Designing Instruction for theContext of Online Learning

Cynthia WestonTerry GandellLynn McAlpine

Adam FinkelsteinMcGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Many individuals are creating instruction that will be used for online learning. This paper reviewsfour generic categories of instructional principles: Instructional Design (pedagogical issues),Subject Matter (content issues), Language (semantic and syntactic issues), and Presentation(physical issues), that should be used as guidelines when designing instructional materials. Ninecurrent considerations for the context of online learning are drawn from the literature andexperience and we show how each relates to these existing guidelines. We conclude the fourgeneric categories of instructional principles apply equally to the design of instruction for thecontext of online learning and most issues that people talk about when designing online instructionare simply elaborations of these existing principles. A job aid is provided to help designerssystematically consider essential principles when designing online instruction.

Introduction and Background

Many individuals are creating instruction that will be used for online learning. Althoughthere are many names for instruction that can be accessed with a computer (e.g., computer-based instruction, computer-assisted instruction, computer-mediated instruction) we havechosen the term online learning for two reasons. First, we prefer the term `learning' ratherthan `instruction' to emphasize that learning should be the goal of any instruction that iscreated. Second, we prefer the term `online' because it focuses on what the student isdoing, learning online, regardless of whether the instruction is delivered via CD-ROMor the World Wide Web; the other terms focus on the delivery system Ð the computer.

When we began to create instruction for online learning, we searched for instructionalprinciples to steer the design of online instructional units or course materials. Theliterature related to online learning certainly revealed concern with good instruction(e.g., Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff, 1995). Yet, when we analyzed the aspects of

35

Direct all correspondence to: Cynthia B. Weston, Center for University Teaching and Learning, McGill

University, Department of Education & Counseling Psyc, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

H3A 1Y2. E-mail: weston@education.mcgill.ca

The Internet and Higher Education 2(1): 35± 44 ISSN: 1096-7516

Copyright D 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

instruction focused on, they did not address our particular concerns. Rather, theyconsidered five related areas: systems design, Web site design, instructional strategies,materials, and Web style guides.

Those articles that focused on systems design dealt with the process of planning,implementing, trying out and evaluating online instructional systems (e.g., Stone &Bishop, 1997; Barker, 1998; Beriswill, 1998; Smith & Northrop, 1998; Welsh, 1998).These explore designing online instruction in the context of the larger instructional system.In other words, they consider various aspects of the entire instructional system fromidentifying needs to developing and implementing instruction, as well as evaluation of thesystem and the roles of team members who are involved.

Those articles that focused on web site design tend to be concerned with the web siteand the interface between the instructional unit and the user (e.g., Plankis, 1998; Rogers &Erickson, 1998; Wan & Chung, 1998). This contrasts with our focus which is, again, thedesign of the instructional unit or the course materials that one puts on the site.

Other articles focused on the instructional strategies that one might consider whendesigning online instruction, for example, collaborative learning, problem solving (i.e.,Chen, 1998; Lohr, 1998). These articles consider important instructional strategies inisolation from other instructional design components, such as objectives and evaluation.

Still other articles addressed the nature of the instructional materials. For instance,Hawley and Duffy (1998) discussed the impact of learning theories on the design of onlineinstruction. Maule (1998) considered how the philosophy of the discipline can impact thedesign of online instruction.

Lastly, there are a number of Web style guides. Berk and Kanfer (1996) have done areview of Web style guides and classify these guides into two types: HTML authoringguides that focus on presentation and speed of a site (e.g., Berners-Lee, 1998), and Webstyle guides that focus on communication of goals and navigation (e.g., Lynch &Horton, 1999). These are similar in some ways to style guides for publication of textbased manuscripts.

To summarize, we were unable to find comprehensive guidelines for designing aninstructional unit or course materials based on a principled approach. Plankis (1998) statesthat `̀ guidelines for printed materials are established and well known . . . there is nostandard for electronic documents'' (p. 38). Thus, we returned to a framework representinggeneric principles for the design of text based instructional units or course materials(Saroyan & Geis, 1988; McAlpine & Weston, 1994). These principles represent aconsolidation of expert recommendations for the design and evaluation of instructionalmaterials. These principles have guided our design of instructional materials in the pastand seemed equally appropriate for the context of online learning. It became evident,however, that some online learning issues are not directly addressed in the existingguidelines and thus require explicit consideration in terms of their relationship to theseexisting principles.

In this paper, we begin by presenting the framework of generic guidelines whichconsists of four categories of instructional principles to be considered when designinginstructional materials: Instructional Design (pedagogical issues), Subject Matter (con-tent issues), Language (semantic and syntactic issues) and Presentation (physical issues).We then introduce the nine additional considerations, derived from the literature and ourexperience, for designing instruction for the context of online learning: impact on

WESTON ET AL.36

learning, student computer literacy, student computer access, infrastructure, interactivity,navigation, evaluation, accuracy and recency, and loading speed and bandwidth. Weshow how each of these is an elaboration of some aspect of the existing instructionalprinciples. The contribution of this paper is that it provides a comprehensive set ofguidelines or principles for designing course materials or instructional units that will beused on a web site or CD-ROM.

Generic Guidelines for Designing Instruction

We believe that designing instruction for online learning should be based on the sameprinciples that have guided instructional designers for years, and find that the guidelinesdeveloped by McAlpine and Weston (1994) provide a useful framework consisting of fourcategories that summarize these instructional principles. Thus, we use these four categories(Instructional Design, Subject Matter, Language and Presentation) as the framework oranchor points for discussing the design of instruction for the online context of learning. InFig. 1, the list within each of the four anchor categories indicates the principles that expertsrecommend be systematically considered when designing any kind of instruction. Theadditional nine considerations are made explicit in the center of Fig. 1, with links showingtheir relationship to the existing instructional principles.

The four anchor categories of instructional principles are briefly described belowaccompanied by the kinds of questions one might ask to verify whether attributes of eachcategory have been considered. These four categories may help the reader to organizethinking within a structured framework.

Instructional Design

Instructional Design (upper left in Fig. 1), presents a summary of experts' recom-mendations regarding essential aspects of pedagogical design that should be considered forany context. For example, it is recommended to begin the design process by askingwhether the instruction meets a definite need or if it is nice but not necessary ( justificationof need). Once it is determined there is a need for instruction, it is important to ask whetherstudents have the necessary prior knowledge, abilities and tools for instruction (pre-requisites). Likewise, each attribute is meant to prompt instructors to ask questions andverify that issues related to each attribute have been considered.

The Instructional Design category seems to be the least well represented in Web styleguides and is the one that we feel is the most important since it incorporates essentialpedagogical principles. The reader will note several of instructional design attributes areimplicated in the additional considerations for online learning presented later.

Subject Matter

The Subject Matter category (lower left in Fig. 1) presents a summary of experts'recommendations regarding essential aspects of content that should be considered. Forexample, it is important to ask whether the content is relevant (value of content), reliable(content accuracy), and up to date (recency). The Subject Matter category is not wellrepresented in current guidelines for creating online instruction.

DESIGNING INSTRUCTION 37

Language

The Language category (lower right in Fig. 1) deals with semantic and syntacticstructures of language to consider when designing instruction due to the impact these haveon student comprehension and understanding. For example, it is important to ask whether

Figure 1. Additional Considerations for Online Context and their Relationship to ExistingInstructional Principles

WESTON ET AL.38

vocabulary is appropriate for the reading level of the students (choice of vocabulary), orwhether sentences with many embedded clauses are limited in number (complexity ofsentence structure). Again, the Language category is not well represented in currentdiscussion of designing instruction for online learning.

Presentation

The Presentation category (upper right in Fig. 1) deals with the physical attributes ofinstruction, such as graphics, format and layout. For example, it is important to ask if alegible font is used (typeface/fonts), and whether numbering systems, headings, indenta-tion and spacing promote a consistent presentation (format and layout). This categoryseems best represented in current discussions of guidelines for online learning. Foradditional information on presentation attributes, refer to Web style guides, such as Berkand Kanfer (1996), Berners-Lee (1998), Lynch and Horton (1999).

All of the attributes identified in these generic guidelines are important for designinginstruction of any kind, however, certain attributes take on greater importance and adifferent focus in the context of online learning. These additional considerations aredescribed below.

Guidelines Update: Additional Considerations for the Contextof Online Learning

From the literature and experience, we have identified nine important considerations thatrequire additional attention for the context of online learning: impact on learning, studentcomputer literacy, student computer access, infrastructure, interactivity, navigation,evaluation, accuracy and recency, and loading speed and bandwidth (presented in thecenter box in Fig. 1). In some cases, the item is not new (e.g., impact on student learning)but requires additional attention in online learning. In other cases, the attribute is new (e.g.,loading speed and bandwidth) and specific to the context of online learning. In all cases,the additional considerations are elaborations of some aspect of the existing instructionalprinciples. Connecting lines show how each of the nine considerations relates to one ormore of the four anchor categories of instructional principles, and as well indicates thecorresponding attribute (e.g., in the Instructional Design category the third attribute,prerequisites, is represented by the code ID3).

Impact on Learning

The first question to consider when designing online instruction is whether the impacton student learning will be sufficient to justify the time, effort and resources necessary(e.g., Kemp, Morrison & Ross, 1998; Welsh, 1998). Although this issue is alreadyincorporated in Instructional Design principles, (ID1, justification of need) we believe itrequires particular attention in the context of online learning because of the extraordinaryamounts of time, effort and resources needed to create this type of instruction. We findincreasingly it also requires a great deal of time to manage, such as when tracking orparticipating in online discussions, or responding to student queries. Some instructorsreport their workload doubles when using the new forms of teaching, so it is important

DESIGNING INSTRUCTION 39

ensure that creating online instruction will have sufficient impact on learning to be worththe effort. Other instructors design online instruction because it is innovative rather thanbecause it does a more effective job of facilitating learning that cannot be achievedotherwise, as in the case of learning at a distance or simulations.

Student Access

It is also essential to consider whether all students have personal computers withsufficient and equal capability to access online instruction or whether arrangements needto be made to ensure that they will have sufficient access to institutional computer labs andequipment. This issue is implied in Instructional Design principles (ID3, prerequisites) butwe emphasize it because there are increasing concerns that online materials are not equallyavailable to all students due to variability in personal resources. For example, in additionto ensuring that all students have access to a computer, the capability of their computersmust also be considered. Information is not necessarily presented consistently acrossbrowsers (e.g., Netscape, Mosaic, Internet Explorer, Lynx). As well, much of thepresentation quality on the Web often has more to do with the receiver than the creator.There is no guarantee that students will receive instruction in the same format orpresentation with which it was created.

Student Computer Literacy

Another important early consideration is whether students have the prerequisitecomputer literacy skills (including online social conventions) necessary to succeed withthe instruction. Once we are computer literate ourselves we often assume others are aswell, when in fact they may not be. This issue is implied in Instructional Design principles(ID3, prerequisites) but we emphasize it to remind instructors that computer literacy canenhance or diminish students' success in online instruction. For example, if a requiredcomponent of the course is electronic submission of assignments or online discussion, or ifthere are expectations about social conventions (Netiquette: e.g., how often studentsshould sign on, the extent to which they should interact with others), then students shouldalready have the ability to do this, or be provided with adequate training.

Infrastructure

In addition to considering whether students have access and are computer literate,there are prerequisites that must be considered for the instructor and institution as well.This issue is implied in Instructional Design principles (ID3, prerequisites) but weemphasize its importance early in the design process because the success of onlineinstruction depends on whether the necessary skills, infrastructure and technical support torun and maintain the instruction are available. For example, designing and maintainingonline instruction may require a range of technical skills from basic word processing ande-mail, to facility with conferencing software, and publishing to the Web with interactivegraphic and audio capability. Regardless of who is responsible, it is essential to ensure theinfrastructure exists to keep the online instruction running satisfactorily. In other words,ensure computer facilities and the technical personnel are available to help instructors andstudents. Technical personnel are essential for training and assisting instructors with the

WESTON ET AL.40

multitude of problems that can arise on a daily basis, such as glitches in uploading Webpages, or troubleshooting interface difficulties. Adequate computer facilities are requiredto support the choice of software and to provide students with satisfactory access.

Interactivity

One of the most outstanding features of online instruction is its extensive andsophisticated capacity for interaction. Learning theory indicates the more active thelearner, the more learning occurs (e.g., McKeachie, 1999). Thus, one of the mostimportant things to consider when designing online instruction is how to engage thelearner. Some ways to accomplish this are through incorporating activities that providepractice and feedback, opportunities for reflection, and problem solving (Silberman,1996; Chen, 1998; Smith & Ragan, 1999). This can be done in several ways rangingfrom bulletin board Frequently-Asked-Questions, to exercises and quizzes with branchingfor incorrect answers, to interactive discussion groups, and more sophisticated simula-tions that allow the student to interact in ways not previously possible such as chemicallab experiments, business market simulations, and dissections. Although there isopportunity for the design to incorporate feedback, increased opportunities for commu-nication with students may also demand more time (e.g., e-mail and online discussions)than other learning contexts. Therefore, it is important to make allowances for it ininstructional planning.

The issue of interaction is implied in several attributes of Instructional Designprinciples (ID6, instructional strategies: ID9, practice; ID10, feedback). Online instructionis an instructional strategy which, like any instructional strategy, is chosen on the basis ofits appropriateness for achieving the goals of instruction for the students and the subjectmatter. It is important to consider how interaction can enhance the desired learning andwhat features of online instruction can be used to provide this interaction. For example,posting an outline of a course or workshop on the Web provides instructors an effectivemeans to make updates and provide students with off site access to course information, butdoes not afford active learning for students and will likely have little impact on theirachievement of course goals. On the other hand, quizzes with immediate feedback andbranching to explanation of errors and remedial tutorials is a good example of activelearning and provides an excellent source of practice and feedback. As well, onlinediscussion of readings is an excellent example of active learning but is most appropriatefor students in different locations and with variable schedules.

Interaction is an important instructional strategy and, as the most powerful feature ofthe Web to date, it deserves special attention when designing online instruction.

Navigation

An important consideration when designing online instruction is navigation, which inthis case we define as how the student moves through the instruction and how theinstruction is designed to facilitate understanding of organization and structure of content.The aspect of navigation that gets much attention in online style guides is how to structurea Web site and navigate within it. Little attention is given to the content of the instructionand how the navigation can be designed so that the organization of the content is evident tothe student.

DESIGNING INSTRUCTION 41

Due to the very nature of online documents that tend to be one screen at a time,navigation cues are essential to help students situate themselves within the document orsite in the same way that a table of contents and index help users to situate themselves inprinted text. This consideration is implied in Instructional Design principles (ID7,organization and structure of content) which focuses on whether structural features areused appropriately, such as outlines, advance organizers, transitions, reviews, andsummaries (e.g., Dick & Carey, 1996; Smith & Ragan, 1999).

We see navigation issues reflected in Presentation principles (P3, headings; P12,highlighting) that focus on how various techniques can be used to facilitate under-standing the underlying structure of content, such as graphic layout, fonts, prompts, andboxes. As proposed by the Yale style guide and others, we suggest `̀ click here'' bereplaced by more representative word(s) that describe the concepts to which students arelinking. It is important to think about how the capability of hypertext links can be usedto support content.

Evaluation

Evaluating student learning is a major concern when designing any instruction (e.g.,Dick & Carey, 1996; Kemp et al, 1998; Smith & Ragan, 1999). In the online context, thereare a number of tools that can greatly facilitate evaluation, such as tracking studentprogress through automated data collection and error analysis. In addition to providinginformation about achievement of learning outcomes, these results can be used to diagnoselearning difficulties and help in planning instruction.

There are also considerations for evaluating learning in any context that can beexaggerated in the online context. All of these issues are implied in existing InstructionalDesign principles (ID11, evaluation of learning). The most important thing aboutevaluating student learning is a direct match between stated learning outcomes andwhat is evaluated. If the intention is for students to learn problem solving, then theinstruction should provide guidance and practice in problem solving and the evaluationmethod should require them to demonstrate problem solving. In other words, the methodused in teaching the content must also be used when evaluating learning. Sometimeswithout realizing it, a goal is evaluated that is different from what has been stated orwhat the students expect. For example, if the objective is visual identification of bodyparts, and the instruction provides visuals and interaction to guide identification, but theexam is multiple choice with no visual referent and requires explanation of functionsrather than identification of body parts, then there is a mismatch between outcomes andwhat is evaluated.

In online learning, instructors sometimes evaluate hidden learnings or goals that havenot been explicitly stated as a desired outcome of instruction. For example, in a course ontechnical report writing where assignments are to be submitted online, there is anassumption that the students have the computer skills necessary. Thus, competency insubmitting online has become part of the assignment and thus part of the evaluation,although not an explicitly stated learning goal. Instructors should consider whethercomputer skills are necessary prerequisites or will be formally taught during the course.This is a simple example; hidden learnings become even more problematic as instructionincorporates more sophisticated features of online learning.

WESTON ET AL.42

Content Accuracy and Recency

There are several Subject Matter principles of particular significance to the design ofonline learning (S2, content accuracy; S6, recency). It is important to consider whethercontent is accurate, in other words from a reliable source, and whether content is state of theart and represents current trends in the area. We emphasize this because some informationon the Web is not reliable and extreme caution should be taken to verify the reliability ofonline resources. It is helpful to include a link to the designer so that the source of theinformation can be verified. As well, expectation of Web users will be that instruction isrevised and updated frequently so it represents current trends and information.

Loading Speed and Bandwidth

We raise the issue of loading speed and bandwidth because of the impact that speedhas on the reception of online multimedia such as animation and video. When designingonline instruction, it is important to first consider the necessity of multimedia features foraccomplishing learning goals and whether they provide something the narrative cannot. Ifthese features are necessary, then consider the slowest speed of students' Internet access(e.g., through modem, local area network, backbone) and whether their loading speed andbandwidth will display the instruction as it was designed and at a reasonable speed. Someaspects of these issues are already addressed in the Presentation principles (P5, graphics,illustrations, visuals; P6, audio/music; P11 technical quality), however, loading speed andbandwidth are more specific to the context of online learning.

Conclusions

The Yale style guide (Lynch & Horton, 1999), considered by many to be an importantresource relating to online instruction, states:

Although networked interactive hypermedia documents do pose novel challenges to information

designers, most of the guidance you need to design, create, assemble, edit, and organize multiple

forms of media is not radically different from current practice in print media. . . Don't get so lost in

the novelty of Web pages that basic standards of editorial and graphic design get tossed aside.

We would add that one should also avoid getting so lost in the novelty of online instructionthat basic principles of instructional design and subject matter get tossed aside. We haveillustrated this by describing nine additional considerations for the context of onlinelearning and have shown how they relate to existing guidelines for designing instruction.Most of the additional considerations are related to existing Instructional Design attributes.We see this as a reversal of emphasis evident in style guides which focus more onpresentation issues and less on instructional design principles.

In conclusion, the four generic categories of instructional principles discussed in thispaper apply equally to the design of instruction for the context of online learning. Mostcurrent considerations related to designing online instruction are elaborations of theseexisting principles. We suggest Fig. 1 may provide a structure and language for discussingissues related to designing instruction for the context of online learning, and may be usefulas a job aid to help instructors and designers systematically consider essential principles toensure that none are overlooked.

DESIGNING INSTRUCTION 43

References

Barker, T. B. (1998). Developing courseware for distance learning Ð any place, any time. NY: Rochester Institute

of Technology (ERIC no. ED 422 840).

Beriswill, J. E. (1998). Analysis-based message design: Rethinking screen design guidelines. Indiana (ERIC no.

ED 423 823).

Berk, R., & Kanfer, A. (April 1996). A review of web style guides. NCSA Technology Research Group. [Online]

Available at http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg/styleguide/.

Berners-Lee, T. (1998). Style guide for online hypertext. [Online] Available at http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/

Overview.html.

Chen, L. (1998). Web-based distance instruction: Design and implications of a cybercourse model. Michigan

(ERIC no. ED 423 828).

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction, 4th edn. New York: HarperCollins.

Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and

learning on line. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hawley, C. L., & Duffy, T. M. (1998). Design model for learner centered, computer-based simulations. Indiana

(ERIC no. ED 423 838).

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Designing effective instruction, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lohr, L. (1998). Using ADDIE to Design a Web Based Training Interface. Colorado (ERIC no. ED 421 139).

Lynch, P. J., & Horton, S., (1999). Yale C/AIM style guide. Available at http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/.

Maule, R. W. (1998). Content design frameworks for Internet studies curricula and research. Internet Research,8(2), 174 ± 184.

McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials. Performance Improvement Quar-

terly, 7(1), 19 ± 30.

McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers, 10th

edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Plankis, B. J. (1998). Implementing good Web style. Techtrends, 43(3), 37± 40.

Rogers, P. L., & Erickson, M. (1998). Layers of navigation: Hypermedia design for an ill-structured domain.

Minnesota (ERIC no. ED 423 857).

Saroyan, A., & Geis, G. L. (1988). An analysis of guidelines for expert reviewers. Instructional Science, 17,

101±128.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, K., & Northrop, K. (1998). The CLASS course design model for Web-based instruction. Washington, DC:

General Services Administration (ERIC no. ED 422 877).

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stone, D. E., & Bishop, C. A. (1997). Web based training: How to really do it. Journal of Instruction Delivery

Systems, 11(4), 3 ± 9.

Wan, H. A., & Chung, C. (1998). Web page design and network analysis. Internet Research, 8(2), 115 ± 122.

Welsh, M. (1998). Orchestrating multimedia. Concord, Ontario: Irwin.

WESTON ET AL.44