Learning about the TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact) method of design as outlined in Robert Moore’s article helped to reaffirm some elements of my own approach as an instructor over the past ten years.
I’ve been fortunate to have been involved in the LINC program, teaching newcomers to Canada language skills for life and work. Similar to the TAPPA approach, LINC focuses first on a TARGET-type stage, which uses a backwards design approach. We determine needs of learners within certain topics each month, before choosing materials to help build those skills to summative assessments at the end.
I really like this approach, as each group of learners will have different needs, and the design process should be flexible enough to adapt with each incarnation. Developing activities to help establish these needs are definitely challenging though. As mentioned in the article, dealing with SMEs can also be tough at this point, as they are aware of WHAT, but not so much HOW to “produce learning” (Moore, 2016, p. 426).
TAPPA also focuses heavily on micro type activities such as those where students engage in some sort of interaction. Breaking the course down to its key elements can also aid in the above mentioned flexibility, as any learning activity itself can be broken down, and in turn can be modified without requiring the course to change drastically.
As an instructor, I have in the past had a set of activities at the ready for any specific unit. I would though adapt which ones to use and how to use them depending on the way the class was progressing, and my interpretation of how successful students are in formative evaluations.
One part of TAPPA which was just glazed over was the role of reflection. I was surprised that reflection in action was not incorporated, in order to aid in rapid prototyping. Perhaps it is part of the formative evaluation, and I can definitely see myself creating as many opportunities for reflection as possible in order to get a sense from both the learners and the instructor as to the effectiveness (at the PROTOTYPING stage).
Another aspect of TAPPA that I can see practical application for is the use of design principles. We have learned about using them as part of A3 in this course, and I can envision myself using design principles to guide iterations of courses I build in future. Moore outlines this as a way to assist novice designers, as well as to aid in the PAST part of TAPPA. Proceeding from a worked example can really help novice designers to see the path of execution of a project. The principles (as Deb and Susan have mentioned) need to be constantly adapted to fit the specific context, but key principles can be carried across like contexts.
One part of this that I look forward to learning and understanding more about is how to “identify those characteristics that are most critical to the achievement of the specific training objectives” (Moore, 2016, p. 427). While designing course materials for programs where I am not a subject matter expert in the past, I have found it extremely challenging to know what types of ‘skills’ are needed to be successful at work. The content part can be determined fairly easily, but the design of learning environments that build appropriate skills (working with others, taking initiative, etc.) as well as allowing learners to retain content are where I plan to focus. We all know that just being given the book doesn’t always mean we can do the job.
TAPPA is a set of building blocks that I plan to use in future, and I really enjoyed this article.
Reference
Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.
The image was taken from http://news.businessfacilitation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Grozel-building-block-clipart-6.jpg.
January 17, 2018 at 7:39 am
“As an instructor, I have in the past had a set of activities at the ready for any specific unit. I would though adapt which ones to use and how to use them depending on the way the class was progressing, and my interpretation of how successful students are in formative evaluations”.
-This to me seems un-conscious empathetic design, bravo! Do you think any other aspects of design thinking will help improve your approach in the future? Does the design thinking process work well with TAPPA? A lot of people are posting about this article, think I will make soem time to read it
January 19, 2018 at 8:03 am
Marshall,
I would say that there are lots of elements of TAPPA which are useful. I am just a little sceptical about how it can apply to situations where you work in isolation as a designer, and don’t have a chance to iterate or prototype due to time restrictions, policy etc. If you don’t have any access to your clients/students, then determining their needs may be very difficult.
January 17, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Hi Stu,
I too enjoyed this article. As a novice, I prefer to zero in on only a few design techniques, models, and theoretical frameworks, and then branch out my learning and practice from there. When there are too many choices and variations, the content doesn’t stick as well in my skull. This article was focused, clear, and it touched on TAPPA’s heritage from well-established instructional design models, thus seeking to renew and innovate them. Moore has a generous tone, professes TAPPA’s purpose as being helpful, and invites instructional designers to embrace the flexibility and build on the framework to suit individualized needs.
“Instructional designers and instructors are faced with the daunting task of choosing from a multitude of instructional system design models. The challenge is identifying which model or process will be the most adaptive for their needs” (Moore, 2016, p. 431).
I appreciate how you tied your real-life work circumstances into your blog post about the article. It broadens my conceptualization of the content when I imagine your true example.
January 19, 2018 at 8:08 am
Thanks for your comments Angie.
I agree that with so many approaches at our fingertips, it is much more useful to choose a path and follow it, rather than trying in incorporate them all. I can see myself in future finding a medley that works for me, and then pulling a bit more from certain approaches depending on the context. I feel the same way about behaviourist, cognitivist and constructivist etc. It’s impossible to just choose one, and we need to try them out to find what works best.
Thanks as well for commenting on my link to my own work. I kind of wish our instructors did more of that to be honest, as I really want to see how the theoretical ideas have been applied successfully in contexts we can relate to.