Learner-centered Design in Higher Education by ICT with IDT
Katsuaki Suzuki 1
1

Chair and Professor, Instructional Systems Program,
Graduate School of Social and Cultural Sciences,
Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japanksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACTThis keynote introduces current trends in the longlasting traditions of instructional design andtechnology (IDT) and their applications to ICT-based
higher education. Learner-centered design has been
the key issue in reforming practices of higher
education. Such IDT theories and models as First
Principles of Instructional Design, Goal-based
Scenarios, and Layer Model for e-Learning Design
will be introduced, in reference to current practice of a
100% online master program for e-Learning
Professionals at Kumamoto University. Applicationof IDT and transformation by ICT, not integration of
ICT, are argued to be our central focus.

INTRODUCTION
Instructional design and technology (IDT) models andtheories, which have been one of the major areas ofresearch in the field of educational methodology formore than 40 years, have been utilized more
extensively in business and military training,
compared to higher education, because they aresuitable in goal-driven settings with specificchallenges to overcome. Demands for higher
education to be more effective, efficient, andengaging have also become higher and more criticalby its increased diversity, universalization,
mobilization, and the need for differentiation.
Students require more, with less effort, and we needto do a better job, with fewer resources. We all knowthat changes are needed, but we may not know how tochange ourselves. Learner-centered design has been
the key issue in reforming practices of higher
education through the use of information andcommunication technology (ICT). If one wishes such
reforms to be firmly grounded in evidence-based
rationales, rather than stemmed merely fromexperiences of best practices, IDT can be a solution as
the knowledge base with practical applicability. This
keynote introduces some IDT theories and models, asa knowledge base to achieve the goals of ICT
utilization in higher education settings.

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS[1]As the Japan’s first 100% online program for eLearning specialists focused in corporate and higher
education, Master of Science program in Instructional
Systems started in April 2006 at Kumamoto
University. As the first attempt to add a 100% online
program to an on-campus university of more than 100
years of its history, it is to train e-Learning
professionals emphasizing four areas of expertise.
The four Is, representing our program’s emphasis, arethe followings:
Instructional Design (ID),Information
Technology(IT),
Instructional
Management (IM), and Intellectual Property (IP). It
is a regular master program that requires two years ofstudy, taking courses up to a minimum of 30 credit
hours. Twelve courses are required to complete theMaster’s program, whereas 16 elective courses areoffered from which four or more courses to be taken
as a part of the requirement.
It was planed to be a 100% online course for somereasons: (1) The program is targeted for working
professionals who require flexibility for them to enrol
while working full-time. (2) Kumamoto University is
located in the south-most island, whereas the demands
for such a program are in major cities such as Tokyo
or Osaka, not in Kumamoto. For an institute located
far from major cities, online was the only chance to
get enough students.
(3) Japanese government
regulation had been changed to allow a 100% online
graduate program, not as a correspondence program,but as a regular program that is equivalent of an oncampus program through the advanced uses oftechnology to make interactions possible on a regularbasis. (4) e-Learning professionals should be able tobe trained via using an e-Leaning system to show
them how each of the e-Learning components can beused to its maximum potential.
The program (Graduate School of Instructional
Systems, or GSIS) was launched in April of 2006
with 15 first year master’s students, after being
selected through rigorous admission process from 37
candidates. All of them are working professionals intheir 30-40’s, working full-time in various locations:10 living in Tokyo, 2 in Osaka, and the rest in Kyushu
Island where Kumamoto University is located.
A quick audience analysis revealed that they are
mature students, studying alone at home or offices,
capable of conducting independent study via Internet.
Minimal faculty support would be required, andencouraging collaboration and learning from eachother would be an effective instructional strategy,
since they have diverse professional backgrounds toshare among themselves. Time management may be
an issue, since they are working full time: Asynchronous mode of learning seemed to the most flexible
learning environment for the busy professionals.

2006. Course design policy was agreed upon amongcore members of the program, on which each of thecourse syllabi was drafted and coordinated throughworkshops among the core members. A learning
portal was then designed and created to link the
University’s single sign-on user identification to thelearning management system (LMS, in particular,
WebCT CE6), as well as to provide learningassistance for GSIS students. Each of the course
contents was then created based on the course design
policy, before the implementation of GSIS program.
Each of the outputs is to be described in the following
sections.

GSIS COMPETENCIESOVERALL DESIGN OF GSISPROGRAM
Figure 1 describes the overall design of GSIS
program created based on ID methodologies. Inputs
are listed on the top of Figure 1, which included the 4
I’s concept, list of courses, and governmental
requirements for implementation to be regarded as
equivalent of on-campus program (15 interactive
synchronous/asynchronous sessions). Case studies,indicated on the bottom of Figure 1, were conducted
to locate and examine advanced online programs,
including instructional systems program of Florida
State University, Open University of U.K., andCarnegie Mellon University’s West Campus. Also
taken into consideration was a movement of Japan’s
e-Learning Consortium to establish e-Learning
Professional Certificate Program (eLP). An earlydraft version of eLP’s competencies for seven kindsof professionals were obtained so our program could
be aligned with what Japan’s prominent professional
alliance in the field of e-Learning had to offer tocertify their professionals.
Based on these inputs and consideration of future
trends for our prospective graduates, a list of GSIS
competencies was created and made public in January
ID Program Creation
based on ID Methodologies
4 I’s Concept

Curriculum

Implementation Plan Approved by MOE

ＧＳＩＳCompetencies
Announced

Syllabus（Minimum Requirements）
GSIS Portal

Case studies（ＦＳＵ，ＯＵ，ＣＭＵ－Ｗ）

eLP
Competencies©2007 Katsuaki Suzuki, Ph.D. All right reserved.
Analysis
Design15
interactive
sessions

Implementation
Requirement
Course Design
PolicyCourseDevelopment

eLP
Certificates
12
Development

Figure 1. Overall design of GSIS program

Table 1 shows GSIS core competencies, whereas
Table 2 shows GSIS optional competencies. The
GSIS core competencies list 12 capabilities thatwould be developed by taking required courses of the
program. They cover the basic capabilities in thefield of ID, IT, IP and IM, the four I’s emphasized in
the GSIS program. All the assignments in therequired courses are mapped with one of the 12competencies, which represent basic knowledge andskills of e-Learning professionals. When each of theassignments is accomplished by a student, a markindicating the assignment will reverse the color,showing accumulating status of a competency bycompleting the assignment.
Table 1. GSIS core competencies----------------------------------------------------------------By completing this program, you will acquire a basic levelof the following competencies:
1. To analyze the status quo of education and training
practices, by referring to the fundamentals of
instructional systems research.
2. To describe and interpret e-Learning success and failurecases in various domains and areas.
3. To create a course development plan and conduct a
persuasive proposal based on various viewpoints ofstakeholders.
4. To design effective, efficient, and appealing learning
contents by utilizing functions provided by an LMS.
5. To develop a prototype of active contents executable on a
Web browser.
6. To implement a course development project as a teamleader.
7. To evaluate and suggest improvements for an
implemented project or a developed course.
8. To propose strategies for educational services andbusinesses based on HRD strategies or market needs.
9. To recognize and solve regal and ethical issues in
networked environment.
10. To watch latest advancements in instructional systems
field and apply them in professional activities.
11. To disseminate findings from own practices throughprofessional activities thus contribute to society.
12. To contribute to improvements and advancements of the
GSIS program as an alumnus.

----------------------------------------------------------------Note: Announced in Jan. 2006 at http://www.gsis.
kumamoto-u.ac.jp/outline/

Table 2. GSIS optional competencies-----------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. GSIS course design policy-----------------------------------------------------------------

By taking optional courses in this program, you will acquirea basic level of the following competencies:

1. Fifteen (15) interactive sessions in each course withevidences, e.g., quiz, mini-report, answer to practice
exercises.
2. Course grades based on multiple reports/products withthe record from 15 sessions, each requiring the minimumof 60% for a passing grade.
3. Direct connection of course assignments to the GSIS
competencies.
4. Due dates of 15 session tasks to be clustered into 3-5
blocks to enable learner’s intensive study.
5. Limited synchronous whole class activities (maximum of
twice a semester per course).
6. Students commenting each other’s reports/products for
improvements before final submissions.
7. Introductory video message in all courses or all blocks ofa course as a motivator, not as a primary mode of
information provision.

1. To set up, manage and utilize a server for e-Learning andto develop a prototype of active course contents by
utilizing server-side applications.
2. To develop courses and manage systems that meetrequirements of e-Learning standardization and interoperatability.
3. To create a safe e-Learning environment in terms of
network security.
4. To propose management resolutions from the viewpointsof knowledge, information, and learning.
5. To discuss with subject matter expert in a specific area
based on its own instructional characteristics.
6. To propose and support implementation of educational
services and products as a consultant.
7. To propose establishment, implovement, and change in eLearning policies for own organization and customers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Announced in Jan. 2006 at http://www.gsis.
kumamoto-u.ac.jp/outline/

By showing in the form of competencies, the students,
current and prospective, will be notified with our
expectations for the students. It shows the boundaries
of our expectations: for example, for IT relatedcompetencies, all the graduates are expected to
become able to design effective, efficient, andappealing learning contents by utilizing functions
provided by an LMS (Core Competency 4), and todevelop a prototype of active contents executable on a
Web browser (Core Competency 5). However, tobecome able to develop a prototype of active course
contents by utilizing server-side applications, one
need to take one or more elective courses (Optional
Competency 1).
It was our thought that all of our graduates shouldhave experiences of actually developing a course
segment, so they will have acquired an ability to talkwith developers of e-Learning contents, although notmany of our graduates would actually engage in thedevelopment of contents as programmers. The term
“prototype” is thus used in the statement of thecompetencies, representing the minimum requirement
for the skill related to development.

GSIS COURSE DESIGN POLICY
Based on our audience analysis, governmental
regulations, and general grading policy of the
University, a set of course design policy wasestablished as shown in Table 3. Asynchronous mode
was introduced as the main method of interaction
though the use of WebCT’s quiz function, reportsubmission function, and Bulletin Board System(BBS). Instead of having deadlines once a week, ourpolicy states the 15 required interactions to beclustered to have two or more tasks due on the samedate (Policy 4). This was introduced by taking
account the fact that each of the students would betaking about 5 courses each semester. If due dates areset for every weeks, then he or she would need tohandle tasks for five different courses each week. By
having them clustered, a student would be allowed tofinish several tasks of one course, before moving totasks of a different course.
To encourage interactions among our students, Policy
6 was introduced (Table 3). By using BBS’s
functionality for threaded discussions, a student
would be asked to post a message with his/her draft
proposal as an attachment. Other students, after
posting their own drafts, are encouraged to review theclassmates’ drafts, then make any comments as a
reply to the original messages. It is after theseinteractions among the students, their final proposal
would be turned in by using WebCT’s reportsubmission function. Points are to be allocated to thecontributions of making comments to other’s drafts,
indicating that the interactions among peers are
regarded to be of high value.

GSIS LEARNING PORTALGSIS Learning Portal was designed and developed as
our original products serving for the need of ourprospective students. It was designed to connect the
University’s sign-on site to our LMS (WebCT), insuch a way that the portal would serve for time
management of our students, as well as a portal tovarious resources including University’s digital
library and registration.
Figure 4 shows a screen that provides monitoring
function for all the courses a student is currently
taking. In particular, this student was taking fivecourses, after finishing an orientation shown on thebottom. Each course has direct links to 15 tasks in theupper portion, and several assignments in the lower
portion of a horizontal scale. By moving mouse overto each of the buttons, due date and starting
conditions are indicated as a mouse pop-up. Each
entry is marked its due date by colors: overdue in red,
due within a week in pink, being accepted in yellow,
available tasks in green, and not yet available tasks ingray. Evaluation status is also shown as either passed(yellow), resubmission required (orange), or gradingin progress (blue). It is our wish that by providing
such an overview for each of the students, he or she
would have a better control in managing time forstudy without human help.

Principle 1: Real World Task (Problem) Centered•
Learning is facilitated when learners are engaged
in solving real-world problems.
Principle 2: Activation•
Learning is facilitated when existing knowledge
is activated as a foundation for new knowledge.
Principle 3: Demonstration(Don’t Tell me, but Show me)•
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge isdemonstrated to the learner.
Principle 4: Application (Let me do it)•
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge isapplied by the learner.
Principle 5: Integration•
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is
integrated into the learner's world.

Figure 5. First Principles of Instruction Diagram(Merrill, 2002)
Figure 4. Monitoring Progress in All Courses(GSIS portal)

TOWARD GSIS 2.0
Initial design process and outputs for GSIS at
Kumamoto University are as described so far. It was
our intention to utilize what we know about
instructional design to create our own learning
environment for the 100% online master course forworking professions. The first year has passed and
we are collecting data from both students and faculty
members to examine how successful we have been,
and to start improving our portal, course contents, tobetter meet the needs of our own students.
There have been many Instructional Design Models
proposed as of today, some of which will be
introduced in the remaining part of this paper. We arein the process of renovating our program, toward thenext version of our program, or GSIS 2.0, byincorporating suggestions from the ID models.
First Principles of Instructional DesignFirst Principles of Instructional Design is proposed by
Merrill[2] to include the following five features, if any
forms of instruction are to be effective, efficient, andengaging (See Figure 5):

Merrill proposed that major ID theories and models
available today follows the above five principles, but
not all of the five are included in any of ID theories.
Thus he considers these to be the First Principles. He
see the current situation of Web-based materials to be
not instructional, but informational, lacking adequate
support for learning based on current findings ofrelated research. He advocates the use of the
Principles to avoid “enervative, endless, or empty e3learning (3 sub-three learning) and replace it witheffective, efficient, and engaging e3- learning (e to the[3]third power learning).”
Looking back our GSIS program, even if we specify
competencies and make all the assignments alignedwith the competencies, it does not necessary meansthat the contents of our courses start with real-world
authentic tasks to provoke the students’ desire to learn.
Graduate curriculum tends to be “telling, not showing(demonstrating)” the new contents, with limited
opportunities for the students to apply or integrate
what they learned. In this respect, the design
guidelines provided with First Principles may wellserve as a checklist to version up the GSIS program tobetter fit what contemporary ID theories advocate.
Goal-Based Scenarios and Story-Centered
Curriculum
Goal-Based Scenarios Theory (GBS) is an
instructional design model proposed by Schank[4] that

focuses on how to make learning-by-doing
simulations. The aim of GBS is let the learner
practice decision-making processes in an authentic,
but risk-free setting, and learning by making mistakes
and reflecting on his/her mistakes. It has made amajor impact on corporate training first in 1990’s,
then adapted to higher education curriculum designand development projects by the name of StoryCentered Curriculum (SCC)[5]. Computer Science
Program at Carnegie-Mellon University West Campus
is one of the successful direct applications of SCC [6].
There are seven essential components of a GBS:
Leaning Goals, Mission, Cover Story, Role, Scenario
Operations, Resources, and Feedback. Figure 6
illustrates relationships among the seven components
of GBS[7]. Learning is to be taken place by scenario
operations that let the learner decide based on
available information as resources, during the courseof authentic decision-making processes. Before going
into the scenario, the learner is given a role to play,
mission to fulfil, and a cover story to place thescenario in a realistic and plausible setting. Mistakes
are welcomed so that the learning can be facilitated byreflecting upon the consequences by themselves andthrough the messages of experts.
Looking back again to GSIS program, or
undergraduate and graduate programs in general,
correct answers are usually given to the students via
lectures with few opportunities to make any kind of
mistakes, except for not being able to fill out thegiven correct answers on the tests. GBS and SCC
question our traditional ways of providing educationand suggest a new way to restructure the program
entirely at a curriculum level. All the courses offered
in GSIS can be clustered into one or some central
themes so that the students can acquire practicalknowledge and skills in a real-life scenario, instead oftaking 5 unrelated courses per a semester. Especiallythose who work fulltime, bits and pieces of
information in multiple courses can be better

Figure 6. Seven Components of GBS Theory(Nemoto & Suzuki, 2004)

comprehended if there is a way to organize all pieces
together.
Layer Model for e-Learning Design
The design and development of e-Learning contents
and systems is a complex process and there are manydifferent models, or processes, that are used to build
effective and engaging e-Learning courses. The
layered model[8] [9] (Table 3) has been proposed as aframe of reference for clarifying the purposes ofvarious instructional design techniques and models
and to illustrate how they can be meaningfullyorganized in terms of purpose and impact. This
organizational structure has several benefits: itclarifies the relationships among the various design
activities in e-Learning development, it can provide
guidance to e-Learning designers, and it can help
managers of e-Learning development who must
coordinate a team of designers.

Table 3. A Layer Model of e-Learning Design (Suzuki & Keller, 2007)
Quality of e-Learning
Level 3:
Willing to Learn(Appeal)Level 2:Easy to Learn(Effectiveness)
Level 1:
Easy to Use(Information Design)
Level 0:No Deception(SME)
Level -1:
No Pain(Hygiene)

Achievement Index
Continuing motivation, engagement, Did I do this many
without noticing? Link to future self, Self-selected, selfresponsible, individual taste and persistency, Brand, Pride
Learning environment matching nature of the task, learning
support elements matching learner needs, interaction effectsof collaborative members, self-regulated learning, responsive
environment
Operatability, Usability, Navigation and Layout, Technicalwriting

Major ID Techniques
Motivation Design(ARCS Model)
Principles of Andragogy
Learning facilitation Design(9 Events of Instruction)
Structuring & Sequencing

Content accuracy, Validity of Learning Scope, Validity ofinterpretation, Indication of equivocality, Freshness ofInformation, Rational and reliable, Intellectual Property
Handling
Access environment, Adequate network speed, Substitutealternatives for different IT environment, Stability of service,
Feeling of security

Needs Analysis
Task Analysis
Content Analysis

Prototyping,Formative evaluation

Learning Environment
Analysis
Media Selection

In this model there are five levels. Layer 1:
Information Design, which can be considered to be
the baseline level, is actually at the midpoint of thefive levels. There are two layers below it and two
above. This organization is guided by the concepts ofHe
Herzberg’s[10] “motivator–hygiene” theory.
postulates that certain activities, called hygiene
factors, help avoid discontent or annoyance and keeppeople happy, while other kinds of factors, called
motivators, contribute to meaningful work
experiences and stimulate people to achieve. This
theoretical foundation is reflected in the layer
descriptions, in which both Layer 0: No Deception
and Layer -1: No Pain should be satisfied first as
hygiene factors, whereas Layer 2: Easy to Learn andLayer 3: Willing to Learn can be built only after allother levels below would be satisfied.

CONCLUSIONJohn B. Carroll proposed his model of school
learning in 1963[11] that all students can learn
everything in school, if provided enough time forlearning for him/her. Carroll suggested a paradigm
shift to think of the difference in degree of learning(DL) in terms of time in the following formula:
DL = f (time spent learning/ time needed to learn)
This was a start of learner-centered education, whichlead to the movement of mastery learning that all thestudents have right to stay in class until they masterthe basic education. Outcome based design, such as
GSIS’s competency, has been grounded on thepremise that all students can reach the level ofmastery, if we give enough time and support for eachof the students.
Equivalency theory proposed by Simonson[13] points
out the importance of designing new format ofeducation for distance learning, which may lookdifferent from traditional classroom instruction, butwhose value is equivalent of the traditional education.
Being on campus or at distance, we can utilize ICT tobetter serve students of various needs. The format
may not be the same, but the value should beequivalent or better, if we say we utitlize ICT.
Reigeluth (2005) stressed the importance of ICT, notto be integrated into current practices of education,
but to trigger a transformation of education to fit theneed of learners. He stated that learner-centeredapproach is the key for any instructional designmodels to focus on[12]. Learner-centered learning
environment has long been awaited since the area of
Carroll’s model of school learning. It is by theadvancement of ICT, now available for all
institutions of higher education, combined withproper application of IDT models and techniques thatthe vision of learner-centered education may cometrue. For that end, not trying to integrate ICT to thecurrent traditional education, but trying to transform
our education should be our central focus.

REFERENCES[1]

An abbreviated version of Suzuki, K. (2007). From
Competency List to Curriculum Implementation:
An experience of Japan's first online masterprogram for e-Learning specialists. An invited
paper presented at 2007 KSET International
Conference, Toward emerging instructional design
theories and models for the future. Korean Society
for Educational Technology, April 27-28, 2007,
Seoul, South Korea.
[2]
Merrill, M. D. (2002) First principles of instruction.
Educational Technology Research & Development,
50 (3): 43-59.
[3]
Merrill, M. D. (in Press). Converting e sub3learning to e 3rd power-learning: an alternative
instructional design method, Available online:
http://cito.byuh.edu/merrill/text/papers/e3%20learn
ing.pdf[4]
Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M.
(1993-4). The design of Goal-Based Scenarios.
Journal of the learning sciences, 3(4): 305-345.
[5]
Schank, R. C. (2004). Time for content: The realrole of technology in education. Educational
Technology, 44(6): 5-12.
[6]
http://west.cmu.edu/[7]
Nemoto, J., & Suzuki, K. (2004). GBS checklist fortraining application. A paper presented at theInternational Symposium and Conference on
Educational Media in Schools, Kansai University,
Osaka, Japan, August 3-4, 2004 (Proceedings, 7582).
[8]
Suzuki, K. (2006). A layer model for e-Learning
design. A paper presented at 22nd National
Conference of Japan Society for Educational
Technology, Kansai University, JAPAN [InJapanese].
[9]
Suzuki, K., & Keller, J. M. (2007). Proposing aLayer Model for e-Learning Design. A paper
presented at ICBL 2007, International Conference
on Blended Learning, May 07-09, 2007
Florianopolis, Brazil[10]
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: how do you
motivate employees? Harvard Business Review,
53-62
[11]
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning.
Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
[12]
Reigeluth, C. M. (2005). Personal Communication
for an Interview appeared in Suzuki, K. (2006).
Future of instructional design and leaner-centered
design in e-Learning, Nojima, E., Suzuki, K. &Yoshida, A (Eds). Human Informatics and eLearning. University-of-the-Air Promotion Agency,
118-133. [In Japanese].
[13]
Simonson, M. (2000). Equivalency theory anddistance education. TechTrends, 43(5), 5-8.