Team Meeting (1hr in class, no other meeting was held this week)
Preparing for showcase (2 hours)
One-on-One Evaluation (1 hour)
In the team meeting, we went over technical issues about the unit. We also assigned our parts for the showcase presentation. We decided that it would be best for each of us to present the parts that we developed. My part was to present the content analysis, including the assessment, plus the instructional strategy. Over the weekend, I prepared my slides for the showcase, selecting key images that will support my talk. The one-on-one evaluation went very well, no major changes were suggested. As for the showcase, although the clients did not show up, it was a good experience to present in front of an audience. While practicing at home, I had to work on how best to articulate my ideas. There is a difference between knowing something and presenting it in a comprehensive manner, similar to designing instruction. Speaking in front of the audience was the only factor that might have caused me to stress. This did not happen because I was comfortable in how I wanted to approach my presentation and the audience ended up being all the friendly faces that I know.
Reflections: I felt that our showcase presentation was different in its approach than the rest of the presentations. It was more of how we worked behind the scene to get to the final product. However, I liked the different approaches taken in the presentations, representing the different styles of work. It is a good reminder of the diversity of styles, visions, and perceptions.
Next is finalizing the formative evaluation and making all the corrections on the unit.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Bits and Pieces
Team meeting during class time (1hr, no other team meeting was held this week).
Linking Quizmaker and other files to the main Presenter file on Articulate (2hrs).
Reviewing materials and giving feedback to team members (1 hr).
Drafting the showcase overview (1hr).
My role this week was limited to drafting the showcase overview and linking the pretest and posttest to the main file in Articulate Presenter, in addition to adding an Engage slide. Also, I was waiting on the development of the modules and a draft of the evaluation plan from team members for review. As these were sent to me, I reviewed them and sent my feedback. My feedback on the modules was not taken into consideration. At this point, besides my previous concerns about missing several deadlines, which put our project behind schedule, I am concerned about the instructional quality of the modules. Modifications were done on the design and the agreed upon strategy without consultation with the team members. With no time to make changes and no acknowledgment of my feedback, once again I cede. I feel that I have no control or say in the project and I feel that it does not reflect the quality of performance that I would have hoped to have. The main problems I see so far are the lack of consistency in the modules and a busy design. I might be wrong but I am uneasy about it. I pray that when the time comes for the showcase, our presentation will show some coherence of the team work.
As for the feedback on the showcase overview, it was almost a rewrite. So, I accept as is and move on. With everybody on the edge as the final deadline approaches, (especially since we are still talking development at a stage when we should be closing) the communication among the team members has become fuzzy. Hopefully, things will be clarified in our class team meeting tonight.
Besides that, we have not been able to send a first draft for review to the SME. The unit is still being finalized. Moreover, when I try publishing the total of the 154 slides on Articulate, the process freezes on slide 134. I hope we can resolve the issue by chunking the big file into smaller files.
Reflections: On a scale of 1 to 5, my panic level is at 4.5, my confidence in our unit is at 3. Once again, I wonder if this is what team work is about. No one will be completely satisfied nor have a sense of control on the project.
Linking Quizmaker and other files to the main Presenter file on Articulate (2hrs).
Reviewing materials and giving feedback to team members (1 hr).
Drafting the showcase overview (1hr).
My role this week was limited to drafting the showcase overview and linking the pretest and posttest to the main file in Articulate Presenter, in addition to adding an Engage slide. Also, I was waiting on the development of the modules and a draft of the evaluation plan from team members for review. As these were sent to me, I reviewed them and sent my feedback. My feedback on the modules was not taken into consideration. At this point, besides my previous concerns about missing several deadlines, which put our project behind schedule, I am concerned about the instructional quality of the modules. Modifications were done on the design and the agreed upon strategy without consultation with the team members. With no time to make changes and no acknowledgment of my feedback, once again I cede. I feel that I have no control or say in the project and I feel that it does not reflect the quality of performance that I would have hoped to have. The main problems I see so far are the lack of consistency in the modules and a busy design. I might be wrong but I am uneasy about it. I pray that when the time comes for the showcase, our presentation will show some coherence of the team work.
As for the feedback on the showcase overview, it was almost a rewrite. So, I accept as is and move on. With everybody on the edge as the final deadline approaches, (especially since we are still talking development at a stage when we should be closing) the communication among the team members has become fuzzy. Hopefully, things will be clarified in our class team meeting tonight.
Besides that, we have not been able to send a first draft for review to the SME. The unit is still being finalized. Moreover, when I try publishing the total of the 154 slides on Articulate, the process freezes on slide 134. I hope we can resolve the issue by chunking the big file into smaller files.
Reflections: On a scale of 1 to 5, my panic level is at 4.5, my confidence in our unit is at 3. Once again, I wonder if this is what team work is about. No one will be completely satisfied nor have a sense of control on the project.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Final Stages
Team Meeting: 2 hours.
Working on pretest/posttest in Quizmaker: 2 hours.
Reviewing scenario and design: 0.5 hour.
During the team meeting, the discussion revolved around the documentation that needed to be submitted as well as the prototype of the unit created. As far as documentation, work is still being done on editing and reviewing. As for the prototype, the team manager updated the team on her meeting with the client during which she presented to him the prototype. The client was pleased with the prototype and suggested minor additions. Both of my teammates are now working on finalizing the rest of the scenarios, designing, and developing the rest of the subunits. As we proceed through this stage, each subunit is being sent to the team members for feedback. The first subunit looks really good. However, I felt that the second subunit deviated from the objectives, scenario, and strategy that we have originally agreed upon and subsequently, the design of the second subunit changed as well. I expressed that in my feedback: we have to stay aligned with objectives and instructional strategy. My role in putting the pretest and posttest in Quizmaker was relatively simple. However, since my free trial has expired on my laptop, I had to download it again on my home computer and work from there. One feature I do not like about Quizmaker is that it shuffles the questions and the answers within each question by default. However, by trying to go around that, I learned more about Quizmaker and Articulate and this was a plus. Our pretest/posttest cannot be shuffled because we have tried to simulate a problem-solving approach by developing questions around one scenario that progress through the process of using the leadership values to solve problems.
Reflections: More lessons learned about group dynamics. Reflecting on the last team meeting, I felt that I have learned more about myself. I have to work very hard on taming my frustrations when my expectations of work ethics and quality of work are not met. I still get sensitive towards non-constructive criticism and I have to thicken my skin and not show emotions in the meeting because it does not lead anywhere. However, at this point, I am concerned about more disagreement that will jeopardize the timely submission of the required materials of the project. I hope my next blog post will announce the finalization of the development project and the formative evaluation plan.
Working on pretest/posttest in Quizmaker: 2 hours.
Reviewing scenario and design: 0.5 hour.
During the team meeting, the discussion revolved around the documentation that needed to be submitted as well as the prototype of the unit created. As far as documentation, work is still being done on editing and reviewing. As for the prototype, the team manager updated the team on her meeting with the client during which she presented to him the prototype. The client was pleased with the prototype and suggested minor additions. Both of my teammates are now working on finalizing the rest of the scenarios, designing, and developing the rest of the subunits. As we proceed through this stage, each subunit is being sent to the team members for feedback. The first subunit looks really good. However, I felt that the second subunit deviated from the objectives, scenario, and strategy that we have originally agreed upon and subsequently, the design of the second subunit changed as well. I expressed that in my feedback: we have to stay aligned with objectives and instructional strategy. My role in putting the pretest and posttest in Quizmaker was relatively simple. However, since my free trial has expired on my laptop, I had to download it again on my home computer and work from there. One feature I do not like about Quizmaker is that it shuffles the questions and the answers within each question by default. However, by trying to go around that, I learned more about Quizmaker and Articulate and this was a plus. Our pretest/posttest cannot be shuffled because we have tried to simulate a problem-solving approach by developing questions around one scenario that progress through the process of using the leadership values to solve problems.
Reflections: More lessons learned about group dynamics. Reflecting on the last team meeting, I felt that I have learned more about myself. I have to work very hard on taming my frustrations when my expectations of work ethics and quality of work are not met. I still get sensitive towards non-constructive criticism and I have to thicken my skin and not show emotions in the meeting because it does not lead anywhere. However, at this point, I am concerned about more disagreement that will jeopardize the timely submission of the required materials of the project. I hope my next blog post will announce the finalization of the development project and the formative evaluation plan.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Development
Team Meeting: 2.5 hours
Reviewing Prototype: 0.5 hour.
My role in the project this week was minimal due to the way the tasks were divided among the team members. I was not assigned to develop nor prepare documentation for this week.
On Friday, we spent the whole team meeting making decisions about the interface. We started from few template slides and color schemes prepared by the other team members. At the end of the meeting, we were all in agreement on the colors, the scenario presentation, the navigation, and the succession of slides for each leadership value. I am very satisfied with the results we came up with.. Few days later, overcoming some problems with navigation in Articulate, the team manager provided a version of the sidles with the interface discussed in the meeting. I reviewed it and sent my comments on revisions I felt needed to be made.
Reflections; Not much to reflect on other than to say that during the team meeting, I learned some features of Articulate Presenter. Since I am not building any of the slides, my skills in Articulate will not be strengthened, unless I practice on something on my own. However, I will be using Quizmaker to enter pre and posttest. More lesson were learned on group dynamics. Having to write the team evaluation this week helps the reflection on the issue. Collaboration is a loose term that is more of a perception than a fact, unless learned through team-building exercises.
Reviewing Prototype: 0.5 hour.
My role in the project this week was minimal due to the way the tasks were divided among the team members. I was not assigned to develop nor prepare documentation for this week.
On Friday, we spent the whole team meeting making decisions about the interface. We started from few template slides and color schemes prepared by the other team members. At the end of the meeting, we were all in agreement on the colors, the scenario presentation, the navigation, and the succession of slides for each leadership value. I am very satisfied with the results we came up with.. Few days later, overcoming some problems with navigation in Articulate, the team manager provided a version of the sidles with the interface discussed in the meeting. I reviewed it and sent my comments on revisions I felt needed to be made.
Reflections; Not much to reflect on other than to say that during the team meeting, I learned some features of Articulate Presenter. Since I am not building any of the slides, my skills in Articulate will not be strengthened, unless I practice on something on my own. However, I will be using Quizmaker to enter pre and posttest. More lesson were learned on group dynamics. Having to write the team evaluation this week helps the reflection on the issue. Collaboration is a loose term that is more of a perception than a fact, unless learned through team-building exercises.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Content Analysis (Continued) and Instructional Startegy
Revisions on Content Analysis: 10 hours
Instructional Strategy: 5 hours
Team Meeting: 2 hours
The focus of our discussion in our team meeting was the approach of the scenario. We were able to storyboard the branching in a manner satisfactory to all of us. In addition, we discussed the color schemes a bit and the content analysis
On the content analysis, I made reviews on the curriculum map and the task analysis based on the discussions and feedback from our client and sponsor. I refined the objectives to reflect the analysis skills and some attitude change in the store managers. Once again reworking the image of the curriculum map took the majority of the time in addition to selecting the action verbs for the objectives that are most appropriate. Accordingly, I made changes on the task analysis. After receiving feedback on it from my teammates, I made the adjustments needed. On the instructional strategy, I stalled. The reason for that is not having a clear instructional model to follow for the approach that we decided to take in the unit. I could not find research-based literature for the mini case-based scenarios that we are designing. Eventually, I decided to compare it to problem-based learning, since the learners are going through the same analytical process to find solutions, though in a more simplified way. Additionally, I referred to blog postings on building e-learning scenarios in order to describe a structure for our instructional approach. I found the perfect structure on the Tom Kulhmann’s blog on rapid e-learning.
Reflections
In order to refine the task analysis, I had to search through the plethora of lists of verbs on Bloom’s taxonomy. I noticed that some verbs are used for more than one level. Therefore, I had to ensure that the verbs chosen reflect the level intended very clearly.
As far as instructional strategy, I was glad to be given the green light to think outside the box. I like clarity but I like creativity as well. By trying to construct a “model” for our instructional approach, I was able to tie ends together. I saw myself trying to synthesize a model from different approaches in the literature.
Perceptions in people change and being assertive pays. These are the two things I learned from our team dynamics this week. Now that we are half-way through the course and the end-product is starting to see the light, I can look at the team experience, rocky as it is, as one facet of real life. I learned how to navigate through misunderstandings, letting go when necessary and holding on when necessary.
Instructional Strategy: 5 hours
Team Meeting: 2 hours
The focus of our discussion in our team meeting was the approach of the scenario. We were able to storyboard the branching in a manner satisfactory to all of us. In addition, we discussed the color schemes a bit and the content analysis
On the content analysis, I made reviews on the curriculum map and the task analysis based on the discussions and feedback from our client and sponsor. I refined the objectives to reflect the analysis skills and some attitude change in the store managers. Once again reworking the image of the curriculum map took the majority of the time in addition to selecting the action verbs for the objectives that are most appropriate. Accordingly, I made changes on the task analysis. After receiving feedback on it from my teammates, I made the adjustments needed. On the instructional strategy, I stalled. The reason for that is not having a clear instructional model to follow for the approach that we decided to take in the unit. I could not find research-based literature for the mini case-based scenarios that we are designing. Eventually, I decided to compare it to problem-based learning, since the learners are going through the same analytical process to find solutions, though in a more simplified way. Additionally, I referred to blog postings on building e-learning scenarios in order to describe a structure for our instructional approach. I found the perfect structure on the Tom Kulhmann’s blog on rapid e-learning.
Reflections
In order to refine the task analysis, I had to search through the plethora of lists of verbs on Bloom’s taxonomy. I noticed that some verbs are used for more than one level. Therefore, I had to ensure that the verbs chosen reflect the level intended very clearly.
As far as instructional strategy, I was glad to be given the green light to think outside the box. I like clarity but I like creativity as well. By trying to construct a “model” for our instructional approach, I was able to tie ends together. I saw myself trying to synthesize a model from different approaches in the literature.
Perceptions in people change and being assertive pays. These are the two things I learned from our team dynamics this week. Now that we are half-way through the course and the end-product is starting to see the light, I can look at the team experience, rocky as it is, as one facet of real life. I learned how to navigate through misunderstandings, letting go when necessary and holding on when necessary.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
More Content Analysis
2 team meetings with Dr. Grant: 2.5 hours
Meeting with client: 1.5 hours
The work for the past two weeks has slowed down a little bit, one, due to Spring Break, two due to a halt on the Content Analysis. After two weeks of discussions about the curriculum map and the instructional objectives, the team was locked in a no-consensus situation on what to teach. Having skipped the Learners’ Analysis, we had no data on where our learners stand in their knowledge and skills about the content. A meeting with our client seemed to be a necessity to clarify the actual instructional need. This meeting was also an opportunity to show our client some prototypes of the slides. After some probing with our client, the instructional need appeared to address an attitudinal change and a honing of some of the leadership skills more than knowledge and skill building of all the leadership skills. It was suggested to make phone call interviews with few store managers around the country to probe on the types of problems the managers face with their employees and the difficulties they face in the implementation of the leadership skills. Too late in the game, but this data will help in building a more relevant content. Coming out from the meeting with our client, my big concern was how to address his need for an attitudinal change, knowing the challenges we would face in incorporating that in an e-learning unit. Therefore, we met again with Dr. Grant to get guidance. The meeting was very enlightening on many levels. Most important is the reassurance that attitudinal change cannot be achieved nor measured properly in e-learning; therefore, our approach should stay focused on the cognitive domain with light touches on attitudes. My role now is to redo the curriculum map and the task analysis (which will probably be the first draft I have created for both). So we’re back in square one. We have wasted time but at least, we are clear on the direction our unit should take. Hopefully, we can sail through that smoothly as a team.
Reflections
Although I have been described as rigid, I still hold on to ADDIE very strongly. This exercise in building a curriculum map without a proper needs assessment is proof to me that, yes, well-designed instruction can be developed but does it really address the need? Through the many discussions over the span of this course, I have been getting these reality checks that, even with ADDIE being the simplest of all instructional design models, not all the steps are implemented. I guess for some, having a concrete-el-learning unit completes the job. But, where is learning? Where is the provision of the right solutions to the performance problems? Being passionate about learning and teaching and still holding on to what learning really means, I will still strive to go from A to E in ADDIE. How much will my immersion in authentic environments change me? I will have to wait and see, I hope not too much.
Meeting with client: 1.5 hours
The work for the past two weeks has slowed down a little bit, one, due to Spring Break, two due to a halt on the Content Analysis. After two weeks of discussions about the curriculum map and the instructional objectives, the team was locked in a no-consensus situation on what to teach. Having skipped the Learners’ Analysis, we had no data on where our learners stand in their knowledge and skills about the content. A meeting with our client seemed to be a necessity to clarify the actual instructional need. This meeting was also an opportunity to show our client some prototypes of the slides. After some probing with our client, the instructional need appeared to address an attitudinal change and a honing of some of the leadership skills more than knowledge and skill building of all the leadership skills. It was suggested to make phone call interviews with few store managers around the country to probe on the types of problems the managers face with their employees and the difficulties they face in the implementation of the leadership skills. Too late in the game, but this data will help in building a more relevant content. Coming out from the meeting with our client, my big concern was how to address his need for an attitudinal change, knowing the challenges we would face in incorporating that in an e-learning unit. Therefore, we met again with Dr. Grant to get guidance. The meeting was very enlightening on many levels. Most important is the reassurance that attitudinal change cannot be achieved nor measured properly in e-learning; therefore, our approach should stay focused on the cognitive domain with light touches on attitudes. My role now is to redo the curriculum map and the task analysis (which will probably be the first draft I have created for both). So we’re back in square one. We have wasted time but at least, we are clear on the direction our unit should take. Hopefully, we can sail through that smoothly as a team.
Reflections
Although I have been described as rigid, I still hold on to ADDIE very strongly. This exercise in building a curriculum map without a proper needs assessment is proof to me that, yes, well-designed instruction can be developed but does it really address the need? Through the many discussions over the span of this course, I have been getting these reality checks that, even with ADDIE being the simplest of all instructional design models, not all the steps are implemented. I guess for some, having a concrete-el-learning unit completes the job. But, where is learning? Where is the provision of the right solutions to the performance problems? Being passionate about learning and teaching and still holding on to what learning really means, I will still strive to go from A to E in ADDIE. How much will my immersion in authentic environments change me? I will have to wait and see, I hope not too much.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Content Analysis (Continued)
Team meeting: 2 hours
Working on the Content Analysis: 10 hours
In our team meeting last week, we discussed the best format of presenting the deliverables in the Project Plan. Then we went over the first draft of the curriculum map that I have already shared with the team. The desire of the team is to involve the learners in higher order thinking as they go through the unit and assessment. We proposed to have the assessment in a problem-solving format, representing a culmination of the skills learned in the unit and use the assessment items that I have created earlier as the practice questions that come after each section of the unit. We also reviewed the action verbs I used in the objectives to give a better representation of the skills we want our learners to acquire.
Individually, I continued working on the Content Analysis. It seems to be one of the most demanding components of the project documentation. The objectives must be well woven together in order for the content to flow smoothly. In addition, we want our learners to acquire leadership skills that we will not be able to completely test for in the final assessment. In other words, we are hoping for transfer but we cannot test it in the final assessment. The challenge for me was in trying to specify measurable objectives that are as close to transfer as possible. I refined the curriculum map and this was not done quickly. Other than serving as a space to specify the objectives, the curriculum map is also a visual component. So, between specifying the objective and working on the visual appeal, finalizing the curriculum map took a considerable amount of time. Having done that, I moved to the final assessment questions. Here, the challenge was in the desire to have the learner problem-solve but then again, we want a close-ended quick assessment for the convenience of the learners and the convenience of collecting and analyzing data from 4,000 store managers or so. So, what I finally decided on was to use one of the scenarios provided to us by our client. I broke it down into segments, each of which representing a leadership skill. For each segment, I developed three questions: One will have the learners discern the leadership skill used, one will have them rate their agreement with the approach used (attitude), and one will have them identify the key elements in the scenario that represent the component of the leadership skill. This was time consuming but once I had my strategy down, it was only a matter of repeating the same process with different scenario text. I also added few other general questions to summarize the leadership skills. All of that went into the task analysis table.
Reflections: Having had several discussions in class about rapid prototyping, about the value of assessment, and about the short shelf-life of elearning courses in the corporate world, my reflection on the development process is one of pain. My pain was added upon, when our client mentioned that adult learners want to get over the training quickly, and he specified 5 minutes. Maybe it is reality but it does not make it less painful. As instructional designers, we aspire for in-depth learning. We want retention and then transfer. We also aspire for immersing the learners in higher order thinking experiences where they dig and search to create their understanding of the content. How can an instructional designer reconcile rapid, quick and continuous turnover with in-depth, immersive, leading to transfer kind of learning? Maybe the answer lies in the creativity of the instructional designer, to think way outside the box to get the desired learning. This is what I will have to work on, especially if I get to work in a corporate environment.
Working on the Content Analysis: 10 hours
In our team meeting last week, we discussed the best format of presenting the deliverables in the Project Plan. Then we went over the first draft of the curriculum map that I have already shared with the team. The desire of the team is to involve the learners in higher order thinking as they go through the unit and assessment. We proposed to have the assessment in a problem-solving format, representing a culmination of the skills learned in the unit and use the assessment items that I have created earlier as the practice questions that come after each section of the unit. We also reviewed the action verbs I used in the objectives to give a better representation of the skills we want our learners to acquire.
Individually, I continued working on the Content Analysis. It seems to be one of the most demanding components of the project documentation. The objectives must be well woven together in order for the content to flow smoothly. In addition, we want our learners to acquire leadership skills that we will not be able to completely test for in the final assessment. In other words, we are hoping for transfer but we cannot test it in the final assessment. The challenge for me was in trying to specify measurable objectives that are as close to transfer as possible. I refined the curriculum map and this was not done quickly. Other than serving as a space to specify the objectives, the curriculum map is also a visual component. So, between specifying the objective and working on the visual appeal, finalizing the curriculum map took a considerable amount of time. Having done that, I moved to the final assessment questions. Here, the challenge was in the desire to have the learner problem-solve but then again, we want a close-ended quick assessment for the convenience of the learners and the convenience of collecting and analyzing data from 4,000 store managers or so. So, what I finally decided on was to use one of the scenarios provided to us by our client. I broke it down into segments, each of which representing a leadership skill. For each segment, I developed three questions: One will have the learners discern the leadership skill used, one will have them rate their agreement with the approach used (attitude), and one will have them identify the key elements in the scenario that represent the component of the leadership skill. This was time consuming but once I had my strategy down, it was only a matter of repeating the same process with different scenario text. I also added few other general questions to summarize the leadership skills. All of that went into the task analysis table.
Reflections: Having had several discussions in class about rapid prototyping, about the value of assessment, and about the short shelf-life of elearning courses in the corporate world, my reflection on the development process is one of pain. My pain was added upon, when our client mentioned that adult learners want to get over the training quickly, and he specified 5 minutes. Maybe it is reality but it does not make it less painful. As instructional designers, we aspire for in-depth learning. We want retention and then transfer. We also aspire for immersing the learners in higher order thinking experiences where they dig and search to create their understanding of the content. How can an instructional designer reconcile rapid, quick and continuous turnover with in-depth, immersive, leading to transfer kind of learning? Maybe the answer lies in the creativity of the instructional designer, to think way outside the box to get the desired learning. This is what I will have to work on, especially if I get to work in a corporate environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
