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.