 the determination of needs and goals at the curriculum level. The next two steps deal with course level analyses, and are followed at the lesson plan level with four steps including definition of performance objectives, preparing lesson plans or modules, developing and selecting materials and media and assessing student performance. The last five steps focus on evaluation. The Gagné model may have been popular with instructional technology students in Asia because of its relative simplicity and ease of application.
Twenty per cent of the respondents reported that they were familiar with and have applied the ADDIE model, a generic approach described by Gustafson and Branch (2002). This is a synthesis of other ID models, comprising five core elements: analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. Analysis includes specific ideas about needs assessments and problem identification; design covers formulating objectives, classifying types of learning and activities, and determining which media to use; development refers to preparing instructional materials; implementation includes delivering the instruction in the setting for which it was designed; and evaluation includes formative and summative evaluations. This model appears to be popular with younger instructional designers, that is, those who have obtained their graduate degrees in the last 10 to 15 years.
Seventeen per cent of the respondents mentioned that they were familiar with and have applied the Dick and Carey model. This systems-oriented model contains 10 steps: identifying instructional goals, conducting an instructional analysis, identifying learners’ entry behaviours, formulating performance objectives, developing criterion-referenced tests, formulating an instructional strategy, selecting instruction, designing and conducting formative evaluation, revising the instruction, and conducting summative evaluation. One can infer from the data that the designers familiar with the Gagné and Dick & Carey models are those who were in graduate schools in North America and Europe at least 15 years ago.
Seventeen per cent of the respondents also mentioned that they were familiar with constructivist models, though none actually mentioned any specific model. Constructivism posits that “knowledge is constructed (rather than received) by the individual learners and is embedded in particular experiences within specific domains” (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). It has been suggested that constructivism is particularly useful in DE, since its assumptions fit well into the nature of independent learning that DE fosters. Merrill (1991), as cited by Mergel (2006), highlighted the following assumptions of constructivism: knowledge is constructed from experience; learning is a personal interpretation of the world; learning is an active process whereby meaning is developed based on experience; conceptual growth arises from sharing multiple perspectives and collaborative learning; and learning should be situated in realistic settings where testing is part of the task rather than a separate activity.
Behaviourism, the foundation of traditional models of ID, encourages “analysing a task and breaking it down into manageable chunks, establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives” (Mergel, 2006). In contrast, constructivism, Mergel points out, “promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may not be the same for each learner.” ID based on constructivist principles is not concerned with trying to pre-determine learning outcomes, but focuses on the design of learning environments that facilitate the construction of new knowledge. It is safe to conclude that the models used by senior Asian instructional designers have primarily been limited to the behaviourist-oriented models (Gagné, Dick and Carey, and ADDIE). There is, however, an increasing interest among younger designers in constructivist approaches to ID, particularly in relation to the independent learning process of DE. This increasing interest in constructivism is influenced by the significant role of the new information and communication technologies in today’s education. As a result of this growing orientation to constructivism, a discernible shift is being detected in the nature of the actual instructional materials being designed and developed in the Asian region. For example, there is an interesting shift away from the production of simple multimedia materials towards sophisticated, highly interactive multimedia materials very much in line with constructivist principles.
It is clear, however, that the rigorous practice of ID is slow to develop in Asia. While constructivist approaches have been practised for 25 years at the UK Open University (Hawkridge, 2002), they are just now beginning to influence the Asian region. The application of ID principles and techniques in course development in many Asian universities, including DE institutions, has not been as major an effort as it should have been.
The respondents have a substantial amount of ID experience: 23 per cent of them have been doing ID work for 6–10 years, and 18 per cent for 16–20 years (Table 11.2). The 29 per cent who have been doing ID work for 1–5 years are the same also tend to report that they have used models with a constructivist orientation. The 44 per cent who have been doing ID work for over 10 years may therefore be regarded to be those who need to update their knowledge of ID principles and should be the target clients for ID training. Of course, it is equally possible that younger instructional designers may also lack up-to-date ID knowledge and skills for DE work, particularly in relation to new information and communication technologies.
The respondents suggested a number of specific topics that should be included in an up-to-date ID training course. “Methods and media” were mentioned by 46 per cent of them. Additional topics included: design of instruction and lesson plans, application of research and theory, curriculum design, evaluation techniques, development of instructional materials, context analysis, and needs analysis. The sample ranked their top six preferences for training course topics, as shown in Table 11.3.
• Module 1—Models, theories and frameworks: Contributions to Our Understanding of Learning and Teaching. This module should cover four major topics: orientation to study (vocational, academic and personal); definitions of learning (as increase in knowledge, memorising, acquisition of facts, abstraction of meaning and as an interpretative process); cue consciousness; and learners’ reading ability.
• Module 2—Selection and use of methods and media. The use of instructional media is a standard element in such training programmes, though the media selected for coverage can be inappropriate. In this module, the selection and use of media would be stressed, as appropriate to the task of constructing courses with specific needs and objectives. The module would aim to help the trainees apply criteria for selecting media, whether print-based, audio-visual or computer-based, to make instruction effective and efficient.
• Module 3—Development of multimedia materials. The multimedia materials used in Asian education tend to come from the developed countries, largely because of the lack of funds to produce them locally. Materials actually developed in the region tend to be simpler than those purchased from abroad in terms of the levels of interactivity they provide. The net effect is a culture-based mismatch between instructional design and learning style. This module would provide the Asian instructional designer with the skills to develop a wide range of locally relevant multimedia materials.
• Module 4—Mobile technologies in learning and teaching. The particular advances being seen in the use of mobile technologies in Asia have raised a particular need for instructional designers to learn how to use them in producing DE content. This module would cover the specialised procedures needed in the cost-effective use of mobile technologies by Asian teachers and learners.
• Module 5—ID and learning materials. This module would cover in practical terms how instructional designers can improve their overall skills in developing effective DE instruction. Emphasis would be placed on the special needs of designers in open and distance learning institutions. The module would examine the techniques associated with traditional ID models, while also providing opportunities for practice in newer constructivist techniques.
• Module 6—Evaluation and quality assurance. Across Asia, concern is frequently expressed about the maintenance of academic standards in DE programmes. Maintaining high standards and assuring a high quality of instruction begins with the efficient design of programmes and content treatment, a process within which ID is central. This module would cover the related principles of evaluation and quality assurance, and would explain how academic quality can be assured through appropriate evaluation techniques.
Distance educators in Asia are bypassing online course delivery methods that have become standard in other parts of the world, and are developing new educational technologies, notably the mobile phone. In the process, the issue of appropriate instructional design principles for the new media has become a serious concern. The current project addressed this issue by analysing the training needs expressed by Asian instructional designers in open and distance education institutions across the region. A survey was undertaken in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand) and South Asia (Bhutan, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). The survey indicated that materials designers in Asian DE are interested in upgrading their practical and theoretical understanding of instructional design, new trends in the use of technologies in distance learning, the selection and use of appropriate multimedia techniques, and the evaluation of student learning.
To date, Asian instructional designers have mainly been trained in North America and Europe, in principles and procedures developed 15–25 years ago. They are quite familiar with the traditional models of ID, though in the last five years have found that the design of instruction delivered through mobile technologies may be more demanding than the traditional models suppose. The effective design of materials for the new media requires new principles about how variables such as mobility and display format can affect learning, and how to design mobile learning materials for easier, faster and better results.
While the survey sample regarded themselves as generally proficient in ID, either as full-time instructional designers or as faculty involved in ID work in their respective disciplines, they still felt the need for additional training courses, and most stated that they would be interested in participating in them. Most of the respondents reported that their universities have provided in-house courses on topics such as ID principles, development of DE materials, conducting online tutorials and developing evaluation and assessment instruments. They indicated that the materials used in training courses