Design and Sequence Your Way to WBT Interactivity
By Atsusi Hirumi and Kathryn Ley
An instructional design methodology for building interactivity into WBT.
In a classroom, good trainers interpret body language, address individual needs, clarify expectations, facilitate activities, promote discussions, elaborate concepts, render guidance, and provide timely and appropriate feedback as they present information. With WBT, communication is mostly asynchronous and mediated by technology. A trainer has limited opportunities to interact and adapt in reaction to learners' verbal and nonverbal cues. Further, using interactive technologies doesn't ensure that interaction will happen. Trainers must plan and sequence key interactions so that they become a consistent and integral part of WBT.
Many training developers design training based on the way they were taught: through teacher-directed methods. When developers adapt training for Web delivery, they typically transform lecture notes and slide show presentations into self-instructional text and graphics. As a result, most current forms of WBT mimic correspondence-course-type distance education.
Interactivity is key to getting away from that correspondence-course mentality. It's one of the hottest topics among distance educators and trainers today. It lets instructors and learners communicate and respond to each other's needs and interests. Interactivity can help reduce feelings of isolation and anonymity that can result in dissatisfaction, poor performance, and dropouts. Further, it can help transform traditional teacher-directed methods into learner-centered approaches. Without interactivity, the crucial learning cycle of knowledge acquisition, critical evaluation, and knowledge validation can't happen.
Important WBT interactions can be grouped into three levels (see table 1). At Level I, interactions occur between learners and such instructional resources as the instructor, other learners, content, the community, and the learners themselves. Learner-instructor interactions should motivate learners, provide feedback, and clarify expectations. Learner-learner interactions help students interpret and apply targeted skills and knowledge. Learner-content interactions occur when users access online audio, video, text, or graphics information. Learner-community interactions help learners search for, acquire, and present information from such external resources as other Websites, newsgroups, libraries, help desks, and so forth. Learner-self interactions help learners monitor and regulate their own learning.
Level II interactions help instructors manage and continuously improve WBT. Instructor-content interactions let instructors revise content before, during, and after training. Through instructor-community interactions, instructors can access and coordinate external resources. Instructor-self interactions can be designed to help instructors monitor and manage their own tasks and performance.
Level III interactions organize and present key WBT interactions. Learner-technology interactions include interface design issues, as well as learners' use of additional technologies that may be included in the training. Learner-instruction interactions are designed to change learners' understanding, perspective, or cognitive structures. We believe that learner-instruction interactions can be used to guide the design and sequence of Level I and II interactions.
Table 1: Three Levels of Planned Interactions
|
Level I Interactions |
Level II Interactions |
Level III Interactions |
- Learner–Instructor
- Learner–Learner
- Learner–Content
- Learner–Community
- Learner–Self
|
- Instructor–Content
- Instructor–Community
- Instructor–Self
|
- Learner–Instruction
- Learner–Technology
|
Table 2 lists sample outlines of nine instructional models, based on recent research.
- Nine events of instruction
- Eight events for student-centered learning
- Jurisprudential inquiry model
- Simulation model
- Direct training model
- Experiential training model
- Inquiry training model
- Inductive thinking model
- Problem-based learning model.
Table 2. Sample Outlines of Research-Based Instructional Strategies
Nine Events of Instruction
(Gagne, 1974, 1988)
1. Gain attention.
2. Inform learner of
objective(s).
3. Stimulate recall of prior
knowledge.
4. Present stimulus
materials.
5. Provide learning
guidance.
6. Elicit performance.
7. Provide feedback.
8. Assess performance.
9. Enhance retention and
transfer.
|
Eight Events for Student-Centered Learning
(Hirumi, 1996)
1. Set learning challenge
(authentic problem) for
class.
2. Negotiate learning goals
and objectives.
3. Negotiate learning
strategy.
4. Construct knowledge.
5. Negotiate performance
criteria.
6. Assess learning.
7. Provide feedback
(steps 1-6).
8. Communicate results.
|
Jurisprudential Inquiry Model
(Oliver and Shaver, 1971)
1. Orientation to the case.
2. Identifying the issues.
3. Taking positions.
4. Exploring the stance(s),
patterns of
argumentation.
5. Refining and qualifying
the positions.
6. Testing factual
assumptions behind
qualified positions.
|
Simulation Model
(Joyce, Weil, and Showers, 1994)
1. Orientation
1.1 Present topic of
simulation.
1.2 Explain simulation.
1.3 Give overview.
2. Participant Training
2.1 Set up scenario.
2.2 Assign roles.
2.3 Hold abbreviated
practice.
3. Simulation Operations
3.1 Conduct activity.
3.2 Feedback and
evaluation.
3.3 Clarify
misconceptions.
3.4 Continue simulation.
4. Participant Debriefing
4.1 Summarize events.
4.2 Summarize
difficulties.
4.3 Analyze process.
4.4 Compare to the real
world.
4.5 Appraise and
redesign the
simulation.
|
Direct Training Model
(Joyce, Weil, and Showers, 1994)
1. Orientation
1.1 Establish lesson
content.
1.2 Review previous
learning.
1.3 Establish lesson
objectives.
1.4 Establish lesson
procedures.
2. Presentation
2.1 Explain new concept
or skill.
2.2 Provide visual
representation.
2.3 Check for
understanding.
3. Structured Practice
3.1 Lead group through
practice.
3.2 Students respond.
3.3 Provide corrective
feedback.
4. Guided Practice
4.1 Practice semi-
independently.
4.2 Circulate, monitor
practice.
4.3 Provide feedback.
5. Independent Practice
5.1 Practice
independently.
5.2 Provide delayed
feedback.
|
Experiential Training Model
(Pfeiffer and Jones, 1975)
1. Experience: Immerse
learner in "authentic"
experience.
2. Publish: Talk or write
about experience; share
thoughts and feelings.
3. Process-Debrief: Interpret
published information,
defining patterns,
discrepancies, and overall
dynamics.
4. Internalize: Private
process; learner reflects
on lessons learned and
requirements for future
learning.
5. Generalize: Develop
hypotheses, form
generalizations, and
reach conclusions.
6. Apply: Use information
and knowledge gained
from lesson to make
decisions and solve
problems.
|
Inquiry Training Model
(Joyce, Weil, and Showers, 1994)
1. Confrontation with the
Problem
1.1 Explain inquiry
procedures.
1.2 Present discrepant
event.
2. Data Gathering-
Verification
2.1 Verify nature of
objects and conditions.
2.2 Verify the occurrence
of the problem situation.
3. Data Gathering-
Experimentation
3.1 Isolate relevant
variables.
3.2 Hypothesize and test
casual relationships.
4. Formulate rules or
explanations.
5. Analyze inquiry strategy
and develop more
effective ones.
|
Inductive Thinking Model
(Taba, 1967)
1. Concept Formation
1.1 Enumeration and
listing.
1.2 Grouping
1.3 Labeling, categorizing.
2. Interpretation of Data
2.1 Identify critical
relationships.
2.2 Explore relationships.
2.3 Make inferences.
3. Application of Principles
3.1 Predicting
consequences.
3.2 Explaining predictions.
3.3 Verifying predictions.
|
Problem-Based Learning Model (Barrow, 1993)
1. Starting a New Problem
1.1 Set problem.
1.2 Describe
requirements.
1.4 Assign tasks.
1.5 Reason through the
problem.
1.6 Commitment to
outcome.
1.7 Shape issues and
assignment.
1.8 Identify resource.
1.9 Schedule follow-up.
2. Problem Follow-Up
2.1 Resources used.
2.2 Reassess the
problem.
3. Performance
Presentation(s)
4. After Conclusion of
Problem
4.1 Knowledge abstraction
and summary.
4.2 Self-evaluation.
|
No matter which model you favor, all the options have one important thing in common: Their prescriptions are essentially lists of crucial events, or interactions, that must occur--between learner and instructor, learner and other learners, learner and content information, learner and community resources, or learner and self. Selecting an appropriate model from the list above is simply the first step in a four-step process to creating effective, high-interaction WBT.
1. Select a research-based instructional strategy based on the training objectives and your epistemological beliefs.
2. Describe how each strategy's events will occur during training.
3. Determine the type of Level I or II interactions that will be used to facilitate each event.
4. Select a technology tool--chat, email, bulletin board, whiteboard, Webpage--to support each event, based on the nature of the interaction.
The four-step process for designing and sequencing key WBT interactions should be applied during the final two stages of design: the development of the instructional strategy and the selection of media. When you're done, you'll have a research-based instructional model.
Let's assume that you've already conducted goal, instructional learner, and context analyses and generated training objectives. You've also clustered and sequenced the objectives and determined the assessment method. For each cluster of training objectives (or training module), generate an instructional treatment like the one in the figure below. In the first column, list the events associated with the instructional strategy you selected for the module (see table 2). In the second column, provide a description of how you'll accomplish each event. For example, how would you gain and sustain learners' attention, present learners with instructional objectives, and stimulate prior-knowledge recall? In the third column, determine the interaction to facilitate each event. Then, determine the tool that best supports that interaction.
Sample Instructional Treatment Plan Based On Gagne’s Nine Events Of Instruction
|
Event |
Event Description |
Interaction |
Telecommunication
Tool |
|
1. Gain attention |
How training will gain learners attention |
Learner–Instructor |
Bulletin board system (BBS) |
|
2. Inform learners of objectives |
How training will inform learners of objectives |
Learner–Content |
Webpage |
|
3. Stimulate recall of prior knowledge |
How training will stimulate learners recall of prior knowledge |
Learner–Content |
Webpage |
|
4. Present stimulus |
How training will present stimulus information |
Learner–Content |
Webpage |
|
5. Provide learning guidance |
How training will provide learning guidance |
Learner–Instructor |
Chat |
|
6. Elicit performance |
How training will elicit learner performance |
Learner–Content |
Learner-generated Webpage |
|
7. Provide feedback |
How training will provide feedback |
Learner–Instructor |
Whiteboard |
|
8. Assess performance |
How training will assess learner performance |
Learner–Content |
Webpage |
|
9. Enhance retention and transfer |
How training will enhance retention and transfer |
Learner–Instructor |
BBS |
For the first event represented in the figure, for instance, the instructor is to gain the attention of a group of learners. A message must be communicated from one person to a group of people; therefore, a bulletin board system may be the best tool for that interaction. By completing the instructional treatment plan, you can design and sequence key WBT interactions. Further, you can select the tool to support each interaction.
When developing WBT, it's important to ground instructional design decisions in a combination of experience, research, and theory. In the classroom, you can often compensate for poorly designed instructional materials by captivating learners with your charisma and by facilitating spontaneous interactions. But at a distance, your ability to plan, stimulate, and manage key interactions is essential. By following the four-step process, you'll be able to create effective WBT that promotes interactivity and optimizes the potential of technology to enhance learning and performance.
Atsusi Hirumi (hirumi@cl.uh.edu) and Kathryn Ley (ley@cl.uh.edu) are associate professors of instructional technology at the University of Houston-Clear Lake.