Bergeron, Corrie (cbergeron@capella.edu)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:41:54 -0500
From: "Bergeron, Corrie" <cbergeron@capella.edu> Subject: Re: Design guidelines for online courses Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:41:54 -0500
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - David Little wrote: Good point Corrie: Technology over
content is like oil over water. All too often, Designers are dazzled by
technological capabilities and relegate content and design thereof to a
secondary position. I have been in this field since 1964. The same problems
persisted then as they do now. Question: Did we ever get the message? - - -
- - - - -
Some folks get the message and always have. Some don't and probably never
will. Mark Nichols made an excellent point: "Some are able to design
effective on-line courses using "raw" HTML, while others can produce
disastrous Web sites using the latest HTML editors. What we should be
looking at, I think, is the end product - that which students interact with
and (hopefully) learn from."
Beginning with the end product clearly in mind is called "analysis and
design." I like to use an architectural analogy: When you want a new
house, you sit down with an architect. The architect asks about your
lifestyle - do you have children? Do you like to garden? Do you entertain
often? These factors affect the floor plan and features of the house. He
goes away and does some sketches. You work together and refine them until
the plans reflect a workable balance between your dreams and your budget.
The detailed plans are given to the building contractor, who builds the
house. The house will stand for generations, its systems will be
maintainable, and you will be happy to live there for years.
This is precisely analogous to the ISD process, where the architect is the
instructional designer and the contractor is the programmer.
Contrast that with the model so often promoted by authoring-tool vendors,
who insist that content experts with no knowledge of learning theory can
create iterate their way to a finished product. That's what I call
"treehouse CBT." It's like showing up in Johnny's backyard with a load of
scavenged lumber and a bucket of nails, and hammering things together until
you have an approximation of a structure. It's a fun way to spend a summer
afternoon, but do you want to raise a family in the shack?
To be fair, it may be that the value and shelf-life of some courseware is so
small that the tree-house approach is okay. If you don't care about
maintaining or updating the program, and if it's okay for it to crash fairly
often, then hammer away! But IMHO if you are going to invest any serious
amount of time in developing courseware, then by all means PLAN the
product!
Corrie J. Bergeron Jr.
Senior Instructional Designer, Capella Education
"An educated mind is useless without a focused will,
and dangerous without a loving heart." - W.M. Deijmann
corrie@itasca.net <mailto:corrie@itasca.net>
http://www.capella.edu <http://www.capella.edu>
330 2nd Ave South, Ste. 550
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612-339-7665 x 283
888-879-6745 x 283
FAX 612-339-8022
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 16 Jun 1999 - 22:41:44 MEST