Int. J. Web Based Communities, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2006

A problem-solving approach in instructional
technology for large-sized classes
Haruo Nishinosono*
Bukkyo University
96 Hananobo Murasakino
Kitaku Kyoto, Japan
E-mail: nisinohr@bukkyo-u.ac.jp*Corresponding author

Shiho Mochizuki
Institute for Learning Development
No. 714 Momoyama Grand Heights
Higashi-Bugyocho
Fushimiku Kyoto, Japan
E-mail: tuki@beige.plala.or.jp

Hitoshi Miyata
Shiga University
2–5–1 Hiratsu Ootsu Shiga, Japan
E-mail: h_miyata@mse.biglobe.ne.jp
Abstract: The most convenient media for learning are printed materials
and mobile phones, but these require a sophisticated instructional strategy,
a well-defined finite framework and procedure for developing high-quality
learning. Different types of knowledge representations and four stages– metaphor, image, model and proposition – implementing instructional
technology are introduced in this paper.
Keywords: instructional design; ubiquitous learning; knowledge creation;
empirical approach; technology divides.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nishinosono, H.,
Mochizuki, S. and Miyata, H. (2006) ‘A problem-solving approach in
instructional technology for large-sized classes’, Int. J. Web Based
Communities, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.285–301.
Biographical notes: Haruo Nishinosono is a Professor at the Faculty of
Education in Bukkyo University, Japan. He has worked for more than 40
years in the fields of educational technology, instructional technology, teacher
education, information education and technical education. He has written many
books and articles in the professional fields, received academic awards twicefrom Japan Society for Educational Technology and worked for the UNESCO
programmes of Asia and the Pacific Educational Innovation and Development
under the plans of the UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok for more thanten years.

Copyright © 2006 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

285

286

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata
Hitoshi Miyata received his BEd Degree in Kyoto University of Education,
Japan, in 1981. He also received his MEd Degree in Hyogo University of
Education, Japan, in 1988. Since 1993, he has worked as a Research Associate
at the Faculty of Education, Kyoto University of Education, Japan. Currently,
he is a Professor at the Faculty of Education, Shiga University, Japan. His
current interests are in computers in education, web-based education, andComputer Supported Ubiquitous Learning (CSUL). He got the Best Paper
Award in Japan Society for Educational Information in 2003 on ubiquitous
learning. He is a member of IASTED, AACE, JSEI and Japan Society for
Educational Technology.
Shiho Mochizuki is a staff of Institute for Learning Development in Japan. She
received her BEd Degree from Bukkyo University, Japan in 2002 and received
her MEd Degree in 2004 from the same university. She is conducting researchon instructional technologies, specifically for team learning and evaluation.

1

Introduction

The remarkable development of Japanese education in the last century now faces newchallenges: a drastic demographic decrease in young students, a decline in academic
motivation and curiosity, and the bureaucratic rigidity of educational systems. The
educational system introduced from Occidental countries about 130 years ago functioned
well in the last century but is not effective for our current, rapidly changing anddiversifying society. Japan is now struggling to reform its educational system and recoverits vitality for enhancing educational potential. A rapidly changing society makes our
professional knowledge soon obsolete, requiring us to renew it ceaselessly, while
industrial restructuring and organisational change have made employment unstable andprofessional careers uncertain (Drucker, 2002). The rapid diffusion of Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) accelerate the instability of employment and require
everyone to be individually responsible for renewing professional knowledge andcompetence. The present educational system operates efficiently in cultivating manpower
for modernising nations in the economic sense, but it is not effective in meeting personalneeds in a diversifying society.
A new educational system is needed to accommodate people who cannot keep pacewith this changing and diversifying society. Some people working in public education,
however, are reluctant or even resistant to reforming the educational system, which was
firmly established in the past century. In such circumstances we have to initiate
instructional designs based on personal needs and diversified backgrounds and thenproceed to national goals that have been agreed upon through democratic consensus. In
this sense, there is no substantial difference between developed and developing countries,
or industrial and agricultural societies, as all require new knowledge to keep professional
competence at a high level in an ever-changing world. It is indispensable that we renew
professional competencies to keep our lives more stable and dependable. Lifelong
learning for acquiring knowledge is therefore not a special requirement for so-called
enlightened people only, but a necessity for every citizen.

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology

287

Recent developments in ICT enable us to explore an entirely new framework forteaching and learning and to shift from teacher-led to learner-centred instruction.
Universal and ubiquitous learning, or u-learning, which can accommodate large
audiences seeking professional expertise as well as be incorporated into daily life, needs
to be explored urgently (Nishinosono, 2001; 2004). Ubiquitous ICT such as mobile
phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA) and microchips embedded in our surrounding
environments enable everyone to learn at any time and anywhere (Ogata and Yano,
2004a; 2004b).
When we plan to implement ubiquitous ICT in a specific instructional situation,
we have to take into account a variety of factors relevant to effective learning for diverse
learners. We are expected to apply the abundant scientific findings from past instructional
research in designing and implementing instruction, but we often find it difficult toapply previous findings for designing instruction effectively in order to achieve intended
goals or realise an expected learning process. We know very little about ubiquitous
learning free from teacher-controlled instruction and we face difficulties in designinglessons suitable for diverse student populations, considering their different academic
achievements, intelligence, ages, socioeconomic backgrounds and countless otherfactors. Any designed instruction is unique and requires technological experience(Flechsig, 1997). This means that any technological profession requires ample experienceand support from colleagues and superiors. Complex problems are not solved merely byapplying scientific findings, but require technological know-how based on experience.
From our experience, several preliminary trials while developing a course are required
before clarifying intended outcomes. In some cases, revisions must be made ten or moretimes to achieve satisfactory outcomes. This implies that ubiquitous learning cannot
develop from the mere application of scientific findings, but from intuitive trials andsystematic revisions for refining the learning itself. This developmental process requires asystematic procedure for enhancing the professional disciplines involved in ubiquitous
learning development.

2

The teacher’s new role: from knowledge delivery to knowledge creation

The present educational system in our schools has effectively contributed to cultivating
and disseminating a school-based academic knowledge centred on the traditional stylesof lecture, comprehension and memorisation. Higher education follows conventional
teaching styles, but it also aims to introduce new disciplines that contribute tostrengthening culture, science, technology and economics. Knowledge has been provided
through formal institutions, such as schools and universities, but its cost is becoming
higher and higher owing to a shortage of expertise and expensive human resources. In
spite of such a high cost, people still pursue knowledge acquisition from well-establishedinstitutions, competing to enter a limited number of top institutions to acquire prestigious
degrees. The teacher-led framework shown in Figure 1 has lasted for a long time and isquite familiar to teachers. The Japanese national government fixes the educational goals
and instructional contents, and local governments follow these standards in providing
educational facilities and teacher training that seek to achieve these goals equitably in288

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

different localities. Teachers make efforts to provide quality teaching and satisfy thedemands of their occupation. They accumulate empirical knowledge about teaching in atacit but rarely explicit form. The presumption of this system is that the educated canefficiently teach the uneducated in these well-established institutions. This framework of
instruction has functioned well in a stable or slowly changing society. The situation,
however, has changed drastically since ICT was introduced as instructional media inevery institution at the elementary, secondary and higher levels. Recent developments in
ICT are expected to provide more and better opportunities for learning and to promote
general knowledge revitalisation. ICT enables us to provide large audiences witheffective instruction while at the same time responding to personal needs, and to cultivate
stronger interest in learning and a deeper comprehension of our surroundings. Television
programmes introduce us to entirely new worlds, strange and remote from our daily lives.
Computer simulations open new horizons in our recognition of the world. These hightechnologies contribute enlightenment to our world views and enrichment to our lives.
We thus also look forward to the development of a vast educational establishment
for lifelong learning and educational opportunity to renew a range of professional
expertise in a web-based educational society. Nevertheless, we are still concerned about
equal access to the knowledge acquisition necessary for renewing our professional
competencies, with the intention of overcoming the lack of learning opportunities with
distance learning and spanning the technological divide between the haves and thehave-nots. The learner-centred instruction shown in Figure 2 requires us to create an
entirely new environment to realise autonomous learning among learners. In this type oflearning, project methods or a problem-solving approach is effective in keeping learners’
interests and involvement at a high level. When we try to initiate new solutions toproblems or produce visible outcomes, we start from imagining them, to drawing
sketches and making drafts, to actualising them and to constructing the final solutions
and/or products. In this process, we utilise paper and pencil, even large sheets of paper
for presentations and chalk and blackboard if necessary. Refining new ideas, discussions,critical reviews and consultations with peers and specialists are indispensable means forrealising productive and fruitful outcomes. This kind of learning has traditionally been
provided in small-group learning environments located only in conventional educational
institutions. Thanks to the development of ICT, internet access, e-mail and software suchas white boards for collaborative work are available at a reasonable cost and have become
very powerful tools to promote such discussions and consultation in our informationsociety. In this working and learning environment, ubiquitous devices such as mobile
phones, PDA and mobile computers are effective and efficient technologies to facilitate
interactive communication and review. In particular, technological developments in thearea of mobile phones have been very rapid, and they now provide access to television
programmes and websites. In this context, these devices, available to everyone, can beused to share knowledge for developing universal learning and overcoming educational
opportunity divides. This is the rationale for forging a web community among thoseengaged in universal and ubiquitous learning, or u-learning, for everyone, at any time,and anywhere (Nishinosono, 2005).

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology
Figure 1

289

Framework for teacher-led instruction

Instructional
outcomes
Educationalgoals
Teaching
contents

Teaching
methodApplication ofteaching skills

Teaching
practice

Reflection

Analysis andinterpretation

Empirical
knowledge

Figure 2

Practical
knowledge

Framework for learner-centred instruction

Right to learn
Various needs
Learning
objectives

Creationemergence
Technology
for learning
development

Developmentof learning
Reflection on
implementation

Instructor’s
experiences

3

Empirical
knowledge

Learning
outcomes
Learning
Analysis andinterpretation
Practical
knowledge

Scientific versus technological approach to universal andubiquitous learning

The scientific and technological approach for producing modern machinery has resulted
in the mass production of cheap and convenient goods for daily life as well as large-scalecomplex undertakings such as aircraft, tankers, high-rise buildings and even spacestations. Computers, the internet and ubiquitous ICT are also modern technologicalproducts resulting from the development of information and communication science andtechnology. In the case of ICT itself, there is no discrepancy between a scientific and atechnological approach. Thanks to high-technology-based machinery and facilities, we
benefit from the convenience of intercity and international travel, the rapid transferenceof information on a worldwide scale and the rise of transnational communities. This

290

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

contrasts strongly with labour-intensive inefficient traditional manufacture, which often
requires costly and time-consuming efforts to produce very simple outcomes. Yet withthe proliferation of convenient, mass-produced daily necessities, we are losing traditional,
high-quality craftworks rich in character.
The same ICT is now being applied to education. Teaching is still a labour-intensive
profession, but it is now entering a more innovative stage in our profession towards morelearner-driven learning to cope with the great demands of lifelong learning, especially inhigher education and at the professional level. This requires the urgent development ofautonomous learning technology that can accommodate a huge number of learners at low
rates of tuition or fees and high-quality materials to guarantee effective learning
outcomes. In this context new instructional technology should maintain the quality andbest features of the conventional instruction, while incorporating the innovative featuresof mobile or ubiquitous learning.
The theory and practice of introducing ICT in education is entirely different fromthose of ICT itself. While information and communication science has developed
efficiently to accelerate the development of ICT, the present state of educational
science and technology is not sufficiently developed enough to accommodate such newtechnologies as ubiquitous ICT in the educational settings rationally and effectively.
Ubiquitous ICT can enhance autonomous learning in today’s completely teacher-led
classrooms as well as independent learning away from educational establishments.
The technological approach is often confused with the scientific approach owing to its
objective and generalised features when considered by outsiders, but the approaches are
entirely different from the insiders’ perspective of implementing procedures to achieve
final distinct goals. A scientific approach is adopted in order to clarify one’s recognition
and to result in new knowledge, while a technological approach emphasises theimportance of subjective prescriptions and prospects, actions to realise them andresulting outcomes. In the latter approach, outcomes should be clarified before or during
their adoption, described in visible or tangible form and described in statements of
instructional objectives or learning objectives in conventional instructional technology.
On the other hand, ubiquitous learning aims to realise a learning process and/or outcomes
free from teachers’ control and intervention.
Despite such characteristics, ubiquitous learning should be designed to achieve
quality learning outcomes and a high level of learning. How can we describe suchhigh-quality learning without alluding to instructional objectives? Figure 3 shows four
different approaches to design instruction:1

a traditional and teacher-led instruction approach based on educational
norms/canons, or practical syllogistic derivation from educational norms to actions

2

the application of a scientific-findings approach based on psychology, cognitive
science and other social sciences3

learning from others’ experiences by relying on colleagues and elders

4

an approach featuring intuitive and creative ideas based on our own experiences andtacit knowledge.

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology
Figure 3291

Empirical approaches for learning development
Educational
norms/canons

Novel

Practical syllogism

Actions

Applications of scientific findings (psychology, cognitive science, etc.)
Learning from others’ experiences (educational practitioners, etc.)
Intuitive and creative ideas

Instructional
development

Tacit knowledge
Experienced

Explicit
knowledge

UniquenessImages and iconic
knowledge
Formal and/or
propositional knowledge

Scientificresearch

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

The major concern in this paper is to develop a research method for formulating explicit
knowledge in the forms of figurative and/or iconic representations, as well as statements
and/or propositions so that this accumulated experience will be easily communicable,
systematically revisable and sharable with other experts. Even though four approaches
are distinguished here, a comprehensive approach based on creative ideas and genuine
procedures is always essential to design appropriate learning suitable to local
requirements and personal needs. We must initiate new ideas or breakthroughs anddevelop them for instruction entirely suitable for a unique learning environment andcontent. Figure 4 shows two possible procedures, one of which derives from synthesis
and the other from analysis, to extract concrete knowledge of models and propositions
from analysing actual learning situations, mainly depending on an empirical approachrather than a science-application approach. In this procedure, we must observe thelearning behaviour, record and analyse it and evaluate the design process to interpret theeffectiveness of learning. Novice teachers prefer to start by making images and thenrefining them into figurative and/or iconic models. In this process, discussion andcritiques are essential to improve their initial ideas and clarify feasible plans. On the other
hand, experienced teachers are strongly advised to start by analysing their own teaching.
They may be accustomed to teaching via unilateral lecturing and may find it difficult totransform their teaching style from being teacher-dominant to learner-centred instruction.
The knowledge that emerges from analysis should relate closely to the synthetic aspects
of instructional design or it will be useless. After several trials, however, these teachers
will begin to express recognition about the lessons and describe their empirical laws in
the form of statements and judgemental propositions, sometimes after having conductedlessons by themselves. The authors make a greater effort to develop instructional design
technology sharable in expertise than to identify information technology applications in
education, believing strongly in the potential for fruitful and creative outcomes fromcollaborative teamwork.
In this framework, a definite presumption is not a required prerequisite regarding
instructional design in the initial stage. Instead, a back-and-forth process between
synthesis and analysis focuses on learning during its implementation. It starts fromintuitive ideas, proceeds to relying on empirical knowledge and repeats systematic
revisions, from which ideas emerge, from our previous experiences and tacit knowledge.

292

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

Figure 4

Empirical research on u-learning

Synthesis

U-learning

ImagesSynthetic
concepts

Analysis
Category

Educational
norms

Analytic
concepts

Creative process

Models
Propositions
or empiricallaws

4

Cases of problem solving for instruction in large-sized classes

Before we come to the theoretical framework for implementing u-learning in higher
education, we should introduce our trials at Bukkyo University, located in Kyoto,
Japan. Present instructional technology starts designing instruction from the standpointof instructional goals which reflect national policies and an emphasis on nationwide
economic prosperity and success in science and technology. Teachers as well as student
teachers tend to adhere to such goals without referring to students’ individual needs andrequirements. This approach raises complicated issues in our ever-changing anddiversifying society. Current Japanese students and youngsters are often presumed to beless interested than previous generations in political and international affairs and unable
to express their thoughts in logical and critical ways.
The conventional educational philosophy suggests that small-sized classes are
preferable and face-to-face interactions are indispensable to maintaining quality
education and human relationships between teachers and students. Despite such idealistic
expectations, however, in practice universities are faced with offering large-sized classes
in undergraduate courses owing to the huge demands for higher education and the highcost of expertise. The framework discussed here does not emerge from theoreticalconsiderations, but from empirical trials repeated for practical implementation in
one-semester classes twice a year for the last six years.
The experimental instruction started in 1999 for an undergraduate course entitled‘Introduction to Instructional Technology’, which accommodated 228 students in a large
classroom. According to our preliminary survey of their impressions of teaching, students
complained about the one-sided lecture style, boring contents and passive learning natureof conventional instruction. After repeated improvements while teaching twice a year forsix years, we have achieved far more satisfactory instruction with active participationfor our growing number of students (enrolment numbered 276 for the Spring Semester2005). At the beginning of the class, we conduct a survey on their self-perceptions

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology

293

of teaching and images of their school experiences and give questionnaires oncommunication types in order to divide them into small teams of five or six members inthe second week. Then they start to play ice-breaking games to become familiar witheach other. They proceed to teamwork sessions to create proposals about ideal schools
and instructional plans to share with other teams during poster sessions. After the interim
presentation session, they start working independently, but continue communicating witheach other and collaborating to finalise their personal reports to be submitted at the endof the lesson. An aim of this course is to cultivate the collaborative competencies,
communication skills and critical thinking needed to tackle complicated problems incontemporary education (see Figure 5).
Figure 5Classroom scenes

294

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

Cultivating critical thinking competence and promoting the right to learn among students
is a common ground for designing autonomous learning, but it does not necessarily imply
any specific method for instructional development. Today is the right time to explore
learner-centred instruction for cultivating discussion competence among students and for
promoting autonomous learning rather than passive attitudes in the classroom. Therealready exists extensive literature discussing instructional development, but it has not
persuaded us to change our metaphors, mental models and frameworks, which are deeply
embedded in the current instruction. One possible way to change such theoretical rigidity
is to start from actual problematic situations and develop a persuasive framework for
active learning among students even in large-scale classes. Designing is the creative
process of imaging learning events and actualising them in reality. The instructional
development procedure discussed in the following sections emerged from our successive
attempts to make this process more flexible and easier to implement.

5

Knowledge for developing u-learning in large-sized classes

In the coming knowledge society, learners’ intentions and autonomous learning
capabilities will be key in enhancing the right to learn and to accommodating students’
diverse needs. The development of learning technology suitable for autonomous learningat the secondary as well as higher education level is urgently needed to cope withstudents with diversified academic backgrounds and learning needs. In a web-basedand computer-mediated learning project, most developmental trials start from theimplementation of ICT, especially multimedia and broadband technologies in theconventional classroom situation. In this case, the designers’ attention and interests tend
to focus solely on technology, not on learning itself. If we approach universal education
purely from a high-technology standpoint, it is almost impossible to overcome the ICT
divides faced by economically deprived people. High-technology versus low-technology
approaches are not a dichotomy, but two extremes which should be linked seamlessly fordisseminating universal education. In this context, we should take into account thepotential of ubiquitous, inexpensive information technology as an important means andtake a first step from the standpoint of knowledge creation and problem solving toovercome technology divide issues. Adaptation of simple hardware is essential andappropriate for critically effective and inexpensive instruction. In the u-learning
project, we started instruction mainly with printed materials and mobile phones and have
tried to work out a premise for autonomous learning suitable to distance learning.
Textbook-based instruction helps us focus our efforts critically on instructional design
technology for students’ active and creative involvement in learning. This approachalso requires a well-thought-out strategy in order to develop appropriate instructional
materials. At the same time, if we start from discussion and communication with peers
and fellow instructors in institutions or at remote workplaces, we find that ubiquitouscommunication devices such as mobile phones, PDA and portable computers are also
useful tools for enhancing knowledge creation and refinement inside and outside theclassroom, even at students’ distant homes. New trials often require entirely new,innovative solutions unfamiliar to our own and others’ experiences. Even if we adopt
ubiquitous facilities, instructional development should follow a systematic and scientificprocedure to make the development more effective and acceptable to other experts in
instructional development.

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology

295

Collaborative teamwork is essential in ensuring fruitful and creative outcomes fromu-learning. The Japanese educational system continues to feature harsh competition
among candidates aiming to go from elementary- to secondary- to higher-education
stages. Their learning heavily deviates towards exam preparation and forced competition
with their peers. Collaborative teamwork is not fostered and difficult to realise yet, evenat the university level. To overcome such a distorted and dissuasive attitude, fiveprinciples are emphasised in classes as an example of educational norms: autonomous
learning, collaborative work, contributions to teamwork, responsibility to the team andrespect for other people. Universal education rather than selective streaming and asmooth articulation between different stages of educational life are urgent issues to be
tackled in our rigid schooling system. Ubiquitous ICT and collaborative work are
expected to be very effective in solving these problems.
In the conventional procedure of designing instruction, we start with specifying
instructional objectives and sequencing them, and then take into account other factors
such as teaching materials, teaching environment and teaching tools. In this procedure,
instructional objectives are usually derived from the national course of study, developed
into a sequence of sub-objectives and actualised in the form of instructional materials.
Instructional technologies come on the scene after the selection of instructional objectives
and their sequential development. On the other hand, when we start with learners’ needs
and learning objectives, we cannot anticipate the instructional process and final learning
outcomes at the very beginning of the course. We need to appropriate technologies
that will allow us to analyse their needs, assess their relevance to instructional contents
and develop a learning environment in parallel to evaluation related to educational
goals. Saegusa (1964) suggested there are two interpretations regarding technology in
education. One interpretation is that educational technology is a branch of educational
expertise similar to educational philosophy, educational psychology, educationalsociology and so on. Another interpretation is that it is a technological discipline, just likebrewing technology, processing technology, medical technology, nursing technology andmany other technologies. The latter interpretation gives us a broader view of technology
in education. When we approach it from the perspective of learners’ personal needs,
the factors under consideration for instructional design are numerous and complex.
Fortunately, ICT is a powerful tool for dealing with such complex problems and is now
applied in almost all disciplines to solve complex problems systematically and to enhancetheir expertise. We can describe the complexity of learners with a relational database andplan a scheme for future perspectives adapting simulation technology. In this context, we
can borrow ideas from other areas of technological expertise.
From the technological perspective, we can conceive four steps – metaphors, images,
models and propositions – to create an entirely new instructional process for designingautonomous learning. Creative instructional design proceeds from ambiguous images toconcrete procedures, to learning materials and to tangible outcomes. Teamwork requires
a framework for creating sharable ideas and common outcomes from diversified
participants. Common metaphors provide a framework for generating sharable images,
allowing us to proceed to the more concrete process of developing learning activities.
In developing the course ‘Introduction to Instructional Technology’ for a large classcomprising more than two hundred students, we chose two metaphors as our frameworkand followed the MACETO model for instructional design and a set of propositions for296

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

learning development. The four-stage framework of transferring instructional knowledge
and a logo representing five norms for effective team learning are still at the stage ofhypothesis and are to be confirmed by further scientific research.

5.1 Metaphors: brewing technology and paragliding technology
Brewing technology depends on biological changes in fermentation and paragliding
technology is based on natural laws of aerodynamics and meteorology. These metaphorssuggest relatively passive intervention or facilitation in the changing learning process.
Despite such passivity, very careful attention to the learning process and scientificknowledge are required to produce effective outcomes.

5.2 Images
Images emerge from the metaphors common to instructional designers. We develop many
images as figurative elements for designing flexible instruction: we show only two ofthem here. Images make it easier to arrive at a consensus among instructional designers,
material producers and teachers. The first author adopted this approach in the late 1970s(Nishinosono et al., 1978) and has further developed it since then to clarify internal
structures using figurative representation (see Figure 6).
Figure 6

Two images showing gradual transformation of instructional modes
Im agagee o f a course
cou rseIn fo rm

T hem e: P ropo sea n id eal schoola nd d evelop
in stru ction al
p lan

a ti

on
Personal
su rvey
S tudents’aw aren ess
on problem s

Info rm atio n
T e amdiscu ssion
In fo rm ation
gath ering

T eam
presentatio n

P rocess o f clarification
R epo rts

Teacher in a class

Indicator
Teacher as
instructional
designer

In terimp resentation

T eam L ea rning `Pe rson al lea rning
C reativ e co ntrib utio nsi
S ub m ison

C red its(a) Teacher controlling her actions (Nishinosono, 1981) (b) Designing autonomous learning (Nishinosono, 2002)

5.3 Models
Models represent more tangible relevant aspects of instruction. The most importantmodel for this instructional design is the MACETO model, which represents meaning(M), actions/activities (A), contents (C), environment (E), tools (T) and outcomes (O).
This model consists of two parts: internal conditions and external conditions.
Instructional design starts from arranging internal conditions to enabling students to learnautonomously. The meaning of learning is of high priority and provides us with anorientation to learning activities as a whole (see Figure 7).

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology
Figure 7297

MACETO model for instructional design

Internal
conditions
Actions

Meaning

Outcomes

Learning

Tools

Content

Environment

External
conditions

Hypothesis

If we succeed in arranging learners’ internal conditions meaningfully,
they can overcome externally difficult conditions and work
hard autonomously.

5.4 Propositions
Instructional design heavily depends on empirical and tacit knowledge and know-howthat is difficult to transmit to other instructors through media. To overcome thisdifficulty, we must train instructors to express their experience in the form of models andpropositions. Only five propositions out of the 65 that emerged from one lesson are listed
in Table 2 as examples.
Table 2

Examples of instructional propositions

Transformation from image to key concept, graphic presentation and modelling is indispensable but
hard for student teachers to achieve. Modelling is much more difficult than the previous step.
Realisation of autonomous learning requires cultivating students’ heightened attitude towards
learning. To cultivate such an attitude, it is effective to require that students complete a framework
sheet (MACETO format) each time before they can organise learning by themselves.
Alternative strategies of degrees of freedom in learning:
1
When we increase the degree of freedom in learning and give more initiative to students,
learning results in a wide range, from excellent to poor, in quality and quantity.
2

When we decrease the degree of freedom in learning and give less initiative to students,
learning results in a reliable but mediocre outcome of both less excellent and less poor quality.

To manage a large group of students who learn autonomously, it is effective to form groups andclusters of groups, encourage active participation and let them recognise their responsibility
towards autonomous learning.
To make learning meaningful, it is effective to start the lesson from one’s earlier experiences
relevant to instructional contents.

298

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

5.5 Logo and norms
Norms are indispensable for maintaining effective and collaborative teamwork. A logo issuggested to team members, who are requested to discuss their own choice or addition of
new norms for creating their team identity symbol. The original figure and norms areshown in Figure 8. Five norms are suggested to participants as an example for further
discussion: autonomy, collaboration, contribution, responsibility and respect.
Figure 8

Norms for teamwork
Self
Respect

Autonomy

Right
Respon- to learn
Collabosibility
rationContribution

Control

In the conventional procedure of instructional design, we start with identifying
educational goals, then specify instructional objectives, develop a teaching process,
implement instruction and evaluate outcomes. On the other hand, in the case of startingwith identifying learners’ needs and motivations, we immediately confront complex
problems, so we must proceed to clarifying the meaning of learning, assessing learning
outcomes, encouraging learning activities, specifying instructional contents and arranging
the learning environment. In this circumstance, teachers are expected to develop theirprofessional expertise, deepen their experience and communicate with colleagues andprofessionals on the web, even at a distance, in order to enrich their professional
competencies. We need to explore a new means of communication to promote effective
sharing of their experiences.
Hypothesis

Our experiences with instruction are accumulated tacitly as well as
explicitly, of which explicit knowledge can be described in a set of
iconic and/or figurative representations and formal propositions to beeasily communicated among instructional professionals for enhancing
the Right to Learn.

Effective sharing of experiences in practical instruction requires a common framework
to conduct research and report the result and other expertise. Figure 3 shows four
possible approaches to designing novel instruction: practical syllogistic derivation fromeducational norms to actions, application of scientific findings, learning from others’
experiences, and intuitive and creative ideas enhanced by tacit knowledge accumulated
from our previous experience. We start to generate intuitive and creative ideas byreferring to the tacit knowledge emerging from our past experience. The concern inthis paper is to develop a framework of instructional design for a research method forformulating explicit knowledge in the forms of figurative and iconic representations, aswell as formal statements and propositions (see Table 1).

for understanding methods,
procedures and objects;

unique;digitised knowledge transferable

emotional and analogical;

knowledge at the workplace;Note:knowledge about the pastlexicographical structureintersubjective;

subjective personal;

reusable, sharable and editableobjective, societal, organisational,
rational, theoretical, digitised andencoded knowledge transferable
through networks;systematised knowledge;*This table was developed by Nishinosono following the original table by Nonaka and Konno (2003).

possible to propagate and develop

sharable by collaborative workrequiring specific experiences;

specific to locality, objects, person through network;and time;
reusable, sharable and editable

empirical intuitive;

linguistic knowledge;

expressible in figures, symbols,
pictures and behaviours;

difficult to express in language;

empirical statements, judgemental
propositions

numerical formulae, recognition
statements, explanatory
propositions

Characteristics ofknowledge

figurative models, figures andtables, symbols, pictures

images, models, figures, tables,
symbols, pictures

intuition, cognition, images

Formal knowledge

Technological approach hunch, intuition, empirical laws,(action oriented)
proficiency, senses

Scientific approach(recognition oriented)

Figurative and iconic knowledge

individual,
unique,physical,inductive,
synthetic

universal,
reliable,
deductive,
analytic,
systematic

Characteristics
of approaches

Table 1

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology
299

Types of knowledge for developing u-learning*

300

6

H. Nishinosono, S. Mochizuki and H. Miyata

Conclusions

Considering the diversified backgrounds of learners, team learning is adopted toaccommodate such diversity and to allow all those involved in teamwork to display theirdifferent talents and capabilities for collaboration. This kind of instruction requires highly
developed technology to design complex learning situations. In the process of developing
educational courses, there are four possible approaches for applying a rational procedurefor instructional development: practical syllogistic derivation from educational norms
to actions, application of scientific findings, learning from others’ experiences andrefinement of intuitive and creative ideas. Actual instruction is too complex to manage
from a single concept. It is impossible to cover the whole process according to only one
specific scientific approach. Learning from other designers and practitioners is always
very fruitful. At the same time, we often face many entirely unfamiliar situations, butnevertheless have to conduct instruction. We cannot wait for knowledge to emerge fromscientific associations or for information from others’ experiences. In many cases in daily
teaching, we start from our intuitive ideas and confirm their validity empirically.
The authors started from intuitive and creative ideas, referring to tacit knowledge thatis hard to express verbally but certainly embedded in our own experience and the adopted
concept of ‘education as technology’, and we developed a framework of ‘metaphor,
image, model and proposition’. In the beginning we may express these ideas in the formof metaphor and iconic representations more easily than in strictly logical statements. It
was confirmed in the instructional course that young students were quite familiar withexpressing their ideas in non-linguistic ways and started expressing their original ideas,
discussing the issues and refining them towards final concrete outcomes or products
of instructional materials, models representing the instructional situation, and logicalstatements and propositions convenient to revise later or to communicate with their peers
in written form. In this process, continuing communication and critiques among students
through the web were indispensable in encouraging their active involvement. The authors
collected their experiences from the abovementioned courses in the form of statements,
judgemental propositions or empirical laws.
Education has become too difficult to tackle by teachers working alone. They needto help each other, obtain public support and communicate personally with students,
colleagues and the local community. ICTs, including ubiquitous equipment, are very
powerful tools for facilitating mutual communication and, in this sense, for contributing
to a truly universal education. Nevertheless, it requires us to become more imaginativeand creative and to develop scientific procedures in pursuit of a rationale for instructional
development in our professional discipline. Thanks to recent technological developments
in qualitative and quantitative analysis, we can easily investigate the validity andrelevance of empirical knowledge during real classroom instruction. For this purpose, weneed to develop a scientific procedure to clarify our experiences and refine them to beable to communicate with each other through international networking.

A problem-solving approach in instructional technology

301

References
Drucker, P.F. (2002) Managing in the Next Society, in A. Ueda (Trans.), Diamond-Sha, Tokyo.
Flechsig, K-H. (1997) ‘Cultural transmission, teaching and organized learning asculture-embedded activities, instructional design: international perspectives’, Theory,
Research and Models, Vol. 1.
Nishinosono (1981) Jugyou no Katei (Process of Instruction), in Japanese, Daiichi Houki,
Tokyo, Japan.
Nishinosono, H. (2001) ‘Right of learning, autonomous learning and u-learning (in Japanese)’,Proceeding of Annual Conference of Educational Technology.
Nishinosono, H. (2002) ‘Instructional development for knowledge creation in large-scale classes’,
Proceedings of SITE2002, 18–23 March, Nashville, TN, USA, pp.2558–2562.
Nishinosono, H. (2004) ‘Universal and ubiquitous learning in an ICT society for enhancing
the right to learn’ SEAMEO-UNESCO Education Congress and Expo, 27–29 May,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Nishinosono, H. (2005) ‘Sharing experiences and creating knowledge on the web for u-learning’,
Web Based Community, 23–25 February, Algarve, Portugal.
Nishinosono, H., Hino, E. and Fujita, T. (1978) ‘Two symbol systems for designing the
instructional process’, Educational Technology Research, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (2003) Chishiki Souzou No Houhouron (Methodology of Knowledge
Creation), in Japanese, ToyouKeizai Shinpousha, Tokyo, Japan.
Ogata, H. and Yano, Y. (2004a) ‘Knowledge awareness map for computer-supported ubiquitous
language-learning’, IEEE Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE), Taiwan,
23–25 March, pp.19–26.
Ogata, H. and Yano, Y. (2004b) ‘Context-aware support for computer-supported ubiquitous
learning’, IEEE WMTE, Taiwan, 23–25 March, pp.27–34.
Saegusa, H. (1964) NingenWo Tsukuru GijutsuToshiteno Kyoiku (Education as Technology for
Producing Human Competencies) in Gizyutsu Shisouno Tankyuu, (Quest for Thought on
Technology), Kobushi Bunko, Tokyo, Japan.

Bibliography
Boak, G. and Thompson, D. (1998) Mental Models for Management, Random House UK Ltd.
Europe Commission Reports (2000) Education and Training in Europe: Diverse Systems, Shared
Goals for 2010, http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983) Mental Models, in T. Shinpousha (Trans.), Tokyo: Cambridge
University Press.
Nishinosono, H. (2005) ‘Metaphor, image, model and proposition for designing autonomous
learning’, EDEN 2005 (European Distance Education and e-Learning Network), 23–25 June,
Helsinki, Finland.
Nonaka (1990) Chishiki Souzou no Keiei (Management of Knowledge Creation), in Japanese,
Nihonkeizai Shinbunsha, Tokyo, Japan.
Polanyi, M. (1983) Tacit Dimension, Gloucester, MA, USA: Peter Smith Pub Inc.