This is the abstract for a paper I am currently seeking publication for.

Baldwin, Ching and Friesen (2018) recently presented a grounded theory model of online course design and development.  Their analysis shows that instructors roughly follow the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evualation) instructional design model even though instructors do not follow it in a rigid or formulaic fashion.  Their model is grounded in the experience of practitioners, and this author’s experience agrees with their findings and the implications of the study.  In accordance with their methodological approach, this online instructor has taken a personal approach, as a fellow practitioner, to propose a revised and expanded model based on his online instructional design experience that may be more suited to the everyday context of online course designers.  Baldwin, Ching and Friesen’s model is a strong starting point to fill in the paucity of research on how instructors design online courses in practice, but it may be incomplete because it does not take full account of the disciplinary context or an instructor’s beliefs about teaching.  Other missing elements might include how to structure students for maximum engagement, building an integrated digital learning environment beyond the LMS, and the utilization of course analytics and instructor judgment to validate course design. This expanded model requires addition research for validation and verification.

The structure of the paper outlines the suggested additions, defines that element, and then explains how it impacted my practice.

 Openo’s expanded view of Baldwin, Ching and Friesen's (2018) grounded theory of online course design and development.

Openo’s expanded view of Baldwin, Ching and Friesen's (2018) grounded theory of online course design and development.

Baldwin, S.J., Ching, Y.-H., & Friesen, N. (2018). Online course design and development among college and university instructors: An analysis using grounded theory. Online Learning, 22(2), 157-171. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1212