A Survey of Multimedia Developers



A Survey of Multimedia Developers Concerning the Use of Automated Instructional Design Software

 

James F. Moshinskie, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Information Systems

Baylor University

Route 7, Box 288

817-755-1111 Extension 4097

Waco, Texas 76705-9515

http:// WWW.James_Moshinskie@baylor.edu

 

Abstract

This survey queried instructional designers about the increasing use of automated instructional design software to develop computer-based training (CBT). While these automated tools compact the complicated production process, educators complain that the resulting software often presents lock-stepped, linear instruction that neglects the cognitive needs of individual learners. Although the survey found that most of the respondents expressed a positive interest in using these automated tools, it uncovered some significant differences between the respondents on desired features of such software. Also, the respondents reported a variety of concerns about automated software that should be addressed by schools and corporations who plan to develop and market such software in the future.

 Introduction

As the use of computer-based training (CBT) increases in schools and corporations, multimedia developers need methods to streamline the complicated and time-consuming instructional development process (Richey and Nelson, 1996). One way to do this involves using automated instructional design software. Such automated tools can organize, control, and speed up the design and development of CBT, both for novice and expert designers. This survey sought to ask those involved in multimedia development about their willingness to use automated design software to produce CBT, and determine what features they feel are essential for these tools to become truly effective.

Multimedia Design Tools

Three classes of multimedia development tools exist: (1) automated instructional design software, (2) programming languages, and (3) authoring languages. With automated design software, CBT developers use pre-designed templates to enter lesson content, embed questions and feedback, add graphics and sound, and establish record keeping procedures within the instructional program. After this entry process ends, the software automatically converts the information into stand-alone CBT, usually based on a linear (non-branching) design. The person who inputs the information can be a trained instructional designer or a subject matter expert (SME). The SME without instructional design experience produces the CBT by simply using templates provided by the automated instructional design software. One developer of an automated design software product even boasted that its program was so simple that "anyone that can use a word processor can design a computer-based training course (Bernstein, 1997)."

The automated instructional design process differs from using either a programming language or an authoring language to develop CBT. To produce instructional software using programming languages, the developer composes complex codes to create commands for text, graphics, sound, video, hyperlinking, and interactivity. This slow and tedious process challenges the abilities of even the most experienced instructional developers. Commercial authoring languages, on the other hand, combine some of the capabilities of the automated instructional design software with the flexibility of programming languages, usually in an object-oriented format (Hooper, 1997). Using an authoring language becomes a very time consuming and costly process that requires quite an extended learning curve (O’Neal, Faust & O’Neil, 1979).

The features of automated instructional design software vary, depending on the particular program. Some provide capabilities to design personalized templates, import graphics and video, incorporate sound bites, promote interaction, provide feedback, keep records on student grades, track progress, and bookmark a position for later return. Developers of automated design systems feel that their software provides CBT consistency by incorporating simular backgrounds, providing templates for text formatting and graphic placement, and placing navigational buttons and title headers at the same location on each screen. Merrill (1987), an early advocate of authoring support systems, developed a program that also guides instructional designers through the design process. His software queries multimedia developers about the task to be taught, suggests the structuring of content, recommends strategies, and indicates possible transactions such as practice sessions and tests for the students. Fischer (1991) advocated that automated design software should include critiquing features that monitor the authoring activities and suggest alternatives when an selected design procedure may be inappropriate.

Although automated design features seem the long-sought answer to tame CBT development, educational technologists have questioned the practicality and acceptability of such software. Butruille (1995) and Gayeski (1990) complained that automated software de-skills the instructional design process and stifles creativity. Richey and Nelson (1996) questioned if automated design software can support the cognitive processes necessary to develop and deliver effective instruction and whether novice designers will learn design procedures successfully if their only experience is using automated software. And, obviously, designers may wonder if such tools will replace their jobs, a concern that constantly emerges as instructional technology improves. In light of these issues, the overriding question is whether instructional designers will accept automated design software.

Methodology

This survey was developed by the ten national leaders of the Instructional Technology Forum of the American Society of Training and Development (ASTD). Based on their experience and on the issues identified in a review of literature, the team developed a questionnaire for the survey. The team purposefully limited the instrument to twelve questions on one page to encourage better participation in the survey (Table 1). The investigators mailed the questionnaries to all 2,481 ASTD members who indicated on their ASTD membership application that their primary job role involved instructional technology. Any generalization of the survey results may be limited since the sample came from a single population; that is, they are all members of ASTD. However, the membership of ASTD encompasses multiple, international geographic areas and includes members from various fields, schools, and corporations.

Results

Researchers received 481 completed surveys for a 20% return rate, significantly higher than the 10% rate that ASTD reported on similar surveys. Most of the respondents were instructional design administrators (30%). Others included instructional designers (26%), training facilitators (18%), and instructional developers (12%). The survey developers considered instructional designers as those individuals who develop the instructional strategies, flowchart, and sequence of the CBT and classified instructional developers as those who perform the actual software programming. The experience level of the participants ranged from 3 months to 31 years with an average of 6.6 years. The majority of the respondents (45%) came from corporations. Others worked in private instructional design companies (19%), consulting services (8%), universities (7%), and software development firms (6%).

Surprisingly, 76% of the participants reported they did not use any type of multimedia authoring tools. The main reason cited was lack of knowledge about multimedia authoring. Other reasons included the costs involved, the time involved, the task not being applicable to their job, the required learning curve, outsourcing authoring to outside developers, and a fear of technology (Table 2). Those 24% who did use an authoring tool ranked convenience as their main reason, followed by the time saved, the availability of simulations, the costs involved, update ability, use for distance education, and record keeping capabilities (Table 3).

A significant number of respondents (97%) indicated they would consider using automated design software in the future. The respondents ranked saving time as the main benefit of using automated tools. This was followed by providing consistency of instruction, improving the instructional design, saving costs, equipping the SME to be an instructional developer, and revising content easily (Table 4).

When asked what features they would prefer in automated instructional software, the respondents ranked instructional templates first. Branching and feedback capabilities tied for second, followed by access to help, graphics, linking capabilities, a way to distribute education, reporting capabilities, pre-programmed animation, and pre-designed test shells (Table 5).

The final item on the survey was an open-ended question that asked if the respondents had any concerns about using automated design software. Although 231 (48%) reported no concerns, 250 (52%) listed a variety of issues. The survey team divided these issues into five major categories ranked in the following order: lack of flexibility, learning curve/time, using SME’s as instructional designers, costs, and job displacement. Table 6 lists selected comments from respondents on these concerns.

The survey team also examined the relationship between the job roles of the respondents and their responses on two key questions: "How do you think you would benefit from an automated instructional design system?" and "What features would you want in an automated instructional design system?" Concerning perceived benefits, a significant difference between the respondents was found in two areas. First, administrators ranked saving costs as a benefit higher than the other respondents did (p < 0.042). Secondly, training facilitators considered equipping SMEs as instructional designers was far less of a benefit than the other participants did (p < 0.021). Concerning desirable features of automated design software, a signifacant difference was found only in one area; that is, instructional designers ranked branching as a more desirable feature than the other respondents did (p < 0.009).

Discussion

The obvious question concerning automated design software is if it will take jobs away from instructional designers. Despite this possibility, almost 100% of the respondents indicated they would consider using automated design software, indicating a considerable positive interest in this still evolving technology.

For developers of automated design systems, the survey indicates that for their product to be successful, it should be flexible enough so designers can individualize instruction. While templates help inexperienced SMEs or novice designers to develop linear CBT, experienced designers want options to create more robust designs. Future research could help determine which tasks can be automated, and which tasks may require may require creativity from human designers. To gain acceptance, the software should embed on-line help to shorten the learning curve. This includes wizards, prepared templates, examples, and ready-to-go samples. Additionally, as the popularity of world wide web expands, automated design systems must include connectivity to the internet. Sugrue and Kobus (1997) report that such connections allow for updating of lesson information, exchanging data for recordkeeping, and cyperlinking to other on-line resources. Products such as VUEpoint's Learning Systems (VLS) are now emerging to automate the design of web-based training. VLS offers templates and on-line trainng that enables web-based training developers to create javascript-supported lessons easily (See for demo).

The role of automated instructional design systems in equipping SME’s to develop their own CBT remains controversial. Comments from those surveyed show mixed feelings, ranging from design quality assurance to job security issues. If SME’s unskilled in instructional design use automated design systems, they will need some type of intelligent, knowledge-based system to guide them. Such a system could analyze the instructional efforts of the SME, interrupting when a design error has occurred, and suggesting possible solutions. For novice instructional designers, the automated instructional design software could include a solution library, hypertext database, and a design catalog for different learning strategies. (For an example, refer to Fischer, 1991).

Although only six participants mentioned job security as a concern, the finding that instructional administrators, who generally mange project budgets, were significantly more interested in the cost benefits than the other respondents shows that money remains an important variable in multimedia development. If it can be demonstrated that automated design systems do indeed reduce development costs substantially, administrators might use such systems to reduce the size of project staffs and lower multimedia development costs. If these cost-cutting procedures occur, the stated job concerns may be justified.

The finding that instructional designers support the branching features more significantly than other respondents reflects the growing trend to develop non-linear software that allows more learner control. Such approaches complement the constructivist learning models that are described in Leidner & Jarvenpaa (1995).

While this study addressed the functionality and acceptability of automated instructional design software as an authoring tool, future research should probe its impact on the learning process itself. The cognitive achievement, time on task, and attitudes of students who use software developed by automated design systems should be compared to CBT developed by the other types of authoring tools. While automated design software may make the instructional development process easier and less time consuming, the ultimate consdieration in using such software should be its benefit to the learner. That, more than anything else, should be the determining yardstick.

References

Bernstein, L. (1997). Design-A-Course. Training & Development, 51(4), 55.

Butruille, S. (1995). Lesson Design and Development. Washington: ASTD Online.

Fischer, G. (1991). Supporting learning on demand with design environment. In L. Birnbaum (Ed.), The International Conference on the Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the 1991 Conference. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Gayeski, D. M. (1990). Are you ready for automated design? Training and Development Journal. 27(10), 61 - 62.

Hooper, S. (1997). Authorware 3.5: Multimedia Authoring for Instructional Materials. Syllabus. 10(6), 38 - 39.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download