Lieutenant Colonel Andre Greenberry is the Commanding Officer of the Training Technology Centre's Flexible Delivery Development Wing. andre.greenberry@defence.gov.au
Put four instructional designers in a room and you will get five concepts for designing a learning package for the web! Who is right and who is wrong? Time is precious, so rather than be embroiled in lengthy debates over the merits of each approach, some form of a guide is required. This paper recognises the paramount importance of instructional design and the need to rapidly develop consistently sound web based products in a short period of time. As a means of speeding development whilst maintaining instructional design integrity and consistency, this paper presents a checklist for your consideration. The checklist represents the distillation of many years of research, evaluation, validation and experience. It is, primarily, a tool for the inexperienced and uninitiated so as to enforce instructional design rigour in the development of web based materials.
Remember the 1980s? Adam and the Ants, Astroboy, Sony Walkmans, the fall of the Berlin Wall, ‘Who Shot JR?' and that computer game which saw you eat dots till you died … Pac-Man! The game immersed you into hunting dots in a maze until power pellets turned the hunted into the hunter. It was a simple game that anyone could master. Its popularity resulted in the Pac-Man image being plastered on everything from t-shirts to lunch-boxes. Pac-Man is undoubtedly an icon of the eighties and is venerated as, arguably, the first ‘platinum' computer game. But do you know that Pac-Man has its origins in an Italian meal? Its Japanese inventor, Tohru Iwatani, conceived the Pac-Man concept in a restaurant when he removed the first slice from a large pizza [HREF1]; food for thought! Puns aside, Pac-Man has become my guide for ensuring instructional design principles are adhered to in the development of eLearning products. My definition of eLearning refers to the use of electronic media to deliver, assess and manage learning. It includes the internet, intranets, CD ROM and DVD (Australian Army, 2004). It should be noted that this paper considers the terms eLearning and web based as interchangeable.
The Training Technology Centre (TTC) is an Army Training Command unit that is responsible for developing eLearning products to enable greater efficiency and effectiveness in its training regimes. Since 1996 it has produced over 50 quality packages as corroborated by its numerous awards; the latest being AIMIA's 2002 ‘Best Training Package' and ‘Best of the Best'. TTC's eLearning materials are a product of its current processes. These processes have accrued over many years and are the result of a great deal of research, observation, validation and experience. Paramount in the eLearning production process is instructional design. Driven by the need for a consistent application of instructional design principles by inexperienced designers working to condensed time-lines, I have developed a quality assurance mechanism. This mechanism is an instructional design checklist that is applied to all eLearning packages. Adherence to the instructional design checklist is mandatory and is as important as any technical compliance.
The military has long been an advocate of the use of acronyms and mnemonics to facilitate retention and recall. Accordingly, my instructional design checklist for the development of eLearning for the web comes in the form of the acronym, PACMAN – P resentation, A pproach, C ognition, M otivation, A ssessment, N eeds. The twist in applying this ‘catchy' and somewhat militaristic acronym is that it is applied from the right to the left - contrary to convention. ‘Needs' represents the first instructional design consideration and ‘presentation' represents the last. Twisting the order adds further novelty; noting that the sequence for learning is novelty, attention, learning and long-term memory. Hence, PACMAN read from right to left. But why PACMAN? Because the 1980s computer game represents small objects being consumed, in effect, the PACMAN ‘head' becomes an aggregation of all that it consumes. Likewise, the instructional design checklist advocated by PACMAN is an aggregation of many sound theories, tenants and principles. The PACMAN acronym epitomises the eclectic approach underpinning the instructional design checklist; it is a synthesisation and crystallisation of instructional design literature and my experiences in developing eLearning products. Drawing from many learning theories or empirical studies, there is a wealth of information prescribing how to optimise the learning process (Kang, 2004). Knowledge of, and use of, this wealth is a prerequisite for the design and development of eLearning packages. Gagne (1985) provides a basic structure for the presentation of information via his elements of instruction. Keller (1987) provides sound motivational strategies to embed within computer-aided instruction. Dick and Cary (1990) give a methodology for the development of instructional materials that meets an audience's expectations. Carliner (2002) provides excellent direction on screen design. Miller (1956) provides direction on maximising learning by recognising the limitations of working memory. Mager (1984) provides a blueprint for designing assessments of performance objectives. Each of the aforementioned, as well as the numerous other scholars not mentioned, are valuable sources of information that should be referenced in the development of eLearning. As an aggregation of instructional design knowledge, PACMAN (Figure 1) represents a simple, non-dogmatic, eclectic approach to enforcing instructional design rigour in the development of eLearning products. In essence, this paper presents a simple instructional design checklist for the development of web based learning.
eLearning lessons must be significantly clearer in what and how they present information because they do not have the luxury of a live instructor to correct misunderstandings and errors in learning (Carliner, 2002, p31). The intention of all lessons is to improve performance, and to do this an instructional designer needs to glean as much information as they can on a lesson's performance objectives and target audience. The process of gleaning this information is called Needs Analysis. Needs Analysis includes the identification of a performance problem, the isolation of a performance requirement through gap analysis and the subsequent development of a hierarchy of training objectives through task analysis. The Australian Army uses a modified version of the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Design Development (IPISD) Model as its guide for needs and task analysis (Leshin, Pollock & Reigeluth, 1992, p1). Branson and others generated the IPISD Model at Florida State University in 1975. The Australian version of the IPISD Model is called the Army Training System (ATS). The ATS provides the guidance for designing instruction, writing performance objectives, developing criterion referenced test items and developing an instructional strategy and materials. PACMAN assumes that all training objectives, test items and extant training materials are provided and signed-off by the eLearning sponsor. The ‘needs' in PACMAN refers to the tailoring of eLearning materials to meet the specific learning requirements of the target audience; it focuses on how training objectives are presented as opposed to what the training objectives are.
Rosset and Schafer (2003) assert that content must be ruled by the priorities of the users, not the passions of the subject matter experts; resources should be framed in the light of the learners' questions, concerns and priorities. Dick and Carey (1990, p92) write that caution must be taken to ensure that characteristic descriptions of a particular target population are indeed those of the group instead of a stereotypical misconception of a group's characteristics. Consequently, prose descriptions (character sketches) about the learners should be drawn from demographic data and interviews about the learners' abilities, expectations, influences and fears. A strength of eLearning is its ability to personalise content, but this can only be done if the instructional designers have a good understanding of the personal needs of the target audience.
Character sketches come from an audience analysis and may include details on age, experience, assumed knowledge, gender, language skills, achievements, education, motivation, specialties and interests. The intent is to gain a generic picture of the learner and tailor the learning materials to their needs. Mandatory criteria for the personalisation of learning for a target audience are language, generational characteristics and learning styles. It should be noted that the audience for which PACMAN has been developed, defence force personnel, means that the resulting learning packages would not be ‘Bobby' compliant. Bobby software tests web pages using accessibility guidelines established by W3C [HREF2]. PACMAN inspired materials would probably fail in the areas of colour conveying meaning, changeable text size and alternative text descriptions for non-text material.
The personalisation of learning through language is attained by using reading formulas. These formulas provide the means for estimating the difficulty in reading and understanding a paragraph, section or entire document. The formulas are primarily based on factors such as the number of words in the sentences and the number of letters or syllables per word. It is recognised that as long as predictors are all that is needed, the evidence that simple word and sentence counts can provide satisfactory predictors for most purposes is now quite conclusive (Klare, 1975). The most widely used reading formulas are the Dale-Chall-Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Instructional prose must be at a Reading Ease and Grade Level that accords with the user group. eLearning materials for an advanced miltary tactics course would aim to have a readability level for the 12 th grade, where as material for a recruit course would aim for a 10 th grade level. There is evidence that much of the information on the web may be too hard to be read and understood by the typical user [HREF3]. Consequently, the aim of the instructional designer is to make text clearer by such measures as using an active voice, selecting appropriate vocabulary or breaking down long sentences and paragraphs.
A user's age will place them into a unique generation: Baby Boomer, Baby Buster, Generation X or the Millennium Generation. Research has shown that the various generations have unique characteristics. For example, GenXers (1961-1981) are technologically literate and see computers as an expected way of getting information. They thrive on rapid-fire information consumption but have short attention spans. They crave stimulation and expect immediate answers and feedback. They are at ease with gaming as a means of learning. On the other hand, Baby Boomers (post WW2) have greater concentration spans and see gaming as a less effective way of teaching [HREF4]. By virtue of generational characteristics, age can provide clues as to instructional strategies.
People learn in different ways and there have been a number of researchers who have catalogued the variety of learning styles with Kolb's (1976) Experiential Model being the best known. Using his Learning Style Inventory, a person can be categorised as having a particular learning style: accommodator, converger, diverger or assimilator. Assimilators, for example, like to create models and place importance on a logically sound theory; they are more concerned with ideas and abstract concepts. These learners like to engage in individual problem solving, case studies, observing role-plays and reflective journals. Understanding a learner from the perspective of what their preferred learning style is provides an insight into what teaching strategies will optimise learning.
PACMAN's first instructional design consideration focuses on the characteristics and needs of the target audience. Understanding the characteristics and needs ensures that the language, strategies and style for presenting content are appropriate.
As a rule of thumb, assessment of performance objectives should account for about 10% of an instructional package [HREF5]. This figure alone is testament to the importance of this aspect of instructional design. Mager (1984) describes the three important elements of a performance objective as performance, conditions and criterion. These elements answer three questions that underpin all assessment: What should the participant be able to do? Under what conditions should the participant be able to do it? How well must it be done? The elements of assessment must accord with the learning outcomes and assessment criteria that were derived from the needs and task analysis. PACMAN assumes that the performance, conditions and standards are given and that the instructional designer's task is to develop a strategy for confirming the assimilation of instruction and focus on verifying that learning does take place. In developing the assessment strategy, the instructional designer must ensure that all assessments are valid (Does the assessment actually assess what it is supposed to assess?), and reliable (Does the assessment consistently measure a learner's achievement or performance?).
Assessment will be comprised of formative and summative exercises. Formative assessment (also known as self-assessment or enablers) provides feedback to learners but does not contribute to the summative assessment (also known as terminals). Summative assessment determines the learner's competency and is the basis of any certification that accompanies a learning package. Given the isolation of an eLearning user, their learning materials must be liberally sprinkled with self-assessment exercises. Why? Because self-assessment substitutes for interaction between a teacher and a learner in the classroom, consolidates learning and monitors progress.
Assessments must be clearly stated and understood by learners; that is, learners must know well in advance where, how and when they will be assessed. Additionally, assessment exercises are to provide detailed feedback for correct and incorrect responses. It is commonly accepted that we learn from our mistakes; consequently, assessment exercises become vital in the cycle of learning. The same amount of consideration that is given to assessment questions must also be given to the feedback. Feedback, be it correct answer feedback or wrong answer feedback should be appropriate for the target audience, be written clearly and concisely, explain how the correct answer is arrived at, give guidance on wrong answers and advise on remedial work. Seven questions that need to be addressed when checking assessment are: Does each assessment item relate to the learning outcome? Are the questions realistic? Will the respondent be able to answer the question given the information they have been given? Are long and complex questions divided up into shorter ones? Are the questions varied in type (multiple choice, matching, labelling etc)? Has the learner been given clear instructions on the length and type of answer expected? Are the questions clearly constructed and unambiguous? Are the questions free from spelling, punctuation, grammatical and typographical errors?
Assessment is an essential component of any teaching material. Good design dictates that the development of an eLearning package should commence with the assessment and work backwards. Hence, its inclusion in PACMAN as the second consideration for instructional design.
It has been stated (Weaver, 2002) that learners do not complete 50 to 90% of web based learning packages and that a lack of motivation on behalf of the learners is a significant factor in accounting for this large failure rate. Given the lack of a physical instructor to immediately assess and remediate, the establishment and maintenance of motivation for eLearning materials is critical.
A great deal of research on the psychology of learning has focused on how ability affects achievement. Keller (1987) was different because he believed that effort was as important to achievement as ability and that the key was to stimulate an individual's motivation to learn. Keller's research and studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s lead him to develop the ARCS Motivational Model. The ARCS Model defines four major factors that influence the motivation to learn: Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. Keller asserted that in designing a course an instructional designer must consider these four factors in respect to answering two questions: What will be done to make the learning valuable and stimulating? What will be done to assist the learners to succeed and feel responsible for their own success? In Attention, the aim is to capture the interest of learners and stimulate their curiosity to learn through perceptual arousal, inquiry arousal or variability. In Relevance, the aim is to meet the personal needs and goals of the learner so as to effect a positive attitude. This is accomplished through goal orientation, motive matching or familiarity. In Confidence, the aim is to help the learners believe and feel that they will succeed and control their success. This is accomplished through meeting learning requirements, providing success opportunities and ensuring personal control. In Satisfaction, the aim is to reinforce achievement with internal and external rewards through natural consequences, positive consequences and equity.
With eLearning in mind, Keller and Suzuki (1987) have modified the former's original ARCS classroom strategies. The result is a comprehensive set of motivational strategies to embed within the introduction, body and conclusion of eLearning lessons. In applying the ARCS Model and determining what strategies to use, the sequence is to conduct an audience analysis to determine the motivational objectives, identify appropriate strategies to meet the objectives and then revise the strategies based on an evaluation of their effectiveness. There is no prescription with respect to how many strategies or what strategies should be used, since this is dependent upon the audience analysis. Suffice to say that at the completion of design, an instructional designer should be able to identify strategies that address the four ARCS Motivational Model components.
Keller's four motivational components and ensuing strategies are based on general theory relating to motivation and research on human motivation. The work of another eminent motivation researcher, Wlodkowski (1985), corroborates the ARCS strategies even though the general model is different. Regardless of the motivational model used, the fact remains that building motivational strategies within the three basic parts of a lesson is a mandatory step in the design and development of learning. Compliance with PACMAN and the espoused ARCS motivational strategies ensures that the motivational needs of a learner will be met.
Cognition describes the mental procedure of information processing; it refers to all the activities associated with thinking, knowing and remembering [HREF6]. To optimise the retention value of eLearning packages, they must be designed with due consideration of the physical process of learning. An instructional designer should be aware of the significant instructional considerations that have come from the field of Cognitive Science.
A quote that is accredited to Confucius indicates that he had a basic understanding of cognition - “Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand” [HREF7]. The imperative of ‘doing' that is at the core of this statement has been corroborated by the Learning Retention Pyramid from the US National Training Laboratories. The Laboratories' figures for the percentage of information retained via different delivery formats is 10% reading, 20% hearing, 30% seeing, 50% seeing and hearing, 80% saying, and 90% saying and doing [HREF8]. Further figures supporting visual media is found in the fact that 13% of what we learn is through hearing, as opposed to 87% which is through sight (Australian Army, 1984, p63). The message behind all this data is quite simple; the key to retention is active learning not passive learning. Good instructional materials must be visual, media rich and engaging. Drawing on Bandura's (1961) bobbo doll studies on imitation, it has been suggested that 80% of what we learn, we learn vicariously [HREF9]; consequently video and animations become valuable mediums to facilitate learning by observation.
With respect to cognition, instructional materials must seek to engage and immerse the learner. The best strategies for this are role-plays, games, case studies, activities, challenges and simulations. The role and value of simulation within eLearning should not be undervalued. It has been estimated (Boehle, 2005, p24) that 70% of all commercial-off-the-shelf and custom eLearning content will include simulations of some type in 2006. Screens of didactic text interspersed with a few pictures and questions will not optimise learning.
Overloading learners with too much information without allowing them to assimilate the information is common in most instructional packages. Information is not instruction (Merrill, 2002). Electronic page-turners become eReading and eBoring. To ensure retention takes place, instruction must be designed to accommodate the process of storing information. This is where Miller's (1956) Information Processing Theory becomes an integral component of instructional design. Miller's theory espouses ‘chunking' of information because short-term/working memory can only hold five to nine chunks of information. A chunk is defined as a digit, words, chess positions or people's faces. Miller's accompanying concept is TOTE (Test-Operate-Test-Exit). Together they mean that chunks of information are presented, and testing occurs to ensure transfer to long-term memory. If no transfer occurs, then the chunk of information is repeatedly presented until testing indicates its transfer. Once transfer occurs, short-term memory is cleared and another chunk of information is presented. The limitation of working memory for eLearning designers is self-evident. To prevent cognitive overload, an eLearning lesson should not contain numerous screens packed with content. Instead, similar content should be ‘chunked' into a number of screens, say four to five, followed by some form of activity. The activity enables assimilation of the content prior to the presentation of more ‘chunked' information. The art is not to place too much content on one screen; a rule-of-thumb suggests that a screen should occupy the learner for about one minute (Carliner, 2002).
Sweller (1994) and Cooper [HREF10] have built on Miller's work to demonstrate the role of working memory in the process of learning and how learning fails when working memory is exceeded. They have documented the cognitive implications of limited working memory for instruction. Some of the ‘cognitive' considerations are split attention, modality, redundancy and worked example. The split attention effect, for example, indicates that the use of different information sources providing identical information causes a higher cognitive load for working memory and impedes the learning process. The significance of this for instructional designers is that having audio that repeats verbatim what the text says is poor design.
PACMAN's ‘cognition' consideration will ensure that due thought is given to the mental process of learning, in particular working memory. This will result in eLearning materials that maximise learning by facilitating retention and lessening learning decay.
Approach refers to the systematic method of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching; it implies a self-correcting, logical process for the planning, development, and implementation of instruction (Banathy, 1968, p15). A systematic approach to the solution of instructional problems could be derived from behavioural, cognitive or constructivist theories. With respect to constructivism, Chadwick (2004) provides a good commentary on the weaknesses inherent within this approach. PACMAN supports the ATS and so promotes a behaviourist approach; it advocates that learning is optimised when a learner is guided through information so as to enable them to gain specific knowledge in order to meet set instructional objectives. It recognises that the required behaviour resulting from instruction has been defined by the workplace and will be measured according to demonstrable and quantifiable behavioural indicators. This implies that a hierarchical task analysis has broken down each performance into its subordinate objectives and the ensuing instructional sequence accords with teaching simpler objectives before more complex ones. It is also noted that the behaviourist approach is underpinned by the belief that learning occurs when a desired behaviour is consistently reinforced. The macro implications of the behaviourist approach for designers are that lessons and content will be sequenced, job specific and infused with cues to guide and reinforce the desired behaviour.
PACMAN assumes that the instructional designer will be given the sequenced list of objectives and the assessment criteria. The primary task, then, is to put this material into a structure that will facilitate learning. The structure advocated by PACMAN is the one prescribed by Gagne (1977). Gagne's sequence of instruction is a prescription for providing the optimal external conditions of learning that are required to activate and support the internal process of learning. His sequence of instruction can be applied to all types of performance. He defined five types of performance (verbal information, intellectual skill, cognitive strategy, attitude and motor skill). Regardless of the performance, Gagne's nine external events of instruction for any desired learning are: gain learner's attention, inform learners of the objectives by providing an overview of the content, stimulate the recall of prior learning, present the material, provide learning guidance via demonstration, elicit performance from learners by enabling them to practice the skill and build their confidence by progressively limiting assistance, provide informative feedback, assess performance, and enhance retention and learning transfer by providing enrichment or remediation. The nine events can be synthesised down to Explanation, Demonstration and Practice (EDP) and constitute what is referred to as ‘mastery learning' (Carliner, 2002, p92). The essence of mastery learning is that a performance type is explained to learners, then demonstrated to them. The learners practice the skill and continue to do so until they master it.
PACMAN prescribes a hierarchy of objectives for every lesson and that each lesson is presented in a format that attends to each of Gagne's nine events of instruction. This implies a ‘templated lesson plan' and ensures a logical attainment of a behavioural target in the most efficient and effective manner; it prevents extraneous information leaking into a lesson. In a web based package that will have many lessons, a common structure inherent within every lesson is a virtue, since it develops familiarity, confidence and saves the learner having to come to terms with the structure and nuances of a new lesson's format. Another consideration is the exponential growth of technology as evidenced in Moore's Law. This Law refers to the observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel , that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades. Computer chips lie at the heart of the current ‘technology explosion'. This growth in technology leads to a corresponding increase in the need to learn. The increased requirement to undertake personal learning to maintain a competitive advantage in the global economy has resulted in the average adult spending 15 hours per week conducting deliberate personal learning (Falk & Dierking, 2002). Much of this deliberate personal training takes the form of eLearning. For eLearners, time is scarce; they simply want to know what they have to learn, how to acquire the knowledge and how to confirm their assimilation of the learning material. They want a structure they are familiar with and that will meet their needs and expectations. PACMAN's behaviourist approach appeases the structure, time and content requirements of the learners, thereby optimising the learning process.
There is a common Chinese proverb that states, “talent counts for thirty percent; appearance for seventy percent” [HREF11]. Regardless of how good the training objectives, structure and assessment are, if the learning material is not well presented, then the prospect of a learner completing or even accessing eLearning is limited. eLearning cannot rely on the charisma or intervention of a live instructor to sell its content. It has to be presented in such a way that it entices and sustains interest. Presentation is not only important for drawing a user into an eLearning package and maintaining their motivation, but for also facilitating the assimilation of the material presented. PACMAN's ‘presentation' refers to screen design. It represents the visual interface for presenting content and includes issues of navigation, white space, headings, typography and colour. These basic presentation considerations should be covered in a style guide. A style guide is developed before any coding, graphical work or scripting is done.
Navigation refers to the design elements that assist users find their way through content. Regardless of the browser used, a package's navigation must show learners where they are, where they are going, what is to come and what needs to be done to achieve success (Rosset & Schafer, 2003). Other considerations linked to navigation are consistent use of icons and layout, sitemaps, bookmarking, results summaries, notepad, estimates of time to complete a package and progress indicators for each lesson.
White space refers to the blank space on a screen; it does not have to be white! White space is very important because it frames the screen and separates media items. So as to frame the central block of content presented in a screen, a blank margin should be left around it. Space should be left between blocks of text, paragraphs, headings and illustrations/graphics. A significant contribution of white space is that it offers the user respite from blocks of text. It has been suggested that 25% of a screen should be white space (Carliner, 2002, p108). The best judge for white space is your eye; if you feel a screen is somewhat overcrowded with text, then revise it.
Given that most users ‘skimread' text, headings are an important means by which content is located. The size of the heading is used as an indicator of the importance of the information. A heading hierarchy should be established in the style guide and consistently applied to a learning package. The positioning of headings should also be consistently applied throughout a package.
Typography is the anatomy of type and since text will be the main medium for presenting information, it warrants special attention. Serif fonts (small strokes on ascenders or descenders as found in Times, Georgia and Garamond) are best for stories. Sans Serif fonts (do not have the additional strokes as found in Arial or Verdana) look modern and informal and are regarded as the best to present screen information. Arial and Verdana provide the best guarantee of compatibility with other operating systems and computer platforms; they offer the safest and most reliable choice in terms of readability, accessibility and compatibility among all Sans Serif fonts [HREF12].
Fonts should be restricted to a minimum of two per screen; font size should be no less than 11 point and the space between the lines of text should only be two to four point sizes larger than the actual text. There should be no more than 10 words per line and about 30 words per block of text (Philips, 1996, p70-71). Another issue with text screens is comprehension. Research has shown that the comprehension level for reading text on screen is 25% slower than if the user were to read the identical information from a book [HREF13]. Consequently, good screen design should aim to limit the amount of text and not repeat verbatim what is stated in a paper-based equivalent.
Colour is one of the most commonly used means of encoding information. It is important in screen design because it makes screen layouts more attractive, reduces a user's interpretation errors, emphasises logical organisation of information and focuses a user's attention to a given part of the screen. Noting colour associations, special forethought should be given to the selection of colours for backgrounds; for example, green is associated with hope, calmness, freshness and youth [HREF14]. Colour, layout and the metaphor for the package should all be prescribed in the style guide.
PACMAN alerts the instructional designer to the fact that a well-researched and constructed eLearning package can be severely compromised by poor presentation. Appearance is as important as substance. All the considerations covering the conventions of interface design must be followed if a package is to succeed in facilitating learning.
Merrill (1998) writes that “…instruction is a scientific field, and instructional design is a technology founded in this science. Instructional design is not merely a philosophy; it is a set of procedures arrived at by collaboration; it is a set of scientific principles and a technology for implementing these principles in the development of instructional experiences and environments.” Consequently, the assumption that any subject matter expert, classroom instructor, software coder or computing enthusiast can design eLearning for the web is wrong. Having an understanding of content and a technological or computing bent does not provide a license to cobble together material to be electronically promulgated. Designing quality eLearning requires the application of instructional design knowledge and skills. Knowledge is the science of judiciously applying educational psychology principles, tenets and theories to maximize retention. Skill is the art of designing a style guide and then using it to craft a learning portal that appeals and facilitates the transfer and retention of learning content. Understanding the science and art underpinning the development of web based learning is a prerequisite for the design of a quality product. But alas, many of the learning packages promulgated on the web are being designed oblivious of the requisite science and art. To address this anomaly, PACMAN is presented as a practical guide and a checklist for web designers to ensure their observance of the science and art of instructional design – as given in Figure 2. Its aim is to give instructional design rigour to the design of web based learning materials.
Australian Army. 1984. MLW 3.1.6 Instructors Handbook .
Australian Army. 2004. Training Command Instruction 3.1/2004. Flexible Learning Plan.
Banathy, B.H. 1968 . Instructional Systems . Fearon. Califonia.
Bandura, A. Ross, D. & Ross, S. A. 1961. Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63.
Boehle. S. 2005. Simulations: The Next Generation of E-Learning. Training. January.
Carliner, S. 2002. Designing E-Learning . ASTD, Alexandria.
Chadwick, C. 2004. Why I Am Not A Constructivist. Educational Technology. Vol 7. No 44.
Dick, D & Cary, L. 1990, 3 rd edn. The Systematic Design of Instruction . Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. 2002. Lessons Without Limits: How Free Choice Learning is Transforming Education. Institute for Learning Innovation .
Gagne, R. M. 1977, 3 rd edn. The Conditions of Learning. Holt, Rinehart, and Winstone. Philadelphia.
Gagne, R. 1985, 4 th edn. The Conditions of Learning . Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson, New York.
Kang, S. 2004. Instructional Design and Development: A Brief Historical Overview. Educational Technology. Vol 44, No 6.
Keller, J. M. 1987. Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction , October.
Keller, J.M. & Suzuki, K. 1987. Use of the ARCS Model in Courseware Design. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for Computer Courseware . Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New York.
Klare, G.R. 1975 Assessing Readability. Reading Research Quarterly , 10.
Kolb, D.D. 1976. The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual . McBer, Houston.
Leshin, B. L. & Pollock, J. & Reigeluth, C. M. 1992. Instructional Design Strategies and Tactics . Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey.
Mager, R. F. 1984, 2 nd edn.. Preparing Instructional Objectives . Lake Publishing. Belmont, California.
Merrill, M.D. 1998. Wake Up! And Reclaim Instructional Design. Training, June.
Merrill, M.D. 2002. Effective Use of Instructional Technology Requires Educational Reform. Educational Technology . July-August.
Miller, G.A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review , 63.
Phillips. R. 1996. Developers Guide to Interactive Multimedia: A Methodology for Educational Applications . Computing Centre Curtin University, Perth.
Rosset, A. & Schafer, L. 2003.What To Do About e-Dropouts: What If Its Not the E-Learning But The E-Learner. T+D . June.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4 .
Weaver, P. 2002. Preventing E-Learning Failure. T+D . August.
Wlodkowski, R.J. 1985. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn . Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
HREF1
http:// w w.mameworld.net/pacman/history/p4_01.htm
HREF2
http://www.bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/about.jsp
HREF3
Bailey, B. 2002.Readability Formulas and Writing for the Web. http:// http://www.webusability.com/article_readability_formula_7_2002.htm
HREF4
Darling, L. 2004. Learning: Generation Does Matter. http://www.elementk.com/training_advice/html/05_02_learninggen.asp
HREF5
http://www.nwlink.cm/donclark/hrd/sat2.html
HREF6
definition as per http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/defonition.cfm?term=cognition
HREF7
http://www.prism_magazine.org/december/html/december_last_word.htm
HREF8
US National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine. http://www.tcde.tehama.kiz.ca.us/pyramid.pdf
HREF9
http://www.pianoweb.net/social_learning.html
HREF10
Cooper, G. 1998. Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW.
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/education/clt.html
HREF11
http://www.bartleby.com/66/42/1642.html
HREF12
Rossi, L. C. 2004. Best Fonts for an Effective Presentation. http://www.masterviews.com/2004/10/26/best_fonts_for_an_effective_presentation.htm
HREF13
Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association (AIMIA). Writing for the Web. http://www.aimia.com.au/default.asp?content=dynamic&title=Writing=for=the=web&casid 5/03/03
HREF14
Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association (AIMIA). Writing for the Web. http://www.aimia.com.au/default.asp?content=dynamic&title=Writing=for=the=web&casid 5/03/03
Lieutenant Colonel Andre Greenberry, © 2005. The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence 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 authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.