The “instructional design” that I am working with is a modification of the “information mapping” (IM) work of Robert E. Horn. It is based on the idea that various “blocks” of information can be set within generic templates, so that documents, web pages, presentations do not have to be regenerated from scratch every time. So the templates and sample documents generally save time and effort by requiring only the details and specifics to a situation. It is mostly used for formal, standardized types of communications in the business world, to my understanding.
For instruction, the IM techniques and templates I use are based on a “package” that includes a “wrapper” of auxiliary information around the instructional content itself. Since the delivery, information, and support components of the wrapper are stored in a database, they are accessible as “reusable objects” in a variety of different applications through links to the database. The information itself does not have to be re-created and regenerated for every specific use, thus reducing the 40% of time you describe to 10%, for “the goals, the learning outcomes, activities in itself, the planning of it, the fitting, the adjustment, the linkage between learning activities, the assessments points, the anchor moments…”. With wireless access to this information, students could locate this auxiliary information at their convenience, reducing instructor effort.
For the content information itself, Horn organizes topics into several types and provides model templates for each, insuring that all the necessary components are provided for the best learning efficiency. I use the topic types of: fact, concept, structure, procedure, principle, process, and system. Again, the preparation effort becomes a matter of fitting the content into the proper “containers”. So this addresses your second point, that “here is the first strong moment: you can focus on that activity alone knowing that it will fit the overall puzzle you already have.” I suggest that this interaction time with the students could become 80% of the time, up from the 40% you suggest.
Since quiz, test, assessment, direct observation, and other evaluation techniques are built into the “wrapper” as a follow-up component, the feedback is continual and ongoing, in both part-task and full-task completion points. So the time for this part of the learning cycle should be 10%, I feel, rather than the 20% you mention.
The big advantage to beginning with a “package” template that prepares the content in modular form, and puts a “wrapper” of auxiliary data around it, is that it is reusable and scalable throughout the curriculum. It can be used at the course, unit, module, lesson, and topic levels. This addresses your concerns that ” after students pass all the activities you feel that you create something strong: with coherence and focus on the learning target”, and “if want to change anything you have a road map that helps you detect and change what you want without collapsing the structure.”
My current efforts involve converting a large amount of paper information to electronic form. The next step will be to put it all into a database as “elements”, which can then be packaged using the IM templates described above. I would later on like to put it into an open-source CMS, such as Moodle, so that my work is not involved with proprietary issues.
For over three decades of teaching at the high school and technical college levels, I was continually frustrated with have to redo instructional materials to revise, update, and improve them every time the “newest and greatest” instructional technique came around. By integrating and modifying ideas from Merrill, Clark, Horn, and others, I feel I now have an approach to structuring curriculum for physics, math, and electronics technology that doesn’t require wholesale disposal of previous work done.