Getting it right gradually: An iterative method for online instruction development
In this article, Kranch (2008) develops what he calls the “iterative individual instructional development model,” or I3DM, in an effort to accommodate individual educators who are responsible for course/lesson development as well as the presentation of these courses. Previous instructional development (ID) models, although rich in content and grounded in a wealth of research, fail to offer the practicality individual educators need in order to successfully develop courses, as they operate within the constraints of time and resources. Kranch (2008) specifies that the I3DM is “meant to model the instructional development process of those who develop and present instructional units, online and face to face, that are repeated with different learners over time” (p. 31). That is, the model is intended to be used by instructors who teach the same course multiple times.
The I3DM consists of three phases represented in a diagram model; content analysis, content application, and content assessment. In the first phase learning aims are identified, and assessments are developed, in the second phase learners are analyzed and instruction is developed, and in the third phase instructional material is delivered and assessed. After this process is completed, the first iteration involves major revision of the course based on outcomes observed during its initial trial. The course is then presented again. The second iteration is simpler and involves confirmation that learning objectives are being met and that the major revision addressed earlier issues observed. Thereafter, each time the course is taught, the instructor assesses possible areas of opportunity and simply tweaks the material to incorporate minor changes.
Although it would seem self-evident that a continuous revision of course content and delivery should be adopted by instructors in order to improve learning outcomes, this is not always the case. Often, the implementation of new technological applications as well as simply updating content to match current practices and research passes for overall improvement of a course. I have been subject to these practices as a student on many occasions, and it is most often when I find myself in a course that is particularly uninteresting, not due to the subject matter, but the bland and conventional way in which it is delivered. Certainly these types of revisions are necessary in order that courses do not become outdated, but such changes to curriculum are not the focus of Kranch’s (2008) model, as he suggests that major changes in a given field related to content development necessitate a return to phase one (p. 33). Whether the subject matter studied is outdated or not has little to do with whether course delivery methods address student needs and improve learning outcomes. Therefore, the focus in course revision should be on the learners, and then on adapting delivery so that they have the opportunity to excel in achieving learning objectives provided they meet course expectations by contributing a sufficient amount of effort, participation, and independent study.
For online instruction/courses, the I3DM provides an excellent resource for instructors/facilitators for a variety of reasons. First, as online education is still a relatively new forum for teaching and learning, instructors simply do not have the years of experience that we find in many traditional classrooms, so they are traversing new territory. By using this model as a guide, after creating an initial course design and curriculum, they then have a plan by which to evaluate and assess strengths, weaknesses, and areas of opportunity. Instead of relying entirely upon others’ research and the suggestions, rubrics, and practices of their institutions, they have an opportunity here to also create their own best practices and are afforded the autonomy to take an active role in course development. The result, then, is variety across courses, subject areas, and institutions instead of online educational practices falling into the rut of homogeneity based on what has worked for a small number of instructors and/or institutions. The more variety we see, the more we all have the opportunity to share with and learn from others’ experiences in a new and ever-changing field.
Kranch, D. (2008). Getting it right gradually: An iterative method for online instruction development. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 29-34. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.