Rossi, and Schwabe (1998) underscores the problems with regard to too much linking:When designing the interface and eLearning environment, instructional designers can leverage Vygotsky’s learning stages.The Web is considered an instructional tool to assist with cognitive scaffolding. Careful consideration to the design of an instructional tool is critical if learning is to take place. According to Gillani and Relan (1997), “Vygotsky argued that instruction is most efficient when students engage in activities within a supportive learning environment and when they receive appropriate guidance that is mediated by tools” (p. 231). Cognitive learning strategies employed by learners are varied, and must, therefore, be carefully designed as part of a learning interface and environment. Indeed, learning is a holistic experience and does not occur with infinite bits and pieces of information.Figure 1 illustrates a Web-based instructional model based on Vygotsky’s social cognitive theories and neuroscience findings. The top instructional bar represents four states of learning (as proposed by Vygotsky): Advance Organizer, Modeling, Exploring, and Generating. This design propels the use of instructional tools to aid cognitive processing. The use of an advance organizer allows decoding of new information and the scaffold to existing knowledge. Further, the instructional bar provides holistic learning, rather than isolated content presented as bits and pieces. Each learning state in the instructional model drives the control and content of the navigation left bar. The navigation bar is dynamic and changes in response to the button selected in the instructional bar. To that end, Gillani and Relan (1997) suggests thatThe presentation frame displays dynamic instructional content. Gillani and Relan (1997) contends that, “Depending upon which button is clicked in the Navigation Frame, the Web will allow the student to explore the intended concept in the Presentation Frame” (p. 234).The Web interface is a bridge between instruction and learning. The left navigation and presentation area is responsive and changes, depending upon where the learner is in the instructional model (at the top of the screen). There is evidence that the function of the human brain, during cognitive activities, is under a hierarchical control. Instructional designers take careful selection of instructional themes well suited for Web-based instruction. Mapping content on the Web to the cognitive strategy used by the learner is the way an eLearning environment should evolve. This is a fundamental argument to separate Web site design from the design of instruction. Through cognitive strategies such as modeling or exploring interactions, the form and content of any new topic is gradually transferred from user interface to learner. This does not imply that the learner has mastered the behavior. On the contrary, the learning process now enters a more critical mediative stage where questioning, exploiting, and experimenting through every day experiences is evidence of gained knowledge and skills.Therefore, the argument is made that content for Web-based instruction or when used as an instructional tool, must exploit screen area (or real estate) to facilitate (through character development, commentary, or demonstration) three states of learning: modeling, exploring, and generating.The proliferation of eLearning commands further research in cognitive processing and the use of the Web to deliver self-paced instruction. The Web is a powerful tool to search, gather, and deliver information, and to communicate to peers. The design of Web-based learning is different than that of a marketing or corporate Web site. An eLearning environment is different than that of information dissemination. It is designed with learner needs, instructional strategies, hierarchical content, practice, assessment and evaluation. The interface is much like a cognitive dashboard. And, the environment and interface should be designed by educational principles. These principles need to consider cognitive overhead and the limited capacity of human information processing. This article suggests leveraging Vygotsky’s social cognitive learning stages. An instructional designer can chunk content and design cognitive strategies according to a learning phase. By using the Web, a learner can select a learning phase (top navigation), and select dynamic content on the left (left navigation). The content is, therefore, delivered according to the cognitive strategy associated with the selected learning phase.The domain of instructional technology field defines and drives instructional design standards. Therefore, this article calls for further research and heuristic evaluation for sound, self-directed eLearning courseware practices. Instructional designers, together with HCI, can contribute to the field of instructional technology by establishing principles for what works and what does not work online.