International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2009, Vol.3, Num. 1, pp. 92-103

A Layers-of-Quality Model in Online Course Design:
The Five-E Model
Katsuaki Suzuki
Kumamoto University, JAPAN
Noriko Tada
Collaboration Research Institute, Inc., JAPANThis paper describes a layers-of-quality model for designing e-Learning
environments based on frameworks and models of instructional design (ID) appliedin a hierarchical fashion. There have been a number of theories and models in thefield of ID and technology that can be applied to make e-Learning a better quality.
However, little is known about how to select appropriate models for improving
various aspects of e-Learning. This paper proposes a cohesive model, the Five-E
Model, for selecting the right model and techniques for appropriate purpose ine-Learning design, thus providing a scheme for better utilizing the existingknowledge base in designing and evaluating e-Learning practices. A further agenda
for constructing a more robust model is also discussed.
Keywords: layer-of-quality model, instructional design, The Five-E Model, e-Learning

Introduction
It has been a universal concern about how to evaluate, assure, and improve the quality ofe-Learning. From an instructional design (ID) point of view, many models and techniques havebeen proposed to make design quality of e-Learning better in various aspects. These consist of
how to make the material easy to navigate, how to make the material easy to comprehend, how
to make the material more attractive, and so forth. Merrill (2002) advocates the quality ofe-Learning to be expressed by the 3rd power of e-Learning: effective, efficient, and engaging.
To that end, Merrill has proposed the first principles of ID, taking into consideration of the fivedesign elements: (1) real-world task centered, (2) activation of learners’ knowledge andexperiences, (3) demonstration of the contents using examples, (4) application of the target
skills, and (5) integration of the learned skills into the real world problem-solving situations. To
expand scheme of instructional outcomes, Wilson, Parrish, and Veletsianos (2008) recently
proposed to add two more considerations to Merrill’s effective, efficient, and engaging
instruction. One is good instruction, which leads learners to valued ends while minimizing any
negative impacts. The other is transforming instruction, which encourages deeply engaging
experiences that can potentially transform identities and practices of the learners. Aesthetic

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

92concern and story telling have been new growing issues in the literature of ID (Parrish, 2005,
2006, 2007; Wilson, 2005). In order to expand mechanical and analytical nature of ID, they try
to bring about more memorable and easy-to-follow storylines in the learning experiences, justlike other forms of artistic experiences. Instructional use of games and simulations has been
another important trend in ID, which has recently been called “Serious Games” (Aldrich, 2005;
Prensky, 2006).
No universally accepted guideline for assuring quality of e-Learning has been agreed upon,
although many have been suggested worldwide. The first of the kind is known as Quality on theLine, proposed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy, in which, a total of 24 benchmarks
in Institutional Support, Course Development, Teaching/Learning, Course Structure, Student
Support, Faculty Support, and Evaluation and Assessment were identified. According to Wang
(2006), the most widely followed guidelines are provided by The Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA, 2002), Council for Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC, 2000),
and The American Federation of Teachers (2000). Another widely known Sloan-C’s framework(Moore, 2002; 2005) consists of five interrelated aspects: Learning Effectiveness, Cost
Effectiveness and Institutional Commitment, Access, Faculty Satisfaction, and Student
Satisfaction, which are known as the Five Pillars. In the European e-Learning community,
European Quality Observatory (EQO) provided a general conceptual framework in order tocompare and adjust e-Learning products, which consists of two components: the repository(information/knowledge base) and community (Pawlowski, 2003).
Quality issues have been rather separately discussed, partly because of the multi-facet nature of
e-Learning (Kidney, Cummings, & Boehm, 2007; Ellis, Jarkey, Mahony, Peat, & Sheely, 2007).
From the standpoint of a learning environment, such aspects as adequacy and amount of
information and fluency of communications may be issues. From a technical point of view,
comfort in use, efficiency of information maintenance, language and platform, and/or
functionality of the information repository may be sought. In addition, a material design
perspective would concern the effectiveness of multimedia utilization, intellectual property
handling, or cost effectiveness of production. It is also totally different to see from theperspectives of the learner, instructor, instructional designer, web creator, information
technologist, or manager, about what they expect of a high quality e-Learning (Broadbent,
2002).
In order to improve the design quality of e-Learning, a cohesive framework should be generated
from models available in the literature of ID that can be used to serve for various aspects ofe-Learning design. Many models and techniques have been proposed in the field of ID, but they
are not widely known to policy makers and practitioners in the field of e-Learning. The moreadvanced the study of ID, the more it would become difficult for those who are not familiar withthe advancement in the field to make the best use of the existing research outcomes. It istherefore the intention of this paper to propose a layers-of-quality model in online course design
as a learner-centered hierarchical framework, or a meta model, to show five layers of e-Learning
quality. The model is intended to serve as a framework for categorizing the existing ID models
and techniques, as well as for building new models and techniques.

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

93

A Layers-of-Quality Model: The Five-E Model
A layers-of-quality model was first proposed by Suzuki (2006; Suzuki & Keller, 2007). This
layered model was proposed as a frame of reference for clarifying the purposes of various ID
models and techniques, and to illustrate how they can be meaningfully organized in terms of
purpose and impact. This organizational structure has several intended benefits: It clarifies therelationships 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.
In this model there are five layers. Layer 3, Easy e-Learning, considered to be the baseline level,is actually at the midpoint of the five layers. There are two layers below it, which are Ecologicaland Exact e-Learning, and two above, Effective and Engaging e-Learning. The model is named
the Five-E Model, since each level starts with a letter E: Ecological, Exact, Easy, Effective, andEfficient. The organization is guided by the concepts of Herzburg’s (1968) motivator–hygiene
theory of motivation. He postulated that certain activities, called hygiene factors, help avoid
discontent or annoyance and keep people happy, while other kinds of factors, called motivators,
contribute to meaningful work experiences and stimulate people to achieve the goal. This
theoretical foundation is reflected in the following layer descriptions, layers forming a kind of
hierarchical structure among them. The layers do not necessary show the procedural order ofdesign activities; however, they are hierarchical in that the low quality of a lower layer would
have a negative influence on upper layers.
Good usability features help avoid learner annoyance (a hygiene factor), but may have limited
effects on learning. It is thus located in the model as the center layer, separated from the above
layers of learning and motivation (Layers 4 and 5). Usability is important to secure learnermotivation by reducing distractive factors from learning environment. However, the aims of ID
are not only concerned with usability, but also with other issues, although all are interconnected.
By putting the usability issue as Layer 3, the model tries to separate other design techniques
according to whether they fall into the hygiene levels (Layers 1 and 2), which are positioned
below Layer 3, or the motivator levels that are above it (Layers 4 and 5: See Figure 1).

Layer 1: Ecological e-Learning
The bottom layer of the Five-E Model is learning environmental design, called Ecologicale-Learning. Layer 1: Ecological e-Learning concerns the issue of avoiding irritation by having
proper learning environment, via adequate bandwidth, audio quality, and stability of the service.
Such issues should be met to avoid learner’s “pain,” in regard to the “hygiene” elements ofdesign (Herzburg, 1968). The presence of such technological problems would distract any
audience from learning, but would not, in and of themselves, produce learning. This is thereason why this layer is placed at the bottom. Activities in the field of ID at this level include
learning environment analysis, media selection techniques, and technology support (Keller &Suzuki, 1988).

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

94

Quality ofe-Learning
Layer 5: Engaging
Willing to Learn(Motivation
Design)Layer 4: Effective
Easy to Learn(Learning Design)
Layer 3: Easy
Friendly(Information
Design)Layer 2: Exact
No Deception(Content Design)
Layer 1: Ecological
No Pain(Environment
Design)Achievement Index Examples

Major ID Techniques

Continuing motivation, Immersiveness,“Did I do this many without noticing?”
Link to future self, Self-directed,
self-responsible, individual taste, Volition,
Brand, Pride, Ownership
Learning environment matching nature of thetask, learning support matching learner needs,interaction effects of collaborative members,
self-regulated learning, responsive environment
Operatability, Usability, Navigation and Layout,
faster and more accurate access to needed
information, No disorientation problem

ARCS Model, Andragogy,
Aesthetic Design,
Serious Games

Content accuracy, Validity of Learning Scope,
Validity of interpretation, Indication ofequivocality, Freshness of Information, Rationaland reliable, Intellectual Property HandlingAccess environment, Adequate network speed,
Substitute alternatives for different IT
environment, Stability of service, Feeling of
security

Nine
EventsofInstruction,
Structuring & Sequencing,First Principles of ID
Technical writing,
Rapid prototyping,Formative evaluation
Needs Analysis,
Task Analysis,Content Analysis
Learning Environment
Analysis,
Media Selection Models

Figure 1. The Five-E Model of Online Course Design

Learning environment analysis represents techniques to assess the existing environment forlearning in terms of media attributes of contents and available supports for learning. Media
selection models have long been investigated in the field of ID, to attain not only attractivenessof environment, but also effectiveness and efficiency. Although “simple media, active students”
is the conclusion derived from media studies (Schramm, 1977), many have argued various
effects of media on learning. It has been widely accepted that different media can provide
different learning environments serving for more/less effectiveness in producing learning. It has
also been widely known that different media cost more/less in preparing and implementing
learning environment. Thus, making the proper combination in selecting and utilizing media is
critical in composing learning environment from the standpoint of avoiding “pain” in learning
environment.

Layer 2: Exact e-Learning
One layer above Ecological e-Learning (Layer 1) is Layer 2: Exact e-Learning. It includes
analysis of content and concerns of the potential deception in e-Learning programs. If thecontent is not accurate, valid, nor reliable, then attaining high usability and effectiveness of suchcontent has not much meaning. It may be bad to attain engaging e-Learning, when the content isbiased or with potentially harmful intentions. Being thus placed one layer above Layer 1, theissue of content design (Layer 2) has the prerequisite importance over information design(Layer 3).

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

95

ID techniques used during the analysis phase, such as needs analysis, content and task analysis,
deal with this issue. Needs analysis is an ID technique to specify the reason why any e-Learning
must be provided for a certain potential group of users. Needs may come from job-related
knowledge and/or skill deficiencies, changes in environment, such as a release of a new versionof software, or prospective future trends in a proactive mode of training. Often times theanalysis of needs will call upon specification of changes in job-related behaviors as a result of
training. In order to connect training results to performance change in application settings,
Kirkpatrick’s (1998) 4 level evaluation scheme (Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Result) is themost well-known in the ID literature.
Content and task analysis refers to the process of specifying how many components are there
between the learner’s current status and goal status, and how each of the components is related
to each other. Starting from Gagne’s (1968) classical hierarchical analysis, many techniques
have been proposed about how to conduct content and task analysis (e.g., Reigeluth & Stein,1983). Having conducted content and task analysis, the designer of e-Learning can be sure about
what should be covered in the course, and which of the components can be covered prior to, or
only after, the others. Each component should have a clear statement of learning objective,
which is accompanied with a set of test items. Defining clear objectives and writing
corresponding test items has been one of the traditional and well-established techniques of ID.
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), who provide expertise in the area of the target content, would
play a major role in determining the components. SMEs can provide for content accuracy,
validity of learning scope, validity of interpretation, indication of equivocality, freshness of
information, rational and reliable contents. SMEs should work together with the instructional
designer in charge of e-Learning design and development. Intellectual property handling of thematerials may play an important role regarding which graphics, pictures, and other copyrighted
materials can be included. It is one of the major roles of instructional designers to aggressively
interview the SME to extract necessary information so that the e-Learning attain accuracy. By
including all the necessary content and eliminating “just nice to know” elements, one can attainefficient e-Learning to save cost of developing and implementing, as well as time of learners.

Layer 3: Easy e-Learning
The next layer up concerns how easy it is to use the e-Learning (Layer 3: Easy e-Learning).
Newcomers to the field of instructional design (ID), especially those with information
technology or media production background, often think of ID as an equivalent of navigationand display design. The goal is to accomplish high usability and user-friendliness. Although it isimportant to have an easy-to-use system or materials for e-Learning, it may not facilitate thelearner to attain learning objectives merely by having a series of good-looking screens. It should
be considered as a set of separate, more basic techniques to make e-Learning friendly, or easy touse, which is different from making it effective in facilitating learning. It is important toaccomplish easy e-Learning by utilizing such techniques as navigation design, usability design,technical writing skills and display layout principles. However, those techniques may not
guarantee that the users of e-Learning will learn the material and accomplish the learning goals.
Formative evaluation and rapid prototyping are examples of ID techniques to attain high

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

96usability. During the development phase of e-Learning, or any other forms of learning materials,
data will be gathered from potential learners and other stakeholders to verify if basic structure
and the way to represent learning materials would fit the users preferences. Various models havebeen formalized as formative evaluation and rapid prototyping techniques.

Layer 4: Effective e-LearningThis layer just above Layer 3 (Easy e-Learning) concerns the design of e-Learning to support
learning (Layer 4: Effective e-Learning). Most of the works in the ID field have been concernedwith how to make learning effective. In other words, the goal is to ensure that the instructional
interventions match both learner characteristics and task requirements in a given environment.
Matching instructional strategies with characteristics of the learner, the task, and theenvironment is critical because no single method of learning is the best for all kinds of learning.
As it is said that “there is no panacea,” different kinds of learning tasks require different sets oflearning environment to be effective. Different kinds of learner characteristics would call fordifferent sets of instructional strategies to be most effective. Thus, matching features in thelearning environment with natures of both learners and learning tasks is considered to beimportant.
Various ID models such as the ones in Reigeluth’s (1983, 1999) “Green Books” are theexamples in this layer. Since effective e-Learning will facilitate the learners attaining objectives,
by definition, ID models typically relate such factors as learner’s characteristics, nature of thelearning task, and learning environment to instructional strategies. In other words, ID models
propose ways to attain the best fit among elements in the learning environment. Gagne’s (2004)
learning outcomes and conditions for effective learning is one of the classical models in thisdirection, by defining a minimum set of learning tasks calling different kinds of essentialconditions for learning.
Further advancement has been made to reflect the paradigm shift in the fields of constructivist
psychology and learning sciences, which was well represented in Reigeluth’s (1999) second
volume of the “Green Book II.” Many ID models and theories have been proposed, and much
more will be proposed in the future, stemming from design efforts in various setting for various
circumstances, as well as from advancement in the related research including brain sciences.
Efforts in integrating those models, such as Merrill’s (2002) First Principles of Instruction and
Reigeluth’s “Green Book III” toward common knowledge base (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman,2009), would be necessary to find out what are in common across different ID models.

Layer 5: Engaging e-Learning
The top layer (Layer 5: Engaging e-Learning) is about the appeal of e-Learning. It is aboutkeeping learners motivated and engaged in learning, wanting to be involved in the learning
activities more, even when they are not required, or being happy about belonging to theorganization that provides the learning environment. Appeal of instruction has been considered
to be one of the three main goals of ID: effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal (Reigeluth &Merrill, 1978), or effectiveness, efficiency, and engagement (Merrill, 2002). Techniques andmodels for this layer include motivational design principles (Keller, 2008), the principles of

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

97

adult learning (Knowles, 1984), strategies for adult motivation (Wlodkowski, 2008), andaesthetical design principles (Parrish, 2007).
The ARCS model of motivational design has been one of the major ID models that geared
directly toward the attainment of appeal of instruction, or engagement of the learners. It has
been widely used in various sectors of e-Learning practices world-wide (e.g., Keller & Suzuki,1988). The ARCS stands for four major factors associated with learner motivation: Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Numerous motivational strategies have beensuggested and validated in various learning settings, each of which is classified into one of thefour categories. The model also has a set of procedures to deploy the motivational design, fromlearner analysis, selection of motivational objectives, to test and revise the e-Learning
environment. Keller (2008) recently proposed the five first principles of motivational design, byadding volitional (self-regulatory) strategy principle to the first four ARCS principles.
Knowles (1984) has often been cited for his work of proposing Andragogy for adult learning, as
opposed to pedagogy for children’s learning, in the literature of ID in the context of creating
learner-centered learning environment for adults. Wlodkowski (2008) has described a set of 60
motivational strategies for adult learning, covering four areas: (1) Inclusion (awareness, feelingof connection, and climate of respect) and (2) Attitude (toward subject matter, self-efficacy,learning goals, and learning experiences) at the beginning of learning activities, (3) Meaning(interest, engagement, challenge and adaptive decision making) during learning activities, and(4) Competence (assessment, transfer, and rewards) at the ending of learning activities. Parrish(2007) proposed five aesthetic principles of ID, by following the four elements of critical
literature (plot, characters, theme, and context) and by adding the fifth element of instructor or
instructional designer, playing roles of authors, supporting characters, and model protagonists.
The aesthetic concern is expected to serve for the Layer 3, by avoiding to produce “un-engaging,and therefore ineffective products,” and by encouraging instructional designers not to “beholden
to the dry, yeastless quality of their work and rarely discuss their role in inspiring and moving
learners (Parrish, 2005, p.17).”

Analysis of an Online Graduate Program
To illustrate how the layers-of-quality model can be used, an online Master’s program at
Kumamoto University, Japan was analyzed retrospectively. The Instructional Systems Program
started in April 2006 as a fully online Master’s program for training e-Learning specialists inbusiness and industry and higher education (Suzuki, 2007). It offers 30 courses, two credits each,fully online mainly for those who are working full time to seek advanced and organizededucation at a graduate level, majority of whom do not live near campus. In order to beapproved by the Japanese government as an equivalent of an on-campus program, 15 interactive
sessions are required in each course aligning to the approved course outline.
To make the program free from technical distractions (Layer 1: Ecological e-Learning), a highperformance PC and broadband network connection was required for all prospective students,
whether at home or at work, in order to assure enough speed to view our multimedia content.
Year around availability was guaranteed except for one day campus-wide power down and

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

98monthly night time updates of the Learning Management System (LMS). It is considered to be arather stable service, when compared with distance students in a campus-based university
suffering from daily maintenance shutdowns between 4 - 6 am every day, for example.
Professors from various fields joined the program to offer not only ID courses, but also
information technology, management, and intellectual property (IP). Where within university
expertise was unavailable, part-time lecturers were located with cooperation from National
Institute for Multimedia Education and e-Learning Consortium Japan (eLC), to provide the firstclass content in all the courses provided (Layer 2: Exact e-Learning). Intellectual property
policies were set by consulting with the professor who teaches the IP course in the program. All
course content and assignments were aligned with the program’s overall educational goals,
which was announced in the form of competencies at graduation, so as to avoid unnecessary or“just nice to know” elements in the course content.
A set of course design policies was established and shared among professors and staffs to offer acohesive look and feel in the course materials (Layer 3: Easy e-Learning). For example, allcourses, which consist of 15 lessons, were divided into 3 to 5 units of learning modules, each ofwhich has corresponding assignments under a theme within the course. Students can structure
the coursework by aiming to finish an assignment by taking several lessons with an interactive
element (called a task) in each, before submitting the assignment. Navigation in each course isstandardized by utilizing functions of the commercial LMS. Then, the bridge is provided among
all the courses a student is simultaneously taking in a particular semester by originally creating
program’s learning portal site (Nakano et al., 2007). An easy navigation is provided in the
program portal by listing all the courses’ tasks and assignment, indicating deadlines andsubmission status (passed, or resubmission required) with direct links to the respective course
content. Online orientation was designed and implemented to familiarize the students with theabove mentioned functions in the learning environment, as well as acts of speaking up online tothe colleagues who take the same courses.
To make the best use of ID principles, which the program emphasizes as specialization of
e-Learning professionals, careful design including the course design policies and list ofcompetencies was conducted in the design phase of the program (Layer 4: Effective e-Learning).
Tasks and assignments were set to be as authentic as possible, the information as concrete andvarious as possible, and opportunities for feedback and multiple challenges as much as possible.
Also, learning objectives and evaluation criteria are set and announced as clear as possible, andpeer interactions are introduced so the students have opportunities to learn from each other’s
experiences in and viewpoints from different application fields. Prerequisite relationships
among courses are specified and announced in advance, so that cumulative learning effects canbe obtained.
To make the program attractive (Layer 5: Engaging e-Learning) to the prospective target student
population as well as to the current students, the program has been aligned to the requirementsof eLC’s e-Learning Professional Certificates. All the graduates are entitled to be certified as
Learning Designer by eLC upon the completion of the master’s program. For those who takenecessary elective courses, other certificates such as Manager, Contents Creator, SCORM
Engineer, Expert, and Consultant will also become eligible. Since the program is operated

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

99totally online, the students do not see each other in the coursework. However, we set up
occasional social events for students and faculty to see each other, at research meetings,
conferences, etc. The last item of the Core Competency List states “To contribute toimprovements and advancements of the GSIS program as an alumnus.” Toward that end,
various efforts have been made to emphasize the bond among faculty and students. Upon thefirst graduation in March 2008, an alumni association was organized by a voluntary group of
graduates. It is expected that the association continuously serves for our program to make it
more attractive to the current and prospective students, as well as to the alumni themselves.
By going through the design elements of the online graduate program using the Five-E Model, it
was confirmed that the program had been well designed, at least for the lower layers of themodel. The learning environment was planned to avoid irritation of the learners, and the content
was prepared to secure the first-class quality representing the latest status of subject matter
expertise. User friendliness, or information design, was restricted by the commercial LMS
adopted by university-wide decision, but it was sufficient enough to implement what we thought
to be necessary functions to realize the design policies, serving to secure quality at Layer 4. The
original learning portal was an important addition to the commercial LMS, in order to provide
easier access to the contents of multiple courses that each student was taking concurrently in agiven semester, which was not available in the commercial LMS.
For the top layer of the model, motivational design for engaging e-Learning, the link to theoutside real-world has been established by connecting course contents to professional
certificates. However, aesthetic concern was not enough in the initial design of the program. It is
now evident, by reflecting what has been done in the initial design and revisions of the program,
why we decided to revise our program by introducing story-centered curriculum (Suzuki,
Nemoto, Oyamada, & Shibata, 2008). It was aimed to bridge the individually offered courses byadding a hypothetical story of an e-Learning professional so that the students would see thefuture value of studying each of the required courses. It was to improve the design quality of theinitial program at Layer 5, by adding overarching story to connect all the required courses.

Concluding Remarks
Based on these concepts and examples, this layers-of-quality model can provide a useful frameof reference among practitioners in e-Learning, so that proper techniques are to be utilized forproper aims. Other models using layers have been widely used in ID. These include the Cone ofExperiences proposed by Dale (1954) to categorize various forms of involvement and retentionof information from different types of educational media, and Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy ofhuman needs which helps identify learning readiness based on motivational states. Tessmer andWedman’s (2000) Layers-of-Necessity Model helps explain a progression from limited, or rapid,
prototyping prior to engaging in a more full featured development process depending on theneeds of the situation. Gibbons’ (2003) model of centrism, moving from media centrism tomessage, strategy, and to model centrism, describes how major concerns of novice instructional
designers tend to shift as they mature. In search of why these shifts in centrism occur, Gibbons
identified seven important layers of ID: the layers of content, strategy, control, message,
representation, media-logic, and data management. But, none of the other “layered models” has

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

100

illustrated the various goals of design activities in relation to learner satisfaction (hygiene
factors), learning, and motivation, in a hierarchical fashion. It is authors’ hope that the proposedmodel will serve a function to become an easy-to-understand mental framework for those whoare new to the field of instructional design to contribute to evaluate, assure, and improve thequality of e-Learning in various settings.
In order to realize such hope, future research agenda should include the following studies:
1) A study or series of studies aiming at determining learning outcomes and satisfaction
measures for real students taking courses designed using the Five-E Model.
2) A study to explore if explaining e-Learning design cases in terms of the Five-E Model
would enhance clarity and persuasiveness of narratives for novices.
3) A study to analyze existing cases of e-Learning to see if applying the Five-E Model
would enhance the validity of evaluation, as well as provoking ideas for improvement.
4) A study to create a new case of e-Learning based on the Five-E Model to see if and how
much the model would help the process of design at various layers described in themodel.
5) A study to create a Web site of the Five-E Model to help publicize the model, based on
the design element suggested by the model itself.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by KAKENHI (19650242), Grant-in-Aid for Exploratory Research,
2007-2009, by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology (MEXT), JAPAN．
The authors would like to thank Brenda C. Litchfield and the editors of this journal for their
many constructive comments in shaping this article’s arguments and making them stronger andclearer.

References
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games,and pedagogy in e-Learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Broadbent, B. (2002). ABCs of e-learning: Reaping the benefits and avoiding the pitfalls. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, ASTD, 31-35
Dale, E. (1954). Audio-visual methods in teaching (Revised Ed.). Dryden Press.
Ellis, R. A., Jarkey, N., Mahony, M. J., Peat, M., & Sheely, S. (2007). Managing quality
improvement of eLearning in a large, campus-based university, Quality Assurance in
Education, 15(1), 9-23.
Gagne, R. M. (1968). Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6, 1-9Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles of instructional
design (5th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? A theory of design structure.
TechTrends, 47(5), 22-25.
Herzburg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 53-62.
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education,

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

10129(2), 175–185
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware design. In
D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kidney, M., Cummings L., & Boehm A. (2007). Toward a quality assurance approach toe-Learning courses. International Journal on E-Learning 6(1), 17-30.
Kirkpatrick, D. P. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd Ed.).
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research &Development, 50 (3), 43-59.
Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C framework. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars Needham,
MA: Sloan-C.
Nakano, H., Kita, T., Sugitani, K., Nemoto, J., Kitamura, S., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R., Migita,
M., Musashi, Y., Iriguchi, N., & Usagawa, T. (September, 2007). The learning portal for
improving the e-Learning environment. A paper presented at ICETA 2007, the 5thInternational Conference on Emerging e-Learning Technologies and Applications, The
High Tatras, Slovakia.
Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology,
45(2), 16-25.
Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72-82.
Parrish, P. E. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design, Educational Technology
Research and Development (ETRD), Published online: 29 August 2007
10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7.
Pawlowski, J.M. (2003). The European Quality Observatory (EQO): Structuring Quality
Approaches for E-Learning, ICALT 2003, Athens, Greece, July 2003.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me Mom—I am learning! Paragon House.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of theircurrent Status. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II). Hillsdale, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (Ed.) (2009). Instructional design theories and models:
Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Merrill, M. D. (1978). A knowledge base for improving our methods of
instruction. Educational Psychologist, 13: 57-70
Reigeluth, C. M. & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth(Ed.), Instructional-design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Suzuki, K. (July, 2006). Proposing a layer model for e-Learning design. A paper presented at
22nd National Conference of Japan Society for Educational Technology, Kansai University,
JAPAN [In Japanese].
Suzuki, K. (July, 2007). Learner-centered design in higher education by ICT with IDT. An
invited keynote address presented at 8th International Conference on Information
Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET 2007), Kumamoto, JAPAN.
Suzuki, K., & Keller, J. M. (May, 2007). Proposing a layer model for e-Learning design. A
paper presented at ICBL 2007, International Conference on Blended Learning,
Florianopolis, BRAZIL.
Suzuki, K., Nemoto, J., Oyamada, M., & Shibata, Y. (November, 2008). Transforming an

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

102

online masters degree program using Story-centered curriculum: A Design-based practice.
A paper presented at 2008 Association for Educational Communications and Technology
Convention, Orlando, Florida.
Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (2000). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(2), 77-85.
The American Federation of Teachers (2000). Distance education, guidelines for good practice.
Retrieved June 30, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/distance.pdf
The Council of Regional Accrediting Commisions (2000). Best practices for electronicallyoffered degrees and certificate programs. Retrieved June 30, 2007, fromhttp://www.ncacihe.org/download/Best_Pract_ DEd.pdf
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in
distance-learning. CHEA Monograph (1, Series 2002). Retrieved June 30, 2007 fromhttp://www.chea.org/pdf/mono_1_ accred_distance_02.pdf?pubID=246
Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for success inInternet-based distance education. Retrieved June 30, 2007 from http://www.ihep.org/
assets/files/publications/m-r/Quality OnTheLine.pdf
Wang, Q. (2006). Quality assurance: Best practices for assessing online programs.
International Journal on E-Learning 5(2), 265-274.
Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars ofpractice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 11-16.
Wilson, B. G., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes:
Toward transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39-44.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide forteaching all adults (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

IJEMT, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp.92-103, ISSN 1882–1693

103