Katie's Blog

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.

What opportunities are there for this modality/issue/resource? 

The demonstration of pedagogy was apparent throughout the modality, elements from prominent learning theories like embedded assessments (behaviourist) and information seeking through search functions (cognitivism) were incorporated within the video library (Mishra, 2002). Constructivism has been coined as the learning theory that best supports online learning environments and while they claim that knowledge is acquired when the context is meaningful and relatable, I found myself having a hard time relating much of the content to my own corporate work experience. TED-Ed seems to produce and build content at random, with curiosity being the stimulus and less about tactical skill development. So with that, to continue leveraging TED-Ed as a hub for relevant learning content, I would like to see them expand their platform to support specific corporate learning content much like Lynda.com and even Youtube. However, that is more of a personal opinion as I enjoyed the amount of thought and design that went into each educational video from TED-Ed and I think the corporate world could benefit from that diligence. By recommending this though, I feel like I’m asking a doctor to all of a sudden become a lawyer because it would personally benefit me. I think the TED-Ed is doing what it has set out to do, and that is not necessarily to support the needs and wants of the corporate learning environment. So, although my recommendations are related to them steering away from their core culture, I do think that this platform is serving the purpose it has wanted to serve, so I will take elements that worked for me and stick with what has worked for me in the corporate environment, Lynda.com.  

Mishra, S. (2002). A design framework for online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 493-496.

What concerns do you have about this modality/issue/resource and why? 

 My initial concern when experiencing the TED-Ed modality was how or if it could be incorporated in the corporate learning world. As I continued to explore the platform, it became evident, that for my own organization and my needs as a Training Manager, TED-Ed would not be my first choice for a platform or destination to leverage within my company. The topics and content available fell short in terms of specific and relevant information that would benefit my organization. Even though I was able to access information and draw my own conclusions throughout the modality, this was more so because I was motivated by curiosity rather than true skill development. Within the context of my organization, where we train retail staff on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis, the information on the TED-Ed site was not specific to the needs of our organization (and I’m sure that’s the same for others if I’m being honest). The goal of TED-Ed is to spark curiosity with learners and influence classrooms all over the world and for that, I feel like they are succeeding in what they have set out to do. However, as my role as a Training Manager evolves to one that involves collecting and curating content, I still feel that Lynda.com, Youtube, and Google provide more variety and options at this time.

Although I’ve presented this as a concern, I think it’s more of an observation as it’s not as though TED-Ed advertises itself as a destination for corporate learning. They are doing what they’ve set out to do and they demonstrate a solid level of credibility through their pedagogical and design collaboration in my opinion. I was interested to see how and if there could be a crossover from classroom targeted content to the corporate world, and in some industries, I’m sure there could be some topics and content that could be deemed as relevant, just not for mine at this time.   

As the evolution of instructional design continues to quickly evolve, the learning experience is becoming more subjective and aligned with the constructivist perception of learning, with more contextual and less objective learning designs (Thomas, 2010). For this reason, I am interested in critically exploring the instructional design approach used in curated video libraries and understanding how and if there is really any “design” at all.

I currently work for a large retail organization and I am responsible for building and supporting all training programs for various key categories. As a training and development department, video curated libraries have sparked our interest for the past year and a half. We have moved much of our formal training programs to an internal video hosting platform (much like YouTube), and have maintained an ongoing library of short vignettes that encompass various types of product and customer service specific training content. Although my hands-on experience with our own version of this modality has been somewhat significant in the past 18 months, the interaction has been very experimental with minimal data, research, or suitable design thinking practices in place.

Based on my experience so far, there are a number of things that I am motivated to research and understand further. For the sake of this independent critical inquiry, I want to narrow my focus to the design approach specific to the modality of curated video libraries so that I can effectively understand the following:

• Is there a specific design approach that best serves video-based learning?
• How does the design come in to play with the actual set up of the curated library? Does the interface affect the learning outcome? Playlist, tiled, auto-play etc
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of short video series?
• Is there an ability (or not) to cater to different learning styles or preferences?
• Is empathetic design used to build videos and the subsequent libraries to consider the needs of the user?
• Is design even considered or are videos simply uploaded without much thought?
• Are the elements of the design like audio, animation, and text related to the pedagogy and effectiveness of the training or is simply there for show?

In previous courses, we learned about design thinking and an article by David Merrill (2002) stuck out to me and triggered me to ask the question, “Do designers have to be a “jack of all trades” in the future and have a full understanding of the content while also being an expert in instructional design?”  This makes me wonder whether or not curated video libraries can help mitigate the responsibility of the designer and shift their role to be more of a “content curator”. This ultimately leads me then to wonder how the needs of the learners are properly considered when we simply pull and post content without much focus or intention. In sum, is there a learner-centric approach taken to these video segments and are the needs and wants of the user put at the forefront, or is the ease of creation and distribution the main trigger point for organizations to leverage these tools (Mattelmaki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014)?

As I navigate my way through the animation series our group has chosen to explore thus far, I am having a hard time identifying any consistent design associated with the video-based learning segments in the curated video library by TedEd. Some videos utilize authoring tools like synchronized lecture notes and content summaries where others use step by step visual demonstrations, text, and presentation mark-ups to enhance the learning experience (Yousef, Chatti, & Schroeder, 2014). The research I have conducted so far has shown contradicting evidence related to the effectiveness of the video-based learning design. Some studies show that video-based learning design can increase learning outcome (Calandra, Brantley, Lee, & Fox, 2008)) whereas other studies indicate no proven different when compared to traditional classroom course design (Donker, 2010).

Research has shown that learning from a video can be more effective than learning from text or audio (Maniar, Bennett, Hand, & Allan, 2008). If this is the case, what is it about the design of the video itself as well as the design of course or playlist that makes it so effective? How is pedagogy considered with video-based learning?  Ultimately, the question I really want to answer:

Is there a method to the madness??

References 

Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., & Dias, M. (2006). Using digital video for professional development in urban schools: A preservice teacher’s experience with reflection. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 137-145.

Donkor, F. (2010). The comparative instructional effectiveness of print-based and video-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 96-116.

Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S., & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen size on video-based learning. JSW, 3(4), 51-61.

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

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

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). 

This course has allowed me to further explore my interest in project management and gain a better understanding of where my leadership is and needs to be to succeed as a leader in digital learning. To this point in the MALAT program, the ambiguity that comes with learning and design thinking has left me feeling somewhat confused as to how to truly materialize and create something valuable for my organization. Up until this point, I have felt that my knowledge has expanded however not necessarily my skillset to truly apply my knowledge. With that said, once we transitioned towards the midpoint of this course, specifically with the project management readings and group assignment, I felt that I was ready to get my hands dirty and create a tangible takeaway to best serve my role within my current organization. The distance collaboration required through programs like Google Docs and Samepage opened my eyes to how projects and innovation can actually produce results without physically being in the same room to complete the work. The planning and execution of how we would tackle the assignment felt like a real-world example of applying our project management plans right away, and I’m sure that was intentional. I quickly took the tools I used in the group assignment, as well as aspects from our created toolkit to my project team at my office which gave me a sense of purpose after all of these months “at school”. I now feel a sense of confidence to be an agent of change within an organization that is mature and transitioning. The ability to openly learn from our fellow cohort and see the creative and high-quality toolkits produced was even more beneficial for future real-world use. This helps solidify the importance more than ever that open learning can be beneficial for so many reasons.

Lastly, the timing couldn’t be better to dig my heels into the data analytics behind digital learning. We are actively evaluating ROI on all of our training programs and are adding data analysts to our team. The requirement for the managers and leaders to work with the analysts to make decisions and sense of the information will be a huge factor in my current role and career as I move forward in my organization.

Unit 3 – Activity 1

This was a very interesting time to evaluate project management and relate it to a recent program implementation at my workplace. This week specifically, we are finalizing the steps before going live with a huge corporate initiative that has been in the works for over two years. Although the nature of the project is still under embargo and I am unable to share publically what the details are, I will do my best to articulate some of the problems, learnings, and methods used during this process.

The project undertaking is the largest program implementation our organization has launched in over 50 years and is related to a customer experience enhancing program. The problem can be classified as a Type II problem situation where the issue is very clear; however, the potential solutions are not (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017). Dozens of departments are involved and almost one hundred personnel touchpoints were included throughout the process.

The basic project management framework was used from the beginning and included the very broad stages of initiating, planning, executing, monitoring, and closing phases (Knolscape, 2013). This was specifically outlined at the vision sharing introductory meeting and all parties involved were crystal clear on the intention, vision, and overall direction of the project.

As the months went on, it became obvious that the project was facing diversity and barriers along the way. These included regulation, legal, and infrastructure problems. Teams were set up to tackle the barriers and work around them based on the circumstances they were faced with demonstrating agility which allowed the project to move forward (Conway et al., 2017).  Although the external barriers were being managed one step at a time, the real issues began to arise from within. In my opinion, the lack of one solitary project manager appointment was the first mistake. There were various “leaders” appointed to oversee the project, however, there was no central voice of truth or ultimate accountability. With communication being one of most critical skill sets when implementing change (Watt, 2014), the lack of unified messaging negatively impacted the dissemination of key information throughout the stages of this project. Several different communication channels led by the various leaders caused inefficient message delivery and altered expectations between working groups.

Although the context is within a different industry, the success seen through the University of Central Florida (n.d.) regarding the alignment from all levels of the project group, including executive level individuals all the way to the supporting team members is essential to the success of the initiative. In our case, we definitely had leadership; however, it was not unified and ultimately caused disorganization.

Overall, I don’t believe there was a true systems method for planning, there were interpretations from each person on how they thought the project should look and be executed however there was no real system or structure in place, simply a vision on what problem needed to be solved. In hindsight, knowing what I know now about finding the balance between systems thinking and acting like an entrepreneur, I believe that the systems approach laid out by Conway et al. (2017) outlines the method well and how I see myself managing ill-defined projects in the future. With a focus on the problem, the problem situation, and the power dynamics while combining the actions of an entrepreneur, where creativity, navigation through barriers, and a more unconventional approach to design, can allow for a strong balance to execute projects in large corporate environments.  

Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.

Knolscape. (2013). Introduction to Project Management.

University of Central Florida (n.d.). Institutional capacity and readiness.  

Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.

How have the theories/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic and societal contexts?Where I think the biggest shift has occurred when considering the current technological, economic, and societal contexts, is the overarching alteration from organizational development to change management. Al-Haddad (2015) states that change management takes into consideration both the human and business needs when it comes to change. With what we know of our current context and the importance of taking a human-centric approach to design and management (Mattelmaki, Vaajakallio & Koskinen, 2014), it is necessary for organizations to move from the one size fits all approach to change and “unfreeze mindsets and create a motivation to change” (Weiner, 2009, p.2).

Which theories/models do you think best align with your own approach to leadership? Do these approaches align with your organizational context?When examining my personal approach to leadership, change management as a whole aligns best. Elements of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Al-Haddad, 2015) all parallel how I operate and lead my teams through smaller scaled change. When I consider this approach with relation to whether or not it aligns in my organizational context as a whole, I believe it does (kind of). I have very recently been a bystander to a complete corporate overhaul. When I began working for my organization, it was a casual, laid-back business that made decisions based on “gut feels”. In recent months, a structured leadership team has since taken over and the elements of planning, organizing, and controlling have become paramount in the way they are managing and leading this corporate change (Al-Haddad, 2015). For myself personally, as a training manager for a corporate retailer, I believe the structure I have within my leadership style specifically, aligns well with the very tumultuous retail industry. I am encouraged to see that structure, direction, and clarity are now core values held by the new executive leadership team going forward. Ultimately allowing our organization to effectively tackle the uncertain future of bricks and mortar retail better than ever.

What role does leadership play in managing change?One of the simplest yet profound statements within the article from Al Haddad (2015) was that organizations and leaders must work to remove destructive barriers to be able to effect change. Leaders who can identify these barriers and move past the status quo will be instrumental in leading and managing change. From my experience, leaders set the tone within an organization, and if they can successfully instill confidence in their people and create a buy-in for all to have a common vision to see through the change, then the role of the leader will be the most important factor when going through organizational change. 

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.  

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

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).

Important attributes of a leader when working in digital learning environments

Khan (2017) outlines the complexity that education faces and how changes in learning technologies play a key role, ultimately demanding flexibility when it comes to leadership. When evaluating important attributes of leaders within digital learning environments, there are many elements that contribute to success in complex and rapidly changing work environments.

In my personal opinion, one of the most important and critical attributes of an innovative leader, is the capability of recognizing and understanding the fears that others have when it comes to technology. Leaders should be able to acknowledge the fears associated with the unknown and create space for their followers to share their apprehensions (Sheninger, 2014). If the fears and uncertainties are recognized and understood, leaders can then unite their followers to reach a common goal. Value-based leadership is a theory laid out by O’Toole (2008) whereby leaders influence others by providing opportunities for their follows to reach their goals and realize their dreams. In digital learning environments, I see this open-minded approach to leadership as being effective for transcending confidence and capabilities. The characteristics of value-based leaders that are of great importance within digital learning environments include the attributes of reflecting honesty on experiences and even more so on failures (O’Toole, 2008). Traits that embrace the uncertainty and mistakes that come along with it align perfectly to the complex environments of the ever changing digital world. 

Which theories of leadership do you think work best in leading change within digital learning environments?

When you consider adaptive leadership through the context of digital learning environments, it contains many key factors that support the flexibility required to lead in this setting. If leaders possess the ability to consider external factors, create solutions by changing behaviours when necessary, all while remaining agile, will find success in digital learning environments (Khan, 2017). I also believe that elements of shared leadership through collaboration and social influence can positively impact leadership within digital learning environments (O’Toole, 2008). Oftentimes in unknown and changing environments, we are entering the new world collectively. Combining the efforts and skills of others to embrace change together, can stimulate alignment right from the start. 

Lastly, elements of the cognitive leadership theory wherein leading happens through idea generation (O’Toole, 2008), would work well in leading change within digital learning environments. Change, regardless of industry or profession, is all about disrupting the status quo. Therefore, when a leader is able to generate and stimulate ideas through knowledge, they can connect their intellect with shaping the minds of their organization (Hewlett, 2006). Ultimately creating understanding and buy-in for new and innovative changes and new direction. Like most things, balance is essential, and after learning more about leadership theories, characteristics, and attributes, it is evident that a strong balance between many core leadership traits can contribute to success when leading in digital learning environments.

How would you describe your approach to leadership? Has the introduction of digital technologies made an impact on how you lead?

I believe that my approach to leadership has remained rather consistent throughout the various positions I have held within my career. When looking at some of the core leadership theories outlines by James O’Toole (2008), I believe my style falls somewhere between cognitive, shared, and servant leadership.  I have always looked at leadership through the lens of the learner (follower) and determined success based on how the capacity transfer occurs and whether capabilities of said follower have improved. My ultimate goal as a leader has always been to see my team develop into leaders that are “better than me”.

A recent shift in career as well as a focus on digital learning environments through the MALAT program at Royal Roads has impacted my vision for how I will lead in the future. The importance of empathy, which was introduced in our previous design course, became top of mind not only for design processes but in leadership considerations as well. Empathic design considers individual desires, life experiences, emotions, and promotes collaboration and open-mindedness (Mattelmaki, 2014). All of these characteristics have influenced the way I not only design, but lead as well. Specifically, tying it back to one of the critical attributes I mentioned above, taking an empathetic approach to acknowledging the fear associated with technology and innovation is essential for breaking any barriers as a leader in this environment (Sheninger, 2014). By truly reflecting on my leadership and being mindful of the needs, wants, and worries of my team through open communication, I believe that the self-esteem and confidence has been gained by others through my leadership (Castelli, 2015). The impact of this shift in mentality has helped improve motivation and increase performance by my team when I am overseeing the success of projects and managing results in the complexity that is the digital learning environment.

References

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.  

Hewlett, R. (2006). The cognitive leader : Building winning organizations through knowledge leadership. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

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).  

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

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.