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.