chapter 3 investigation for determination of instructional...

34

CHAPTER 3

INVESTIGATION FOR DETERMINATION OF

INSTRUCTIONAL COMPONENTS FOR ECONOMIC

REUSABLITY OF OBJECTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

According to Said Hadjerrouit (2006), “Developing Web-based learning

is a complex matter. Web-based learning has a number of components and

subcomponents, which include both technical as well as non-technical aspects.

There are methodologies, but few that provide an overarching framework for

developing Web-based learning”. The author has proposed a framework for

Web-based learning that deals with technical as well as non-technical. One of the

two components out of six external components of the framework suggested by the

author is ‘Pedagogy / Learning Theories’; and ‘Information Technology (IT)’. This

clearly points out that the pedagogy component is complementary and not

supplementary to the technical aspects of Web based learning. In respect of this,

chapter II has pointed out to several literature works, which indicated the importance

of instructional strategies needed for e-content that should enhance technical aspects

also. Chapter 2 has established through a detailed literature support that reusable and

independent instructional modules called ‘objects’ would be tried out as per the

research objectives. In order to arrive at reusable and independent objects, Merrill’s

(2000) cognitive structures have been planned and would be tried out in the

proposed model for Web based instruction on a course entitled ‘Operating Systems

(OS)’. However, the role of these suggested cognitive structures need to be

investigated first, on their presence in existing e-contents of OS of NPTEL, so that

the proposed model could incorporate these cognitive structures on a scientific basis.

35

The effectiveness of e-tutoring can be determined analytically, through quantifying

cognitive structures in the slide presentations of the e-content of NPTEL. This would

be of great help for attempting the study of technical and economical feasibility, of

the intended research. This Chapter elaborates on the results obtained through a

pretest that is conducted for determining the effective components of the chosen a

right instructional model. The subjects were selected based on those subjects

available in the NPTEL environment. According to Lianghuo Fan (2004),

“Instructional objectives should be quantified in every component of the curriculum,

particularly in the instructional materials and researched upon” (Chapter 2). Since

the instructional materials (e-content) of the Web courses of NPTEL have been

taken for the research as a case study, extensive content analyses need to be

performed first, on these materials. The content analytical results would yield

important inferences for the design of e-content. Therefore, the subject content

analysis is termed as component analysis as the findings will suggest components

for the final design (next chapter). This Chapter elaborates the component analysis

carried out on the selected course materials ‘Operating Systems ’NPTEL. The

method of component analysis (procedure) has been already pointed out by certain

literature (Chapter 2).

Section 3.2 outlines the present contents of the chosen subjects and

reason out the rationale behind the content design. Section 3.3 elaborates the

component analytical results of Operating Systems. Section 3.4 elaborates the

summary of the component analysis carried out.

3.2 RATIONALE ON COMPONENT ANALYSIS

3.2.1 Content Analytical Method

David Robertson (1976) created a coding frame for the comparison of

modes of party competition between British and American parties. It was developed

further in 1979 by the Manifesto Research Group aiming at a comparative content-

analytic approach on the policy positions of political parties. This classification

scheme was also used to accomplish a comparative analysis between the 1989 and

1994 Brazilian party broadcasts and manifestos as reported by Carvalho F. (2000). It

36

is also noted that every content analysis should depart from a hypothesis. This is an

important statement as this research work has taken ‘Content Analysis’ as an

experimental method. Ole Holsti (1969) groups 15 uses of content analysis into three

basic categories:

make inferences about the antecedents of a communication

describe and make inferences about characteristics of a communication

make inferences about the effects of a communication.

He also places these uses into the context of the basic communication

paradigm. Content analysis deals with the presence of chosen texts that represent a

variety of different types of occurrences, such as the one provided in Palmquist's

(1990) study of two composition classes, in which he has analyzed student and

teacher interviews, writing journals, classroom discussions and lectures, and out-of-

class interaction sheets, but more importantly texts books. To conduct a content

analysis on any such text, the text is coded or broken down, into manageable

categories on a variety of levels--word, word sense, phrase, sentence, or theme--and

then examined using one of content analysis' basic methods: conceptual analysis or

relational analysis. Questions are generally used for content analysis. Content

analyses have been performed based on action verbs such as Bloom’s taxonomies

for Computer Science disciplines (Senguttuvan A. 2005).

Extensive content analysis on evaluation instruments of IT subject

contents have been reported (Ananthi Parameswaran, 2008). Content analyses, for

quantifying the four phases (cognitive structures) of the First Principles of

Instruction have been directly or indirectly reported from the following literature

studied.

Mc Carthy (1996) has emphasized that all the four cognitive structures of

First Principles of Instruction are equally important in the whole cycle of the

learning activity. She has also argued that they are equally important to learners and

the learners must involve completely in all the four phases. Merrill M. D (2002) has

37

also emphasized that any instruction must engage students in all the four levels of

performance. But coaching should gradually decrease from one problem to the next.

He has clarified on the interpretations of the definitions of the four phases: On

‘Activation’ he stresses: “Many Instructional products jump immediately into the

new material without laying a sufficient foundation for the students. ‘Activation’ is

more than merely testing prerequisite knowledge. It should include themes also. A

simple recall of information is not effective activation”. On ‘Demonstration’ he

stresses: “It should demonstrate ‘what is to be learned’ rather than just ‘informing

what is to be learned’”. He further adds: “For Concepts use Examples/Non-

examples; for Procedures use Demonstration; for Processes use Visualizations; and

for Behaviour use Modelling”. On ‘Application’ he points out to the use of media

while he says “Media should play an important role for ‘Show examples’ rather than

‘Telling generalities’”. On ‘Integration’ he adds: “Learners can create, invent and

explore new ways to use their knowledge. It is a very important component. Media

can be limitedly used for it”. Merrill M. D (2007) has further elaborated these

components into instructional strategies.

On quantification, Lianghuo Fan (2004) has stressed: “Instructional

objectives should be quantified in every component of the curriculum, particularly in

the instructional materials. They lead to the student’s abilities such as thinking

abilities, judging abilities and reasoning abilities. It helps the teachers to keep in

mind how much one topic is more difficult than another. This point is important and

further strengthens the need for content analysis. On the quantification of different

cognitive structures, different opinions are seen from literature. Merrill himself has

suggested having more “Integration” component in e-learning content and less

“Application”. Nelson (1999) stresses more on ‘Application” and less on

“Demonstration” for better critical thinking, which involves social interaction skill.

Jonassen (1999) on Constructivist learning has stressed on all the four cognitive

structures to be of importance. But real world ‘Problem’ is the most important

starting point, he adds. Again the problem should be interesting, relevant and

engaging. This ‘Problem’ may be ill defined or ill structured for better igniting the

motivation of the students. He has also pointed out that – for novice learners,

38

‘Activation’ component should be more, while ‘Demonstration’ should be carefully

designed, ‘Application’ also is important. ‘Integration’ will improve analyzing skill.

Van Merrienboer’s (1997) model has ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’ in its center.

His model treats ‘Demonstration’ as subordinate to the other two. It further suggests

that ‘Activation’ can even be neglected. Schank’s (1999) model on the other hand

provides a clear emphasizes on ‘Application’ limited next only to ‘Activation’ and

‘Demonstration’. ‘Integration’ although important, will direct the Integration per se,

but need not be built-in.

3.2.1.1 David Merrill’s ‘First Principles of Instruction’

Merrill divides the instructional event into four phases, which he calls

‘Activation’, ‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Central to this

instructional model is a real-time problem-solving theme, called ‘Problem’. Merrill

suggests that fundamental principles of instructional design should be relied on and

these apply regardless of any instructional design model used. Violating this would

produce a decrement in learning and performance. His model is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 David Merrill’s ‘First Principles of Instruction’

INTEGRATION ACTIVATION

PROBLEM

39

The problem-solving theme (Problem) is surrounded by these four phases

viz., ‘Activation’, ‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Each phase is

defined and explained through Figure 3.1. The importance of this model on problem

centric subjects has already been established clearly in Chapter II. Unlike Bloom’s

model which is unidirectional, this model is cyclic as it is evolved from Information

Processing Theory, namely Input - Process – Output -Input.

Each category or phase is elaborated below.

Real World Problem

Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. Problems

mentioned here do not refer to a numerical example. Learners are shown with the

task that they will be able to do or the problem they will be able to solve as a result

of completing a module or a course. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is perceived by

some as one of the most exciting approaches to education and learning that have

been developed in the last thirty years. The term PBL is used to describe a variety of

projects, from research and case studies, to guided design and engineering design

projects. Merrill explores several elements in the process of PBL. This phase

motivates learners to learn concepts relevant to this real world problem.

Activation

This is the first Cognitive Structure in the learning process. New

knowledge builds on the learner’s existing knowledge. Learners recall or apply

knowledge from relevant past experience as a foundation for new knowledge. This

could be from previous courses or job experiences undergone by the learner. For

instance, recall the old relevant information such as dates, events and places. The

importance of activation of existing knowledge has been addressed by a number of

educational psychologists. During Merrill’s Activation phase, prior knowledge (or

experience) is recalled and emotions are triggered. Not only pre-knowledge should

be activated during this phase, but mental models as well. If these mental models

consist of misconceptions, the instructional process could modify them. This phase

40

may be compared with the ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Comprehension’ taxonomies of

Bloom. Apart from Bloom’s ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Comprehension’, this phase

incorporates other skills such as ‘Mental ability’ as well.

Demonstration

New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. Learners learn when the

instructor demonstrates what is to be learnt, rather than merely telling information

about what is to be told. The learner observes while the instructor demonstrates.

The media used in the process is expected to play a relevant instructional role.

Explanations with examples, understand information with meanings, predict

consequences, order, group, and infer causes are some samples for demonstration.

During this phase, the instructor presents new material and demonstrates new skills.

Demonstration focuses the learner’s attention on the relevant information and

promotes the development of appropriate mental models. It shows actions in a

certain sequence, which can simplify complex tasks and facilitate learning. It may be

difficult to find an exact equivalent of taxonomy in the Bloom’s model. But non-

content competencies such as analytical abilities and ‘Communication’ skills along

with body languages may have roles to play in this phase, as learners observe a

demonstration and try to imitate on it.

Application

The learner applies new knowledge to his problem. This is the practice

phase, where learners are required to use their knowledge and skill to solve relevant

problem. Some samples are: use information; solve problems using required skills or

knowledge. The purpose of a practice phase in the instructional events is to provide

an opportunity for learners to develop proficiency and become experts. During this

phase, cognitive processes come into play; and there is a search for meaningful

patterns and mental programmes occur in the learner’s mind. This phase may be

compared with the ‘Application’ taxonomy of Bloom. The instructor directs guided

practices to the learners in this phase. It develops Problem solving abilities among

the learners.

41

Integration

New knowledge is integrated into the learner’s terminal behaviour. This

is the transfer phase where learners apply or transfer their newly found knowledge or

skills into their workday practices. This is realized, if learners can a) demonstrate

their new knowledge or skills, b) reflect-on, discuss their new knowledge and skills

and c) create, invent and explore new ways to use their new knowledge and skills.

Seeing patterns and organizing by recognition of hidden meanings, are some

samples. Use old ideas to create new ones (relate knowledge from several areas).

Assess values of ideas (make choices based on supported arguments). Most of the

instructional events end with an assessment phase. During this phase, learners have

to prove themselves, that they have acquired the new knowledge and skills. Merrill

calls this as the Integration phase, during which the learners get the opportunity to

prove new capabilities and show newly acquired skills. This integration phase uses

the higher order thinking skills of the Bloom’s taxonomies like, Synthesis,

Evaluation and Creativity.

The four cognitive structures explained above, actually trigger the

learners’ inherent or acquired abilities namely: recalling or mental ability,

demonstrating or observing and communicative abilities, applying and problem

solving abilities and integrating or creative abilities. From the above five

components of Merrill’s model, the four portrayals may be taken for any study of

instructional methods or subject content analysis. This has been already established

and presented in Chapter II. Suriyakala M. Malliga P, Sambanthan T G., (2007).

Have already established action verbs for the above cognitive structures for the

purpose of content analysis of computer subject instructional documents.

3.2.2 Content Analysis on NPTEL’s OS

Subject content analysis for the purpose of deciding components for the

model, as specified earlier, is to be performed on OS e-contents of NPTEL. The

objective of this exercise is to determine the context on the effectiveness of

Instructions in selected content (Chapter 1). As the selected subject contents

42

(NPTEL) would not have been designed using Merrill’s ‘First Principles of

Instruction’, quantifying the cognitive structures would certainly help in determining

the extent to which the component could be designed for e-mode using the ‘First

Principles of Instruction’. Besides, quantification would also help in redesigning the

e-content instructions for future. With this argument, the content analysis is justified.

3.2.2.1 Instructional Strategies

The existing Instructional Strategies are mapped in the form of the

distribution of cognitive structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’. The

components of e-learning material of NPTEL (OS) are divided into four types of

Instructional strategies.

Slides that present the materials for direct instruction

Descriptive materials (in textual form) made available for

downloading

Non-Interactive Questions (can be downloaded)

Non-Interactive worked out examples (Textual Form)

Out of the above four components, except for the first one, the remaining

three types, although residing in e-mode form, cannot be directly considered as part

of e-learning (Doyle E. 2001). Hence, this thesis presents a comprehensive analysis

only on slides.

3.3 COMPONENT* ANALYSES ON THE CHOSEN SUBJECT OF

NPTEL

The component analytical results are grouped under four cognitive

structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’ namely ‘Activation’,

‘Demonstration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’. Even though as per definition, the

cognitive structure ‘Demonstration’ should be demonstrative in nature (Merill

2002), most of the materials are found to be informative in nature and not

43

demonstrative. However, for analytical purposes it is considered to be

demonstrative. Similarly, according to ‘First Principles of Instruction’, ‘Application’

as per its definition is done through guided practice. However, most of the materials

grouped under ‘Application’ are numerical examples. Yet they are grouped under

‘Application’ for the purpose of analysis.

* As the proposed content analysis would yield component for the model for instruction, the words ‘component ‘and ‘content’ are synonymously used.

The analytical results are reported for the subject content in the following

section. As specified in Chapter 3 there are 20 modules available in this subject. The

component analysis was carried out on each slide of each module. The presence of

cognitive structures of the ‘First Principles of Instruction’ on every slide of every

module is presented below. Only the consolidated report of every module of this

subject is detailed below.

3.3.1 Analytical report on module 1

Module 1: Introduction to ‘Operating System’

Figure 3.2 Consolidated presence of cognitive structures in module 1 of OS

44

Table 3. 1 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 1 of OS

Cognitivestructures

Instructionalsegments

In %

Activation 10 8

Demonstration 81 63

Application 15 12

Integration 22 17

Analytical report

The maximum presence of ‘Demonstration’ cognitive structure (63%)

shows that the instructional strategy adapted for this module is similar to that of a

text book approach. It has been already reported that the substance presented in the

slides more or less satisfies ‘Carroll’s Minimalist theory’. However, the distribution

of this cognitive structure clearly indicates that the instructional strategy is

descriptive and similar to that found in any text book. Even though the cognitive

structure assumed is ‘Demonstration’, the presentation of the materials is mostly

descriptive in nature rather than demonstrative per se. The least present cognitive

structure is ‘Activation’ (8%). It is generally believed that any introductory module

should contain more materials on ‘Activation’. This is not found to be so in this first

module. ‘Integration’ portrayal is predominantly present (17%) in this first module

which is generally expected to be more in later modules. Similarly ‘Application’

(12%) of this extent need not be represented in the very first module.

45


Module 2: File systems and management


Table 3.2 Presence of instructional segments of cognitive structures inmodule 2 of OS

Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 12 8

Demonstration 99 62

Application 40 25

Integration 8 5

Analytical report

The presence of the ‘Demonstration’ cognitive structure is once again

found to be the maximum in this module (62%). The second largest cognitive

structure is ‘Application’ (25%) which is generally expected to be so, according to

the nature of this Subject. A lot of numerical samples have been presented at various

places in the instructional episode of this module. The ‘Activation’ (8%) is once

46

again found to be low (similar to module 1). ‘Activation’ is generally expected to be

represented in any first or initial modules. That is not found to be so in this module.


Module 3: Process and process management



Cognitivestructures


In %

Activation 11 8

Demonstration 96 68

Application 24 17

Integration 10 7

47

Analytical report

The ‘Demonstration’ portrayal once again dominates with 68% followed

by ‘Application’ (17%). The other two basic and advanced levels of Instructional

cycle namely ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ are insignificantly present (8% and 7%

respectively). This is contradictory to Merill’s - 2002 and Mc Carthy’s - 1996

opinions on e-contents.


Module 4: Memory management



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 2 1

Demonstration 118 72

Application 37 23

Integration 7 4

48

Analytical report

The contents of ‘Memory Management’ too contain a maximum presence

of ‘Demonstration’ (72%) followed by ‘Application’ (23%). This is very similar to

module 3. As per Carroll’s (1995) Minimalist theory, computer based Instruction

should permit self directed reasoning and improvising. Although the nature of

subject content of memory management is descriptive in nature, there is a large

scope for incorporating ‘Integration’ portrayal which should promote self directed

reasoning. This is not found to be so in this module.


Module 5: Input and output management



Cognitivestructures

Instructionalsegments In %

Activation 4 2Demonstration 115 78

Application 13 9Integration 16 11

49

Analytical report

A similar result is found in this module too with the maximum presence

of ‘Demonstration’ portrayal (78%). A reasonable presence of ‘Integration’ is also

seen (11%) which is the second largest. There is a lot of scope for ‘Application’ in

subject matter such as Input / Output (I/O) of this module. However, the

‘Application’ portrayal is just a meager 9%. Similarly ‘Activation’ is also important

at this stage, but a very meager amount of 2% is found.


Module 6: Resource sharing and management



Cognitivestructures


In%



50

Analytical report

The subject matter of this module once again is descriptive in nature

which fact is revealed by the maximum presence of ‘Demonstration’ (73%).

Reasonable amount of Integration’ (16%) is also seen. Yet ‘Activation’ which is

important is found to be present only in a very meager amount (4%).


Module 7: Inter process communication



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 4 5

Demonstration 54 73

Application 7 10

Integration 9 12

51

Analytical report

‘Inter process communication’ by nature provides a lot of scope for

applications. Besides, these applications (computer programs) may also be

elaborated through ‘Demonstration’. This module although contains 10% of

‘Application’ in the form of program coding, no guided practice is noticed. A

reasonable presence of ‘Integration’ (12%) is also found in this module. The

‘Activation’ component continues to be lowly represented (5%) in this module

similar to the previous ones.


Module 8: RTOS and microkernel



Cognitivestructures


In%



52

Analytical report

The topic content of ‘Real Time Operating System (RTOS)’ is an off-

shoot of general Operating Systems. The required topic components for comprehending

RTOS from the principles of Operating Systems have been discussed in the previous

modules. Hence, it is logical and desirable to include ‘Activation’ cognitive structure

to a larger extent in this module. Ironically ‘Activation’ is the lowest (6%).

‘Demonstration’ is once again found to be the maximum (63%). ‘Application’ and

‘Integration’ are reasonability present (14% and 17% respectively).


Module 9: OS and Security



Cognitivestructures


In%



53

Analytical report

As with all the previous modules ‘Demonstration’ continues to be

dominating (67%). The subject content on ‘Security‘is of strategic importance.

Hence, ‘Application’ with case studies (examples) and ‘Integration’ inducing

creative thinking are needed. The presence of ‘Application’ and ‘Integration’ are

however present in a reasonable amount (14% and 11%).


Module 10: Unix premier

10%

50%

40%

0%

Activation

Demonstration

Application

Integration



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 4 10

Demonstration 20 50

Application 16 40

Integration 0 0

54

Analytical report

This module presents an overview of ‘Unix OS’. Hence recalling of

related OS components already learnt by learners is essentially needed for this

module. This is achieved through ‘Activation’. 10% of ‘Activation’ is however

found. The introductory parts are presented purely through the large presence of

‘Demonstration’ (50%) followed by ‘Application’ (40%). There is no ‘Integration’

at all, although there is a good scope for its presence.


Module 11: Search and sort tools



Cognitivestructures


In %



55

Analytical report

This module deals with application utilities. As expected therefore ‘Application’ is

found to be relatively high with 40%. Some of the worked out examples follow

guided practices as suggested by the ‘First Principles of Instruction’. However,

‘Demonstration’ is still found to be the largest with 56%. Any guided practice or

‘Demonstration’ of application utilities would demand for ‘Activation’ which is not

found to be so in this case. A meager presence of ‘Integration’ is seen (4%).


Module 12: AWK tool in UNIX



Cognitivestructures


In%



56

Analytical report

Similar to the previous module, this module also elaborates on

application tool. As tools differ from utilities, the large presence of ‘Demonstration’

(61%) is justified. The large presence of ‘Application’ (35%) is also justified.

However, ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ are found to be too meager (3% and 1%

respectively).


Module 13: Shell script in UNIX



Cognitivestructures


In %



57

Analytical report

Unlike the previous module, ‘Shell Script’ is purely a tool for coding.

Hence guided practice is essentially required with ‘Application’ although the

‘Application’ is found to be 38%. ‘Demonstration’ occupies a very large quantity

(61%). Practically no ‘Activation’ and ‘Integration’ is found.


Module 14: Kernel architecture: UNIX kernel



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 4 4

Demonstration 82 87

Application 4 4

Integration 5 5

58

Analytical report

As the name suggests, the subject content of this module is elaborative

(descriptive) in nature. As found elsewhere in the subject contents, the

‘Demonstration’ is not demonstrative in nature but mostly informative. The entire

module almost occupies with ‘Demonstration’ (87%) while other cognitive

structures are found to be insignificant.


Module 15: ‘make’ tool in UNIX



Cognitivestructures

Instructionalsegments In %

Activation 1 3

Demonstration 25 78

Application 4 13

Integration 2 6

59

Analytical report

‘Make’ is a tool that requires guided practice rather than elaboration.

However, the presence of ‘Demonstration’ is overwhelmingly large for this module

(78%). The ‘Application’ which is expected to be large, is actually found to be only

13%. The other cognitive structures are insignificant.


Module 16: Some other tools in UNIX



Cognitivestructures


In %

Activation 4 9

Demonstration 20 46

Application 16 36

Integration 4 9

60

Analytical report

The presence of Cognitive structures reveals the optimum ally present in

this module. It is also found to be blended with all portrayals. By nature, the subject

content of this module is application oriented, which also requires elaboration. The

same is noted in the distribution that is shown.


Module 17: Source code control systems in UNIX

0%

82%

18%

0%

Activation

Demonstration

Application

Integration



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 0 0

Demonstration 27 82

Application 6 18

Integration 0 0

61

Analytical report

Similar to the previous module, the subject component demands for more

‘Application’ and ‘Demonstration’ which are found to be present with 18% and 82%

respectively. However, a reasonable amount of ‘Activation’ is also needed. There is

no other cognitive structure found apart from ‘Application’ and ‘Demonstration’.


Module 18: X-Windows in UNIX

13%

61%

26%

0%

Activation

Demonstration

Application

Integration



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 3 13

Demonstration 14 61

Application 6 26

Integration 0 0

62

Analytical report

X -windows is purely a graphics utility for any application. Hence, a

reasonable amount of ‘Activation’ is needed that is however found to be present

(13%). Since it is an application utility, guided practice is required in large

quantities. However, ‘Demonstration’ (61%) is found to be more than ‘Application’

(26%). There is no ‘Integration’ at all.


Module 19: System administration in UNIX



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 0 4

Demonstration 37 73

Application 2 7

Integration 1 16

63

Analytical report

Since application through guided practice for quite a number of tools is

needed, the presence of ‘Application’ and ‘Activation’ are expected to be more.

However, only meager presences of these two are seen (7% and 4% respectively).

‘Integration’ is also needed to a great extent, which is found to be so (16%).

However, ‘Demonstration’ is significantly found (73%).


Module 20: More on Linux



Cognitivestructures


In%

Activation 21 11

Demonstration 144 76

Application 19 10

Integration 6 3

64

Analytical report

As Linux is an off-shoot of UNIX, a substantial amount of ‘Activation’ isneeded. However, only 11% of ‘Activation’ is found. The major cognitive structurefound once again is ‘Demonstration’ (76%) that is although expected. ‘Application’and ‘Integration’ are found to be small (10% and 3% respectively). There is a largescope for ‘Integration”.

3.4 SUMMARY OF COMPONENT ANALYSIS ON ‘OPERATINGSYSTEMS’

Apart from a few numerical examples, there is no appealing real worldproblem seen in the slides. Even though a few interesting problems are madeavailable in the textual supplementary materials, they cannot represent Real Worldproblems as per the requirement of the Central theme of the ‘First Principles ofInstruction’. As demonstrated clearly in all the modules from the componentanalyses performed, the predominant cognitive structure is ‘Demonstration’throughout the material. Many researchers (Chapter 2) it is reported that onlineinstructional material would facilitate incorporation of ‘Integration’ to a large extent.Although ‘Integration’ is found to be present in few modules, the percentage of‘Integration’ is meager. As pointed out earlier, even the ‘Demonstration’ available ismore informative in nature rather than demonstrative per se. The presence of‘Activation’ is very low which might jeopardize the online learners who do not haveteacher guides. However a large quantity of downloadable printed materials (in thestyle of text books) has been made available along with the main e-resource. It is tobe noted that these downloadable printed materials cannot be treated as e-learninginstructional sources.

The component analysis conducted and reported in this chapter hasnecessitated the investigation on the strategic component in the same chosen subjectfor e-mode of delivery. It has been performed as envisaged and reported above.Feedback analysis would be carried out for a pre-test and the component analyticreports have strongly indicated for the design of an Instructional Model.Accordingly the pretest for suitable components is reported in the next Chapter.

chapter 3 investigation for determination of instructional...

Documents