Conceptual and Dynamic Modelling of the Project Management for Development of Courseware Systems for Distance Learning Programs
Alexei
Sioutine1
Institute of Informatics and Mathematical Modelling
of Technological Processes,
Kola Science Centre of Russian Academy of Science,
Apatity, Murmansk Region,
Russia, 184200.
Email: alexei@ifi.uib.no
ABSTRACT
The
courseware development projects for distance learning have complex
and dynamic structure. That leads to problems in planning and
allocation of resources. To manage projects successfully it is
necessary to understand factors and dynamics involved in the development
of projects. This paper describes a conceptual model that can
be utilized for more successful development and management of
distance learning projects. The framework of this model is based
on the instructional systems development (ISD) theory that formalises
the development of instructional systems. Secondly, this paper
addresses the dynamic modelling of project management and how
simulation models can be utilised for assessing the projects of
distance learning development. The investigation of the processes
is based on a computer simulation dynamic model. The investigation
of the processes that occur in the projects and impact the development
gives the insight into the intricate structure and dynamics of
the projects. A short outline is given for applying and implementing
dynamic models in the real project management environments of
distance learning development. To enhance understanding and learning
the dynamic model can be integrated into an interactive learning
environment, which can be used for training managers and participants
of such projects.
INTRODUCTION
During
the past years the development of technology has provided a lot
of opportunities for developing various distance learning products
and environments, which include online lessons, teleconferencing,
dynamic interactive online simulators, etc. Network-based learning
provides flexibility in time and space and enables the integration
of different modes of education. It also enables efficient collaboration
between the various providers and customers of learning. The move
towards network-based learning presents new challenges. The instructional
systems development represents a challenge of creating an effective
and efficient training system that will meet the learning objectives
and obtain the required outcomes of a learning process. The development
of distance learning programs inherits the complexities of the
instructional development projects and moreover adds a problem
of coordination between different regional, cultural and/or language
project groups. So
far the development projects of distance learning programs have
been based on random or intuitive approaches (Tennyson & Morrison).
These approaches represent the conventional management strategies.
They are entirely dependent on the individual's self conceived
and self monitored activities. The random approach employs no
apparent underlying methodology or structure to the process of
developing instruction. The intuitive approach is being primarily
an art form. Rarely developers of distance learning move into
the logical approach where the development is influenced by the
consensus on how subject matter is formed in a discipline.
This
paper suggests a model and a framework for a more systematic approach
to developing distance learning programs. This approach is based
on the Instructional Systems Development (ISD) theory and in particular
on the fourth generation of instructional systems development
or ISD4. This theory provides a methodology for developing
education and training and can be utilised in the distance learning
development projects.
INSTRUCTIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT (ISD)
Instructional
systems development is a reasonably well-structured and well-established
process for developing educational and training systems and environments.
Today instruction in general, and distance learning programs in
particular, often involves technology-based learning materials
and environments, often referred to as courseware systems. These
systems involve significant and expensive software development
and typically represent a level of complexity not encountered
in more typical business-oriented software development projects. The
original form of instructional development came directly from
military planning technology that used static, sequential flow diagrams
to characterize the planning of instruction (Tennyson, 1993).
The ISD process is an adaptation of systems engineering to problems
of development, implementation, and evaluation of instructional
and learning environments. The last generation of instructional
development process is described by the Tennyson's (1993) ISD4 model, the fourth generation of ISD (see Figure 1). The ISD4 process is characterized as an iterative process. Instructional
design is viewed in much the same way as ill-structured problem
solving (for example, architectural or engineering design). There
are a number of R&D solutions for the courseware developers
such as lesson planning (GAIDA/GUIDE) or courseware planning (GOLDIE)
tools, and lesson generation tools (XAIDA), etc.
An
Overview of the ISD4 Model
The
phases of ISD process involve several phases of development similar
to those that commonly describe software development projects,
namely analysis, design, production, implementation, etc. The
ISD4 model developed by Tennyson is portrayed in Figure
1. The Foundation Domain of ISD process also can be defined as
analysis phase of an ISD development project. A key aspect of
the ISD4 model is the situational evaluation depicted
separately. The reason for separating this component is that it
influences all phases of the ISD process, and it is a dynamic,
on-going evaluation of the state of the project possibly leading
to improvements in the ISD process. The
Foundation Domain or the Analysis phase establishes the philosophical
and psychological aspects of both the learning environment and
the solution plan. During that phase the training requirements
are being determined. The instructional developer analyses the
job performance requirements and develops a task list. The difference
between what the incoming students already know and can do and
what the job requires them to know and be able to do determines
what the instruction is necessary. This phase involves job analysis,
task analysis and learner analysis.
The
Design phase establishes the specifications for the learning environment
proposed in the ID solution plan. The authoring activities in
this domain deal with analysing the content and the means for
delivering the content. The instructional developer creates a
detailed plan of instruction, which includes selecting the instructional
methods and media, and determining the instructional strategies.
The goals, objectives and learning environment architecture are
specified. The phase involves instructional designers. The learning
theory defined in the Analysis phase directly influences all of
the activities performed here. For example, when doing an analysis
of the content, a behavioral theory approach would employ standard
behavioral forms for a content or task analysis, whereas a constructivist
approach would focus less on predetermined content and more on
the knowledge areas in which the learner would be engaged.
The
Development (or Production) phase involves those concepts and
authoring activities that are directly associated with the actual
production of the learning environment; both the student's and
instructor's lesson materials are developed. During this phase
each unit/module of instruction and its associated instructional
materials are validated. This includes internal review of the
instruction; individual and small group tryouts; operational tryouts
of the "whole" system. The final step in this phase is to finalise
all training materials. The phase involves subject matter experts,
authoring system specialists, media specialists, test specialists,
etc.
The
Implementation phase provides the means to put the learning environment
into operation. The instructional system is fielded under operational
conditions. The activities of operational evaluation provide feedback
from the field on the graduate's performance. This phase involves
support staff, specialists, etc.
Figure
1. The fourth generation of instructional systems development
model as described by Tennyson & Morrison.
Maintenance
provides the means to support the quality control of the entire
learning environment, and has the function of directing and controlling
instructional system development and operations. The goal is to
keep the learning environment at the same level of effectiveness
as originally developed. Additional goal is the improvement of
the learning environment through constant evaluation and revision/refinement.
It involves job managers, training managers, etc.
In
this section there was presented a systemic view of developing
an instructional/learning system, that view has been evolving
over the few years. The content of instruction development is
rich and needs to be conserved but within a new dynamic systems
approach.
Discussions
of the ISD4 Model and its Applications in Distance
Learning
The
underlying nature of ISD is that it is a problem-solving system
that needs to be tooled to perform that function. The fourth generation
of ISD represents the attempt to establish a system that can adapt
to individual problems/needs while also being able to continuously
update itself. ISD4 is composed of three highly interactive
components (see Figure 1). The first component, situational evaluation
defines and assesses the problem/need for the purpose of proposing
an ID solution plan. The second component, dynamic interaction
implements and manages the ID process as defined in the ID solution
plan. The third component, ISD knowledge base, contains the concepts
and authoring activities that are necessary to form the solution(s)
to a given problem/need situation. Depending on the risk to be
assumed by the instructional developer, alternative solutions
can be proposed and selected. High-risk solutions would imply
a continuing dynamic interaction between the two components. Because
ISD4 is independent of any given learning or instructional
theory, it can accommodate any current or future learning theories.
Unlike previous generations of ISD, that were tied directly to
behavioral learning theory, ISD4 accounts for learning
theory in regard to an authoring activity in the Foundation Domain.
In this view of ISD, learning theories (e.g., behavioral, cognitive,
constructivist, humanistic, etc.) are not instructional development
theories. Thus, it is not possible, for example, to say that constructivism
offers a better solution to learning problems than ISD4.
The ISD model, presented here, represents the concept that the
idea of instructional development (including the development of
distance learning) is that the ID author having the responsibility
to analyse a situation and then constructs a unique ID solution
plan within an acceptable level of risk. Instructional systems
development promises improvements in learning through the application
of contemporary theories in learning, evaluation, testing and
measurement, technology, and management. The ISD model is characterized
as an integrative system that dynamically adjusts the authoring
activities of instructional development by direct reference to
the given learning problem and/or need situation. The model employs
a problem solving approach to instructional development, which
can include a distance learning development, because it maintains,
as it's underlying system, that each learning problem/need requires
a different instructional development solution plan. Instead of
the standard ID approach of a linear solution process, ISD4 employs concepts from system dynamics complexity theory (Gleick,
1987; Sterman, 1994). Additionally, the system dynamics approach
includes methodology to deal with both anticipated and unanticipated
problems that arise during the course of actual instructional
development. The
instructional development is a non-linear process that dynamically
adapts to the problem conditions of a given learning problem/need
situation. That is, standard ISD models offer the same solution
process regardless of the conditions of the given learning problem
or need. That approach was adequate when the solution itself was
quite simple. However, as instructional systems development has
grown because of increasing micro-level authoring activities,
the linear approach continues to offer increasingly fewer options
for modification, resulting in fewer applications while increasing
application risk. The dynamic feature of this approach is the
continuous interaction between the problem/need (i.e., situational
evaluation) and the instructional development solution plan. A
situational evaluation establishes a preliminary evaluation of
the learning problem/need followed by an ID solution plan prepared
specifically for that situation. For example, most learning problems/needs
do not require solutions that include each concept and authoring
activity offered by ISD4.
All
the features described above can be met in the development of
distance learning systems and environments, hence the model described
above can be well transferred and applicable in the distance learning
projects. That model provides a systematic approach to investigating
an educational problem need, seeking for means of providing solutions,
and approaching these solutions with an efficient instructional
system. The activities included in the model imply to cover the
situations that can be encountered in the distance learning development.
The activities can include means of delivering the instruction
either through the Inertnet, telecommunication network etc., the
evaluation and choice of what types of media, delivery tools,
facilities etc., will be most appropriate for each particular
situation.
DYNAMIC
MODELS IN COUSRSEWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Managing
projects is a complex and dynamic problem. The existing models
do not describe the process structure that drives the dynamics
of the projects. The modelling of the development processes in
projects has demonstrated the importance of explicitly describing
and modelling the dynamic features of the process development
(Ford, 1995). The insights into the dynamic structure of such
projects and how that can be used to understand the dynamics of
projects are described bellow. Successful management is critical
for developing projects effectively and efficiently. Still, many
projects fail to meet their goals. The difficulties in managing
the projects arise from the dynamic project features such as feedback,
delays and non-linear relationships. Moreover, the lack of understanding
of the relationships between structure and behaviour; how structure
creates behaviour and how behaviour influences the relative dominance
of various structures, contributes to poor performance. The
courseware development projects for distance learning have complex
and dynamic structure. That leads to problems in planning and
allocation of resources. Often projects fall behind schedule,
run over budget and absorb a lot of resources. In the development
of distance learning programs there is also a problem of coordination
between the different regional project groups. To manage projects
successfully it is necessary to understand factors and dynamics
involved in the development of projects. This section addresses
the dynamic modelling of project management and how simulation
models can be utilised for assessing the projects of distance
learning development. The investigation of the processes that
occur in the projects and impact the development gives the insight
into the intricate structure and dynamics of the projects. The
investigation of the processes is based on a computer simulation
dynamic model. System dynamics theory is used as a basis for the
development of such model. The methods of system dynamics theory
(Forrester 1961) have been successfully applied to modelling project
development and management processes. These models are based on
the causal relationships and explicitly describe the feedback,
delays and non-linear relationships in the development process,
workforce and management structures.
Features
and Structures in Project Management
Many
features influence the performance of a project including the
process structure, resources, targets and scope. A project development
process describes the flows of work (tasks) within and between
the development phases. The characteristics of a development process
describe the stages in the development of tasks, the availability
of work, iteration within and between phases and delays in processes
such as the allocation of resources or the recognition of failures.
The resources are characterised by their quantity and by their
effectiveness or productivity. These characteristics constrain
the rate of development. A project's scope determines the amount
of tasks that have to be completed within the project. Targets
describe the goals (e.g. final completion date and mile stones)
for completion of the project. These structures (development process,
resources, targets and scope) interact with each other to drive
the project performance. Even without looking much deeper into
the details we can see that the situation is very complex. That
complexity can be an impediment to prediction and learning (Sterman
1994, Dörner, 1996), and explains the lack of effectiveness in
a decision making in projects. Understanding
the dynamics of the development process requires a dynamic description
of the causal structures which drive project behavior. The development
process affects the performance by the maximum rate of activities,
the dependencies of those activities and the impacts of concurrence
relationships. The common project management techniques utilised
in the critical path method and PERT charts describe the activities
with duration estimates, and internal and possible external constraints
by relating the start and finish times of different activities.
That requires a very high level of aggregation of the development
process, resources, targets and scopes in the project. Those techniques
also do not include explicitly the iteration process of tasks.
Moreover, the relationships in the development process are assumed
to be linear, while, as many of the relationships are non-linear.
Figure
2 portrays the general structures usually encountered in the project
development, the interrelationships and interactions between those
structures. These structures include the four basic sectors that
describe key aspects of the project: (1) resource management;
(2) control; (3) plans and, (4) development. These structure interact
between each other through the information flows such as requirements
for resources, resources availability, progress status, effort
for development, scheduled deadlines, etc.
Development
Process of Tasks in Projects
Project
phases can be generally described in terms of activities or work
carried out by various project personnel. These activities are
often described as tasks, where a task is considered a discrete
piece of work or a specific activity with an associated work effort
necessary for completion. Tasks, then, are identifiable and describable,
having a more or less well-defined scope, usually measured in
terms of person-days from the point of view of resource allocation. 
Figure
2. General structures, interactions and interrelationships in
management of a project.
The
task solving sequence can be described by the following activities
(Sioutine, 1999): identification, processing and/or rework of
discovered failures. The system dynamics model simulates the movement
of tasks through these activities in the phases of a project.
The phases of the development include processes, which can constrain
the flow of tasks. First, the rework of failures generates the
work beyond the phase's initial scope. Second, a minimum amount
of time is required for each of the activities to be performed
on each of the tasks. The minimum time required for processing
or rework of a single task is a unique characteristic of that
task and describes the development process. This minimum time
characteristic constrains the rate of progress. Finally, not all
the tasks can be immediately identified, and processed simultaneously.
This limits the availability of work based on the progress achieved
in the project.
The
distance learning development projects are highly intangible in
their early stages. This is because a relatively large body of
tasks needs to be completed before concrete results in terms of
products or components developed show up. Analysis and design
do not produce fully testable results. Therefore, new tasks are
being identified as the project develops and the characteristics
of an instructional system under the development become visible
and concrete. The total number of tasks that comprise the phases
of the project is unknown to the developers until very close to
the end of the project, when the scope and characteristics of
the instructional system are clear and only final accomplishments
are needed. The amount of tasks that can be identified depends
on the progress of the project. Identified tasks, then, comprise
the work available for processing. The interrelationship between
the phases is defined by the flow of tasks from upstream phases
to consequent downstream phases. Each task in an upstream phase
can generate a certain number of tasks in a downstream phase which,
in turn, have to be identified and processed (Sioutine, 1999).
The availability of work can be constrained by the progress in
the project's phases and can act as a bottleneck for available
work. Normally, project models assume that all tasks are available
for processing. This implies that the concurrence of the development
process imposes no constraints on the progress. However process
concurrence can and does constrain the progress and availability
of work.
The
real progress of a project's phase determines the identification
and hence the availability of tasks for processing. The higher
the progress in a phase the closer will be the value of possibly
identifiable tasks to the total number of tasks in a project.
This will give the potential to a higher number of tasks that
can be identified and processed in parallel. The higher the progress
in a certain phase of a project the more tasks can be identified
and therefore processed to complete the whole project. The progress
in a particular phase can possibly influence the progress in a
downstream phase or even in an upstream phase. The identification
process in analysis depends on the progress in this phase directly.
However, the design phase also influences the progress of analysis
by discovery of flaws of analysis. These flaws have to be reworked
and completed successfully. Therefore the successful rework of
such failed tasks in analysis adds to the real progress of the
analysis phase and hence increases the potential for identification
of new tasks.
The
degree of concurrency of tasks can be determined by the scope
of the non-linear function that determines the amount of possibly
identifiable tasks. Some of the studies (Ford 1996) show that
increased concurrency of tasks can change the manageability of
projects, which influence the corresponding performance. To manage
projects successfully it is necessary to understand the factors
and dynamics involved in the development of projects. Sanches
(1995) suggests the use of strategic flexibility to improve performance.
This consists of resources and coordination flexibility. The first
one is the ability to use resources for multiple activities (in
our example that can be use of resources in different sub-phases
of the project). Coordination flexibility is described as the
ability to change where existing resources used quickly and cheaply.
In our example this is demonstrated by the fact that design phase
has to recognised the failures of analysis. This implies that
at moments when necessary the design may utilise more resources
than the analysis, regardless of the fact that the amount of work
in analysis can still be significant for processing. The reallocation
of the resources may allow the design phase to discover failed
tasks and if necessary to turn them back for reanalysis. This
will allow to identify and rework failures in both phases so that
each of them can progress forward in identification and processing
of new tasks.
APPLICATION
OF SYSTEM DYNAMICS MODELS IN REAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTS
The
application of System Dynamics to project management has significantly
increased during the past years and has become an important component
in the project applications. The applications of system dynamics
to project management include creating team learning and training
environments, providing a tool for advanced planning and control
of ongoing projects, and post mortem analysis to support dispute
resolution. This section shortly describes how system dynamics
simulation models can be used to support the ongoing projects. The
system dynamics models can be used on the two different levels
of the project's hierarchy (Rodrigues, 1997). One is the strategic
level to cover the full project life cycle eventually capturing
the main major milestones. Second one, is the operational level,
which decomposes the project into a set of major interrelated
sub-tasks, each being modelled by a specialised system dynamics
model. This would cover the project future only until the end
of the next control cycle, to which there is a detailed planning
data available. The links that can be established between a system
dynamics project model and the traditional models include structural
and data links. The quantitative information incorporated in the
system dynamics model as an input must be consistent with the
one considered in the network model.
In
the planning, the system dynamics models can be used to (Rodrigues,
1997): uncover metrics about process performance; test the plan's
sensitivity to risks; assess the performance of alternative decisions
of work and resource scheduling, of alternative processes of product
development, and of alternative control policies; and forecast
the future project outcome. In monitoring the models can be used
to: uncover the intangible information about actual progress;
estimate actual metrics about process performance explore whether
alternative decisions regarding work and resource scheduling,
structuring of the development process, and policies of project
control, could have provided better results. In both types of
applications the system dynamics models also enhance the management
functions through their capability of explaining the underlying
causes of project behaviour. This can be a high-level conceptual
framework for integrating system dynamics models into the project
management. The main critical issues are the model validation,
model generalisation, and "standardisation" of model structure
and model development process.
CONCLUSIONS
The
objectives of this paper were: (i) to describe the instructional
systems development model and how this model can be utilised for
the development of the distance learning courseware systems; (ii)
to describe the application of system dynamics theory to modelling
complex project environments and how this models can be utilised
for modelling the distance learning development projects, and
(iii) finally to give a brief outline of how system dynamics models
can be utilised in the real project environments. The
first section demonstrated that the findings of the instructional
development theory, being a generic theory of developing learning
environments; can be applicable for the development of distance
learning programs. The ISD4 model can be used as a
framework for systemic approach to develop distance learning environments,
so that they will be developed effectively and efficiently. The
second section described the importance of explicit modelling
of the project development process in order to understand the
dynamics of the projects and how that can be used to manage project
more successfully.
The
final section presented an outline of what steps are necessary
for applying and implementing dynamic models in the real project
management environments in general, which can be well utilised
in distance learning projects in particular.
To
manage projects successfully it is necessary to understand factors
and dynamics involved in the development of projects. The investigation
of the processes that occur in the projects and impact the development
gives the insight into the intricate structure and dynamics of
the projects.
To
enhance understanding and learning the dynamic model can be integrated
into an interactive learning environment, which can be used for
training managers and participants of such projects. A prototype
of such learning environment for a generic instructional development
project has been created (Sioutine and Spector, 1999) as a part
of a large educational project for instructional project development,
which consists of several tutorials in the following fields: Project
Management, Instructional Systems Development, Systems Thinking,
and System Dynamics (Spector, 1998; Spector and Davidsen, 1996).
This simulation-based learning environment has been designed to
be played in a local area network with three computers (one for
each player/team of players) and a server. This learning environment
situates players in a simulated replica of a real project. It
is interactive, because players are required to intervene, design
strategies, implement strategies, and observe results. The roles
to be played are Project Manager, Analysis Task Leader and Design
Task Leader. Each of the actors has to play a position of a person
responsible for human resource allocation on different levels
in the project. The future work involves further development of
such learning environment. Such a learning environment allows
managers and project participants to gain practice and experience
- an important factor for running projects successfully. It allows
managers to compress time and learn from simulated situations
by reflecting on the outcomes of decisions.
REFERENCES
1
Abdel-Hamid, T. K. and Madnick, S. E., "Software Project Dynamics,
an integrated approach", Englewwod Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
inc., 1990. 2
Collins, A. 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology.
In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive
instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3
Davidsen, P.I. 1994. "Implementing elements of system dynamics
approach to organisational learning", In Proceedings of ESS'94,
SCS. Ghent, Belgium.
4
Dörner, D. 1996 (Translated by Rita and Robert Kimber). The logic
of failure: Why things go wrong and what we can do to make them
right. New York: Holt.
5
Ford, D.N., "The Dynamics of Project Management: An Investigation
of the Impacts of Project Process and Coordination on Performance",
unpublished PhD thesis, MIT 1995.
6
Forrester, J.W. "Industrial Dynamics.", Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1961.
7
Gagné. R. M. 1995/96 "Learning Process and Instruction", Training
Research Journal, Vol. 1: 17-28.
8
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making of a new science. New York: Norton.
9
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
10
Richardson G. P., and Pugh III, A. L., "Introduction to System
Dynamics Modelling with Dynamo" MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
11
Reigeluth C. M. 1983. Instructional-design theories and models:
An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chapter
1.
12
Rodrigues Alexandre J. G. P.; "SYDIP - A System Dynamics-based
Project Management Integrated Methodology". In Proceedings of
the 15 International System Dynamics Conference, pp:439-442, Istanbul,
Turkey, July 1997.
13
Seville, D. A., and Kim D.H. "New Product Development Management"
Flight Simulator Facilitator's Guide v2.08 unpublished report.
Organizational Learning Centre. Sloan School of Managemnt, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
14
Sterman, J. D. 1994 "Learning in and about complex systems", System
Dynamics Review, 11, pp 161-186.
15
Sioutine A. V. 1998. "A System Dynamics Based model of ISD4 Project development and Management Process", In Proceedings of
the 1998 European Simulation MultiConference, Manchester, June
(15-18), England.
16
Sioutine A. V.; Davidsen P. I.; and Spector J. M. 1998. "Modelling
resource allocation in instructional systems development projects",
In Proceedings of the 16th International System Dynamics Conference,
Quebec, Canada (July 22-24).
17
Sioutine A. V. and Spector J. M.1999. "On Time Within Budget:
A Simulation Based Learning Environment for Practising Resource
Allocation in Instructional Systems Development Projects". In
Proceedings of the EUROMEDIA'99 conference, 25-28 April, 1999,
Munchen, Germany.
18
Sioutine A. V. 1999. "Modelling Concurrency Relationships in Multiple-phase
Courseware Development Projects". In Proceedings of the 6th European
Concurrent Engineering Conference, 20-23 April 1999, University
of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
19
Spector, J. M. Cognitive complexity in decision making and policy
formulation: A system dynamics perspective. Presented at the International
Conference on Competence-Based Management, Oslo, Norway, 19 June,
1998.
20
Spector, J. M. & Davidsen, P. I. 1996. "Creating engaging
courseware using system dynamics: The ISD Project Management Tutor."
In P. Carlson & F. Makedon (Eds.), Educational multimedia
and hypermedia, 1996. Boston: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education.
21
Tennyson, R.D. 1993. "A Framework for automating instructional
design." In Automating Instructional Design: Concepts and Issues,
J.M. Spector, M.C. Polson, and D. J. Muraida eds., Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology.
22
Tennyson, R .D., & Morrison, G. R. (in press)."Instructional
development: Foundations, Process, and Methodology." Columbus,
OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
1Guest
student in the Master Program in System Dynamics at the Department
of Information Science, University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
Resources
|
