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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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
