Category: LRNT 524

Creation of an ISD model – Unit 3 (Reflections on Readings)

Lorri 3 Comments
Figure showing the McKenney and Reeves Generic Model for Design.
Figure. McKenney and Reeves (2012) Generic Model for Design Research. Reprinted from Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) Special Issue 2015 – Call for Papers by Z. Merchant, 12 January 2015, retrieved from http://aect.site-ym.com/blogpost/855115/206324/Australasian-Journal-of-Educational-Technology-AJET–Special-Issue-2015–Call-for-Papers Copyright 2015 by Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.

I believe investigating and understanding new instructional design processes and the way they are developed can only help instructional designers in their implementation of instructional design.  “Instructional design practitioners should select a design model that enables them to reach a desired goal” (Moore, 2016, p.  426).  Moore (2016) presents both a new instructional design process and the process that he used to develop it.  When describing the process of creating TAPPA, Moore (2016) states, “By engaging in design-based research, one can create an intervention, which Shattuck and Anderson (2013) define as an object, activity or process that is designed as a possible solution to address the identified problem (p. 187).  Sharing this intervention in the form of a process or theory can make it a resource for other ID practitioners” (p. 427). 

The TAPPA process developed by Moore (2016, p. 426) encourages the practice of iterative prototyping, producing mock-ups and storyboards for review early in the design process.  It “starts with the ‘target’ stage – to anticipate the desired outcomes and then work backwards to determine what would be needed to reach those learning objectives” (Moore, 2016, p. 427).  Similar to pretty much all models, an analysis of the learner and required objectives comes first.  The second step, Accomplishment, determines how to assess learning (Moore, 2016, p. 430).  The third step, Past, incorporates lessons learned from previous courses (Moore, 2016, p. 430) and the fourth step, Prototype, involves creating, sharing and receiving feedback on a prototype solution (Moore, 2016, pp. 430-431).   The final step is Artifact (Moore, 2016, p. 431) which is the implementation of the solution.   Based on the description provided, it appeared that the TAPPA process was very similar to other instructional design processes. I would be interested to see a complete example of an instructional design process using TAPPA to better understand the differences between this model and other ISD models.

Design and construction followed the Generic Model for Design Research as depicted in Figure.  The descriptions of the process were a bit confusing as it seems like the process was evaluated during the design phase before it was created in the construction phase.  When describing activity completed during the design phase, Moore (2016) only discusses analysis of feedback from webinars designed using the TAPPA Process (pp. 427-428).  Then Moore (2016) states, “Thus, the author used the results from the design part of this phase and created the five-step TAPPA Process” (p. 428).  Based on the flow of this design process, it seems only appropriate for something that is already prototyped and being used. Perhaps the idea of the TAPPA process was conceived outside of the process described and then the process was used to improve upon it.

One of the parts of the article I found particularly interesting was Moore’s description of microlearning which is a different application of the term than I am familiar with.  “The TAPPA Process is ideally suited for micro-learning tasks that together comprise a macro-learning task, such as a full program of study.” (Moore, 2016, p. 431).  This description to me indicates that you are using micro-learning as building blocks to create a complete course or program. This lead me to further explore how microlearning is defined by other researchers and whether or not it is normally approached this way. “When it comes to mircrolearning, there is one thing Learning professionals can agree upon:  There is no definition consensus or agreement about the application of the term” (Tipton, 2017, p. 58).  Hug (2010) also describes many definitions of microlearning (p. 49) and four models explaining how components of microlearning can relate (p. 53).  Standalone microlearning content such as Flocbulary (Hug, 2010, p. 50-51) is cited as well as examples of integrated microlearning and gamified microlearning (Hug, 2010, p. 51).  Moore (2016) could be considering microlearning elements to be loosely coupled together as described according to Luhmann’s medium/form distinction model (Hug, 2010, p. 53). In this case, the loosely coupled elements together combine to form a course or program.

Another thing that I would have liked to see in the article is a more clear comparison of TAPPA with other ISD processes. The author compares student feedback from webinars produced with the final version of TAPPA with webinars produced with initial versions of TAPPA and shows and improvement.  However, no comparisons are made to student feedback from webinars produced using other methods.  Other metrics such as the time to produce the webinar are also not provided.  From this, it is unclear why the author believes that the TAPPA method is superior for this application. It makes it difficult to argue that it is in fact superior as this is not substantiated. 

Overall, I found it interesting to read the article and see how they used design-based research as well as learn about a different ISD model.  I would be interested in more information about the ISD model itself. Has anyone found any other sources describing the TAPPA model or use of it?

References: 

Hug, T. (2010). Mobile learning as’ microlearning’: Conceptual considerations towards enhancements of didactic thinking. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 2(4), 47-57.

Merchant, Z. (2015, January 12). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) Special Issue 2015 – Call for Papers. [weblog]. Retrieved from http://aect.site-ym.com/blogpost/855115/206324/Australasian-Journal-of-Educational-Technology-AJET–Special-Issue-2015–Call-for-Papers

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425-432.Tipton, S. (2017). Maximizing microlearning. Training, 54(3), 58-58.

Tipton, S. (2017). Maximizing microlearning.  Training, 54 (3), p. 58. 

Deciding What Change to Choose – Unit 2, Activity 1

Lorri 3 Comments

I am constantly looking for ways to improve the training we provide within my organization.  I have worked with my small section to look at instructor and student feedback to generate quite a lot of ideas for change.  However, I have limited resources and my time is constrained by other duties as well, so sometimes determining what to focus on is difficult. 

When we talk about change in distance education, I think of essentially every conversation that I have had with someone who has taken a distance education course in the early 2000s and because of their poor experience is convinced that distance learning can not be as good as face-to-face learning.  Dron (2014) highlights how pedagogy and instructional media have evolved together, detailing reasons why some evolutions are successful and others are not. 

Most of our learning takes place face-to-face, so in that way, our instructional system appears relatively soft as modifying a face-to-face lesson plan is far less time consuming than redesigning online learning (Chapman, 2010).  However, the lack of instructor training, their reliance on PowerPoint and lack of subject matter expert time makes even modifications to our face-to-face learning challenging.  Dron’s (2014) article is encouraging as it advocates breaking learning into small isolated chunks which we already do as modules.  Focusing on changing one module is more manageable than making changes to an entire course.  Some of the changes we are currently trialling within my directorate are new to the whole organization.  “Allowing flowers to bloom requires new varieties to be at least partially sheltered from each other at first” (Dron, 2014, p. 247).  We have implemented the changes in only a few courses, collecting student feedback and modifying the initiatives accordingly.  For further changes, Dron (2014) advocates Bate’s ACTIONS model to help select technology.  I will incorporate this into future options analysis to help determine what changes to tackle next! 

What parts of Dron’s (2014) article did you feel are applicable to your work? 

References:

Chapman, B. (2010). How long does it take to create learning? [Research Study]. Published by Chapman Alliance LLC. Retrieved from http://www.chapmanalliance.com/howlong/

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 (pp. 237-265). AB: AU Press.

Assignment 1 Part A – Design Thinking

Lorri 10 Comments

Post written by Lorri Weaver and Sue Hawkins

Problem Statement

Sue and Lorri need a way to engage faculty/instructors in learning because currently many are not interested in completing training or do not complete training.  The faculty/instructors in our organization are the adult learners in this case.

Following our design thinking process, we focused on using the concept of “building your toolkit” to encourage engagement with learning material, focusing specifically on the use of microlearning.  In both of our organizations, adult learners need to learn certain skills, in Sue’s case, to develop their expertise in utilizing the functionality of the LMS, in Lorri’s case, to learn basic instructional techniques.

Findings of Design Thinking Process

Through the interview process we gained a greater understanding of how we each viewed the main concerns, perspectives and the experiences of our learners (Crichton & Carter, 2017).  The most important findings were our perception of why adult learners did not complete current training which included:

  • Lacked time to complete training;
  • Unable to complete training during regular business hours;
  • No perceived benefit as current teaching practices are successful;
  • Fear of failure;
  • Lack of support; and,
  • No incentives/rewards.

Our Solution

In an effort to create an online learning environment that promotes critical thinking, a safe place to learn and try new things, sharing and collaboration, we have come up with a design thinking solution that incorporates different types of microlearning with online discussion.  Each microlearning would provide adult learners with one more tool for their toolbox.  The adult learners would then be encouraged to respond to the learning socially in a forum,  where they can engage in discussions on how to use a particular tool or ask members of the community about their experiences.

In Sue’s case this would involve the creation of a “sandbox”; a private space where learners can experiment with and evaluate the LMS.  Imbedded into the LMS are a variety of resources such as, link to a survey to allow adult learners to check their comfort level with basic teaching technologies, a variety of microlearning opportunities, a forum for adult learners teaching similar subject matter to share ideas and ask questions, newsletters, instructional PDF’s, FAQ’s and direct links to a learning technologist for support.

In Lorri’s case, the microlearning and related forums would be hosted on a sharepoint site.  The microlearning would consist of 2-3 min videos, infographics, short branching scenarios and short learning games.  The community learning would happen in the forum.

Both solutions provide adult learners with the opportunity to customize their learning and sample new techniques that are consistent with their teaching philosophy (Bennett J & L, 2003).

Effectiveness

By keeping the learning short and the online interaction focused and relevant, we will address the perception that part-time employees do not have time to complete this professional development.  Delivering the microlearning online will enable off-site learners to easily participate at a time that works for them.  Incorporating videos that showcase instructional methodologies and their impact on students will assist faculty to observe the potential benefits (Bennett J & L, 2003).

Providing a forum for adult learners to give their own input and suggestions will increase intrinsic motivation to participate as they may anticipate feedback and recognition for their contributions (Paulini, Maher & Murty, 2014).  This can be further supported by public recognition of adult learners that use the new tools or that help contribute to other’s learning during annual professional development seminars.  Although adult learners will still not be compelled to participate in the training, advertising the benefits and providing public recognition for those that do should motivate participation.

References

Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53-63. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00161-6

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

Paulini, M., Maher, M. L., & Murty, P. (2014). Motivating participation in online innovation communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 10(1), 94-114.

Activity 1: Thoughts on Week 1 Readings

Lorri 2 Comments

Although many of the concepts and models introduced by Bates (2014) and Thomas (2010) were review, there were some less common models that were provided in a way I found interesting and relevant as well as some statements that provoked questions. 

As Thomas (2010) introduces Instructional Design Models, he states that, “The effectiveness of a model is heavily dependant on the context in which it is applied” (p. 187).  This comment summarizes conclusions of previous courses and I found it important to keep in mind when reviewing the literature. 

Keller’s ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction) Model was particularly relevant to the assignment this week and the issue of motivating and engaging students (Thomas, 2010, p. 212).  Specifically, “the focus is not on how people can be motivated but on how the conditions can be created…to have people…motivate themselves” (Thomas, 2010, p. 212).  Creation of a motivating environment for students is a necessity for any training that is not mandated and promotes engagement once the training is underway.  At its core, this was what we are trying to do during the Design Thinking Process. 

One thing that I found controversial relating to understanding the learner’s needs and characteristics was the statement “Individual students learn in different ways; most students need strong human interaction and there are also students who prefer to study independently without interacting with others. Therefore, the right way to design a high-quality blended learning course depends largely on the type of students involved” (Thomas, 2010, p. 224).  As Kirschner (2017) identifies, “there is quite a difference between the way that someone prefers to learn and that which actually leads to effective and efficient learning” (p. 166).  When we are identifying learner needs and characteristics, it is important to understand the learner’s experience, knowledge and skillsets that we can leverage, but where to use interaction within the course should be based on solid learning theory, not student preferences.   This is different than the concept of standardization discussed by Thomas (2010, p. 231-232) where he argues that not all learners will learn at the same pace and customization should be built into the course to account for this.   

The lessons learned for online instruction derived from the The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Online Courses were well explained (Thomas, 2010, p. 220-222).  The use of these principles inherently required an understanding of your learner’s needs and characteristics.  For example, “Lesson derived from Principle 5: Online courses need deadlines” (Thomas, 2010, p. 222) requires an understanding of whether the learner is working on the course as a full-time student or in conjunction with a full-time job.   This is also true of concepts discussed related to the constructivist approach such as the concept of situated learning (Thomas, 2010, p. 243), for which you would need to understand the learner’s environment and how they will be using the information. 

In addition to the implicit requirement to understand learner needs when designing learning, constructivist learning directly solicits learning needs during learning by allowing, “the negotiation, rather than imposition, of goals and objectives” (Thomas, 2010, p. 244).  I am still somewhat unsure of how this would practically work and how learning could be assessed or quantifiably compared.  Other works described by Thomas (2010) such as Driscoll’s constructivist conditions for learning (p. 249-250) did not clarify for me how this could be practically implemented.  In fact, Savery and Duffy’s Constructivist/Problem Based Learning-based Design Principle seems to contradict this by stating that, “learners’ goals must be consistent with the instructional goals” (Thomas, 2010, p. 252).  Figure 3.10 (Thomas, 2010, p. 254) also shows the teacher setting the goals in Laurillard’s Conversational Framework.  Although constructivist design models are described by Thomas (2010), how to practically resolve the problem of assessment when goals and objectives are not standardized is not detailed although the issue is recognized.  It is identified that “Constructivist models advocate personal goal-setting by learners and diverse learning activities that may vary from learner to learner; therefore, objective tests are not suitable for evaluating the success of instruction, since different students learn different things in different ways” (p. 259-260). 

When discussing the constructivist approach, Thomas (2010) points out a continuum rather a binary description should be used to describe the learner (p. 247).  Although specifically directed towards the constructivist approach, this should be the case whenever describing learners as they will enter the course with a range of experience, knowledge and skillsets and it is the range that should be described. 

I also had one observation not directly related to understanding the needs and characteristics of the learners.  I found it interesting that some models such as the Smith and Ragan’s Model (Thomas, 2010, p. 201) and the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model (Thomas, 2010, p. 199), do not break out assessment creation as a specific early step.  As Thomas (2010) notes, setting up assessment tools prior to developing the instructional strategy ensures that the instruction is correctly focused (p. 198). 

References:

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]

Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171.

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).