One thing that I'd just like to finish this all off with is a little discussion of models of Instructional Design. Professor Monson talked about the way that you can ask an instructional designer if they use the Dick and Carey model, and a lot will say, "Of course," but they actually don't do it. The main reason for this is that each model has some fairly specific rules. For example, some say that the process must be systematic and you can only revise after your assessment has uncovered a flaw, where others have an intense web and you revise and create every step whenever. So if you follow the first, any revising before the assessment isn't allowed, and with the latter, not revising all along isn't allowed. In the end, there are very few people who actually follow a model.
The most important thing is that the learner, task, and context are analyzed, then an instruction is designed, developed, and implemented based on that analysis, and that instruction is evaluated and revised. As long as those things happen, I don't feel that it makes a huge difference when you revise, or when you begin steps. The only one that I feel needs to be first is the analysis, because skipping ahead could get you stuck on less-effective methods that the analysis would rule out. Other than that, rigidly following a model could remove all personality and weaken the instruction. So, I feel that instructional designers should put their own slant on the model they use, but within reason.
12.12.2007
12.08.2007
Development and Implementation
We talked about in our presentation how the analysis phase made things go much more smoothly and faster. I'd say that was one of the greatest lessons to take from the design and the development phase. Even though out analysis wasn't perfect, it really set the direction for the rest of the project. So development was generally easy, and we were pretty much able to just put together what we'd planned.
I somewhat wish there was something we could do more for implementation. However, with our project, implementation would take at least 9 hours, so it wasn't exactly something we could do in class. Another thing I noticed about our implementation was that our instructor could be considered a content specialist. That makes a huge difference in our implementation in that we were able to really leave a lot more open to the instructor. If we took a random person off the street, we would have scripted out the entire process and still wouldn't be able to have them assess the quality of the final product. However, with our knowledgeable instructor, we gave general guidelines and left the rest up to them. I felt that it was important to strike a balance, because no directions could give us completely different results with every training, and too much direction could lead to resentment on the part of the instructor or at least a desire to not add anything meaningful to the training. So we stayed somewhere in the middle, giving the instructor guidelines, but allowing some individuality. Hopefully, my redundancy made this point clear.
I somewhat wish there was something we could do more for implementation. However, with our project, implementation would take at least 9 hours, so it wasn't exactly something we could do in class. Another thing I noticed about our implementation was that our instructor could be considered a content specialist. That makes a huge difference in our implementation in that we were able to really leave a lot more open to the instructor. If we took a random person off the street, we would have scripted out the entire process and still wouldn't be able to have them assess the quality of the final product. However, with our knowledgeable instructor, we gave general guidelines and left the rest up to them. I felt that it was important to strike a balance, because no directions could give us completely different results with every training, and too much direction could lead to resentment on the part of the instructor or at least a desire to not add anything meaningful to the training. So we stayed somewhere in the middle, giving the instructor guidelines, but allowing some individuality. Hopefully, my redundancy made this point clear.
Assessment
One thing that I wish we'd spent more time on earlier in the process was the assessment. I think it turned out great, but a good amount of that credit goes to our professor. He said that we should consider and checklist and also asked about how feedback was going to be given. We ended up combining the two and letting the assessment guide the instructor in his feedback. Also, thinking about feedback and a checklist made our assessment much more accurate. We had a checklist, but each question had five boxes that you could check, and each box was associated with a descriptive word. With this, the instructor wasn't just saying good or bad, but how good or how bad. Also, the instructor could then let the learner and the management know exactly where that learner was. Sadly, much of this was done in the development phase, when it should have been started in the analysis. However, I feel it falls in line with our analysis and could have been developed it. I'm very pleased with the end result.
Teamwork in ID
Personally, I think this would be one of the hardest aspects of working in the field of ID. Even though it sometimes seemed that it would be the end of the world if we didn't do everything, I'm sure it would be much worse when each designer is a full-time employee and their are jobs and millions of dollars on the line. Here are some of the lessons I learned about teamwork in ID.
First, communication is key. Especially in the situation of our class, communication is very important. For us, there were a few times where we just assumed that someone in the group was going to do a certain task, but it ended up getting done at the last second, with an added bonus of mild panic. A small amount of time and effort in the area of communicating can save you a whole lot of headache. Also, it was very important to communicate our ideas and share our progress with everyone. We did a spectacular job of this in the design phase. We had rough drafts ready in advance, and we emailed them to each other, then reviewed and revised everything. Our project would have been horrible if we each printed out our own sections, then just put them together in class.
Second, compromising helps. For the most part, our group was on the same page at all times. One of the times that we had a disagreement was in assigned out the jobs for a certain phase. We were just able to talk about what resources and experience we each had and the best person was found for each job. It worked out well in the end, but once again, our final product would not look good if we hadn't compromised on responsibilities.
Finally, get it done. It was amazing how much easier my jobs were than I thought they would be. Somehow, I still had to grit my teeth and just get on task. Once I started, some of my responsibilities took less time and less effort than I ever thought they would, but that's also because we had a solid foundation to work from in our analysis.
First, communication is key. Especially in the situation of our class, communication is very important. For us, there were a few times where we just assumed that someone in the group was going to do a certain task, but it ended up getting done at the last second, with an added bonus of mild panic. A small amount of time and effort in the area of communicating can save you a whole lot of headache. Also, it was very important to communicate our ideas and share our progress with everyone. We did a spectacular job of this in the design phase. We had rough drafts ready in advance, and we emailed them to each other, then reviewed and revised everything. Our project would have been horrible if we each printed out our own sections, then just put them together in class.
Second, compromising helps. For the most part, our group was on the same page at all times. One of the times that we had a disagreement was in assigned out the jobs for a certain phase. We were just able to talk about what resources and experience we each had and the best person was found for each job. It worked out well in the end, but once again, our final product would not look good if we hadn't compromised on responsibilities.
Finally, get it done. It was amazing how much easier my jobs were than I thought they would be. Somehow, I still had to grit my teeth and just get on task. Once I started, some of my responsibilities took less time and less effort than I ever thought they would, but that's also because we had a solid foundation to work from in our analysis.
Making a Lesson
This semester has really changed how I would design a lesson. We'll talk about it in terms of before and after.
Before, I would sit down and think about what I was supposed to teach, then brainstorm methods that I could use to teach it. I would simply look at it in terms of motivation - how I would keep the attention of the class while feeding them information.
Now, I think I'd spend my time much more efficiently. First, I would look at the different things I could teach and select which ones I would. Then, I would write those down as instructional goals, so that my lesson could stay focused on those. I would break down those goals into subtasks. I would think about the students and their lives, noting things that they might already know, or what they might not know. I would also look at how the information would benefit them, and make sure that they are able to make those connections. Then I would plan the most effective way to share the material. I hope this conveys the slight differences that my experience with instructional design would bring. Mostly, I feel the greatest change would come because of analysis; instead of simply deciding what should be taught and what would hold attention, I would break down the skills or knowledge and think more about the current knowledge that my students have.
Before, I would sit down and think about what I was supposed to teach, then brainstorm methods that I could use to teach it. I would simply look at it in terms of motivation - how I would keep the attention of the class while feeding them information.
Now, I think I'd spend my time much more efficiently. First, I would look at the different things I could teach and select which ones I would. Then, I would write those down as instructional goals, so that my lesson could stay focused on those. I would break down those goals into subtasks. I would think about the students and their lives, noting things that they might already know, or what they might not know. I would also look at how the information would benefit them, and make sure that they are able to make those connections. Then I would plan the most effective way to share the material. I hope this conveys the slight differences that my experience with instructional design would bring. Mostly, I feel the greatest change would come because of analysis; instead of simply deciding what should be taught and what would hold attention, I would break down the skills or knowledge and think more about the current knowledge that my students have.
12.06.2007
The Media Debate
The online debate that we had about the effectiveness of different types of media was very educational. Clark strongly attacks the methodology of the research projects that find that a certain type of media is better than another. It reminded me a little of a theorist I learned about in Personality Theories. I can't remember his name, but he basically said that the vast majority of studies in Social and Behavioral Sciences are horribly done and contribute little to the field.
I've found this to be the case of a whole lot of research at the University of Utah. While some call Social science a "soft science", because it deals with so much subjective information, the studies are poorly designed. I think the biggest problem is participants. Nearly every social science study that I've ever seen or heard of at the University of Utah simply uses students who are participating in order to fulfill a course requirement. So you move from a randomly selected group, to adults in college who are taking a course in a social science. Then, they often don't have an independent variable to test and the findings are just descriptive or correlative. While I know that this would make the experiments far more expensive and complicated, they would at least add to the science.
These, and more issues, have disrupted studies looking at which media is more effective. First, the studies often used different instructors who have different styles, and much more time tends to be spent preparing the instruction in the media that is being investigated and not on the media that it is being compared to. In other words, you get a piece of garbage lecture versus a fully developed video.
The message to take away from all of this. Some media might be better than others, but it's not as clear-cut as some would like to say. Also, when discussing research results, it is very important to closely examine the methodology, and don't just accept their results as irrefutable facts.
I've found this to be the case of a whole lot of research at the University of Utah. While some call Social science a "soft science", because it deals with so much subjective information, the studies are poorly designed. I think the biggest problem is participants. Nearly every social science study that I've ever seen or heard of at the University of Utah simply uses students who are participating in order to fulfill a course requirement. So you move from a randomly selected group, to adults in college who are taking a course in a social science. Then, they often don't have an independent variable to test and the findings are just descriptive or correlative. While I know that this would make the experiments far more expensive and complicated, they would at least add to the science.
These, and more issues, have disrupted studies looking at which media is more effective. First, the studies often used different instructors who have different styles, and much more time tends to be spent preparing the instruction in the media that is being investigated and not on the media that it is being compared to. In other words, you get a piece of garbage lecture versus a fully developed video.
The message to take away from all of this. Some media might be better than others, but it's not as clear-cut as some would like to say. Also, when discussing research results, it is very important to closely examine the methodology, and don't just accept their results as irrefutable facts.
12.05.2007
The Projects
One thing that I felt was reinforced most was the importance of having a problem that needs solving. It seemed that almost everyone went through the process of deciding whether they filled a need, or their instruction was redundant.
There was something else that I found interesting. From my point of view, many of the groups jumped all over in the steps. While it's a good thing to revise your instruction, I think it is a bad thing to revise your instruction after the analysis phase because you already had a rough draft of your instruction. I do think that analysis should always be first, because designing a rough draft could lead you to ignore some of your analysis if it goes against what you already created. I think we mostly knew that we wanted to have a job aid, so we did select a media early, but we've learned that job aids are good for psychomotor instruction.
Finally, I would say that the next thing I learned tonight is: time. It takes a whole lot of time to go through this process, and I can only imagine what it would be like to do this full time and have millions of dollars at stake.
There was something else that I found interesting. From my point of view, many of the groups jumped all over in the steps. While it's a good thing to revise your instruction, I think it is a bad thing to revise your instruction after the analysis phase because you already had a rough draft of your instruction. I do think that analysis should always be first, because designing a rough draft could lead you to ignore some of your analysis if it goes against what you already created. I think we mostly knew that we wanted to have a job aid, so we did select a media early, but we've learned that job aids are good for psychomotor instruction.
Finally, I would say that the next thing I learned tonight is: time. It takes a whole lot of time to go through this process, and I can only imagine what it would be like to do this full time and have millions of dollars at stake.
11.07.2007
Analyzing the Task
The first thing that must be done before analyzing the task is stating your goal. While this may seem a silly thing to state, it is probably overlooked far too often. For example, if you are planning to teach someone how to change a tire, you can completely miss the mark by simply saying your goal is to teach someone how to change a tire. Do you want the person to know how to change car tires or bike tires? Should they be able to do it in a certain amount of time? Should they have to do it safely or correctly? It is important to decide what the real goal of your instruction is.
The best part about a good goal is that it leads to a good analysis. Once you have that goal, you can simply ask: "What will the learner have to know or do in order to achieve the goal?" From that you have your higher-order tasks. Once again, you simply ask yourself what the learner must know or do in order to achieve that higher-order task. You can continue that process until you reach: "in order to do _____, the learner must exist." It may sound easy, but often the skills required to reach a goal aren't as obvious as you'd think. Look at catching a pop fly in baseball. The player needs to see the ball, predict its trajectory based on speed, height, angle, and past experience, then decide on a route to get there before the ball hits the ground, and also use proper technique to catch it. While the steps I've used still aren't complete, most would simplify it further and say, "you see the ball, run to where it's going, and catch it," because they have done it or seen it done so many times that the subtasks are looked over. So the analysis is more difficult than it seems.
The best part about a good goal is that it leads to a good analysis. Once you have that goal, you can simply ask: "What will the learner have to know or do in order to achieve the goal?" From that you have your higher-order tasks. Once again, you simply ask yourself what the learner must know or do in order to achieve that higher-order task. You can continue that process until you reach: "in order to do _____, the learner must exist." It may sound easy, but often the skills required to reach a goal aren't as obvious as you'd think. Look at catching a pop fly in baseball. The player needs to see the ball, predict its trajectory based on speed, height, angle, and past experience, then decide on a route to get there before the ball hits the ground, and also use proper technique to catch it. While the steps I've used still aren't complete, most would simplify it further and say, "you see the ball, run to where it's going, and catch it," because they have done it or seen it done so many times that the subtasks are looked over. So the analysis is more difficult than it seems.
11.06.2007
ID in the Classroom
The systematic instruction of design is far too time-consuming for low-paid teachers to apply to every lesson they plan, but it's principles are used all the time. For example, when planning a lesson, or simply modifying an old one, the teacher may analyze their students rather quickly by thinking about some of their learning styles and decide if some of the material may be over the heads of a few students. This can immediately be applied into design, development, and implementation. Many teachers evaluate their instruction while they are teaching by looking at their students' expressions, or asking questions. Also, teachers can use tests to evaluate their instruction. This brings up a great point: how are we evaluating? If you don't test on what your students to know and understand, you will never know if you are teaching effectively.
Mostly, I'd say that teachers are using ID whenever they take their students' characteristics into account while planning and preparing a lesson, and if they evaluate their instruction, not just the students mastery of the material.
Just to emphasize the point, I repeat the tests need to evaluate the instruction, not just the students. This is a statement more about the teacher's attitude than anything, because he/she will become stagnant and will not effectively deal with the needs of their students if they simply use tests to determine grades. If you notice a marked decrease in scores you should analyze the subject and the learner to determine how you might better teach the material, instead of simply handing out grades.
Mostly, I'd say that teachers are using ID whenever they take their students' characteristics into account while planning and preparing a lesson, and if they evaluate their instruction, not just the students mastery of the material.
Just to emphasize the point, I repeat the tests need to evaluate the instruction, not just the students. This is a statement more about the teacher's attitude than anything, because he/she will become stagnant and will not effectively deal with the needs of their students if they simply use tests to determine grades. If you notice a marked decrease in scores you should analyze the subject and the learner to determine how you might better teach the material, instead of simply handing out grades.
Analysis
Frankly, Analysis has totally won me over. Who would have thought that just by writing down a problem or a goal and then writing down everything you can think about the goal, subtasks, and context would suddenly give you specific direction about fixing the problem. Take our fictional problem - getting employees to bake focaccia bread correctly. As I was think about the learner and their previous experience, I realized that I had no idea what the bread was supposed to look like at any step and it made my baking far less than perfect. Because of that discovery, I think that pictures need to be available throughout the training and afterwards. Also, because quality is of such importance, we need to either have a veteran employee inspect the bread, or find some way to check the quality, maybe every time. While these may seem like simple things, not putting them in place could eventually result in poorly-made bread, which could lead to a loss in customers, and eventual loss of profits. So the tiniest detail can't be missed.
All of this could be done with an interactive recipe program on a touchscreen in the bakery. It could have every step (or all simultaneous steps) on the screen at the same time along with pictures. While this may be the best way to ensure speed and quality, it isn't efficient in the least. We need to be able to find the most effective way to teach someone to make great focaccia bread, which is efficient in terms of teaching it quickly and it is cost effective, and it needs to be appealing in that the employee won't get bored and lose attention, and they will be able to walk away knowing that their new employer cares about their training.
All of this could be done with an interactive recipe program on a touchscreen in the bakery. It could have every step (or all simultaneous steps) on the screen at the same time along with pictures. While this may be the best way to ensure speed and quality, it isn't efficient in the least. We need to be able to find the most effective way to teach someone to make great focaccia bread, which is efficient in terms of teaching it quickly and it is cost effective, and it needs to be appealing in that the employee won't get bored and lose attention, and they will be able to walk away knowing that their new employer cares about their training.
9.19.2007
The Learner
My view of ID changed as I considered the importance of the learner. While working at a daycare, I was always told that the children were the focus of everything we do. Also, as a school bus driver, we are told that we don't drive children to school, we provide a safe environment for children as we transport them to school. Even in my training thus far as a seminary teacher, we are told about the importance of the learner. However, like many things in life, discovering the importance of the learner comes over time.
What I've learned recently is this: in ID, the learner needs to be first and foremost in your mind during every step. While Analysis includes the learner, this doesn't fulfill your responsibility to them. Even in the objective, the learner needs to be considered in order to be effective (i.e. the characteristics of the learner will determine the the difficulty of the instruction). For example, while a 10th grade chemistry teacher covers the periodic table over the course of a month and students will simply know the names of the periods. In the same time, a college professor may skip the names, but teach the attributes of each period, number of valence electrons, reactivity, and electronegativity. While curriculum may determine such things, that curriculum was determined with the learner in mind.
In the end, an incorrect understanding of your learners can make your entire instruction completely worthless. So a designer will constantly be asking how effective, efficient, and appealing the design is to the learner.
What I've learned recently is this: in ID, the learner needs to be first and foremost in your mind during every step. While Analysis includes the learner, this doesn't fulfill your responsibility to them. Even in the objective, the learner needs to be considered in order to be effective (i.e. the characteristics of the learner will determine the the difficulty of the instruction). For example, while a 10th grade chemistry teacher covers the periodic table over the course of a month and students will simply know the names of the periods. In the same time, a college professor may skip the names, but teach the attributes of each period, number of valence electrons, reactivity, and electronegativity. While curriculum may determine such things, that curriculum was determined with the learner in mind.
In the end, an incorrect understanding of your learners can make your entire instruction completely worthless. So a designer will constantly be asking how effective, efficient, and appealing the design is to the learner.
ADDIE
ADDIE describes what I next thought of Instructional Design. ADDIE stands for Analyze, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. With this in mind, I pretty much viewed Instructional Design as step-by-step process that leads to a final product. I also thought that, with the exception of Evaluation, I had to go from one step to another, and couldn't go on to the next step until I had completed the current one.
As mentioned before, I did see Evaluation as one area that I could use during each step of the process. For example, in the analysis phase, you could evaluate your work by having someone else look it your analyses and see if you could have missed something. However, after implementation I know that a major evaluation needs to take place to really decide of your instruction was effective, efficient, and appealing. After this, but to a smaller extent, throughout the project, you can make improvements to your instruction.
In closing, I should note that this was my view of ADDIE, not necessarily what the ADDIE system is.
As mentioned before, I did see Evaluation as one area that I could use during each step of the process. For example, in the analysis phase, you could evaluate your work by having someone else look it your analyses and see if you could have missed something. However, after implementation I know that a major evaluation needs to take place to really decide of your instruction was effective, efficient, and appealing. After this, but to a smaller extent, throughout the project, you can make improvements to your instruction.
In closing, I should note that this was my view of ADDIE, not necessarily what the ADDIE system is.
9.12.2007
Intro
This is my blog for my Instructional Design (ID) class. Mostly this blog will serve as a history of what I learn in this class about ID, and how I define it in my mind.
Before I ever started taking this course, I spoke with the director of the ID program and he introduced me to the program. At the time I thought ID was simply deciding what to teach and how to teach it. I guess I thought design meant simply picking and choosing what materials to use, and not actually building instruction from scratch. So that was how I defined it heading into this class.
Before I ever started taking this course, I spoke with the director of the ID program and he introduced me to the program. At the time I thought ID was simply deciding what to teach and how to teach it. I guess I thought design meant simply picking and choosing what materials to use, and not actually building instruction from scratch. So that was how I defined it heading into this class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)