Our group (Team MOOCtastic) chose to focus our LRNT 526 studies on MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) through the platform of Coursera. In order to have an immersive experience within our selected modality, we enrolled in a course entitled Learning How to Learn. In this blogpost, I will provide a brief reflection based on my learner-perspective of the MOOC and my specific topic of interest within the modality.
My Experience
Learning How to Learn is presented as lectures delivered in short video segments with pop-up questions, reflective surveys, and quizzes which are digitally graded and provide instant feedback.
Charming, creative tricks, with information fed to learners in bite-sized chunks, implies some inspiration may have been deliberately drawn from learning theories involving motivation, engagement, and cognitive load. The creators utilize a green screen with fun graphics for illustrating the knowledge with healthy doses of metaphors for enhancing understanding and entertainment.
So far I am unsure whether the knowledge gained is somewhat fluffy but still useful like a smart meme, or if it is rather heavy and important information that is administered in a cleverly-palatable way. Either way, the course is pleasant and I will walk away with some useful tips for studying and tackling procrastination.
The agreeable and convenient nature of learning through this modality shows promise for enhanced, enjoyable education of the future. The path to an ideal, open, accessible, utopia of learning has hurdles.
Specific Individual Issue of Exploration
Team MOOCtastic is conducting a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) of the broader topic of MOOCs. My individual branch of this is threats. Based on recent surface-investigations, it appears as though perceived-legitimacy and business model sustainability are the predominant threats to the the long-term survival and success of MOOCs.
What do you think?
I invite readers to comment, ask questions, or respond to my questions below with facts, opinions, or resources:
Are MOOCs capable of transferring dense, comprehensive learning that is legitimate and recognizable?
Will issues of identification and scalable grading be solved?
Even if MOOCs are innately valuable, will they ever be widely recognized and perceived as so?
Will MOOCs ever rise to a position notable enough to contend with universities?
Does a sustainable financial model exclude the original, philanthropic intentions of MOOCs?
Will the future of education see cross-institutional degrees, where credits are obtained from cooperative institutions from all over the world?
Is the future of MOOCs at risk from threats related to legitimacy and financial sustainability, or is education’s status quo at risk from the influence of MOOCs?
Have you ever participated in a MOOC before, and if so, what do you think? What did you like and dislike? Do you see a dead-end, promising future, or infinite possibilities?
As I reflect on my learning throughout LRNT 525, I can certainly see changes in my perspective on leadership, change, project management, and data analytics.
Leadership
Studying leadership has clarified and framed-with-terminology some reasons why my boss has success as a leader. Leadership theories have also given me food for thought on how I can improve my approach when I am placed in a leadership role. I can now see a leader’s purpose as being more about helpfulness for followers. O’Toole (2008) observed how people are motivated to “follow leaders who manifest the ability and willingness to take them where they want to go” (p. 2).
Change
My workplace involves large and complex contracts, but the changes within the organization tend to be fairly straightforward since we are run by only a small group of energetic people with a “dive in” style of implementation. I had no previous reason to give change management much thought in my own context. Coincidently while learning about managing change in this course, two of my friends – one who works at a public facility and the other at a hospital – were venting about major, disruptive, impractical, management-dictated organizational changes in their workplaces. These changes were initiated without any input from the front lines. Likewise, when I conducted interviews for Assignment 2 (examining successful changes related to digital learning), a similar lack of communication was revealed. Learning about change management drove home the importance of consultation with stakeholders and creating buy-in for end users, which essentially gifted me with some wisdom which I believe will be useful in many circumstances lifelong.
Project Managment
When my organization is responsible for massive industrial contracts, a certified project manager (PM) is hired to oversee it. As I gained knowledge about project management, it gave me a new appreciation for our PM’s responsibilities. I found myself making connections between our PM’s activities and the recommended actions in the readings, thinking things like “oh, that’s why we had the ten-o’clock supervisor meeting every day” and “oh, that’s why we had those de-briefing sessions and evaluations at the end of the project.” Our PM appears to conduct business according to the book.
Data Analytics
Post-contract critiques and safety-quiz results are the data I’ve had previous experience with at work. Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton (2006) would likely categorize those types of information as satisfaction and outcome data. Data collection can contribute to areas such as quality, assessments, learner-retention, and decision-making. “Information becomes actionable knowledge when data users synthesize the information, apply their judgment to prioritize it, and weigh the relative merits of possible solutions” (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006, p.3).
Conclusion
In my current role, I can now more confidently lead change in the digital learning environment of my workplace while armed with valuable knowledge about effective change management, project management, and data analytics thanks to LRNT 525. I envision a bright and more-enlightened future for my organization!
I work for a contract company which supplies workers for industrial maintenance and repairs. Almost every task within our organization is project-based.
For large contracts requiring hundreds of workers, a certified Project Manager (PM) is recruited. The PM oversees regular meetings, monitoring/control of costs and time, Gantt Charts, critical path mapping, and wraps up with a key-stakeholder debriefing and brainstorming session for future improvements. Smaller jobs are planned, organized and managed by the core-few of owner-bosses and regular employees.
Unit 3 – Activity 1 asks us to reflect on the implementation of a new project within our organization:
What was the problem/issue to be solved? There are many challenges with training and completing hire-on packages/contracts for the hundreds of workers we need to hire for a large project. Most of the trades-workers are not local. Paying workers to travel to attend safety training well-ahead of time is challenging to schedule and very costly, and waiting until the day before a job begins is risky – we could get caught with our pants down if workers fail their safety training quizzes or don’t show up and we cannot find last-minute replacements. In addition, because we require all the sign-on documents and training to be completed before anyone is legally allowed to begin work, it is an administrative nightmare to process all the legislatively-required paperwork for hundreds of people in a single day before the job starts. The solution presented was to provide safety training online several weeks ahead of time.
Were the overall goals communicated? Yes, in a broad, not detailed, way.
Who benefited? Our organization benefited – most specifically administration.
Who were the stakeholders? The organization, the customer, and the workers/learners.
Was there a project plan put in place? There was an overall project plan with a project manager for the entire massive industrial maintenance project, but not a specific or detailed plan which focused on the digital learning aspect.
What did the plan look like? “We need online training ASAP.”
What changes in planning do you think would have helped with any of the barriers or challenges that were encountered? I think the creation of the online safety program could have started earlier so it wouldn’t have been such a mad rush to implement it and troubleshoot. I think we should have had more consideration for the experience of the end user – the workers. With more time, we might have researched online training-delivery methods and found a more user-friendly platform for technology-challenged workers.
Do you think any specific method forplanning was used? No, unless you count “ready, set, go!” as a planning method. We still unofficially managed costs and time and met the generalized criteria for successful completion, i.e. the goal to simply put the training online. This was feasible because our problem was a relatively tame/simple problem (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017).
What methods do you see yourself using in your practice? Instead of jumping straight to the execution phase, I would like to explore a more in-depth planning phase for future endeavors. I also think the “sequential sprints” described in scrum methodology (Watt, 2014, p. 36) could fit well within our organization’s culture. Conway et al.’s “think like a system, act like an entrepreneur” (2017, p. 3) method has reconfigured some of my thoughts on approach as well.
This blog post briefly examines four instances of successful organizational change related to online learning. According to Al-Haddad and Kotnour, “a change project is deemed successful if it is completed within the predetermined objectives (i.e. completed within budget, within schedule, conforming to customer requirements and satisfies the main stakeholders)” (2015, p. 251). Qualitative interviews of individuals within the investigated organizations revealed the common occurrence of problems with technology and resistance to change, yet each instance of the evolution had other unique characteristics. With multiple journeys, resources, and techniques creating both challenges and triumphs on the path to success, these four examples can provide a partial, rough map for navigating change in the field digital learning.
The first example explores the circumstances of an educational institution which adopted an all-mobile platform for learning—a bring your own device (BYOD) program. There were some hurdles to overcome. Updating the wifi infrastructure to handle increased bandwidth caused hiccups. Significant resistance from faculty emerged, which the interview subject believed could have been mitigated if all relevant parties had been consulted and included in the decision-making. Despite that mistake, the organization came through right away and developed a committee to include faculty in the process. “Carrying out the plan requires getting everyone involved who has a stake in the change” (Biech, 2007, p. 1). The faculty was also provided an exceptional training package delivered by adept instructors where learners were allotted both payment and time for their training.
In the second example, affected staff were not afforded any special training. Instead, they were expected to dive in and make the transition from classroom to online safety training by the quickest and simplest means possible. The small organization’s leader instilled confidence in the team and delegated his vision of change using positive and enthusiastic tones, which fit three of Kanter’s seven skills of effective change leaders: “communicating a compelling aspiration,” “transferring ownership to a working team,” and “making everyone a hero” (1984, p. 34). Being a small company allowed for changes to occur without any hindrance from red tape, but the lack of planning and speed of implementation created significant technology-related problems and resistance from frustrated learners who did not appreciate the change.
The interview subject in the next case stated that it is impossible to please everyone all the time. The large public school district he works for had adopted a hybrid program where all classroom learning was also available online. Leadership made all the decisions and consultations. The interviewee believed the process could have benefitted by speaking more with those outside of the senior team, although he conceded it is challenging to talk with everyone and find a balance between wide-ranging opinions. Being a government-funded organization at the mercy of public scrutiny means changes are often painstakingly researched and planned then carefully adopted in incremental phases. Biech (2007) sums up the essence of such a process succinctly: “you must plan the work and work the plan” (p. 1).
The final organization of interest planned the work and worked the plan in order to create a worldwide training program of consistent quality for staff in different countries. Language barriers, cultural differences, plus poor devices and internet capabilities were notable challenges to overcome. Contributors to the program’s success that the interviewee cited include: good communication, support from leadership, having a driver to spearhead the cause, and creating employee buy-in by asking for input. The latter aligns with one action on Weiner’s (2009) list for effective organizational changes: “getting people involved and invested in implementing the change” (p. 6). Biech (2007) discusses using a “facilitative strategy” for change management, which “depends on a shared responsibility and the involvement of everyone in the organization” (p. 2).
Combining the four cases together implies the importance of preparing to address challenges related to technology, as well as anticipating and alleviating stakeholder resistance as much as possible (preferably before making the changes). In these examples, the inclusion of individuals with vested interest in the planning, decision-making, and implementation process evidently decreases resistance and correlates with successful change and organizational alignment. Organizational alignment is described by Kotnour, Barton, Jennings, and Bridges (1998) as “organizations doing the right thing, the right way with the right people at the right time” (1998, p. 19). There are inevitable challenges when implementing complex organizational changes related to online learning, but committed leadership and organizational members who are onboard with the process can steer the ship through storms and past icebergs to successfully dock on wonderful, newfound lands.
References
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change masters. Training and Development Journal 38(4), 39-43.
Kotnour, T., Barton, S., Jennings, J. and Bridges, R. (1998). Understanding and leading large-scale change at the Kennedy Space Center. Engineering Management Journal, 10(2), 17.
How have the theories/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic and societal contexts? Biech (2007) described more current models for organizational change as adaptations of Lewin’s foundational 3-step model (unfreeze, movement/transformation, refreeze) which is sometimes considered too simple and obsolete (especially for addressing the challenge of refreezing in a fast-changing world). Newer theories and models are tailored to address current contexts. “Organizations of today must be agile and flexible” (para. 30).
Which theories/models do you think best align with your own approach to leadership? Do these approaches align with your organizational context? After completing the Unit 2 readings, I feel most drawn to the CHANGE model described in Beich’s (2007) work. If I had to map out my organization’s current change model, it would look like this: (1) Verbally present new idea (2) Jump in and do it (3) Adjust it and fix it (4) Repeat. There are never any studies, reports, or consultation beyond a vague verbal picture of “this is what I want” from the boss with perhaps some input from bystanders. I recognize this model is not as feasible in larger and/or public organizations. I think there is plenty of room for improvement, especially in the more careful adoption of new technologies (there has been an awful lot of wasted time in troubleshooting), but our organization’s low level of red tape with a small team who are generally on the same page allows for quick changes and maximum flexibility.
What role does leadership play in managing change? Effective leadership for facilitating change will communicate the value of change, assess change readiness, get relevant parties on board and committed, and provide the skills, resources, and time needed for implementation (Weiner, 2009).
What are the unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments? Weller & Anderson (2013) offer a model based on resilience. What attributes do you think would work well within your own context? Beyond an organizational change in general, digital learning environments must additionally navigate unique technical challenges that go along with system upgrades, applications which are not interoperable (Feldstein, 2017), and the demands on skills and time for affected parties. I believe what would work well in my organization’s context is the Appreciative Inquiry approach which Beich (2007) described, plus a friendly, steadily, and naturally progressing path of change with consideration for the experiences of organizational members which is depicted in the Udas (2008) blog post. Legacy, brand loyalty, and history can be what makes organizations successful, but can also hinder future progression if there is resistance to change while clinging to the past. “Resilience requires adaptation and evolution to new environmental conditions, but retains core identity” (Weller & Anderson, 2013, para. 12).
“Reflective leadership is the consistent practice of reflection, which involves conscious awareness of behaviors, situations, and consequences with the goal of improving organizational performance” (Castelli, 2016, p. 217). It is beneficial to create opportunities for reflection, as the busy life typically leaves little space to pause and seek improvement. In this assignment, we are asked to reflect on our personal leadership perspective.
My first propensity is to endorse the idea that the qualities of great leaders are the same qualities of great humans. When I dig deeper, an objection arises to the statement since categorizations of what is good are largely based on opinion, much like how delicious foods, appealing music, and physical attractiveness are generally a matter of individual taste. O’Toole (2008) tells the story of how participants at a seminar discussing good societies and organizations discovered how “reasonable people disagreed on what constitutes a good society (and a good company), and that the role of a leader is to create conditions in which people with different agendas can unite behind a common purpose” (p. 2).
What makes a good leader? If good leadership is measured solely by one’s ability to steer the flock, then Stalin and Hitler were stellar leaders. If good leadership is judged on values, virtues, missions, success, and ethics, then describing good leadership becomes more complex because of infinite situational, personal, and political variances.
In the situation of digital learning environments, Sheninger (2014) insists leaders must anticipate, navigate, and initiate change in consideration of the evolving, universal presence of technology. “Digital leadership requires a shift in leadership style from one of mandates, directives, and buy-in, to one grounded in empowerment, support, and embracement as keys to sustainable change” (p. 2). Comfort with technology and adeptness with communicating using digital tools will support the leader’s approach.
My approach to leadership is oftentimes an exercise in simply doing what needs to be done, as well as possible, under the given circumstances, which O’Toole (2008) describes as contingency/situational leadership. As a sometimes-indecisive person who dislikes the drama, responsibility, and vulnerability-to-criticism that can go along with being in a leadership position, I usually prefer to work in a supportive role or with a cooperative team where I can freely offer my input. My employers have nudged me into temporary, contract-based supervisory positions, enticing me only with the higher paycheques. Before I first accepted that role, I believed I could successfully do the job, but I did not anticipate much fun in it. I feel more happy taking the lead on initiatives behind the scenes by implementing new projects and checking in with the team periodically to pitch/bounce ideas. I like a shared leadership approach, although I must have clear lines beforehand to avoid nurturing inefficiency by being too democratic and getting tripped up on trying to allow the simultaneous manifestation of everyone’s ideas. With conscious reflection, my leadership approach will certainly change over time.
The introduction of digital technologies has changed my leadership roles at work. My media and technology skills helped qualify me to spearhead the company’s online safety training initiatives. Workers used to always receive safety training in classrooms by instructors using powerpoint presentations, which I had nothing to do with. The crew I was supervising would arrive after completing their classroom safety program, and my role would then be to deliver onsite training and show them the ropes. Now, being responsible for the digital safety program, I get to shape the offsite training so that my crew is better-prepared when they arrive at the job site. The introduction of digital technologies has also impacted communication. I used to primarily have face-to-face interactions in the days when smartphones were not as omnipresent, whereas now it is common to communicate with workers on the job via text message. Change seems to come fast nowadays.
The readings from Unit 1 discussed some theories of leadership which could be used to effectively navigate change within digital environments. Khan (2017) expresses enthusiasm for the holistic view granted by adaptive leaders who “carefully recognize potential changes in the external environment and consider the best path that will positively affect the organization” (p. 179). Castelli (2016) offers reflective leadership as “a principled and thoughtful approach to making meaningful change” (p. 217).
The thoughtful approach garnered through this academic activity of reflecting on my personal leadership perspective has proven to be useful and interesting. With such limited time in my overpacked life, I judge it to be “good” to examine this topic and reflect. Castelli explains how reflection “promotes clarity with respect to one’s values, identity, emotions, motives and goals and leads to improved thinking, information collection, goal setting and visualization of success with enhanced leadership behaviour and results” (2016, p. 217). Learning about leadership theories and being reflective and adaptive can help me to embody my personal vision of a “good” leader.
References
Castelli, P. (2015). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190-236.
Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178-183.
O’Toole, James (2008). Notes Toward a Definition of Values-Based Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1).
Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education.
I ended up coming down with a cold on Wednesday, and my voice was a bit scratchy. By Friday the voice was completely gone. By Saturday evening (last night), I started to think, “uh oh, how will I talk in my video for the assignment worth 30% that’s due tomorrow?”
I am not a person who panics, so I calmly started devising Plan B, imagining how much effort (and possibly money) it would take to get my son to read the script for me. It turned out he had plans for all day today, so I had to be innovative and flexible this morning in order to accomplish a 10-minute talk without a voice. In the end, the job is complete, and at the very least I’ve provided myself with a chuckle. And yes, in case you were wondering, I am well-aware (after living with myself for 39 years) of my inherent weirdness.
The lesson to be learned is: record your video assignment earlier than 5 days before it is due in case you lose your voice… Unless, of course, you believe in a higher purpose for all things, in which case one could proclaim it was always meant to be this way!
On a whim, I decided to do a completely different design challenge. My original design challenge was workplace-related: To create engagement for workers doing online training. I had all my research-backing ready and a few sentences under each heading in my outline summarizing what I’d say for my Assignment 4… and then I had a conversation with my boss earlier this week.
He was thanking me for working 18.5 hours (from 5:30am until midnight) last Wednesday when a critical job was extended. He said he was too exhausted to stay that late himself and his next day started too early and it was too busy. I thanked him back for the 10.5 overtime hour$, lol.
But I’m too busy too. I used to pride myself on working in ridiculously crazy, condensed work segments so that I could live a somewhat leisurely life for about two-thirds of the year. Now I work almost every day, and when I’m not working, there’s the onslaught of schoolwork and piles of housework, etc., it feels like it never ends! I haven’t put away Christmas yet! If I’m being truly honest, I haven’t finished unpacking yet from moving last May either.
In my opinion, the biggest digital learning environment challenge that affects my learning originates from outside the environment. It is the same challenge that affects the lives of many people, including people outside of DLEs. For most of us students, my boss, our instructors (judging by hours of availability for that last forum), the challenge that plagues us all, it seems, is this: insane busyness.
Below is my design challenge. Critical friends are welcome, but no obligation, I know you’re all busy!
Busyness Business: A Design Challenge
Overview
When compared with post-secondary students in traditional institutions, online distance learners are often older, with greater outside responsibilities such as jobs and families (Brown, Hughes, Keppell, Hard, & Smith, 2015). Online education experiences rapid growth and higher dropout rates than classrooms (Christensen & Spackman, 2017). The flexibility offered to learners who are steeped in other responsibilities can partially explain the popularity of digital education, while varied and complex factors combined with life duties can contribute to the higher attrition (Patterson & McFadden, 2009).
Design Rationale
In a 2015 study of post-secondary online students by Brown et al., participants cited employment, dependents, struggles with partners, ill health, home environment, leisure, low digital literacy, economic troubles, being out of school for a long time, and previous conditioning to classroom learning environments as hindrances to their learning. Developing empathetic, innovative solutions to support digital learners beyond academically—within a broader context of their life circumstances—is worth consideration. As Moody puts it, “the higher attrition rates result in a “no win” situation for all involved: the student fails and the institution providing the course, in a sense, fails as well” (2004, p. 206).
Problem Scenario
You are enrolled in an online Masters program learning digital instructional design. All of the students are older and have more financial responsibilities than the average, Canadian, recent-high-school-graduate entering higher education. Most of your classmates work full time, and many have children, pets, and/or houses with yards to take care of. There are varying levels of digital literacy and numbers of years since the students were last in school. Intense busyness plus high levels of anxiety, stress, and/or overwhelm are evident in a notable percentage of your peers.
Your mission is to design an innovative tool, technique, resource, or strategy to share with students for addressing time-demands, fragmented-focus, and/or other life-challenges in order to promote success and positive morale in digital learning.
Parameters
You will work in pairs. Conduct a synchronous, empathy-based interview with each other to uncover any challenge(s) to learning that you and your classmate face. Spend 10-15 minutes on your own and come up with several ideas to solve your partner’s problem(s), including one or more sensible solutions, ambitious solutions, and outlandish solutions (for practicing innovative creativity). Re-connect and pool all your ideas with your partner’s, then either select the best one or combine any number of them to design a single, innovative prototype for sharing with the whole class.
Success Determinants
Success is measured collectively amongst the entire class through a mandatory end-of-exercise survey, asking: Did you feel a supportive kinship with your partner and/or other students through this exercise? Do you feel any improvement in your ability to succeed, or more positive about your online learning after gaining these solutions from your peers?
If half the respondents answer yes to at least one question, then the overall experience was beneficial and therefore successful.
References
Brown, M., Hughes, H., Keppell, M., Hard, N., & Smith, L. (2015). Stories from students in their first semester of distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4).
Christensen, S. S., & Spackman, J. S. (2017). Dropout rates, student momentum, and course walls: A new tool for distance education designers. Journal of Educators Online, 14(2).
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design issues, 30(1), 67-77.
Moody, J. (2004). Distance education: Why are the attrition rates so high?. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(3), 205.
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2).
Stanford University of Design. (n.d.). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Retrieved from https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/ 36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdf
The 3rd Unit of LRNT 524 focuses on applying innovation within our own context. This post will provide a few comments on some of the readings.
Back in Unit 1, we were prompted to read portions of Crichton and Carter’s (2017) toolkit, and for this Unit, I dove into the remainder. I have an appreciation for the easy, yet rich, digestible nature of the content. The abundant links took me down the rabbit hole on several occasions, getting the cogs turning in my head.
The entire document touched on too much for me to cover every topic here. The overall feel was one of creativity, exploration, problem-finding, empathizing, learning-by-doing, rogue design-thinking situated in a human-centered, socially-conscious context. I was especially fond of the exposition on Carol Dweck’s growth mindset – the embracing of learning and innovation through trials and mistakes (p. 17). The categories of assessment also caught my attention. Crichton & Carter distinguished between assessment of learning (such as grading at the end of a unit or course); assessment as learning (ongoing, informal modifications like coaching); and assessment for learning (teachers use ongoing evaluation and adjust their techniques and activities to support learning), (p.28). I judge the explanation to be a neat-and-tidy discernment which I had never thought of before – a welcome, breath-of-fresh-air when juxtaposed next to more complex and convoluted concepts that are sometimes encountered in heavy learning environments.
After Thomas’s (2010) overwhelming overview of dozens of instructional design models (a Unit 1 reading), Moore (2016) gifted us with some focused clarity on one model – the TAPPA process (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact). While teaching the readers about the TAPPA model, Moore touched on the ADDIE and Dick and Carey models to describe the borrowed aspects from these earlier, grandparent models, which paved the way for the making of TAPPA. The author’s stated intention for TAPPA is to serve as a resource for other instructional designers, a tool with an adaptive process of varying complexity and flexibility. Moore depicted the TAPPA process on a non-linear, double-helix continuum.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) also made use of the concept of a continuum by placing three theoretical frameworks on a spectrum alongside a low-to-high-knowledge continuum. The authors familiarized the readers with comparisons of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism utilizing a delightfully organized and intelligible 7-question format to facilitate understanding through differentiation.
For me, understanding is facilitated when I have the opportunity to apply learning, try out new skills, exercise empathy, and spread my innovation wings within my own context.
References
Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013 Online). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
