A Four-Stage Model for Planning Computer-Based Instruction.
Gary R. Morrison, Steven M. Ross · Journal of Instructional Development · 1988
Computer-based instruction (CBI) lessons require thoughtful design and careful planning during their development. Existing CBI development models are not adaptable to lessons that vary in complexity or to differing roles and skill levels of a project staff. A flexible planning process in which the CBI design is implemented on paper as an intermediate step between the lesson design and the program production is described in this paper. The process consists of four major components: an initial flowchart, storyboards, a detailed flowchart, and an evaluation. Each step is described in detail using examples from recent applications. Emphasis is placed on the adaptability of the system for accommodating CBI projects that vary in scope and orientation. is generally agreed that an instructional design project requires a detailed plan before development can begin. Hannum (1986) stated, It seems a truism that the quality of the final CBI lesson is more a function of lesson design than lesson He separates the development of a CBI lesson into two distinct parts. One is lesson design-the design of the instruction-and the other is lesson authoring-the development of the computer code. Lesson design includes those steps from the identification of the instructional problem through the design of the instructional strategies. At a minimum, the design would prescribe the sequences and form of interaction, the type of feedback, and the use of graphics and sound. Lesson authoring begins once the design is completed and involves writing the computer code to generate the lesson. Different approaches to the instructional design process are well documented in the literature (e.g., Jonassen, 1988). There is less documentation, however, on the process of translating into a CBI lesson the content defined during the instructional design phase. There is a need for a well-defined but adaptable planning model for translating instructional design plans into CBI lessons. Such a planning model should meet four criteria. First, it should be adaptable-the model should operate as effectively for designing a simple drill-and-practice program as for a complex simulation. Second, it should provide an efficient means of prompting the designer for critical information about branching, data storage, cues, graphics, and sound (Richards & Salisbury, 1987), as well as for the components of the instructional design model. Third, it should provide a clear and accessible view of both the structure of the lesson and the amount of learner interaction. Fourth, it should provide a means for identifying various modules and subroutines to simplify the lesson authoring. A model that has been developed in accord with these four criteria and that has been used in several recent projects is described in this article. Current Planning Approaches The most common approach to CBI design involves using grid sheets (a 1:1 representation of the computer screen display) to specify content and display information (Richards & Salisbury, 1987). Each display of a lesson is represented as a separate storyboard in much the same way as scenes or slides are represented on video and slide storyboards. This approach, when applied to CBI displays, concentrates solely on the screen displays while tending to ignore the structure of a lesThere is a need for a well-defined but adaptable planning model for translating instruction design plans into CBI lessons. 6 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT This content downloaded from 207.46.13.128 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 06:00:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms son (Bork, 1985; Richards & Salisbury, 1987). One of the major criticisms Richards and Salisbury (1987) specifically note is the lack of cues on the screen design grid to prompt designers to maximize specific computer attributes such as graphics, interactivity, and animation. Several recent planning models employ grid-based systems. In Allen and Erickson's (1986) interactive videodisc design model, the grid allows the designer to specify the exact placement of the content, prompts, graphics, and other visual or textual information. In Allessi and Trollip's (1985) model, the design of an instructional sequence is followed by the design of screens using a grid-based system. Dean and Whitlock (1983) use a similar grid design for screens, but they also develop a mainline chart that presents the content of the frames in the most direct path through the lesson, and a flowchart that indicates both the direct path and specific branches available to the learner. The Dean and Whitlock model provides for flexibility, but is redundant by repeating the content of the primary frames in both the mainline chart and the storyboards. As an alternative to the grid sheet, Bork (1985) has proposed the development of a script that incorporates screen designs into individual flowchart blocks. The scripting process, however, can be cumbersome for the programmer to translate into screens since it is done in free form, i.e., it does not match the size constraints imposed by the CRT screen. Another alternative to the grid procedure is Richards' and Salisbury's (1987) Screen Design Syntax (SDS). SDS involves using a code to identify such items as text, graphics, branches, audio, and correct and incorrect answers (see Figure 1). This syntactic code is similar to the pseudo-code used in programming. SDS's main advantage is the use of a word processor for formatting text, making similar or duplicate frames, and facilitating revisions. SDS has four limitations. First, graphics cannot be incorporated directly into the screen design. Second, there is no coordinate system, as is available with grid sheets, to indicate the exact location of the text or graphic. Third, designers must master the special syntax used for designing the screens. Fourth, SDS fails to A The child in the example would be classified as