Category: Uncategorised

Theoretical Frameworks – Unit 3 Activity 1

My work in progress, theoretical framework brainstorm session…

  • Constructivism: throughout the MALAT program I was convinced that constructivism was the theory that I would apply to my final paper. It seemed the most relevant to the millennial learner and I felt like it resonated most with how I like to learn, so I always just assumed it would naturally fit my topic. At this point, I’m struggling to see how constructivist learning theory could tie specifically to design elements and delivery methods related to digital learning environments (DLE). On one hand, I think I there are many fundamentals I could draw from related more to the delivery methods of DLEs, but I’m not sure how fruitful it would be to build off of for specific design elements.
  • Activity Theory: I had never come across Activity Theory until this course and with the help of alphabetical order; I read that suggested reading first. I was slightly confused at first, but as I read on and began to preliminarily search ‘Activity theory’ AND ‘front-line workers’, I found a handful of articles that connected the two. My limited knowledge of Activity Theory sparked my interest because it seems to create a link between the individual and the social reality. However, my main concern is that it seems to be a framework that would better support research related to online group learning dynamics and specific interactions, and that is not necessarily something I am looking for or focusing on in my specific research.
  • Adult Learning Theory: Without fail, this seems like the most obvious choice as I’m really trying to expand on the traits of the adult learner (with a focus on Gen Y and Gen Z) and match them with design and delivery methods for DLEs. The focus on self-directed learning and motivation is a critical foundation for my research topic and it would be foolish to omit this theory. As I start to read through in more depth, I keep being drawn further and further to continue on. Knowles (1973) research includes implications of learning theories to specific program development which I feel will be important to include. I am really intrigued to dig deeper here and I think that this is where I want to go and the theory to use as the “blueprint” to my research.

Overall, I am leaning towards Adult Learning Theory as my primary theoretical framework. I would like to include Constructivism as a secondary option if I can figure out a way to not overcomplicate the research. I believe that constructivism is very important when discussing the development of pedagogy within digital learning environments so I’d love to hear your thoughts on if you think these two are a solid option 🙂 

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED084368.

 

Disseminating Research

What I’m hoping to accomplish from my research, is to gain a very strong understanding of the various digital learning platforms (I’m hesitant to use the term LMS as I’m not convinced that I need to limit my options), and features within them, that are on the market today. Ideally, I’d like to use my research as a tool to help influence decision makers within my organization and showcase the options available and subsequently highlight the limitations with our current system.

In terms of dissemination, I intend to use my end product strictly within the confines of my organization. I’d like to use it as a tool to showcase my extensive knowledge on the topic and ideally to secure myself a position on the committee involved in selecting the proper digital learning platform for the future. Ideally, the work from my research could help build out a detailed RFP and provide our organization with more science behind what we are looking for. 

I am also considering taking the research and creating a summarized overview of my findings and posting the article on LinkedIn to share with my peers.

LRNT 528 – Week 8(a) AR/VR – Activity 3

I used to think that Virtual Reality was predominantly present in video games and very “high-tech” organizations. Now I think that it is becoming more mainstream where many of the functionalities can be applied to learning and educational environments.

Here’s What…

Virtual Reality seems to be completely separate interactions outside of the “real world”, whereas Augmented Reality seems to be a way to take real-life scenarios and improve or enhance through technology (Wang, Callaghan, Bernhardt, White. & Pena-Riox, 2017).

So What…

After beginning to immerse myself in a research topic I lacked familiarity in, my interpretation is that both VR and AR are becoming more accessible and available to the average person.

Now What…

In the world of education, my prediction is that as online learning communities and institutions grow, more fields of study will be accessible remotely with the help of VR and AR. I can see areas like medicine, firefighting, or many trades benefiting from the improvements in technology that allow for simulations and real-world training environments.

Wang, M., Callaghan, V., Bernhardt, J., White, K., & Pena-Rios, A. (2018). Augmented reality in education and training: Pedagogical approaches and illustrative case studies. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 9(5), 1391-1402. doi:10.1007/s12652-017-0547-8

LRNT 527 – Unit 3 Activity 2 – The Reflect Phase

What was the most surprising thing that you learned by participating in the design thinking process and designing and developing your digital learning resource?

What I enjoyed most about the design thinking process and found most compelling was the needs assessment portion. Observing and engaging with the learners I was designing for, gave me the opportunity to understand more than just the learning-related traits, but everything from the environment, design elements, and external factors that impact the overall learning experience. After “walking in their shoes” and immersing myself in their working environment, I felt I was far better equipped to design something to meet their needs. The combination of design-based research, learning theories, and the needs assessment proved to be an effective foundation to start building something that could work. 

What suggestions and improvements did you receive? Did you get any feedback that you did not expect? What feedback needs further investigation? 

I received feedback related to the learning objectives I had set and agree that they could absolutely be more direct in terms of actionable verbs to be used, as well as proper measurable ways to evaluate whether or not they had been met. I also received some very constructive recommendations that I will absolutely be using when designing the remainder of this digital resource. Specifically, incorporating functionality to track advancement will be important to highlight the accomplishments and progress of the learners; it will also be beneficial for our succession planning tool as well. It was also suggested that I build a journey out of the various modules to help in managing the overall learning outcome while providing a clear path for the user. A recommendation was also made to keep some face-to-face training in place to allow for networking and social interaction, I will look at how to keep this interactive option open even if it can’t be done in a physical event form.

What are the next steps you would like to take to build upon your digital learning resource?

The next steps will require a rebuild of the learning objectives, not just the module I made but for the entirety of the management training system. I will also need to dive deeper into the needs assessment when looking at the entirety of the management learning journey as opposed to the one in-class element.  

 Also, consider how you might utilize the design thinking process for the design and creation of digital learning resources in the future, or for other tasks that you may encounter within your instructional context.

After completing the design thinking process from beginning to end, I will now incorporate this model in my workplace. The biggest missing piece was the empathy phase and I believe that by introducing this in future design projects it will only continue to help our team as we elevate our course offerings. Evaluation and reflection are also steps that have been redefined for me, and rather than doing rigorous “post-mortem” evaluations that focus primarily on saturation numbers, a deeper dive in areas related to learning objectives will allow us to evaluate more areas of effectiveness.

LRNT 527 – Unit 3 Activity 1 – The Test Phase

The framework our team used was a blend of both the LORI Model (Leacock & Nesbit, 2007) and the conceptual framework outlined by Hadjerrouit (2010). Both of these models offered great elements to pull from that we felt relevant to evaluating digital learning resources.

When considering aspects of learning theories, the presentation design and interactivity criteria seemed to encapsulate the most important aspects of effective digital learning resources in my opinion.

From what we know about the implications for online learning outlined by Ally (2008), most of the key aspects can be evaluated through the presentation design and the interactivity criteria. Some examples include:

Behaviourist:

  • Sequencing should begin a simple moving to complex (Design)
  • Learners should be able to receive feedback from the resource (Interactivity)

Cognitivism:

  • Proper location of information on the screen and minimal overload of sensations (Design)
  • Critical information should be highlighted for focused attention (Design)
  • Learners should have the opportunity to complete assignments and use in real life contexts (Interactivity)

Constructivism:

  • Learners interpret and process information through senses to create knowledge (Design)
  • Learners should have control of the learning process and navigate the resource accordingly (Interactivity)

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 53-79.

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2) 44-59.

 

 

LRNT 527 – Unit 2 Activity 3 – Design Plan

Description: 

The digital learning resource will be a short video segment that will live as a module amongst 15 others in our management learning program. The module is meant to take the 2-hour instructor-led content and consolidate it into one 5 minute video outlining all of the key information related to that specific module topic. The 15 modules that make up the management learning program consist of topics like loss prevention, scheduling, business analytics, and people development. For the sake of this assignment, I will focus on the people development module when creating my digital learning resource.

Learning Goals: 

The goal of the module is to provide an introduction to the people development model and to prepare the learner for the subsequent modules that will dive deeper into coaching techniques and accessing resources. 

Upon completion of the module the learner will be able to:

  • Understand the basic training resources and coaching methods for each stage of the people development model.
  • Determine how their role as the “coach” fits into the learning journey for their staff.
  • Understand how people development fits within the employee experience.
  • List all stages of the retail employee learning journey at FGL Sports.

Intended Audience: 

The intended audience in the past for all content related to management training was specific to and only made accessible to, new store managers or high potential assistant managers who would be invited to the instructor-led summit once a year. With the digital delivery option, the content will be made accessible to:

  • All new managers as part of their onboarding process
  • Existing or tenured managers looking to refresh themselves on key role responsibilities
  • High potential Assistant or Department Managers looking to expand their knowledge base and take on their own development
  • Any retail associate who is interested in learning more about the organization and the role of the Store Manager.

My hope is that this can ultimately improve our talent pipeline and succession planning strategy by introducing more people who are motivated to develop within our company.

Rationale: 

I am confident that the delivery of a clear, concise, and informative video can meet the learning needs to highlight the training resources and coaching methods available for developing our people.  Typically the in-person sessions are filled with various facilitators with different presentation styles and communication skills. By streamlining all of the modules in a format that is consistent, we can control the process and message that is getting out to our field (store-level) teams.

Tools: 

The tool that I have chosen to use is the animated program “Powtoon”. The reason being is:

  • Cartoons can ensure consistency with the look and feel of the design and specifically the facilitator. As personnel come and go, the avatar will remain the same, promoting uniformity and sustainability.
  • The program is somewhat easy to learn and I am familiar with it from a previous course assignment.
  • The tool has the ability to add voiceover, text, and video media for optimized design delivery.

Assessment Plan: 

The Assessment plan will be two-fold for this digital learning resource as there are potentially different learners who might access the video.

Primary Audience – Store Manager being onboarded:

  • No assessment or checkpoints during video
  • After module completion, there is a “Show Me Step” which consists of a number of follow up reflection questions to be led by the mentor (the district manager or training manager).
  • Upon completing all 15 modules there will be a formal assessment on the LMS to ensure tracking and completion. For the sake of this assignment, this will not be included as the remaining modules are yet to be completed.

Secondary Audience – all other managers or associates:

  • Access to the “Show Me Step” will be available and conducted with their store manager if they would like further support or development
  • No formal assessment

Learning Theories & Instructional Design Principles Used: 

  • Elements from Behaviourist and Cognitivism will be used most when building this learning video. It will not be interactive and will act as a stand-alone video with a focus on delivering the what and how when it comes to our People Development process.
  • Design Framework elements outlined in Bates SECTIONS model (2015) helped inform the design and delivery methods for the animated module.
    • Interaction is one of the most important principles when developing the tool as the concern related to the learning outcome is present when trying to condense content length, replace facilitator presence, and change the method of delivery.
      • Interaction with learning materials (video)
      • Interaction with the facilitator (post video show me step to demonstrate critical thinking)

Cognitive Learning Theory:

  • Although elements related to the assessments and program learning objectives for the entirety of the management learning program does draw on components from both behaviourist and constructivist learning theories, the digital resource design however was heavily influenced by the cognitivism school of thinking.

Based on the research synthesized by Ally (2008), the following elements were included based on the various learning theories:

  • Cognitive learning was considered when choosing animated video design delivery, allowing the learner to observe the learning materials and promote memory retention.
  • Initial storyboarding supports a design of content being delivered in an organized fashion with clear sequencing moving at a manageable pace. It is believed that by giving the learner a variety of text and graphic content, they will better be able to internalize and remember the content.
  • The graphics will be simple and not take away from the content being delivered while the text and important information will be highlighted and bucketed to remain categorized and clear for each section.

Instructions for Use: 

  • The learner is meant to access this content as either a personal development opportunity or in the case where a new manager has been hired and they require knowledge on each of the 15 modules upon completing their onboarding.
  • An overview PDF of the management program will be provided as well as the “Show Me Step” with instructions on how to leverage this coaching tool to support the digital training resource.

Plan for Use: 

  • Due to corporate security constraints, this resource will not be made open on the world wide web. When it comes to proprietary corporate learning programs, the organization takes this seriously  so in terms of “open” it will be at an organizational level by living in our Operations Portal> Training Tile > Management Training Program.

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapters 6-8. In Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.

LRNT 527 – Activity 4 – The Define Phase

After exploring the various Define method options listed throughout the Bootcamp Bootleg (2016) and Design Kit (2015), I believe that first and foremost, downloading my learnings will be the most important step in synthesizing my data. For my design challenge, I am focusing on immersion and observation through two separate instances (shadowing a manager on duty as well as attending a training event as an onlooker) and I can anticipate that the information I will gather will be immense. Although downloading your learnings is suggested for group design formats, I think it will still be beneficial for me as I sit and observe all of the interactions, emotional responses, and challenges that my learners will face. I will take brief notes throughout the training event and shadow shift and then detach myself from the environment during the same day and reflect on all of my observations while writing my learnings in further detail. I want to ensure I am focused on immersing myself in the environment rather than feverishly taking notes so it will be important for me to take the time while my memory is fresh and gather all of my thoughts in a clear and organized way.  

I then considered “Sharing Inspiring Stories” but figured as a sole designer in this process that I would benefit more from finding themes directly after I download my learning. I plan to group the core similarities and focus on the significant insight that kept presenting itself. I believe this will be beneficial as I will be gathering data in two separate instances so consistent issues, challenges, and themes will help as I begin my ideation and prototyping phase.

Lastly, I will leverage the “How Might We” tools to redefine my problem as it seems to clearly articulate how to bring together the synthesized information gathered and develop a compelling challenge.

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

LRNT 527 – Activity 3 – Empathy Methods

After reviewing the empathy methods within the Bootcamp Bootleg (2016) and Design Kit  (2015) resources, there are a few approaches that interest me and I’m finding it challenging to narrow down how I might apply only one to my needs assessment process through my design challenge, so I think I will take a blended approach. First and foremost, the method that I will choose to gain empathy for my end users will be through immersion. This method truly allows you to walk the walk and experience a day in the life of your user. The Design Kit suggests that shadowing the person (people) you are designing for is one of the greatest ways to interpret their needs and gain sufficient insight to begin creating something that would work well for them.

In my context particularly, I am going to immerse myself in two different ways to complete my needs assessment and gain empathy. I am fortunate that our yearly leadership and management training event is happening this week here in Calgary and I will be able to attend as a spectator and observe the content, case study assignments, and presentations in person. This will give me the ability to see how the users interact with the content specifically related to management training and which aspects they resonate with, gloss over, or when they become passive listeners. This will also give me some insight from an “extreme users” point of view as this group of people represent the highest performing, aspiring leaders within the organization who are actively involved in all operational aspects of the business and are the most connected to the needs and demonstrate inherent leadership skills and business acumen.

I will then shift my observation to in store, where managers work day in and day out. I will simply shadow the manager and observe what his/her daily struggles, schedules, and situations that come up that not only impact her ability to get her training and development in but to simply get her job done each day. I also hope to gather more information related to what type of training content would truly impact our managers by understanding their role at a deeper level.

Although I will be executing my empathic method through immersion and observation, I do think that applying the Empathy Mapping process will help me collect and make sense of the data I accumulate.

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

LRNT 527 – Activity 2 – Empathy Phase and Barriers

In the article about building a framework for empathy in design (Kouprie & Visser, 2009), there is a significant focus on becoming the user, and truly immersing yourself as a designer and experiencing life as they (the user) know it. The concept of empathy within the design process is taken one step further and not simply imagining what it could be like to be the learner but to also “be” the learner and relate to their needs on a personal level. The framework identified in the article related to discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment brings clarity to the approach I am hoping to take when engaging in the empathy phase of my design thinking process. I feel that immersion and detachment will be the most important aspects for me to accurately depict the needs and then reflect on the day to day lives of our store managers (who I am designing for). The empathetic technique I am planning to use is observational, where I can participate as a spectator in the context of their management training sessions (more details to follow in Activity 3 blog post on methods). I am hoping to experience both affective and cognitive empathy as being both a recipient of the learning content as well as observing the managers during the session. I am confident that this can give me the opportunity to gather various types of personal, emotional, and raw information about my users.

Potential Barriers – Incorporating Empathy Design

In “Empathy in Distance Learning Design Practice” article by Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, & McDonald (2017), the authors outline a key tension in design that I think really resonates with my situation. Through my experience in the MALAT program to date, I feel as though my awareness and understanding of learner-centric design has greatly improved. However, when working in a fast-paced environment, where deadlines and requests run rampant, it can be challenging to execute proper learner-centric research. With varying stakeholders at play for many different projects on the go, the intention is not always to create a world-class learning resource, but more to showcase a visually appealing product to demonstrate to executives how great our course content and production can be (or look).

Much like the barriers discussed in our Change Management course (LRNT 525), I feel like the challenges to consider when taking an empathetic design approach might create different barriers in the corporate world than say, higher education, where the entire focus of the organization is to learn. Before I even begin the design process, I can anticipate practical constraints like time, deadlines, and struggling to overcome “good enough” complacency (Matthews et al., 2017).  I also expect to face varying opinions when it comes to sharing the importance of empathy in design. Typically the environment I am used to is very structured, operational, and efficiency focused, where deadlines and end results are at the forefront of every design meeting. Throwing around terms like feelings, emotions, dreams, and goals are not something that some stakeholders are open or willing to discuss. Although I do admit that I am drawing conclusions based on previous experiences, I am looking forward to addressing the concepts with research to back me up. Here’s to hoping that perspectives can be shifted and change can occur 🙂

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Matthews, M., Williams, G., Yanchar, S., & McDonald, J. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. Tech Trends, 61(5), 486-493.

LRNT 526 – Final Blog Post

When I first began my exploration of the TED-Ed modality, I asked myself (and my peers), was there a method to the madness? This was my initial broad question to the refined topic of instructional design methodology and its relation (if any) within video-based learning. I had great intentions of researching everything there was to know about design related elements like video length, audio, text elements, and instructional design processes when I quickly realized (with the help of some feedback) that I needed to narrow my scope and remain focused on the elements related to instructional design over anything else.

It took me until well into my research for the light bulb to finally go off and realize that I was looking for something that I wouldn’t quite find. I was expecting the research to tell me what design process was best or most commonly used for video-based learning. I was feverishly searching for correlations to ADDIE (I know I know… it’s not overly relevant), project phases, or something that was structured and clearly laid out as the recommended approach to use when designing video-based learning content. It wasn’t until I started to look back and call upon some of the key learnings from our previous courses related to empathic design, learning theories, and design thinking processes that I started to frame the concept of instructional design methodology and how it relates to video-based learning. Through the TED-Ed modality, there were many correlations with learning theories and how there was clear evidence demonstrating how they were considering through each aspect of the content design. So before I go over the word count here, there really is no “method” to the madness per say, but there is definitely pedagogical consideration through the development of TED-Ed video-based learning content.