Category: LRNT 524

One of the readings this week is a case study on an instructional design process called TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact). Having read a lot on the theory of instructional design in LRNT 524, it was refreshing to see how one of these methods works in practice. TAPPA seems to incorporate the speed and participatory design of rapid prototyping, the analysis and assessment components of the ADDIE model (basically the beginning and the end), and the Dick and Carey Model (which allows for a non-linear approach).

Moore’s (2016) five steps to TAPPA are:

Step 1: Target – What is the end result or goal for this project?

Step 2: Accomplishment – What are you hoping to accomplish with this artifact and how will you know if you have accomplished it?

Step 3: Past – Have you done anything like this previously?

Step 4: Prototype – Can you create a mock-up or an example of the finished product?

Step 5: Artifact – What have you created?

I quite like how each step is clear and a distinct milestone. By it’s very design you can also backtrack to different steps and modify when necessary which I appreciate. Past in particular is important, as I feel more often than not we should not be reinventing the wheel and recycle what has been proven to work effectively (with some innovative tweaks). I was excited when I read that the author was seeking to use this model for a hybrid instructional design process as it would be quite relevant for my work. Alas, the example was for the creation of webinars for government officials. TAPPA seems to work best for microinstructional courses which allow for quick alterations and adaptations to a changing audience. While that could be of use for the learners in my organization, it may not be the best model for hybrid high school courses which need to follow a strict curriculum and does not allow much freedom for change as the course progresses. Still, I see the steps in TAPPA being useful in some fashion and also there is commonality between this process and many others. This makes sense as it itself is a hybrid of others. What I’ve learned is that blending of methodologies is common, taking the best components of models and creating something that works in specific contexts. It seems there is much more renewal than true innovation.

References

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.

The readings for this week Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker (Goldman et al., 2012) and Innovation and Change: Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) both had a lot of food for thought.

In the first article, Goldman et al. (2012) show how design thinking can be assessed. Their journey through various assessment types showed that you really have to think outside the box. Standard assessments would typically be able to adopt a form of a rubric, but when looking at mindshifts as described by the authors the type of rubric needed was a quandary. The changing viewpoints were best captured through action and therefore performance-based assessment was tried. The idea of the mindshift is something that resonates with me as I do not believe in the hard-wiring of individuals, but we all have our own personal skills and tasks with which we excel at. Intellectual risk taking is also another term that comes to mind and relates closely. An intellectual risk taker will experience mindshifts which will hopefully spur innovation and new thinking. The challenge with assessment comes with how do you know whether the process has been successful or not? How do you measure ingenuity? How much does the process matter?

The second article titled Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) reminds me of why change is difficult. The barriers to adoption of new technology mentioned: resources, institution, subject culture, attitudes/beliefs, knowledge/skills, and assessment are all prevalent in my organization. I felt that Dron was channeling my thoughts and I found out why since as I read I found that the example used was in relation to K-12, which is where I’m currently employed in (seems like it is the same everywhere). Disruption in of itself is going to ruffle some feathers. Technology is meant to change things. Institutions are not open to change, but run the risk of being left behind. Of course there needs to be a plan of transition and plenty of supports to go with it. First it all begins with a change in mindset towards technology, or maybe a mindshift…

References

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.

As we progressed through the design thinking process (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016), both my partner and I quickly found that we shared similar problems in our respective organizations. The problem that we sought to solve involved trying to include and empower adult students with English as a Second Language and adult students with minimal technological background within hybrid (blended) courses taught at our respective institutions. We found that students in either scenario (or both) were likely to be reclusive in the online environment or not be receptive to the style of learning that an online format provides. As we worked through the process, two components emerged as potential solutions that dig into what we believe to be the root of the issue.

Enhancing online teacher training to incorporate empathy and seeking to understand and negate negative feelings toward technology was the first solution we found. As researched by Vann (2017), online course design is very different from face-to-face course design and sometimes instructors do not have the same level of empathy toward their adult learners. She found that 87% of online students perceived lack of empathy from their online instructors when compared to face-to-face instructors. Vann also found that sometimes the best way to get instructors to have empathy and to understand the process is to actually put them through an online learning course so they can experience firsthand the obstacles that their students might have as online adult learners. We believe that creating an introductory online learning course for the instructors before starting and teaching their online course can give the instructors the tools, experience, and knowledge they need to be able to understand their students better and to identify with them in order to have a connection and be able to empathize.

Making adult students more comfortable with technology and to be able to learn at the same level as more tech-savvy students is the other solution that we found. We believe that this can be achieved by utilizing group activities through virtual discussions during the course. As stated by Seay (2006), adult students can be more successful in their online course when they are provided with a virtual study group or discussion forum so they can discuss their issues with their instructor or help each other understand the material. When adults are paired through virtual group activities with other students that have more technological knowledge, they can overcome challenges such as lack of confidence/familiarity with technology. Online discussions can help them learn from their peers. Also, it would be easier for them to reach out to the instructors for direction if they have more options to communicate.

While there were other components that we had come up with, we believe these two solutions: 1) Increasing teacher training with focus on empathy and 2) Creating a more social environment for students, are the best ways to start in making an inclusive online learning community. These solutions are specifically targeted to the unique demographics at our respective organizations. We hope that when teachers are comfortable using technology and can empathize with the unique backgrounds of their students, they can then create the inclusive system where students of any background or level can be successful and engage to their full extent.

References:

Seay, S. (2006). Strategies for success: Improving the academic performance of low-Income adult and first-Generation students in online general education courses. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 54(3), 22-35. doi:10.1080/07377366.2006.10401222

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.

Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating empathy: A phenomenological study of instructional designers making instructional strategy decisions for adult learners. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 29(2), 233-244.

This week’s readings dug a little deeper in terms of instructional design and what designers should being keeping in mind when doing so. Crichton and Carter (2017) mention how the mindset of the student is extremely important and reference the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s suggestions on the factors that learning environments should incorporate. They are that learning environments need to be 1) learner-centred, 2) structured and well-designed, 3) profoundly personalized, 4) inclusive, and 5) social (p. 18). These factors in my mind are straightforward and build upon what I know previously to be aspects to what a successful learning environment (whether it be online or not) should look like. The introduction of empathic design by Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen (2014) on the other hand throws me a curveball.

As a researcher I should be quite comfortable with learning theories. In reality though, I feel most grounded with concepts that can be practically seen. The ideas behind problem-based learning or inquiry-based learning have the core concept of trying to find a solution to a problem. Simple enough. Empathic design looks at human behaviour and tries to map learning to those actions (at least in my understanding). Through the reading I realize that it is much more complicated than that. “Empathic designers studied how people make sense of emotions, talk about them, and share them” (Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014, p. 68). Perhaps it is the abstract nature of empathic design that eludes me. I recognize that everyone is different and personalized learning leads to successful learning (as mentioned above). Mattelmäki,  Vaajakallio, and Koskinen talk a lot about the research into empathic design, but I guess I would like to see a practical example of how it is incorporated. I feel empathic design is always at the back of our minds when we think about learning environments, but to put my finger down on an aspect that is clearly empathy influenced is a challenge that I need to overcome.

References

Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.

Coming into the course LRNT524 – Innovation, Design and Learning Environments, I had my apprehensions as someone who had no experience with instructional design. As a researcher by day (and sometimes at night), I dealt with more of the evaluative piece at the end of a course. I’ve had little contact with the instructional designers who develop said courses. I suppose I’m at the E stage (Evaluate) for the ADDIE model as described by Bates (2014).

It’s definitely interesting to see the whole process from beginning to end. While I had known that there were a multitude of methods in designing instruction, the sheer of amount of theories and approaches have been overwhelming. The ADDIE model seems straightforward enough, where you Analyze what’s needed, Design learning objectives to meet the needs, Develop content that achieve the learning objectives, Implement the delivery of the content, and finally Evaluate whether the design is successful or not. The methodology is simple, but may not apply to every situation. Thomas (2010) introduces other methods such as the universal systems model, rapid prototyping, Gagné’s nine events of instruction, the Dick and Carey model, Smith and Ragan’s model, Merill’s Models of Instructional Design, and the Dynamic ID model among others. All of these models have some form of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, but vary in the way and order that these processes are enacted.

The universal systems model has an iterative process which gathers feedback from the output and continues to allow altered input. Gagné’s nine events of instruction splits up different events (e.g., stimulation of past learning, providing opportunity for students to show learning, etc.) into pre-instructional, instructional, and post-instructional phases. These methods very greatly in specificity and only the designer can determine which method would work best for their design challenge. I believe a challenge for myself will be to see what are the advantages to each model and under what scenario would each work best. As Bates (2014) points out, ADDIE “does not provide guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose between different technologies, or what assessment strategies to use”. I would ask a question from one step back and wonder what are the guidelines or procedures for deciding how to choose an instructional design model? Luckily we are at the beginning of the course, so hopefully as we progress (and with more reading) the answer will become clearer.

References

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/

Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Botswana). Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/04Chap%203_Learning%20and%20instructional%20systems%20design.pdf