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.
Hey George,
I too quite liked the TAPPA model, it seems more applicable to my situation than models like ADDIE or Dick and Carey. I think the incorporation of prototyping into the model increases it’s attractivness.
Also, nice Simpson reference…
Hi Steve,
For microinstruction and fluid material I think TAPPA seems to be a good process. I’m glad that you can find usefulness in your situation. Also glad that you got the reference :).
Hello George,
I find the TAPPA method to be very pragmatic, and the five questions that define its steps are so down to earth that there is little space for misunderstanding. When thinking on asking others to follow a certain method, I like how the TAPPA approach can be easily put into practice within any context.
In my case I am building a proposal in which professional development coaches would be guiding the learners to actually apply TAPPA… and it seems feasible.
I am not familiar with The Simpsons characters, but thinking on past projects… I think I would’ve killed for TAPPA-TAPPA-TAPPA too!
Cheers!
Hi Alfonso, thanks for the comment. Yes, clarity is great especially in the complex world of instructional design. The case study did show the effectiveness of TAPPA for PD. Best of luck for the proposal. Also, don’t worry about the reference as it is a fairly obscure one haha.
George
Hi George,
I too was thinking of the Simpsons when I saw this ( hence the same blog post title). Much like Dick and Carey was an evolution of ADDIE, TAPPA is yet another evolution idea that directly relates to our common use of technology, which is probably why it is appealing. In this age we like things that give us instant gratification.
Great points in your post!
Thanks for the insights Laura.
Thanks for your thoughts here George. I agree that in courses where curriculum is rigid, this type of rapid prototyping is tough to institute. Do you think instructors would be open to using this in some units though, where they may be making changes and want to try a new approach? I’m really not sure if designers are commonly involved during the actual course (though this method would suggest they are). I can see instructors getting worried that it will fall flat or that they won’t be prepared, but ultimately it could really help to create units which are solid, varied and effective…..
Hi Stuart, it’s interesting that you mention using TAPPA for units. We’ve been looking at some modularization for some courses which would allow students to take a break from studies and return without having to take the whole course again. I think this would be a scenario where instructors and designers (of which I’m neither) need to come together and see where the process leads them. Like you said, it could lead to some varied but effective learning. Thanks.