Abstract
The field of instructional design and technology has always evolved and grown, translating new knowledge in the learning and cognitive sciences into instructional principles, increasingly incorporating technological innovations into the design of educational solutions, and adapting to social changes (Reiser, 2007; Tennyson, 2005). The ‘learning object’ paradigm, which mainly emerged out of economical and technological concerns, was first developed within the field of software engineering, but is significantly gaining the attention of researchers and practitioners in the field of education at large. Even though this perspective is affecting instructional design practices, still little is known about well-structured methods enabling the support of instructional design processes oriented in this way. We present here a case study, which is part of ongoing doctoral research, and aims to provide a robust instructional design method for the production of learning designs compliant with the IMS LD2 specification. Our work focuses on the adaptation of an instructional engineering method known as MISA3.
Highlights
MISA is a consistent method guiding the design of learning systems
In our first phase of research, we carried out a different analysis of MISA and IMS LD, from an instructional design perspective, comparing them as design languages (Rheinfrank & Evenson, 1996; Seo & Gibbons, 2003; Gibbons & Brewer, 2005)
The results of this analysis helped position MISA and IMS LD with respect to their specificities and boundaries: while IMS LD rests on an educational modeling language or EML (Rawlings et al, 2002; Paquette, 2004), MISA proposes an instructional design language (IDL) comprising its own EML
Summary
MISA is a consistent method guiding the design of learning systems. This method makes use of 35 macro and micro design documents (Documentation Elements or DEs). Each DE is composed of attributes, which have assigned values that structure its characteristics in a detailed manner This pedagogical engineering approach is based on the tradition of instructional design models, the software engineering process, and the field of knowledge management (Paquette, 2002). In our first phase of research, we carried out a different analysis of MISA and IMS LD, from an instructional design perspective, comparing them as design languages (Rheinfrank & Evenson, 1996; Seo & Gibbons, 2003; Gibbons & Brewer, 2005) The results of this analysis helped position MISA and IMS LD with respect to their specificities and boundaries: while IMS LD rests on an educational modeling language or EML (Rawlings et al, 2002; Paquette, 2004), MISA proposes an instructional design language (IDL) comprising its own EML. This methodology follows Yin‟s (2003) four-stage case study recommendations: design the case study, conduct the case study, analyze the case study evidence, and develop the conclusions and recommendations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
