Getting Started
The authors (Frick and Boling) start by listing some common pitfalls of
instructional design methods that include:
- The instructional website was designed and developed without input from the users
- Little or no testing of the design or the site to be sure it works
- No record of decision-making and standards used for the site
- Difficulty in justifying the site’s design or capricious redesign
- Finding problems after the site has gone public
- Undergoing expensive repairs to a design after it is built
- Allowing undetected problems to pass through to users
The authors define an inquiry-based instructional design process
as one in which the instructional designer (ID) makes empirical observations to
answer questions and make decisions with regard to the design and construction
of the website. (The American Heritage
Dictionary defines empirical evidence or empirical data as (1) a source of
knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation; (2) Guided by
practical experience and not theory.)
The authors follow with a discussion on the ADDIE process of instructional
design and the roles that can be played by the ID using this model.
Chapter 1 Conducting the Analysis
The very first thing to do is identify who the stakeholders
are and to work with the stakeholders to ensure the instructional goals are
clearly defined. At this time start
considering authentic assessment methods to be used and the indicators that
students will be required to exhibit to demonstrate competency or mastery. The authors include a discussion on how
observed behaviors are the indicators of goal achievement and not the actual learning. Learning itself cannot be observed – only the
products and actions resulting from learning can be seen and measured.
Learner Assessment – Start by identifying who the learners
will be and determining their relevant characteristics. It is important to determine what they already
know about the learning. At the same
time it is also important for the ID to gain as much knowledge as they can on
the subject matter. It is very difficult
(and inefficient) to accomplish valid and effective ID and development if you
don’t know and understand the subject matter.
Context Analysis – This is where you verify that e-learning
and/or the web is the right method and media for delivering the training. In a nut shell, using e-learning should enhance
the learning in some way that other methods would not and you need to be able
to explain these benefirts. Other
resources may still be needed – e.g., an instructor’s guide and trainee
guide. (I often create CBT/WBT products that
are dual-purpose in that they can be hosted stand-alone or provided as computer
aided instruction (CAI) in a classroom.
As CAI, both an instructor guide (IG) and a trainee guide (TG) are
required to support the training.) Lastly,
the media should never be the “focus” of the analysis, the focus is the content
and context of what is to be taught and the best way to provide the student a
valid learning experience.
Chapter 2 Preparing for testing a prototype
In accordance with Frick and Boling. The prototype should always
be able to answer the following questions:
- Is the instruction effective?
- Are students satisfied with the instruction?
- Is the product usable by students?
The authors advocate using a Design – Develop – Test iterative
cycle. They also remind us to remember
to keep in mind the need to ensure the student target population (TPOP) has not
already mastered the content to be provided and to focus on delivering new
content for the TPOP to learn. Start by developing
a paper prototype to test on the TPOP.
Make sure the TPOP is valid as experienced testers may be willing to
overlook small flaws in the design. The
first prototype should be paper-based with a more mature computer-based prototype
done later if needed/required. Use paper
prototypes because:
- they are “hands-on”
- paper products are familiar for the testers to work with
- they have the look and feel of a draft document
Testers are much more likely to comment on draft working documents
than polished documents that took a lot of time and effort into to develop.
The paper prototype should identify the breadth and depth of the product. The prototype does not have to contain the entire project but should contain as much as possible. It should convey the breadth at the top most level and at least one complete strand for the deepest part. Deep is determined by the number of mouse clicks that will be required to get to the bottom, each click in the strand should be represented by at least one page. Do include all critical elements – even if only represented by a place holder. It is not necessary (and probably not wanted) to use finished graphics, etc. Create the prototype on paper and organize in a loose leaf notebook. Each page should contain a coded link representing hyperlinks.
DISCUSSION:
This will be a first as I have never
done a paper-based prototype before.
Normally, my requirement is to develop and present a working prototype
at the twenty-five percent in-process review for the stakeholders to review and
approve prior to full scale production. I
am sure the whole team does a mental prototype; we even do brainstorming during
Group meetings that require mental prototyping.
Below, I am providing some more observations on various parts of the
process.
Stakeholder buy-in. As a personal note from somebody who has been
doing this for many years, getting and keeping stakeholder buy-in from the earliest
stages in a project is an essential element for successful project completion. Stakeholder buy-in and participation is an
indicator of good communication and communication is an essential element of a
successful project.
Goals vs. Objectives: The meaning for these two terms will depend upon
the system or model being used. I provide
a Goal Statement that is a broad statement of what the student (competent
performer) will be able to do as a result of the training or learning
event. The goal statement is supported
by Terminal Learning Objectives (TLOs) which define skills-based tasks and Enabling
Learning Objectives (ELOs) which identify the knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes,
tools, resources, and standards (KSATRS) that must be acquired and assessed/tested. All ELOs must map to one or more TLOs, and the
TLOs must map to the Goal Statement. The
Goal Statement must in turn map to an organizational requirement – usually a
goal statement.
The Medium is not the focus: The authors make the statement, “The medium
should not have been the primary focus in the first place.” The U.S. Navy Inspector General (NAVINSGEN)
Report on Computer Based Training (2009) provides a very insightful discussion
and recommendations on the use of CBT following a year long study when Navy CBT
failed to achieve the goals and objectives of the learning. An area the Navy had major problems with for
the past ten years, and still struggles with.
A word of caution on using a iterative
processes. Many customers hear or see
the word iterative and see a reason for you to keep coming back to the well for
more funding. I believe each step in the
ADDIE model is iterative in nature, but am careful to not use the word too
often. I have tried to sale stakeholders
and customers on the value added by using an iterative process, but many customers
still say they cannot afford it and resist the use of an iterative
process.
BIBLIGRAPHY:
The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. 2000.
(downloaded from: http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=empirical&submit.x=41&submit.y=17)
Naval Inspector General Report to the Secretary of the Navy on Computer Based training (March 2009). Downladed from http://www.corpsman.com/attachments/ig/cbt_ig_report.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment