Current Instructional Design Models and Principles for

Effective E- and Mobile Learning

Minjuan Wang
mwang@mail.sdsu.edu
San Diego State University & EBTIC Research Fellow
Felicia Brown
San Diego State University
febefab@yahoo.com
Jason W.P. Ng
Etisalat BT Innovation Centre (EBTIC) Chief Scientist
jason.ng@bt.com

Abstract: As an attempt to identify how to effectively design learning activities and content for
cloud learning, this paper explores current models and principles for designing effective products
for eLearning and cloud learning (cLearning). In addition, we examine the graphical and
programmatic aspects of good online and mobile eLearning products. It is clear that more
research is needed to fully understand how best to design instruction for mobile and cloud
learning experiences.

Introduction

The root of Instructional Systems Design is a systematic process for creating effective
instructional solutions. That is, Instructional Design (ID) “is a framework for learning” (Siemens,
2002). This framework requires designers to analyze the desired outcomes and content and
apply the appropriate design model to achieve the learning outcomes. There are quite a few
generic design models that are customizable and highly effective in creating instructional
solutions that meet different objectives in learning. However, quite often, these instructional
design models are not suited for designing electronic learning (eLearning), mobile learning
(mLearning), and the newly emerged cloud learning (cLearning)

ELearning design, including computer-base training, web-based training and other electronic
delivery forms of training and teaching (Kurtus, 2000), requires a delicate balance between
education and technology to provide a truly effective learning experience. Most often, the
instructional designer's role is that of "bridging concepts between the two worlds” (Siemens,
2002). The instructional design process for most designers has a primary focus on the learning;
however, the design process of eLearning instructional design requires a marriage between the
pedagogical or andragogical requirements of e-Learners, content from the subject matter
expert (SME), and the work of graphic designers and web programmers.

ELearning has become increasingly more popular in the technological societies of modern age,
and, more recently, mobile technologies have exploded in the marketplace to the point where
mobile learning (mLearning) has begun to emerge as an important factor in eLearning design.
The definition for mLearning has evolved from studying with mobile devices to the great learner
mobility resulting from the use of mobile technologies (Sharples, Milrad, Sánchez, & Vavoula,
2009; Traxler, 2010; Wang, Shen, Novak, & Pan, 2009). A handful of research has revealed how
mLearning can enhance both learning experiences and outcomes. However, eLearning
designers still need to figure out how to design for mLearning (Wang &Shen, 2011).
Surprisingly, while mLearning is important in today’s learning, the instructional design principles
and models are still undefined. Therefore, the design for mobile devices mirrors that of
eLearning at this point in time despite the fact that mLearning has its unique benefits and
limitations (Wang & Shen, 2011).

With the rapid development of cloud computing, cloud learning (cLearning) and mobile cloud
learning (mcLearning) have also come into discussion (Hirsch & Ng, 2010; Wang, 2011). Cloud
learning is built on the three services models (infrastructure, platform, and software) but also
has various definitions. Here we define cloud learning as a shared pool of learning courses,
digital assets and resources, which instructors and learners can access via computers, all types
of mobile devices, satellite, and even IP-TV (Wang, 2011). The “cloud” associated with learning
is therefore similar to public utilities, which consumers can plug in and use anytime and
anywhere. Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the aforementioned cloud learning. For instance,
one type of cloud learning occurs through mobile and social learning via Web. 3.0 technologies,
consisting of semantic webs and the intelligent tools (iTools). Learners can cooperate anywhere
in the “Cloud”; they study, experiment, explore, complete tasks, and provide assistance to
others. Learners in the “Cloud” can also select suitable resources and record individual learning
outcomes and processes (Wang, 2011).
Figure 1. A model for Cloud Learning

Mobile Cloud education or Learning (Fig. 2), a novel unification of cloud and mobile learning, is
a relatively new concept that holds great promises for the future development of education
(Hirsch & Ng, 2011). The two learning modalities can naturally merge, because the
characteristics of cloud learning overlaps with mobile learning. The definition of mobile learning
has also been evolving, from the early definitions of “learning with mobile devices” (Kossen,
2001) to the current one that emphasizes learner mobility resulting from the use of mobile
devices (Wang et al., 2009). In both definitions, users can acquire learning content from the
centralized shared resources and engage in anytime-anywhere context-aware learning via
portable devices.
Figure 2. The concept of mobile cloud education/learning (Hirsch & Ng, 2010).

The purpose of this paper is three fold. First, we will describe the most important and
applicable learning theories for eLearning solutions. Second, we will describe effective
eLearning design models and principles. Finally, we will describe the graphical and
programmatic aspects of good online and mobile eLearning solutions.

Learning Theory for eLearning solutions

The instructional design of eLearning solutions must first recognize the learner is not in a
traditional classroom setting with a motivational and/or supervisorial instructor facilitating the
learning process. Learner motivations, attention to learning content, understanding of the
relevance of the subject matter and ability to have social interaction with peers are not as easy
to facilitate. Therefore, the most relevant learning theories for eLearning solutions seem to
include Gagne’s 9 events, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, and Vygotsky’s social
cognitive/development theory.
Most current eLearning design uses Gagne’s theory of learning throughout the design process.

According to Gagne, there are nine critical events (e.g., gain attention, inform objectives,
stimulate recall, present stimulus, provide guidance, elicit performance, provide feedback,
assess performance, enhance retention and transfer) that stimulate processes needed for
effective and long lasting learning (Carr, A. M. & Carr, C.S., 2000). ELearning design that
emphasizes the attention, motivation and retention and transfer phases of Gagne’s 9 events of
instruction is able to build the connections between new information and the current
knowledge base (Cassarino, 2003). This approach allows instructional designers to effectively
organize and sequence instructional content in order to maximize the transfer of knowledge
and skills from the learner interface (LI), learning management system (LMS) or content
management system (CMS) to the learner without loss of motivation or content understanding.

Emphasis on the application of constructivism which provides students with the opportunity to
construct their own understanding is growing in the design of eLearning solutions (Nichols,
2003). To begin, many eLearning instructional designers are applying Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development. According to Atherton (2011), Piaget proposed that children learned
through the development of schema, or ideas, assimilated from the environment. The
development of schema must be considered by eLearning instructional designers because
active learning requires that schema be developed by the learner through experiences. As a
result, eLearning will be more effective if it provide constructivist learning environments
whereby students can actively engage in authentic and applicable projects and problem-solving
situations.

Allen (in Steen, 2008) also reminded eLearning instructional designers that we learn 70% of
what we discuss with others, another key feature of constructivism. Vygotsky (2008) theorized
that social learning preceded development and that “every function in the child’s cultural
development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level. Social
constructivists believe that most learning takes place in a social context, and is facilitated by the
interactions that students have with others (Berge, 2002). Therefore, eLearning design should
build in a high degree of engagement by leveraging Vygotsky’s social cognitive/development
theory and interaction with the content.

ELearning Design Models

The best known and most frequently used instructional design model is ADDIE., which has five
phases as seen in Figure 3. In this design model, designers progress from distinct phase to the
next. The analysis phase places an emphasis on defining what is to be learned, and the design
phase places emphasis on how learning will occur.

Figure 3: ADDIE process (Chan and Robbins, 2006)

The development emphasizes the authoring and creation of the eLearning product, and the
implementation and evaluation phases emphasize “going live” and accessing the success or
failure of learning (Chan & Robbins, 2006). While ADDIE model is the most frequently used, it is
also the most time and labor intensive with respect to eLearning instructional design.
The Dick and Carey Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model (figure 4) follows closely behind
ADDIE in use by eLearning instructional designers. This model espouses a systematic method
for designing instruction base upon a “reductionist” model of breaking down instruction into
small components. The instructional design targets the specific knowledge and skills that are to
be taught; therefore, the appropriate conditions are provided for the learning outcomes.
Although this design approach is popular, it has long been considered too rigid and time
consuming for the most instructional design projects, especially for the fast-paced eLearning
design (Clark, 2004). This is clearly indicated in the fact that there are development-focused
ten phases while the remainder of the phases refers to a form of planning such as analysis,
requirements, design, or evaluation. This design approach works well for classroom instruction
where content is presented live and the instructor/teacher can dynamically change instruction
while the class is in session. However, this design approach is not appropriate for the student

Figure 4: Dick and Carey Instructional Design Model (Clark, 2004)

centered (user centered) and distance learning content (Carliner, 2008).

An increasingly popular approach to eLearning design is to design for a high level of
learner motivation. As a result, Keller’s ARCS motivational model has become widely used in
many instructional circles. ARCS is an acronym for the four elements of learner motivation:
attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction; each of which are critical to successful
learning outcomes. Keller (2006) describes his model as a “problem solving approach to

designing the motivational aspects of learning environments to stimulate and sustain

students’ motivation to learn”
(http://www.arcsmodel.com/Mot%20dsgn%20A%20model.htm). Figure 5 illustrates the

motivational design process used by many instructional designers in recent years in real
practice. It begins with the course description and audience analysis and ends with an
evaluation of learner reactions, along with revisions to ensure that learner satisfaction is met.
Berge (2002) reported that although it is not clear from research that interaction improves the
quality of instruction in eLearning, the research does indicate that interaction is important to
learner satisfaction. Therefore, instructional design focusing on eLearner satisfaction through
increased interaction will ensure that eLearning outcomes are met and the instructional
product will be effective.
Figure 5: Steps in Motivation Design (Balaban-Sali, 2008)
User-centered design (UCD) process has also become increasingly popular in eLearning design.
UCD is defined as an approach to creating experiences for people with their needs in mind
where usability is the primary focus with secondary considerations such as desirability,
legibility, and learnability (Evans, 2002). The goal is to include users in the decision-making
process. In UCD, instructional designers first analyze the instructional need, audience and
eLearning solution. After this initial phase, instructional designers then begin to actively involve
the end-user (learner) in the design process by using various forms of inquiry such as
interviews, focus groups and/or questionnaires. The final phase of the design process involves
getting feedback on storyboard and navigation systems, etc. In addition, instructional designers
must also continually perform prototype testing with users in order to highlight problems with
the eLearning product and allow users to suggest improvements on the usability (Evans, 2002).

The newest and most successful eLearning instructional design method in use today is
successive approximation or rapid prototyping. This design approach is evolutionary, rapid and
allows instructional designers to move quickly through the initial phases of design to a rapid
prototype ready for testing. Steen (2008) describes successive approximation as “an iterative
approach whereby the designer repeatedly applies a three step process of design, prototype,
and review in a rapid but controlled process to produce quick but appropriate eLearning”
(http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/steen_1208.htm).

Figure 6: Successive Approximation (Allen, 2003)

ELearning Design Principles

ELearning design is part art and part science; it uses learning and training theory, relies on a
solid understanding of graphic design tools and an understanding of the knowledge and skills to
be delivered. And it is a blend of the use of color, style, sound, video, and graphic/web
interfaces. In order to be truly effective, first that blend must have the following
characteristics: easy accessibility, consistency and accuracy in the message, user friendly,
entertaining, being memorable, and relevant (Steen, 2008). Second, it must provide learner
activity, feedback, scenario-based learning experiences, proper delivery methodology,
sequential context, and influential effects (Brown & Voltz, 2005). Finally, eLearning should also
emphasize metacognition in the design where learners can guide their own instructional
experience. Learners can guide their own eLearning experience when designers provide users
with feedback so that they know that they are making progress, provide users with navigation
maps so that users can find where they are during instruction, provide cues such as maps or
menus as advance organizers (Cassarino, 2003).

Sound interface design is also important in the instructional design of eLearning. First, the
interface design should involve attention to detail with respect to graphics and screen design.
Second, the navigation bar and instructional bar should be dynamic and change in response to
the learner’s needs. For example, a change may occur on the navigation in response to a
pressed button on the instructional bar. Third, the screen area should allow students to
explore instructional content in the presentation frame while still having access to instructional
and navigation panels. Finally, a fixed format of should be used in the design and development
of the instructional interface (Cassarino, 2003) so that users/learners can predict how to
navigate through the instructional content.

The fixed format of design for the instructional interface, also known as the graphical user
interface (GUI) should be more than just pretty because this is how the designer and instructor
communicates content to the user/learner. Metros and Hedberg (2006) state that “poor GUI
design can place cognitive demands upon the learner that can reduce interest and divert
attention away from the primary learning tasks” (p. 108). Therefore, eLearning instructional
designers must be careful to design a functional, communicative and aesthetically pleasing GUI
without placing a cognitive overhead (overload) on the user/learner. Cassarino (2003) explains
the concept of “cognitive overhead” as the fact that humans have a limited capacity for
information processing. In addition, she suggests, to eLearning instructional designers, to
provide clear direction on how to move forward and backward which could involve the ability
to move, resize or manually open/close windows.

The final principles of eLearning design are that of basic instructional design. These principles
involve an understanding of the following: basic instructional strategies, learner needs,
hierarchical content, practice, assessment, and evaluation. These basic principles are then
thereby expanded to an eLearning context when the instructional designer has considered the
appropriate technology for delivery and provided suitable eLearning experiences through
multimedia applications (Brown & Voltz, 2005).

Mobile Learning Design Principles

For mLearning to attain its full potential, it is essential to develop pedagogy and instructional
design tailored to the needs of this new learning environment. At present, there is a lack of
research on message design for mLearning. Wang and Shen (2011) are the very first to explore
the principles and processes of message design for mLearning, including the influence of
learning and cognitive theories, human–computer interaction principles, devices and
methodologies. And their article presents a number of practical guidelines for designing
instructional messages for mLearning. Message design is the way that information is presented
to the learner. Instructional message design is “the manipulation and planning of signs and
symbols that can be produced for the purpose of modifying the cognitive, affective or
psychomotor behavior of one or more persons” (Lohr, 2011, p. 1). With the increasing use of
technologies in teaching, message design also involves applying a variety of theories
(perception, learning, communication and systems) to the design and evaluation of
instructional media (Lohr, 2011).
Wang and Shen (2011) generate the following Implications for practice:
• It is important for instructional designers to master the skills required “to design multimedia
messages that promote meaningful learning” (Mayer & Moreno, 2002, p. 107).
• Design learning based on the learning environment (formal vs. informal).
• Design content that can be used on different devices based on the typology and the activities
these devices can support.
• Design for learner mobility (use of audio, captions, icons, color and symbols).
• Use captioning to provide adaptable messages for differing contexts and provide guidelines
on both fonts and placement.
• Use color as an example of cultural considerations in designing for mLearning.
In addition, they also raised many questions for future research. In particular, researchers need
to explore possible solutions for some of the following pressing issues:
• How will learning theories influence the development of instructional design strategies for
mobile devices, and vice versa?
• How can instructional designers leverage existing captioning standards into standards that fit
the specificities of mobile devices?
• How will development in network access, device design and information exchange extend the
experiential possibilities of mLearning?
• How will context (including cultural, environment and device) effect the specification of
future mLearning systems?
The answers to these questions would help instructional designers form a baseline degree of
knowledge that can guide future data collection. Equally, they will lead to design and
development criteria that will improve mLearning courseware and products.
Conclusions

The elements of eLearning design presented in this paper are built upon a solid
foundation of learner needs, learning outcomes, cognitive processes, and instructional
strategies. Each of these foundational elements is critical to the creation of effective eLearning
and involves a strong collaboration between instructional designers, educational technologists,
graphic designers, web/software developers, educators and students/users. However,
eLearning instructional design requires a more dynamic approach than traditional instructional
design. Therefore, the need for more dynamics in instruction combined with the high demand
for more eLearning solutions requires an evolution in eLearning design and a higher level of
productivity.
More use of current user centered and evolutionary design methodologies like that of
Agile design, rapid prototyping, and successive approximation instead of the antiquated and
less iterative methodologies such as ADDIE will allow eLearning designers to create more robust
eLearning solutions rather than the typical uni-dimensional solutions currently being
developed. In addition, in order to meet the need for increased productivity in eLearning, it is
clear that there should more use of rapid development applications such as Articulate and
Presenter over more time consuming applications such as Captivate. The reality is that creating
eLearning solutions is more time consuming than traditional learning solutions; therefore, using
software applications that do not keep up with the high demand for productivity does not allow
the actual design to make it into production on regular basis.
The focus of this article has been that of eLearning design; however, it should be noted
eLearning design can only be generically applied to mobile eLearning (mLearning) and even
mobile cloud learning (MCL). Because mobile cloud learning is an emerging instructional area,
future targeted research will be required to fully understand how best to design instruction for
such new learning experiences. At present, it can be concluded that mLearning and mobile
cloud learning will continue to use some of the same software applications (ex. Flash) and more
iterative instructional design methodologies in order to keep up with increased demand in the
coming years.

References

Allen, M. (2003). Michael Allen’s guide to eLearning: building interactive, fun, and effective
learning programs for any company. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Atherton, J.S. (2011). Learning and teaching; piaget's developmental theory. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm.
Balaban-Sali, J. (2008, July). Designing motivational learning systems in distance education.
 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (3):13, 149. Retrieved from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde31/articles/article_13.htm
Berge, Z. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective eLearning. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 3(2), 181. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Brown, A.R. & Voltz, B.D. (2005). Elements of effective eLearning design. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/217/300.
Carliner, S. (2008). Designing and developing eLearning projects: a three-tiered approach. In
The ELearning Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=tutorials&article=26-1.
Carr, A.M., & Carr, C.S. (2000). The Nine events of Instruction . Retrieved from
http://ide.ed.psu.edu/idde/9events.htm.
Cassarino, C. (2003). Instructional design principles for an eLearning environment. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 455-461. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Chan, C.H. & Robbins, L.I. (2006). ELearning systems: promises and pitfalls. Academic
Psychiatry, 30(6), 491. Retrieved from http://ap.psychiatryonline.org
Clark, D. (2004). The dick and carey Model - 1978. Retrieved from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/carey.html.
Evans, M. (2002, October 8). Peter Merholz and Nathan Shedroff on user-centered design.
Digital Web Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.digital-
web.com/articles/peter_merholz_and_nathan_shedroff/
Hirsch, B., & Ng, J. W.P. (2010). Education beyond the cloud: anytime-anywhere learning in a
smart campus environment. Retrieved from http://www.ankabut.ae
Keller, J.M. (2006). What is the arcs model? Retrieved from
http://www.arcsmodel.com/Mot%20dsgn%20A%20model.htm
Kossen, J. S. (2001). When e-learning becomes m-learning" Palmpower Magazine. Retrieved
October 1, 2010 from
http://www.palmpowerenterprise.com/issues/issue200106/elearning001.html
Kurtus, R. (2000). What is e-learning? Retrieved from
http://lomo.kyberia.net/diplomovka/webdownload/partial/What%2520is%2520e-
Learning.pdf
Lohr, L. (2011). Syllabus for instructional message design. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/eisenachd/506/EDTECH577.doc
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and
Instruction, 12, 107–119.
Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Engaging learners through intuitive interface. In D. Hung
& M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 107-125). New
York: Springer Publishing.
Nichols, M. (2003). A theory for eLearning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2),1. Retrieved
from http://scholar.google.com.
Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo Sánchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small
devices, big Issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes
(eds.) Technology Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products. Heidelberg: Springer, pp.
233-249.
Siemens, G. (2002, September 30). Instructional design in eLearning. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm.
Social development theory (Vygotsky). (2008). Retrieved from http://www.learning-
theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html.
Steen, H.L. (2008). Effective eLearning design. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 4(4), 526. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/steen_1208.htm
Traxler, J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance
Education, 31(2), 129-138.
Wang, M. J., Shen, R. M., Novak, D., & Pan, X. Y. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on
students' learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673-695.
Wang, M. J. (Nov. 2011). An Intelligent Learning Model Based on Cloud Computing, Internal
report (Intelligent Campus initiative) submitted to Etisalat BT Innovation Centre (EBTIC),
Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Wang, M. J., & Shen, R. M. (2011). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories,
human cognition, and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2),
294-311.