Establishing and Applying Contemporaneous E-Learning Standards: Evolving Stylebooks and Planning Work

  • Shalin Hai-Jew


The standards for e-learning are in constant flux, and they come from a range of government entities, educational institutions, professional groups, education researchers, technology companies, learners, and others. These e-learning standards enable more effective learning by ensuring that shared contents are built to quality standards (of factuality, of legality, of design, of functionality, of accessibility, and other features). This chapter explores some individual and team-based ways to control for adherence to e-learning standards during the design and development phases. It describes how to set up an evolving consensus-built project (work) stylebook (statement of work) to co-define the e-learning standards and how to apply these standards in the work. This includes a section on planning the work, and finally, it describes some ways to assess for e-learning quality once the learning resources are drafted.


E-learning quality standards Project stylebook (statement of work, proposal of work) Template Work plans 


Key Terms and Definitions


A listing of costs to actualize a learning design balanced against available funds (if any)


Records, official information


Data about data

Optimism bias

A tendency to view a context in overly positive ways (based on the reality of the context)

Planning fallacy

A form of optimism bias in which people tend to underestimate how much time it may take to complete a set task

Project (work) stylebook

A project document that describes the requirements for learning resources, including the look-and-feel and functions

Science of instruction

A set of research based findings about methods to enhance instruction

Statement of work

A project document that describes the work


A visual-based planning document that focuses on the sequence of a learning resource


The creation and usage of templates (patterned files) to ensure the quality and uniformity and consistency of learning resources

Work plan

A formal document that describes the work that will be achieved during a project and the standards that will be built to


  1. Brown J, Larson J, and Meachen E. Tips, techniques and tools for creating sharable learning content objects. In the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. Standards by Advanced Distributed Learning. 2002.
  2. Brunnermeier MK, Papakonstantinou F, and Parker JA. An economic model of the planning fallacy. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 14228. Retrieved from 2008.
  3. Buehler R, Griffin D, and Ross M. Exploring the ‘planning fallacy’: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 366 – 381, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buehler R, Griffin D, Lam KCH, and Deslauriers J. Perspectives on prediction: Does third-person imagery improve task completion estimates? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117: 138 – 149, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehler R, Griffin D, and MacDonald H. The role of motivated reasoning in optimistic time predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB) 23: 238 – 247, 1997. SAGE Journals.Google Scholar
  6. Buehler R, Peetz J, and Griffin D. Finishing on time: When do predictions influence completion times? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 111: 23 – 32, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements KI, and Pawlowski JM. User-oriented quality for OER: Understanding teachers’ views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: 28, 4 – 14, 2011. Scholar
  8. Convertino G, Mentis HM, Ting AYW, Rosson MB, and Carroll JM. How does common ground increase? In GROUP07. Nov. 4 – 7, 2007. Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. 225 – 228, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Flyvbjerg B. Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies 16: 3 – 21, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flyvbjerg B. and Sunstein C.R. The principle of the Malevolent Hiding Hand, or, the Planning Fallacy writ large. arXiV. Retrieved from 2015.
  11. Gawande, A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. New York: Henry Holt & Company. 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Hadjichristidis C, Summers B, and Thomas K. Unpacking estimates of task duration: The role of typicality and temporality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51: 45 – 50, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janicik GA. and Bartel CA. Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7: 122 – 134, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, and Lovallo D. Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science 39: 17 – 31, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Lovallo D, and Sibony O. Before you make that big decision… Harvard Business Review: 51 – 60. 2011.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman D, and Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Theoretical Notes. Psychological Review 103: 582 – 591, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D, and Tversky A. Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Technical Report PTR – 1042 – 77 – 6. 1 – 44, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. Kanten AB. The effect of construal level on predictions of task duration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47: 1037 – 1047, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koehler DJ and Poon CSK. Self-predictions overweight strength of current intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 517 – 524, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koole, and Spijker M. Overcoming the planning fallacy through willpower: Effects of implementation intentions on actual and predicted task-completion times. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30: 873 – 888, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kruger J, and Evans M. If you don’t want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40: 586 – 598, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lovallo D, Clarke C, and Camerer C. Robust analogizing and the outside view: Two empirical tests of case-based decision making. Strat. Mgmt. J. 33: 496 – 512, 2012. Scholar
  24. Peetz J, and Buehler R. When distance pays off: The role of construal level in spending predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48: 395 – 398, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peetz J, Buehler R, and Wilson A. Planning for the near and distant future: How does temporal distance affect task completion predictions? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 709 – 720, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pezzo SP, Pezzo MV, and Stone ER. The social implications of planning: How public prediction bias future plans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 221 – 227, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pychyl TA, Morin RW, and Salmon BR. Procrastination and the planning fallacy: An examination of the study habits of university students. Procrastination: Current Issues and New Directions. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality: 135 – 150, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Rocklage MD, and Fazio RH. Individual differences in valence weighting: When, how, and why they matter. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50: 144 – 157, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodon C, and Meyer T. Searching information on the Web and planning fallacy: A pilot investigation of pessimistic forecasts. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 62: 103–109, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roy MM, and Christenfeld NJS. 2008. Effect of task length on remembered and predicted duration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15: 202 – 207, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roy MM, Christenfeld NJS, and McKenzie CRM. The broad applicability of memory bias and its coexistence with planning fallacy: Reply to Griffin and Buehler (2005). Psychological Bulletin 131: 761 – 762, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roytek MA. Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology 41: 170 – 180, 2010. Scholar
  33. Siddiqui RA, May F, and Monga A. Reversals of task duration estimates: Thinking how rather than why shrinks duration estimates for simple tasks, but elongates estimates for complex tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50: 184 – 189, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spiller SA, and Lynch JG. Individuals exhibit the planning fallacy for time but not for money. SSRN: or 2010.
  35. Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Random House. 2005.Google Scholar
  36. Tetlock PE. Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Weick M, and Guinote A. How long will it take? Power biases time predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 595 – 604, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Reading Section

  1. Ariely D. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto. New York: Henry Holt and Company LLC. 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Joseph PB, Bravmann SL, Windschitl MA, Mikel ER, and Green NS. Cultures of Curriculum. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011.Google Scholar
  5. Rothwell WJ, and Cookson PS. Beyond Instruction: Comprehensive Program Planning for Business and Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Shafir E. Preference, Belief, and Similarity: Selected Writings Amos Tversky. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Random House. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalin Hai-Jew
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Technology Services (ITS)Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations