The E-Learning Curve Blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address in 10 seconds. If that does not occur for some reason, visit
http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/
and update your bookmarks.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Discovering Instructional Design 12: the ICARE Model

In the broadest sense of the term, 'instructional design' has been described as

…an emerging profession, (2) focused on establishing and maintaining efficient and effective human performance, (3) guided by a model of human performance, (4) carried out systematically, (5) based on open systems theory, and (6) oriented to finding and applying the most cost-effective solutions to human performance problems and discovering
quantum leaps in productivity improvement through human ingenuity.

(Smith & Tillman, 2004 p.1)

More prosaically Gustafson & Branch consider instructional design (ID) as

a system of procedures for developing education and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion. Instructional design is a complex process that is creative, active, and iterative.

(What is Instructional Design? 2002, p. 17)

The latter assert that instructional design is a complex systematic process with the following characteristics;

  • interdependent - no elements can be separated from the system
  • synergistic - all the elements can achieve more than the individual elements alone
  • dynamic - systems can adjust to changing conditions in environments
  • cybernetic - elements communicate among them efficiently

According to Gustafson and Branch, adhering to a instructional systems design process and can make instruction more effective and relevant to learners.

With these parameters in place, let's take a look at the ICARE approach to designing instruction. Based on the venerable Dick and Carey Model and pioneered by San Diego State University in 1997, the model has found a place in the higher education sector. According to Vincent Salyers (2006) ICARE has potential "as one possible means for structuring and organizing course content." As we'll see in my next blog post, the Centre for Learning Development at Middlesex University have adapted the ICARE framework, designed templates with built-in guidelines for use by academics with little experience in instructional design, and extended the model as the basic pedagogy for their ‘Global Campus’ instructional framework for distance education (Mojab & Huyck, 2001).

According to the ICARE Model's main proponents Hoffman and Ritchie (1998), the model is distilled from basic instructional design practice (see Table 1), and adapting various systems to what seemed to be particularly useful components for e-learning course design and development.

Table 1. The ICARE Model

Phase

Description

Introduction

This phase consists of the introduction to the unit of instruction including:

  • Context
  • Objectives
  • Prerequisites
  • Required study time
  • Equipment required
  • Essential reading materials

Connect or Content (MDX interation)

Almost all content will reside in this section

Apply All activities

Exercise, thinking questions, etc are implemented in this phase

Reflect

This phase provides an opportunity for learners to reflect on their acquired knowledge and articulate their experience. This section may include: topics for discussion, a learning journal/log, a self test, formative and summative assessment

Extend

An amalgamation of all the previous phases which offers materials and learning opportunities which can be remedial, supplemental, or advanced, depending on learner performance

In this context for example, when refactoring course content into online modules (what the authors term "distance learning units") a conventional 20-credit module is deconstructed into twenty units worth nine hours of study each. The model has the following five distinctive but interrelated components that are applied to individual lesson/lecture 'unit.'

More…

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In: R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D.C (1998). (2005). Teaching and learning online: Tools, templates, and training. In: J. Willis, D. Willis, & J. Price (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual - 1998. Charlottesville, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mojab, D. & Huyck, C. (2001). The Global Campus at Middlesex University: A Model for E-Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cwa.mdx.ac.uk/chris/draft6.doc Retrieved 3 June 2009

Salyers, V. (2006, July). Using the ICARE Format for Structuring Online Courses. Impact 2006, WebCT, 8th Annual Users Conference; San Antonio, TX.

Smith, P.L., & Tillman, J.R. (2004) Instructional Design (3rd Ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Books.

--

2 comments:

Lynda said...

I work with Vince Salyers at the School of Nursing at UNBC where he is chair. I'm the instructional designer. ICARE has been a cost-effective way to develop courses - particularly in MOODLE where I am now in the process of training faculty to edit the content themselves. Looks prettier in Blackboard but takes a bit of HTML savvy to setup. Cheers.

Michael Hanley said...

Hi Lynda,
Thanks for getting in touch. It seems that the evidence of your experience with the ICARE approach bears out the Middlesex case study I discussed (albeit in a different domain).

I'm interested to know your view of my interpretation of ICARE, and if it accurately reflects your experience. Also(!), given Moodle's social-constructivist pedagogy, do you find that a cognitivist model is well adapted to the platform, or do you have to make allowances for the workflow encourage by the LMS?
Best regards,
Michael
--