INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN FACTORS IMPACTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EFFECTIVE ELEMENTARY (GRADES THREE – FIVE)
ONLINE PROGRAM
by
SHARON R SYNAN
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the University of West Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Education
CARROLLTON, GEORGIA
20??
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Both public education and the school environment are complex (Cohen, 2003). Shirky
(2008) wrote of the hesitation to innovate in an organization stating, “more people will
remember you saying yes to a failure than no to a radical but promising idea” (p.246). It is
argued that the organization of education is even more weary and hesitant to innovate than the
traditional business organizations because of the high stakes when dealing with students and
their future, safety, and educational development. These high stakes tend to persuade leaders
and policy makers in education to play it safe and do the things that have traditionally worked
because they already know the results (Lehmann, 2008).
Innovation and change in education
have been notoriously slow but that is changing. “As we head toward the 21st century, the pace
of change is accelerating” (Busick & Inos, 1992, pg. 2). Change is a process not an event (Fullan
& Stiegelbauer, 1991). Technology advancement is credited for having led to a revolutionary
change in the 20th century as the Internet provided new opportunities for learning (Hemschik,
2008). It has been said, however, in the 21st century change is not enough. In the 21st century
education will need to be reinvented (McLeod, 2008).
Online learning opportunities in K-12 environments are growing tremendously and
provide the opportunity for education to reinvent and transform. According to a study conducted
by Blackboard (2009), 29% of middle school students and 36% of high school students had
experience with an online class. These statistics represented an 80% increase in secondary
education. The K-12 education environment is right at the threshold of unprecedented change
and virtual education is central to the transformation (Lips, 2010; U.S Department of Education,
2009).
Reports from past years indicate a significant increase in the number of states providing
online K-12 programs (Watson, 2005, Gemin & Ryan, 2008; Watson & Ryan, 2006, 2007;
Watson, Gemin, Ryan & Wicks, 2009). The number of students enrolled in virtual education is
reported at 1.03 million in 2007-2008, and the student enrollment is increasing annually at 30%
(iNACOL, 2009). Additionally, states like Georgia have adopted policy changes that have
increased the sense of urgency to develop and provide more online and virtual opportunities for
all students (Senate Bill 285, 2012).
Background
The policies, procedures, and ideas of K- 12 public education are changing. Recent trends
in United States policy (Hassel & Terrell, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2004) support
the continued expansion of online learning opportunities aimed at elementary- and secondaryschool students (Rice, 2009). Online learning in the United States was used initially to allow
school districts to offer courses they would not be able to offer otherwise (Watson &Gemin,
2008). As more scrutiny and high pressure to maximize online learning opportunities for K-12
students continue to expand, so do the concerns and the scrutiny over evaluating the
effectiveness and the ability to scale out the programs considering the costs, needs, and the
barriers associated with new development (Freedman, Darrow, & Watson, 2002).
The decisions that are made by leadership in schools and government on behalf of
education have far reaching and in some cases unpredictable impacts, on not only our systems of
education, but also on the students as individuals that are served. Blomeyer (2002) warns it is
absolutely critical that further development and rapid growth be carried forward with great
consideration and in a systematic process. Online learning could potentially be a transformative
answer to teaching and learning by making instruction more personalized and by enhancing the
experiences and quality of learning. Online learning research has been shown as an effective
alternative to improve student performance even among students of diverse groups (iNACOL,
2009b).
Forty-two states currently offer supplemental programs, full-time online programs, or a
combination of both supplemental and full-time programs (Watson & Ryan, 2007). Cyberschools are now operating to at least some degree within the state limits in every state (Long,
2004). Survey research by Project Tomorrow found that “both students and parents see online
learning as a key to changing the traditional learning paradigm by providing instruction that is
more individualized to students’ unique needs” (Project Tomorrow, 2012 p. 6).
Definitions of Key Terms
The following key terms are used in the research and referred to in the Literature Review.
1. ADDIE - which stands for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.
2. Asynchronous communication: Communication where the message is stored until the
receivers find it convenient to retrieve it. E-mail and computer conferencing are examples of
asynchronous communication (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
3. Blended learning occurs any time a student learns in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar
place, away from home, and at least in part through online delivery, with some element of
student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
4. Cognitive load theory has been designed to provide guidelines intended to assist in the
presentation of information in a manner that encourages the activities of learners that optimize
intellectual performance" (Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas, 1998, p. 251).
5. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Transmission and reception of messages using
computers as input, storage, output, and routing devices (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
6. Content creation tools are the tools that course designers and teachers use to create the
content in online education courses (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
7. Distance education An instructional program where the teacher and student are separated by
physical space or time, or both. A variety of educational media can be employed – from
workbooks or assignments (sent by mail), to Web-based learning environments, to high-end,
room sized IVC systems (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
8. E-learning is interactive learning in which the learning content is available online and
provides automatic feedback to the student’s learning activities (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
9. Facilitator is the on-site individual who assists students during a videoconference and helps
them learn from a virtual teacher in either a synchronous or asynchronous situation (KaplanLeiserson, 2011).
10. Formative assessment: The assessment conducted as a part of the teaching: questions and
assignments set to help the student learn effectively, but not used to determine the student’s
course results (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
11. Hybrid Course is a course of study composed of both traditional and virtual-learning
elements (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
12. Learning Management System (LMS) Software that automates the administration of
training events (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
13. Learning object: A reusable, media-independent chunk of information used as a modular
building block for e-learning content (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
14. Online learning is teacher-led instruction delivered primarily via the Internet, and it includes
software to provide a structured learning environment. Teachers and students are separated by
geography.
15. Summative assessment: The assessment intending to determine a student’s overall level of
performance on the course: questions and assignments, the grades or scores of which are used in
determining the student’s course result.
16. Synchronous communication: Real-time communication such as online chatting and videoconferencing (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
17. Virtual learning utilizes information and communication technologies to deliver instruction.
Virtual learning is a term frequently used interchangeably with distance learning, online learning,
e-learning, or Web-based learning (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2011).
18. Web-based learning is often referred to as online education, this is a course of study
delivered via the Internet (or more specifically, the World Wide Web). Students have electronic
access to the teacher and other students through e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, online chat
rooms, e-mail lists, and so forth. A specific Web site is set up that allows students’ access to
course materials and assignments in an “anytime/ anyplace” learning environment. In most cases,
this is exclusively an asynchronous exchange between teacher and student. (Kaplan-Leiserson,
2011)
Introduction to the Problem
No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001. This law requires, among other things, a
research base for educational decisions (NCLB, 2001). There is little research available that
explores K-8 online practitioners’ perspectives regarding pedagogical beliefs, the quality of
online practices, and the support systems employed (Hemschick, 2008). The research that has
been conducted on online learning is preliminary and very limited in regards to grades K-8
although the rise in the number of virtual schools and online courses available for this grade band
has increased dramatically.
Presently, 80% of virtual schools use programs they have created on their own
(sometimes referred to as in house). It is important to note the use of commercial products has
increased. Reasons given for the increase in use of commercial products has been found to be
based on schools not having clear guidelines or models to pattern quality online or virtual
education program design and development (Oliver, Kellogg, Townsend & Brady, 2010).
Without a policy to drive online and virtual course development, these programs could
potentially come under scrutiny for lacking quality and credibility and thus hindering future
growth (Smith, 2007).
Georgia Senate Bill 289 went into effect for all schools in Georgia on July 1, 2012. This
Bill is known as the Online Education Act and requires all schools to maximize the online
learning opportunities for students in K-12 grades. Further, the Online Education Act limits the
use of content and programs that are utilized by schools to be approved by the Online Clearing
House to ensure quality opportunities are being maintained (Senate Bill 289, 2012). Georgia
Virtual School is currently the only approved provider of online content; however, no content or
courses are available through Georgia Virtual School at this time to serve the needs of students in
K-5th grade. The problem surrounding the Online Education Act for elementary school
specifically is that the rapid growth is outpacing the research base and content development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore and describe the instructional design factors that
impact the development and implementation of K-8 online learning. “The question of how
effective distance learning can be with younger students has yet to be addressed” (Huett, Moller,
Foshay and Coleman, 2008, p.64). Some unknowns include: policies that remove barriers and
ensure quality for online education in K-8; the characteristics and needs of K-8 learners; best
practices in development; design and delivery of K-8 courses and content; and finally the
teaching strategies and pedagogy of K-8 online teachers.
A great deal of effort and attention has been given to instructional design of higher
education and secondary education, but how that information and data applies to K-8 online
environments is new and just in the beginning stages (Abram, 2005; Cavanaugh, Gillan,
Kromrev, Hess, Blomeyer, & North Central Regional Education Lab, 2004; Rice, 2006).
Teachers will also need a research base of teaching strategies to ensure that content is delivered
to K-8 students in an effective way utilizing online resources as part of their pedagogy (Quilici &
Joki, 2011-12).
Research Questions
In order to examine the instructional design factors impacting the development and
implementation of an effective elementary (grades 3-5) online program the following research
questions were used to focus the study.
Policy
1) What policies directly impact the funding and development planning of elementary online
courses?

How will development teams be funded?

What strategies and procedures support implementation of current elementary (3-5)
online schools?

How are outcomes and quality of content measured?
Learners
2) What development tools and guidelines applied in instructional design based on learning
theories for elementary 3-5 online students are perceived as most effective and efficient?
(Would make an assumption for these questions. Assuming all activities and instructional design
components have been carefully selected based on an accepted age appropriate learner theory.)

What applied strategies do experienced elementary 3-5 online teachers find the most
effective for teaching online elementary 3-5 courses?

What applied strategies do elementary 3-5 students prefer when taking online
courses?

What applied strategies do parents find most effective for student learning in online
elementary 3-5 courses?
Design and Development
3) What changes must be made in the instructional design and development process to meet the
needs of elementary 3-5 online learners?

What is the most successful grouping for an elementary (3-5) design team? What
design team roles must be represented to meet student needs?

What components of the module elements must be modified to meet the needs of 3-5
students?
Pedagogy
4) What teacher facilitator resources and supports must be developed along with the
development of student content to successfully implement elementary 3-5 online courses?

What are teacher, and parent perceived needs to support the implementation of
developed elementary 3-5 online courses in traditional brick and mortar public
schools?

What are district, teacher, parent, and student perceived needs to support the
implementation of developed elementary 3-5 online courses through GaVS in
partnership with local districts to homeschool students?
Significance of the Study
K-8 online education requires new skills and knowledge for teams of educators. These
teams include administrators, teachers, parents, support systems, like counselors and media
specialist, but also designers and developers of online content and courses. Working
collaboratively in a team effort with subject matter experts (SME’s) as well as instructional
designers, development specialists (DS) may be new to many educators. As the spread of online
learning geared toward adult learners begins to work its way and trickle down to the secondary
and elementary levels (Cavanaugh et al., 2004), K-8 research specific to the learner needs,
development guidelines, policies, and pedagogy at this level is critical. Research at the K-8 level
in online education provides an opportunity for exploring and finding new teaching strategies
and support systems that could potentially enhance and benefit not only online programs but
other environments with K-8 teaching strategies and support systems. In addition, online
education requires educators who are fluent in 21st Century skills to meet student needs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004c).
The growth of K-8 online education requires a research base to identify themes specific
to K-8 online education. The federal No Child Left Behind Act, through standards of
accountability, requires educational leaders to base decisions on empirical research (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005). Currently, administrators, policy makers, and teachers are
making decisions regarding K-8 online education using a limited research base.
The findings of this research may add to the base knowledge by providing empirical
research specific to K-8 online learning and the factors that impact the design and development
of quality programs and the effective implementation of these programs.
Theoretical Framework and Introduction to The Study
The primary goal for educators, regardless of the specific role, is to ensure that the
learner receives and engages in a high quality, meaningful learning experience while
successfully reaching for and obtaining the desired learning outcomes. In this study it is argued
that in order to achieve the educational goals in a rapidly growing online learning environment, a
systematic approach and research-based project plan needs to be implemented and utilized. A
solid project plan will ensure online elementary students in grades three through five are
provided with a fully integrated, engaging, and effective online course. Having a project plan
that is detailed and clear in its expectations of instructional design strategies and procedures is an
important step to ensure a quality online elementary course.
Applying strategies to meet the needs of elementary, grades three through five, students
by providing guidelines for how and when to apply module elements within the project plan is an
important factor. Having a project plan and development guide that applies strategies based on
learning theories is a researched piece that is lacking in much of the literature. Additionally,
providing a management system that utilizes collaborative Web 2.0 tools to promote open
dialogue and communication among a development team increases efficiency, effectiveness,
yields a higher quality product and increases satisfaction for all team members involved and
ultimately for the end-user, the learner.
The goal of this research is to modify and adapt the Georgia Virtual School Development
Model, which is loosely patterned after the Three-Phase Design Model by Sims and Jones to
serve Elementary Course Design needs. The Georgia Virtual School Model is currently used to
develop high school and middle school courses successfully for Georgia Virtual School. A
Georgia Virtual School Elementary Development Model that is efficient, effective and scalable
will meet the needs of elementary, three through five, students by creating a solid research-based
model specific to the learning needs of elementary school students.
The Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model
One well-developed approach is Sims and Jones’ Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model.
Three-Phase Design is an enhancement to the traditional design process [that] focuses on
the creation of functional course delivery components, with evaluation and improvement
activities integrated with scaffolding (support) for the teacher and learners to provide a
dynamic teaching and learning environment in which resources and strategies can be
developed or modified during the actual delivery stage. (Sims & Jones, 2002 p.8).
As illustrated in Figure 1, the 3PD design model is supported by a carefully selected "team" (p.8)
made up of an academic (A) or subject matter expert, a developer (D), and an educational
designer (ED) who will all contribute to the parts of a learning program’s iterative progression
through the model phases.
There are four critical areas to consider, according to Sims & Jones (2002).
1. Instructional design must align with institutional expectation, contemporary pedagogies,
and available resources and skills.
2. Skills-building is facilitated through the scaffolding process to enable those less
proficient in design and development to develop the appropriate competencies.
3. A team-based approach is used to develop communication and collaboration among
group members. Sims and Jones (2002) point out that the growth in social media
reinforces the importance of this factor.
4. Scaffold support is incorporated into content design-time to enable instructors and staff to
confront new and learning paradigms.
Figure 1. Diagram of
and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that
the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive license to ASCILITE to publish this
document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form within the ASCILITE 2002 conference proceedings. Any
other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).
Georgia Virtual School’s Design Model
Phase I – pre-delivery phase. When designing and developing online courses, Georgia
Virtual School uses an adapted three-phase design (3PD) model that focuses design of online
instruction on the constructivist approach to enhance cognitive learning. Web-based instruction
is particularly well suited to this goal (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995).
A qualitative process entailing multiple factors informs and guides the leadership team of
Georgia Virtual School (GaVS) in choosing which courses will be developed during the year.
Some of these factors include: program need, graduation requirements, Department of Education
requirements, availability of grant or other specialized funding resources, and public requests.
Course availability through partnerships with other State Virtual Schools is an additional
consideration that is new in the decision making process. GaVS Instructional Leaders and
Program Coordinators consult on a regular on-going basis to determine the greatest need in each
curriculum area.
Roles and responsibilities. In this phase teams are formed. Teams are assigned based on
certification, skills level, workload, and interest. Matching Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) with
Development Specialist (DS) and a Department Chair (DC) ensures the process of development
remains focused on the content of the course and application of strategies to meet the needs of
learners based on researched learning theories. This model works well because it draws from the
expertise of the subject matter expert and then relies on the design expertise of the trained DS to
ensure the most effective Web 2.0 tools, interactives, and styles are used in the development and
finally is reviewed by the DC. The DC’s responsibility is to quality check that all learning
standards, objectives, and goals are covered adequately in the course. The responsibilities of each
role are detailed in writing, through online training and follow up provided by the Sr. Manager of
Development for GaVS. This collaborative process requires the SME to understand the
technology the DS has available to design and develop the course and the DS must understand
the instructional needs of the SME (Earnshaw, 2007). The 3PD model is an iterative process
where one development cycle will build open the first with enhancements made to improve the
overall quality through each development cycle. At GaVS the development cycle is based on a
year-long calendar schedule for each phase to be included. Courses are refreshed approximately
every three years unless there is a change in standards, or Department of Education initiative.
GaVS is committed to providing communication and expectations that are thorough and
GaVS works hard to provide the training required to assist the team members to understand,
organize, and keep up to date with the overall project in the development cycle. Using a Webbased project management tool is one way GaVS ensures this communication. Working in
collaborative teams can increase productivity, accountability and efficiency; however, team roles
and expectations must be clear from the beginning.
The DC’s are responsible for approving the overall project plan for course development
to which they have been assigned. The project plan is broken into manageable tasks and will
include an overview of the modules for the course, a detailed plan for the components and
coverage of standards within each module of the course, checking assessment and quiz
development, rubric availability and the general quality and pedagogy through design. It is the
DC’s responsibility to be sure all standards are covered adequately for the student to be
successful and to meet the learning objectives for the course. The DC is responsible for giving
approval of or denying the project plan, module development, course components and final
course project.
Figure 2
http://cms.gavirtualschool.org/Development/SMETrainingCourse/01_Responsibilities/DC_PathP
erModule.png
The Project Plan Overview kicks off the work. The DC checks to see that the overview is
complete and that the overview lists the module titles in order, according to Part A or B. One
full unit course includes a Part A and a Part B, a half unit course would be A or B. The DC
makes sure the overview fully covers the scope of the course and adequately includes and
instructs on all standards. The DC makes sure that the SME has identified the split if it is an AB
course, as well as whether or not the course requires an End of Course Test (EOCT).
Once the Project Plan Overview is approved, the SME continues to work on the project
by detailing a Project Plan. This project plan will give detailed information and descriptions for
planning the individual modules in the project. The DC will make sure and will verify with their
signature that all required module components are represented accurately in the project plan.
They will examine the module assessments and content for adherence to the standards,
confirming that the standards are met or exceeded. After examining the project plan, the DC will
sign off in the Web-based project management system.
After the DC has signed off on the Project Plan Overview and Project Plan, the SME will
begin work on the individual module content. When the DC reviews a module, they will confirm
once again that the content covers the standards and that the assessments authentically measure
the student understanding and will evaluate the standards and lesson material. The DC will also
check to see that the Learning Management System items are complete, set up appropriately, and
match the titles in the SCORM Compliant development software, Softchalk™. Then the DC
sends necessary revisions to the DS in a Word Document or in an email and then signs off in the
project management system, once they feel they have reviewed all aspects of the module, and be
ready to check the next module soon.
The SME is the Subject Matter Expert for a course development project. The SME
revises and authors content material (course introductions, lectures, assignments, etc.),
assessments (quizzes, tests, projects, discussions), and determine module placement and
ordering. The SME is directly responsible for course material accuracy and alignment of
standards. The SME reports to the DS to meet course deadlines for projects. Deadlines are set
after project plans are created allowing at least a week for the DC to approve the modules before
receiving another one. The SME will have strict deadlines. The SME submits course material to
the DS using the project plan management system and zipping all files into a packaged file. The
DS can offer support to the SME in regard to Web 2.0 tools, creating assessments, and OER
material. The SME must create grade items, quizzes, dropboxes, and discussion forums within
the Learning Management System. The SME must also create course schedules and a course
curriculum map.
Figure 3 : Created by Georgia Virtual School 2012 Development Handbook
The items the SME is required to provide and complete for the Learning Management
System are shown in Figure 4 below.
Development Specialists (DS) should serve as the first line of communication between
each SME and the corresponding DC. The DS manages projects. The DS holds each member
accountable to the deadlines, as they are set and marking off those tasks when they are met. DS
communicate with the Manager of Instruction regarding course creation progress. DS produce
module content within the program, SoftChalk™ and create learning objects, using interactive
software, and other programs. It is important to point out GaVS is committed to using Open
Education Resources (OER) so that all content and courses can be shared, are mobile, and have a
high rate of scalability.
Project plan components. The process of creating online courses can be complex. It is
important that a project plan is created to help organize the development process.
Figure 5: Suggested Path for Content Development, GaVS Handbook, 2012
There are seven components of the project plan:

Module number, module name, and its associated course.

The standards being taught in this module.

The Essential Questions for this module.

Module Minute.

The type of interactive activities the SME would like to use for this module.

More Resources (These are resources students can link out to for more help and
enrichment.

Assessments and explanations.
Project Plans will be created using a Google Form and spreadsheet, and housed within
the project management system. Once the project plan is complete and the module titles have
been established, there should be no editing.
Module elements and templates. Creating modules for learning is a process. There are
several elements as well as certain formatting standards. The elements and formatting standards
have been carefully documented and the expectation of GaVS is that the development team will
follow these formatting standards and guidelines.
Curriculum authoring software allows GaVS to create engaging lessons for online
classrooms. GaVS uses Softchalk™. By creating an interactive learning environment, our
students can learn in more efficient and engaging ways. Softchalk™ has several interactive
activities that can be created within the lesson authoring software. These interactive activities
include: drag-n-drop, crossword, matching, did you know, charts, flashcards, hotspots, jigsaw
puzzles, labeling, photo albums, seek a word, sorting, slideshow, tabbed information, and
timelines. Additionally, the development specialist has access to software to create Flash inline
interactives from Articulate, Raptivity, and Captivate. These include: Step by Step, Tabs,
Stairsteps, Accordian, and Video Showcase. When developing content for World Languages it is
important to keep in mind some of the limitations of the software. These are the inline objects,
which do not support accents: Drag N Drop, Crossword, Flashcard, Ordering, and Seek A Word.
It is okay to use accents in Labeling, Photo Album (which can be great for vocabulary
terms/images), Slideshow (again, good for Vocabulary -- and can add mp3 audio as well),
Sorting, and Timeline. Accents can also be used in all of the quiz objects: multiple choice,
multiple answer, true/false, short answer, essay, matching, and ordering.
Course modules are created from multiple files. In order to manage these files it is
important that the files be submitted in a specific format. The formatting for files follows these
guidelines:

When submitting image files, submit as jpeg or png.

When submitting audio files, submit as mp3, not .wav.

When submitting text files, submit as either .rtf, .doc, or .pdf.

When submitting video files, submit as .mov.

When submitting Flash files, submit in .mp4 or .swf.
When choosing images for the course the images should be chosen with a purpose. Images
should enhance the content, have an instructional purpose, provide valuable information, serve as
an instructional cue, or direct the student. No flashing, scrolling, or animated images should be
used. All copyright rules are followed.
The SME follows a template to create a script for the module. The first item in every
module is the introduction. The introduction does not need to be lengthy; but rather brief. It is
critical that the introduction clearly informs the students what will be covered in the module.
The next element in the module will be the standards covered and the essential questions. The
standards should be written in the exact language the state has provided them. The standards for
GaVS content are Georgia Performance Standards or Common Core Georgia Performance
Standards. Advanced Placement Courses will use objectives. The third item in the module will
be a “module minute” this is a quick answer, a minute that will answer the essential question.
Key terms and What to Expect will round out the explanation and preparation for the module.
In the lesson of the module, multimedia content is delivered. This section of the module
serves as the primary delivery of teaching through interactives, text, video, and graphics. Selfassessments guide the learner and provide a locus of control for the students as they are
encouraged to become independent in their learning. Assignments, quizzes and tests are all
components in the module. GaVS has guidelines for each of these components in regards to
number of interactives, quiz questions, and types of assignments. All assignments must have
clear directions that are both online and have the ability to be printed. Rubrics are included and
available to students for each assignment. Additionally, in the sidebar of each module the SME
is expected to provide at least two links to outside resources known as “more resources” to
provide additional learning opportunities to meet all learner needs and styles. The SME
completes a script over the module for the DS from which the DS will reflect the content,
instructions, and resources needed to put together the SoftChalk™ Package (handouts, images,
flash files, etc., will be uploaded separately). The script is organized according to the GaVS
Guidelines also known as the Perfect Course Essential Sections.
The learning management system. A Learning Management System is a software
application for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of training programs,
classroom and online events, e-learning programs, and training content. Desire2Learn is the
Learning Management System used by GaVS. This LMS is where all assessments (discussions,
quizzes, and tests) are created for the course, dropboxes are created in order to upload
assignments, labs, and projects, the gradebook is stored, and a checklist is provided to aid
students in their time management. Like the module script, the LMS must be set up to function
in a consistent way so that teachers, parents and students have clear understanding of how to
navigate and use the tools available through the system.
Phase II – evaluation and review of course. During the second phase of the design
model, the course is evaluated by the SME, the DS, the DC and finally evaluated by an external
course reviewer. The DC and the external reviewer have a checklist and guidelines to follow and
to ensure that the evaluation is consistent and that no components, guidelines or requirements are
missed. During the fall when the course is put in production the teacher, DC, and the Georgia
Virtual School Principal are especially mindful of checking in on the class and are quick to
document any necessary minor and major course corrections or revisions that may be necessary.
Phase III – maintenance. The final phase in the development cycle is the course
correction and revision phase. A DS can make minor course corrections usually over time before
the beginning of the new development cycle. However, there are times when major revisions are
needed or when the standards and objectives of a course may have been changed by the
Department of Education. When a major revision is needed the course must be re-evaluated and
new team will be assigned to begin a development cycle. Depending on the amount of revisions,
the time may vary for the expectation of the revision for the course. A major overhaul of a
course will put the course back into a full development cycle.
CHAPTER TWO
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to explore and describe the instructional design factors that
impact effective K-8 online learning. A review of the literature is a foundation for the proposed
study of K-8 online education by exploring the factors that influence online elementary
education. Impacting instructional design factors include the instructor’s pedagogical beliefs,
course designs, teaching strategies, and the support systems provided (Herrington, Herrington,
Oliver, Stoney, & Willis, 2001; Kearsley, 2006; Konings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merrienboer,
2005; Saba, 2005; Watson, 2005). The characteristics of K-8 online learners are a critical part of
this study. However, research specific to this group is limited with most research regarding
online learners to be generalized to higher education and secondary education (Barbour &
Reeves, 2009).
In this literature review characteristics of successful online learners are researched to
form a foundation based on the research from higher education and secondary education to build
upon and to expand into the elementary sector. In the review of literature four major themes
have been found relating to online learning. These themes are: policies, learners, course design
and development, and pedagogy. This literature review will focus on each theme in detail.
Policies
In policy, the most important consideration is student learning. This ultimate goal guides
policy development and decision-making. Policy makers may be required to examine current
policies for seat-time and removing them; replacing them with student-centered, competencybased approaches; or at least providing the flexibility for innovations and a shift from the
traditional in schools and districts (Nagel, 2011). When planning for the future and in order to
create a framework for best practices and policies in a 21st Century classroom, educators and
policymakers examine research-based evidence of effectiveness to guide the process (Roblyer &
Knezek, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) requires states to offer choices and
alternative options for schooling for students who are attending schools that do not make
adequate yearly progress. For some states and school districts online learning provides one
option to meet that requirement of options (Huett, Moller, Foshay and Coleman, 2008).
The online learning format allows for the use of multimedia tools to be used when
delivering course materials and content. Using multimedia resources gives students greater
opportunities to choose strategies that are most compatible with their learning styles and gives
the student the ability to have control over the pace and direction of their learning (Thomson,
2010). For policy makers multimedia use and electronic device use brings with it issues of
policies on the use of cellphones and other electronic devices for learning. Schools must have a
policy and plan in place to handle multiple access points, provide instruction over digital
technology literacy skills, ensure cellphone safety and ethical use, create a social contract,
parental permissions, parent information rights, and gather feedback from students and parents
(Millis, 2010).
Students in online courses have reported a benefit of online learning by having greater
flexibility and control over the content; meaning the student can engage in the class anytime,
anywhere in many cases, and they can repeat lessons if needed because they often have twentyfour hour access every day of the week (Cavanaugh, Clark, & Barbour, 2008; Li & Beverly,
2008; Wallace, 2005).
A shift to competency-based learning is possible in online learning environments. “To
enable competency-based learning (also known as proficiency-based learning) would require
policy changes at the state and federal levels, cultural shifts within education itself, and the
implementation of technologies and training to support the system” (Nagel, 2011, pg.1). Online
learning provides alternate methods of instruction that can reach beyond physical location and
time barriers (Watson & Ryan, 2007).
Online and virtual education are transforming the educational landscape but must be
supported by policy that allows and liberates a reorganization of how educators engage learners
(Searson, Jones, & Wold, 2011). Without a research base and proactive thinking to guide and
inform policy makers the danger exists to rely upon traditional models that have guided brick
and mortar school (Huett et al, 2008). It is necessary to develop policies that consider the
opportunities and the barriers of online and virtual environments in the environment in which
they exist (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007; Compton, Davis & Correia, 2010; Rice, 2009). Susan
Patrick is quoted in an interview with David Nagel stating, “The single most important policy
issue for schools and districts offering online learning are policies rooted in measuring seat-time
to fund schools--rather than delivering flexible, anytime, anyplace learning for today's 21st
century students using online and blended learning” (Nagel, 2011, pg.1).
In data collected from panel members during research, panel members indicated the
importance of removing barriers to online learning and restrictions that limit access or have
eligibility requirements that are not obtainable (Rice, 2009). Policy issues also include funding
of online learning programs. Rice (2009) acknowledges educators are united on the issue of
funding, with panel members surveyed indicating they are less inclined to support policies that
attempt to take funding from traditional brick and mortar schools. It should be noted that in one
survey a quarter of the administrators indicated an interest in developing their own online
courses as a way to address decreases in funding (Project Tomorrow, 2012).
Some online high schools maximize online learning potential and remove barriers by
letting students take courses from home while others require students to take courses in a
monitored or facilitated school environment; for example, a computer lab that is supervised by
teachers or learning coaches. Some online programs are now making it possible for homeschooled students to take advantage of a publicly funded education while attending school at
home (Huett et al, 2008).
There are barriers in many states to allowing students to take classes from home. Seat
time policies and the issue of having a highly qualified teacher are two of these barriers. Some
states have addressed these issues by forming virtual charter schools, both home-school and
cyber charter (Huerta, d’Entremont, and Gonzalez, 2006). In home-school based online learning
it is important to address all aspects of current federal policies and requirements. In Wisconsin a
2004 lawsuit against Wisconsin Virtual School was filed stating Wisconsin Virtual School was
in violation of the requirement to hire highly qualified teachers. Wisconsin Virtual School was
found guilty because they were using parents as teachers even though a highly qualified teacher
was assigned to consult. Further, the court in Wisconsin found the school had indeed violated a
law requiring charter schools to be located in the district where they are operated and the school
was ordered to stop shifting payments away from home districts of open-enrollment students of
which the majority of the student population was categorized (A.,P.P., 2007).
Even with the barriers and logistics that must be worked out parental support for online
learning is growing. “One-third of parents on the Speak Up 2011 survey said if they were on a
technology committee for a new school, they would recommend online classes as a good
investment to enhance student achievement” and “69 percent of administrators say students
should be required to take an online class to graduate from high school” (Project Tomorrow,
2012, pg. 5-7). Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Idaho, and Virginia have included online courses as
mandatory components for graduation requirements (Bonner, 2011).
If schools are serious about pursuing online education and making a strategic
commitment to delivery of courses in this manner, a restructuring of the business of K-12
education must be carefully thought through. Instructional designers working collaboratively
with teachers and administrators will be a necessity (Huett et al, 2008). Morrison, Ross, and
Kemp (2007) point out a systematic design process is important to ensure courses are effective as
well as efficient. Having a carefully planned design process will also ensure the course design
promotes a return on investment. Requiring teachers to serve roles of instructors, subject matter
experts, instructional designer and the role of technology expert on top of already burdened
teaching responsibilities is just too much (Huett et al, 2008). As new roles are defined for
education new considerations in policy and funding those roles must be determined.
Beyond the design and design process an evaluation of the course design and delivery,
grounded by research on effective online course design and delivery, must be included in the
policies that govern online and virtual environments (Rice, 2009). Research concludes that
online courses must be evaluated in a different way than face-to-face courses with student
assessment being an integral piece of all learning (Quilici & Joki, 2011-12). Quality indicators
used to measure and determine the success of online programs are similar to those currently used
in a traditional K-12 program including academic performance, retention rates, academic
achievement, and student satisfaction (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
The identification of administrative skills necessary to manage an online education
program is another finding of research (Rice, 2009). A new profile and description of innovative
administrators include one who places a high value on both mobile and online learning in order
to create a more personalized and individual student learning experience (Project Tomorrow,
2012). Instructional leadership is a necessary element in the online environment (Quilici & Joki,
2011-12). The International Society for Education (ISTE) has adopted five NETS.A1 indicators
ISTE's NETS for Administrators (NETS•A) are the standards for evaluating the skills and
knowledge school administrators and leaders need to support digital age learning,
implement technology, and transform the education landscape.
1
that include: visionary leadership, digital age learning culture, excellence in professional
practice, systemic improvement, and digital citizenship.
Teachers and learning facilitators need policies that promote defined and identified
characteristics of effective pedagogical practices and technological application that lead to
achievement gains (Rice, 2009). Evaluations in online teaching environments should be more
frequent and formative (Fang, 2007; Thomas, 2008). Online teaching requires more
concentrated individualization of instruction from teachers (Quilici & Joki, 2011-12). Policies to
address reciprocity in teacher certification should be examined (Glass, 2009). Professional
development must expand to include teacher knowledge of copyright, technology and the use of
a learning management system (Oliver, Kellogg, Townsend & Brady, 2010). When there is a
problem in communication in the online learning environment, a relatively simple situation can
escalate to a difficult problem without students, teachers, or parents realizing that there is a
problem until it is too late (Dykman & Davis, 2008)
Finally, parents as learning coaches will also necessitate training opportunities and
further examination of the changing roles of parents as they fill the responsibilities required as a
more active partner in their child’s education (Rice, 2009). This greater responsibility does come
with “benefits for parents including being able to see assignments, resources, and readings that
are available to their child” (Huett et al, 2008, pg. 63). An example of changing policy to engage
parents and increase parent involvement is found in Bridgeport Connecticut where the Board of
Education passed on August 13, 2012 a parent engagement policy (Molnar, 2012).
Learners
There has been a growing awareness and interest level in the concept of online learning.
It is important to remember that change is a process, not an event (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991).
Distance education and online learning have been available for some time but this new
momentum has developed from greater awareness in many cases on a personal level owith
increased understanding of online learning and greater familiarity with the characteristics and
benefits of this kind of digital learning. Parents and students are also motivated to explore
further into the options of online learning because of their desires for a more personalized
learning approach. Parents are increasingly concerned that the traditional classes students are
attending in a brick and mortar public school are many times too big and have too much
emphasis on tests and homework, and not enough attention on the needs of their individual child
(Project Tomorrow, 2012). Literature suggests a trend toward greater partnerships between
schools, educators, and parents offering individualized instruction based on student needs (Rice,
2009).
Accountability is ever increasing. Schools must meet state standards and must report
student performance on assessments; this accountability has created a greater sense of urgency
for schools and teachers to use research related to how students learn (Espresso, 2012). Strong
caution is given against the application of findings from higher education research in distance
education to the K-12 setting (Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess & Blomeyer, 2004). Online
education at the high school level may be found to have very similar strategies as those used by
adults. When providing online education regarding students in kindergarten through Grade 8
(K-8), however, the learner needs are different. Cognitive processes are different for children
who have less independent learning skills (Hemschick, 2008).
To find what works best, promoting all levels; high school, middle school, and
elementary school requires research to understand how these grade bands should be
differentiated and to expand the base from a focus on adult learners to a focus on younger
learners in the online environment. Although a great deal of research has been conducted in the
context of adults as learners, little research has been completed in the context of younger online
learners (Cavanaugh et al, 2004). Not only is the design of content and characteristics of the
learner to be considered, but instructional strategies transferred from the traditional classroom or
from high school education may not be appropriate for teaching younger children who require
social interaction and have not reached the maturity level to self motivate or self regulate
(Blomeyer, 2002; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
Students enter all environments of education with diverse backgrounds and different
levels of skill. Some variables to consider include socioeconomic status, student IQ, family
background, etc., all of which can have some degree of impact on the students’ school readiness
(Espresso, 2012). Predicting the success of students online has been tried with older students.
One prediction tool is the Educational Success Prediction Instrument (ESPI). It checks student
aptitude in four categories (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). No research is available in regards to this
instrument or a modification of it for younger learners. Some characteristics found common of
online learners include: autonomy, metacognition, self-regulatory skills, positive self-efficacy,
motivation, and internal locus of control (Cavanaugh et al, 2004; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
Supporting the needs of younger learners by incorporating communication tools and activities to
increase social opportunities with others and for constant reinforcement or feedback on student
work have been suggested by experienced online teachers to be a priority (Oliver, Kellogg,
Townsend & Brady, 2010). Elementary students thrive when given activities that require
interaction and socialization with their peers in distance education (Anastasiades, 2003).
Vygotsky (1962) wrote learning for children is a social process and that children will focus on
interaction within the zone of proximal development.
Misconceptions exist that students will lose their ability to engage and learn socially in
online environments (Greenleaf, 2009). Very outgoing students may find they initially miss the
face-to-face interaction with their peers, and some studies indicate students with poor verbal and
reading skills may have some level of disadvantage in the online environment (Thomson, 2010).
The number of interactions and the quality of that interaction appears to be important satisfaction
components for students (Rice, 2009). It is known that younger students who consistently have
quality, meaningful interactions with their teachers and build positive relationships with their
teachers are more likely to be less frustrated when they need to stick with a difficult task (Passey,
2000).
Online courses can utilize synchronous and asynchronous sessions for learning.
Asynchronous sessions give students time without stress to “think” and process learning without
the pressure of others watching. Asynchronous sessions also provide opportunities for shy
students to collaborate with peers in ways they may not be comfortable doing in a face-to-face
environment (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Synchronous learning sessions offer the potentially for
personal interaction some students may need or desire (Cavanaugh et al, 2004).
There are some researched benefits for students and how they learn in general in online
environments. “Studies from the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development
have shown that for children with difficulties in learning, a multisensory teaching method is the
most effective teaching method” (Bradford, 2008, para. 1). These findings are consistent with
learning theory that promotes multisensory approaches to teaching in the early grades which
digital and online delivery can provide (Espresso, 2012).
Other benefits associated with online learning and virtual school includes more choices
and expanding opportunities for all students (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). The needs of students
are changing (Watson, 2007). The online format is able to provide individualized, student
specific differentiated learning experiences for students. Students can work at their own pace
and they have time to reflect and to control their options in the learning environment (Thomson,
2010). Some students who have had difficulty with behavior issues in the traditional school
setting may find the online learning environment a better fit as well (Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
Students who are qualified to take advanced courses may have greater access to the courses they
need by having opportunities to take online courses (Thomson, 2010). Special needs students
can work at their own pace and have access to assistive technology they can control to enhance
their learning experience in the online environment (Rice, 2009). Students indicate an increased
satisfaction by having a sense of control over their learning, being able to make choices and
work at their own pace (Espresso, 2012). Technology skills have been shown to increase along
with confidence in the use of technology for students taking online classes (Project Tomorrow,
2012).
Learning Theories and Online Instructional Design
Between the needs of learners and the actual design of instruction it is important to
consider learning theories that will guide the design. Five common learning theories include:
Gagne’s Conditions of Learning Theory, Bruner’s Constructivist Theory, Bandura’s Social
Learning Theory, Carroll’s Minimalist Theory, and Vygotsky’s Theory of Social Cognitive
Development (Patsula, 1999).
Gagne’s conditions of learning theory is built on the theory that learning has levels.
These levels are: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and
attitudes (Patsula, 1999). The learning level is important to understand and identify because each
learning level requires a different strategy to engage the learner. One of the learning levels
Gagne categorized is intellectual skills of which he steps out nine instructional events with
corresponding cognitive processes (Kearsley, 1994). Patsula (1999) points out this learning
theory was used initially for military skill training. Gagne suggests there is a hierarchy based on
the complexity of learner skills and that the tasks that make up the process to learn the skill
determine the hierarchy. This hierarchy includes: stimulus recognition, response generation,
procedure following, use of terminology, discriminations, concept formation, rule application,
and problem solving (Gagne, Briggs & Wager, 1992). The nine instructional events are found in
the table below. These events can aid in the instructional design process by providing a basis for
designing instruction and selecting appropriate media (Kearsley, 1999).
Instructional Events
Cognitive Process
1. Gaining Attention
Reception
2. Informing the learner of the objective and expectations
Expectancy
3. Stimulating recall of prior learning
Retrieval
4. Presenting the stimulus
selective perception
5. Providing learning guidance
semantic encoding
6. Eliciting performance
Responding
7. Providing feedback
Reinforcement
8. Assessing Performance
Retrieval
9. Enhancing retention and transfer
Generalization
(Gagne, Briggs & Wager, 1992).
Bruner’s constructivist theory is a general framework for instruction based upon the
study of cognition (Ryder, 2012). Bruner theorized that learning is an active process where
learners build upon what they know, their current understanding and expand through learning
into new understandings (Patsula, 1999). Bruner categorized development and learning into
three modes of representation. Enactive is the first mode and occurs around the ages zero to one
year. It requires active motion to store information. The second mode is Iconic and occurs from
year one to year six in age. This mode relies on visual images or mental pictures to process and
store information. Finally, the third mode is known as Symbolic and occurs from seven years of
age and upward, this mode can decode symbols, images, and language for learning (McLeod,
2008). Some strategies used in instructional design based on these learning theories include
grouping information by related materials, sequencing, use graphic organizers, chunking of
information, overviews, maps, and consistency in delivery format (Patsula, 1999).
Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes learning through observation and the
importance of modeling. This theory is used for skill based learning but also for learning soft
skills such as behavior and attitude (Patsula, 1999). Bandura’s theory added a social element,
arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Bandura
conducted a famous experiment known as the Bobo Doll Experiment where children observed
adults behaving aggressively toward a Bobo doll and mimicked the aggressive behavior later
(Cherry, 2012). Some strategies that could be used to meet the needs associated with Bandura’s
social learning theory could include interactive learning objects that code behavior into words
and the use of video to demonstrate an activity (Patsula, 1999).
Carroll’s minimalist theory has minimalism as the main idea in order to minimize the
amount of explicit instructional materials, and that learning takes place in small steps. Therefore,
learning materials should be organized in self-contained mini lessons or modules, allowing
learners' strategies and preferences to determine and direct the selection and structuring of
contents (Mappin, Kelly, Skaalid & Bratt, 2000). The Minimalist model of J.M. Carroll has five
main tenets:
all learning tasks should be meaningful and activities should be self-contained,
1. learners should be given "real world" projects as quickly as possible,
2. instruction should permit self-directed reasoning and improvising by increasing the
number of active learning activities, (participative learning as opposed to more
passive forms of learning.)
3. training materials and activities should provide for error recognition and recovery
4. there should be a close linkage between the training and actual system.
Patsula (1999) suggests instructional design that applies this learning theory will include a
meaningful task very early in the learning process, provide quick feedback and will chunk
learning into self-contained modules or units.
Vygotsky’s theory of social cognitive development is much like Bandura’s social
learning theory (Patsula, 1999). Vygotsky’s theory emphasizes learning contexts in which
students play an active role in learning. The teacher and student roles shift away from traditional
instruction as a teacher becomes a collaborator with students, facilitating meaning construction,
and the building of knowledge (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012). Vygotsky’s theory
includes social activities as important to learning including learning from others or the (MKO)
more knowledgeable other (Patsula, 1999). Gillani and Relan (1997) proposed an instructional
design model having four phases: advance organizer phase, modeling phase, exploring phase,
and generating phase. Patsula (1999) further points out that a supportive environment and
appropriate tools for student guidance is critical.
Bloom’s taxonomy is not one of the five theories researched in this review but is
important to understand and include when researching the learning needs and progression of
students. Bloom’s taxonomy is a multi-tiered model of classifying thinking according to six
cognitive levels of complexity. The following information was published by (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67-68)
Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term
memory.
o
o
o
o
o
Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic
messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing,
inferring, comparing, and explaining.
Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or
implementing.
Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts
relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through
differentiating, organizing, and attributing.
Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through
checking and critiquing.
Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole;
reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating,
planning, or producing.
Design and Development
“In some form or another, instructional design has always been at the foundation of
teaching and learning” (Stevens, 2012, pg. 10). Online learning and virtual learning take place in
environments that are more structured in regards to design than traditional brick and mortar
environments (MacFarlane, 2011). Development should be driven by the desired learning
outcomes, not by the available technology (Stevens, 2012). Reigeluth (1999), suggests design
theories guide and direct practitioners regarding specific methods needed in order to attain
educational goals. Instructional design can be described as a theory or process that provides
direction that will help students learn (Reigeluth, 1999). The development of instruction based
on a design requires the use of research-based strategies. Research is critical to give developers
design guidelines for creation and implementation of effective online teaching and learning in a
learning managed environment (Reeves, 2005). The purpose of instructional design is to make
learning more “efficient and effective” (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2007, pg. 2). K-12 online and
virtual education is still a relatively new approach as an acceptable alternative and there is little
systematic research and a noticeable absence of research design models (Searson et al, 2011).
New research in this field is needed based on triangulated, data-based evidence (Barbour &
Reeves, 2009).
Instructional design professionals can play an important role to ensure online, virtual, and
distance education initiatives meet the objectives and purpose, which is to serve the needs of
students (Huett et al, 2008). Keeping in mind that MacFarlane (2011) has noted the benefit of a
structured learning environment, Oliver, Kellogg, Townsend, and Brady (2010) further point out
that implementing a structured instructional design process results in a higher quality design.
However, even with guidelines, models and a detailed process in place for design and
development of online instruction, lack of training in instructional design can result in frustration
and ultimately a course or content that is ineffective (Hooie, 2012).
There is a rationale for in-house development. Naturally, in many cases administrators in
schools rely on teachers to design and develop instructional content and online courses. Content
expertise alone is insufficient (Oliver et al., 2010). As K-12 organizations further implement and
enhance their online programs, roles may begin to shift and begin to be redefined (Hooie, 2012).
Kachel, Henry, & Keller (2005) point out three primary elements for K-12 online learning that
exhibits exemplary purpose, and design; “The features and design of the course, the role of the
teacher or facilitator, and the characteristics that successful online learners exhibit” (p. 14).
Researchers recognize a strong need for instructional designers to be trained in distance
education technologies and the design of content and courses in digital environments (Huett et
al., 2008). Study has further found a more interdisciplinary team approach to be effective in the
design process (Oliver et al., 2010). Such collaboration allows instructors to focus on their
particular role and area of specialty and moves away from individual initiatives and toward a
collaborative approach where team members work as partners (Huett et al., 2008). A team
approach is being utilized by public educational course providers and by private vendor course
providers (Oliver et al., 2010). Proper procedures and a plan for feedback between the
instructional designers and the teacher or subject matter experts must be in place to promote
collaborative decision-making and to prevent communication break down (Stevens, 2012).
Additionally, teams need encouragement, leadership, and feedback from management (Oliver et
al., 2010).
Instructional design models are in place to guide the process of development for
instruction in online environments. The goal is to create a process that results in the effective
and efficient design of instruction (Reigeluth, 1999; Merrill, 2007). “Models are traditionally
based on five elements which are (a) analysis, (b) design, (c) development, (d) implementation
and (e) evaluation. These components are commonly referred to as ADDIE” (Hooie, 2012, pg.
5). The instructional design is a critical part of online learning effectiveness. Well-structured
courses have been shown to be a critical student success factor (Weiner, 2003). When designing
without a design model the instructional designer is a risk of leaving out an essential element of
the design or could be working in a manner that is inefficient, carrying a low rate of return on
investment (Hooie, 2012).
Instructional designers have an opportunity in this quickly growing environment to guide
the development of K-12 distance education and to make sure that the needs of learners are met
(Huett et al., 2008). It is critical to keep in mind that the primary objective is always student
learning. Meeting the needs of students include curriculum presented in a way that maximizes
student engagement in real world applications (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Also, research in the
area of instructional design must go beyond even traditional design practices and begin to look at
mobile devices, informal learning and the use of social media (Searson et al., 2011).
Using an instructional design process is critical. However, if the instructional design
process is too rigid it can result in a design that does not meet the ultimate goal, to maximize
student learning (Hooie, 2012). Some instructional design models make assumptions about the
learner that may be incorrect (Gordon & Zemke, 2000). A common assumption is that all
learners enter the learning environment at the same level of readiness. The best solution to
address the instructional design flaws is for the course to be implemented with flexibility
(Hooie, 2012).
Implementation success will be largely dependent upon teacher training and strategies
that focus on directing and regulating students so that they have a feeling of control over their
own learning and can regulate their learning. Flexibility increases the student choice and
stimulates motivation, interest, and engagement in the class (Thomson, 2010). The teacher of
online learning can also help learners by creating and providing clear course timelines,
schedules, and expectations so that students do not have to guess or struggle to figure out what
they should be working on or what the expectations for the course are and how they will be
graded (Artino, 2008; Cavanaugh, 2007; Dykman & Davis, 2008; National Educational
Association, 2006). When students are confused or frustrated while engaged in an online course
the instructional design may lack credibility due to the lack of common language and breakdown
communication (Earle, 1996). When asked during a study, the majority of teachers surveyed
emphasized that when teaching in online settings directions must be extremely specific and are
required of every task. Beyond the directions, setting up and maintaining a well-organized
course site is important (Thomson, 2010).
Following guidelines for creating interactive instructional activities, lessons, and
formative and summative assessments can also prevent unwanted hurdles from creeping up in
the design process (Oliver et al., 2010). Carefully designed and integrated activities online
include virtual lab experiments, design oriented projects, and online research (NEA, 2002).
Young learners with cognitive limitations such as limited short-term memory may require
breaking content into small segments, or clearer directions and models provided visually when
trying to explain abstract concepts necessitating many examples and images (Musgrove &
Musgrove, 2004). Navigation in the environment that is designed for adults must be adapted for
younger learners by making sure the instructions are clear, expectations are easy to understand
and incorporating audio, and video clips may be helpful (Barbour, 2007). Once all
considerations possible to train, collaborate, and adapt the design of instruction to increase
student outcomes instructional design content still should be evaluated with recognized
evaluation tools like iNACOL’s course evaluation (Rice, 2009).
Pedagogy
Online learning environments have the ability to leverage technology in a way that
supports constructivist teaching and learning (Luthra, 2010). Challenges for teaching in online
and distance learning environments include a pedagogy that addresses the motivations, needs,
learning styles and constraints of nontraditional learners, while achieving the same learning
outcomes (Gibbons, 2001). The disconnection when employing pedagogy currently accepted as
the norm and the methods that are possible in an information-connected environment is
becoming apparent (Davis & Roblyer, 2005).
It should not be assumed that a good classroom teacher would make a good online
teacher or vice versa (Davis & Roblyer, 2005). Online learning at the K-12 level is a vastly
different teaching experience from the experiences of teaching online at other levels (Quilici &
Joki, 2011-12). Lowes (2005) found that teachers’ practices for instruction are changed when
they learn how to teach specifically for the online environment and focus on the development of
skills and pedagogical strategies that capitalize on technology. Teacher education programs
must include practice and information of research findings including a robust knowledge base of
pedagogy in online and virtual environments (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Knowledge
regarding subject matter and the traditional instructional approaches are necessary for teachers in
online environments just as they are for face-to-face teachers. However, online teachers need
additional skills and knowledge to be able to motivate and engage learners in the online
environment with communication skills being of primary importance (Rice, 2009). Professional
development activities are enriched when quality guidelines, standards and practices support the
training (Searson et al., 2011). Understanding the social and technological components of
teaching and learning in an online environment must be learned and practiced to ensure engaging
and quality experiences (MacFarlane, 2011).
There are many advantages to online teaching. Teaching online can facilitate learner
activities that provide additional enriching resources by using the Internet that can further
innovate and add interactivity and a dynamic component to learning materials (Durdu, Yalabik,
& Cagiltay, 2009). Online instructors can motivate students who have different learning styles
(Barbour & Reeves, 2009). “Schools that provide instruction through learning-style methods,
offer greater opportunities for students to succeed than do schools that practice traditional
teaching and learning” (Cook, 2006, p. 3). Challenges often reported in regards to teaching in
online environments can be placed into one of two categories; mismatched students’ specific
learning style preferences and the online learning environment, and difficulties with
communication (Thomson, 2010).
Online teaching requires a shift in thinking about the instructional environment and
course engagement time (Davis & Roblyer, 2005). Teachers facilitate learning first by
establishing an online presence as the instructor and support and by including students with a
sense of social presence (Thomson, 2010). When social interaction has been designed
specifically into an online course, research suggest the effectiveness of asynchronous sessions is
more pronounced and that students are more satisfied with online courses (Hiltz, Zhang, &
Turoff, 2002). “The resulting psychological effect of this social interaction is called social
presence. This study examines the effects of instructor and learner social presence on perceived
learning and student satisfaction in the online classroom” (Bouras, 2009, p. 1).
Online teachers must interact with students on an emotional and social level in order to
be truly effective (MacFarlane, 2011). Interaction is at the heart of online learning. Teachers in
online learning environments must strive to highly personalize the learning environment to
provide for communication and to reinforce learning (Oliver et al., 2010). In online learning
environments participants strive to create deeper and stronger relationships, and they also place
great value on frequent and timely feedback on assignments and responses to questions (Weiner,
2003). Experienced online teachers report frequent praise, encouragement, and feedback as the
key to success for online learners (Thomson, 2010).
“All of the reviews of the literature cited here (Artino, 2008; Cavanaugh, 2007;
Cavanaugh et al., 2008; DiPietro et al., 2008; Dykman & Davis, 2008; National
Education Association, 2006; Sitzmann et al., 2006) emphasized the positive effect of
frequent, timely, individualized, and detailed feedback from instructors on students’ selfefficacy, motivation, and/or engagement in the course” (Thomson, 2010, p.671).
Musgrove and Musgrove (2004) suggest using embedded objects and Web 2.0 tools available in
the course for elementary students, to receive immediate feedback using, for example, self-tests,
and other devices. Regardless of the technology tools that are used the essential key role of the
instructor is to develop a strong sense of community by modeling appropriate online
communication, guiding discussion, and participating as a facilitator to encourage critical
thinking and to provide encouragement (Artino, 2008; Cavanaugh, 2007; National Education
Association, 2006).
Additionally, research by Aronson & Timms (2003) suggests the role of the teacher in an
online environment would be greatly enhanced by complimenting that role with a local counselor
or facilitator. Project Tomorrow (2012) research indicates students have higher expectations of
teachers in online classes and expect more individualized attention than when taking courses in a
face-to-face class. Communication and clear expectations with detailed instructions and student
support provides students with greater understanding and a greater sense of self –efficacy
(Thomson, 2010). Teachers should be able to articulate the desired outcomes of the course
(MacFarlane, 2011).
Summary
Four major themes have been found to relate to online instructional design and learning.
These four themes include: policies, learners, course design and development, and pedagogy.
Each theme in some way sets parameters for the design and development of online courses.
Some themes are made up of many components and others are made up of just a few very
important components, but each theme must work like gears; turning smoothly and with
precision.
When planning for the future and in order to create a framework for best practices and
policies in a 21st Century classroom, educators and policymakers examine research-based
evidence of effectiveness to guide the process (Roblyer & Knezek, 2003). For policy makers
best practices for the 21st Century will cause a pause to step back and consider many issues such
as the use of multimedia and electronic devices in schools. Schools must have a policy and plan
in place to handle multiple access points, provide instruction over digital technology literacy
skills, ensure cellphone safety and ethical use, create a social contract, parental permissions,
parent information rights, and gather feedback from students and parents (Millis, 2010).
Policy issues also include funding of online learning programs. Rice (2009)
acknowledges educators are united on the issue of funding, with panel members from one survey
indicating they are less inclined to support policies that attempt to take funding from traditional
brick and mortar schools. It should be noted that in one survey a quarter of the administrators
indicated an interest in developing their own online courses as a way to address decreases in
funding (Project Tomorrow, 2012).
If schools are serious about pursuing online education and making a strategic
commitment to delivery of courses in this manner, a restructuring of the business of K-12
education must be carefully thought through. Instructional designers working collaboratively
with teachers and administrators will be a necessity (Huett et al, 2008). Morrison, Ross, and
Kemp (2007) point out a systematic design process is important to ensure courses are effective as
well efficient. Having a carefully planned design process will also ensure the course design
promotes a return on investment. Requiring teachers to serve roles of instructors, subject matter
experts, instructional designer and the role of technology expert on top of already burdened
teaching responsibilities is just too much (Huett et al, 2008). As new roles are defined for
education new consideration in policy and funding those roles must be determined. A question
arises, however. How will new roles such as instructional design be funded and evaluated?
Parents and students are also motivated to explore further into the options of online
learning because of their desires for a more personalized learning approach. Literature suggests
a trend toward greater partnerships between schools, educators, and parents offering
individualized instruction based on student needs (Rice, 2009). It is important to consider the
goals of parents and learners when designing and developing these online easily customized
programs.
Cognitive processes are different for children who have less independent learning skills
(Hemschick, 2008). Although a great deal of research has been conducted in the context of
adults as learners, little research has been completed in the context of younger online learners
(Cavanaugh et al, 2004). Not only is the design of content and characteristics of the learner to be
considered, but instructional strategies transferred from the traditional classroom or from high
school education may not be appropriate for teaching younger children who require social
interaction and have not reached the maturity level to self motivate or self regulate (Blomeyer,
2002; Ronsisvalle &Watkins, 2005).
Elementary students thrive when given activities that require interaction and socialization
with their peers in distance education (Anastasiades, 2003). Vygotsky (1962) wrote learning for
children is a social process and that children will focus on interaction within the zone of
proximal development. It is also known that younger students who consistently have quality,
meaningful interactions with their teachers and build positive relationships with their teachers are
more likely to be less frustrated when they need to stick with a difficult task (Passey, 2000).
“Studies from the National Institutes of child Health and Human Development have
shown that for children with difficulties in learning, a multisensory teaching method is the most
effective teaching method” (Bradford, 2008, para. 1). These findings are consistent with
learning theory that promotes multisensory approaches to teaching in the early grades which
digital and online delivery can provide (Espresso, 2012). The implication is understanding
learning theories related to elementary, three through five grade, students and applying specific
strategies and design elements to meet the learner needs based on these theories would be a well
informed approach to further research and understanding of elementary appropriate design and
development for online courses.
The development of instruction based on a design requires the use of research-based
strategies. Research is critical to give developers design guidelines for creation and
implementation of effective online teaching and learning in a learning managed environment
(Reeves, 2005). The purpose of instructional design is to make learning more “efficient and
effective” (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2007, p. 2). K-12 online and virtual education is still a
relatively new approach as an acceptable alternative and there is little systematic research and a
noticeable absence of research design models (Searson et al, 2011).
Instructional design models are in place to guide the process of development for
instruction in online environments. The goal is to create a process that results in the effective
and efficient design of instruction (Reigeluth, 1999; Merrill, 2007). The instructional design is a
critical part of online learning effectiveness. Well-structured courses have been shown to be a
critical student success factor (Weiner, 2003). When designing without a design model the
instructional designer is at risk of leaving out an essential element of the design or could be
working in a manner that is inefficient, carrying a low rate of return on investment (Hooie,
2012). GaVS loosely follows a Three-Phase Design Model by Sims and Jones. For elementary
online course design research is needed to guide GaVS in the appropriate adaptations and
modifications of the current Three-Phase Design Model.
Online learning environments have the ability to leverage technology in a way that
supports constructivists teaching and learning (Luthra, 2010). Online learning at the K-12 level
is a vastly different teaching experience from the experiences of teaching online at other levels
(Quilici & Joki, 2011-12). Lowes (2005) found that teachers’ practices for instruction are
changed when they learn how to teach specifically for the online environment and focus on the
development of skills and pedagogical strategies that capitalize on technology. Online teachers
need additional skills and knowledge to be able to motivate and engage learners in the online
environment with communication skills being of primary importance (Rice, 2009).
Understanding the social and technological components of teaching and learning in an
online environment must be learned and practiced to ensure engaging and quality experiences
(MacFarlane, 2011). Communication and interaction are often measure by perception.
Understanding the perception of needs by teachers to support their work in the online
environment is a critical part of understanding what components of support will be needed and
should be included when designing and developing an online elementary course.
Chapter Three
Methodology
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the instructional design factors
impacting development and implementation of elementary (3-5 grades) online courses. Using a
framework for instructional design, accredited public elementary online schools meeting AYP,
charter elementary online schools meeting accountability measures as designated by the charter
guidelines, individuals teaching in online elementary classes, individuals taking online
elementary classes and parents of students in online elementary classes. This chapter describes
the selection of participants, the research design, the instrumentation, and the procedures for data
collection and data analysis.
Participants
The participants in this study will include both institutions, and individuals directly involved
with elementary online education.
Selection criteria. Participating institutions will be selected on the basis of their
achievement scores and state AYP status. Charter online schools will be selected based on their
charter guideline accountability measure and all institutions must be accredited by a regional
accreditation agency. Selected institutions will have been operating and serving students in
grades 3-5 for three academic years or more. Specifically, the selection criteria stipulated
participating institutions:
1. Accredited by regional accreditation agency
2. In operation and serving students in grades 3-5 for three years or more.
3. Meeting AYP or meeting charter school accountability measures as prescribed in the charter
school guidelines.
Individuals in teaching positions, students and parents directly involved in online courses and
programs at these institutions will be selected for participation in one-on-one interviews.
Specifically, in selecting the participating individuals the main criteria is that these individuals
will be:
Teachers
1. Veteran teachers in online education having taught for 3 years or more online.
2. A highly qualified elementary school teacher as recognized by the state the online
school resides.
3. Employed by one of the institutions included in this study.
Students
1. A student in 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade.
2. Enrolled full-time in one of the institutions included in this study.
Parents
1. A parent of one or more students in 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade online courses.
2. A parent of a student enrolled in one of the institutions included in this study.
Participant selection. Participant selection will be completed in several iterations. To begin with
I will compile a preliminary list of potential participating institutions to recruit for the study
based on regional accreditation, AYP status or schools who are meeting their accountability
measures as defined by their charter. This preliminary list will be refined in a second stage based
on responses and willingness to participate. This will conclude the selection process for the
institution.
Selection of individual teachers, students, and parents will begin by sending out a solicit
to participate in interviews letter to teachers of online elementary students in grades 3-5 in the
participating institution who have taught 3 years or more and are highly qualified as certified by
the residing institution’s state. The goal will be to interview at least 5% of the qualifying
teachers in each participating institution. A solicit to participate in interviews letter will also go
to students in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade in the participating institutions and the students’ parents. The
goal will be to interview at least 5% of the parents and 5% of the students enrolled.
In all instances an email soliciting participation in an in-depth interview will be sent to
each of the prospective participants of the study. The email will provide information about the
researcher, the purpose of the study, and the anticipated duration of the interview. An informed
consent form will be attached to the email as well. Participants will be assured of confidentiality
and anonymity of responses.
Research Design
This research is designed as a qualitative study and was comprised of two phases. During
the first phase I am interested in identifying best practices for implementation, while the second
phase of this study will have to do with instructional design guidelines. In Phase One in-depth,
one-on-one interviews with institutional public representation such as administrators, curriculum
directors, or marketing and media spokesmen will be conducted, and rich descriptive information
about the institutions history and plan for establishing online education will be collected.
Using qualitative methods these data will be analyzed to identify themes and patterns.
Best practices will be identified from the emerging commonalities in the data. During Phase Two
in-depth, one-on-one interviews with individuals will be conducted, and rich descriptive
information regarding perceptions of the impact of applied strategies for learning that are used in
the online content will be explored. Using qualitative methods these data will be analyzed to
identify themes and patterns. The data from the two phases will be combined to make changes to
the current GaVS instructional design three-phase model.
Instrumentation
The primary instruments used for data collection in this study will be one-on-one
interviews of the public representative from institutions providing elementary (3-5) courses and
individuals teaching, taking or supporting a student of those courses. Four prominent change
management models (Kotter‘s Eight-Stage Process, the Cummings and Worley Model, the
Whetten and Cameron Model, Pascale and Sternin‘s Positive Deviance Model) will serve as a
framework for building the interview questions and a guide for data collection.
The interview questions will be closely related to the steps and strategies for leading
organizational change. Additionally, the questions will seek to gather information about the
institution, its online offerings, the policy and funding impacting the operation. Lastly,
information will be sought regarding the approach taken by the institution to ensure smooth
implementation, and how the institution defines and measures success. Specifically, the
interview instrument for the institution will be used to gather information about the:

Demographics of the participating institution;

Size, scope, and history of the online participating institution;

Funding and state status (public, charter, private)

Development plan or purchasing process of content for curriculum;

Roles of teachers as subject matter experts or developers of online content;

Supplemental and additional tools, software, and diagnostics;

Implementation process, which included, but was not limited to the following:
o Creating and communicating goals;
o Developing political support;
o Managing the transition to online learning for new students;
o Measuring outcomes;
o Ensuring quality; and
o Sustaining the implementation.
Specifically, the interview instrument for the teachers will be used to gather information about
the:

Demographic information of the teacher;

Background and experience of the online teacher;

Reasons for choosing to teach online;

Roles and responsibilities of online teachers;

Teachers as subject matter experts and developers of online content;

What supports do teacher’s need to facilitate online content for elementary (3-5) online
courses;

Reasons students choose to teach online;

Thoughts about the institutions course content, visuals, tools, communication, feedback,
supplemental tools, assessments, and materials;

Social learning and groups

Feedback and communication;

Perceived needs of elementary (3-5) online learners;

Tools, interactives, and features of the online course that are most beneficial to 3-5
students online;

Tools, interactives, and features of the online course that are most difficult to follow for
3-5 online students.
Specifically, the interview instrument for the students and parents will be used to gather
information about the:

Demographic information of the individual;

Background experience with online learning, how long, location, home or facility;

Reasons for choosing online learning;

Thoughts about the course content, visuals, tools, communication, feedback,
supplemental tools, assessments, and materials;

What supports are needed for parents to facilitate the learning with content for
elementary (3-5) online courses;

Social learning and groups;

Feedback and communication;

Perceived needs of elementary (3-5) students for learning;

Tools, interactives, and features of the online course that are most beneficial to 3-5
students online;

Tools, interactives, and features of the online course that are most difficult to follow for
3-5 online students.
Data Collection
The primary data sources are the one-on-one interviews with the institutions
implementing online courses and the individuals teaching, taking or parenting students in online
(3-5) courses. Interviews will be conducted over Skype or Adobe Connect utilizing both video
and audio elements. The researcher will transcribe all the interviews. The interviews will be
semi-structured and open ended to allow the participants to express opinions and thoughts on
their perceptions.
Data Analysis
The primary data analyzed will be the one-on-one interviews with the institution
representative and individuals. First, each interview transcript will be read, and the data searched
for evidence of a practice, strategy or phenomenon pertaining to online learning implementation.
When such evidence is found the text will be highlighted and ascribed to a tentative theme
describing the online learning practice, strategy or phenomenon. Software title DEDOOSE may
be utilized to help with coding the data from the transcription. Each piece of highlighted text
representing an implementation practice, a strategy, or phenomenon, will be entered into
software. The themes generated will also be entered along with the text in the software.