Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Instructional-Design-Model-For-E-Lea 👈

1. An Instructional Design Model for e-Learning in School Education
Osman Sadeck
WCED: Metropole South Educational District, South Africa
ABSTRACT
We have created a range of tools and technologies that could assist learning. The nature of these
creations in the digital age has prompted us to look at learning as ‘e-Learning’. Our encounters with
digital information, processes and systems make it inevitable that our school education ought to
prepare us to effectively engage in this digital era. School education is instutionalised and is
characterised by a face-to-face (f2f), traditional teaching and learning in a controlled milieu. This
paper suggests that a Learning Object Approach be used as the primary instructional design, for e-
Learning at schools. This implies the establishment of relationships between learning object and
learning to provide coherent pedagogically sound learning experiences.
Keywords: e-Learning; Learning Object; Learning Object Approach; Digital Entities; Learning;
Pedagogy; Social Learning; Cultural Tools; Community of Practice.
INTRODUCTION
Educational structures of schools do not adequately reflect societal changes. The introduction and
integration of digital technologies in society impacts significantly, on how education responds to its
permeation in our schools. Some of the most significant contributions of the digital age are the
increased opportunities for social interaction, access to information and the reconceptualisation of
time and space. Its effects are that the social context for learning has transformed. Schools need to
reconsider its educational structures, particularly teaching and learning using technologies.
Technology should not drive the process. Sound pedagogies should lead and appropriate technology
follow. If schools continue to resist structural changes, learners will be ill prepared for the world they
live in.
Every country goes through its own developmental stages and South Africa is experiencing its unique
developmental evolution. Whilst we draw on existing models, practices, research and experiences, we
have to determine our own models, approaches and operational strategies. Should we begin with ICT
integration, e-Teaching or e-Learning? Should we be considering m-Learning, podcasting, m-
Technologies, Learning Management Systems (LMS’s), Learning Object Management Systems
(LOM’s) or Open Educational Resources (OER’s)?
School education in South Africa is structured and organised on levels that include; content
specification, assessment items, time based syllabi, time based engagement and to a certain degree,
some specific learning approaches. Given the intricacies of school education, the approach
suggested in this paper is a learning object approach. This paper suggests learning with and through
digital technologies, towards a pedagogy before technology model. It assumes the possibility to
progress from simple models using ICT to access information and present work in face to face (f2f)
situations, to, encompassing sophisticated models based on a means of addressing a range of
learning options in blended (hybrid) f2f/online interactions.
The ‘concept’ of the learning object approach is not new, however its suggestion for e-Learning at
school level (Grades R-12) in South African schools is relatively new. Teachers are known to ‘break
and build’, i.e. take apart textbooks, modules, courses and repurpose them to suit their context. In
effect, they use ‘objects’ to build learning experiences. These experiences however are largely
aligned with traditional teaching, based on the acquisition metaphor. In recent years, learning is
increasingly being accepted as a process (participation metaphor) rather that an act of acquisition.
(Sfard 1998)

2. LEARNING OBJECT
One particular theorical position regarding learning object of note is that it is a digital entity that is
predisposed to be used, reused, referenced and/or aggregated during technology-supported learning
in multiple instructional contexts. They are understood to function in three primary ways, i.e. they may
be guiding (through mentorship, apprenticeship); problem based (opportunities to construct, create,
innovate and scaffold); or complimentary (supportive material e.g. presentations, glossaries) (Busetti
et al 2005). A learning object itself is essentially decontextualised information. As such, they should
not be tied into any particular course offering, nor confined to any subject discipline, grade or age.
The characteristics of reusability, aggregation and decontextualisation make learning object amenable
for the Learning object Approach. Learning object can and often are combined to make up modules,
courses and individual learning experiences. This is sometimes referred to as content packaging.
(Wisc-ORC; L'Allier 1997 in Polsani 2003; Polsani 2003; Reigeluth & Nelson 1997, in Wiley1
2002;
McGreal 2004; Koper in Laurillard & McAndrew 2003; Rehak & Mason in Laurillard & McAndrew
2003; Learning in McGreal 2004; Hodgins 2000)
How does a learning object contribute to learning? It is not the magical ‘black box’ syndrome, but
about relationships between the learning object and the learner. According to Polsani (2003), a
learning object without form or relation is merely a media asset. When a single type object (graphic of
a country’s flag) is transformed from a picture (possessing form only), into “an object of
understanding” a relationship begins to emerge between the user and the learning object through an
interaction with the digital asset. E.g. the flag could be the springboard for discussing the historical
background of a country. Information according to Sveiby (1997, in Nurmi & Jaakkola 2005), is
meaningless, and only becomes meaningful knowledge when it is interpreted by individuals through
cognitive efforts.
Downes (2003, in McGreal 2004) notes that what counts as a learning object “can only be determined
by its use, not by its nature”. This refers to the pedagogical value a learning object might possess in
use. As context & learning aims differ, any given learning object possesses a pedagogical range.
Literature cautions that, although sound pedagogical principles inform learning object, metadata
should not stipulate any intended use or measuring mechanism that is “coded by any specific
teaching methodology or instructional theory”. Such referencing it is believed would restrict the
learning object’ reusability, as intention and assessment should be determined by the instructional
situation and not driven by the learning object itself (L'Allier in Polsani 2003).
Drawing from this one might recognise that a learning object in itself is merely a tool in the learning
process. Learning opportunities and learning experiences need to be facilitated or designed. The
pedagogical value of a learning object and a learning object approach is determined by the context of
its use and application. Consequently, design for the learning object approach must foreground
learning theories that foster relationships between the learning object and engagement. The design of
engagement should pay attention to the possible ways in which learning could come about.
Conventional learning systems are built on theories and models, so e-Learning systems should be
informed by appropriate instructional design and theories.
LEARNING OBJECT APPROACH
In practice, one or more learning object are selected, aggregated (combined) and sequenced to
support purposeful learning (Learning in McGreal 2004). The support for learning may be structured,
semi-structured or ill structured in sophisticated or reductionist models. This is to allow for flexible
instructional methods and self determined learning. The initial selection of a particular learning object
in ‘school education’ will depend on two factors: a curriculum need and a learner need. The
curriculum need is merely to help contextualise the learning experience. The learner need will
determine which ‘other’ learning object will be selected to benefit the learner. Sometimes a learning
object may be presented more than once or learning object seemingly unrelated may be included.
Selection represents a deliberate design decision in the instructional design process to accommodate
among other aspects, the levels of understanding of the learners, satisfy identified learning
preferences, scaffold learning, address learning difficulties, etc. People have a unique blend of
intelligences and the challenge is how to best take advantage of the uniqueness (Smith 2002). If the

3. learning objects are to be packaged into a module or course there is a need to sequence them.
Sequencing should not be considered a bad thing. Following Gagne’s learning/instructional theory,
one cannot adequately plan instruction without constructing a learning hierarchy. Learning is thought
to be less effective through discovery learning, if the learners are found to lack pre-requisite
knowledge and the experiences are not structured (Gagne Education 2006). Sequencing should also
not be viewed as sequential or algorithmic. They may include a series of loops depending on the
teaching strategy adopted by the teacher or preferred by the learners. Whatever the model we
consider for e-Learning at school level, the instructional design will essentially be built on the
concepts of aggregation, sequencing, relationships and engagement.
E.g., a teacher wants to teach the learners how to calculate averages. The actual learning needs are
cognitive and mechanical processes that contribute to an understanding of ‘how to’. A learning object
focussed on averages could be selected. This could be of a single, combined intact or combined
modifiable type. As the process of calculating averages implies the addition of a set of values, and,
the division of the result by the number of values presented, counting, addition and division may be
considered pre-requisites. Should learners not possess these pre-requisites then additional learning
object focussing on these may be included. The teacher may determine the sequencing design of the
various learning object, or the learner may be allowed access to the entire range of learning object to
use as needed.
Up to now, the concept of the learning object approach appears ordinary and to many may not
represent anything new. This is true in many respects; however, its suggestion for e-Learning does
propose a particular pedagogical approach as the tools, language and mediation are different. It is the
essential aspects inherent in learning theories that hedge the chances of learning taking place, e.g.
communication, collaboration, co-operation, participation, action , construction, scaffolding. The
launch pad for this is that a relationship must be established between the learning object and the
activities to support its use. Use in line with the writings of Laurillard, Vygotsky, Engeström’s and
others operates on both the individual and social levels.
For the purposes of learning, design and management, one might consider the deployment of a
Learning Management Systems (LMS) for the learning object approach. LMS’s support the
educational process, whilst learning objects provide the educational content. e- Learning I believe
suggest a default mode of interaction as it brings together humans and technology in a symbiotic
relationship. LMS’s are know to be very useful in the delivery and engagement phase of learning
object, as they provide access to e-Learning experiences (Allegra et al 2008). They present a range
of tools and technologies to facilitate collaboration, co-operation, feedback, practice, application,
communities of practice, tracking, resource sharing, accessing, downloading, etc.
In a report on ‘Problems Underlying the Learning object Approach’ Jaakkola & Nurmi (2005), the use
and function of learning object was in many instances seen as to transmit content from learning object
to learner, who acquired the content and prescribed knowledge passively and reproduced it when
required. They also stated that the content was seen as the object of learning itself. Where the
learning object approach was concerned, they were of the opinion that it resembles programmed
instruction akin to Skinner (1954) and Blooms taxonomy (1956), and instructional design of Merril
(1998)
Further to this Allegra et al (2008) note that objections raised to the use of learning object in schools
context was based on the learning object “lacking pedagogical aspects”, with “no references to the
educational context or to the didactic process in which the learning object can be used” .
It would appear that the use or inappropriate use of learning objects could be attributed to
epistemological assumptions of learning, varied understanding of what learning object are and their
use in learning, and possibly poor design choices. Such aspects could be rectified in professional
development initiatives.
THEORICAL UNDERPINNING OF THE LEARNING OBJECT APPROACH
Emerging from the learning object approach specific models and approaches will be focussed on in
this section.

4. The potential to learn exist, be it alone or collaboratively, using old or new methods, from books or
online. Established learning theories (perspectives) and pedagogy/andragogy are challenged to
accommodate new language, tools and technologies. Teaching has become less central in the
educative process. Relationship between learner and knowledge as well as learner and teacher is re-
conceptualised, and this implies different work practices for all.
Implicit in e-Learning is learning (action), by people (learners), using technologies for the purposes of
learning goals (knowledge), which play out in social settings. Hence, relationships ought to exist
among the various elements. Activity theory espouses that people engage with learning aimed at a
specific goal or object, i.e. there is a purpose for this learning activity. Learning is progressed using
tools and language (cultural artefacts), in collaboration with other (social/community).This is realized
through some material activity (doing something), all of which is influenced by rules and shared
responsibilities (Engeström 1987, Cole & Engeström 1994 in Engeström et al 1999, Lindblom &
Ziemke 2003).
Learning is a conscious act, a conscious decision to do something to make sense of the world. It is
characterised by processes that are biologically enabled and generatively played out in search of
knowledge for the purposes of praxis. It essentially involves testing ideas by questioning,
experimenting, exploring and refining so that it may be confirmed, denied or falsified thus generating
new knowledge or understanding. When people learn two processes are at play: assimilation and
accommodation. If something does/does not gel with a current view/thinking, or, make/not make
sense, then the individual ‘assimilates’ (adopts these experiences as part of their learned
experiences). The individual may then ‘accommodate’ (changes their current view) by taking on the
new. These processes in effect refer to adaptation, which is a fundamental biological process that
combines the side of assimilation and accommodation. (Piaget in Atherton 2005)
Drawing from Laurillard’s (2002) conversational framework, teachers and learners must interact
through some medium be it f2f, online or a blend of both. There needs to be opportunities for dialogue
to take place, be it internally in the learner, externally with the learning materials, or with others in the
learning process. Iterative dialogue and actions must take place somewhere. In an e-Learning
context, could we consider this somewhere to be online, through digital technologies, or through a
LMS?
According to Vygotsky, social and psychological processes are shaped by cultural tools and language
and through mediation (Vygotsky, 1934/1978 in Smith 2006, John-Steiner & Mahn 1996). This
conceptualisation strongly suggests an intellectual being as dynamic and flexible, which in an ideal
socio-cultural environment may experience cognitive growth. In an ‘e’ environment we find that the
tools are the various technologies and media, and that the ‘e’ environment requires that learners be
initiated into communities to understand its semantic structure. They in turn should be afforded
legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) and as time progresses become full participants in the
community, progressively moving from the peripheral to the centre (Lave & Wenger 1991).
A human individual, according to Vygotsky (in Nicholl 2004), never reacts merely directly (or merely
with inborn reflects) to the environment. The relation between the human agent and the object is
mediated by cultural means and artefacts. During socialization, an individual internalize, by
participating in common activities with other humans through language, technical artefacts according
to the norms and modes of interaction. In an ‘e’ environment, technologies are the tools, language is
the cultural offspring of e-Learning. Goal directed common activities include collaboration,
cooperation, discussions, doing and reflecting.
Scaffolding is an acquired instructional method constructed by us to symbolise the potential to build
upon sound existing different levels of knowledge and skills. Learning is first internalised as individual
knowledge that can potentially develops over time. Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, Papert, Dewey, Berliner,
and Gagne` (in Roblyer 2003) all speak to sequential intellectual development as an iterative process
through collaborative means. Brunner (1973) and Dauydov (1995) supported guided activities in
coherence with constructivist and collaborative theories where learners are active participants in
knowledge construction. A case for guided collaborative learning seems to emerge from these
theorists.

5. In the learning process, particularly in an ‘e’ environment the concept of interactivity is used
extensively. It is generally suggested that effective learning results from learners being ‘active’. There
are two levels of interactivity (Bates & Poole 2003), i.e. individual interaction of the learner with the
learning material or stimulus, and, the second is the interaction between two or more people about the
learning material or stimulus. Both kinds of interactivity are important and there should not be an
either or choice. This aspect of interactivity is significant in the learning object approach suggested in
this paper as it proposes interactivity on both these levels. The considerations from this for e-Learning
at school level rests on us looking at the content (learning materials), the learning most appropriate
for these concepts/knowledge in the learning material (specifically for individual & collaborative
learning), the interaction between learners themselves and with the teachers, and a system to enable
this to happen.
A range of approaches presented in e-Learning literature represent organisational structuring or
logistical systems to operationalise e-Learning and pay attention to pedagogies, technologies or both.
A common thread in the approaches and models places learning, drawn from various perspectives,
as central. Learning in turn is drawn from the vast literature on learning theories (views). These
learning perspectives are acknowledged to reside in the domain of ‘direct instruction’ (grounded in
behaviourism & information processing) and ‘constructivism’ (grounded in social cognition). Within an
‘e’ environment, individual learning, social learning, engagement, dialogue and action appear to be
central in these systems.
The learning object approach requires that teachers in collaboration with the learners design e-
Learning opportunities and experiences for their learners. Should this be considered a problem or a
challenge? Consider, as (Laurillard & McAndrew 2003) state that, if we continue teaching traditionally
using textbooks and propriety software, we cede to others influence over the nature of learners
learning. The learning object approach allows for teachers and learners to decide on the nature of
learning. It is unlikely that any learning activity inclusive of method, content & assessment will be
suited to every learner. However if we consider the essence of the content at conceptual level as in a
learning object, then the permutations of its use is more amenable to be used in a design to suit
individual needs as they are identified. Teaching will then become less of a mediation of materials and
methods, and in e-Learning begin to take on its own personality and identity.
Whilst some might consider the learning object approach fragmented, consider that in a negotiated
and well designed e-Learning experience:
• A learner is offered a planned path (self determined or teacher determined) which, also allows
the option to learn other ‘things’ not necessarily in the course,
• to be able to access learning as part of a learning community so as to enhance cognitive
development and,
• have access to learning traditionally considered to be higher level or lower level is available to
all should they need or want it.
CONCLUSION
The learning object approach represents a ‘new’ perspective, particularly in school education. The
intention is not to replace existing approaches but rather, through a process of assimilation and
accommodation seek to progress e-Learning at school education through a critical evaluation of the
use of learning object.
We need to:
• Consider the micro-view of learning object, i.e. what they are, what they seek to do, how they
operate, how relationships may be formed between them and learning.
• Consider technologies and tools that facilitate learning through social interaction by employing
social software.
• Consider the meta-view of didactical approaches and systems to enable and manage e-
Learning.
• Progress from instructivist to constructivist, from text based to multimedia, from reception to
activity& experimentation and from passive to collaborative.

6. The physical classroom, if viewed from the works of Vygotsky, Wenger and others, would possibly be
a cluster of desks, and sufficient work space for peer interaction, collaboration, and small group
instruction. The instructional design of material to be learned would be structured to promote and
encourage student interaction and collaboration so that it suits the physical environment. Perhaps the
classroom of today and the future should become a community of learning space representing an ‘e’
classroom.
What can the learning object approach offer?
• a move towards the participation metaphor,
• personal growth where:
o learners begin to learn by working independently and with others,
o through self determination of what and how they would like to learn,
o by self pacing their own development,
o by beginning to initiate themselves into the community of learning & progressively
moving from the periphery towards the centre,
o by determining their individual movement with the zone of proximal development.
The building of e-learning environments is suggested based on the following:
• knowledge availability should lean towards e-Information and learners should be inducted into
the e-World through its dynamic language and tools,
• access to learning should be provided through well structured learning experiences (blended
online and f2f) through,
• flexible models that factor in the exponential rate of developments (of learners and
technologies) and,
• that e-Learning be driven by pedagogical principles rather than technologies
“What we teach is inextricably embedded in how we teach; what students learn is inextricably
embedded in how they learn” (Laurillard & McAndrew 2003). This means that we have the possibility
and opportunity to actively engage in the design processes for e-Learning, by exploring the use of
technologies in the educative process.

7. REFERENCES
Allegra, M., Davide, M. & Fulantelli, G. (2008), “The Open Learning object model to promote Open
Educational Resources”. JIME, http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/09: viewed 19 May 2008.
Atherton, J. S. (2005), “Learning and Teaching: Assimilation and Accommodation”. On-line UK,
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm: viewed 12 May 2008.
Bates, A. W. and Poole, G. (2003), “A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology”. Effective
Teaching with Technology in Higher Education, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. pp. 98-100.
Busetti, E., Dettori, G., Forcheri, P. and Lerardi, M. G. (2005), “A Pedagogical Approach to the Design
of Learning object: Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies”. On-line
Formatex, http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/173 : viewed 24 August 2006.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamäki, R. (eds) (1999), “Perspectives on Activity Theory”.
Cambridge University Press, http://books.google.co.za/books activity+theory&ots: viewed 13
May 2008
Gagne Education, On-line, http://education.indiana.edu/~p540/webcourse/gagne.html: viewed 13
March 2006
Hodgins, H. W. (2000), “The Future of Learning object” in D. A. Wiley (ed.), The Instructional Use of
Learning object, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc: viewed 10 September 2006.
Jaakkola, T and Nurmi, S. (2005), “Problems Underlying the Learning object Approach”.On-
line,http://www/itdl.org/Journal/Nov_05/article07.htm: viewed 29 May 2008
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996), “Socio- cultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework”, Vol 31. (no. 3 & 4), pp. 191–206.
Laurillard, D. (2002), “Re-thinking University Teaching”. A Conversational Framework for the Effective
use of Learning Technologies, (2nd
edn), London, Routledge, pp 83-89.
Laurillard, D. and McAndrew, P. (2003), “Reusable Educational Software: a Basis for Generic
Learning Activities” in Littlejohn, A. (ed.), Reusing Online Resources – a Sustainable
Approach to e-learning, London, Kogan Page, pp 81-91.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), “Legitimate Peripheral Participation”. Situated Learning, United
States of America, Cambridge University Press, pp. 34-41.
Lindblom, J. & Ziemke, T. (2003), “Social Situatedness of Natural and Artificial Intelligence”. Vygotsky
and Beyond Adaptive Behaviour 11(2), http://adb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/79,
pp 79-85.
McGreal, R. (2004), “Learning object: A Practical Definition”. On-line,
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm: viewed 11 September 2006,
Nicholl, T. (2004), Vygotsky. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/trishvgy.htm:viewed 13 March
2006
Polsani, P. R. (2003), “Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning object”. Journal of Digital Information,
vol. 3, issue 4, article no. 164, http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/: viewed 11
September 2006.
Roblyer, M. D. (2003), “Learning theories and integration models”. Chapter 3 in M.D. Roblyer.
Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (3rd
edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Prentice Hall, pp.51-82.

8. Sfard, A. (1998), “On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one”. Educational
Research, UTS EMT2 readings, pp 5-7.
Smith, M.K. 2002 ‘Jerome S. Bruner and the process of education’, in the encyclopedia of informal
education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm, viewed 11 September 2006
Smith, T. (2006), “Diamond - Theorists Week 4”. Learning Theorists 4: UTS, on-line: viewed 23 March
2006
The Wisc-Online Resource Center. On-line, http://www.wisc-online.com/Info/FIPSE%20-
%20What%20is%20a%20Learning%20Object.htm: viewed 24 August 2006.
Wiley, D. A. (2000), “Learning object Design and Sequencing Theory”. Doctor of Philosophy
dissertation, Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young
University, on-line, http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf: viewed 24
August 2006.
Wiley1
, D. A. (2000), “Connecting Learning object to Instructional Design Theory: A Definition, a
Metaphor, and a Taxonomy” in D. A. Wiley (ed.). The Instructional Use of Learning object, on-
line, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc: viewed 26 August 2006.