As a dynamic educational paradigm, e-learning utilizes a variety of tools and technologies to facilitate the dissemination of instructional content. Audio and video resources, Learning Management Systems (LMS), and instructional design models such as ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) and SAM (Successful Approximation Model) are some of the instruments included in this category.
Audio and video resources are
fundamental e-learning components. They utilize the power of visual and
auditory stimuli to effectively engage learners (Cole, Lennon and Weber, 2019).
For instance, educational videos, podcasts, and webinars are frequently used to
deliver content that caters to diverse learning digs. Not only do these
multimedia elements enhance the learning experience, but they also facilitate
asynchronous learning, which accommodates students with varying schedules and
preferences.
Learning Management Systems (LMS)
play a crucial role in the e-learning environment. Moodle, Canvas, and
Blackboard are platforms that provide centralized centers for managing and
delivering online courses (Chou and Chou, 2011). LMS solutions provide tools
for organizing course material, facilitating evaluation, and monitoring student
progress. Their benefits include scalability and simplicity of content
distribution. Embedded in LMS systems, robust data analytics enable instructors
to gain valuable insights into student performance, allowing them to tailor
interventions and support based on individual learning requirements. Despite
this, it is essential to recognize that LMS implementation may present
obstacles, such as initial setup costs and the steep learning curve associated
with mastering these complex systems.
In the field of instructional
design, frameworks such as ADDIE and SAM guide instructors in the development
of effective e-learning content (Ali, 2021). From analysis to evaluation, ADDIE
follows a linear, step-by-step procedure, ensuring systematic development. SAM
is iterative, enabling for continuous improvement based on feedback from
learners. These models emphasize the significance of well-structured content
creation, alignment with learning objectives, and ongoing evaluation. They
provide educators with a road map for designing and refining e-learning
experiences.
1. ADDIE Model
The ADDIE model is a widely
recognized and systematic instructional design technique that has been
extensively employed in educational contexts for several decades. The process
comprises five discrete steps, each of which plays a role in the generation of
efficacious e-learning material: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation.
Figure: ADDIE Learning Model, Source: Ali (2021)
2. SAM Model
A more flexible and iterative
instructional design paradigm that prioritizes cooperation, quick prototyping,
and regular learner input is the Successive Approximation Model (SAM). SAM
promotes adaptability and continual improvement throughout the design process,
in contrast to the linear ADDIE paradigm (Ali, 2021). Since not all
factors can be foreseen, the project starts with a planning phase where goals
and objectives are established. Then, SAM places a focus on iterative design,
where prototypes are developed and actively assessed by learners, enabling
quick adjustments based on their feedback (Lee, Lim and Kim, 2016). Continuous
improvement is the main goal of the development phase, which includes numerous
iterations motivated by student input. SAM is adaptable and allows for
continuing modifications based on real-time feedback even during installation.
This recurrent evaluation method distinguishes the e-learning experience
significantly from the more linear ADDIE model by ensuring that it remains sensitive
to learning objectives and changing learner demands.
References:
Ahlquist, J. (2014). Trending now: Digital leadership education
using social media and the social change model. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 8(2), 57-60.
Ali, C.A. (2021). A
comparative study of SAM and ADDIE models in simulating STEM instruction. African
Educational Research Journal, 9(4), pp.852–859.
doi:https://doi.org/10.30918/aerj.94.21.125.
Bastug, E., Bennis, M.,
Medard, M. and Debbah, M. (2017). Toward Interconnected Virtual Reality: Opportunities,
Challenges, and Enablers. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(6),
pp.110–117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2017.1601089.
Carlson, M.D.A. and
Morrison, R.S. (2009). Study Design, Precision, and Validity in Observational
Studies. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 12(1), pp.77–82.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2008.9690.
Chen, F.-H. ., Looi, C.-K.
. and Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: a visual
conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), pp.470–488.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00323.x.
Chou, A.Y. and Chou, D.C.
(2011). Course Management Systems and Blended Learning: An Innovative Learning
Approach. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3),
pp.463–484. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00325.x.
Classter.
(2019). School
Management. [online] Available
at: https://www.classter.com/school-management-system [Accessed 15 Sep. 2023].
Cole, A.W., Lennon, L. and
Weber, N.L. (2019). Student perceptions of online active learning practices and
online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interactive
Learning Environments, 29(5), pp.1–15.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619593.
Fuchs, C. (2010).
Cross-Institutional Blended Learning in Teacher Education. International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(2), pp.30–49.
doi:https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2010040103.
Lee, J., Lim, C. and Kim,
H. (2016). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in
higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development,
[online] 65(2), pp.427–453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1.
Rafool, B., Sullivan, E.
and Al-Bataineh, A. (2012). Integrating Technology into the Classroom. The
International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 8(1),
pp.57–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/cgp/v08i01/56265.
Rosenberg, M.J. and Foshay,
R. (2002). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital
age. Performance Improvement, 41(5), pp.50–51.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140410512.
Simon, H.A. (2021). Bounded
Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science,
2(1), pp.125–134.
Su, C-H. and Cheng, C-H.
(2014). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning
motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
31(3), pp.268–286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12088.
Team, L. (2022). 5 Reasons Digital
Literacy is Important for Students | Learning.com. [online] Learning.
Available at: https://www.learning.com/blog/reasons-digital-literacy-is-important-for-students/. [Accessed 15 Sep. 2023].
Comments
Post a Comment